City Council Packet - 04/09/1991
i
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
BUSINESS MEETING
APRIL 9; ,1991 6:30 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet Is
13125 SW HALL BLVD available, ask to be recogn/zed by the Mayor at the beginning
TIGARD, OREGON 97223 of that agenda item. VIsitor's 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.
• STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.)
Discussion with Mary Tobias, President of Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation
(TVEDC)
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & 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. PROCLAMATION: NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING MONTH (APRIL)
• Mayor Edwards
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
4. 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:
4.1 Approve Council Minutes: March 12, 1991
4.2 Approve Planning Coordination Agreement for Western Bypass Study and Authorize
Mayor to Sign - Resolution No. 91- /5-
4.3 Approve Resolution Calling for Public Hearing - Street Vacation of Portion of S.W. 76th
Avenue (Renaissance Woods 2) - Resolution No. 91-1(~
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 1
5. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0003 HEDRICK (NPO #8) A
request to annex a parcel of approximately 0.7 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the
zone from Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential
4.5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) LOCATION: 7970
SW Spruce Street (WCTM 1S1 36CA, tax lot 2100)
• Open Public Hearing (Set over from the March 26, 1991, Council Meeting)
• Summation by Community Development Staff
• NPO and/or CPO Testimony
• Public Testimony
- Proponents
- Opponents
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council - Resolution No. 91-, and Ordinance No. 91-
6. CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON APPEAL OF SCE 90-0005, VARIANCE
VAR-0027 SHERWOOD INN SIGN (NPO 5)
A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to allow two freestanding freeway-
oriented signs where only one is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of
approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 65 feet and one
sign of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet
where the code specifies a maximum allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and
maximum allowable height of 35 feet. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 15700
SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD, Tax Lots 100, 900, 1100)
• Continuation of Hearing from the March 12, 1991, Council Meeting
• Summation by Community Development Staff
• Public Testimony
a. Proponents
b. Opponents
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Consideration by Council
7. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 18.28.130 AND PROHIBITING,
PARKING ALONG PORTIONS OF BENCHVIEW TERRACE
• Summation by City Engineering
• Consideration by Council - Ordinance No. 91-
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
10. ADJOURNMENT
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 2
Council Agenda Item 3•~
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - APRIL-9, 1991
• Meeting was called to order at 6:42 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors
Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten and John Schwartz (arrived at 7:10
p.m.). Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ed
Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community
Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine
Wheatley, City Recorder and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
STUDY SESSION NOTES
TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (TVEDC) UPDATE
Mary Tobias, President of TVEDC reviewed the following:
• State Agency Council is continuing deliberations on managing
growth in the Portland area.
• Transportation Planning Rule concerns of TVEDC include
economic impacts imposed on business versus the fiscal impacts
on local or regional governments. It appears likely that
there will be an emphasis on non-auto modes of transportation.
• Air Emissions (HB 2175) - TVEDC's concern with proposed bill
is that it is a "blank check" to DEQ for assessing fees for
anything DEQ could reasonably link to the auto.
• Western Bypass Study is continuing on schedule. Issues
(including litigation) are expected to be centered around land
use decision points. It is possible that the ODOT study will
not conclude with a recommendation that the Western Bypass be
built.
• Urban Renewal - TVEDC testified at Legislature to bring
attention to the perspective of urban renewal and economic
development/stability. It appears that "tax increment
financing" will be included in the $10 property tax limit as
provided by Ballot Measure 5.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 1
Metro Charter Commission
Mayor Edwards advised the City of Tigard must submit a name of an
appointment nominee representing Washington County cities on the
Metro Charter Commission. He asked Mary Tobias if she would be
willing to serve and she indicated she would be pleased to have her
name placed in nomination.
Tigard officials feel that Ms. Tobias would be an excellent choice
because of her knowledge of the region and the governmental
agencies in the area. She has also proven to be a valuable liaison
between the private and public sectors.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) - Western Bypass Study
Mike Wert of ODOT overviewed the steps necessary to the Western
Bypass Study. Some of the requirements are federally imposed.
A range of reasonable alternatives for the Bypass must be
thoroughly examined. The first step is adoption of an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) which is intended to assure that
all nine jurisdictions:
• participate in the decision-making process
• that the process is consistent with state land-use
regulations
that any decisions made are consistent with local
comprehensive plans
• that there is a coordinated citizen involvement program
The proposed IGA is on the consent agenda (item 4.2)
Councilor Johnson noted concerns in supporting the IGA if
alternatives identified included routes which were opposed by
Tigard residents. Mayor Edwards and Councilors Kasten and Schwartz
advised that they felt Tigard should enter into the IGA; however,
when options are considered, they would then voice concerns on
those which they felt would not be in the best interest of Tigard.
Triad - Arbor Heights Apartment (109th and Naeve)
Council advised City Attorney that the City will require the
developer to resubmit an application for development approval.
This will require a new public hearing before the Planning
Commission. Prior to the hearing, the NPO and interested parties
will have an opportunity to review and comment on the new
application.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 2
BUSINESS MEETING
t
2. PROCLAMATION
Mayor Edwards proclaimed April as National Fair Housing Month
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA
a. Bob Smithson, 14977 S.W. 100th Street noted problems with
storm water runoff from his neighbors' property. He
advised that his septic system was failing because of
excessive storm water percolation.
Staff has visited the site. The storm drain on the
neighbors" (Mr. and Mrs. Black) property was found to be
crushed. The Blacks have been notified that repairs to
the storm drain pipe on their property must be made as
soon as possible.
Mr. Smithson advised that the drainage ditch along his
property has eroded so that the water line is now
exposed. He notified the Water District and they placed
some temporary material around the line. However, Mr.
Smithson is concerned about City crews breaking the line
when they clean the ditch.
Staff will continue to work on the issues noted by Mr.
Smithson and keep him informed of their status.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Johnson requested Item 4.2 be removed from the
Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to
approve the Consent Agenda (excluding Item 4.2) as presented:
4.1 Approve Council Minutes: March 12, 1991
4.2 Approve Planning Coordination Agreement for Western
Bypass Study and Authorize Mayor to Sign - Resolution No.
91-15 (See below.)
4.3 Approve Resolution Calling for Public Hearing - Street
Vacation of Portion of S.W. 76th Avenue (Renaissance
Woods 2) - Resolution No. 91-16
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
Councilor Johnson advised that she understood the need for the
Western Bypass but some of the possible alternatives which
would be considered for the Bypass route were options she did
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 3
not think the community would want explored. Councilor Kasten
( commented that all possible routes should be reviewed and as
the study matured, Tigard could register their nonsupport of
routes deemed undesirable by the community.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to
adopt Resolution No. 91-15 which would approve a Planning
Coordination Agreement for the Western Bypass Study and
authorize the Mayor to sign.
The motion was approved by a 3-1 vote of Council present;
Councilor Johnson voted "Nay."
5. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0003 HEDRICK
(NPO #8): A request to annex a parcel of approximately 0.7
acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from
Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) to City of
Tigard K-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). ZONE: Washington
County R-5 (Residential, 5 units/acre) LOCATION: 7970 SW
Spruce Street (WCTM 1S1 36CA, tax lot 2100)
The request for annexation was withdrawn by the applicant.
6. CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON APPEAL OF SCE 90-0005,
VARIANCE VAR-0027 SHERWOOD INN SIGN (NPO 5)
A Request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to
allow two freestanding freeway-oriented signs where only one
is permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign
of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height
of approximately 65 feet and one sign of approximately 698
square feet per sign face with a height of approximately 69.75
feet where the code specifies a maximum allowable sign area of
160 square feet per sign face and maximum allowable height of
35 feet.
• Continuation of Hearing from the March 12, 1991, Council
Meeting
a. Community Development Director summarized this agenda
item. (See staff report dated February 28, 1991, which
has been filed with the packet material.) Council and
staff reviewed a timeline marking the history of the
Sherwood Inn freestanding signs. (Timeline has been
filed with the Council packet material.)
Council reviewed a matrix prepared by Community
Development staff comparing sign information as to:
1. What the code allows.
2. Measurements and data on the existing sign.
3. What has been offered by the applicant as a
compromise.
t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 4
.1'
4. What the Planning Commission approved.
5. Comparison to Landmark Ford sign.
6. Comparison to Pac Trust sign.
Community Development Director advised that the issues
before Council included the variance request (height/sign
area size) as well as the amortization issue. (See
packet material for background information on issues.)
b. Public Testimony:
• Steven W. Abel, Attorney, Schwabe, Williamson &
Wyatt, Pac West Center, Suites 1600-1950, 1211 S.W.
Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-3795 testified on
behalf of the property owner.
Mr. Abel referred to his April 9, 1991, letter.
(Said letter has been filed with the Council
meeting packet). Mr. Abel advised that:
"The requested variance should have been granted
inasmuch as the application of the Sign ordinance
to the Sherwood Inn signs is impermissible for the
following reasons: (1) the City of Tigard is
equitably estopped from enforcing the sign
ordinance against Mr. Ferryman; (2) Mr. Ferryman
has acquired a vested right to operate the signs as
nonconforming structures; (3) the variance issued
for continued operation of the signs was intended
to be a permanent variance; and (4) application of
the amortization provisions of the Sign ordinance
to the signs in question constitutes an
unconstitutional taking without compensation."
• Hal Hewitt, Greenhill Associates, Ltd., 9999 S.W.
Wilshire, Portland, OR 97225, presented a letter
from the Oregon Travel Information Council. (A
copy of said letter has been filed with the Council
packet material.) This letter advised that there
was not enough room, under the Oregon Travel
Information Council's guidelines, for an additional
logo roadside sign.
Mr. Hewitt advised that he felt the Planning
Commission did not take into consideration the
extraordinary circumstances which sets this
property apart from similar properties. Unique
characteristics of this property were the trees
which obstructed the view, the topography, and the
fact that the minimum distance of the signs to the
freeway was 300 feet. He referred to pictures,
submitted at an earlier meeting, which illustrated
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 5
C..
the visibility problems.
Mr. Hewitt suggested that the property owner may
look at dividing and selling the property as a
means of acquiring more signing capability. He
noted that signs were of paramount importance to
the ability to conduct a profitable business at
this location. Mr. Hewitt said he believed they
had presented more than ample grounds justifying
the variance request. He advised that they had
relied upon, over an extended period of time, the
permanency of the original variance request.
C. Council Discussion:
Lengthy council discussion followed including the
following:
• Concern over economic well being for businesses and
the need for supporting evidence that documented
effectiveness of signs in relation to business
vitality.
• Legal counsel reviewed issues before Council
including the variance-exception criteria and
history of the Code amendment (amortization period
for compliance).
• Discussion of past rulings on a variance request
for this property.
• Discussion of the issue: "Is there any such thing
as a "permanent" variance?
After discussion and consideration of the issues, Council
consensus was to, at this time, support the variance
request for a 65-foot high sign. Council requested the
applicant consult with an expert to determine the minimum
sign size required to be readable by freeway travelers.
d. The public hearing was continued to the April 23, 1991
Council meeting.
7. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 18.28.130 AND
PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG PORTIONS OF BENCHVIEW TERRACE
a. ORDINANCE NO. 91-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C.
10.28.130 AND PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG PORTIONS OF
BENCHVIEW TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 6
r'
b. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor
Johnson, to adopt Ordinance No. 91-09.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into
Executive session at 10:05 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.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m.
Ca erine Wheatley, City Recorde
;PC st•
il President
'w-
Mayer, G t 99 Tigard
Date :
ccm409.91
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1991 - PAGE 7
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY legal 7923
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notic~y
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
C Ew Legal Notice Advertising The following meeting highlights-are published foi'yo& infoimation. Full:
R~ agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder; 13125 S.W: Halls"
• 1991 • ❑ Tearsheet Notice . Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 9?223, or by_calling 639-4171.
R
't~GPRO • ❑ Duplicate Affidav . Y CITYCniltricrr B""iciNE c MEETirtG "
*City of Tigard Pe F APRIL
9:1991
P.O. Box 23397 0_0 ,r TIGARD CITY $Ai~i TOWN HAT T
*Tigard, OR 97223 •_r X125 S W. HALL BO n EVARD TI .ARD,.ORFGON
7-4
Study 1Vteeung ('town Hall Conference Rooq(630PM)
• Report from Tualatin Valley Economic bevel tnent Co
lz °p R ation`-.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION + (MaryTobias) 11
STATE OF OREGON, ) Business Meeai
gTown Hall) (7'30
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' ~Trix
, Proclamauon•
I `
Judith Koehler Apnl Ivauonal FauH us rgm Month
being first duly sworn, depose and sagbat I awe Advertising r{,~r , E} c {a y } y `
Director, or his principal clerk, of the agar es PublcHearin s
a newspaper of general circuAtior4~s defined in ORS 193.010 Zone Change AnnexFtion ZCA910003,
and 193.020; published at g -in the Location "-7,-9,70 S W.}Spruce Street; Hearin co t~nued from~het
aforesaid coun~yl and state; that the Match 26,1991 Couttai~~Mee,) ~0
C:i ttr Cni mat Raisin cS ti ng ung
a rioted copy of which is hereto annexed, was ublishad in the Continusuon'p
V f Counc^ 4~ * APP a c a~
P PY P I~eltberauon oiteal,pf SCt's 40-OOpg;
One arW e~VAR 0027-Sherwo6dI 71,
entire issue of said newspaper for successive and ✓ A nnStgn ~~~s ti~p x ~ p
x ice ec+fr .9n"Sb 4 r.Su . Lm~ c 1' t'
consecutive in the following issues: wl DCW Contract Reyiety BOarQ hieeUng l
April 4th 1991 EX~~avs0ess10p The,Ti stk
gard CtyGouncei wilt g ~tnnta engttv~S
stop unde4tl~e provisions of ORSL9~
1aor ~eht ls,
> tionr**c Property bansa~pons and c n iii`
+~T , Acs `1 'l ~ \ L ft .1~
,,,ttt
T1'7923~=Publzsh=Apnl4 I9Qi *~~n~' ~r
Subscribed and sworn t before me this 4th of April 1991
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commissia, - pires:._ 7
AFFIDAVIT
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
( AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed '
STATE OF ORBGON )
County of Washington ) ss
City of Tigard )
I, begin first duly sworn, on
oath, de and say:
That I posted in the -following public and, conspicuous places, a copy of
Ordinance Number (s) - U
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being eret8 attached and by reference made a part
hereof, on the I S date of Q~. Q 4996.1aq I
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. US National'-Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. ( State Hwy. 99) and
SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15'-' date of 19-.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: l Z " J
°
ke/CWPOST`•
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 91- Ue?
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C. 10.28.130 AND PROHIBITING PARKING ALONG
PORTIONS OF BENCHVIEW TERRACE
WHEREAS, T.M.C. 10.28.130 prohibits parking at any time on portions of
certain public streets in Tigard; and,
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds that similar parking prohibition
is needed along one side of Benchview Terrace, in order to maintain
adequate street width for safe two-way vehicular travel.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: T.M.C. 10.28.130, designating the streets or portions
thereof where parking is prohibited at all times, is hereby
amended by adding the following:
"(75) Along the north side of Benchview Terrace between SW
132nd Avenue and the west boundary of Benchview Estates
subdivision as recorded in Book 66, page 38, of the plat
records of Washington County."
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage
by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the
City Recorder.
PASSED: By C'n<<n,m~vc<S vote of all Council members _present
after being read by number and title only, this
day of d .-ui 1991.
a fj/,W t -VL GU Ct~QL
Catherine Wheatley, Ci Recorder
APPROVED: This day of LO l 1991.
Gera d M wards, Mayor
Ap roved as to
C Atto'rn
L1 h~ XT/
Date
rw/bench-o
ORDINANCE No. 91- DC/
Page 1
-Aw
CONIFEROUS AVE.
r
BENCHVIEW PL
ao
rn
2
m 9~
L
M~snd'~
~ o
4" S.W. 132 nd.
s
to
AGENDA ITEM NO:. 3- - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: 4/9/91
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate she-et 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 & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
~ry2lvr Se~,~.2• c~►~,dv~w~u .~-P~ 3<v~.~ . ~
c
{
S
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE :ti' ' 4/9/91.-
CONTINUATION OF COUNCIL DELIBERATION OW. APPEAL OF
SCE 90-0005, VARIANCE VAR-0027 SHERMOD,19WISIGN
PLEASE PRINT
NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS
t
f
t
i
March 26, 1991
TO: TVEDC Board of Directors
FROM: Mary Weber
REGARDING: Information Services/Summary of Activity
INFORMATION REQUESTS
February 23, 1991 through March 25, 1991
Macadam & Forbes
Portland
Mike VanDenburgh
Employment data, largest employers - for hotel development
l feasibility study
National Mortgage (lender)
Dean McCluskey
Portland
Employment data, largest employers - for hotel development
feasibility study
Oregon Realty
Larry Roland
Tigard
Demographic information for preparation of a marketing plan
for a residential development in Tigard
Washington County
Chairman Bonnie Hays
Hillsboro
"Doing Business in Washington County" binder
Wade Price
Portland
Market information regarding companies in credit reporting
business - referred to OMBA t
February 27, 1991
( TO: TVEDC Board of Directors
FROM: Mary Weber
REGARDING: Information Service/Summary of Activity
I
INFORMATION REQUESTS
January 30, 1991 through February 22, 1991
Stellar International Holdings (Swedish based investment company)
Seattle
Dean Trenery
Washington County market information
-Benner Research Group
Beaverton
Michele Piper
Census data
Professionals 100
Lake Oswego
\ June Green
Information on tax rates under Measure 5
The Chambers Group (Management Consultants)
Seattle
Claire M. Meany
Area developments
Ken McBean
Calgary Alberta
Area information, specifics on housing costs
Sig Unander (small business owner)
Cornelius
Area developments
Northwest Appraisal Corp.
Portland
Chuck Atkins
Washington County statistics
"Tip" regarding Apple Computer plans for a new facility
Referred to Portland Development Commission
DATE: February 16,, 1991
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mary L. Tobias
RE: President's Report
January 14 - February 15, 1991
This month we spent a great deal of time and effort gearing up for the
1991 legislative session- Our efforts included initial reviews of the bills
that had been introduced and evaluating the extent of our efforts at the
legislature. In addition, we reevaluated the budget at the mid-year point
and began to program any needed mid-year corrections. Finally, we began to
look at our programs at the staff level as we are getting ready to put
together the 1991/92 budget for the board.
PROGRAMS
REGIONAL PLANNING
The passage of Ballot Measure 5 and the efforts of the legislature to
design new property tax law to implement the measure were of primary
interest to TVEDC and many of our members. TVEDC was asked to speak on the
impact of the property tax limitation on business and the Oregon economy at
the Tigard Rotary and the Tualatin Chamber of Commerce. Because so much is
uncertain at the present time, much of what we can say at the present time
is anecdotal. However, some of the unease in the state is becoming apparent
from the conversations we have had with various business owners in the
region. There is growing concern that business will be asked to make up
some of the revenue lost to both the state and the local governments through
the implementation of measure 5. Proposals for increasing fees and business
taxes are appearing at every level. Although in some cases, increased fees
to cover the direct costs of government programs can be justified, we see
the need for our cities, counties and the state to thoroughly analyze any
additional fees and taxes to be certain they accomplish the goals for which
they are assessed. This will be an issue that will need a great deal of
attention throughout the balance of the legislative session and throughout
the biennium.
The Council for Economic Development in 'Oregon (CEDO) held a regional
meeting in -Coos Bay in early February. • Invitees included the public and
private sectors from Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson and Josephine counties.
The regional meeting focused on the role of the Port of Coos Bay in the
Oregon economy. At the board meeting which followed the regional briefing,
I raised the issues of a sunset provision on the implementation of fees and
taxes during this time of urgency for dealing with revenue shortfalls from
implementing measure 5. I also brought to the board's attention, the
problems attendant to RB 2175, the air emissions bill. CEDO's Legislative
Committee will review both of these issues and bring a recommendation for
action to the executive committee's meeting in March.
TVEDC President's Report
January 14 - February 15, 1991
Page 2
This month the PDC regional marketing campaign moved into the fundraising
phase with the first of several regional meetings designed to draw attention
to the campaign and to inform the business community throughout the greater
Portland area of the importance of building an external image for Portland
and the region. TVEDC, the Sunset Corridor Association and the City of
Beave'rt-on participated in •a Washington County meeting- and each of us
presented a -part of the regional marketing campaign story. I am-not aware
of any dollars raised from this meeting, but there was strong interest in
the coordinated approach to marketing.
At this time, we have not made any progress on the County's Economic
Development Task Force project. The Board of Commissioners is in the
process of completing the committee restructuring process. With the passage
of Measure 5 it seems to be even more important to have a coordinated county
wide effort to address economic development programs. However, also in view
of the problems attendant to measure 5, it might be best if we consult the
county about restructuring the process and basing it entirely in the private
sector. This would mean that we would have to carefully analyze the funding
and staffing issues that would arise, but I am inclined to believe this is
the only way to proceed at this time.
I presented a quarterly briefing at the Durham City Council meeting this
month. Again, Ballot Measure 5 is the predominant topic for discussion.
One of the concerns for this council is the issue of funding education at
all levels.
Portland State University President Judith Ramaley has established a new
President's Council, an advisory committee comprised of PSU administrators
and business interests to address the role of the university in the
community. Dr. Ramaley has asked me to serve on that committee so that
Washington County's interests will be addressed. I have also been asked to
serve on the executive committee for the Council. Because the future of
higher education in Oregon is of paramount impor-~ance to economic
development, I have agreed to both of these requests. It appears that
higher education is going to undergo some severe budget cuts in this
biennium. Because the general public is ura.war-e of the impact post
secondary education plays in the economy,_I believe it is very important
that TVEDC takes a beadership role on this issue.
In addition to higher education, the community college program in the
state will suffer program reductions as a result of measure 5. I met with
PCC Rock Creek Executive Dean Betty Duvall to discuss the early -information
she is getting on budget cuts. Because of the cutbacks in the colleges and
universities - especially the tuition hikes and the enrollment lids - it
looks as though the community colleges will have to assume an even greater
responsibility for providing the first two years (undergraduate level) of
.ollege for many Oregon students. This will become increasingly difficult
with fewer or severely limited dollars.
TVEDC President's Report
January 14 - February 15, 1991
Page 3
ISSUES MANAGEMENT
Western Bypass: The Western Bypass Study is continuing to proceed on
schedule. State Senator Paul Phillips and Representative Ted Calouri have
both expressed frustration with--the length of time the study is taking.
09-OT staff has go-n.e bark through the federal requ.i.rements for the project
and feels that the f irat two years ' of t:h-e process can be shortened b.y
approximately two months. However, ODOT does expect litigation when the
first stage of the process gets to some of the land use decision points. In
addition, 1000 Friends of Oregon is reported to have hired a consultant to
look at current land use patterns in local comprehensive plans and decide if
they can be changed to avoid the construction of a new highway. In my.
opinion, it is still very possible that the ODOT study will not conclude with
a recommendation that the Western Bypass be built.
Transportation Planning Rule: The Transportation Committee has scheduled a
briefing on the proposed rule for their February meeting. Bob Cortright,
DLCD staff, has been invited to update the committee on the recommendations
they will make to LCDC. We have continued with our analysis of the rule and
some of our primary concerns deal with the economic impacts the rule imposes
on business versus the fiscal impact on local or-regional governments. It
seems likely that most of the costs that will be incurred to move toward a
heavy emphasis on non-auto modes of transportation and facilities that will
support these modes will be borne by the business and development
communities. Although the implementation of land use planning requires
economic analysis, most of the work that is done seems to be primarily
fiscal impact analysis on the implementing governments. There is a big
difference between fiscal impact, as I am using it here, and economic
impact. TVEDC will provide testimony to LCDC on some of our concerns with
the rule at the March meeting of the commission.
Other.: DEQ's proposed HB 2175 on air emissions continues to be a focus for
our current efforts. We have issued a TY$DC Alert on this bill and have
generated considerable interest from our members. A major problem with the
bill with respect to fees for auto emissions is that it essentially gives
the EQC a blank check for assessin-g fees for anything they feel might be
reas-ona-bly - linked to the auto. In our opinion, this is •n-o.t the correct
approach -to take in trying to find solutions to the problems attendant to
auto emissions. However, following conversations with the American
Electronics Association lobbyist, Jim Craven, we have learned that it is
important to their industry that some form of the industrial source
emissions legislation be passed out this session. The TVEDC Legislative
Task Force is working on this bill and will recommend an action to the
board.
r
t
TVEDC President's Report
i' January 14 - February 15, 1991
Page 4
METRO is finishing the plans for their second annual urban growth
conference. Last year's conference consensus has been used as the basis for
establishing the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives and is being
touted by METRO as representing the will of the region. The problem with
this is that last year's conference was sadly lacking in representation from
the -bu-sbaess community. We issued -our Eirst TVEDC alert on this year's
conference. Again, th-e -response -to this informstio-n. tool has been very
positive.
MEMBERSHIP/PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The February I-5 Breakfast Forum featured Charles Cameron (County
Administrator, Washington County) speaking on the impact of ballot measure 5
on county government. Once again, we had a full house with approximately 50
people attending. Senator Paul Phillips opened the program with a
legislative update. Certainly, by the time Paul and Charlie finished,
everyone in the audience was fully aware of the uncertainties with which
Oregon is faced. The program for the March Forum will be "Measure 5 and our
Schools" with the superintendents of the Sherwood, Tigard and Beaverton
school districts presenting.
The first Tualatin Valley Dialogue for 1991 dealt with an update on the
Tualatin River cleanup and a discussion of who will bear the costs. New
data is being analyzed by both DEQ and USA on phosphorous levels in the
river at the headwaters of all the tributaries. Early findings show that
many of the streams have higher levels than those required by the standards
at these headwater points. The question becomes, if the data holds through
the remainder of the research, can the standards be lowered to meet the
levels found in nature. DEQ staff feels that this is a real possibility.
We found ourselves without a place to hold the Dialogue this month and
turned to a member of the board for assistance. Bob Berger, GTE Northwest,
came to our aid and GTE agreed to host the Dialogue at their Cornell Road
office.
Greg Van Pelt JSt. Vincent Hospital a Medical Center) hosted a Business
Briefing Breakfast in January. Greg presented an overview of St. Vincent's
five year-.capit-al >improvement-•-program- and a short history of -the hospital.
Bonnie Hays and Mayor Larry Cole also presented updates on their
jurisdictions. Interest in the breakfasts remains high and the key now is
to continue the required follow-up.
We are continuing the membership renewal campaign. This should be
completed (for the most part) by mid-March. Then our attention will turn to
an aggressive membership recruitment effort. It is imperative that we bring
/ some new corporations into TVEDC. The continual expansion of the membership
[ is important to maintaining effective programs.
TVEDC President's Report
January 14 - February 17, 1991
Page 5
Planning is going forward for Casino Night 1991. We have an enthusiastic
committee and they are proposing an exciting event. We plan to have tickets
ready for sale by the first of March. The biggest problem, currently, is
finding a location that will hold the event.
ADMINISTRATION
Staff spent a great deal of time evaluating the income and expenses of
the corporation in the year to date. With the advent of budget time for
both TVEDC and our local government members, we want to have a sense of how
we are doing in relationship to our projections. The early analysis points
up the importance of increasing the membership base over the next four
months. Without increased income from dues, it will be essential that we
cut our program costs.
it is also important that we begin to look at ways to create new income
from special projects. Staff will look at several alternatives and present
these to the board at the annual retreat.
A board task force (Pat Ritz, John MacDonald and Mary Tobias) reviewed
expected revenue versus anticipated expenses and prepared a report for the
board of directors January meeting. Preliminary analysis of the figures
shows that we will end the year almost exactly on budget. It will be
important to continue to watch costs closely during the second half of the
fiscal year.
TVEDC will have a full page ad on the inside front cover page of special
Times Newspapers supplement to be published in late February. The cost for
the ad will be paid by the income from a Times Newspapers membership and two
member sponsors - Barbara Sue Seal Properties, Inc. and Tektronics. This ad
will stress the importance of public-private partnerships and TVEDC's role
in providing this important linkage.
I
TVEDC President's Report
{ January - February 15, 1991
Page 6
OUTSIDE MEETINGS
In the report period, TVEDC was represented at the following outside
meetings or events:
--PRESENTI.TIONS
Tigard Rotary Club - Measure 5 and Economic Development
Tualatin Chamber of Commerce - Measure 5
Durham City Council - Quarterly Briefing
REGIONAL MEETINGS
Tigard Chamber of Commerce - Legislative meeting
- Consulting on business survey
Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee - Monthly meeting
Delta Airlines Lunch - Inaugural flight for Portland/Nagoya route
PDC/TEAM Portland - Subcommittee on regional meetings
- Washington County business leaders breakfast
Portland State University - President's Council
- President's Council Executive Board
CEDO - Regional Meeting/Port of Coos Bay
- Executive board meeting
- Board meeting
ODOT - Citizens Advisory Committee/Western Bypass
METRO/Urban Growth Management study - Technical Advisory Committee
METRO/Joint Policy Advisory Committee Transportation - HB 2175
Washington County Public Affairs Forum - Weekly meetings
- Board of Directors
Business-Education Compact - Monthly meetings
Portland Chamber of Commerce - Metro Area Chamber/Corridor Association
Executives meeting - Measure 5
Washington County Visitors Association - Joint Executive Boards
Washington County Community Action Organization - Mardi Gras
TVEDC SPONSORED ACTIVITIES OR EVENTS
I-5 Breakfast Forum - "Challenges of Measure Five" (Charles Cameron -
County Administrator, Washington County)
Times Article - Does Oregon Still Offer Competitive Advantages for Business?
Tualatin Valley Diaglogue - "Tualatin River Clean Up After Measure 5...Who
Pays?" (John Jackson/USA and Don Yon/DEQ)
3usiness Briefing Breakfast - St. Vincent Hospital & Medical Center
TVEDC President's Report
1 January 14 - February 15, 1991
Page 7
PRESS CONTACTS
Times Publications/Publisher Steve Clark - TVEDC ad in special publication
Oregonian/Tony Green & Jerry Tippens - Regional and statewide cooperation
Oregonian/Tony Green - Update on TVEDC -
Oregon Scientist - Economic development & -higheer education
Times Newspapers/Matt Buckingham - Air emissions bill
INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS
During the reporting period TVEDC staff contacted or were contacted by
the following members and associates on TVEDC business:
Mick Sinnerude/Morris Beggs & Simpson - Industrial land available
Bob Alexander/Forest Grove Cornelius EDC - Transportation issues
Joan Pasco/Gresham Chamber of Commerce - Regional economic development
Chuck Frost/Tektronics - Westside Light Rail legislation
'David Lawrence/Hillsboro - Westside Light Rail legislation
Walt Peck/Washington County - Westside Light Rail legislation
Blanche Schroeder/Portland Chamber of Commerce - Measure 5
Carol Clark/WCVA - Agency coordination
Bonnie Hays/Washington County - Update
Debbie McCabe/GTE - Marketing Portland program
Judith Ramaley/PSU - Portland State University President's Council
Chief Jack Snook/Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue - Update
Jeff Johnson/Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue - Update
Rollie Kornick/Accredited Brokers - Business relocation
Tom Markgraph/Barney & Worth - Oregon Roads Financing
John Holloway/Bolliger, Hampton & Tarlow - Update
Betty Duvall/PCC Rock Creek - Update
Joan Smith/Washington County Historical Society - Living History Farm
Steve Petersen/OEDD - Statewide issues re economic development
Paul Phillips/Senator - Legislative briefings
- TVEDC Interdependency Study
Yvonne Addington/OEDD - TVEDC Interdependency Study
Janet Young/Tualatin - Business relocation
Diane Perry/Dotten & Associates - Governor's Conference on Growth
Kris Hudson/Governor's Commission on Higher Education - Speakers
Cliff Clark/Forest Grove Mayor - Air emissions bill
Jim Craven/American Electronics Assosciation - Air emissions bill
Bill Knox/UPS - Air emissions bill & Clean Air Act
TVEDC President's Report
January 14 - February 15, 1991
Page 8
TVEDC COMMITTEE STAFFING
The following TVEDC boards and committees met during the reporting period
and were attended by staff:
Board of Directors
Executive Board
Ad Hoc Finance Committee
Issues Research Committee
Legislative Task Force
Transportation Committee
Membership/Programs Committee
Casino Night Committee
I-5 LEADS Club
( J a n u n rr ]go]
TO: TVEPC Boar;: of Directors
FROM: Tory Weber
REGARDING: 1NF07'•;AT10!; SERVICES/Surr..arv of Activity
INFORMATION REQUESTS
Aovecber 20, 1990 through January 29, 1991
Evergreen Community Development Association (non profit
certified development company backed by Zion's First
National Bank, Salt Lake City)
Seattle
J. Stanley Diner
Referral: local contacts for SBA 504 and 7A loan programs
Beaverton Chamber of Commerce
Beaverton.
List of leading employers in the Tualatin Valley - for
insertion into the chamber's directory
North by Northwest (relocation consulting firm)
San Francisco
Richard Dow
Washington County demographics, industry profile and
regional assets
Oregon Regional Primate Research Center
Beaverton
Jim Parker
Leadin- employers in the Tualatin Valley
The Dalles School District
The Dalles
Marpc. S m i th
1'csir,n~J demographics and economic indicators
Norris Beggs & Simpson
Portland
Mick Sinnerud
Available industrial land in the Tualatin Valley
Alpha & Omega Financial Services (financer)
Prairie Pillage, Kansas
Tracey Mahaffey
Washington County information for investment evaluation
Stellar International Holdings (Swedish investment group)
Seattle
Dean Trenerv
Washington bounty information for investment evaluation
Neumiller & Beardsley (engineering firm)
Stock;,on
Barbara Nordine
Information on local economic development activities
Evergreen Community Development Association
Seattle
t J. Stanley Miner
Regional governmental and district boundary information
CONSAP.CH (electronics firm)
Alban}
Presentation on the opportunities of doing business in the
Tualatin Valley which included: lease rates, industrial
areas, hotel accommodations, school districts, housing
costs, land costs, power cost, airport info. and community
contacts. (special info.-- book prepared for the company)
\ =1i
DATE: January 16, 1991
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Mary L. Tobias
RE: President's Report
December 17, 1990 - January 13, 1991
During the report period, staff used. the slower holiday period to catch
up on in-house activities and to concentrate our efforts on some project
clean-up. Because of bad weather and the holidays, many of our usual
external activities, and our regular committee schedule, were interrupted..
With the new year, however, things are getting into high gear rapidly. We
expect that the convening of the legislature will provide an extra measure
of work for the corporation during the next six months.
PROGRAMS
REGIONAL PLANNING
The State Agency Council is continuing its deliberations on managing
growth in the Portland Metropolitan Area. The December meeting was held in
Hillsboro and Washington County gave a first class presentation on how we
are managing growth in the county. Particular emphasis was given to the
many programs Washington County residents have imposed upon themselves and
have funded in order to be sure that infrastructure needs are being
addressed. The county also did a good job of pointing out that the measures
being taken here are part of the implementation of local comprehensive land
use and growth management plans in the region. At the Council's meeting in
January, a new coalition purporting to represent the business and
environmental communities was introduced to the Council. The coalition
includes The Association for Portland Progress (APP), 1000 Friends of
Oregon, Oregon Environmental Council and Sensible Transportation Options for
People (STOP). Fred Hanson, DEQ, also used this meeting to introduce the
concepts behind HB2175 which deals with air quality emissions and includes
proposals for fees and limits on parking outside of the Portland Central
Business District. I have had a brief discussion with Mr. Hanson about the
proposed -legislation; we intend to meet again in late January to discuss
this and other.fe-e _for service-concepts that DEQ is looking at for 1991.
The Council -for Economic Development in Oregon (CEDO) held a regional
meeting in Salem during December. Members of the Marion, Linn, Lane, and
Polk County economic development communities were invited to attend a
briefing on economic development activities in Salem. In addition, Duncan
Wyse from the Oregon Progress Board presented an update on the Oregon
Benchmarks and Senator Trow, Representatives Courtney and Van Vliet and John
Powell, a business lobbyist, presented a preview of the 1991 legislature's
concerns about implementing ballot measure 5.
C
TVEDC President's Report
December 17, 1990 - January 13, 1991
Page 2
I attended two separate meetings of significance on the impacts of Ballot
Measure 5 during this month. Associated Oregon Industries held a
legislative briefing which focused almost entirely on what the measure will
mean to business and what lobbying efforts AOI intends to make to mitigate
the impacts. Portla-nd Homebuilders held a major industry briefing and
worksession on measure 5-and develo-ped some consensus -on steps HBAMP should
take during this session to protect the industry and the economy. Both
sessions were informative and somewhat alarming. It seems that the more we
learn about the new tax climate in the state the more we find out we don't
know. Unfortunately, this creates a very uncertain climate for business
expansion, retention and recruitment. The conventional wisdom in the state
is that the uncertainty is likely to last for at least the 1991/92 biennium.
The board of directors of Portland Community College met in Hillsboro
this month. This was the first off-campus meeting the board had ever held
and it was well received by the community. Executive Dean Betty Duvall
(Rock Creek Campus) asked several community members to share their thoughts
on PCC and PCC's Washington County based programs with the audience and the
board members. I was pleased to give a brief presentation on behalf of
{ TVEDC and to restate our commitment to post-secondary education.
\ Ann Mulroney, Economic Development Coordinator/Beaverton, and I are
continuing to discuss interagency cooperation and upcoming joint programs.
The Mayors Business Roundtable is still in the planning stages, but has
undergone some program revisions and scheduling changes. Most recently, the
speaker we had hoped to get was unable to expand his schedule and then mayor
Cole had a series of scheduling conflicts. The City of Beaverton wants to
pursue the co-sponsorship of -a series of programs focusing on enhancing
regional business opportunities in specific industries, e.g. biotechnology.
The PDC marketing campaign effort is continuing and TVEDC is assisting in
the regional effort. We are still concerned that the national recession
will encourage the business recruiting efforts of other cities to target
Oregon businesses looking at expansion opportunities. It is important to
restate our concern that with the uncertainty of local government following
the property tax limitation bill, it could become _:a much more e-ompetitive
environment in which to hold existing businesses o-r to bring in new
businesses and jobs.
We are trying to set a date for the next meeting of the County's Economic
Development Task Force steering committee. However, we are still waiting
for a response from the county on the committee restructuring. It appears
that at the moment Measure 5 is consuming their available time. We have not
been able to achieve our goal of a Steering Committee meeting in January
1991.
l
TVEDC President's Report
December 17, 1990 - January 13, 1991
Page 3
ISSUES MANAGEMENT
Western Bypass: The ODOT study has reached the stage of developing a
statement of purpose and need for solving any identified transportation
problems existing in western Washington County. Based on the data, it is
obvious that serious t-ransgrortation problems exist at the current .-time and
that measures will -h&ve to be taken to accommodate future traffic growth.
However, nothing yet indicates that the appropriate sorutian is a western
Bypass. 1000 Friends of Oregon, STOP and the Sierra Club continue to insist
that the study look at changes in land use planning designations to address
traffic problems and to increase demand for transit usage. This is an
ongoing debate within the Citizens Advisory Committee. At issue is how the
committee can unilaterally recommend and expect to be enacted land use
changes (i.e. zoning) without going through the proper land use/comp plan
update process. I do not expect resolution of this issue during the study.
Transportation Planning Rule: LCDC has issued the first draft of the
state's Transportation Planning Rule for public comment. Staff has taken a
first look at the rule and has some concerns that will be sent on to TVEDC's
Transportation Committee for consideration. The first of at least two
public hearings will be in late January. we will be submitting written
comments to the LCDC for consideration before the second hearing which is
scheduled for March. We expect to present oral comment to the commission at
that time.
Other: DEQ's proposed HB2175 on air quality emissions will require a great
deal of attention from TVEDC over the next several weeks. The cost
implications for business could be significant. As more information on this
issue comes into us, we will forward it to TVEDC's Issues Research and
Transportation Committees.
MEMBERSHIP/PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The January I-5 Breakfast Forum featured Marilynne Eichinger (OMSI)
speaking about the new OMSI development on the east bank of the Willamette
River in Portland. We had a full house and everyone was inspired by
MarilynneIs enthusiasm, as well as the scope of the project. The
implications for the state's economy were immediately apparent and support
for the project was obvious.
We are continuing to rebuild the I-5 LEADS Club. Attendance is beginning
to grow and we have probably had about 25 different businesses participate
to date. Some are regulars and others show up when they have a chance or
have a lead to share. This is turning into an excellent opportunity to
learn more about the businesses of our members, as well as to share more
information about the new TVEDC.
1
l TVEDC President's Report
December 17, 1990 - January 13, 1991
Page 4
The planning committee for the I-5 Casino Night has begun meeting to put
together the work program for the event. This_ will be a major fundraising
effort for TVEDC and will go- a long way tavtard finaancirrg the- in'o-rea,s-ed-
prog-rams me have underta-ken with th.e. consoalida•tion o:£ the two organizations.
A--lthough we have se-t a-- conservative -revenue-/exp+emse bu•dg-et-f-or Casino Night,
the past his-tvey of -the event sho4rs that we can expect to generate
significant revenue for the corporation. Committee members are taking on
specific assignments and will be contacting members for assistance in
February.
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Ann Berblinger (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration) put together a meeting with TVEDC, METRO, and Mid Willamette
Valley Council of Governments here at the TVEDC offices. The purpose of the
meeting was to introduce Stan miner from Evergreen Community Development
Association, an agency based in Seattle which specializes in putting
together government backed loan packages for businesses. Evergreen is
j moving into the Oregon market and is looking for groups with which they can
l network and through which they can reach potential clients. Ann Berblinger
stated that they come with very high recommendations and would be a welcome
addition to the Oregon market because they fill a very specialized niche
that currently is a void in small business funding mechanisms. Stan Miner
agreed to stay in touch with TVEDC and we have offered to recommend
businesses contact his company when there seems to be a match.
We received a number of requests for information from out of state
businesses this month. Even though things were quieter during the holidays,
there was a flurry of requests just before and just after Christmas week.
Most of the requests were for straight demographic data, although some local
requests were for the purposes of providing documentation for corporate
annual reports.
ADMINISTRATION
The bulk of the staff time this month was spent on catching up on
projects that had been started in the fall. We have begun the budget
analysis process by looking back at the first six months of the fiscal year
and running some projections forward to June 30. Additionally, we are
concentrating on our 1991 membership renewal campaign. At the moment, we
are experiencing the best renewal period that we've had since I joined
TVEDC. The biggest problem we are encountering is staying on top of our
orograms. Our current programs seem to be well received by the membership.
am pleased with the support we are getting from both the TVEDC and the I-5
members. It looks like the beginning of a very successful year.
TVEDC President's Report
December 17, 1990 - January 13, 1991
Page 5
OUTSIDE MEETINGS
In the report period, TVED_C wa•s represented at the follow-ing outside
meetings or events:-
P R rSE NTA TZ O N S
Portland Community College Board of Directors - Support for PCC and
postsecondary education in Oregon
REGIONAL MEETINGS
Home Builders of Metropolitan Portland - Measure 5 workshop
-Associated Oregon industries - 1991 legislative briefing
Oregonian - 1991 business forecast meeting
PDC/TEAM Portland - Subcommittee on regional meetings
PDC/Coordinating Council - Regional marketing program
State Agency Council - Growth management study
CEDO - Regional Meeting/Legislative Briefing - Measure 5
/Salem waterfront project update
- Executive board meeting
- Board meeting
ODOT - Citizens Advisory Committee/Western Bypass
METRO/Urban Growth Management Study - Technical Advisory Committee
METRO/Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Washington County Public Affairs Forum
Business-Education Compact - Higher Education Committee
Oregon Advanced Technology Consortium - Rick-off event
Portland Chamber of Commerce - Metro Area Chamber/Corridor Association
Executives m+eting
Tigard Chamber of Commerce/Public Affairs Committee - Countywide TIP
TVEDC SPONSOREff_ ACTIVITIES OIR EVENTS
I-5 Breakfast Forum - OMSI, "Toward a New Vision"/Marilynne Eichin•ger
Times Article - Continued Support for Economic Development in Oregon
P~'"t SS CONTACTS
Times Publications/Business Editor Leslie Constans - TVEDC
Oregonian/Tony Green & Jerry Tippens - Economic Development
Lyle Graham/Channel 10 - Life After Measure 5
A
f
TVEDC President's Report
December 17, 1990 - January 13, 1991
Page 6
INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS
During the reporting- period TVEDC.. staff cowtacted._or were contacted by
the rallowing members and associates on- TVEDC business-:
Bonnie Hays/Washington County Commission - Legislature 1991
Ann Berblinger/US Economrc Development•Admin. - Financing business
Marge Smith/The Dalles School District - Regional economic development
Dennis Mulvihill/Washington County - METRO Charter
Mike Hereford/Northwest Strategies - Western Beltway
Carol Clark/WCVA - Update
Ann Mulroney/City of Beaverton - Mayors Business Roundtable
Biotechnology industry in county
Phil Riesling/Secretary of State Designee - Update
Jim Hutchins/Meyer Signs - Programs
Robert McCall/Security Pacific - Programs
Bob Gorman/Citizen - Highway improvements on Hwy 26
Walt Peck/Washington County - Westside Light Rail projpct
Charlie Hales/Home Builders measure 5 & HBA Meeting
-Dave Dickens/SCS Rural Conservation & Development - Rural development
TVEDC COMMITTEE STAFFING
The following TVEDC boards and committees met during the reporting period
and were attended by staff:
2-5 LEADS Club
Meetings of the Board, Executive Committee, Transportation, Issues
Research and Membership Committees were canceled because of the weather or
conflicts with the holidays.
t
i TUA LAPIN VALLEY
ECONOMIC 1)1:\*I:I.()P.NII:N'I'(:()RI3()ItXl'l()N
Lecember 31, 1990
TO: Britt Ferguson
Deputy County Administrator
Washington County
FROM: bary Weber
Program Manager
Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corp.
REGARDING: Summary of Activities
Per the terms of our contractual agreement, TVEDC is
providing a summary of the activities it has performed
during the quarter September 1 through December 31, 1990.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
(1) Economic Development Plan Preparation
Mary Weber and Mary Tobias met with Britt Ferguson in
December to discuss the status of the Community Committee.
TVEDC prepared a recommended list of committee additions for
review by the County. TVEDC and Washington County will
submit the amended roster for approval in January 1991.
Because of the passage of Measure 5, county staff has not
been able to move the project ahead as anticipated. TVEDC
is the process of re-drafting a timeline and program
schedule. Our goal is to activate the "visioning" process
by February.
(2) Business Development Assistance
* Marketing Portland Committee
Mary Tobias participated in the Coordinating Council's
monthly meeting which focused on the regional marketing
Portland campaign. TVEDC provided a speaking opportunity in
Washington County for the "TEAM Portland" marketing program
Itt~tut~\\ \nuliu..\~iitui ~nu~ ( i li}:.n~Lth'r}~~tt'/r==i 11 12
at the November I-5 Forum. In addition, Mary Tobias took
part in the kick-off of "TEAM Portland" at a Portland
C Ambassadors event.
* Requests for Information
TVEDC provided information about Washington County to the
following companies and/or individuals:
Portland General Electric
Tigard
Gary Heikkinen
Referral: city contacts - land use departments
Century 21-Wright Christie (real estate brokerage)
Beaverton
Debbie Watson
Washington County demographics - investor package
Express Services (temporary employment agency)
Wilsonville
Greg Cumpston
Washington County information for market evaluation
Ace Hardware
Yakima Washington
Yakima Distribution Division - Western States
Local labor market information
State Farm Insurance
Beaverton
Donald Dawson, Agency Manager
Washington County growth statistics and demographics for
local agents' business plans
Birtcher Construction
Bellevue Washington
Michael Winans
Site information for prefab home construction and container
shipping to Japan
Referral: to Port of Portland and Brad Fletcher
Bobby Mackall
Beaverton
Washington County growth statistics and demographics for
business purchase financial package
Kuni Cadillac
Beaverton
Mark Robinson
Local wage and hour information
Computer Networking (industry publication)
Tacoma Washington
Steve Stauss
Referral: to chamber for business contacts
Schneider Trucking
Tigard
Philip Weber
Wage and hour information - referral to PCC placement
program
Hoody Corporation
Tigard
Chris Lund
Oregon growth statistics and demographics for marketing plan
- referrals to Washington State and California
Shelton Plastics
Provo Utah
Steve Shelton
Cost of land and industrial rents - relocation to Portland
area - sent area information on rates in general - referral
to Christopher Juniper at Portland Development Commission
i Pacific Mutual Life
Bellevue Washington
Bryan Foxley
Washington County growth statistics and demographics for
market evaluation
City of Portland
Planning Department
Al Sibball
Location of companies and industrial parks/acreage in
Washington County - sent summary information - referral to
Sunset Corridor Assoc.
Goodrich & Snyder
Bellevue Washington
John Stevenson
Washington County demographics and growth statistics for
market evaluation
CONSARC
TVEDC in conjunction with the City of Tualatin made a
presentation to CONSARC, a hi-tech firm considering
relocation opportunities in Washington County. TVEDC used
this presentation as an opportunity to begin the development
of a "packaged" overview piece on Washington County. TVEDC
worked with the cities of Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard,
Beaverton, Sherwood, Lnke Oswego and Clackamas County on
this preserilation.
Oil ii~ iillii~ III li
(3) Economic Development Coordination
* Business Association's Executive Network
TVEDC convened two Business Associations Executive Network
meetings which included the Portland Chamber of Commerce and
other chambers in the region. The first of the two sessions
fcused on responses to the draft METRO Regional Urban Growth
Goals and Objectives. The second meeting was directed
toward a regional plan for assessing local government's
response to Measure 5.
* Economic development coordination
Mary Tobias briefed the councils of Beaverton, Sherwood,
Cornelius, Forest Grove and Durham about economic
development activities and issues in the Tualatin Valley.
Mary Tobias and Mary Weber met with J. Stanley Miner of
Evergreen Community Development Association which is located
in Seattle Washington. Evergreen is a non-profit loan
packager using the SBA 504 and 7A programs to promote
business expansion and job growth in Washington State.
Evergreen works with Zion First National Bank, Salt Lake
City as the primary lender. Evergreen has requested
permanent certification to allow it to operate freely in
Oregon. The meeting which included representatives from
r' METRO and the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments
was coordinated by the US Economic Development
Administration.
Mary Tobias is co-chairing with Bob Alexander the USDA Soil
Conservation Service Resource Conservation and Development's
Washington County Economic Development Program which is
addressing rural economic development.
Mary Tobias is the 1990/91 president of the Oregon Council
of Economic Development Organizations (CEDO). TVEDC was
involved in presenting the annual CEDO conference in October
which focused on environmental regulations and the impact on
economic development.
1,
TUALATIN VALLEY
- G(:4riO.\ll(: !)E\'Ei.4)l'~ll:N'1' C4)R!'Olt;:~i-{4)N
September 29, 1990
To: Britt Ferguson
Deputy County Administrator
Washington County
From: Mary Weber
Program Manager
Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corp.
Regarding: Summary-of Activities
The Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation is
pleased to be working with Washington County to develop
business opportunities in the Washington County area.
Per the terms of our contractual agreement, TVEDC is
providing a summary of the activities it has performed thus
far during fiscal year 1990/91.
TVEDC has been negotiating the agreement with the County
since late June 1990 and has just recently signed the
contract for services. However, for reporting purposes the
time frame shall be July 1 to August 30, 1990. What follows
is a summary of the activity during this period of time.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
(1) Economic Development Plan Preparation
Mary Weber met with Britt Ferguson twice, and has discussed
by phone several times, the role and tasks for TVEDC in
regard to the County's economic development planning
process. TVEDC will be responsible for developing the
implementing strategies and for the assemblage/writing of
the final report. Much-of this work will take place after
the first of the year. Specifically, recent discussions
focused on the outline 'of the report document and the goal
setting process for the community committee and the
development and the review of implementing strategies.
It1 4Nt \inthtt, .\tcnur . '+uitc i I i~;.utl. c~rc};,m')-_'3i - ( itli 3 (,_11.11 t3
(2) Business'Development Assistance
* Marketing Portland Committee
Mary Tobias participated in the Coordinating Council's
monthly meeting which focused on the strategies for the
regional marketing Portland campaign. She also participated
in directing the tour of the Tualatin, Tigard and
Wilsonville areas of Washington County for the advertising
agency developing the marketing campaign. In addition,
TVED'_ staff provided background information on development
activity in these areas for the tour.
* Requests for Information
TVEDC provided information about Washington County to the
following companies and/or individuals:
Company Name Type of Information Requested
,Kaiser Permanente Labor force info.
Vicki Conklin Market info.
:Talbot Korvola & Warwick - CPA's Development activity
Personnel Specialist Development activity
Mercer Industries Wage and hour rates
Oregon HBA Housing info.
'Mr. Robert Fluty Demographic/CPI info.
Maurice Lucas Market info.
Chandler Communications Market info.
-Northwest Mutual Life Insurance -Economic indicators
First Technology Credit Union Market info.
Black Bull Enterprises Market info.
* Business Retention Assistance
During the reporting period, TVED,-_ provided business
retention assistance to the following companies:
Company Name Type of Assistance
Gales Creek Iron Works -Expansion
West Coast Auto Salvage Expansion
Tigard Sports Financing
~s
j
i
* County Briefings
Mary Tobias briefed the County Commissioners on the issues
impacting economic development in the County.
(3) Economic Development Coordination
* Business Association's Executive Network
TVEDC convened a Business Association's Executive Network
meeting which included the Portland Chamber of Commerce.
# Economic development coordination
Mary Tobias briefed the councils of Hillsboro, Durham,
Wilsonville, Sherwood and Tigard about economic development
activities and issues in the Tualatin Valley.
In the last two months, TVEDC in its role as a coordinator,
has met to discuss marketing and agency coordination with:
Ann Mulroney - City of Beaverton
Carol Clark - Washington County Visitors Assn.
Bob Alexander - Forest Grove Chamber of
Commerce/Cornelius-Forest Grove EDC
Joan Smith - Washington County Historial Society.
Jerri Doctor - Beaverton Chamber of Commerce
S. Carolyn Long - Tigard Chamber of Commerce
Mary Tobias represented private sector economic development
interests in the county at PGE's Timothy Lake Conference.
Mary is also co-chairing with Bob Alexander the USDA Soil
Conservation Service Resource Conservation and Development's
Washington County Economic Development Program which will
address rural economic development.
Mary Weber meet with Ann Mulroney and Jerri Doctor to
discuss coordination of responses to information requests
about the City of Beaverton.
Both Mary Tobias and Mary Weber met with Rosemary Egan of
the Beaverton Sister Cities program to discuss information
and network opportunities to increase business development
contacts with visitors from Beaverton's sister cities.
i
Founded Dec. 4, 1850. Established as a daily Feb. 4. 1861. The Sunday Oregonian established
Dec. 4, 1881. Published daily and Sunday by the Oregonian Publishing Co.,
1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, Oregon 47201
FRED A. STICKEL, President and Publisher
WILLIAM A. HILLIARD, Editor PATRICK F. STICKEL, General Manager
PETER THOMPSON, Managing Editor BRIAN E. BOUNOUS, Advertising Director
ROBERT M. LANDAUER, Editorial Page Editor PATRICK L. MARLTON, Circulation Director
DONALD J. STERLING JR., Assistant to the Publisher
FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1991
one challenge, one state
Now more than ever, Oregon must courts clarify several matters. They
understand that it is a single state include whether general obligation
and not a disjointed collection of bonds indeed are outside the limita-
competing cantons. tion and whether systems develop-
A property-tax limitation has left ment charges and other fees are seen
the state in a storm of doubts and di- as property taxes.
lemmas. But surrendering to the po- These questions come on top of
litical-social splits - east vs. west, corporate nervousness about
city vs. country, coast vs. valley, pri- education at all levels in Oregon,
vate vs. public - could be disas- thereby posing obstacles to economic
trous. development.
In that direction lies a future Mis- The Council for Economic Devel-
sissippi, in the view of Mary Tobias opment in Oregon could fill a partic-
of the Tualatin Valley Economic ularly helpful role. While little
Development Commission. On the known in the past, this voluntary
other hand, Oregon could turn diver- organization now is poised to be a
sity into strength if all of these parts public forum to examine economic
recognized that their economies are potential throughout the state. It
intricately interwoven. consists of economic-development
A coordinated approach to eco- professionals from government,
nomic development fits the goal of a business and industrial associations.
,tatewide growth policy that does not It already has a statewide base and
1-c us just on Portland or the Willam- the talent to analyze and critique the
ette Valley. It would balance the economic interests of all communi-
strain on urban areas and the decline ties. Thus, it could be the catalyst
of rural areas in the interest of both that binds the state together by meld-
livability and prosperity throughout ing all regions, industries and brain
Oregon. power in a unified drive to capitalize
Economic development, which on economic opportunities wherever
benefited from clear and reliable they can be developed.
statewide land-use planning rules, Oregon is much more likely to
IIUW faces different uncertainties meet its challenge as a single state
1)cstowed by Measure 5. than as a bunch of splintered pieces
The legal clouds will hover until going different directions.
Page 2B . The Times • Week of February 28 - March 6. 1991
Other states can o tter more ad ova fa es
In the mid-1980s, local chambers many first-time buyers. The lack of to discourage the use of the
of commerce, corridor associations affordable housing is a growing con- automobile.
and organizations like TVEDC and corn in our region. At the same time, the Department
the Portland Development Commis- Land prices for industrial and of Land Conservation and Develop-
sion marketed Oregon and the It s Y®u r commercial land are rising and will ment is drafting a land use/transpor-
continue to rise because of increases tation rule that would require major
Portland metropolitan region as a B u s i n e ss a very good place to do business. in development fees, as local developments, commercial or in-
4 V
These organizations and many Mary Tobias 1 government struggles to maintain dustrial, to provide access to transit
others have done an excellent job in current service levels. The Tualatin facilities which would add more
promoting our region. The competi- Valley will be particularly hard hit development costs to business.
tive advantages the region offers for With the passage of Measure 5, by the fees associated with the The advantages that make
business include cheap power, a we have jeopardized our system of clean-up of the Tualatin River. Oregon a good place to do business
trained and available workforce, af- higher education. In the recent past, Also, there is state legislation are shrinking. While we are protect-
fordable housing,. low land prices our region competed with the city of being considered that implements ing our quality of life, either through
and lease rates and quality of life. Austin, Texas, for the siting of a the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. If a reduction of our property tax bur-
It is now 1991 and Oregon looks major national company. Austin passed, this legislation would allow den by passing Measure 5, a cleanup
different. We are struggling with an won out over Portland because of its die Department of Environmental program for the Tualatin River or
armload of circumstances which commitment to higher education and Quality to levy fees related to auto the provision of funding mass tran-
threaten our competitive edge. the presence of an educational in- emissions statewide and an addition- sit, let us not forget that business
Currently, we are experiencing a stilution that offered post-graduate al fee in regions of ozone non-at- can not bear the full cost. "there are
tighter labor market. Today, there education. Meanwhile, in Oregon tainmcnt such as Portland. other places in this country that
are fewer young people entering the we are cutting our support to higher No specific guidelines are being offer more advantages than Oregon.
workforce for t,`:e first time. The education; we are cutting an discussed about how the statewide So I ask that you ponder this
labor force in the year 2000 will in- economic lifeline. fee would be levied, but in the question, "Can you enjoy the quality
elude more women and minorities, This last year the region ex- Portland region the DEQ is con- of life that Oregon offers without a
many of whom have special training perienced record residential real es- sidering a program that includes a job?" Then consider the growing
needs. Cuts in education at the tate activity. Comparatively speak- parking fee in the amount of $15 per cost of doing business in Oregon.
elementary, secondary and com- ing, housing in this region is still month on employees who receive
munity college levels may mean we cheaper than in other West Coast free parking and who work for com- Tobias is president of the
can not afford needed training cities, but the gap is closing. Hous- panics with more than 100 Tualatin Valley Economic Develop-
programs. ing opportunities are shrinking for employees. This action was drafted ment Commission.
i
gum NOW-
17-23 1991
. es o Y~kek of yanuat
b ss M 0 Ust olio llPa a 48.1he T►rt C Western egass'
~Y rrojects like Use conger
OAgiS, PCC and the Limner l
port from TATS, ratcti which ~vi11 eaee~ icteni tied.
Sup 1,1110ahmak Just beginning to uon has not be just begun to
Center are j 's labor force The region has
e of industry im Want relationship
pleasure 5 in the sumac recognize the p° Centers and
The passage of state needs. rialion and n employment
local and training between housing.
November dealt its ability to The issues of tr affect industry, availablaCfordahte
housing inn improvements an l
w in ithtrastiuc- affordable e of housing
government a blo and
services affordable
of the housing
$ too. IS, of n all sectors o f Transportation
basic recession in ~t~r$ uSiYour n$$ there a to available a better
the depth c°nitc4s to met the need Can Your employees make our region
help to
tore. international
the Northeast, ovem- y Tobias the workforce. , lace to do business of aM sure 5 in
and the curtailment of local g Mar access public transit? working, p The passag
Wit authority have all Con panics are
meats' tax g ut the 1 COmI shuttle, ser m licatcs our efforts
to an uneasiness abo workforce. In lc>ca and f d die November Co p of infrastructure
With Tri-Met to develop
tribt►ted hcklog Le islature
temptation to put People will enter the level w centers
plans on t decade, entry d between. ansit Westside till
educa
future. There is a Pmrt 1 the work, anes, but tile pCeds This session public
develop will be minorities mid terms of
of work ers w the work force: both local c h"rid the region in iv will consider cups ind ihartment of
economic h°ld. issues women new to tlh tags be g cuts in the
transit service. Will there ~Wcrc be money
fi morie ~onomrc develop iaj govern
However, d meat a
the s will need training training, ht lion,
seconary education, group aining, into improve sere estion
fund
force training, infrastructure on site and tanrung its public works. sec- .
affordable housing,rowth manage- Eng F gush as a rail will eliminate some I'm at and b 2g and ment will cons►demensimilar t aactivities to
devetopme tore pas- eluding rowing in importance in
on highway provide better access conomic develop
with us be e, is g The needs of ►n' Millsboro will the
ment that were are just as itcil>nt' g°agworkplace. extend to
sage of ea a needs vanscend t he in the Tualatin Valley employers. is president of
dusirY 119. ht rail is still not
M Tobias Cconomic Devetop-
tant now. level workers to highly d Iloweet,
ie cycles- vital beyond entry , d researchers SeCUre. The region still needs the Tualatin valley
econom a strong, skilled technicians an money pt -
TO by read anent COrP
maintai need awell-trained for the electronics industry in- matclhing major
-
economy, we e The an- course work andl train
and educat state, Funding
ed workforce. Graduate thraug
ticip hi fe shift ►young out ing programs offered
aced den►°gtalh
nooulation means
e
reenforcing
for laborro(oncewth training.
® c s current acrd manage
r, rotcs_
devcloprucnt p business retention`la ion system tm-
PLJ 1 P ~e1e ri ec si oon {►als omic supp meat ant V transpo uneasy
C( and use the 1 ; m provements c,r reate which an jobs arc
°~G CEDC to ent.
or tl►e
limate layoffs or slow
of bus►ncss c h
'Ballot of ';allot activities. the challenges the 1,assaB {s state their the thrcatencd
With throug
rile voters of th' In meeting s during is en.
3e
Measure 5, to see chan- YO Ur shrinking revenue base their downs.
wanted ~ cars, cities and a healthy racer
clearly said they schools and his next few Y iii be called Ensuring cr business develop
in haw Oregon S ~SS clot partners w ve as viranruc term c°n'm{t-
cntsare funded. fe- ~usinprivate Abe even more cre,~ti of rowth is a long-
g m
local govern
the state },egislature is the upon to salve the problem and g d ovemmcut should no
f they work to development lac govern
eat in
White urn 5 to make uR Ma V Tobias meat. ` onomic
an d by Mew schools, econom{c abandon 'is investor rivate sector is
in last funds to d►c providing The p blic
difference not given the s une tion and is services Washington development. u sector
k with the R e funding
was avememnt dal- pevelopment Corpora . Econom robust to wor u'
p,ove Cornelius les since, the mi cxpxp198 need -a bus' t~dCnd solutions 1O
the state }Deaf g Forest
mandate for has c [acing local governments
and countieY~e tass lore evclop County or- County We have see move problems s die time to
tars. Cities men[ Council arc c.d, l onomy• sinesses
-
stale have begun to a will have p two Washington wiut local ec new bu. ►rivate partner
}c islation of at contract and now 1 ere ="`1 in the future' Now ublic i
business ncss~ grow. obs
' comm{l-
pact this new g Soon the cities gan;~atians area an pll of reinforce th R ion s
on is- into the residents.
1 services. ituung ents to provide ass
lo ship and renew t ccono►nY
co begin last governor expansion Portland :uea have worked
Sand counties will recruitment and for ositives climate of op men[ to a strong
cuts w balance their shank- Ce services. er►t for these R ate a tiawevcr,
program tan a} ovcmm ether to crc
budgets. vernment has The cost these to sservices does not lag bout tile (uh a looming
ing nr of the
in the past, loco' g~ , a y, unety providing them timism ab° such a potential rap reside
-
rovid{ng the cost of providing external factors, or a Mar} Tobias pevetop
been creative in R additional ttal tt is private ;c recession valley Economic
without hiring ovcmment is econ°m Middle East have a direct T{ta(atin
of services city or county within the g for economic r war in the These ment Gorporatton-
funding on our local cconomYion's
this oRi led with the rcg
is is new otter achieves
start or creatTh
ing ray- sector makes impact
depaen is- overnmental ag developmeat that forces coup
-
through with the private [unity available. have
meets or contracts several communiucs
sector. Valley Economic
Tualatin
The
PROCLAMATION
Housing discrimination occurs when one is prevented from living in a house
or apartment of his/her choice due to race, color, religion, national origin,
physical or mental handicap, or marital status. Under the State of
Oregon's Civil Rights Statutes these forms of discrimination are illegal.
Federal Fair Housing Laws also protect individuals from certain
discriminatory practices providing equal opportunity in housing.
The month of April marks the 23rd anniversary of Title VIII of the Federal
Civil Rights Act. Observance of this occasion can increase public
awareness about this issue.
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor of Tigard, proclaim the month
of April, 1991 to be:
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
in Tigard and urge all of our citizens to join in this observance and further
urge that they take increased notice of the housing conditions in their
communities and join this effort to promote Fai ousing for all.
Dated this C day of 1 ? 11 9,1.
Gerald Edwards, Mayor
City of Ti
Attest:
( City Recorder
0 EIt D.T.
LOT D R L LC CAD
MURD0CK HILL 29LOT
1 NEIGH + ~3O. 2000 5159 Z6s+ M•, s•Ii 26• W
Y S 6 . al 77.711 N•4'o2'S9'• C
SW I/4 NW 1/4 SEC. 11. T-2S, R-IW, W.M. 90.00.000 2000 Y
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON f I GRF C v .tt; 6 90•00•00 MOD, p aN 7s s w•w•sYON
DATE: JUNE 1973 SCALE: 1'• 50'
S.W. _ IIMURDOCK (C.R.'T(O) ST-
l ~ ..r n:.•. R•61•f :'trV
.L T'o oo I• L `w i aDr.fT' y
i 1
L
p a• R•2ds SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I.WILLIAML.Yp MONAO.E. FIRST
RIND DIRT SWAIN/ DEPOSE AND SAT THAT I HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED AND
2 es' w YAKKED WITH 510 • W N BOOS. ALL LOT AID SLACK CORNERS. CURVE NOOKS.
2 AID 60LMOARY LINE CHAROES IN DIRECTION. THE LAND REMESENTCD IN THE
ANNEXED MAP OF•IIUItOOCK I4LL • AND AT SAID INITIAL POINT Of SAID SURVEY
N " 1 SET A 2`6 %•O.I.P. 6• OCLOw THE SURFACE OF THE WOUND. SAIO INITIAL
O C o •.r, g P O W POINT SLING L.OCAM NDRTN 0.6t' AND CAl7 11/7.Od FROM IM 0.A t• IRON
o .ra c 0 e g o 2 > PIPE MARKIMO M W CORNER OETWEEN SECTIONS 106II.T•2S,NMW.WY
N i~' \ M Q 0 D Q S1EM2 A.OrA'21 -W fAo.lle ALONG M NORTH LINE DF THE OMY RECORDED
1
Z ; C L~ h U F ►LJ1T OF YAR6UCRITE OCHS TRACTS TO THE SC CORNER OF THE WLT RECORDED
M PLAT OF OELMONTEI THENCE. M•00•0512=E a52.4i ALDIO THE EAST LINE OF
SAID CELMOMTE PLAT, THENCE M-OrWOO1 61.62•; THCMCL N•OO•Zf%'•W
3t S0'1 THEMLN M-W32'04"[ IOOCd, THENCE: N-CG'2Y%'•W ITS.Cd TO M
CENTER LINE OF S W. MURDOCK ST CR No 760; THEME. ALONG SAID CENTER
•1 _ .Y a~R,r•1 _ 1 ,aoo LINE 11.66.32'Oa••E 50.00% THENCE: S-00•Z7'%=E In DO', THENCE:
A r.A~t'o U••ti 1`a• lon0..• U .o<b' N•OY32'OF•E 10000',THCNCL M•00.27•%T W 173OD' TO THE LAST SAID
\ • - NOO 00 ` - 61 Ty ,T6 02' CENRR LINE, TNOVCt: ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF CA AN, 760 M•66'3i Oa=E
05.37• To INS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTER LINE OF SW 100Y AVC.CR No
a r . ,~'.1 O 037, TNCIICE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF CA No 657 S•00.02'SS'• W 61`2 ri
61 TO TINE M E. CORNER OF THE MARGUERITE OCHS TRACTS A OULT RECORDED
1 6N 92' - \ / i 3 G PLAT, TN[NCE+ w-sr s7.2T * W ESDd TO THE INITIAL PONT OF REGINRIRG
1 \ / CONTAINING Lf ACRES
\ / / = SUOSCRIOCO AND SWORN TO SCFDRE ME
YNI%6tDAY OL Q.L -.HTS
,5000' ]~.tytL✓-fA.t<C
•0 AO IIOTAItT PV6UC IM AND FOR OREGON
1 kN 3 MT C46MISSION EZPIR 7s ES 6 73- 1
„ \ .
0 na
4 P a~
\ IIL•3•VND
p'a fOlal ~ ~ SAND bU'Y?011
, l a«..,vacE ~ X
<SM' , ; N•f~ST C.:N Q•Te' Nfl
\ /-1 80.00' 'NO t•a C::.•
IIS. iS' b O _ 9ataiy`~iN ns..a2
O I~ M - ~ ao\
U ~ 7 N _
w0 \ •M
O,Td
k~ wTE I/O STRUCTURES SMALL 6E CONSTRUCTED .IT1NN1 30• of DAME
1 \ HIOPOSED FUTVRC STREET LOCAYHONS.
WM' ALL SIDE AND SACK LOT LINES OR EACH LOT ARC TO HAVE A SOd
v. ~T~MENT -0 SANITARY SEWER. STORM DRANMIAC. AND VTRITT
%
' ~i ~N ~a7 tT I.t~ -
\ A
I •A r
r
/ i/5 ca•' ' ITS 04 19000• ✓ :R'
- _ ri - la-
gow
A
_ /.'•r; /<'C::: ,C'~ : ~ it Ito id 01..7
1
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: April 9, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Planning PREVIOUS ACTION:
Coordination Agreement for Western
1-7
PREPARED BY: Citv Engineer
By acs Studv 17
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Shall the Citv enter into the Western Bypass Study Planning Coordination
Agreement?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
A Planning Coordination Agreement has been prepared to establish coordinated
procedures for selection of alternatives through the Western Bypass Study
process. The Agreement is intended to assure that all affected jurisdictions
participate in the decision making processes, that the process is consistent
with State land-use planning regulations, that any decisions made are
consistent with local comprehensive plans, and that there is a coordinated
citizen involvement program. The proposed process is similar to the process
used for the Westside Light Rail program.
Attached is a sect ion-bv-section summary of the proposed agreement and a flow
chart to help explain the coordination process. Also attached is a
resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement and a full copy of the
agreement.
The Citv Attornev's office has reviewed the agreement and finds no
objections.
ALTERNA'T'IVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the
agreement.
2. Request that the agreement be modified.
3. Reject the agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
In signing the agreement, the City agrees to provide staff to participate in
portions of the Study review, to conduct public hearings at various times in
the process, and to provide certain public notices. The extent of staff and
Council involvement will depend on the alternatives selected and the public
interest during the hearing process and is unknown at this time.
SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommend approval of the attached agreement. rw/iga-cs
WESTERN BYPASS STUDY
PIANNING COORDINATION AGREEMENT
SECTION BY SECTION SUMMARY
Section 1: This section encourages citizen participation through 1) the local public notice
and hearing process; and 2) ODOT's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. The section requires local governments to publish a
notice advising the public that the CAC and TAC meet regularly and that the public may
obtain information on those meetings through ODOT.
i
Section 2: This section provides for local government endorsement of the Purpose and Need
Statement and the assumptions underlying the Statement. The Purpose and Need Statement
establishes the underlaying purpose and need for the study. The Statement is based on
forecasts and analysis for the planning period using acknowledged comprehensive plan
designations and zoning.
In effect, this section seeks local government agreement as to reliance on existing plan and
zoning designations and Metro's analysis. It requires local governments, following a public
hearing, to file resolutions with ODOT either 1) endorsing the Statement; 2) proposing
changes to local plan and zoning designations or other assumptions upon which the
Statement is based, or 3) rejecting or recommending revisions to the Statement. If local
governments do not want ODOT to rely on their acknowledged plans or regional population
and employment data as the basis for further study, ODOT needs to know that now.
Section 3: This section provides for the study, development and recommendation for
strategies to meet the needs identified in the Purpose and Need Statement. It requires
JPACT and Metro to amend the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as necessary. It a land
use decision is made at this stage, Metro would make that decision.
The section requires Metro to distribute recommended strategies to local governments for
their review. It also requires each local government to adopt a resolution either endorsing
or rejecting the strategies recommended by Metro and JPACT. The resolution is important
to inform ODOT, early on, whether the local governments agree with the strategies that have
been developed to address traffic needs. A resolution endorsing the strategies for further
study does not bind the local government to a particular result, but assists in review of
alternatives for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Section 4: This section requires local governments to identify the plan and c.-Jinance
provisions in their local documents which are relevant to the study.
WESTERN BYPASS STUDY
PLANNING COORDINATION AGREEMENT
SECTION BY SECTION SUMMARY
Page 2
Section 5: This section requires ODOT's staff to prepare a draft environmental impact
statement and, following a public hearing, recommend a preferred alternative for
consideration by each City, the County, JPACT and Metro. It also requires all parties to
provide staff support for drafting findings demonstrating compliance with the statewide goals.
Section 6: This section provides for adoption of the preferred alternative and supporting
findings. It requires each party to consider a resolution approving the preferred alternative.
It also requires a party adopting a resolution approving the preferred alternative to adopt
findings demonstrating how the preferred alternative complies with applicable local plan and
land use regulation provisions.
Section 7: This section establishes procedures for parties to participate, review and comment
on proposed amendments to the RTP, comprehensive plans or land use regulations relating
to the Western Bypass Study.
Section 8: This section indicates that certain matters, such as project design, are beyond the
< scope of this study and may require a subsequent intergovernmental agreement.
Section 9: This section provides for unified and coordinated action in the event of an appeal
to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). While the section provides for parties to add
their names as intervenors to an appeal, such action does not financially obligate those
parties.
Section 10: This section establishes a process for amending the agreement.
Section 11: This section permits other jurisdictions, agencies, or special districts to be added
to the agreement if deemed necessary or appropriate.
MWWBSPCA.E
March 6, 1991
Inter-Governmental Agreement Flow Chart
ODOT Region (Metro) Local Jurisdictions
Adopt Intergovernmental Adopt Intergovernmental Adopt Intergovernmental
Agreement. Agreement. Agreement.
Publish public notice of citizen Publish public notice of citizen
involvement. Involvement.
Prepare Purpose and DNe7ed Review Purpose and Need
efnefft• Statement.
Reje
ct P & N or Endorse P & N Amend
Recommend tatement. based on plan.
Revision. Plan.
Revise statement as necessary
.
Adopt Purpose and Need.
Consider RTP Amendments.
Recommend strategies.
oruiderstratepleerorfurtherstudy Review strategies, assist Metro
cin goal findings for elimination
eliminatbn of strategies. strategies.
Notify jurisdictions of sReview recommended
recommendatio. strategies, consider RTP
Amendment.
Recommend or reject strategies
for further study.
uu
Compile applicable local plan
policies and regulation Identify applicable functional identify applicable plan policies
provisions. plan Policies. and land-use regulations.
Define alternatives and are
DEIS.
Recommend preferred Prepare goal firdings per Provide staff assistance for
alternative. Memo of
(Metro Understanding. findings of compliance.
Consider preferred alZZ referred alternative
for adoption. adoption.
Take actions as prescribed in sists w/Corn
State Agency Coordination Consider RTP amenPlan P
Program.
es. of Intent to
dopt PA after Plan
Amendments.
Adopt Plan Amend.
ment w/finding.
Rev. 3/7191
WESTERN BYPASS STUDY
PLANNING. COORDINATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
, 199_, by the Metropolitan Service District
(Metro), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington
County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, and the
Cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood,
Durham, King City, and Wilsonville, incorporated municipalities
of the State of Oregon (hereafter "the Parties").
WHEREAS, ORS chapter 190 authorizes units of local
government and state agencies to 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 11 (Facilities Planning)
and Goal 12 (Transportation Planning), ORS 197.190, 268.380(4),
268.385, and OAR 660-11-015(2) require city and county public
facility plans and actions related to transportation facilities
to be coordinated with each other and other providers of public
facilities; and
WHEREAS, ODOT is evaluating Western Bypass Study issues in
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and
WHEREAS, ODOT's EIS study will accomplish significant data
collection and analysis including organizing citizen advisory
committees and agency coordination meetings, data collection,
analysis of the physical characteristics of the study area, and
traffic and transportation analysis; and
WHEREAS, the ODOT EIS work program anticipates completion of
alternative strategies development, evaluation and screening in
early 1991 that will recommend alternative strategies for further
study, thereby eliminating some modes and strategies from further
detailed consideration based on the projected transportation
need; and
WHEREAS, the ODOT EIS work program provides for refinement
of selected alternative strategies and a transportation and
environmental analysis prior to selection of the Preferred
Alternative in early 1992; and
WHEREAS, State, regional, and local governments seek to
coordinate facility planning for any major regional
transportation project resulting from these studies by
establishing a process for review and possible incorporation of
selected alternatives from the ODOT study into Metro's functional
Page 1 Western Bypass Study Agreement
transportation plan and the comprehensive plans of other affected
local governments;
NOW, THEREFORE, METRO, ODOT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, AND THE
CITIES OF BEAVERTON, HILLSBORO, TIGARD, TUALATIN, SHERWOOD,
DURHAM, KING CITY, AND WILSONVILLE AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Public Notice
To encourage citizen participation in the Western Bypass
Study ("the Study"), Metro, each City, and the County agree:
A. To provide public notice, in the manner required by
their respective comprehensive plans, land use
regulations, and other ordinances, as necessary to
carry out the terms of this Agreement; and
B. Within 30 days following its execution of this
Agreement, to:
1. Adopt a Resolution in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit "A;" and
2. Publish the Notice of Public Hearings contained in
Exhibit "A."
II. Purpose and Need Statement
A. Following review by the Western Bypass Study
Committees, ODOT's staff will recommend a Purpose and
Need Statement ("the Statement"). The Statement shall
specify the underlying purpose of and need for the
Western Bypass Study, based upon an analysis of
existing conditions, demand forecasts, and projected
transportation system deficiencies for the planning
period as determined using acknowledged comprehensive
plan map designations and zoning.
B. The County and each City hereby agree to consider
endorsement of the Purpose and Need Statement as the
foundation for the Study. This endorsement shall be
considered at a public hearing. The public hearing
shall be held as soon as possible following receipt of
the Statement by each local government, either as part
of the next regularly scheduled meeting for which
adequate public notice can be provided, or at a special
meeting of the local government.
C. Within 60 days following receipt of the Purpose and
Need Statement, the County and each City shall submit
to ODOT's Special Projects Manager ("Manager") a
Resolution responding to the Statement. The Resolution
Page 2 Western Bypass Study Agreement
i
shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and
shall either (a) endorse the Purpose and Need
Statement; (b) propose certain changes to the
jurisdiction's acknowledged comprehensive plan and
zoning; or (c) reject or recommend revisions to the
Statement. A party's failure to submit the Resolution
within 60 days following receipt of the Statement shall
be deemed a rejection of the Statement.
D. Should the County or a City choose to amend its
comprehensive plan or zoning, it shall:
1. Within 60 days following receipt of the Statement,
adopt and submit to ODOT's Manager a Resolution
(a) stating its intent to work immediately and
expeditiously on the proposed plan and zoning
amendments, and (b) containing a Work Plan ("the
Work Plan") for completing the plan and zoning
amendment process;
2. Include in the Work Plan (a) a map identifying the
specific properties which may be affected by
proposed plan and zoning amendments, and (b) a
description of the proposed amendments with
sufficient specificity to allow ODOT's staff and
Metro to identify the proposed land uses and
.estimated densities for the identified properties;
{ and
3. Within 100 days following adoption of the
Resolution, complete the drafting of the proposed
comprehensive plan and zoning amendments and
establish a timetable for final adoption
consistent with this Intergovernmental Agreement.
E. Following receipt of the responses to the Purpose and
Need Statement from the County and each City, ODOT's
staff shall consider the responses, provide for review
by the Western Bypass Study Committees as it- deems
appropriate, revise the Statement if necessary, and
then submit the Statement to Metro for possible
adoption. The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on
Transportation (JPACT) and Metro shall consider any
appropriate amendments to Metro's Regional
Transportation Plan ("the RTP"), including
incorporation of the Purpose and Need Statement.
III. Recommendation of Strategies
A. ODOT's staff will study, develop, and refine strategies
to meet the statewide and regional westside
Page 3 Western Bypass Study Agreement
i
circumferential travel needs identified in the Purpose
l and Need Statement. Reasonable system modes, including
major highways, arterial, major transit (bus and light
rail), and demand management measures, shall be
considered. ODOT's staff will recommend elimination of
some modes and strategies from further detailed
consideration by the following steps:
1. Identification of strategies;
2. Development of conceptual system-level
alternatives;
3. Evaluation of strategies; and
4. Recommendation of reasonable strategies that meet
the identified purpose and need.
B. Based on the strategies recommended for further study
and the strategies recommended for elimination by
ODOT's staff, JPACT and Metro shall consider reasonable
strategies for further study and shall consider
recommending or requiring elimination of strategies
considered unreasonable to meet the purposes and needs
identified in the Statement. As part of this process,
JPACT and Metro shall consider any appropriate
amendments to the RTP, including both the incorporation
of strategies recommended for further study and the
elimination of strategies considered unreasonable to
meet the purposes and needs identified in the
Statement. The adoption of any RTP amendments
eliminating strategies from further study shall be
accompanied by findings demonstrating compliance with
applicable statewide planning goals and regional goals
and objectives, if necessary. For each strategy
eliminated, Metro shall demonstrate the reasons why the
eliminated strategy cannot meet the identified
statewide and regional transportation system needs.
C. Each City and the County hereby agree to provide staff
assistance to Metro in the development of findings
demonstrating compliance with applicable statewide
planning goals to support an RTP amendment eliminating
strategies considered unreasonable to meet the purposes
and needs set forth in the Statement.
D. Upon completion of the activities described in
subsection B above, Metro shall transmit correspondence
to each City and the County identifying the strategies
approved for further study and those recommended to be
eliminated from further study. The correspondence
shall contain the findings supporting Metro's action.
Page 4 Western Bypass Study Agreement
E. Within 90 days following receipt of Metro's
correspondence, each City and the County shall consider
adopting a Resolution in response to Metro's action.
The Resolution shall be in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit "C" and shall endorse or reject the strategies
recommended by JPACT and Metro for further study. Upon
adoption, the Resolution shall be submitted to ODOT's
Manager. Failure to submit the Resolution shall be
considered a rejection of the strategies recommended
for further study.
IV. Acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Review.
Within 30 days following approval by JPACT and Metro of
strategies recommended for further study, Metro, the County,
and each city shall assist the Study by:
A. Initiating staff review of their respective functional
or comprehensive plans and land use regulations to
determine applicable provisions which apply to the
Study; and
B. Transmitting to ODOT's Manager a copy of those plan and
regulation provisions deemed applicable.
V. Recommendation of a Preferred Alternative; Goal Findings
A. To meet the purposes and needs identified in the
Statement, ODOT's staff agrees to refine recommended
strategies, identify Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) alternatives, prepare technical
reports, prepare the DEIS, and, following a public
hearing, recommend a Preferred Alternative for
consideration by each City, the County, JPACT and
Metro. The Preferred Alternative may be a "no-build"
alternative.
B. Project goal findings shall be developed pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement for the
Tualatin Hillsboro Corridor between Metro and
Washington County, adopted on July 18, 1988. All
parties agree to provide staff assistance in the
development of findings demonstrating compliance of the
recommended Preferred Alternative with applicable
statewide planning goals.
VI. Adoption of a Preferred Alternative
A. Within 30 days following the recommendation of the
Preferred Alternative and the development of findings
demonstrating compliance with applicable statewide
Page 5 Western Bypass Study Agreement
goals, Metro, the County, and each City shall identify
any functional or comprehensive plan and land use
regulation amendments that would be necessary to adopt
the Preferred Alternative.
i
B. All parties hereby agree to consider and take action on
the recommended Preferred Alternative as follows:
1. JPACT and Metro shall consider adopting any
appropriate amendments to the RTP at the time
Metro considers adoption of a recommended
Preferred Alternative for the Western Bypass Study
Area.
2. ODOT will take such actions as may be required on
the recommended Preferred Alternative in the
manner provided in its state agency coordination
program certified by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission.
3. The County and each City shall consider either (a)
a Resolution adopting the recommended Preferred
Alternative, if the recommendation is consistent
with the jurisdiction's acknowledged comprehensive
plan and land use regulations; or (b) a Resolution
of Intent to approve the recommended Preferred
Alternative, subject to adoption of comprehensive
plan or land use regulation amendments needed to
accommodate the recommended Preferred Alternative.
C. If adopted by any party, the recommended Preferred
Alternative shall be supported by findings
demonstrating:
1. Consistency with applicable statewide planning
goals; and
2. For each jurisdiction, compliance with applicable
provisions of its functional or comprehensive plan
and land use regulations. Each jurisdiction
adopting the recommended Preferred Alternative
shall be responsible for preparing the findings
required to demonstrate consistency of the
recommended Preferred Alternative with its
functional plan or acknowledged comprehensive plan
and land use regulations.
3. If the County or a City adopts a Resolution of
Intent to approve the recommended Preferred
Alternative, subject to adoption of amendments to
its comprehensive plan or land use regulations,
Page 6 Western Bypass Study Agreement
the jurisdiction adopting the Resolution of Intent
( shall be responsible for preparing:
(a) Findings to demonstrate consistency of those
amendments with the statewide planning goals;
w
and
(b) Findings to demonstrate consistency of the
recommended Preferred Alternative with its
comprehensive plan and land use regulations
as amended.
D. If the County or any City adopts the recommended
Preferred Alternative or a Resolution of Intent to
adopt the recommended Preferred Alternative, it shall
immediately authorize its staff to notify the Director
of the Land Conservation and Development Commission of
any proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation
amendments, and schedule the final hearing to consider
adoption of the proposed amendments.
VII. Coordination of Planning and Implementation Actions
A. Metro, the County and each City shall provide all
parties with the appropriate opportunity to
participate, review and comment on proposed amendments
to the RTP, comprehensive plans or land use regulations
( relating to the Western Bypass Study. The following
procedures shall be used by these parties to notify and
involve all parties in this process:
1. The party with jurisdiction over a proposed
amendment, hereinafter the originating party,
shall notify the other parties, hereinafter
responding parties, of the proposed action at the
time such planning efforts are initiated, but in
no case less than forty-five (45) days prior to
the final hearing on adoption. The specific
method and level of involvement may be finalized
by "Memorandums of Understanding" negotiated and
signed by the planning directors or other
appropriate staff of the respective parties.
"Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly
outline the process by which the responding party
shall participate in the adoption process.
2. The originating party shall transmit draft
recommendations on any proposed actions to the
responding parties for review and comment before
finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a
"Memorandum of Understanding," responding parties
shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft
{ Page 7 Western Bypass Study Agreement
to submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of
( response shall be considered "no objection" to the
draft.
3. The originating party shall respond to the
comments made by the responding party either by
(a) revising the final recommendations, or (b) by
letter to the responding party explaining why the
comments cannot be addressed in the final draft.
4. Comments from the responding parties shall be
given consideration as a part of the public record
on the proposed action. If after such
consideration, the originating party acts contrary
to the position of a responding party, the
responding party may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and
procedures.
5. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the
originating party, it shall transmit the adopting
ordinance to the responding party as soon as
publicly available, or if not adopted by
ordinance, whatever other written documentation is
available to properly inform the responding party
of the final actions taken.
( VIII.Design or Alignment Decision; Local Implementation
A. The parties anticipate that a range of policy options
will remain following the selection of a Preferred
Alternative, including a Design EIS for part or all of
the Preferred Alternative, any needed. right-of-way
acquisition, possible development of detailed
mitigation strategies, or further study of specific
impacts of any proposed facilities. A subsequent
Intergovernmental Agreement or amendments to this
Agreement may be required after adoption of the
Preferred Alternative.
B. The Parties acknowledge that implementation of
comprehensive plan provisions for any Western Bypass
Study project will require detailed project design and
mitigation specifications. These details are beyond
the scope of the current Western Bypass Study.
IX. Joint Defense of Appeals
A. All parties hereby agree that an appeal to LUBA or the
courts of any party's action required by this Agreement
shall cause the remaining parties to intervene as named
parties to the appeal with coordinated participation
Page 8 Western Bypass Study Agreement
and representation in defense of the action. Nothing
in this section shall financially obligate any agency
or jurisdiction.
B. An appeal based on additional plan or land use
regulation amendments and findings in VI, above, or an
implementation action under VII, above, shall be the
responsibility of the affected jurisdiction with the
cooperation of all remaining parties, as appropriate.
X. Amendments to this Western Bypass Study Plannina
Coordination Agreement
The following procedures shall be followed by all parties to
amend the language of this Agreement:
A. The party originating the proposal shall submit a
formal request for amendment to the other parties,
hereinafter "responding parties."
B. The formal request shall contain the following:
1. A statement describing the amendment.
2. A statement of findings indicating why the
proposed amendment is necessary.
3. If the request is to amend a recommendation
of the Preferred Alternative, a map which
clearly indicates the location of the
proposed change and surrounding area.
C. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the
originating party, responding parties shall
schedule a review of the request before the
appropriate governing bodies within forty-five
(45) days of the date the request is received.
D. All parties 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:
1. All parties shall agree to initiate a joint
study. Such a study shall commence within
thirty (30) days of the date it is determined
that a proposed amendment creates a
disagreement, and shall be completed within
Page 9 Western Bypass Study Agreement
ninety (90) days of said date. Methodologies
( and procedures regulating the conduct of the
joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by
all parties prior to commencing the study.
2. Upon completion of the joint study, the study
and the recommendations drawn from it shall
be included within the record of the review.
The party considering the proposed amendment
shall give careful consideration to the study
prior to making a final decision.
XI. Additional Parties.
If, in the course of this Study, it is determined that need
exists for other agencies, jurisdictions or special
districts, not parties to this Agreement, to amend their
comprehensive plans, land use regulations, or plans or
programs affecting land use, the parties agree to amend this
Agreement as necessary or appropriate to add such agencies,
jurisdictions or special districts.
METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF BEAVERTON
CITY OF DURHAM CITY OF HILLSBORO
CITY OF KING CITY CITY OF SHERWOOD
C' TY ,Off' TIGA~~RD CITY OF TUALATIN
12~
CITY OF WILSONVILLE
Page 10 Western Bypass Study Agreement
( EXHIBIT "A"
IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC )
INVOLVEMENT IN WESTERN BYPASS ) RESOLUTION NO.
STUDY ISSUES )
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is
conducting a Western Bypass Study to identify and resolve issues
related to accommodating major existing and future (year 2010)
state, regional, and intra-county travel needs within the project
study area; and
WHEREAS, this jurisdiction is in the Western Bypass Study
area.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:
1. This [city, county] hereby includes the regular
schedule of meetings of the Western Bypass Study Citizen Advisory
Committee and Technical Advisory Committee as part of its citizen
involvement process and encourages its citizens to participate in
that public process.
2. The [city, county] anticipates that the results of the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) study, including
public involvement of its citizens, will be utilized to develop
its planning alternatives for circumferential travel in
coordination with state, regional, and other local governments.
3. The following "Public Notice" of [city, county]
participation in the Western Bypass Study process shall be
published once in a newspaper of general circulation consistent
with the citizen involvement program:
PUBLIC 140TICE
"Notice is hereby given that, with respect to Western Bypass
Study issues, in addition to the public involvement
provisions set forth in [name of local government]'s
comprehensive plan and regulations, the regularly scheduled
meetings of the Western Bypass Study Citizen Advisory
Committee and Technical Advisory Committee shall be part of
the [city, county]'s citizen involvement process.
"This is consistent with adoption of the Western Bypass
Study Coordination Agreement by [name of local government].
Under this intergovernmental agreement [name of government]
will consider during the two-year study process: (1) the
Purpose and Need Statement, (2) recommended strategies, (3)
selection of a Preferred Alternative Strategy, (4)
Page 11 Western Bypass Study Agreement
t
/ consistency of the Preferred Alternative with (name cf local
government]'s comprehensive plan, and (5) design or
alignment decisions. To obtain information on meeting
dates, contact the Oregon Department of Transportation's
Project Manager at 653-3298." +
Page 12 Western Bypass Study Agreement
EXHIBIT "B": ALTERNATIVE 1
IN THE MATTER OF ENDORSEMENT )
OF THE WESTERN BYPASS STUDY ) RESOLUTION NO.
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT )
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is
conducting a Western Bypass Study to identify and resolve issues
related to accommodating major existing and future (year 2010)
state, regional, and intra-county travel needs within the project
study area; and
WHEREAS, this jurisdiction is in the Western Bypass study
area; and
WHEREAS, ODOT is conducting the Western Bypass Study in an
open, objective and expeditious manner, allowing input from all
sectors of the community; and
WHEREAS, (city, county] has executed a Western Bypass Study
Planning coordination Agreement ("the Agreement") with ODOT, the
Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"), and other affected local
governments within the project study area; and
WHEREAS, ODOT's staff has prepared a Purpose and Need
Statement specifying the underlying purpose and need for the
Western Bypass Study, based upon an analysis of existing
conditions, demand forecasts, and projected transportation
deficiencies for the planning period using acknowledged
comprehensive plan map designations and zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the (city, county] to
consider endorsement of the Purpose and Need Statement as the
foundation of the continued study, following public notice and a
public hearing consistent with local public notice and hearing
requirements; and
WHEREAS, following public notice, the (city, county] held a
public hearing on , 199_, to take testimony on
and consider endorsement of the Purpose and Need Statement; and
WHEREAS, the (city, county] has considered the testimony and
the evidence on this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:
The (city, county] hereby endorses the Purpose and Need Statement
recommended by the staff of the Oregon Department of
Transportation as the foundation of the Western Bypass Study.
With this endorsement, the (city, county] approves of, accepts,
Page 13 Western Bypass Study Agreement
and endorses the methodology and assumptions upon which the
( Statement is based, including the [city, county]'s acknowledged
comprehensive plan map and zoning designations.
( Page 14 Western Bypass Study Agreement
t
EXHIBIT "B": ALTERNATIVE 2
IN THE MATTER OF ENDORSEMENT )
OF THE WESTERN BYPASS STUDY ) RESOLUTION NO.
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT )
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is
conducting a Western Bypass Study to identify and resolve issues
related to accommodating major existing and future (year 2010)
state, regional, and intra-county travel needs within the project
study area; and
WHEREAS, this jurisdiction is in the Western Bypass, study
area; and
WHEREAS, ODOT is conducting the Western Bypass Study in an
open, objective and expeditious manner, allowing input from all
sectors of the community; and
WHEREAS, [city, county] has executed a Western Bypass Study
Planning Coordination Agreement ("the Agreement") with ODOT, the
Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"), and other affected local
governments within the project study area; and
WHEREAS, ODOT's staff has prepared a Purpose and Need
Statement specifying the underlying purpose and need for the
Western Bypass Study, based upon an analysis of existing
conditions, demand forecasts, and projected transportation
deficiencies for the planning period using acknowledged
comprehensive plan map designations and zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the [city, county] to
consider endorsement of the Purpose and Need Statement as the
foundation of the continued study, following public notice and a
public hearing consistent with local public notice and hearing
requirements; and
WHEREAS, following public notice, the [city, county] held a
public hearing on , 199_, to take testimony on
and consider endorsement of the Purpose and Need Statement; and
WHEREAS, the [city, county] has considered the testimony and
the evidence on this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:
A. Based upon its review of the Purpose and Need Statement, the
[city, county] desires to amend its [comprehensive plan, zoning]
for certain properties within its boundaries. A map identifying
the specific properties which may be affected by proposed
t Page 15 Western Bypass Study Agreement
r
a:
comprehensive plan and zoning amendments is included in the
attached Work Plan.
B. Work on proposed plan and zoning amendments will begin
promptly and will be handled expeditiously in accordance with the
time table contained in the attached Work Plan.
C. The [city, county] requests that ODOT's staff amend the
Purpose and Need Statement, as necessary, to reflect the proposed
amendments to the (city, county)'s plan. With these changes, the
(city, county) accepts and endorses the methodology and
assumptions upon which the Statement is based.
D. The [city, county)'s work program shall be as follows:
1. Affected properties: The properties which may be
affected by the proposed plan and zoning amendments are
identified on the map attached as Exhibit "A".
2. Nature of amendments: (Example]: The [city, county],
through proposed plan and zoning text and map
amendments, intends to increase the maximum permitted
density of development on residentially zoned land
within 100 feet of major transit corridors by an
overall average density of 4 dwelling units per acre.
For some properties (identify on map), this change may
be accomplished through redesignation from to
For other properties (identify on map), the current
plan designation will remain, but the maximum number of
units permitted in the zone under the zoning ordinance
will be increased. [Provide greater detail on the
proposed changes.]
3. Timetable for drafting Proposed amendments: Within 100
days following the date of this Resolution, the [city,
county] will complete the drafting of the proposed
comprehensive plan and zoning amendments and establish
a timetable for final adoption of those amendments.
Page 16 Western Bypass Study Agreement
'•,F
EXHIBIT "B": ALTERNATIVE 3
IN THE MATTER OF ENDORSEMENT )
OF THE WESTERN BYPASS STUDY ) RESOLUTION NO.
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT )
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is
conducting a Western Bypass Study to identify and resolve issues
related to accommodating major existing and future (year 2010)
state, regional, and intra-county travel needs within the project
study area; and
WHEREAS, this jurisdiction is in the Western Bypass study
area; and
WHEREAS, ODOT is conducting the Western Bypass Study in an
open, objective and expeditious manner, allowing input from all
sectors of the community; and
WHEREAS, [city, county] has executed a Western Bypass Study
Planning Coordination Agreement ("the Agreement") with ODOT, the
Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"), and other affected local
governments within the project study area; and
WHEREAS, ODOT's staff has prepared a Purpose and Need
l` Statement specifying the underlying purpose and need for the
Western Bypass Study, based upon an analysis of existing
conditions, demand forecasts, and projected transportation
deficiencies for the planning period using acknowledged
comprehensive plan map designations and zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the [city, county] to
consider endorsement of the Purpose and Need Statement as the
foundation of the continued study, following public notice and a
public hearing consistent with local public notice and hearing
requirements; and
WHEREAS, following public notice, the [city, county] held a
public hearing on , 199 , to take testimony on
and consider endorsement of the Purpose and Need Statement; and
WHEREAS, the [city, county] has considered the testimony and
the evidence on this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:
The [city, county] hereby rejects the Purpose and Need Statement
recommended by the staff of the Oregon Department of
Transportation as the foundation of the Western Bypass Study.
The [city, county] rejects the Statement because [explain why].
Page 17 Western Bypass Study Agreement
Mill
In order for the [city, county] to support the Purpose and Need
Statement, the following revisions are necessary: [identify and
explain]
F
Page 18 Western Bypass Study Agreement
r
EXHIBIT "C"
IN THE MATTER OF ENDORSEMENT )
OF FURTHER STUDY OF STRATEGIES) RESOLUTION NO.
RECOMMENDED BY JPACT AND METRO)
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is
conducting a Western Bypass Study to identify and resolve issues
related to accommodating major existing and future state,
regional, and intra-county travel needs within the project study
area; and
WHEREAS, a Purpose and Need Statement has been prepared
identifying the underlying purpose of and need for the Western
Bypass Study; and
WHEREAS, ODOT's staff has studied, developed, and refined
strategies to meet the regional westside circumferential travel
needs identified in the Purpose and Need Statement; and
WHEREAS, ODOT's staff has recommended certain reasonable
strategies for further study; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on
Transportation (JPACT) and the Metropolitan Service District
(Metro) have considered reasonable strategies for further study
as recommended by ODOT's staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED as follows:
That the [city, county] hereby endorses for further study the
reasonable strategies endorsed by JPACT and Metro for further
study.
or
That the [city, county] hereby rejects the strategies endorsed by
JPACT and Metro for further study because [explain].
Page 19 Western Bypass Study Agreement
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: April 9, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: April 4, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Initiation PREVIOUS ACTION:Approval of
of Vacation Proceedings for a Renaissance Woods II Subdivi-
Portion of SW 76th Avenue sion, Sub # 91-0002
DEPT HEAD OK ,k/ PREPARED BY: Community Develop
CITY ADMIN OK 'k~ -ment Director
c - REQUESTED BY: Staff & Property
Owners
POLICY ISSUE
Should the Council initiate proceedings for the proposed vacation
of a portion of SW 76th Avenue, calling for a formal review and
setting a date for a public hearing?
Resolution No. 85-30 outlines City policy towards Council initiated
vacations. That policy generally states that Council will initiate
vacations if petition requirements would present the vacation
applicant with undue delay and/or if the vacation appears to be in
the public interest. Both conditions exist with this particular
request.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
John and Naomi Loewer, the owners of the property upon which the
proposed vacation exists, have requested that a portion of SW 76th
Avenue near the Renaissance Woods subdivision be vacated. The
portion of SW 76th Avenue proposed for vacation is located at the
south end of the Renaissance Woods subdivision and is not aligned
with the existing SW 76th Avenue which runs through Renaissance
Woods.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the attached resolution initiating vacation proceedings
and calling for a public hearing on May 214: 1991.
2. Take no action at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
Vacation of this right-of-way would have no fiscal impact because
a new right-of-way that aligns with the existing SW 76th Avenue
will established with development of Renaissance Woods II.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends Council initiate vacation proceedings by adopting
the attached resolution.
MAP
r v,
-MOON ~A MANCHA
1••sAOO'
t R~
h S.W. OENr{ u► .
to
~'~OO a
S. W. ROSS StR
a d
W KENTOR
prop KAB~E LN,
gw, ASHFORD St. eds
o ~ s
s
x
m St SM. ASHFORD ST, r /.w • t;11 bt G ~ 3V•1
SHF RD
J > r y subdivi ' rh-
os
a i THE St' P r N
x co l AN ti
sw. '
s NuacH►►.+.
~ U1 a s Q O N
co St. '
~ W 1 9oNd ,
80NAVENT~
PATT► N
~N.
r
:t. OUR"
2 .
4t S~
u
C
MONO
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
I `•I O Y~4'ir ~ CciiZ. C°~ L ~G~~~'~ !~i : ~./.L
RECEIVED PLANNING
APR Z 1991,
3
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM C7~
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: -March-216-,--199-1- DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Hedrick Annexa 'on PREVIOUS ACTION: None
(ZCA 91-03)
PREPARED BY; John Acker
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary
Commission a request for annexation of an approximately .7 acre parcel located south of
Spruce Street and west of 78th Avenue?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This annexation request consists of one parcel of approximately .7 acres that is contiguous E
to the City of Tigard. This area is located within Tigard's Area of Interest. The property
owner requests annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer service. Attached is a
resolution to forward the annexation request and an ordinance to change the zone designation
from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5 in conformance with the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. Also attached
is a vicinity map, site map and staff report.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary
" Commission and to assign plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Deny the proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT
Since this area is not within Tigard's Active Planning Area, the applicant will pay the
Boundary Commission fee of $120 for annexation of less than one acre.
The current land assessment is $38,520. No significant fiscal impact is expected until
development occurs. The development potential for this parcel is minor and when it occurs,
there will be very minor attendant demands for service. A more precise analysis requires
development details not available at this time. Possible impacts resulting from the property
tax limitation have not been determined.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the Boundary
Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
}
aO•
HALL TAY®~g FERRY
- RLV0 ,
-K-
1.O~ST ST:
Hk`Y. m
SGNO~~ ST. 1'5
7 0AKipTA GREE~y ¢
a c10RT BOG ~'i~.
O
3 s S7~
civic
- ~ wALt1U v
' - N 'Q~ l„O I sT' a
~r.00 gON~T~ Rp. us
GAAROE ST ac
W
Z
6Ut-~-
MOUNTA%N ¢p•
ft
p11RH~M `
O~tiF .
g9
W
`pOA Ica
"j r~,j ' sw
..i ~ z Sr
~[s FCRK't ~ `o 1 Si RCFT sSM1
cNESTNUF
n& e ~ ~ YY~hhVVV
oL yp~ ~ V : Sr,
W , w
> 4
tt T_Y
STREET yr." i c S7gEET 1 ~O
X gONOERS J HEMLOCK 1 }
a SXREfT O STREET
~ t
IENYAI.N Sr ~ 1 s
l A~TNOAU ~
S O Sy 1 - ~5.~~
STREET ' 26 Z5
CORAL, 35 36
i r t
i Le „USX ~STREET,r- l
n.-~.
L
rApcEi
S w.
s r.
y Yl,f4ELEAf ST - pAK
r y N / ~ FREE 1
N h sr ' t 1 n
„ ~ ~ PtNC r , 1"~{J _ 1
OAK 57. 4 1
t' t
r. Sw w .
1 SPRU4E ~ i
H
t
S.~ a Sr 4 ;IE4E
P
M _ S7 }
V G\4 /
m STREET = r ,t
r ' QP
Z Sw
U W /
n • o Oa~v
ouvblE 37 REST
a \ sr
\w ` t 7 J
W I
f 1
Sr iARUC7. ti i Y ~
+i 9e c
y ~ }
a 35 36
# S.t J Np 2 PARK slow
w ~ pC
f ♦ ~ }M
cog* 99
/f
at
gyp. a~ t~+4 e}
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
{ RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (ZCA 91-03)
(HEDRICK)
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Tigard held a public hearing on March
26, 1991 to consider the annexation of one parcel consisting of approximately .7
acres located south of S.W. Spruce Street and west of S.W. 78th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, ORS 199.490(1)(a) gives the governing body the authority to initiate a
minor boundary change by adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a "minor boundary change" under
Boundary Commission Law 199.410 to 199.534.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The City Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490(1)(a) hereby initiates
proceedings for annexation of the territory described in exhibit "A"
and outlined in exhibit "B" to the City of Tigard.
Section 2: The City Council hereby approves the proposed annexation and
requests the Boundary Commission to approve and effect it as soon as
possible.
Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the
resolution with the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government
Boundary Commission at once.
PASSED: This day of , 1991.
ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard
City Recorder - City of Tigard
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Recorder
Date
l
S
( EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel I: Block G, Metzger Acre Tracts, Washington County, Oregon
including that portion of the public right-of-way beginning at the
northwest corner of Block G and commencing north by the extension
of the northerly line of Block G to the westerly extension of the
northerly line of Spruce Street (public right-of-way); thence east
along said northerly right-of-way line to the northerly_extension
of the easterly line of Block G; thence south to the northeast
corner of Block G; thence east along the northerly boundary of Lots
Block G, Metzger Acre Tracts to the point of beginning.
Parcel II: A portion of Section, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of
Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon-more particularly
described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of
the George Richardson D.L.C. #55, which point is 19.52 chains East
of the Northwest corner of said claim; thence South zero degrees
seventeen minutes West 337.7 feet to the Northwest corner of
Friendly Acres, a duly recorded plat in Washington County, Oregon;
thence North seventy-seven degrees thirty-eight minutes East 328.72
feet along the North line of said Friendly Acres to the Northeast
corner thereof; thence North zero degree seventeen minutes East
262 feet to a point on the North line of said Richardson D.L.C.
320.76 feet to the point of beginning as recorded in Book 650 Page
255 in Washington County, Oregon.
t
EXHIBIT B
NE 1/4SW 1/4 SECTION
O WASHINGTON COUN
3 Q SCALE 1-
SEE MAF
0 SW
82 4529 85
2100 2008 5700
CDR 2/Ac.
5600
/
r r °
JR _
_
1. serf . 36Ac. $
7 O
8/479
TRACT
A C f
NOd~T f UNL' GEQ e.. RI RDSON
i%OINT 316 ZO.
W ' 2000 STORM DETENTION &
2207 2206 2205 V~ o, 2204 a 21Ac. y'
1 -
r~ 8 Qt., loo PARK
^ Nj 2
.2 t 7 6 5 9'w 5500
83.06 n
m
z ; 2007 no
O n 4 h
5.p0 w9 2 203 A .38Ac. 8
° 70.00 37.07
N89 4 W O $ 3 1
70SAtO.L.~HORN STREET'\ $ 121.06 2009
:8.36 Ac.
997/227 3 : C.R. N0.2275 S84
°
12537 °i ° 2202
2208 10 s~ N 137.79 ° 41i
2
,/r o 8 0 D N89° 45'w 2006 ?V
S ~ ° y 135.37
135.37 to 2201 .24 Ac. S89043'E
a -
a
18
2209 °O = m r 1 s89043'E 2003
9 OX
°o~ r~ ~ 1.Sgt4 200P
4700
~ J
1*91 Nn. co AO d p p ? 1 t~ .0
2102300 ~A fll 0 400
26 oac'
4600 20.02
135.37
•i
2400
S o = \IS 1` 2 - g to
25 4500 CY
- LO A 2 500
2500
3
4800
3
24 4400 0 0 ' o
A 1' 7 137.79
i~ 13770 3 600
A f••
.23 4300 4900 0
.E MAP 2700
N r A 'p 9
p
IS136C6 - n o 5 4
z
22 rc 4201 m 7 0 2
U -
2800 t~7 13627 ~./9Ac. A -
5000 N
n L 1 >n
r` 1' i _ - - - O' / n 132.69
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91-
03) (HEDRICK) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has recieved a request for annexation signed by Evelyn and
David Hedrick, who own the subject parcel; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on March 26, 1991 to consider the
annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 1991 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding the
annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designations recommended by the planning staff as
set forth in Section 1 below are those which most closely conforms to the
Washington County zoning designation as provided in the Washington County -Tigard
Urban Planning Area Agreement.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is
consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Tax Map/Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
2S1 36 CA / 2100 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5
current Plan Designation Proposed Plan Designation
Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard Low Density Residential
Section 2: The property meets the definition for a developing area as
defined in Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code and
shall be designated as such on the development standards'area
map.
Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the
annexation final order with the office of the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this day of
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1991.
Gerald R, Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
' STAFF REPORT
MARCH 26, 1991
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS:
CASE: Zone Change Annexation 91-03
REQUEST: To annex approximately .7 acre of unincorporated Washington
County into the City of Tigard, and for zone change from
Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units per acre) to city
of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Washington County Residential, 5
units per acre.
ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-5 (Residential, 5 units per
acre).
APPLICANT: Evelyn and David Hedrick
7970 S.W. Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 97223
OWNER: Same
LOCATION: South of S.W. Spruce Street and west of S.W. 78th Street, WCTM
1S1 36 CA lot 2100.
2. Background Information
No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to
this property.
3. Vicinity Information
To the north is a large undeveloped parcel in Washington County.
West of the site is also in Washington County and developed as
single family residences on large lots. East and south of the site
are single family residences within the City of Tigard. Properties
to the north and west are zoned Washington County R-5 (Residential,
5 units per acre); properties to the east and south are zoned Tigard
R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre).
S.W. Spruce Street is an unimproved right-of-way along the parcel
frontage, west of S.W. 78th. Access to the site is by S.W. 80th
which is gravel south of S.W. Pine Street and terminates into the
unimproved Spruce Street right-of-way near the residence on the
( subject property.
ZCA 91-03 Staff Report 1
r
4. Site Information and ProUOSal Description
The property to be annexed has one residence, a garage and two out-
buildings. The eastern portion of the property is undeveloped and
vegitated by deciduous trees and shrubs. The property slopes to the
south with a small creek flowing from a culvert underneath the
terminus of improved Spruce Street through the southeast portion of
the subject property.
Access to the site is by S.W. 80th. S.W. 80th is gravel south of
S.W. Pine Street and terminates into the unimproved Spruce Street
right-of-way near the residence on the subject property.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
Portland General Electric, Tigard School District 23J, Tualatin
Valley Fire and Rescue, General Telephone the Tigard Building
Division and the Tigard Police Bureau have reviewed the proposal and
offer no objections or comments.
The Metzger Water District comments that any future development of
this property would require an extension of water lines to serve the
area but there is adequate water available.
The Tigard Engineering Department comments that the annexation
should include all of the right-of-way on Spruce Street.
CPO 4, Metzger, has reviewed the proposal and comments that there is
concern on access to the property via Spruce Street which presently
is not improved in this area. Additional concern exists about
possible degradation of Ash Brook. A resolution was adoption by the
CPO requesting that an environmental impact study of the area be
done prior to consideration on the annexation request (a copy of the
resolution and staff response is attached).
The City also received a statement expressing concern about "the
natural brook habitat" and the potential of through traffic in the
area. The 32 signatories of this statement request that the request
for annexation not be granted (statement attached).
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies
2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.4.1, Developed/Developing Areas; 10.1.1,
Service Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and chapters
18.136, Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area
Classification of the Tigard Community Development Code. The planning
staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant
portions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted
below:
1. ZCA 91-03 Staff Report 2
1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning
Organization and Community Planning organization as well as
surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an
opportunity to comment on the request.
i
2. Plan Policy 6.4.1 is satisfied because the annexation will be
designated as a developing area on the development standards map.
This designation will allow the use of planned development
techniques which are better suited for preserving natural amenities
such as those found on the subject property.
3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the
Metzger Urban Services Study which includes the subject property.
This study as well as the comments from the Police Department,
Engineering Department and other service agencies indicate that
adequate services are available in the vicinity and may be extended
to accommodate the subject property.
4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation will not
create an irregular City boundary, the police Department has been
notified of this request, the land is located within Tigard's Area
of Interest, and adequate service capacities can be made available
to accommodate the eventual development of the property as noted
above.
The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the
relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the
findings noted below;
1. Section 18.136.030 of the code is met because all facilities and
services can be made available, the applicable Comprehensive Plan
policies discussed above have been satisfied and the property has
been determined to be a developing area in accordance with the
criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code.
The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington
County requires that when annexing land within the City's area of
interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely
resembles the County plan and zone designation. In this case, the
property is designated in the Metzger-Progress Community Plan for
single family residential use with a minimum lot size of 7,000
square feet and a maximum density of six units per acre. The City
R-4.5 zone with a minimum lot size requirement of 7,500 square feet
and maximum density of four and one-half units per acre is the most
similar to the present county designation.
2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the property meets
the definition for a developing area and shall be designated as such
on the development standards area-map.
ZCA 91-03 Staff Report 3
s
r
C. RECOMMENDATION f
Based upon the findings and the conclusions noted above, the planning f
staff recommends approval of ZCA 91-03, subject to the following
condition:
1. The property shall be designated as a developing area on the
development standards map.
PREPARED BY:
John Acker, Associate Planner
C ZCA 91-03 Staff Report 4
CPO 4 Metzger
Pat Whiting, Chair
John Blomgren, Vice-Chair
March 1, 1991
City of Tigard Planning Dept.
John Acker, Planner
PO Box 23397 r ;
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Acker:
Re: Item #ZCA 91-0003
CPO 4 Metzger discussed the above noted request for zone change
annexation at its February 28th meeting. We thank you for allowing
us time to respond to this application.
Our larger map of the area, which also includes the course of
Ash Brook, reveals problems perhaps not apparent on your smaller map
attached to the comment form.
CPO 4 Metzger has concern about urban service availability to
this property. Current fire, police, and road service is via S.W.
80th from S.W. Pine in Washington County. As S.W. Spruce does not
go through to S.W. 78th from the west, if the property is annexed
into the City, is the City going to pay the cost of putting the road-
through in order to access the property from the Tigard area? In
addition should the cost of accessibility and bringing the road up
to standard be a condition of the annexation on the part of
the applicant? Should not the applicant also be responsible for a
hydrological study to insure negligible downstream impacts on Ash
Brook?
The following resolution was adopted:
Those present at the February 28, 1991 meeting of CPO 4
Metzger expressed strong concern for potential degradation
of wetlands of Ash Brook, tributary of Ash Creek,
associated with the proposed annexation of property
located at 79th Ave. and Spruce St. - ZCA 91-0003, in the
Metzger Community. CPO 4 requests that an environmental
impact study of the area be done prior to consideration of
the annexation request.
We are requesting that you enter our resolution into your
record in analysing this application. Thank you again for giving us
time to respond to this application.
Respe~ t ul Y., Lr
7'G1 ~
Pat Whiting, Ohair
John Blomgren, Vice-Chair
ante Trac
nvi onmen al Liason
`y
March 13, 1991
CITY OF TIGa ®
Ms. Pat Whiting OREGON
CPO #4 Chair
8122 S.W. Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 87223
RE: ZCA 91-0003 _
Ms. Whiting:
Thank you for your response to the City's request for comments concerning a
proposed annexation of property located at 7970 S.W. Spruce Street. In-your
letter dated March'l, 1991, you stated several concerns CPO #4 has with respect
to this proposed annexation. As I understand-your letter, there are concerns
about: 1) the accessibility of the property to be annexed via Spruce Street and;
2) the integrity of a stream (Ash Brook), particularly downstream from the
property to be annexed.
In answer to your concerns, I can say that those are, and will be, issues to be
resolved if this property ever is developed further. As part of the City's
development process, access as well as environmental impacts will be assessed
prior to approval of further development. However, annexation does not result
in environmental damage nor does it necessitate additional access. Service
providers including Metzger Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and
the Tigard Police Department have provided no comments in opposition to the
proposed annexation.
Under present standards, if a development proposal for this property is submitted
to the City after annexation, notification will be sent to property owners within
250 feet of the site, NPO #8 and CPO #4 will be notified. At that time comments
can be submitted with respect to your concerns.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. If I can be of further assistance,
please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerel
n Acker
Associate Planner
1
13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397, Tigard Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
February 22, 1991
Regarding; Proposed Zone Change Annexation - ZCA 91-0003
As residents and hareouners in the Metzger Con nity of Washington
County oho reside in the neighborhood where the application for this
requested zone change is proposed, we the undersigned are concerned
about the natural brook habitat on the .7 acre betieen SW 78 and SW 80
on Spruce. The applicant at 7970 SW Spruce is'requesting a zone change .
because of a request for sewer hook-up.
SW 78 to the north on Spruce (southside of street) is in Tigard.
Spruce to the west to SW 80 is in Washington County and is a natural
area with no through access. We in the surrounding neighborhood do
not want rmre traffic in the residential area and »e_are:conoerned'about
the retention of the brook waterway which flows to Ashbrook. We
request that this application not be granted:
. - NAP ( written) : NAME (printed).: AMRESS: ZIP
lac. Dcw,v/l-lull
"A 10LUYU Oin virgiol< uVogn 1~11615W Sprt4ce `t7ao1j
/j~,✓/FAW;lsoa/ 8270 5W.SpraCe lrr72~d
' Gf)-2.Y G+~3ck-12, `~'2~SiLV.S~prcC~ ~>zL.:
~ /''Iar1.~ t7.f}n~a~v"T~~S-i2 sw~• ru~c.Yi7~3
~ !oc'~Lr,. y~MgN'lNic Dill ~ ~55~U ~ u' u %'/J7z
fr!/~c( /'l;c.~t.c~.r. Traf gS/S.5a Sf7i'rrec `I'7ZZ"
v/,Yl~z'~u,.u-"'"~s,~~ /~{~.tZ.L~ ~l~uKr1Kk(~ $4/d~ Su-• ~17~~~c'
j~uut^c! ~ev Z~Cct~i 83G~ Sul SF!',(,ce 5~. y7ZZ 3
7s,
dJCYtiq ~ct.c(arl.rrrrcC DO..ISOh~C(E-ewcoc{ 1072 u S W S'0 C'(0'7.23:
~ t llw;-d nu 5 w sp-ve, •bf %1123 ;
1, l/ J~ti/2,, (.VilGa~r•.s~m ~`3/~ S.cV S~rvc~ ~r~az~
~U~~s
y (Ai c.Q l-tJ 4 x,.j 9/2Z -!RV. s~uu ce ~ y 72'
,'s > SCE r,Q17e S; leY S SlJs 0'
t u/ a-_j~ i ~~'rni ~JHn!iC/~~ S:TN?NToti It~az~.~cC.~~~~p
4`44:'i4~`4•.ti /:I_"~,Y/'` Y\.„ l Jo7EP17 •I~.S(KI•~C ^ rJ12S Ir
3W'S C
,~~ir`rt/✓✓1~ ~~imru~ (/~'.yc. d r✓ffi2N NC ; : c ":'S rJ'u ..r'
C/E11YIt(C)' LkhI bX nu~w1(GiLcax to6~sS.t4.8ot(~ Porn. gRaG3
fY-z*~, •~a eP N 1 , b.. ~r-f G " i, dw it y 40 5. ki i?'~. ,.r.
~.`.J`'e G\~~yN,~ z:,li;r•~ SuJPNP 97v2~3
rniit1v)~E rtErAV' '383 S k,`
~tlQ~ (nit rnidt-
~ ► c~~lil df IW5 Sul SProa_, P001011d Dr4 97?.P3
9 7 2
'2 3
L';;;(,, ~ ~ • ✓,s~'" ~6/.~_ ..sue-~~~,1'G5 9?2z~
7 4 35 ScJ
O 76757- j~raCc ~ari•~e~~ °f).t2.3
7775` -5,/J So~ucle
~a / `t 7ZZj
Council Agenda Item
r
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
DATE: April 2, 1991
SUBJECT: Sherwood Inn Sign Code Exception Appeal
The attached material for the Sherwood Sign Code Exception Appeal
is carried forward from the March 12, 1991 meeting.
C
JA
u
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable M for and City Council
FROM: Cathy WheatlMy,ity Recorder
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 5 - March 12, 1991 Council Meeting
Sherwood Inn Sign Code Exception Appeal
During a review of the photocopied packet material sent to you for
the Sherwood Sign Appeal, we discovered that the material was not
in a suitable order for your study. The enclosed packet has been
arranged differently (no new material has been added). I apologize
for the last minute delivery of the materials. I hope this new
packet will better assist you as you deliberate on this issue.
To further assist, I have numbered the pages and prepared a Table
of Contents as follows:
Pa a Title of Document
1 Council Agenda Item Summary
3 Title Page: Issue One - Applicability of Amortization
Requirements
4 Memo: To Pat Reilly From Ed Murphy Dated 3/6/91
6 Memo: To Tigard City Council from City Attorney Dated
3/6/91
8 Letter: To Pat Reilly from Hal Hewitt dated 2/12/91
9 Letter: To Marko A. Susnjara of Sherwood Inn from Jerald
M. Powell of City of Tigard dated 9/12/75
11 Letter: To City Council from Marko A. Susnjara dated
1/31/91
12 Letter: To Planning Department from Hal Hewitt dated
1/28/91
14 Letter: To Hal Hewitt from Keith Liden dated 1/25/91
15 Staff Report: Final Action, Tigard Planning Department
dated 5/5/81
17 Letter: To Keith Liden from Ian K. Whitlock (attorney
for Chevron USA) dated 5/16/90
19 Letter: To Keith Liden from Michael P. Gunn (attorney
for Sherwood Inn) dated 5/11/90
21 Memo: To Keith Liden from Ken Fox dated 4/5/90
25 Sign Code Ordinance 71-5 (excerpts)
28 Minutes: Tigard Planning Commission - 1/20/76
Page 2
Memo/Table of Contents
Sherwood Inn Sign Code Exception Appeal
Council Agenda Item 5 - 3/12/91
Pa a Title of Document
30 Ordinance No. 77-89
38 Ordinance No. 78-16
41 Letter: To Marko Susnjara from William A. Monahan dated
2/29/84
42 Letter: To Diana L. Giles of Sherwood Inn from Deborah
Stuart of Tigard Planning Staff dated 2/17/88
43 Letter: To Joanne Gaglio of Spectrum Development Corp.
from Keith Liden dated 3/24/88
44 Voluntary Compliance Agreement to Joanne Gaglio from City
of Tigard (unsigned)
45 Letter: To Keith Liden from Ian K. Whitlock (attorney)
dated 12/20/89
51 Letter: To Dave Alexander of Spectrum Development
Company from Deborah A. Stuart dated 7/14/89
52 Letter: To Debra Stuart from Dave Alexander dated
4/12/88
54 Letter: To Spectrum Development Corp. from Keith Liden
dated 2/19/88
( 56 Letter: To Joanne Gaglio of Spectrum Development Corp.
from Keith Liden dated 3/24/88
57 Letter: To Marko Susnjara from William A. Monahan dated
2/29/84
58 Letter: To Marko Susnjara from Jerald M. Powell of City
of Tigard Planning Staff dated 1/27/76
59 Letter: To City of Tigard from Marko A. Susnjara dated
1/7/76
60 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 1/20/76
(excerpt)
61 Staff Report - Tigard Planning Commission 1/20/76
63 Letter: To Marko A. Susnjara from Jerald M. Powell
(Tigard Planning Staff) dated 9/12/75
65 Title Page: Issue Two Sign Code Exception and
Variance
66 Proposed Resolution
67 Final Order - Planning Commission - No. 90-25 PC
74 Letter: To City Council from Marko A. Susnjara dated
1/31/91
75 Appeal Form
76 Letter: To City Planning Commission from Hal Hewitt
dated 8/1/90
77 Supporting Statement - Sign Code Exception - July 1990
82 Maps
85 Copy of Aerial Photo
86 Planning Commission Minutes - October 16, 1990 (excerpts)
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM No- _5
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 3/12/91 DATE SUBMITTED: 2/28/91
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sign Code PREVIOUS ACTION: Council !
Exception SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27 decision to continue for fur-
appeal for Sherwood Inn her consideration
REPARED BY: Jer Offe
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK/ REQUESTED BY: Ed ..MurrMy
POLICY I SUES
1. Is a variance to allow an over-sized, over-height sign issued
by the Planning Commission in 1976 still valid, or have
subsequent changes to the sign regulations and the
amortization period specifically authorized by those changes
invalidated the earlier variance and again made the signs non-
conforming? Can the City now require that the signs be
brought into compliance with current regulations?
2. Through the sign code exception and variance process, should
the property owner now be allowed more freestanding signs and
sign area than permitted by the Community Development Code?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff and the City Attorney's office advise that the previously
granted variance does not continue to have effect and therefore the
City does have the authority to require the signs on the Sherwood
Inn site to be brought into conformance with the current sign
regulations. The attached memo from Ed Murphy to Pat Reilly, along
with supporting documents, explains the staff's position.
Sherwood Inn's sign code exception and variance application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 16, 1990. The
Commission determined that the proposal was not consistent with
Community Development Code criteria for granting a sign variance.
The Commission did approve a sign code exception that would 1)
require the removal of the two nonconforming signs and 2) allow one
freeway oriented sign with a maximum area of 200 square feet and
height of 50 feet. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed
to the City Council.
The City Council reviewed the matter on December 10, 1990 and
January 22, 1991. The Council continued the hearing to consider
alternative solutions to the issue. The applicant has submitted a
proposal to 1) remove the "Sherwood Inn" sign on the structure
shared with Chevron and 2) substitute the "Motel" portion of the
larger sign with a "Best Western - Sherwood Inn" message. This
proposed sign would remain 65 feet in height and would be
approximately the same size (1,180 sq. ft. existing/1,194 sq. ft.
proposed) but the total sign area on the property would be reduced
by approximately 334 square feet per side. The applicant plans to
provide justification for this compromise at the hearing.
Agenda Item 5
Page
Without the benefit of the applicant's justification, the staff
continues to recommend adopting the attached resolution upholding
the Planning Commission's decision, Final Order 90-25 PC.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached resolution
2. Modify and approve the attached resolution
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached resolution
SCE90-05.SUM/kl
J.
( Agenda Item 5
Plge a r
- }~SJ{,~'1/~1~V/{ABE PACWESTCENTER, SUITES 1600-1950
V\/1LppJT1L~117V SOON 1211 SOUTHWESTFWTHAVENUE-PORTLAND,OREGON97204,3795
r V 0 / YAl 1 TELEPHONE: 503 222-9981 • FAX: 503 796-2900 • TELEX: 4937535 SWK UI
\ ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STEVEN W. ABEL
March 12, 1991
City of Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall
P. O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Exception SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27/Sherwood Inn
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
This letter is written to request that the above matter be
set over for a period of approximately 30 days. The applicant
hired me as counsel yesterday and I have not had an adequate
opportunity to review this matter. In addition, it is my under-
standing that Mr. Ferryman, the principal of the applicant, is out
( of town on the evening of the hearing.
Finally, I understand that notice of this hearing was only
delivered by telephone. It may well be that such notice of a
hearing is inadequate. I believe a set over would be advisable in
order to allow the applicant time to prepare as well as to make
sure that there are no notice issues with respect to the hearing.
Ver truly yours,
teven W. Abel
SWA/bk .
(22468)
cc: Mr. Hal Hewitt
post-It- brand fax transmittal memo 7671 o of pages ►
To Fro
~
Co. Co.
Dept. Pho N
Fax M Fax
t
PORTLAND SEATTLE VANCOUVER WASIINGTON
OREGON ■ WASHINGTON ■ WASHINGTON • DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA
503 222-9981 206621-9168 206 694-7551 202 785-5960
08 .i 16:42 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD lill 001
ACTIVITY REPORT
TRANSMISSION OK
TRANSACTION # 9905
CONNECTION TEL 7962900
CONNECTION ID 03
START TIME 03/12 16:41
USAGE TIME 00'41
PAGES 1
CITY OF TIG D
OREGON
March 12, 1991
Mr. Steven W. Abel
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
Pacwest Center, Suites 1600-1950
1211 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-3795
Re: Exception SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27/Sherwood Inn
Dear Mr. Abel:
Please be advised that the hearing for the above-referenced issue
has been set over to April 9, 1991, 7:30 p.m. The hearing will be
held in the Town Hall at the City Hall building, 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The set over of this hearing is in
response to the request for a delay as outlined in your March 12,
1991 letter to the Tigard City Council.
If you have any questions or need further information, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
sincerely, ~1 G(/
Catherine Wheatley
City Recorder
c: Ed Murphy, City of Tigard
Hal Hewitt
cwc312
SQ, i`t -hD /YO. & be ( b?
Fp,K 310 14 r - 0
Cc,LS u
~y~-, G~ i C ~~l
r
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
03/12/91 15:45 V503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD C~ 001
ACTIVITY REPORT
RECEPTION OK
TRANSACTION # 9900
CONNECTION TEL
CONNECTION ID G3
START TIME 03/12 15:43
USAGE TIME 01'39
PAGES 2
MAR-12-'91 15:44 ID:SCHWAHE-WILLIAMSON TEL NO:503-796-2900 #366 P01 ~
8CHWABS, WILLIAMBON a WYATT
Attorneys At Law
Pacweat center, Suites 1600-1900
r 1211 sW Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204-3795
(503) 222-9981
Date t March 12 , 1991 TELROOPY TRANOXZTTAL
iplppNNllpppl~ilNil~i~'NNiiplplllilpifpf~ippNpplNpldplllplplplilillllil9ppilfll~NpplpplNiNN1?"NN~ii(?"aliN?pi?N!Nl'~fl?phhh?IfN??IINI.iIINIpNip?p??p?ppl?Ip>I??Npl?pl'JNNp(IippipppplpN?Nlpfll?p;IlUlippNlpNIIpNIINNiNNNINNp1tl1N?pN1~NNI~NpIIIppEl,~1
TO : Ed Murphy
OOMPANY s CITY OF TIOMW
TXLXCOPY NUMBER t 684-7297
BQBINS®® NUMBER i 639-4171
FROM s Steven W. Abel
COMMZN1'S s Exception SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27/Sherwood Inn
CONFIDENTIALITY OI~T TIC8
This facsimile transmission (and/or documents accompanying it) may
contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclos-
ure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
telephone to arrange for return of the documents.
NI1 + I"u;pp i~ N ilN;illilil'ul~~Ipliipil~i N p N ' fN N N? Il~iI116~IpNNppilplp~ plpiNl N WIN111 11TllpppNMMNNNGiINNppll!I
Please Notify the Recipient X=061at*ly
If you do not receive all of the pages indicated, please call
us as soon as possible at (503) 796-2410. Our telecopier
number is (503) 796-2900 (Omnifax 95, Group 111) (24 hours).
Thank you, Telecopy Operator
Number of pages (including this sheet): 2
Time of Transmittal: *Jffj_ a.m.
Our Account: 11111 22222
i
MAR-12-'91 15:45 IU:SCHWABE-WILLIAMSON TEL NO:503-796-2900 #366 P02
S L BE FA WebTMMYA, SUM 3600.1050
WW 13i19ULf1'F1WE9T'R3F1ifAVENUE oFORLI.ANA,OAEC,ON97tOll799
1E UguONE: 609 2Z9-9M ° FAX: 003 y9&2 *7RLXX: A987S93 OWK M
AtTGRN6YG AT SAW
SISM3NVKAWL
March 12, 1991
City of Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall
P. O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Rzt zxception SCE 9o-05/VAR 90-27/Sherwood Inn
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
This letter is written to request that the above matter be
set over for a period of approximately 30 days. The applicant
hired me as counsel yesterday and I have not had an adequate
opportunity to review this matter. in addition, it is my under-
standing that Mr, Ferryman, the principal of the applicant, is out
of town on the evening of the hearing.
Finally, I understand that notice of this hearing was only
delivered by telephone. It may well be that such notice of a
hearing is inadequate. I believe a set over would be advisable in
order to allow the applicant time to prepare as well as to make
sure that there are no notice issues with respect to the hearing.
Ve truly yours,
Aee W. el
SWA/bk
(22468) SO-
cc: Mr. Hal Hewitt f FORItAND SCATME WNWUVBR tie"HVjGroe
? OWWON WASMOMN a WA6MOMN • DISTIUCPOFOOLUMHIA
503 222.8981 200621-9166 200 86H991 202 786.9960
C TIMELINE
RE: SHERWOOD INN FREESTANDING SIGNS
1. Signs first erected in 1968.
2. 1971 - Sign Code-Section 303 (Commercial Signs)
Freestanding Signs: Height limit - 45 feet
Area limit - 750 square feet/face = 1500 square feet total
3. September 12, 1975 - Jerry Powell's letter.
4. January 7, 1976 - letter requesting a Variance hearing.
5. January 15, 1976 - Sherwood Inn site annexed into the City.
6. January 20, 1976 - Planning Commission approved the Variance
SCA 2.76 (Sign Alteration).
October 10, 1977 - City Council amended Sign Code Ordinance
(ORD 77-89). Section 16.36.040(4)(1) amended as follows:
Sign height limit - 16 feet
Area limit - 26 square feet/face = 52 square feet total
8. March 20, 1978 - City Council approved the ten (10) year sign
amortization program (3-20-78 to 3-20-88).
9. February 17, 1988 - Deborah Stewart's letter.
10. November, 1989 - Sherwood Inn applied for a Site Development
Review (SDR 89-23) and Variance (Var 89-40). Approval was
granted with conditions.
11. August 7, 1990 - Sherwood Inn applied for Sign Code Exception
(SCE 90-05) and Variance (VAR 90-27). Planning Commission
denied the Variance and approved the Sign Code Exception.
Issur. o
f plIOR
SIGN coorm
AND VAVGAIIC4
Agenda Item 5
Page U 5
Moons-
Now
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 917
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A P'",NNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE
A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION APP"j.CATIgN AND fiW A VARIANCE APPLICATION
(SCE 90-05/VAR 90-27) PROPOSED B~ SHERWOOD INN (H. E. FERRYMAN).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the case at its meeting
of October 16, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Commission denied the variance request and approved a
sign code exception subject to conditions (Final Order No. 90-25
PC); and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council at its meetings
of December 10, 1990, January 22, 1991, and March 12 1991 upon the
appeal of the applicant; and i~pr-; L A
WHEREAS, the Council has 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, conclusions, and conditions of approval noted in Exhibit
"A" (Planning Commission Final Order No. 90-25 PC).
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, 1991.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Tigard City Recorder
SCE 90-05.RES/kl
RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 1
Agenda Item 5
Page
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER NO_ 90-25 PC
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION
FOR A SIGN CODE VARIANCE (VAR 90-0027) AND APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN
CODE EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY H. E. FERRYMAN (SHERWOOD INN).
The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at a public
hearing on October 16, 1990. The Commission has based its decision on the
facts, findings, and conclusions noted below.
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASE: Sign Code Exception SCS 9a--0005, Variance V 90-0027
REQUEST: Request to allow two.freeway oriented freestanding signs
where only one sign is permitted. Also requested is approval
to retain one sign of approximately 1,180 square feet per sign
face with a height of approximately 65 feet and a second sign
of approximately 698 square feet per sign face with a height
of approximately 69.75 feet where the Code specifies a maximum
allowable sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and a
maximum allowable height of 35 feet.
APPLICANT: Greenhill Assoc., Ltd.
Hal Hewitt
9999 SW Wilshire
Portland, OR 97225
OWNER:. H. E. Ferryman
9106 NE Highway 99
Vancouver, WA 98665
LOCATION: 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD Tax lots
100, 900, and 1100)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General
ZONING DESIGNATION.- C-G (Commercial General)
2. Background Information
The existing Sherwood inn motel and restaurant were constructed prior
to annexation of the subject site and adjoining properties in 1976.
Also in 1976, the City Planning Commission approved a Variance to allow
the continued use of the existing signs that exceeded the City's size
requirements- In 1977, the city amended the sign code to reduce the
FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 1
Exhibi t a
. Agenda Item 5
Page C,97
_ f
t-
maximum sizes permitted and in 1978, a new 10 year sign amortization -
period was begun for those signs which did not conform with the new
standards. The property owner was notified in 1988 that the two freeway
oriented signs advertising Sherwood Inn and restaurant where were
subject to the City's sign amortization program and that the signs would
have to be brought into conformity with the sign code or a sign Code
Exception or Variance would have to be granted by the City in order to
retain the use of these signs.
Site Development Review SDR 12-81 approved expansion of the parking
area in 1981. In March, 1990, the Planning Director granted Site
Development Review approval (SDR 89-23/V 89--40) to expand the existing -
motel. One condition of approval required the resolution of the
pending sign issue.
Also in March, Ken Fox of the City Attorney's office responded to the
issue of the sign Variance granted by the City and its relationship to
the following amendments of the City's sign code. Mr. Fox concluded
that after the Variance was granted, the signs were regarded to be
conformity with the code. However, after the City standards were
amended to be more restrictive, they became nonconforming signs as did
all,other legal signs which did not.meet the new standards.
2. Vicinity Information
The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the
int~pxsection of I-5 and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. Two service
stations flank the driveway from SW Upper Boones Ferry Road to the
Sherwood Inn. " The service station properties are also zoned C-G.
Properties to the north and west of the site are zoned I-P (Industrial
park). The Pacific corporate center subdivision is currently under
development to the north across SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. The
subdivision is presently vacant except for two buildings under
construction along SW 72nd Avenue. The property to the west is part of
the Oregon Business Park. The parcel immediately west of the subject
site is currently developed with a children's day care center and
various industrial uses. To the south are other buildings within the
Oregon Business Park which are developed with a variety of industrial
uses and are zoned I-L'(Light Industrial). The properties to the south
and west of the site are approximately 20 to 30 feet lower in elevation
than the subject site.
3. Site Information and Proposal Description
The 2.5 acre site consists of three tax lots set back from tipper Boones
Ferry Road by approximately 130 feet. A 40 foot wide accessway located
between the neighboring service station parcels connects the Sherwood
Inn development to Upper Boones Ferry Road. The site abuts I-5 on the
east. A number of mature Douglas fir trees are located between the
motel and the freeway, both on the site and within the freeway's right-
of-way_ The site is approximately 20 to 30 feet higher than the
i
1 FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 2
Agenda Item 5
Page C~
t
developed portions of adjacent parcels to the west add south. The
slopes between these parcels are covered with grasses, shrubs, and
several small trees.
The subject property is presently developed with the 56 unit, three
story Sherwood Inn motel, the single story 4,200 square foot
restaurant, and paved parking for 135 autos. Access to the property is
provided by a paved driveway shared with the adjacent service stations.
The two nonconforming freestanding signs, which are the subject of this
application, are located near the property boundary of the adjacent
service station parcels.
The applicant proposes to retain the existing signs and states that it
is appropriate for the City to continue to recognize the 1976 Variance
approval. The Sherwood inn sign is part of a larger sign structure
that includes an oversize sign for the Chevron station. This
application does not apply to the Chevron sign. The Chevron
Corporation has been also notified of the sign amortization program and
the City's requirement to bring this sign into conformity with the
Code. An application from Chevron is anticipated in the near future.
4. Agency and NPO Comments
The Engineering Division, State Highway Division, and the Building
Division have no objection to the proposal.
Noeother 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 sadie 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
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;
C 4. Existing physical and natural systems, but not limited to traffic,
FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 3
Agenda Item 5
Page (oC~
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
S. 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 sign code and the sign amortization program 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 to retain the existing signs is not consistent with the
intent of the code because the applicant is requesting twice the number
and approximately 12 times 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 retention of signs this size 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 continued use of two signs with orientation towards I-5.
Vielon of the property and the existing signs from I-S is partially
obstructed, however, the request to retain the number of signs, sign
area;.and sign height is not justified in this regard.
Also, the situation of Sherwood inn and the restaurant is similar to
many other freeway oriented businesses in Tigard and Tualatin. Many
have less than perfect visibility from the freeway due to their
distance from the freeway, terrain, and trees. These businesses have
dealt with this problem by utilizing informational signs provided by
the State Department of Transportation. These blue signs indicate the
specific businesses and or services that are available at the next
exit.
Sherwood inn has the benefit of two such signs for southbound traffic.
The first is located immediately south of the Highway 217 exit and it
advertises Sherwood Inn and Chevron specifically. The second is
located near the Bonita Road overpass and it indicates that gas, food,
and lodging are available at the Upper Boones Ferry Road exit.
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
staff finds that this proposal would not maintain the Code to the extent
reasonably possible. The applicant has not shown why the lettering for
the signs cannot be reduced, subsequently allowing for a smaller sign.
4. Existing physical and natural systems would not be affected by this
FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 4
Agenda Item 5
Page -70
proposal-
5. The hardship is not self imposed because the signs in question were
erected legally and have become nonconforming and subject to the sign
amortization program due to changes in applicable sign regulations.
However, the variance is not the minimum deviation from code
requirements that would alleviate the hardship.
As an alternative to approving or denying the variance request, the Planning
Commission may consider approving a modified proposal that would be
consistent with the sign code exception criteria that are listed in section
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 wide 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 conformity 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;
- e
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
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
FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 5
Agenda Item 5
Page -71
P 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
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)
Additional sign height should be granted since visibility from I-5 to the
property and the existing signs would be obstructed if the standard maximum
height of 35 feet was required. It appears that a height of 50 feet is
necessary for a sign to be visible from both directions on I-5. As part of
this detP*-ain tion, the Commission finds that the bottom of a smaller sign will
-still be at a similar height as the existing signs with no loss of visibility
from the freeway.
•
An additional 25 percent sign area will yield a sign with 200 square feet per
face. Because of the necessary height of the sign and the distance from I-5
and Upper Boones Ferry Road; this addition is justified to make the sign more
.legible.
C. DECISION
The Planning Commission denies SCS 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 as proposed by the
applicant and approves SCE 90-0005 subject to the following conditions:
ra"r qv- ooa7 %
1. The two nonconforming signs shall be removed by January 1, 1991.
2. Prior to erecting any signs, permits shall be issued by the Planning
Division.
t
3. One freeway oriented, freestanding sign with a maximum area of 200
square feet per face and a maximum height of 50 feet shall be permitted.
STAFF CONTACT: Viola Goodwin, Planning Division, 639-4171.
FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 6
Agenda Item 5
Page 7 2
i
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 _ I day .~f October, 1990, by the Planning Commission of the City
of Tigard.
t n F. Fyr , V ident
Tig rd Planni iss'
SCE 90-05.PFO/kl
s
FINAL ORDER 90-25 PC - SCE 90-0005/VAR 90-0027 FERRYMAN - PAGE 7
Agenda Item 5
Page `73
Uin Ira
January 31, 1991
City Council of Tigard FEB
c/o City Hall n, 4 lgg,
P. 0. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Sherwood Inn Sign
Dear Members of the City Council:
I am aware that you are considering a sign ordnance
problem with the Sherwood Inn and had hoped to be at the last
meeting to disclose the series of transactions that spell out
the history of the sign. I was the owner of the Sherwood Inn
Restaurant from 1968 to 1982 and the owner of the Motel until
1987.
From what I have been told you have received most of the
information I may have provided. There was one fact that I
had not disclosed before but came to mind only recently again,
that could be of help in making your decision. In 1973 the
late Governor McCall required that all commercial signs be shut
off to conserve energy during the original "energy crisis" of
1973. They were only off for a matter of 24 to 72 hours but
the impact on the Sherwood Inn was devastating. The business
coming directly from highway traffic dropped dramatically and
even people who were referred to us had difficulty finding us
in the late night hours. There is no question in my mind that
a removal or lowering of the signs could have a major negative
economic impact on the Sherwood Inn.
If you have any questions that I can answer I would be
happy to do so.
Sincerely,
Marko A. Susnjara
MAS/hh
cc:file
. a
( Agenda Item 5
Page -7 (503) 234-8811 • LLOYD CENTER TOWER • 825 N.E. MULTNOMAH • SUITE 1001 • PORTLAND. OREGON 97232
LAND USE DECISION APPEAi LING 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. C'W OF TB6A RMD
The following form has been developed to assist you in ~
filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper OREGON
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~ ^
1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: C rI O % O~/V 6~~Y l1_-" s o Z-
2. HOW 00 YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: n 1 1 rC --qtr
3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW:
CAI"
ro 64
a sue-. C=~4po' S,
4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL:
5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: 1 Q
6. SIGNATURE(S): S
XXXXXXXX ~ x'30(K K X )HH4i( HHFx0Ex ( x~HFx x x %~oGMxIg
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Re eived By: ate: 10 Q D Time:
Approved As To Form By:. , li( G/~.t'LyY Date: / a Time: J:UOG.ry,,
Denied As To Form By: Date: Time:
Receipt No. Amount:
~(x x x x x )Fx3c x~(~F x x x )E x xdHE x x )i )tiE#x ~Ex x X K x~t~E x•xiE~x**X-**X-x-x-x-x-)HCifdt ~ x ~(x x x lE x x x
Lt~ci-G too ✓re~ l~ru~~~c~mr ~
60 6
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 972230 (503) 639-4171
Agenda Item 5
Page 7S_
GR,EENHILL ASSOCIATES LTD
9999 SW Wilshire St Portland OR 97225
Aug. 1, 1990
CITY PLANNING COMMISION
Municipal Bldg.
Tigard, OR 97223
ATTN: Keith Liden
Ladies & Gentlemen,
The enclosed application for a sign code exception is submitted on behalf of
Ferryman Enterprises, owners of the Sherwood Inn Motel and Restaurant.
These businesses have been identified, since they were opened in the 1960's,
by large free-standing signs designed to be read by fast moving freeway
traffic, in a way that will allow that traffic to safely exit at Upper Boones-
Ferry Rd. and utilize these facilities.
This commercial complex was developed in Washington County, where the signs
were in compliance with the County regulations. However, the property was
annexed into Tigard in 1976. As a result the signs did not meet the city
regulations and became legal non-conforming signs.
The City Planning Commision has previously granted a variance for these signs
in 1976. At the time it was understood by the owners that the variance action
was permenant. However, the owners are now advised it was not and that they
must once again undergo the same process.
The owners have filed permit applications to construct an 44 unit expansion to
the present facility and would like to proceed as quickly as possible.
However, the signs are critical to the successful operation of the motel and
restaurant. With the signs in jepordy, the project has been put on hold until
resolution of this issue a second time.
Your thoughtful reconsideration of this variance is requested.
Very /Truly,
Hal Hewitt
cc: R.E. Ferryman
i
Agenda Item 5
Page '7(0,
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
SIGN CODE EXCEPTIO14
SHERWOOD INN .JULY 1990
REQUEST:
To reinstate the previously approved sign code variance.
To vary from the height and area requirements.
BACKGROUND:
This application involves primary identification signs located on the
Sherwood Inn site at the I-5 interchange with Upper Boones Fery Rd. Both
sign structures are located within the Freeway sign corridor defined
under Special Condition Signs in the sign ordinance. (Sec.18.114.090)
The signs are illustrated in the attached Exhibit "A'". Their location is
indicated on the attached aerial photo, Exhibit "B", shown as signs No. 1
& 2.
Sign No. 1 was constructed by the owners in 1966, advertising
"RESTAURANT" and "SHERWOOD INN".
Sign No. 2 was constructed in 1971 by the Standard Oil Co. for their
sign. At that time, in order to improve visabil,ity, especially for north
bound traffic, the owners entered into a contract to relocate *'SHERWOOD
INN" to the oil company's structure.
The signs are intended to identify the location of the businesses to
high-speed freeway traffic in a large scale visual environment somewhat
complicated by variable topography. Until the property was annexed to the
city in 1976, the signs complied with all applicable regulations.
Agenda Item 5
Page
,L
I
However, upon annexation the owners were advised they were no longer
legal and would either have to be replaced or approved by a variance
permit from the sign code. Such variance was applied for and approved by
the planning commision on Jan. 20, 1976. In Oct of 1977 the city amended
portions of the sign code. In'1978 a new 10 year amortization period was
adopted for non-conforming signs.
The owners are currently proposing a 44 unit expansion to the motel and
accordingly have completed Site Development Review. As a result of the
review the staff has indicated the signs must be removed or approved by ,
a new sign code exception. While the owners feel the original variance
remains in effect, they are willing to accomodate the current process in
order to expedite the matter to a final conclusion.
SIGN CODE EXCEPTION CRITERIA
The commision or, on review, the council may grant exceptions to the
requirements of this chapter when the applicant demonstrates that, owing
to special or unusual circumstances relating to the design, structure or
placement of the sign in relation to other structures or land uses or
natural features of the land, the literal interpratation of this chapter
r
would interfere with the communicative function of the sign without
corresponding public benifit.
I
The city has acknowledged with special provisions in the sign code, that j
some businesses have special needs for signing freeway locations.
Unfortunatly, the standards do not address sign size and height
requirements complicated by topography and other elements of the visual
environment. Within this environment the issues of scale, proportion and
readability are paramount, especially when the signs must be read by
motorists traveling appx. 60 mph along the freeway corridor.
-2-
Agenda Item
Page
~ . 3S1 tl Sn,l
For Southbound Traffic the special circumstances influencing the size and
height of these signs are:
1) The up-hill slope between the 217 and Upper Boones Ferry interchange
exhibits a difference in elevation of 76 ft. according to the city's
topographi cal. maps. The latter interchange is built over a small hill
extending from the east toward 72nd Ave. This topographical factor is
amplified due to the location of these signs on the reverse slope of the
grade from southbound traffic. The net effect is the visual height of the
signs appears to be appx. half the actual height. Visual preception is
compounded by the uphill angle. In proportion to the existing visual
environment the signs appear small. Any reduction of the present height
would have the visual effect of placing the signs on or near the crest of
the interchange hill.
2) Distance. These signs must be large enough to be read at a distance of
' appx. 3000 ft. at that point the motorist has passed under the Bonita
Rd. overpass. (The attached aerial photo illustrates the south-bound
visual corridor and the elements affecting it) Emerging from the
overpass, the signs can be read by motorists in any of the three primary
south-bound lanes. This distance provides a limited but adequate amount
of time for the motorist to move to the right hand lanes and exit at the
Boones Ferry Interchange. We believe the size of these signs is
consistant with the scale created by the distance factor, and is
neccesary for proper readability and safe movement of traffic along and
from the freeway. Proportionally, the signs appear rather small on the
crest of the westerly approach to the Boones Fery overpass.
C, -3-
Agenda Item 5
Page -7 q
3) Increasing c-- cations affecting the south visual corridor.
Several parts -of this corridor have changed since these signs were
originally installed. Both the Gevertz and the Pacific Center signs have
been added to this part of the corridor, with the latter being the most
recent. The three fir trees affecting the visability of the signs have
matured considerably since the late 60's. The Bonita Rd overpass was
constructed in 1975, creating perhaps the most limiting readability
factor for the signs. However, all of these elemants, combined with the
uphill slope have made the present size and height of these signs
' critical to the identity of the motel and restaurant for southbound
traffic along I-5.
For North bound traffic the special circumstances influencing the size and
height of these signs are:
1) A very limited visual corridor created by three sperate stands of fir
trees shown on the aerial photo. North bound traffic approaches the site
along a sweeping curve. As a result the signs are completly blocked from
view by the most southerly stand of trees, then marginally by the second
stand. As shown by the north bound visual corridor on the photo, these
motorists have a brief exposure to the signs after "clearing" the second
stand before the third stand of firs closest to the motel, cuts off
visabliity.
2) The height aad location of the motel building relative to the
Restaurant/Motel sign give north bound motorists the impression the sign
is on top of the building by obstructing the entire support structure.
If this sign were reduced in height, it would not be seen by north bound
traffic.
3) The distance at which these signs must be seen is appx. 2000 ft. At
this distance the size of these signs is in proportion to the other
elements of the visual landscape including the buildings, the trees and
the freeway itself.
-4 Agenda Item 5
Page qO
As the commision is aware, most sign codes are written to address business
locations and identity within a downtown visual environment typified by
~l 100-300 ft lots located along streets with 80-90 ft widths. The difference
between the scale of the typical downtown area and the interstate highway is
pronounced, especially after carefull inspection and comparision. The most
notable differance of course, is the highway itself. I-5. for example, consists
of two seperate roadways constructed within a right-of-way in excess of 200
ft. in width. In addition, major stands of trees define and to some extent
limit the visual corridor and create a scale and proportion which are
substantilly different from the more common visual environment experienced in
the community and for which the code is written.
We believe the previously noted factors affecting north and south bound
traffic, provide a basis consistant with provisions of the city sign code,
suffcient to allow reinstatment of the previously approved variance and the
continued succesful operation of both businesses.
-5-
Agenda Item 5
Page ~i
Ono
tn
• ~ '1 ~i ~ T r + ~ ~ 0 i
~11 j 1' III (,1 l) -.p,;~hM... I nn_
LLJ
49
1 ( 11 ,
Y i~ lI I' L 1 1~ _ I G
Ir.
jai '1 1 1
:;-rGI•
17-
. 1 I.
C7
'1 I I ~
161
o - _
i
L. ,
r W,, - n(j~ Lni
j
S ( f
i
t
Agenda Item 5
bst"~;x'r:rtu< ~H~fcw~nb.. Si6~ Page ~3
Sr ~
5~ .
.;h
r ♦ 4M 11
A sa .n.y N
h
A
s. Q¢,
Ljj
12 00
4 1500
7_o AC- " v 110
r' TRACY 1-300
'N ti~i a 2rj AC-
o ~a `t 1~ ~ o-y9 ` i 110
y w411 / ~ti ~ v
600 n4
o A2 N
.18 AC-
2
q0
0
900 \ m
O P
::qtr ~l 700 _ ......r
;r4 Ac-
1 • 1
1000
.76 AC-
.i U1 S' .1p.t t j f~i t', ~ P'rSg!IV
?t1f°° /
2 AC.
(GS. tF329`tl
Agenda Item 5
r Page
i
li+t a s
Z , f -
r _
` ~ r
- •s
" - t
♦ f
~ i
~ s
t
% ~ {
T s
_
~ ,a
s y~
sP' "F • ~ .
P.
r
~ l
~ # f~ ~ •
:As
_ ,.t
r
~
.ti'
N
I
,1 '4FE
f ".~^S
R' ~~ikr:
r'1:. : E 1.
j
.Y~ i'. I ,Fa
ii 1; EL'"
~ zY
q,.
j ice" ~u':
qg 'y .a
,t.. ,i
1~
s ~
'b. r
.:ij:.;
r
n:
~,t
1
S-'i-9I Aa£NNF N6
I
1 OF
I ®
NAONES F0.rgp,
~ ~J ~
~'N ~ ilS~inIIII~Q4 Nlllll~lyllllllll~{Illillllllhl~,~.I I Ilpllllh lpjll lllllll~llllq lgllgll1111qIIqIIIIIIIIIPIIIIIIIIIIIqIIWJ411lpllplllllll101 lVlnl I i _ ~ ~ ! - .
2 J 4 6 d~ T ! 0 f0 I I 12
wrt:
p wlmfn isne m
pmppl~lli plM v1101x4 j
.+J Iw.
- ~ Ot !2~ pE (Z pZ pE K Ci-Z2~"Ii~OE pl ~~pl" (I 91 it NI d ZI II EI -~p p t p p 2 C Z I~
Nlu~duJludl.duuur6„d
= _.-!!~!P.....,_, ~ t„ LpdNl uplmllndmlhnlludedna6~tIIwMlWwlulllldlnllnulunlnl~6udw~O261n
' _a - _ - - _ ~ FEBRUARYI; '28 X19 92
,
-
PUBLIC HEARINGS I
~I 5.1 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 90-0007 TIGARD WATER DISTRICT (NPO #1) A
request for a Sign Code Exception approval to allow a second monument
sign on the property where the code allows for one monument sign.
ZONE; CBD (Central Business District) LOCATION: 8777 SW Burnham
Street (WCTM 2S1 2AD, tax lot 2100)
o Senior Planner Liden described the existing sign and the location of the
Water District office. He said staff recommended approval of the
request because it is consistent with one of the Sign Code Exception
criteria, which allows the City to approve a second freestanding sign on
a different frontage for a corner lot situation.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Applicant had no further information to add.
o Commissioner Fessler wanted to know if the new sign would be similar to
the existing sign in design and lighting. John Miller from the Water
District said the sign would be similar.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
* Commissioner Boone moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to approve SCE
90-0007. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
5.2 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 9040005 VARIANCE VAR 90-0027 SHERWOOD INN
.SIGN (NPO #5) A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval
to allow two freestanding freeway oriented signs where only one is
permitted. Also requested is approval to retain one sign of
approximately 1,180 square feet per sign face with a height of
approximately 65 feet and one sign of approximately 698 square feet per
sign face with a height of approximately 69.75 feet where the Code
specifies a maximum allowable height of 35 feet. ZONE: C-G (General
Commercial) LOCATION: 15100 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD,
tax lots 900, 100, and 1100)
o Senior Planner Liden described the location of the"subject site,
Sherwood Inn and restaurant, which is near I-5. He described the sizes
of the signs and their relationship to the freeway.- He distributed
photographs taken from different angles from I-5 showing the views of
the signs in question. He provided a background summary of the property
which was annexed to the City in 1976. At that time, the Planning
Commission approved a Variance to allow the continued use of the
existing signs that exceeded the City's size requirements. The City
revised the sign code in 1977 to reduce the maximum sizes permitted, and
in 1978 the City adopted a 10 year amortization period for those signs
which were not in conformance with the new standards. In 1988 the
applicant was notified that they would need to either replace the signs
to conform with the new requirements or obtain a Sign Code Exception or
Variance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 2
Agenda Item 5
Page
Senior Planner advised that staff was recommending denial of the
Variance because the Variance criteria were not met. However, the staff
was recommending that a Sign Code Exception be approved allowing for
some additional height up to 40 or 50 feet. Sign Code Exception
criteria also would allow the Planning Commission to grant an additional
25 percent in sign area, which would be appropriate because of the
distance from the freeway.
o Commissioner Barber noted that the Sherwood Inn sign was part of the
Chevron sign. She suggested that the Planning Commission should be
hearing a request for Sign Code Exception from Chevron at the same
time. Senior Planner advised that Chevron has received notification
that their sign is in non-conformance with the Code. He said staff
expects to receive an application from Chevron in the near future.
However, although the signs are on the same structure, they are treated
separately.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Al Hewitt, Greenhill Assoc., Ltd., 9999 SW Wilshire, Portland, was
representing H. E. Ferryman, who owns the property, and Craig Banning,
the owner/operator of the restaurant. He spoke about the site's unique
situation due to the topography and growth of the trees, and because of
the historic sequence of events. He said the construction along the
freeway has also tended to be an obstruction. He handed out copies of
the parcel map showing the three parcels: tax lot 900 (the restaurant),
tax lot 1000 (the existing motel), and tax lot 1100 (intended site for
expansion if the motel). He pointed out that if the three businesses
were independently owned, each would be granted its own sign. He
suggested that the key issue was determining which criteria to use
indicating there is a condition for renewing the Variance which was
granted in 1976. He explained.that the 10-foot by 20-foot size
recommended by staff for approval would not be workable because of the
distance from the freeway and speed of traffic on the freeway.
Mr. Hewitt referred to the variance criteria on page 3 of the staff
report under "B" FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS dealing with special
circumstances. He described the factors which fit into this category
including the topography and traffic features. He commented that the
field of vision for southbound motorists has been increasingly blocked
by the trees and other structures. The northbound traffic has been
mostly affected by the fir trees which have grown up over the years. He
provided the original aerial photographs which he said were easier to
read than the copies provided earlier.
He discussed the height factor, stating that to lower the signs will
make them unreadable from the freeway. He passed out photographs of the
signs which were taken from different perspectives on the freeway.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 3 '
Agenda Item 5
Page 9-7
o Commissioner Fessler discussed the use of freeway identifying signs to
provide information about what is located at the next exit.
o Commissioner Saporta asked Senior Planner about the feasibility of using
two separate signs, one for each business. Senior Planner advised that
would not be permitted. He said the Sign Code treated the subject
property as a development complex, which allows for one sign.
o Commissioner Fyre asked if the Sign Code treats freeway properties
differently than other properties. Senior Planner explained the special
sign allowances for those properties located along the freeway.
o Commissioner Moore requested clarification concerning wall signs.
Senior Planner described the wall sign requirements; and there was
discussion to determine if it would be feasible to use these in place
of; or in addition to, freestanding signs.
o Gene Ferryman, 9106 NE Highway 99, Vancouver, Washington, is the owner
of the subject property. He stated that he purchased the property a
year and a half ago, and was not informed of the sign violation at the
time of purchase. He explained that he purchased the property with the
intention of expanding to at least 100 units, as the current 60-unit
size is not profitable. He said much of their business comes from the
freeway; and reducing the signage would probably cause the business
activity to drop off, and this would discourage their expansion plans.
o Commissioner Barber inquired whether the height was of greater concern
than the sign area. Mr. Ferryman said both height and area were
essential for visibility from the freeway.
o Craig Banning said he operates the restaurant at Sherwood Inn. He
explained that there are two businesses on the site. He reiterated the
need for good signage and the special circumstances involved with this
site. He requested the Planning Commission to allow the existing signs
to remain.
o Ian Witlock, representing Chevron U.S.A., said his business would be
applying for a Variance in the near future.
o Mr. Hewitt spoke again to encourage the Commission to focus on the
Variance criteria rather than the Sign Code Exception criteria.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Boone asked Senior Planner how Tigard's sign code compared
with Lake Oswego's sign code. Senior Planner did not have that
information with him.
o Commissioner Saporta said he understood the applicants' concerns, but
granting a Variance would be detrimental to the Sign Code. He advised
he would favor granting a Sign Code Exception as proposed by staff.
{
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 4 '
Agenda Item 5
Page
o Commissioner Moore commented that the existing sign has been somewhat of
a landmark for many years. He agreed with staff's recommendation; and
he suggested that the informational signs on the freeway provided by the
State and the addition of signs to direct patrons to their site would
solve the problem.
o Commissioner Boone noted that the signs in question do not need to be as
large as they currently are.
o Commissioner Fessler discussed the size which the code would allow. She
favored allowing the sign height to be greater, with one sign being
allowed. She mentioned the possibility of waiting until Chevron
presented their sign request, looking at both businesses together to
come up with a better solution to the problem.
o Commissioner Castile advised that it was possible that the Pac Trust
buildings would obstruct one of the Sherwood Inn's signs when
construction was complete. He favored the staff's recommendation. He
noted that well-lit signs are more visible at night.
o Commissioner Barber said she did not favor allowing a sign which would
be 12 times larger than what the code allows. She noted that it would
be detrimental to the code to approve such variances. She commented
that the sign in question is one of the biggest signs in the area.
o Commissioner Fyre commented that the most critical factor seemed to be
the height. He agreed with the staff recommendation and concurred with
the other commissioners that the sign was too big.
. * Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to deny VAR
90-0027 and approve SCE 90-0005 with conditions outlined by staff.
Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioner
Fessler voting no.
Meeting Recessed at 9:00 PM
Meeting Reconvened at 9:15 PM
5.3 CODE REVISIONS
Landscaping:
Senior Planner Ron Bunch presented the proposed revisions to the
Landscaping, Buffering and Screening Provisions of the Tigard
Development Code (Section 18.100). The ordinance is intended to improve
the aesthetic quality of the community over time. The new ordinance
would provide more clarity and direction in the approval process. He
discussed the impact the ordinance will have on'business. He described
the public presentations which are planned for the near future,
including the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Committee.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 PAGE 5
r
Agenda Item 5
Page FS ~1
d'
t
ISSUE E
APPLICABILITY F
AMORTIZATION REQUIREMENTS
Agenda Item 5
Page 3
/ MEMORANDUM
l
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director
DATE: March 6, 1991
SUBJECT: Sherwood Inn Sign Variance
Prior to annexation, the owners of the Sherwood Inn were notified
that the two freestanding signs on the site would be non-conforming
upon annexation. On January 20, 1976, the Planning Commission
approved a variance to the maximum sign height and size regulations
to permit the existing signs to remain. On October 10, 1977,
following notice and hearing, the City Council amended the City's
sign regulations including maximum height and size regulations in
commercial zones. The Sherwood Inn property has been zoned for
commercial use. On March 20, 1978, the City Council amended the
City's sign regulations to establish a ten year amortization period
for all non-conforming signs in existence as of that date.
In 1988, City staff notified the owners of the Sherwood Inn and
others that all non-conforming signs on their properties were to be
brought into compliance with the sign regulations since the
amortization period had ended. Sherwood Inn has questioned whether
their signs are subject to this requirement because of the variance
that had been granted in 1976. The City Attorney's office, through
memos from Ken Fox dated April 5, 1990 and Tim Ramis dated March 6,
1991, has advised the City that the prior variance does not make
the Sherwood Inn signs conforming signs since further sign
regulation amendments approved in 1977, invalidated the conforming
status of the signs achieved by the earlier variance. Therefore
the signs were subject to the amortization period and should now be
required to be removed.
Tim Ramis' and Ken Fox's memos (with exhibits) are attached. Also
included are the following_
1. February 12, 1991 letter to Pat Reilly from Hal
Hewitt. '
2. September 12, 1975 letter to Marko Susnjara from
Jerald Powell, Associate Planner.
3. January 31, 1991 letter from Marko Susnjara to the
Tigard City Council.
t
Agenda Item 5
Page
i
t
4. January 25, 1991 letter from Keith Liden to Hal
C Hewitt.
5. May 5, 1981 Planning Department staff report
regarding proposed Sherwood Inn parking lot
expansion.
6. January 28, 1991 letter from Hal Hewitt to Keith
Liden.
7. May 16, 1990 letter from Ian Whitlock to Keith
Liden.
8. May 11, 1990 letter from Michael Gunn to Keith Liden.,
9. December 20, 1989 letter from Ian Whitlock to Keith
Liden (with attachments including miscellaneous
correspondence and Planning Commission minutes).
l
Agenda Item 5
Page rj
M: R- 6-S 1 W EL 1 t" bh:J urc c:y. _ _
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
ATMRNEYS AT LAW
BATJOW & WRIGHT BUILDING
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
TEI.FPHONF,: (503) 222.4402
FAX: (503) 243.2944
DATE: March 6, 1991
TO: Tigard City Council
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Legal Issues in Sherwood Inn Sign Case
I have been asked to prepare a short memorandum describing the
legal issues faced by the council in the context of the Sherwood
Inn application.
The initial threshold question is whether the city's amortization
provisions apply to the application. if the Council finds that the
amortization requirements apply to the sign, the council would then
go on to determine the merits of the application for a sign code
exception.
The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly outline the issues
involved in the first question: Do the amortization provisions
apply to the Sherwood Inn?
The applicant has raised two legal issues:
1. Does a variance, by its nature, exempt a particular use from
the need to comply with subsequent amendments to the zoning
code?
2. Do the facts of this case establish an estoppel preventing the
City from asserting the provisions of its code?
Effect of Variance.
A previous memorandum by Ken Fox reviewed these issues in some
detail. I agree with his conclusion that we have been shown no
case precedent that would establish that a variance exempts a use
from the need to comply with future code provisions. Whether the
land use approval is a variance, a conditional use or a zone
change, the grant of approval is subject to future changes in the
code. Normally, prior approved uses continue to be permitted as
i nonconforming uses. However, where an amortization provision is
substituted for the nonconforming use approach, subsequent changes
in the code must be complied with.
Agenda Item 5
Page
MA R- 6-9 1 r.FE D 1 S _ 0 1 ID REe. C 50324`:2944 F- _ 03
i
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN
C
Memo re: Legal Issues in Sherwood Inn Sign Case
March 6, 1991
Page 2
our office has concluded that the applicant would not prevail based j
upon its variance theory.
Estoppel&
If the law of estoppel applied to local government it would prevent
the City from asserting the new amortization provisions if it had
previously promised the applicant that these provisions would not
apply and that promise was relied upon.
The correspondence provided by the applicant does create an
arguable case that such a promise was made by an agent for the
City. The language of the Powell letter is supportive of the
applicant Is argument. If the law of estoppel applies to local
government, then the applicant may have a reasonable argument to
make.
The Council should be aware, however, that the law of estoppel has
not been extended to local governments in the land use context.
Historically the law has been clear that estoppel does not bind
government. In recent years there has been a contrary trend but
estoppel has not yet been applied to local governments in the
zoning context. It has been applied to tax assessors but not to
local government,
We cannot predict how much longer the shield from estoppel will be
available to local governments. Given the trend in the law it is
possible that it may change. currently, however, we do have that
protection. The result is that the applicant would have to
convince an appellate court to eliminate the estoppel shield in
order to prevail on its estoppel theory. While the facts may
support their argument, the law at this time does not.
i
~ f
evr\t;srd\ther++ood.mel(e() ! Agenda Item 5
Page 7 I
t I
GREENHILL ASSOCIATES LTD
9999 SW Wilshire St Portland OR 97225
i~
Feb. 12, 1991
Mr Pat Reilly
City Manager
Box 23397 ~'t~~'
Tigard, Ore. 97223
Dear Mr. Reilly, ro RD
Thank you for your review last week, of the issues relating to Mr Ferrymans
position on the Sherwood Inn signs.
In.response to your suggestion, we did contact the immediate past owners,
Spectrum Properties and asked to review their file on this matter. We found,
that in addition to copies of correspondence which we were already aware of,
their file contained the enclosed letter dated 9/12/75 from then Planning
Director, Jerry Powell. The content of the letter speaks for itself and I
believe further clarifys and confirms Mr Ferrymans original position on this
matter.
The letter expressly raises three central issues.
1). That the sign was considered non-conforming and would be subject to
the ammortization provisions of the City Sign Ord.
2). Two alternative courses of action were made available to the
owner as a remedy; apply for the variance immediatly or apply at the
end of the ammortization period.
3). That either course of action would result in "a permanent permission
by the City".
This letter when combined with the staff report and minutes of the planning
commision proceeding in 1976, indicates that the owner chose to obtain a
response from the city immediatly, not at the end of the ammortiaztion period,
that the officials involved were quite aware of the issues involved and that
the grant of approval was without any time constriant and permanent.
Continuing to process this application seems quite improper given the city's
own records we have uncovered on this matter. This information should have
been in possession of the city staff before initial contact was made two years
ago, instead of placing the owner under jepordy a second time.
Please advise.
Very /Truly,
Hal XHewitt
cc: E. Ferryman
r
Agenda Item 5
Page y
F
S
♦ t
CITY OF TIGARD
P. O. Herr. 23557 a
12420 S. W. Main
Tigard. Oregon 97223
t
September 1.2, 1975
Mr. Marko A. Susnjara
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. ,
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Dear Mr. Susnjara:
In reference to our recent conversation concerning your sign on
the Sherwood Inn, this letter is to clarify and record por•tinon t.
points discussed.
Your sign is a non-conforming sign under provision of Section 16 6.
040 of the Tigard Municipal Code clue both to its size and heir♦:ht,.
However, Chapter 16.24, Non-Confoi-ir►ing Si.12;rt provides th-, t. yot, vial l 1 t?
have a period of ten years from Hie effec-t_i-ve. d:zte of ~~n r~:x~1 tiC;r1 to
the City to bring that sign into compliance. If, by -that time (10
years from now) or at any time in the interim you should fdecide that,
that sign would always be necessai y for the identificat i. -n and c:arl-
iinued commercial use of. your sit, , then you, have two separ•ato pos-
sible courses of action. Either (•ourse of action wor.cld have sub-
stantially the same result, that Js, a permanent permiss.i_r;n by •thc:
City to retain the sign, and the ri.se of the sign as long as that
•sign stands. The surest approach would be to apply for n variance
of the sign code at the time that yotir prol-rerty is re,7.an•ct tc; n
City zoning district. This would obtain assurance for you that in
ten years no action would be taker. to require your removal of the
sign.
The other method is to wait until an order is issued by the City to
remove the sign (ten years from now) and then appeal that order to
the Planning Commission. As we have discussed, I don't feel that
your concern for your sign is unwarranted at this time. Obviously
-the elevation of the highway adjacent you and the lack of other
highway oriented business in your area makes adequate signing of
paramount importance to your business.
l r 4
Agenda Item 5 " `4
Page ~f .rid
c, f
Mr. Marko A. Susnjara
September 12, 1.975
pg. 2 -
As we discussed, Tigard l n "Commun.i Ly 1`1 at," i clent:ifies t.hri U.
interchange as "General CommercDO " and tlif City would ..one
lands therm as C-3, our Caner=,1 C tIn►mernin I :.caning;. This :,ctioyl
in itself will generate more intF~t e::i: in (:,anrnercial or.•vrr h)pmen L
which should generate, i r rn, mart df-mnnd for commrrc i:, i fnc- i 1 -i -
ties.
I think I've addressed wost o; th, • c:onn.r'r nr vori've vrd.c:•-,d wi l h
respect to the impact of annexatir,n i;o Ti;-:!rd on yotir Prn1-2r-L::.
Should you want further information or
me at 639-41.71.
:.i n~ ~:I ,
CITY OP
A: 7;oc::i n 1.t:• I .I :,nnc~r
nt
3
Agenda Item 5
Paqe /J
i
IkAlf
tom.
January 31, 1991
14'' "e"
City Council of Tigard FEB
c/o City Hall 4 lg
P. 0. Box 23397 n. 9J
Tigard, Oregon 97223 ~g
Re: Sherwood Inn Sign
Dear Members of the City Council:
I am aware that you are considering a sign ordnance
problem with the Sherwood Inn and had hoped to be at the last
meeting to disclose the series of transactions that spell out
the history of the sign. I was the owner of the Sherwood Inn
Restaurant from 1968 to 1982 and the owner of the Motel until
1987.
From what I have been told you have received most of the
information I may have provided. There was one fact that I
had not disclosed before but came to mind only recently again,
that could be of help in making your decision. In 1973 the
late Governor McCall required that all commercial signs be shut
off to conserve energy during the original "energy crisis" of
1973. They were only off for a matter of 24 to 72 hours•but
the impact on the Sherwood Inn was devastating. The business
coming directly from highway traffic dropped dramatically and
even people who were referred to us had difficulty finding us
in the late night hours. There is no question in my mind that
a removal or lowering of the signs could have a major negative
economic impact on the Sherwood Inn.
If you have any questions that I can answer I would be
happy to do so.
Sincerely'
Marko A. Susnjara
MAS/hh
cc:file
l
Agericia Item 5
Page
(503) 234-8811 a LLOYD CENTER TOWER • 825 N.E. MULTNOMAH • SUITE 1001 • PORTLAND. OREGON 97232
t
® t GR,EENHILL ASSOCIATES LTD
9999 SW Wilshire St Portland OR- 97225
1
RECEIVED PLANNING Jan. 28, 1991
Planning Dept. FEB I =1991
City of Tigard
Box 23397
. Tigard, 97223
ATTN: Keith Liden
Dear Keith, '
Referencing your letter recieved this date, please be advised that as
indicated to the City Council on 1/22, Mr Ferryman has considered a compromise
proposal for the councils consideration on Feb. 12th. Toward this end, his
contractor, Martin Sign Co in Salem is doing the work neccessary to present
this proposal to the city. As quickly as I have the material I will contact
you for a review.
In the meantime, Mr Ferryman wishes to have me make his position on the
central issue in this case unequivocably clear. Both he and the previous
owner, Marko Susanjara, feel a keen sense of injustice and betrayal of the
staff's integrity on the sign issue at the Sherwood Inn.
The facts as we understand them are:
1). In response to an agreement to annex the subject property into the
city in 1976, the city issued a variance for the free-standing signs for
the restaurant and motel. This variance was issued without time
constraints, conditions or limitations.
2). In 1978, the city adopted amendments to it's sign code placing
additional limitations on the types of signs considered in the previously
approved variance. A 10 year amortization was imposed. However, the
owners at that time were not so advised of any affect on their signs as a
result of the new amendments.
3). In 1984, the owner, Mr Susnjara, sought approval- to alter one of tale
previously approved free standing signs. This request was reviewed by the
planning staff. The Planning Director, Bill Monahan, now employed in the
City Attorney's office, then advised in a letter to Mr. SusrU ara, that
the staff had reviewed the previous variance approval and granted the
request indicating it "will not be adversely affected by the new
proposal."
Agenda ItEnl 5
Pdge
RIM
4). The staff indicates that sometime in 1988 or '89, that the owners
were advised of the amortization provisions and that the previously
approved variance was no longer in effect. No-one has any written record
of such correspondence, however.
5). In 1989, Mr Ferryman purchased the property with the intent to
impeove the motel facilities and with a clear understanding that the
signs were not an issue with the city.
6). As a part of a site review process last year, to expand his
facilities and utilize the balance of the property, Mr Ferryman, is
advised of a new staff positiorr requiring compliance with sign code,
disregarding authority of previous variance.
7). In your letter of 1/25/91, you now refer to a city action taken in
1981, wherein then Planning Director, Aldie Howard, included a condition
also seeking compliance with the '78 sign code. Your letter included a
copy of the '81 staff report responding to Mr Susnjara's request to
expand his parking lot. It includes 8 conditions and on the second page,
an acknowledgement and signature acceptance block. However, it is neither
signed nor dated. Mr: Susnjara recalls this matter quite well. Upon
reciept of the report, he immediatly contacted Mr. Howard and reminded
him of the approved variance. Mr. Howard did not contest the matter and
withdrew that recommendation.
To summerize the foregoing, the record indicates that under Jerry Powell's
directorship, the city induced the annexation of the subject property and
granted a variance for the signs. Under Aldie Howard's directorship, the issue
was raised and settled in-favor of the previous variance. Mr. Susnjara did not
acknowledge the condition. Under Bill Monahan's directorship, the matter was
again raised, considered and resolved in favor of the previous variance. If
this were not the case, it seems very clear to us that Mr. Monahan would have
stated otherwise to the owner at that time.
I am well aware of the consistant staff turnover in the planning dept. having
known each of the planning directors and managers who have served the city
since 1969. I suggest the high staff turnover during 70 & '80's, has
contributed to inadequate record keeping and inability to maintain an accurate
and consistant perspective on matters such as this.
Mr Susnjara is very clear about the issuance of the original permit and the
reaffirmation of that permit under two seperate planning directors. The issue
was never in doubt until last year when the current planning staff made a
completely new and radically different determination on the 1976 variance.
Mr. Ferryman is making a substantial effort, at considerable time and expense,
and delay of his proposed expansion, to reach a final agreement over the
Shewood Inn signs with the city. We sincerly hope this can be accomplished in
a true spirit of mutual understnding. However, if it cannot he will proceed
without reservation, to have the matter fully resolved in court.
Very ~Truly, ~4 /Agenda Item 5
Hal Hewitt Page 13
cc: H. E. Ferryman
January 25, 1991 C' 9 a OF TiG D
OREGON
Hal Hewitt
Greenhill Associates, Ltd.
9999 S.W. Wilshire Street
Portland, OR 972SS
RE: Sherwood Inn Signs
File No. SC8 90-0005
Dear Mr. Hewitt:.
The city council has continued the public hearing on the above case to February
12, 1991 to consider additional information regarding sign height and size prior
to making a final decision on the matter. Since the staff should have any
supplemental information prepared for this hearing by January 30th, we should
meet or discuss this case on the phone prior to this date.
During the hearing on January 22nd, the point was made that the City consistently
gave the property owner the assurance (or impression) that the 1976 Variance
approval was permanent and not subject to changing circumstances, such as the
code amendments which occurred in 1977 and 1978. Following the hearing, the
staff reviewed the record and found that in 1981, a Site Design Review
application was approved, subject to conditions, to add 40 parking spaces to the
motel (SDR 12-81). Condition 2 of the decision (attached) clearly Indicates that
the signs were not in conformity with the Code and that no further development
on the site would be permitted unless this issue was resolved. Although the file
copy is not acknowledged by the owner, the parking spaces were subsequently
constructed and therefore -Mr. Susnjarna must have been aware of this document.
Please contact we early next week.
S ly,
Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
c: Tim Ramis
Pat Reilly
Ed Murphy
SCS90-05.LTR/kl
l
Agenda Item 5
Paqe
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Ti
Bard ^fegon 97223 (503) 639-4171
i
STAFF 11EP0RT CITYOff' T11FA
FINAL ACTION WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON "
TIGARD PLANNING DEPAMMENT
MAY 5, 1981
DOCKET: SITE DESIGN 1 E'VIM (SDR 12-81) NPO # 5 a
Sherwood Irua on Upper Boones Ferry Read
APPLICANT: Mar_w Susnjara
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
OWNER: Saner
MQUEST: Addition of forty (40) space parking lot
r9quires fill permit form the Building
Department.
SITE 10CATION: 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry load
Washington County Tax Map 2S1 12D Lots 1403,
1405 and 1406
Staff- Comments:
Tne applicant wishes to enlarge an eadsting parking lot by filling a
portion of his property. in the future an addition to the existing
motel is contenplated.
STAe'K: ACTION:
Planning Staff recomTenas-that a Fill Permit be issued to the applicant.
conditions placed upon this permit are as follows:
1) Future development on this site (motel construction) shall be
subject to Site Design Raview.
2) Several large signs on this site are not in conformance with the
Tigard Municipal Code Title'16. When any future addition is made to
this site all signs shall be brought into conformance with Title 16.
(The applicant is encouraged to provide a plan for bringing these signs
into conformance with the'Code over the next five (5) years. No future
development on this site shall be approved unless this issue is resolved.)
i 3) No changes will be made to approved plans or specifications unless
formal application is -made to the appropriate City department and changes
are approved by that department. Application for changes will be made Agenda Item 5
in writing and shall include applicable drawings.
Page /5
4) The Public Works Director shall approve of the grading plan for
this parking lot and shall supervise oonstL-tion.
STAFF REPORT <
FINAL ACTION
TIGARD PLANNING DEPAIMIM
MY 5, 1981 a
SITE DESIGGZ 107IEW SDR 12-81
Page 2 Of 2
5) All proposed utilities shall be placed underground. Street lighting ,
installations shall be approved by the Public Works Deparbanmt.
6) All street and king areas shall be concrete or. asphalt. All
sidewalks shall be ooncretbt.
7) The edJankment created by this fill shall be landscaped to control
erosion. Terracing shall be* breated and enbankment shall be constn s in
oonfor nce with Chapter 70 of the* Wifona Building code.
8) Trees on this site shall be retai.xIGd in the future until a
plan has been* approved' on the* imtel' addition.
Planning Director
NM: Sign below to admowledge conditions set forth for this project and
return to the City of Tigard Planning Department. Failure to acknowledge will
result in no further action on" this -project with regards to issuance of
Building Peninits or engineering approval.
Signature - Owner Dane
Agenda Item 5
Page /6
SPEARS, LUBERSKY, RE~yEp FNIXs
BLEDSOE, ANDERSON, YOUNG & HILLIARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAY 21 1990
520 S.W. YAMHILL STREET, SUITE 800
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1383
CALIFORNIA OFFICE TELEPHONE (503) 226.6151 WASHINGTON OFFICE
1541 OCEAN AVENUE, SUITE 200 1220 MAIN STREET, SUITE 355
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 96660
TELEPHONE (213) 451.9575 FACSIMILE: (503) 224-0388 TELE PHONE-(206) 693.4100
FACSIMILE (213) 393.6378 TELEX: 269029-SPRS-UR FACSIMILE (206) 694.5350
May 16, 1990
Mr. Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 22397
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Sherwood Inn/Chevron Signs
(City File NOS. 88-88-Z and 88-90-Z)
Our File No 185-2223
Dear Mr. Liden:
We write in response to your letter of April 16, 1990,
in which you have again requested that Chevron USA, Inc. and
the Sherwood Inn bring a free-standing sign on the Sherwood Inn
property into compliance with certain city ordinances. In
hopes of resolving this dispute without incurring further
costs, Chevron USA, Inc. and Sherwood Inn (represented by
Michael Wynne) agree to submit an application for an exception
from the city's sign ordinances.
Please take notice that in undertaking such an
application, neither Chevron USA, Inc. nor the Sherwood Inn
waive any of the arguments raised in previous correspondence
with your office, nor any other arguments or defenses, nor do
these entities concede the applicability of the city's sign
code and amortization rules to the subject signs. This
application will be undertaken solely to attempt an amicable
resolution to this dispute.
l
Agenda Item 5
Page ) 7
i
Y
C Mr. Keith S. Liden
May 16, 1990
Page 2
The application for an exception will be developed and
submitted by Mr. Dave Kimmel of Permit Consultants, Inc., who
will be contacting you in the near future.
Please do not hesitate to call with any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
SPEARS, LUBERSKY, BLEDSOE,
ANDERSON, YOUNG & HILLIARD
Y:
Ian K. Whitlock
Of Attorneys for Chevron USA, Inc. I
cc: Michael Wynne, Esq. s'
Michael Gunn, Esq.
Mr. Don Forsman, Esq.
(Chevron USA, Inc.)
Mr. Keith Severson
(Chevron USA, Inc.)
Mr. Dave Kimmel
(Permit Consultants, Inc.)
t
X
Age; ido iteiu 5
Page / g
Michael G. Gunn, P.C. MAY 141990
Attorney at Law
518 East 1 st St.
P.O. Box 1046
Newberg, Oregon 97132
(503) 538-8318 FAX (503) 537-0591
May 11, 1990
Mr. Keith Liden
Senior Planner
Ci of Tigard
P. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Sherwood Inn -Sign
File #88-88-Z
Dear Mr. Liden:
This letter is to inform you that I represent the Sherwood Inn associated with
the above-titled matter. I have reviewed your letter dated April 16,1990 written
to Ian Whitlock associated with the matter; specifically, the analysis performed
by Ken Fox of the City Attorney's office.
I agree with portions of Mr. Fox's analysis; however, I specifically disagree
with his analysis that the city has the legislative power to overturn specifi
c vari-
ances which are in effect at the time new ordinances are enacted. I agree with
Mr. Whitlock's analysis that the variance granted by the City Counsel on January
20,1986 is in effect, runs with the land much as an easement, and cannot be
overturned simply because new sign ordinances are enacted. To allow a munici-
pality overturn existing variances is not only impractical but illegal.
I am sure you realize that the Sherwood Inn depends greatly upon "drive by"
traffic for a large portion of its business. Such traffic is attracted to the restau-
rant and lounge by the existing sign. If the Sherwood Inn were required to
remove its existing sign and adhere to the -.-.v' sign ordinance, its business would
suffer greatly, and quite possibly, the restaurant would be forced to close, which
is surely not in the city's best interest.
The Sherwood Inn is quite agreeable to maintaining the existing sign by paint-
ing, making repairs, etc. when necessary; however, the Sherwood Inn is not
agreeable to any of your options set forth in the April 16 letter.
ti
4 Agenda Item 5
Page /CI
t
i
Letter to Mr. Liden
May 11, 1990
Page 2
Please advise. Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours very truly,
Michael G.
MGG;CLG
cc-Sherwood Inn
{
j Agenda Item 5
i Page aD
.f
' O'DONNELL, RAMIS. ELLIOTT & CREW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET
i` PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
1503) 222-4402
DATE April 5, 1990
TO Keith Liden, Tigard Planning Director
FROM Ken Fox, City Attorneys Office
RE Sherwood Inn/Chevron Sic,Lns
You have asked the City Attorneys office to analyze whether the
Sherwood Inn/Chevron signs, both located on the Sherwood Inn
property, are subject to the 10-year amortization period that
expired on March 20, 1988. For the reasons outlined below, I
conclude that they are.
BACKGROUND
On January 15, 1976, the City of Tigard annexed the Sherwood Inn
and adjacent properties. The subject signs were located on the
Sherwood Inn property at the time of annexation. The sign code
in effect at the time of annexation restricted free-standing
signs to a maximum height of 45 feet and a maximum area of 750
square feet per sign or a total maximum area of 1,500 square
feet. Exhibit 1. The subject signs each reached a height of
approximately 65 feet and contained sign areas of 2,100 square
feet and 550 square feet respectively, for a total of 2,650
square feet. As a consequence, as of the date of annexation the
signs were deemed nonconforming with the then-existing sign code.
The sign code in effect at the time of annexation contained the
following provision with respect to nonconforming signs:
"(1) Except as provided in subsections (2)
through (4) of this section, signs in
existence on the date of enactment of This
Ordinance which do not conform to the
provisions of This Ordinance, but which were
constructed, erected or maintained in
compliance with all previous regulations,
shall be regarded as nonconforming signs
which may be continued for a period of ten
(10) years from the effective date of This
Ordinance.
(2) Signs located on premises annexed into
the city after the effective date of This
Ordinance and which signs do not comply with
j the provisions of This Ordinance, shall be
1. brought into compliance with This OrdinancqEcEIvmpLpAylpg
APR 6 1990
Agenda Item 5
Page /
Memo re Sherwood Inn/Chevron Signs
April 5, 1990
Page - 2
within a period of ten (10) years after the
effective date of the annexation."
Exhibit 1, § 205.
Because the signs did not conform with the then-existing code,
and were thereby subject to the 10-year amortization period, the
property owner applied for a sign code height and area variance.
On January 20, 1976, the Tigard Planning Commission granted this
variance after deleting a staff-recommended condition that the
variance be reviewed after five years. Exhibit 2.
On October 10, 1977, following notice and hearing, the Tigard
City Council amended certain provisions of its sign code.
Exhibit 3. Among other things, the City Council reduced the
maximum allowable height and area for signs located in commercial
and industrial zones. Since the subject property is located in a
commercial zone, the amended ordinance imposed a new maximum
height of 16 feet and a maximum area of 52 square feet for any
signs located on the subject property. Exhibit 3. Thus, the
subject signs again became nonconforming.
On March 20, 1978, the Tigard City Council again amended its sign
code to establish a new 10-year amortization period for all
nonconforming signs in existence as of that date. Exhibit 4.
On February 29, 1984, Tigard Planning Director, William Monahan,
authorized the then-owner of the Sherwood Inn/Chevron signs to
make a minor sign alteration, stating that "it appears from a
review of the records of [the 1976 variance] proceeding that an
approval was granted which will not be adversely affected by your
new proposal." Exhibit 5.
On February 17, 1988, Tigard Assistant Planner, Deborah Stuart,
advised the then-property owner that the subject signs were
nonconforming. Exhibit 6. On March 24, 1988, you advised the
same property owners that code enforcement would commence unless
arrangements were made to bring the signs into conformance.
Exhibit 7. A series ci communications between the City and
property owners then followed, ending with a letter dated
December 20, 1989, from Ian Whitlock, attorney for the current
property owners.
i
Agenda Item 5
Page
/ Memo re Sherwood Inn/Chevron Signs
\ April 5, 1990
Page - 3
ANALYSIS
The sole legal issue is whether the sign code variance issued on
January 20, 1976, exempted the subject signs from all future
legislative changes to the sign code. I conclude that it did
not.
The effect of granting a variance is to render the use a
conforming use. Rathkopf, 3 Law of Zoning and Planning, § 38.07
(4th ed. 1988). Thus, once granted, the subject signs became
conforming uses with respect to the sign code in existence on
January 20, 1976. That sign code authorized signs with a maximum
height of 45 feet and a maximum area of 750 square feet per sign
or a total of 1,500 square feet for all sign surfaces. so long
as this height and area standard remained in effect, the subject
signs were conforming.
However, in 1977, the City Council made a legislative amendment
to the Tigard Sign Code, reducing the maximum size and area
allowed within the applicable zone. The height reduction was
from 45 feet to 16 feet and the area reduction was from an
aggregate of 1,500 square feet to an aggregate of 52 square feet.
The effect of the 1977 legislative change was to render
nonconforming all signs that exceeded the newly adopted height or
area restriction. The legislative change affected the subject
signs in the same manner that it affected other signs which were
constructed in strict conformance with previous sign codes.
Once the subject signs again became nonconforming, they became
subject to the new amortization period found at ord. 78-16, in
the same manner as any other nonconforming signs. Based upon the
new amortization period, the subject signs were to have been
brought into conformance or removed on or before March 20, 1988.
Mr. Whitlock suggests in his letter of December 20, 1989, that
the variance is one that runs with the land and is not limited in
duration. Although this is a correct general statement of the
law, it does not apply to the present facts since the sign code
was subsequently changed by the City Council's legislative
action. That action is a proper exercise of the City's police
power. See generally E. McQuillan, 8 Municipal Corporations, §
25.10 (3rd ed. 1983).
L
Agenda Item 5
Paqe ~3
Memo re Sherwood Inn/Chevron Signs
April 5, 1990
Page - 4
CONCLUSION
Although the City Planning commission granted a variance in 1976,
that variance only rendered the subject signs "conforming uses"
with respect the sign code in effect at the time the variance was
granted. Subsequent legislative changes again rendered the
subject signs "nonconforming." They are thereby subject to the
10-year amortization period which expired on March 20, 1988.
KHF : gaj
/ KHF\TiGARD\SHERNOOD.MEI
f
Agenda Item 5
Page a L4
in
ull
nt,
Co ~L:
'ti•
~ •M ''.'~+.:~j art TJ:';•
is ".:.t;• ~L•~~•'::. _
•1. a Ci•'~'^;~:~ -~ti ,
• ~tiji~:w - n -
_
7 ;w
r
j limited to a sign area of six (6) square feet and a
maximum dimension of dour (4) feet may be erected and
maintained, provided the display of such sign shall be
only during those hours the property is available for
inspection. No permits are required for such signs,
I but the Building Official may establish reasonable rules
and regulations to prohibit sign clutter, erection of
unsafe signs or other problems in connection with the
erection of real estate directional signs.
(6) Political Signs,
(See Section 401(2)),
Section 302: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
No sign shall be permitted in an Amt zone except the
following:
I (1) Permanent- Residential Name laces Identifying the Premises.
Total signing on a premises shall no exceed one square
foot of area per dwelling unit.
i (2) Incidental si s shall only be permitted when attached
I to a permanently affixed sign structure or to the wall
of the building.
(3) Real Estate Sign. One on-site offering the premises
or sale prov.d ng that the total area of such sign
'%does not exceed twelve (12) square feet. Such signs may
be modified to indicate that the property has been sold,
(4) Non-residential Signs. One illuminated or non-illuminated
:sign not exceeding twelve (12) square feet in area
identifying any non-residential use permitted in a
multiple-family residential zone.
(5) Directional Signs, As permitted in Section 3.01 of
This Ordinance,
I (6) Real Estate Directional Sign. As permitted in Section
3.01 o M is Ordi.nanc e,
(7) Political Signs, (See Section 401 (2) )
Section 303: COMMERCIAL ZONES,
Except as otherwise provided in this section with respect
to the C-5 and C-P commercial zones, no sign for which a sign
( 301 - ZONE REGULATIONS
Page 14
.1
Agenda Item 5 EXHIBIT I
` 1ge_ a Page 2 of
permit is required shall be permitted in any commercial zone
except the following:
(1) No sign shall be permitted in a C-5 commercial zone
except those specified in the City of Tigard Zoning
I Ordinance for such zone.
(2) No sign shall be permitted in a C-P commercial zone
I except those specified in the City of Tigard Zoning
Ordinance.
(3) Free-standing Si is.
(a) Number permitted. One multi-faced free-standing
sign designating the principal goods, products,
facilities or services available on the premises
shall be permitted on a street or highway frontage.
Where a frontage exceeds 300 feet in length, one
additional free-standing sign is permitted for such
i frontage,
(b) Hei ht limit. No free-standing sign shall exceed
n e g the distance of any portion of the sign
to the center of the adjacent public. right of.way.
(See Figure 1) The maximum height of any portion
of a sign or sign structure shall be forty-five
(45) feet from ground level at its base regardless
of location. The minimum clearance below the lowest
portion of a free-standing sign and the ground below
shall be fourteen (14) feet in any driveway or
parking area.
t(c) Area. The maximum permitted area of a free=standing
sign shall be computed on 12 square feet of.area per
lineal foot of street or highway .frontage for the
first 100 feet of such frontage,.plus 1 square foot
of area for each foot of frontage over 100 feet, but
not exceeding 750 square feet of sign area per sign
face, or a total of 1500 square feet for all sign
i faces, (See figure 2) ,
(4) When a.premises fronts on more than one street, the
Vj property may be permitted to have one multi-faced,
J free-standing sign for each such street frontage provided,
however, that only the lineal frontage of that street
toward which the sign faces may be considered in
estabi-ishing the maximum permitted size of such sign.
303 - ZONE REGULATIONS Page 15
Agenda Item 5 EXHIBIT
Page a`J Page -3 of
3 Pages
/ MINUTES
1. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
January 20, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Porter at 7:35 p.m. -
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Nicoli, Sakata, Popp, Porter, Ems, Wakem,
Moore
Absent: Smelser
Staff present: Bolen, Powell and Laws
3. MINUTES: The minutes of the January 6, 1976, meeting were
approved.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: none
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Conditional Use Permit CU 1-76 (Lass)
A request by Jerry Lass to operate a roller skating rink
in a C-3 zone (general commercial) at 13900 SW Pacific
Highway (former Ernie's Market), Wash. Co. tax map 2S1
3DD, tax lot 1201.
A. Staff Report: read by Powell
o Wakem asked staff if staff finding number 5, per-
taining to off-street parking, implied a variance
request and if so could be addressed at this time.
o Staff stated that a separate public hearing must
be held for the variance and that due notice must
be given for the hearing.
o Ems asked staff if a conditional use permit could
be granted by the Commission for a one year period
for the purpose of observing the proposed use.
o Staff replied that it could be.
o Wakem asked staff if the bus lane, as referred to
in staff finding #8, would be a separate lane.
o Staff responded that it would be, but that it
appeared that nearly enough room was already there
for the lane and only a small amount of extra space
would be required.
Agenda Item 5 EXHIBIT 2-
Page _P g Page -1._ C
• D~nnr
page. 9
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
6.2 Sign Code Variance SCA 2-76 (Susnjara - Sherwood Inn)
A request by Marko Susnjara for a sign code variance for
a non-conforming sign in a B-4 zone Wash. Co. General-
Extensive Commercial) at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
(Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 12D, tax lot 1400, Sherwood Inri).
A. Staff Report: read by Powell.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Mr. Susnjara stated his request and the need for
retaining the existing sign as it is vital to his
business and serves as a means of drawing customers
to his establishment.
o Popp asked staff to secure a copy of the state
requirements for signing and how they would relate
and differ with Tigard's sign code.
o Popp recommended to table this item until additional
information was made available.
o Nicoli stated that to deprive anyone of the use of
this sign would be unfair.
C. Staff Recommendation
o Staff recommended approval of the requested ex-
ceptions for a period of 5 years, at which time
a re-hearing -of the issues would be held to deter-
mine further extension of this exception.
o Nicoli made a motion to approve the variance,
deleting staff recommendation that this sign be
subject to a 5 year review period and that Mr.
Susnjara's sign would correspond with the state
and federal regulations as they pertain to signing.
o Secondad (Ems).
o Unanin;:)usly approved.
7. SUBDIVISIONS
7.1 Minor Land Partition MLP 1-76 (Bartnik)
A request by Glenn Bartnik to partition a parcel of land
in a residential zone (County RU-4, single family resi-
dential) at SW North Dakota (Wash. Co. tax map 1S1 35CA,
tax lot 301).
Agenda Item 5 EXHIBIT 2
Page ,)q Page Z- of
Z P~f1P.S
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
.ORDINANCE No. 77- 89
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, SIGN REGULATIONS, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL
CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council finds that after a number of meetings involving
representatives of the business community of Tigard and representatives
of the sign industry, as well as other affected and interested citizens, the
sign code committee recommended to the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard
certain changes in Title 16, Sign Regulations, of the Municipal Code of the
City of Tigard, and that after considering the recommendations of that committee
and deliberating upon those recommendations df-hd:;3- Planning•.Commission
has fcrwarded those recommendations with its amendments to the City Council.
Section 2: The City Council finds that after proper legal notice a:'..
public hearing was held by the City Council on the 10th day of
October, 1977, and at that meeting all interested persons were afforded an
o;~:ortunity to be heard and to present and rebut evidence with respect to the
proposed amendments to Title 16. i:-
Section 3: Having considered the recouaQCQua tions of the sign code committee
and the Planning Commission and having entertained testimony with
regard to the recommendations, the City Council has found that certain changes
should be made in Title 16, Sign Regulations, of the Municipal Code of the
City of Tigard.
Section 4: Therefore Title 16,.Sign Regulations, Municipal Code of the City
of Tigard, is amended in the following respects:
1. Section 16.08.040 Building Official.is deleted from Title 1.6.
2. Section 16.12.010 Required is amended to read as follows:
"16.12.010 Required. Except as provided in this chapter, it is unlawful
for any person to construct, structurally alter, or relocate within the
city any sign without first obtaining a sign permit from the Planning
Director and making payment of the fee required. In addition, all
illuminated signs shall be subject to the provisions of the State
Electrical Code and the permit fees required thereunder."
3. Section 16.12.020 Application is amended to read as follows:
"16.12.020 Application. Application for a sign permit shall be made upon
forms provided by the Planning Director and shall contain or have attached
the following information:
Agenda Item 5 EXHIBIT
PF 3 d Page __I of
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;
(2) Location of the building, structure, or lot to which or upon
which the sign is to be attached or erected;
(3) A plot plan and a scale drawing of the sign. The plot plan
shall be made to scale, and it shall indicate the location of all
buildings, property lines, existing signs, streets, driveways,
and overhead power lines on the premises. In addition, the plot
plan shall show the approximate location of neighboring signs
and buildings within 100 feet on either side of the subject premises.
The scale drawing of the sign shall show the sign dimensions, the
colors, materials, construction, height above the ground, and
source and intensity of any illumination;
(4) All electrical signs shall bear the Underwriters' Laboratory label;
(5) The name, address, and telephone number of the-person who will
do the erection, construction, or maintenance of the sign;
(6) The application, including the information required by paragraphs
(1) through (5) above, shall be submitted to the Planning Director.
The proposal shall be reviewed to determine whether the sign as
proposed is acceptable given its impact on public safety, the
architectural compatibility of the elements of the sign, one with
another, the compatibility of the sign with its -surroundings, the
sign's aesthetic qualities, and its consistency with the needs of
the business or businesses to which it relates. These aesthetic
considerations shall be made according to the criteria set forth
in paragraph (7) below;
(7) The purpose of design review of signs is to improve the quality
of design and to attempt to improve the general appearance of the
business and industrial community. The intent of this process
is to review the work submitted, not to perform the design work
for the applicant. Neither is it the intention of this code to
substitute-the personal taste of a reviewer for that of the applicant,
but rather to perform an objective analysis of the proposed sign
according to the standards embodied in this section. In reviewing
the design of sign proposals the Planning Director, and; in the event
of an appeal, the Design Review Board, shall consider particularly
the following:
(a) Letters
Style (for Legibility and continuity)
Size of copy (in relation to background)
Amount of copy (in relation to sign size)
/ (b) Colors
l Compatibility with building colors Agenda Item 5
Compatibility with each other Page 31
(c) Overall Design (As it relates to the building and
suitability to the location) EXHIBIT 3
Pan* 2 Of
t
4. Section 16.28.010 Nonconforming Signs shall be amended by amending
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
"16.28.010 Nonconforming Signs.
(a) The Planning Director shall order the removal of any sign
erected in violation of the provisions of this Title. The Planning
Director shall give fifteen days' written notice by certified mail
to the owner of the sign or, if the owner of the sign cannot-be
notified, to the owner of the building, structure, or premises on
which such sign is located to remove the sign or to bring it into
compliance with this Title. If the owner of the building, structure,
or premises upon which such sign is located fails to remove the sign
within fif.teen.'(1)) days. After receipt of written notice from the
Planning Director; the Planning Director or his duly authorized
representative may remove such sign at cost to the owner of the
building, structure, or premises, and such costs shall be a lien
against land or premises upon which the sign is located and. may
be collected or foreclosed in the same manner as liens otherwise
entered in the lien docket of the City.
5. Section 16.36.020(5) Real Estate Directional Signs is amended
to read as-follows:
"(5) Real Estate Directional Signs. Real estate signs advertising an
open house and located off the premises, limited to a sign area of
six square feet and a maximum dimension of four feet may die
erected and maintained, provided the display of such sign shall be
only during those hours the property is available for inspection.
No other off-premise directional signs shall be allowed.' No permits
are required for such signs, but the 'Planning Director may establYSh
reasonable rules and regulations to prohibit sign clutter, erection
of unsafe signs, or other problems in connection with the erection
of real estate directional signs."
6. Section 16.36.040 Commercial Zones is amended to read as follows:
"16.36.040 Commercial and Industrial Zones.
(1) No signs shall be permitted in a C-5 Commercial zone except
those specified in Title 18 for such zone.
(2) No signs shall be permitted in a C-P Commercial-Professional
zone except those specified in Title 18 for such zone.
(3) Free-Standing Signs. Free-standing signs shall be permitted only
in commercial and industrial zones. Where free-standing signs
are permitted, the size, height, orientation, location, and design
shall be controlled by the criteria set forth in paragraphs (a)
thru (m) below.
(a) One multiface d free-standing sign identifying the principal
goods, products, facilities or services available on the rytHRIT 3
premises shall be permitted on any premise. Agenda Item 5
Page
/F,l H'+nn_cfanrlinn cinnc chill hp nnrmitte!d on nrnnertie5 zoned 7-
commercial or industrial and fronting on arterial streets
subject to the following conditions and limitations:
(1) Area limit: The maximum square footage of sign
allowable shall be 70 square feet per face or a total
of 140 square feet for all sign faces- If the sign is
moved back from the property line which parallels the
street the sign is facing, the sign area may be increased
at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot, measured
from the property line to that portion of the sign nearest
the property line. If the property line is more than 15
feet from the edge of the road pavement, the measurement
shall be made from that portion of the sign nearest the
pavement to a point 15 feet from the pavement edge. The
maximum allowable area under this provision shall be 90
square*feet per face or a total of 180 square feet for all
sign faces.
(2) Height: No free-standing sign located at the right-of-way
edge shall exceed 20 feet. Height may increase one foot
for each ten feet,of setback from the property line (or
15 feet from pavement edge, whichever is less)) to a
maximum of 22 feet.
(c) Free-standing signs shall be permitted on properties zoned
commercial or industrial on collector streets subject to the
following conditions and limitations:
(1) Area limit: The maximum square footage of sign
allowable shall be 25 square feet per face or a
total of 50 square feet for all sign faces. If the sign is
moved back from the property line which parallels the street
the sign is facing, the sign area may be increased at the
rate of one square foot per lineal foot, measured from the
property line to that portion of the sign nearest the
property line. If the property line is more than 15 feet
from the edge of the road pavement, the measurement shall
be made from that portion of the sign nearest the pavement
to a point 15 feet from the pavement edge.' The maximum
allowable area under this provision shall be 45 square feet
per face or a total of 90 square feet for all.sign faces.
(2) Height: No free-standing sign located at the right-of-way
edge shall exceed 16 feet in height. Height may increase
one foot for each ten feet of setback from the property
line (or 15 feet from the pavement edge, whichever is
less) to a maximum of 18 feet.
(d) Free-standing signs shall be permitted on property zoned commercial
or industrial and fronting on local streets subject to the
following conditions and limitations:
(1) Area limit: The maximum square footage of sign allowable
shall be 16 square feet per face or a total of 32 square t
feet for all sign faces. If the sign is moved back from the
Agenda Item 5 EXHIBIT 3
Page 3:3 Page q of
property line which parallels the street the sign is facing,
the sign area may be increased at the rate of one-half
square foot per lineal foot, measured from the property
line to that portion of the sign nearest the property line.
If the property line is more than 15 feet from the edge
of the goad pavement, the measurement shall be made from
that portion of the sign nearest the pavement to a point
15 feet from the pavement edge. The maximum allowable
area under this provision shall be 26 square feet per face
or a- total of 52 square feet for all sign faces.
(2) Height: No free-standing sign located at the right-of-way
edge shall exceed 14 feet in height. Height may increase
one foot for each ten feet of setback from the property
line (or 15 feet from the pavement edge, -whichever is less)
to a maximum of 16 feet.
(e) For purposes of applying the criteria of this ordinance, the
following list of street designations shall apply:
Designated :Arterial Streets
All of S. W. Durham Road within the city
All of S: W. Greenburg Road (north of North Dakota)
within the city
All of S. W. Hall Boulevard within the city
All of'S.W. Pacific Highway within the city
All of S. W. Scholls Ferry Road within the city
All of S. W. Tigard Street (east of Tiedeman) within
the city Z-
All of 68th Avenue (north of Hampton) within the city
All of 72nd Avenue (south of Hampton) within the.city
Designated Collector Streets
S. W. Ash Avenue within the city from S.W. Burnham to
14 S. W. Hill Street
All of S. W. Bonita Road within the city
All of S. W. Bull Mountain Road within the city
All of S. W. Burnham Street within the city-
All of S. W. Cascade Street within the city
All of S. W. Commercial within the city
All of S. W. Gaarde Street within the city
All of S. W. Grant Street within the city
All of S. W. Greenburg Road (south of S. W. North
Dakota) within the city
All of S. W. Hampton within the city
All of S. W. Hunziker Street within the city
All of S. W. Main Street within the city
All of S. W. McDonald Street within the city
All of S. W. North Dakota within the city
( All of S. W. Pfaffle Road within the city
All of S. W. Sattler Road within the city
All of S. W. Summerfield Drive within the city Agenda Item 5
All of S. W. Tiedeman Street within the city Page 3q
All of S. W. Walnut Street within the city
t All of S. W. 98th Avenue within the city
All of S. W. 100th Avenue within the city EXHIBIT 3
A11 nF C W 171ct Avnm~n within thn rity Page -5- 01
Local Streets
All other existing streets within the city
(Ordinance 75-40 S4, 1975, Ordinance 72-68 S1, 1972:'
Ordinance 70-32 5210-8, 1970)
(f) Supplemental design features. If the design reviewer determines
that the•sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be
served an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area and
25 percent of sign height (to include-the pole cover) may be
permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, in the additional
area or height permitted. For purposes of this subsection the
word "copy" includes symbols, logos, and figures, as well as
letters.
(g) Where a premise fronts on more than one street standards for
the street towards which the sign is oriented shall be the
controlling standards. In the event the sign is oriented
equally towards more than one street the more permissive of the
two sets of standards shall be applied.
(h) Except for time'and temperature signs and theater marquees and
signs used by auto service stations in order to display the
current price of gasoline, no free-standing sign permitted
pursuant to this section shall include a sign of the type
known as a "reader board." For.the purposes of this section,
a "reader board" is defined as a sign designed to permit the
changing of the message of the sign regularly or frequently as,
for example, a sign made up of a blackboard, changeable paper
faced letters, of a rack designed to hold moveable letters.
(i) Each free-standing sign shall be surrounded by an area set
aside to protect the sign from vehicles negotiating in the
parking area of the business to which the sign relates, and
the area set aside shalr be landscaped. The size and shape
of the area set aside and the landscaping shall be represented
on the plot plan required by Section 16.12.020 and shall be
-subject to the review.and control of the Planning Director or
his agent. On existing sites where a landscape island is not
feasible, the minimum clearance between the lowest portion of A
free-standing sign and the ground shall be 14 feet in any
vehicle maneuvering area.
M Every free-standing sign erected after the date of the passage
of this ordinance shall incorporate a pole cover into its
design, and the address number of the premises being identified
must be exhibited on either the free-standing sign or the
building, and the address number must be constructed so as to
be readable from automobiles passing upon the street toward
/ which the sign is oriented.
(k) No free-standing sign, nor any portion of any free-standing
sign, shall be located on or be projected over any portion of
.a street, sidewalk or other public right-of-way or property.
Signs may be located within setback areas only as provided in
Section 16.20.040.
Agenda Item 5 EXHIBIT 3
Paqe 3.5 Page _ Z of
D' Dnnnc
( (1) When a premise contains more than a single tenant but is
not defined as a shopping center, the provisions of a free-
standing sign shall take into consideration the needs of all
separate tenants. The design shall take' into consideration the
need for providing a signing system which is harmonious in
appearance and legibility. The building owner shall provide at
his own expense a common support for all tenant signage. Said
support should be engineered to withstand 20 pounds per square
foa t wind load of completed display. . Up to an additional: 50
percent of sign copy area may be permitted when deemed necessary
by the Planning Director to adequately identify the separate
tenants.
(m) Shopping centers or industrial parks, defined as areas of not
less than eight business units and consisting of not less than
four acres, shall establish a single signing format. The sign
shall include the complex name and street number. Up to an
additional 50 percent of sign area may be permitted when deemed
necessary-by the Planning Director to adequately identify the
complex. This increase should be judged according to unique
identification needs and circumstances which necessitate
additional area to make•the sign sufficiently legible. When
a shopping center or industrial park has more than one main
entrance on separate frontages, a second free-standing sign
may be allowed. The two allowable signs shall face separate
frontages and are not intended to be viewed simultaneously.
(4) Wall signs: In addition to signs permitted by this section wall
signs may be erected or maintained but they shall not exceed in
gross area 20 percent of the.building to which the sign is
attached or on which the sign is maintained. Signs placed on or
within one foot of the display windows-and designed to be
.viewed from the exterior of the building shall be included in
determining the amount of signing on such building face. Wall
signs may not project more than 18 inches to the wall to which
they are attached.
(5) Real estate signs: No more than two signs offering the premises
for sale, lease, or inspection by the public shall be permitted.
The total area of each sign shall not exceed 32 square feet.
Such signs may be modified to indicate 'that the property has
been sold.
(6) Moving signs: No sign shall have or consist of any moving,
rotating, or otherwise 'animated part.
7. Section 16.36.050 Industrial Zones is deleted from Title 16.
8. Section 16.40.050 Rotating or Revolving Signs is deleted from Title 16.
9. Section 16.40.060(b) is amended to read as follows: Agenda Item 5
Page 3(0
"(b) No flashing signs shall be permitted except those showing
time and temperature only."
EXHIBIT 3
10. Section 16.34.010 Right of Appeal is amended by the addition of the page
letter (a) before t}-- first paragraph, the addition of the letter (b) 4' Page
before the second vaiaeranh. and bvv the addition of the fol.lowine
i 10111111
paragraph, to be designated (c):
"16.34.010 Right of appeal"
(c) Any person who has applied to the Planning Director for a
sign permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.12.020
way appeal the Planning Director's decision to the design
review board by the procedure set forth at Section 18.58.020(c)
of the Tigard Municipal Code.
Section 5: It is hereby declared that'an emergency exists and that it is
necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health,
and safety of the City of Tigard, Oregon, that the foregoing change become a
permanent part of the City's records, and this ordinance shall be effective
upon its passage by the Council, and approval by the Mayor.
PASSED: By lAhc~n~mn~~• vote of all Council members present, after being
read three times by number and title only, this 10Th day of
„~'~c"fohF►- , 1977.
-ACE
Recorder - City of T ard, Oregon
APPROVED: By the Mayor this •/G-Tk day of 1977.
Mayor - City of Tigard, Oregon
t
t
EXHIBIT-L
Page 8 - Ordinance No. 77-89 Agenda Item 5 Page P Of
Page 3'7 Pages
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
L - ORDINANCE -No. 78
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, SIGN REGULATIONS, OF THE TIGARD
MUNICIPAL CODE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1_ The-City Council finds that after a number of.meetings
involving representatives of the business community s
of Tigard and representatives of the sign industry, as well as
other affected and interested citizens, the sign code committee
recommended-to the Planning Commission of.the City of Tigard cer-
tain changes in Title 16, Sign Regulations, of the Municipal Code"
of the City of Tigard, and that after considering the recorunendations
of that committee and deliberating upon those recommendations the
Planning Commission has forwarded those recommendations with its
amendments to the City Council:
Section 2: The City Council finds that after proper legal notice
a.public hearing was.held by the'City Council on the
20 day of rsarch 1978, and at.that-meeting all interested
persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard and to present-and
rebut evidence with respect to.the proposed amendments to Title 16.
Y
Section 3: Having consider?d the recommendations of.the sign code
committee and the Planning Commission and having enter-
tained testimony with regard to the recommendations, the City Council
has found that certain changes should be made in Title 16, Sign
Regulations,.of the Municipal Code of the City of Tigard.'
Section 4: Therefore, Title 16, Sign Regulations, Municipal Code
of the.City of Tigard, is amended in the following
respects:
16.36.040 (9) be amended as follows:
4. WALL SIGNS: a. Allowable Area - In addition to signs
permitted by subdivision (2). Wall signs including illuminated
reader board may be erected or maintained but shall not exceed
in gross area 10% of the building frontage occupied by the
tenant.
Signs placed within one foot of the display windows and de-
signed to be viewed from the exterior of the building shall
be included in determining the amount of such building face.
( b. Wall signs may not project more than 1.8" from the wall or
above the wall to which they are attached. Agenda Item 5
Page 3 8
C. In buildings where one or more tenants occupy a portion
of building; which does not include any portion of an exterior
wall having exposure to a public street, allowable wall sig; EXHIBITC/_
area will he comMIted in the foll.o:~,.i ng manner: ::h Page I of
tenant not having building frontage may *have a wall sign on
the wall having street exposure (front wall)-provided it does
not exceed in sign area that.portion of'sign area permitted'
that front wall tenant having the smallest proportion of allow-
able sign area. In this type of building the allowable pro-
portion of front, wall sign area shall be computed as 15% of the
total building face. A wall sign program shall be established
for all multi-tenant.. buildings, no new permit to be issued
until such a program is established. On pre-existing.buildings,
each new tenant will adhere to the established program.
d. SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES: If the design reviewer de-
termines that the wall sign's visual appeal and overall design
quality would be served, an additional 50 percent of the allow-
able sign *area may be permitted. No copy will be permitted,.
however, in the additional area permitted. For purposes of
this subsection, the word 'copy''Jncludes symbols, logos, and
letters.*
e. PAINTED SIGNS: Wall signs-painted directly onto the wall
surface shall not exceed in gross wall area-five percent of
the face of the building they are painted upon, and the verti-
cal dimension of the sign cannot exceed 20 percent of the height
of the wall.
16.40.095.is amended to read:
16.40.095 BENCH SIGN: Bench signs will only be permitted
at designated transit stops in commercial, industrial,' and
multi-family zones where no bus shelter presently exists.-
There. shall be no more than one bench sign per allowable transit
stop. Placement of the bench sign shall not interfere with
pedestrian traffic or traffic vision. Application for a bench
sign shall include the signature of the affected property owner
and proof of liability insurance.
16.08.025 be amended to read:
16.08.025 BENCH SIGN: A bench designed to seat people which
carries a written or graphic message.
16.36.020 be amended to read:
7. a_ Freestanding signs for conditional uses in residential
and multi-family zones shall be subject to review by the Planning
Commission acccrding to the procedures prescribed in Chapter
18, Section 72, Conditional Use, for which the following standards
are recommended:
Street Type Height Area
Local 8' 1.2 sq. ft. per sign face
Collector 12' 20 sq. ft_ per sign face
Arterial 16' 65 sq. ft. per sign face
( EXHIBIT
Pn-o 2 - Ordinance No. 78 - L~ pagea3~~ 5 Pa e
9 o
b. Churches and schools are permitted to have reader boards
depicting events and services, butnot in-excess of the allow-
able sign area.
C. Wall Signs - Wall signs shall not exceed 5 percent of the
front wall area and not be permitted on side or rear wall-
16.36.020 (3) be amended to read:
(3) Permanent-subdivision identification signs. One.ground
sign, at each entry point.to the subdivision from the public.'
right-of-way, with the site properly landscaped, denoting the
development name and not exceeding 32 sq. ft. in area. Mum!-
nation may be approved as long as it does not create a public-::.
or private nuisance.
16.40.070 Projecting Signs is deleted from Title 16-
16.40.080 Roof Signs is deleted from Title 16.'
16.24.015 Those: signs which are non-conforming according to the
standards in Ordinance No. 77-89 and No. 78-16 may be con-
tinued until 3 20 88 (.ten years of ter date -of. ordinance) except
signs which are already non=conforming, as per Section 16.24.010.
JI Section 5: It is hereby declared that an emergency exists and that,
it is-necessary for the immediate prese'rvation.of'the
peace, health, and safety of the City of Tigard, Oregon, that the
foregoing change become a permanent part of the City's records, and
this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council,
and approval by the Mayor.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members-present, after
being read t~vo times by number and title only, this ,2_o
day of 1978.
i ~ y~-
Ity
Recorder - City of Tia rd, Oregon
APPROVED: By the Mayor this Zc) day of /~,1~,. 1975_
Agenda Item 5
Page 140
Mayor - City of Tigard, Oregon EXHIBIT q
Page _ 3 of
February 29, 1984 ci ri OF TIGARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
Mr. Marko Susnjara
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, Or. 97034
RE: Sign Alternation, SCA 2-76
Dear Mr. Susnjara,
I have reviewed your request for the alteration of your free standing sign
as well as your wall sign. Upon reviewing the site with you and examining
the drawings which you have prepared I am satisfied that the alterations which
you purpose and the new wall sign facing I-5 will not violate the intent of
the January, 1976, sign code variance which you received from the Tigard
Planning Commission. It appears from a review of the record of that
proceeding that an approval was granted which will not be adversely affected
by your new proposal.
A copy of this letter will be submitted to the Building Division in
support of your application. You may submit your plans and sign application
whenever convenient.
Sincerely, '
L
William A. Monahan,
Director of Planning and Development
WAM:dmj
cc: Building Official
EXHIBIT S-
Agenda Item 5 Page / Of
Page Lf _LPages
CITY OF TIFA RD
February 17, 1988 OREGON
Ms. Diana L. Giles, General Manager
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd
Tigard, OR 97224
RE: Two Freestanding Signs Located at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Dear Ms. Giles:
I am writing to confirm ,that the two freestanding signs erected on your
property are in fact, in violation of Tigard's Community Development Code.
Both signs are too tall and are too large, and as such, are in violation of
Sections 18.114.130(c)(1)(D) and 18.114.130(c)(1)(B) and (C) respectively.
Moreover, the-Code allows only one freestanding sign per premise in section
18.114.130(c)(1)(A)(i). The signs can be classified as nonconforming signs
because they do not conform with sign height, area and number standards
contained in Tigard's current sign code.
Nonconforming signs are allowed to be continued in use as long as they are not
expanded or structurally altered, relocated or replaced. However, Code
Section 18.114.110(x) stipulates that all nonconforming signs erected as of
March 20, 1978, be brought into conformance with existing code standards by
March 20, 1988. Current standards. for signs in the C-G zone include a maximum
sign area of 20 feet in height and 70 square feet per sign face. Th-refore,
the City would not allow you to expand either of these signs. We will be
sending a second letter under separate cover explaining your alternative.
Should you have any further questions, please call the Planning Division at
639-4171.
Sincerely,
Deborah Stuart / i
r Assistant Planner
ht/3245D Agenda Item 5 i
Page 4.
EXHIBIT
13125 SW Hail Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Page -,Lot
i Pages
March 24, 1988
Ms. Joanne Gaglio
Spectrum Development Corp. ~'TM®~ T'~~1~8✓
1250 US Bancorp Tower
111 SW Fifth Avenue OREGON
Portland, OR 97204
RE: Case # 88-90-Z'
Ms. Gaglio, Property Owner:
Recently, City staff contacted you in writing concerning a nonconforming
sign(s) located at 1-570.0 --SW. Upper•Boones Ferry. The staff appreciates your
response to this letter so that we could discuss the nonconforming signs on
your property and the options available to resolve the problem. The following
nonconforming sign violations on your property were noted:
1. Too high freestanding sign, a violation of section 18.114.130(c)(1)(D).
2. Oversize (area) freestanding sign, a violation of section
18.114.130(c)(1)(B) and (C).
3. More than one freestanding sign, a violation of section
18.114.130(c)(1)(A)(i).
The City expects to adopt changes to the City Sign Code on March 28, 1988 or
shortly thereafter. As a result, we intend to postpone sign civil infractions
enforcement procedures until after the revisions are adopted. Because the
revisions may affect your sign(s), the City is now offering an extension of
time via a voluntary compliance agreement (see attached).
Although the City is willing to grant an extension, this agreement must be
signed by either the business owner, the property owner, or an authorized
representative and returned to the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,
PO Box 23397, Tigard, OR 97223 within 10 days of receipt of this letter.
Failure to return the signed voluntary compliance agreement to the City within
10 days or to proceed with any of the alternatives mentioned in the previous
letter will result in no extension of time and the City will proceed with
civil infraction enforcement procedures. A uniform infraction summons and
complaint will be issued and a maximum civil infraction penalty of up to
$250.00 per day per violation may be imposed.
Please contact Deborah Stuart, Jerry Offer or myself at 639-4171 should you
have any questions.
Sin~gerely
Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
Agenda ge Item 5
cs/3906DS Pa
L43
PS: This letter was sent to the business owner or manager, the property owner,
and a sign company representative (if known to the City).
ExNisiT }
13125 :-W Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Page I Of
i
VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT C1 1 Y OF Ti6A F^
CITY OF TIGARD ~(~J
OREGON
To: Ms. Joanne Gaglio Case: 88-90-Z
Respondent
RE: 15670-15700 SW Upper Boones
Spectrum Development Corp. Ferry Road
1250 US Bancorp Tower, 111 SW 5th Tax Map and Lot No.:2S1 12DD 800
Portland, OR 9720 and 90
it Joanne Gaglio , as property owner representative
of Spectrum Development Corp. agree to 1) pay a deposit towards transcript
costs on an appeal of SCE 87-03; or 2) submit a completed application for a
Sign Code Exception or an Administrative Variance or an Administrative
Exception within one month (31 days) of City notification of adopted Sign Code
Revisions; or 3) remove, relocate, or modify my sign(s) to comply with
provisions of the City Sign Code (Chapter 18.114) within two months (60 days)
of City notification. I understand that the City of Tigard will withhold
further action on case 88-90-Z until above date of compliance, and upon
full compliance the City of Tigard agrees to drop all proceedings and consider
the case closed. I understand that if the above time, date and conditions are
not met I may be cited with an additional infraction for failure to comply
with a Voluntary Compliance Agreement.
Signed: Date Signed:
1.
Agenda Item 5
Page L44
Signed: Date Signed:
City of Tigard EXHIBIT
i C /k17 Page L of
131255 avd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, ~_xegon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Z- Pages '
t
t '
e
SPEARS, LUBERSKY,
BLEDSOE, ANDERSON, YOUNG & HILLIARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
520 S.W. YAMHILL STREET, SUITE 800
PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-1383
(503) 226-6151
WASHINGTON OFFICE
FAX: (503) 224-0388
TELEX: 269029-SPRS-UR PACIFIC FIRST PLAZA
1220 MAIN STREET, SUITE 355
185-2223 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 98660
(206) 693-4100
OUR FILE NO. FAX (206) 694-5350
1
December 20, 1989
Mr. Keith S. Liden UECZI 198
Senior Planner
City of Tigard OF T~GAR~
P. O. Box 22397 ~r ~N~i~n~I± ncoT
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Sherwood Inn/Chevron Signs
(City file Nos 88-88-Z and 88-90-Z)
Dear Mr. Liden:
This letter is written in response to your office's
correspondence with Mike Wynne and Dave Alexander in the matter
of civil infractions 88-88-Z and 88-90-Z. To briefly summarize
the current state of affairs, you have alleged that the
freestanding sign located at the Sherwood Inn in Tigard
violates certain provisions of the City's Sign Code and is
subject to amortization provisions which required abatement of
the violations by March 1988.
It is our opinion that these amortization provisions
are not applicable to the freestanding sign because the sign is
covered by a variance issued by the City in 1976 (SCA 2-76).
This variance has the effect of rendering the sign "conforming"
within the meaning of the City's zoning ordinance. Therefore,
the rules governing nonconforming signs (including the
amortization of such signs) simply have no application to the
Sherwood Inn/Chevron sign.
Because we have concluded that the nonconforming sign
rules are inapplicable, we have found it unnecessary to address
other legal impediments to the City's ability to force the
removal or modification of the sign.
C
r
Agenda Item 5
Page y5
71
Mr. Keith S. Liden
December 20, 1989
Page 2
Background
In 1965, the owners of the property now occupied by
the Sherwood Inn leased a small portion of the property to
Standard Oil Company of California, granting rights to erect
and maintain a sign. In a series of transactions not relevant
here, Mr. and Mrs. Marko Susnjara succeeded to the rights of
the lessor, followed by Spectrum Development and then Ferryman
Enterprises (the current owner of the Inn). The sign itself is
currently owned by Martin Brothers, Inc. The sign advertises
the Inn, the Inn's restaurant (operated by Craig Banning) and
the Chevron gas station.
On January 15, 1976, the City of Tigard annexed the
subject property. By letter dated September 12, 1975,
Mr. Jerald Powell, Associate Planner for the City, informed
Mr. Susnjara that the freestanding sign was nonconforming under
the then existing sign code.1-/ Mr. Powell informed
Mr. Susnjara that he could obtain a variance which would
constitute "a permanent permission by the City to retain the
sign, and the use of the sign as long as that sign stands." By
letter dated January 7, 1976 Mr. Susnjara requested such a
variance. On January 20, 1976 the Planning Commission heard
and unanimously approved Mr. Susnjara's application.
Significantly, the Planning Commission declined to adopt a
staff recommendation that the variance be limited to a term of
five years. In other words, the application was granted
without limitation, except that the signs remained "subject to
federal and state sign regulations." See letter of J. Powell
to M. Susnjara, January 27, 1976.
In 1984, Mr. Susnjara requested and received authority
to alter the freestanding sign. In a letter dated February 29,
1984, William Monahan, the City's Director of Planning and
Development, certified that the alterations complied with the
1976 variance.
In February, 1988, you notified Spectrum Development
of your belief that the freestanding sign was nonconforming and
subject to amortization under the Sign Code. By letter to
Deborah Stuart dated April 12, 1988, Spectrum submitted its
position that the signs were protected by the 1976 variance.
After requesting that the =!:fected parties sign "voluntary
l/ Copies of the relevant correspondence are enclosed for
your information.
Agenda Item 5
Page L(L
r'
Mr. Keith S. Liden
December 20, 1989
Page 3
compliance agreements," Ms. Stuart responded to Spectrum's
argument in a letter dated July 14, 1989. Ms. Stuart stated
that she could "find no conclusive evidence that the Sherwood
Inn [sign] is exempt from the requirements of the amortization
regulations."
We understand the City's position to be that, in the
absence of some specific "grandfathering" provision recognizing
Variance SCA 2-76 and the subject sign, the Sign Code's
amortization rules will apply. For reasons to be explained in
detail below, this argument is incorrect. To the contrary, in
the absence of specific language revoking or modifying the
rights granted in the 1976 variance, the Sign Code has no
application to the sign permitted by that variance.
Analysis
The Sherwood Inn/Chevron sign issue can be resolved by
reference to several well-established rules which apply to
zoning variances.
First, a variance is an administrative authorization
for property to be used in a manner departing from the literal
requirements of a zoning ordinance. Variances are granted in
order to avoid the inequities and injustice which might result
from the rigid application of zoning rules. See generally,
P. Rohan, Ed., 6 Zoning and Land Use Controls § 43.01[2]
(1989); R. Anderson, 3 American Law of Zoning § 20.02 (1986);
Rathkopf, 3 Law of Zoning and Planning § 38.07 (4th Ed. 1988);
N. Williams, Ed., 5 American Land Planning Law § 133.02 (Rev.
Ed. 1985); 82 Am Jur 2d Zoning and Planning § 266 (1976).
Once granted, a variance runs with the land, enabling
subsequent transferees of the subject property to enjoy the
rights established by the variance. Rohan, supra,
§ 43.02[6](c)(ii); E. McQuillan, 8 Municipal Corporations
§ 25.163 (3rd Ed. 1983). A.landowner's rights under a variance
are determined by the terms of the variance itself. 101 CJs
Zoning and Land Planning § 260 (1979). Variances may be
granted with or without conditions or time limits. In the
present instance, Varivince SCA 2-76 was granted without any
limit on its duration. Indeed, the Planning Commission
specifically rejected a staff proposal to limit the duration to
five years.
Agenda Item 5
Page L-19
, •
Mr. Keith S. Liden
December 20, 1989
Page 4
The final and most significant aspect of the law of
variances is that "when a variance is granted, the use
permitted becomes a conforming use." Rathkopf, supra, at
§ 38.07 (emphasis added). This principle has been uniformly
recognized by the cases and commentators. See, e.g., James v.
Town of New Hartford, 373 NY Supp 2d 938, 941, 49 AD2d 247
(1975); Dimitrov v. Carlson, 138 NJ Super 52, 350 A2d 246, 249
(1975) (and cases cited therein); Industrial Lessors Inc v
City of Garfield, 119 NJ Super 181, 290 A2d 737, 738 (1972),
c r denied, 61 NJ 160, 293 A2d 290 (1972); Appeal of Barefoot,
473 Pa 323, 263 A2d 321, 322 (1970); McQuillan, supra,
§ 25.160; Rathkopf, supra, § 38.07.
For example, in Jones v .,,Town of New Hartford, supra,
landowners were granted a variance permitting them to•construct
a restaurant in a residential zone. The building was later
damaged by fire. When the owners began to rebuild the
structure, the City moved to enjoin construction, arguing that
the zoning code prohibited restoration of nonconforming uses.
The court rejected the City's argument, ruling "that a building
constructed under a variance is not a nonconforming use within
the meaning of ordinances limiting nonconforming buildings and
uses." 373 NY Supp 2d at 941.
A similar result was reached in Industrial Lessors
Inc v. City of Garfield, supra. Here again, the court
permitted the reconstruction of a building erected pursuant to
a variance from the underlying zoning requirements. In
reaching its conclusion, the court observed that
"a variance is vastly different from a
nonconforming use. * * * A variance * * *,is
an official quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial
determination that the use or structure
allowed is not offensive to the ordinance in
the broad context of the particular
circumstances which, * * * have authorized the
grant. In essence the use or structure
allowed becomes a conforming use. Although a
variance can perhaps be lost by abandonment
* * * it otherwise partakes to a large degree
of the characteristics of a vested right
running with the land." 290 A2d at 738.
[Citations omitted, emphasis added]
l
Agenda Item 5
Page y 2,
Mr. Keith S. Liden
December 20, 1989
Page 5
In a third example, a landowner applied for a special
exception granting him permission to construct a dwelling on a
parcel smaller than the applicable minimum lot size. The
property was then sold, and when the purchaser sought a
building permit to construct a house, the municipality argued
that the structure would violate the underlying zoning
ordinance. The court ruled that when a variance is granted
"the use becomes a conforming use, and such use enures to the
benefit of a subsequent owner of the land and is not abandoned
in the absence of a time limitation in the exception itself or
in the zoning ordinance." Appeal of Barefoot, supra, 263 A2d
at 322.
Turning to the City's current allegations, we note
that the Sign Code's amortization and abatement provisions,
Chapters 18.114.110 and 18.114.120, apply by their terms to
"nonconforming signs." These provisions make no mention
whatsoever of signs which have been exempted from regulation
(and thus rendered conforming) by variance. The amortization
provisions could only apply to the subject sign in the event of
a structural alteration, relocation, or replacement in
violation of the original variance. See Chapter
18.114.110(d). As previously noted, the City has conceded that
the only changes made to the subject sign were within the terms
of the variance.
Clearly, the referenced provisions of the City's Sign
Code do not affect signs permitted by variances. We are aware
of no other provisions of the Sign Code which might affect the
Sherwood Inn/Chevron sign, nor any official municipal act
repealing or modifying Variance SCA 2-76.
Conclusions
The Planning Commission's variance permitting the
maintenance of the Sherwood Inn/Chevron sign constitutes a
permanent permission to maintain the sign, which runs with the
land and which is not limited in duration. The variance has
the legal effect of rendering the permitted use a conforming
use, and the terms of the variance define the owners' rights
with respect to the sign. The nonconforming use provisions of
the Sign Code have no application to uses authorized by
variance. Thus, the owners of the sign are not required to
remove or modify the sign, nor are they required to apply for
any special exception, variance, or other permission.
Agenda Item 5
Page L 4q
ME 111
r
Mr. Keith S. Liden
December 20, 1989
Page 6
We trust that this discussion adequately sets forth
the controlling law. If you have any questions concerning this
matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
Y=
Ian K. Whitlock
SPEARS, LUBERSKY, BLEDSOE,
ANDERSON, YOUNG & HILLIARD
Of Attorneys for Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
By;
Michael J. Wynne
Attorney for Ferryman Enterprises
cc: Ms. Peggy E. Scolnick
Mr. Craig Banning
Mr. Brian Ferryman
Mr. H. E. Ferryman
Mr. Fred Drysdale
C
t
Agenda Item 5
Page Sp
July 14, 1989
Mr. Dave Alexander C■ ■ a OF T1 RD
Spectrum Development Company
111 SW Fifth Avenue #1250 OREGON
Portland, OR 97204
RE: Civil Infractions Case No. 88-90-2
25700 SW Upper Soones Ferry Road
Dear Mr. Alexander:
This letter is in response to your correspondence of last year in which you
asserted that the Sherwood Inn received approval from the City of Tigard to
permit two freestanding signs to remain in perpetuity. You stated and provided
documentation that the City Planning Commission granted a Variance in January,
1976.
Since your last correspondence, I have been busy with other sign cases 'and
needed to meet with City attorneys and research your claims further. This delay
has in no way affected your case.
An amendment to the City Sign Code in 1978 added the amortization, clause
pertaining to nonconforming signs and the City is now enforcing this provision
(18.114.110.A). After thoroughly researching our annexation records, the
minutes to the Planning Commission hearing on the above Variance (SCA 2-76),
the minutes to the Planning Commission and to the City Council hearings
regarding the Sign Code amendment, I can find no conclusive evidence that the
Sherwood Inn is exempt from the requirements of the amortization regulations.
If approval of these signs was given as a condition of annexation or prior to
adoption of the new Sign Code amendment, staff can find no record of this
condition in any City records. Absent clear evidence of 'such an agreement,
staff concludes that the legislative change adopted to the City's Sign Code by
the City Council in 1978 was intended to apply to all properties in Tigard,
including the Sherwood Inn.
I invite you or a representative to City gall for a pre-application conference
during which we can discuss the various options available to the business
owner, yourself as property owner representative and/or a sign company
representative. In light of the fact that we have no signed voluntary
compliance agreement, should I not hear from you within 21 days of your receipt
of this letter, I shall have to initiate civil infractions enforcement actions
against you. You may contact me directly at 639-4171x365.
Sincerreely,~
Deborah A. Stuart
Assistant Planner
cc Diana Giles, Manager of the Sherwood Inn
r Tim Ramie, City Attorney
Agenda Item 5
Page
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigord, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
SPECTRUM
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
111 Spa/. FifthAve. ♦ Suite 125.0
Rcrdc^d V Oregon 9720,!-3616
{503: 778.7600
April 12. 1988
Ks. Debra Stewart
City of Tigard
Planning Division
PO Box 23397
Tigard. OR 97223
RE: Case t88-90-Z
Dear Ms. Stewart:
I am writing this letter in response to Keith Liden's letter of March 24, 1988
concerning our signs located at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. Reference
is made to Mr. Liden's earlier letter of February 19, 1988 and my response to
you by letter dated February 24, 1988. Along with my letter of February 24,
1988, I enclosed various documents pertaining to a previous variance issued
for the signs in question. I would like to take this opportunity to quickly
summarize the sequence of events which transpired leading up to the previously
issued variance from the ordinance.
In 1975 the City approached the then owner of the property, Mr. Marco
Susnjara, andexpressed a desire to annex the Sherwood Inn property to the
City of Tigard. The signs at the Sherwood Inn were not in compliance with the
City's sign code but were essential to the operation of the motel. As a
result. Mr. Susnjara agreed to annex to the City provided a permanent variance
from the sign code was granted. The permanent variance was granted at the
Planning Commission meeting of January 20. 1976:
Enclosed with Mr. Liden's letter of March 24. 1988 was a Voluntary Compliance
Agreement. The final paragraph of Mr. Liden's letter indicates that failure
to sign the Voluntary Compliance Agreement within ten days will result in
civil infraction enforcement procedures on the part of the City and the
potential of a civil infraction penalty of up to $250.00 per day. By
executing the Voluntary Compliance Agreement, we would be agreeing to do one
of three things: (1) Pay a deposit towards transcript costs on an appeal:
(2) submit an application for sign code exception or variance; or (3)
( remove, relocate or modify the signs to comply with the City sign code.
Agenda Item 5
Paqe 5 a
.J
Ms. Debra Stewart
City of Tigard
Page 2
With no intention of being argumentative. we are unable to sign the Voluntary
Compliance Agreement because it is our position that we already have a
permanent variance from the sign code. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for
us to remove, relocate or mgdify our signs or to submit an application for
exception or variance from the sign code.
You have indicated that you will be submitting this file to the City
Attorney's office for their opinion. Please let me know if there is any
additional information which I night supply to you or the City Attorney to
expedite a resolution to this matter.
Sinl rs.
6jDave r
Exece President
DAllp
c
N
Agenda Item 5
Page -53
f
i
r
{
C1TYOF T1GA
February 19, 1988 OREGON
Spectrum Development Corp.
1250 US Bancorp Tower
111 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Dear Property Owner:
To comply with City Code requirements, you may need to make some signage
revisions. Many signs that are too high, too large in area or otherwise not
in conformance with City Sign Code standards will soon be required to conform
with current standards. Signs affected are those that were within Tigard's
city limits prior to the 1978 Sign Code revisions and have not yet been
brought into conformance.
In 1978, the Tigard City Council responded to complaints of increased sign
clutter adjacent to roadways by creating more stringent standards for
allowable signs. The ordinance that instituted those Sign Code reforms
included a 10-year amortization period. That is, businesses unable to meet
the revised sign standards in 1978 were given 10 years to come into
conformance. The 10-year amortization period ends on March 20, 1988.
The following nonconforming signs have been identified at the business
located at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road:
1. Too high freestanding sign, a violation of section 18.114.130(c)(1)(D).
2. Oversize (area) freestanding sign, a violation of section
18.114.130(c)(1)(B) and (C).
3. More than one freestanding sign, a violation of section
18.114.130(c)(1)(A)(i).
Several alternatives exist to rectify your potential sign violations. It is
of utmost importance that you contact us soon. Alternatives include:
1. Should the March 20, 1988, compliance date not be feasible for some
reason, a voluntary compliance agreement is possible. A Voluntary
Compliance Agreement would allow an extension, of time for the following
reasons:
a. An extension of time is necessary to allow a sign company to erect
a new sign;
b. An extension of time is necessary to remove the existing
nonconforming sign;
c. An extension of time is necessary to prepare and submit a Sign Code
exception application; or,
d. The Planning Director finds that a "grace period" is needed to
provide for compliance within a reasonable timeframe.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
Agenda Item 5
Pacie 5-f
"J
Page 2
C February 19, 1988
2. A Sign Code Exception application is a second alternative. An approval
of this application by the Planning Commission would allow the
continued use of a nonconforming sign. A preapplication meeting with
the City Planning staff is necessary to determine the feasibility of
this approach. ►
3. The third alternative would be to remove the sign/signs prior to March
20, 1988. If you propose to install a new replacement sign, you will
need to file an application for a City sign permit.
Many businesses have already used the 10-year lead-in period to update and
change their signs per the Sign Code. With continued assistance from the
remaining businesses, the City looks forward to an overall improved community
appearance over the next year.
Should you have further questions, please contact the Planning Division at
639-4171 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday-Friday. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. Deborah Stuart, Jerry Offer, and I are most ready
to assist you in achieving Sign Code compliance.
Sincerely,
Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
The Planning Division
City of Tigard '
c: Sherwood Inn Motel
cn/3307D
Agenda Item 5
Page 55
March 24, 1988
Ms. Joanne Gaglio
Spectrum Development Corp. C,OF T'1FARD
1250 US Bancorp Tower
111 SW Fifth Avenue OREGON
Portland, OR 97204
RE: Case # 88-90-Z ,
Ms. Gaglio, Property Owner:
Recently, City staff contacted you in writing concerning a nonconforming
sign(s) located at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry. The staff appreciates your
response to this letter so that we could discuss the nonconforming signs on
your property and the options available to resolve the problem. The following
nonconforming sign violations on your property were noted:
1. Too high freestanding sign, a violation of section 18.114.130(c)(1)(D).
2. Oversize (area) freestanding sign, a violation of section
18.114.130(c)(1)(B) and (C).
3. More than one freestanding sign, a violation of section
18.114.130(c)(1)(A)(i).
The City expects to adopt changes to the City Sign Code on March 28, 1988 or
shortly thereafter. As a result, we intend to postpone sign civil infractions
enforcement procedures until after the revisions are adopted. Because the
revisions may affect your sign(s), the City is now offering an extension of
time via a voluntary compliance agreement (see attached).
Although the. City -is willing to grant an extension, this agreement must be
signed by either the business owner, the property owner, or an authorized
representative and returned to the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,
PO Box 23397, Tigard, OR 97223 within 10 days of receipt of this letter.
Failure to return the signed voluntary compliance agreement to the City within
10 days or to proceed with any of the alternatives mentioned in the previous
letter will result in no extension of time and the City will proceed with
civil infraction enforcement procedures. A uniform infraction summons and
complaint will be issued and a maximum civil infraction penalty of up to
$250.00 per day per violation may be imposed.
Please contact Deborah Stuart, Jerry Offer or myself at 639-4171 should you
have any questions.
Sin er7ly
Keith S. Liden
Senior Planner
cs/3906DS
PS: This letter was sent to the business owner or manager, the property owner,
and a sign company representative (if known to the City).
13125 SW H011 Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Agenda Item 5
i Page 510
t
February 29, 1984 C1TY0F T1trA9%W
WASHINGTON COUNTY. OREGON
Mr. Marko Susnjara
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, Or. 97034
RE: Sign Alternation,' SCA 2-76
Dear Mr. Susnjara,
I have reviewed your request `for the alteration of your free standing sigri~.~i'=~
as well as your wall sign. Upou reviewing the site with you and examining`t;'x,
the drawings which you have prepared T..ami atis ied:`: 1i4V`,the~--. x'yft~e,rdWp wliia ~"e
y.. Alin %,yo pus os r n tl~e' new wal`1 sign` 'g i I~ vio aLe
an ar ance: wh~i you' eceiv rom Ch a
'Planaia Comm as on: s. S
8.: ...r,...~. . Its •a a rom revie 0
w .axeXSecoreld.
proceeding.- that :aq;;a rov 3 a • , ran e~ r ii wnot M$st~r t ec a
;,byxyou=; :.proposal`
A copy of this letter will be submitted to the Building Division in t >,;'-,ii-*-
support of your application: You may submit your plans and sign applicatiori•lff`ra6.:'
whenever convenient. Wy`'
Sincerely,
c~
William A. Monahan,
Director of Planning and Development
WAM:dmj
cc: Building Official
3
w.-i.
12755 S.W. ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 T'
Agenda Item 5
Page 5r7
CITY OF TIGARD
■
P. O. Box 23557
12420 S. W. Main
Tigard. Oregon 97223
January 27, 1976
Mr. Marko A. Susnjara
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Reference: File No. SCA 2-76
Dear Mr. Susnjara:
Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Commission, at their
regular meeting of January 20, 1976, considered your request for
a sign code variance for a non-conforming sign in a B-4 zone (Wash.
Co. General Extensive Commercial) at the Sherwood Inn and your
. variance was approved, subject to federal and state sign regulations.
To date we have nQt~received your variance application fee in the
amount of $25.00. Please forward your check as soon as possible so
that we may close our file on this matter.
If you need additional information or assistance, please do not
hesitate to call this office at 639-4171.
Sincerely,
Jerald M. Powell, Assoc. AIP
Associate Planner
JMP:pt
} .t
Agenda Item 5
Page s~
i
nn
i MOTEL - RESTAURANT -LOUNGE
- T ( )n In •.•i:.•fq i '$.dr m . iv : )'.~Vf 1.11'. U{ipa't R..onc, i RJ.
7 AI .u me 1 .~a• t:' ) -*)rb • i t..t i .Onv [itwa•g... O•tgvf^ V7034 I
I 9:r `.f..th...l..
January 7, 1976
City of Tigard
P. 0. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Commercial Sign Variance
Gentlemen:
I have a sign at the Sherwood Inn Motel and Restaurant which is
approximately 65 feet high with 10 foot modules that reads "restaurant"
underneath which is a sign with 8 foot modules that reads "motel""and
an additional sign of 5 foot modules that reads "Sherwood Inn" which
is placed on top of a Chevran sign also to a height of approximately
65 feet.
These signs were placed in operation according to Washington
County specifications and have been in place approximately 8 years and
are the only means of identification faom I-5. Upon annexation into
the City of Tigard I understand that these signs are not in accordance
with the City of Tigard sign code.
I hereby request a hearing as soon as possible for the purpose of
obtaining a variance. Please advise me at the following address:
Marko A. Susnjara
15700 S. W. Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Sincerely,
SHERWOOD INN
QZ
, - rr1
Marko A. Susnjara
Owner
Agenda Item 5
Page 5G
page 9 .
PC Minutes
January 12.0 .1976
6.2 Sign Code Variance SCA 2-76 (Susnjara _ Sherwood 2nri)
A request by Marko Susnjara for a si code variance-for
a non-conforming sign in a B-4 zone (Wash. Co. General
Extensive Commercia'l) at 15700 SW Upper:Boones Ferry Rd.
(Wash." Co. tax map 2S1 12D, tax lot 1400, Sherwood XrAT).*.
A. Staff Report: '-read by Powell.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Mr. Susnjara stated his request.and the need for
retaining the existing sign as it is vital to his
business and serves as a means of drawing customers
to his establishment.
o Popp asked staff to secure a copy'of the.--tate
requirements for signing.-and how they :,could relate
and differ with Tigard's sign code.
o Popp recommended to.table this item until additional
information was made available.-
C o Nicoli stated that to deprive anyone of the use of
this sign would be unfair.
C. Staff Recommendation
o Staff recommended approval of the requested ex-
ceptions for a period of 5 years, at which time
a re-hearing of the issues would be held. to deter-
mine further extension of this exception.
o Nicoli made
a motion to. rbve->the,varianae
Aim
deleting°.1, f; recommendatioril _that , this sign be
subject to ``year review-review.,'that
Susnjara,'s ~ssi would cbrresporid with: the `state
and federal'?~►. Ogulati.on's'-as they pertain o signing.
o Seconded (Fns).
o Unanimousl •.;appr6vea,
7. SUBDIVISIONS
7.'a-Minor Land Partition 'MLP 1-76 (Bartnik)
A request by Glenn Bartnik to partition
j in a residential zone (County RU-4, singl
dential) at SW North Dakota (Wash. Co. to
tax lot 301).
Agenda Item 5
Page (LU
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
January 20, 1976
SCA 2-76
Agenda Item 6.2
SIGN•CODE VARIANCE
A request by Marko Sdsn'jara for exce Lions to the Tigard
Si n Code, Sections 16.36.040 (3) (85, (3)•(C), and 16.40.040
(e~ pertaining to the height, area and location pf the two
existing free-standing sign structures appurtenant to the
Sherwood Inn located near IS on Upper Boones Ferry Road.
STAFF FINDINGS
1. These existing structures are constructed on an easement
adjacent the Sherwood Inn.
2.. The"height of each sign is 65 feet.
3. The area of the "restaurant/motel" sign is approximately
2100 sq. ft. and the area of the "Sherwood Inn" sign is
approximately 550 sq. ft.
4. Neither sign was in conformdnce with the most recent sign
code of Washington County and was subject to removal pro-
visions of the Washington County sign code prior to
Tigard's recent annexation of the site.
5. Under-provisions of Tigard's sign code,- the signs may
continue in use for ten years from the date of. annexation,
December 10, 1975.
6. Section 16.34.020 TMC authorizes the Planning Commission r
to grant a variance of (exception to) the sign code based
on findings that a hardship, "practical difficulties" or
inconsistencies within the code. -No standards or criteria
are established in the code to determine how those tests
shall be satisfied.
7. Certainly the Sherwood Inn would suffer some loss of
revenue were the.present signs lost.. The height of•the-
Upper Boones Ferry overpass and nearby wooded areas"pre-
_olude direct visibility of the applicant's buildings or
of any signs of conforming height from the freeway.
B. The S,herwood Inn is located at a recently-"improved" free-
way interchange.. All indicators of imminent economic de-
velopment are present and, in fact, that development is
begun. Such development will alter the appearance of this
area greatly and will likely alter radically the need for
and advisability of'any'particular form of signing.
Agenda Item 5
Paae
page 2
PC Staff Report
Item 6.2 (SCA 2-76)
/76
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the requested exceptions fo'r a period of five
• years, at which time a re-hearing of the issues must"be
held to determine further extension of this exception.
t
i
Agenda Item 5
Page (off
° CITY OF TIGARD
P. O. Box 23557
12420 S. W. Main
Tigard. Oregon 97223
i I
September 12, 1975
Mr. Marko A. Susnjara
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Dear Mr. Susnjara:
In reference to our recent conversation concerning your sign on
the Sherwood inn, this letter is to clarify and record pertinent
points discussed.
Your sign is a non-conforming sign under provision of Section 16.36.
040 of the Tigard Municipal Code due both to its size and height.
However, Chapter 16.24, Non-Conforming Signs, provides that you would
iC. have a period of ten years from the effective date of annexation to
the City to bring that sign into compliance. If, by that time (10
years from now) or at any time in the interim you should decide that
that sign would always be necessary for the identification and con-
tinued commercial-use of your site, then you have two separate pos-
sible courses of-action. Either course of action would have sub-
stantially the same result, that is, a permahent'permission by the
City to retain the sign, and the use of the sign as long as that
sign-standsi,• The surest approach would be to apply for a variance
of the sign code at the time that your property is rezoned to a
City zoning district. hi ,;y, ld,.obtain assurance for you that„iri
ten years „o action wou5.d"66 taken ro require your removal off --the
sign.
The other method is to wait until an order is issued by the City to
remove the sign (ten years from now) and then appeal that order to
the Planning Commission. As we have discussed, I don't feel that
your concern for your sign is unwarranted at this time. Obviously
the elevation of the highway adjacent you and the lack of other
highway oriented business in your area makes adequate signing of
paramount importance to your business.
Agenda Item 5
Page G3
f.
. ~J
Mr. Marko A. Susnjara
September 12, 1975
Pg. 2
As we discussed, Tigard's "Community Plan" identifies that
interchange as "General Commercial" and the City would zone
lands there as C-3, our General Commercial zoning. This action
in itself will generate more interest in commercial development
which should generate, it more demand for commercial facili-
ties.
I think I've addressed most of the concerns you've voiced with
respect to the impact of annexation to Tigard on your property.
Should you want further information or assurances, please call.
me at 639-4171.
Sincerely,
CITY OF TIGARD '
:Jerald M. Powell, Assoc. aip
Associate Planner
Pt
j
x
`F
z;
Agenda Stem 5 ;a
Page LP L(
Jill
s
1971 PROVISION 16.20.010--16.24.010
flicense has failed to comply with the provisions of this
title, he shall notify the city council before the expira-
tion of such person's license. The city council may, after
a public hearing at which all interested persons shall have
the right to be heard and offer oral or written testimony,
refuse to renew the license of such person if it finds that
the licensee has failed to comply with the provisions of this
title or other applicable city ordinances. (Ord. 71-5 §203
(3), 1971).
Chapter 16.20
IDENTIFICATION
Sections:
16.20.010 General requirements.
16.20.010 General requirements.* Each sign for which
a sign permit is required shall have affixed to the sign the
name of the sign erector, the date of erection, electrical
power consumption in amperes and an Underwriters Laboratory
r label, if applicable. Such information shall be in suffi-
cient size and contrast to be readable upon inspection.
(Ord. 71-5 §204(1), 1971).
Chapter 16.24
NONCONFORMING SIGNS**
Sections:
16.24.010 Defined--Continuance.-
16.24.020 Located on premises annexed to city.
16.24.030 Alteration, relocation or replacement.
16.24.040 Types requiring conformance within ninety
days of title's effective date.
16.24.010 Defined--Continuance. Except as provided in
Sections 16.24.020 through 16.24_040, signs in existence on
January 11, 1971, which do not conform to the provisions of
this title, but which were constructed, erected or maintained
* For removal provisions, see Chapter 16.28 of this code.
For removal, provisions, see Chapter 10.28 of this code.
t
f
197
16_24.020--16.28.010
f _
in compliance with all previous regulations, shall be re-
garded as nonconforming signs which may be continued for a
period of ten years from January 11, 1971. (Ord. 71-5 9205
(1), 1971)
16.24.020 Located on premises annexed to city. Signs
located on premises annexed into the city a ter January 11,
1971, which do not comply with the provisions of this title,
shall be brought into compliance with this title within a }
period of ten years after thei-effective date of the annexa-
tion- (Ord. 71-5 S205(2),(1971).)
16.24.030 Alteration, relocation or replacement. Any
sign which is structurally altered, relocated or replaced
shall immediately be brought into compliance with all of the
provisions of this title. (Ord. 71-5 5205(3), 1971).
16.24.040 Types requiring conformance within ninety
days of title's effective date. Signs in existence on Jan-
uary 11, 1971, which do not comply with provisions regulating
flashing signs, use of par spot lights or rotating beacons,
rotating and revolving signs, or flags, banners or streamers
or strings of lights, shall be made to conform within ninety
days from January 11, 1971. (Ord. 71-5 §205(4), 1971).
Chapter 16.28 1
REMOVAL PROVISIONS
.
Sections:
16.28.010 Nonconforming signs.
16.28.020 Signs without required identification.
16.28.030 Abandoned signs.
16.28.040 Signs in setback areas.
16.28.010 Nonconforming signs. (a) The building of-
ficial shall order the removal of any sign erected or main-
tained in violation of the provisions of this title. The
building official shall give sixty days' written notice by
registered mail to the owner of the sign or, if the owner of
the sign cannot be notified, to the owner of the building,
structure or premises on which such sign is located to remove
the sign or to bring it into compliance with this title. If
the owner of the building, structure or premises upon which
such sign is located fails to remove the sign within thirty
days after receipt of written notice from the building offi-
cial, the building official or his duly authorized representa-
tive, may remove such sign at cost to the owner of the building,
t 198
i
19 7 8 AMENDMENT : C
b. Churches and schools are permitted to have reader boards
depicting events and services, but not in excess of the allow-
able sign area.
c. Wall Signs - Wall signs shall not exceed 5 percent of the
front wall area and not be permitted on side or rear wall.
16.36.020 (3) be amended to read:
(3) Permanent. subdivision identification signs. One ground
sign, at each entry point. to the subdivision from the public.'
right-of•way, with the site properly landscaped, denoting the
development name and not exceeding 32 sq. ft. i.p area. Illumi-
nation may.be approved as long as it does not create a public
or private nuisance.
16.40.070 Projecting Signs is deleted.from Title 16-
16.40.080 Roof Signs is deleted from Title 16.'
16.24.015 Those signs which are non-conforming according to the
standards in Ordinance No. 77-89 and No. 78-16 may be con-
tinued until 3 20 88 (.ten years after date -of ordinance) except
signs which are already non'-conforming, as per Section 6.24.0107
Section 5: It is hereby declared that an emergency exists and tba
it is-necessary for the immediate preseirvatiom, of'- the
peace, health, and safety of the City of Tigard, Oregon, that'the
foregoing change become a permanent part of the City's records, and
this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council,
and approval by the Mayor..
PASSED: B , vote of all Council members-present, after
being read two times by number and title only, this ao''ti
day of MC.rC.~ 1975.
i
.C.c-
Recorder - City of Ti rd, Oregon
APPROVED: By the Mayor this day of 1978.
Mayor - City of Tigard, Oregon EXHIBIT q_
Paqe ___3 _ of
• 1991 CODE
(4) Types and locations of temporary signs shall be as
follows:
(A) The total number of temporary signs shall not
exceed 4 for any one business at any one period
of time.
(B) The total area of one sign shall not exceed 12
square feet.
(C) See definition 19.13.4.015 (c)(42) (TEMPORARY
SIGNS) for type approved.
(D) Location shall be as approved by Building
Official. Sign clutter, blanketing, and shabby
appearances of signs shall be avoided.
(i) Foundation inspections shall be made after
all required excavations, form work, bolt
settings are completed and ready to receive
concrete.
(ii) All anchorages shall be left exposed for
inspection.
(iii) Electrical inspection shall be made by the
agency issuing electrical permits.
(iv) Final Inspections. Final inspection shall
be called for by the applicant when -all
work is completed. This inspection shall
cover all items required by the Building
Official under State law or City ordinance
such as the locations, landscaping if
required and general compliance with he
approved plans and requirements of this
title.
18.114.110 Nonconforming Signs
(a) Except as- provided in this Chapter, signs in existence on
March 20, 1978, according to Ordinance No. 77-89 and No.
78-16, which do not conform to .the provisions of this
Chapter, but which were constructed, erected or maintained
in compliance with all previous regulations, shall be
regarded as nonconforming signs which may be continued
until March 20, 1988.
(b) Signs in existence on January 11, 1971, which do not
conform to the provisions of this Chapter, but which were
constructed, erected or maintained in compliance with all
previous regulations, were regarded as nonconforming signs
alld could be continued for a period of 3.0 years from
January 11, 1.971. All. such signs which were not brought
into compliance with the standards in Ordinance No. 77•-89
and No. 78-16 and the extensions granted are now in
violation of this Chapter.
III - 217
I
Jim
(c) Signs located on premises annexed into the City after
January 11, 1971, which do not comply with the provisions
of this Chapter, shall be brought into compliance with this
Chapter within a period of 10 years after the effective
date of the annexation.
(d) Any sign which is structurally altered, relocated or
replaced shall immediately be brought into compliance with
all of the provisions of this Chapter, except the repairing
and restoration of a sign on site or away from the site to
a safe condition any part of a sign or sign structure for
normal maintenance shall be permitted without loss of
nonconforming status.
(e) Signs in existence on the effective date of this Chapter
which do not comply with provisions regulating flashing
signs; use of par spotlights or rotating beacons; rotating
and revolving signs; flags, banners, streamers or strings t
of lights; (or temporary or incidental signs) shall be made
to conform within 90 days from the effective date of this
Chapter.
(f) Outdoor Advertising. Signs in existence on the effective
date of this Chapter which do not comply with the
provisions of 18.114.090(a)(4)(A) shall be permitted to
( remain along U.S. Highway 99W only.
t
18.114.120 Sign Removal Provisions-Nonconforming and Abandoned Signs
(a) All signs erected after the effective date of this title,
which are in violation of any provision of this ordinance,
shall be removed or brought into conformance, upon written
notice by the Director or designee.
(b) All signs which do not comply with this Chapter, but were
erected prior to the effective date of this ordinance,
shall be removed or brought into conformance within 60 days
from written notice by certified, mail given by the Director
or duly authorized representative.
(c) If the owner of sign, building, structure or premise fails
to comply with the written order, the Director or designee
may then cite the owner into court subject to Chapter 18.24
(ENFORCEMENT) of this Code. The following exceptions apply:
(1) Section 18.114.11.0, (Nonconforming Signs), provides
for certain time limits and other conditions for
certain signs as described therein.
(2) Any sign Lhat: by its condition or lor_at.iun presents an
immediate or serious danger to the public, by order of
the Building Official, it shall be removcad or repaired
within the time he may specify.
t rri - 27.8
]~SjCjl~1~V ABET PACWESTCENTEA, SUITES 1600-1950 ~ 1~M [
/ jLLl[ 31ViS~®v1'~V~ IM SOUTHWESTFWMAVENUE•PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3795
O &"Tn TELEPHONE: 503 2229961 • FAX: 503 796-2900 -TELEX: 4937535 SWK UI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW '
STEVEN W. ABEL
April 9, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Mayor Gerald Edwards
Members of the City Council
P. O.Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Sherwood Inn Signage (Var-90-0027, SCE 90-005)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This office represents H. E. Ferryman, the owner of the
Sherwood Inn.
Mr. Ferryman has requested of the City of Tigard a sign vari-
ance in order to continue using signs located at the Sherwood Inn
which have been located at the Inn since the mid 19601s. Mr.
Ferryman believes his signs have been given permanent approval by
the City of Tigard. However, in order to satisfy the City's
request, Mr. Ferryman applied for a variance. Pursuant to Final
Order No. 90-25, the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard
denied Mr. Ferryman's request for a variance to permit the Sher-
wood Inn signage to remain in place. The Planning Commission
Order has been appealed to the City Council and this memorandum
submitted in support of Mr. Ferryman's position.
-7 The requested variance should have been granted inasmuch as
the application of the Sign ordinance to the Sherwood Inn signs is
impermissible for the following reasons: (1) the City of Tigard
is equitably estopped from enforcing the Sign ordinance against
Mr. Ferryman; (2) Mr. Ferryman has acquired a vested right to
operate the signs as nonconforming structures; (3) the variance
issued for continued operation of the signs was intended to be a
permanent variance; and (4) application of the amortization provi-
sions of the Sign Ordinance to the signs in question constitutes
an unconstitutional taking without compensation.
BACKGROUND
The critical events in the history of this matter may be sum-
marized as follows:
i
PORTLAND SEATTLE VANCOUVER WASHINGTON
OREGON • WASHINGTON • WASHINGTON • DISTRICTOFCOLUM9IA
503 222-9981 206 621-9168 206 694-7551 202 785-5960
t April 9, 1991
Page 2
1. Prior to annexation by the City of Tigard, the owner of the
Sherwood Inn erected two freestanding signs on or near the
property to advertise businesses operating on the premises.
We have been advised that the annexation of this property was
completed by the City of Tigard in 1976.
2. In response to the urging of the City as reflected in the
Powell Letter (described below), Mr. Susnjara sought and
obtained a sign variance from the City on January 20, 1976.
In conjunction with the Planning Commission hearing on the
application for the variance, the City planning staff had
recommended approval of the requested variance for a period
of five years, with a rehearing to be conducted at that time
to determine whether a further extension would be appropri-
ate. On the motion of Commissioner Nicoli, the variance was
unanimously approved and the staff recommendation limiting
the term of the variance to five years was deleted to the
effect that the variance was unlimited in duration.
3. On October 10, 1977, the City adopted an amendment modifying
its sign regulations (Ordinance No. 77-89). On March 20,
1978, the City further amended the sign regulations, estab-
lishing a ten year amortization period for all nonconforming
signs in existence (Ordinance No. 78-16).
4. On February 29, 1984, the Director of Planning for the City,
William A. Monahan, issued a letter (the 111984 Letter") to
Mr. Susnjara authorizing various alterations to be made to
the signs in question. The 1984 Letter indicates that the
variance issued in 1976 was not disturbed by the subsequent
amendments to the Sign Ordinance:
"Upon reviewing the site with you and examining the
drawings which you have prepared, I am satisfied
that the alterations which you purpose [sic] and
the new wall sign facing I-5 will not violate the
intent of the January, 1976, sign code variance
which you received from the Tigard Planning Commis-
sion. It appears from a review of the record of
that proceeding that an approval was granted which
will not be adversely affected by your new propo-
sal."
5. In 1988, the City began to notify the owner of the subject
property that the signs were nonconforming and would need to
be modified to comply with the Sign Ordinance inasmuch as the
amortization period had expired.
i
I Scanv~nr•.4vu.i.i:~nison n.FV~srrr
April 9, 1991
Page 3
6. In 1989, Mr. Ferryman acquired the subject property, in
reliance upon the fact that he could continue to use the
signs in question.
7. At the urging of Keith Liden of the City, on October 16,
1990, Mr. Ferryman, as the current owner of the property,
sought a variance for continued operation of the signs. The
Planning Commission denied the variance request pursuant to
Final Order No. 90-25.
8. The signs are indispensable for the successful operation of
the businesses being conducted on the premises.
A critical item of correspondence related to this matter is a
September 12, 1975, letter (the "Powell Letter") from Jerald M.
Powell, Associate Planner of the City, to Mr. Susnjara, explaining
the effect of annexation of the subject property on the noncon-
forming signs and a statutory provision which would require Mr.
Susnjara to bring the signs into compliance within 10 years after
the effective date of the annexation. Mr. Powell indicated that
the owner would have two courses of action available if he desired
to continue to operate the sign:
"Either course of action would have substantially the
same result, that is, a permanent permission by the City
to retain the sign, and the use of the sign as long as
that sign stands. The surest approach would be to apply
for a variance of the sign code at the time that your
property is rezoned to a City zoning district. This
would obtain assurance for you that in 10 years no
action would be taken to require your removal of the
sign . . . the other method is to wait until an order is
issued by the City to remove the sign (10 years from
now), and then appeal that order to the Planning commis-
sion." (Emphasis added).
In reliance upon the Powell Letter, Mr. Susnjara sought and
obtained the 1976 variance.
The following documents are attached hereto:
Exhibit No. Document
1 Powell Letter
2 Minutes of January 20, 1976, Meeting
of Planning Commission
3 1984 Letter
4 Letter of January 31, 1991, from
t Marko Susnjara to City Council
SCIMA111, WILLIANNON & Wtxrr
r April 9, 1991
\ Page 4
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
The elements of equitable estoppel were noted in Clackamas
County v. Emmert, 513 P2d 532, 535 (Or. App. 1973):
"To constitute an equitable estoppel, or estoppel by
conduct, (1) there must be a false representation; (2)
it must be made with knowledge of the facts; (3) the
other party must have been ignorant of the truth; (4) it
must have been made with the intention that it should be
acted upon by the other party; and (5) the other party
must have been induced to act upon it." Id. at 535,
quoting Earls, et ux. v. Clarke, et al._, 355 P2d 213,
214 (Or 1960).
The Powell Letter, the 1984 Letter and the 1976 variance pro-
ceedings provide documentation of actions of the City which
satisfy these elements: (i) the false representation lies in the
assurances from the representatives of the Planning Department
given to the owner to the effect that the variance would be "perm-
anent" notwithstanding any subsequent actions of the City; (ii)
the representations made by the representatives of the City were
made with full knowledge of all pertinent facts; (iii) the parties
who have relied on those representations, Mr. Ferryman and his
predecessors, were not aware that those representations were
incorrect; (iv) the representations of the City were made with the
intention that they should be acted upon by the recipients there-
of--the 1976 variance, the Powell Letter and the 1984 Letter
clearly anticipate action by the landowner; and (v) the other
party clearly was induced to act--Mr. Susnjara sought and obtained
the variance suggested in the Powell Letter and subsequently made
further improvements to the signage based on the 1984 Letter and
his successors have relied on the right to continue operating the
signs in conjunction with their purchase of the property.
It is clear that Mr. Ferryman and his predecessors have
relied on the representations of the City and the City should be
estopped from denying the requested variance. As noted above,
Mr. Susnjara sought and obtained the sign variance and subsequent-
ly modified the sign and improved the property in reliance on the
Powell Letter, the variance proceedings and the 1984 Letter. Mr.
Susnjara might have chosen to challenge the constitutionality of
the ordinance, or seek compensation for a taking of the signs, if
the variance procedure had not been proffered to him as an alter-
native. Subsequent purchasers of the property, including Mr.
Ferryman, would not have pursued the acquisition of the same if
there was some question regarding the legality of the signage.
These businesses rely heavily on the signs to generate customer
traffic. Finally, the owners may have challenged the adoption of
$C111111H I:1VILLLI\ItiO.\' A 1~~1'A'1'I'
April 9, 1991
Page 5
the Sign Ordinance and its application to their property at the
time that it was adopted if they had known that the City would
subsequently seek to supersede the variance previously issued.
These actions and forebearances from action clearly evidence the
reliance of the owners on the misrepresentations of the City.
Although Oregon decisions have indicated some reluctance on
the part of the courts to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel
to governmental entities, the facts presented in this case distin-
guish it from prior decisions and would compel a court to estop
the City from denying the variance. The basis for the reluctance
of courts to apply equitable estoppel to governmental entities was
noted in Brusco Towboat Company v. State, 567 P2d 1037 (Or. App.
1977) :
"Generally, equitable estoppel principles are inapplic-
able against the state because it is thought that the
improper acts of government officials should not prevent
the government from subsequently correcting that impro-
priety." Id. at 1048-1049.
The courts also may be reluctant to impose the doctrine of equit-
able estoppel against the government in circumstances where a sig-
nificant governmental interest will be undermined by enforcement
of the doctrine. See Emmert, supra.
In the case under consideration, there does not appear to be
a significant governmental interest served by the elimination of
these signs nor is there any improper act of government which
requires correcting. These are on premises signs that have been
at this location for many years and are the only available means
to successfully advertise the businesses operated there. There is
no indication that these signs pose any type of nuisance to the
neighborhood nor that they are visually offensive. In 1976 and
1984, the Planning Commission and staff reasonably determined that
it would be inappropriate to require removal or modification of
these signs. In the balancing of equities in this case, the bal-
ance clearly favors the owner when comparing the relative merits
of requiring compliance with the minutiae of the Sign Ordinance to
this site (which are unreasonable when applied to this property)
versus the economic impact upon the owner of requiring compliance
with the Sign Ordinance. The improper governmental action in
question, if there be any, is nothing more than a possible misin-
terpretation of the effect of a variance in light of subsequent
statutes. There is no government wrongdoing or usurpation of
power. Since the estoppel claim constitutes an action in equity,
it is exactly the sort of balancing noted here that should be
undertaken by a court in order to do equity--and it is clear that
the equities favor Mr. Ferryman.
i
SCIM:ABE AVI LIAMNISON & Wv,Crr
April 9, 1991
Page 6
VESTED RIGHTS
The principles of equitable estoppel are very similar to the
principles enunciated in decisions which have concluded that land-
owners have vested rights to continue nonconforming uses of prop-
erties or structures. Section 18.132.040(C) of the Tigard Devel-
opment Code provides in pertinent part:
Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of
adoption. or amendment of this title that could not be
built under the terms of this title by reason of
restrictions on . . . height . or other requirements
concerning the structure, such structure may be con-
tinued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject
to the following provisions:
a. No such nonconforming structure may be
enlarged or altered in a way which increases
its nonconformity, . .
b. Should such nonconforming structure or
nonconforming portion of structure be
destroyed by any means to an extent of more
k' than 60% , it shall not be reconstructed
except in conformity with the provisions of
this title; and
c. Should such structure be moved for any
reason for any distance whatever, it shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for the
zoning district in which it is located after
it is moved.
The sole criterion for application of this statute is that the
structure "lawfully exist" as of the effective date of the adop-
tion of the statute or amendments thereto. The signs in question
have been operated in accordance with the requirements of applic-
able laws throughout the period of their existence. The City has
argued that subsequent legislation destroyed these vested rights
to a nonconforming use by means of the amortization provisions
adopted in 1977. However, the signs already were subject to amor-
tization provisions under the annexation ordinance when the 1976
variance was issued and, notwithstanding the presence of those
amortization provisions, the City acknowledged in the Powell
Letter the permanent nature of the variance that was to be
granted. Subsequently, after the enactment of the 1976 and 1977
amendments to the Sign Ordinance, the City again acknowledged the
vested rights of the owners to operate the signs in the 1984
i
i
' Sctm~nu;blJU.t.ta~tso.~ n.11'ccrr
April 9, 1991
Page 7
Letter, six years after the amortization period supposedly had
commenced.
Oregon courts have summarized the elements necessary to
establish vested rights to a nonconforming use as: actual use of
a property for a definite purpose, in a lawful manner, prior to
the adoption of an ordinance which renders the prior use noncon-
forming. Polk County v. Martin, 636 P2d 952, at 959 (OR 1981).
The use of the signs in question clearly satisfies these elements.
THE PERMANENCY OF THE 1976 VARIANCE
The variance granted in 1976 was identified as a "permanent
variance" in the Powell Letter. The permanency of the variance was
further acknowledged in the minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting conducted to approve the variance--the Planning commission
rejected the planning staff recommendation of a variance with a
limited duration. The City again confirmed the permanent nature
of the variance in the 1984 Letter by consenting to the alteration
of the signs. If the signs were perceived to be nonconforming,
then alteration of the same would not have been permissible under
the nonconforming use statute of Tigard Development Code cited
i. above. In sum, the variance was granted without any limit on its
duration, was intended to be permanent and effectively converted a
nonconforming use to a conforming use not subject to further regu-
lation. The amortization and abatement provisions of the current
sign ordinance apply only to "nonconforming signs" and do not
apply to the signs in question.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution provides
that:
"No law shall be passed restraining the free
expression of opinion, or restricting their right to
speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever;
but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of
the right." Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Consti-
tution.
Application of the City of Tigard Code sign provisions to the
subject site violates Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Consti-
tution. The strict application of the Code to the site will
impermissibly restrain speech. The signs located on Mr. Ferryman's
property are freeway-oriented signs. They are signs which are
used to advise the traveling public of accommodations for eating
April 9, 1991
l Page 8
and lodging. If the sign is reduced in height and reduced in
size, the "speech" to be delivered to the travelling public on I-5
would be entirely lost. The complete loss of such speech is sub-
ject to a challenge under the Oregon Constitution.
In addition, the amortization provision of the City Code
violates the Oregon Constitution's guarantee of free speech.
Generally, amortization provisions are upheld as valid if they are
reasonable under the particular facts of each case. In other
words, an amortization clause in a zoning ordinance is generally
considered valid, as applied, if the private loss it causes is
outweighed by the public benefit and when the private loss is not
sufficiently substantial by itself to evoke judicial sympathies.
The City's own Code recognizes this balancing test in an effort to
assure that application of the amortization provision will not run
contrary to constitutional mandates. Tigard City Code 18.114.140
provides for sign code exceptions when:
"[T]he Applicant demonstrates that, owing to
special and unusually circumstances relating to the
design, structure or placement of the sign in relation
to other structures or land uses where the natural
features of the land, the literal interpretation of this
Chapter would interfere with the communicative function
of the sign without corresponding public benefit."
Section 18.114.140A
To the same effect is the preamble to the variance section. sec-
tion 18.134.010.
When a sign advertises a particular business and is used for
the location of the business by the traveling public, the sign
becomes an integral part of the business. Mr. Ferryman's sign can
be contrasted with billboards which are not integral to a particu-
lar business, but instead are a business unto themselves. The
individual billboard can be amortized over a period of ten years
with the owner recouping a substantial portion of his or her
investment. The value of a sign, integrally connected to a busi-
ness, cannot be recouped over a ten year period. It is the invest-
ment in the business which becomes material, not the investment in
the sign alone. Thus, the loss of the sign brings great loss to
the individual property owner. That great loss must be weighed
against any public benefit gained. In this instance, no public
benefit is gained since the travelling public will lose the oppor-
tunity to be advised of the location of accommodations for eating
and lodging. Thus, in this instance, both the private property
owner and the public lose.
SCl11 AHE WIId MISON F. \Nv,~•rr
f
April 9, 1991
l Page 9
CONCLUSION
Mr. Ferryman's signs were given permanent approval in 1976.
That approval was reaffirmed in 1984 and continues to be binding
on the City. Mr. Ferryman, in an effort to cooperate with the
City, has consented to this variance procedure, although the vari-
ance procedure is not necessary. For the reasons set forth in
this letter, Mr. Ferryman requests that the variance be granted.
Ver ruly yours,
In W. el
SWA/bk
27243/76429(39137)
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Gene Ferryman
Mr. Hal Hewitt
i
if
f _ EXHIBIT
%W "to
CITY OF TIGAR D
P. O. Bor. 23557
i
12420 S. Vt. Main
Tigard. Orc9(a 97223
&-pternber 1.2, 1975
Mr. Marko A. Susnjara
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Dear Mr. Susnjara:
In reference to our recent convey:cation concerning your sign aq
the Sherwood Inn, this letter is to clarify and record pr=rtit1r)n L
points discussed.
Your si is a non-conforming si &p-i under provision of Section 1-6. 36.
040 o the a ar unici a code c uc 55171 To its size am eii -i
However Cha ter 1 on- on clvmin * ~r,s, rovidos T_ .~„t1 ,t610 (i
have a period o en ears rom .lie e ec Ive i 'e o t .,n t-xoti un 1.')
the City to bring that sign into compliance. If, b~ t a: time 10
years from now or a any time are e int trim you should decide tWiT.
a sign would always be necessary or e i en •i lcati :rF ant con-
mxnue commercial use or- your s1 en you have two set ara o pos- yNgllel~T
Bible courses of action. Either course of action 7o-uld have sub- p~ a.t
s is y e same resuit, a .i.s, a permanent pertnIssl5n IT,
City- to retain the sign, an the rise o : trio sign as on as is
-sign stands. a surest approac h wou. bc to apply for si variallcp
of the sign code a the time that oiir )r o ort is rezon(:-d to a
i y zoning i.s ric . This would obtain assurance for you that in
en years no action would be take,. to require your removal of the
sign.
The other method is to wait until an order is issued by the City to
remove the sign (ten years from now) and then appeal that order to
the Planning Commission. As-we have discussed, I don't feel that
your concern for your sign is unwarranted at this time. Obviously
the elevation of the highway adjacent you and the lack of other
& _!jay oriented business in your area makes adequate signing of
paramount importance to vour business.
Mr. Mark6 A. Susnjara
September 12, 1.975
pg. 2 -
As we discussed, Tigard':: "Commun.i I;y .identi_fie:-
interchange as "General ('(-)miner(; isla " and th, City would - ol-IQ
lands there, as C-3, our Cenerr+l Ct mimerr. i n I :;-.oni ng. Th.i-n oct:i ot)
in itself will generate more interest in -.(:vnmercial
which should. generate, i r rn, me're cir?mniid for commf•rc: i:l l
ties,
I think I've addressed uu);;i. of thy- con(:~(,rn:- you've v~~.i.c:r•rl ',».1?~
respect to the impact of annexatirrn to Ti.r-rlyd on yomr
Should you want further informati.~.-,n or a; ; lar::cnces, pl~a.~~ (:111
.me at 639-41-71.
nr-r-1 V,
s.
CI'('Y O '1'I.t;;11,1)
- I, rrl'ld M. 1'or-well, Ans.-:. :!i.1)
Ar te Planner
pt
1
MINUTES EXHIBIT._..`
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
January 20, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Porter at 7:35 p.m. _
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Nicoli, Sakata, Popp, Porter, Phis, Wakem,
Moore
Absent: Smelser
Staff present: B8len, Powell and Laws
3. MINUTES: The minutes of the January 6, 1976, meeting were
approved. _
4. COMMUNICATIONS: none
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Conditional Use Permit CU 1-76 (Lass)
A request by Jerry Lass to operate a roller skating rink
in a C-3 zone (general commercial) at 13900 SW Pacific
Highway (former Ernie's Market), Wash. Co. tax map 2S1
3DD,•tax lot 1201.
A. Staff Report: read by Powell
o Wakem asked staff if staff finding number 5, per-
taining to off-street parking, implied a variance
request and if so could be addressed at this time.
o Staff stated that a separate public hearing must
be held for the variance and that due notice must
be given for the hearing.
o Ems asked staff if a conditional use permit could
be granted by the Commission for a one year period
for the purpose of observing the proposed use.
o Staff replied that it could be.
o Wakem asked staff if the bus lane, as referred to
in staff finding #8, would be a separate lane.
o Staff responded that it would be, but that it
appeared that nearly enough room was already there
for the lane and only a small amount of extra space
would be required.
EXHIBIT 2
Page ___1__ of
page. 9
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
t
6.2 Sign Code Variance SCA 2-76 (Susnjara - Sherwood Inn)
A request by Marko Susnjara for a sign code variance for
a non-conforming sign in a B-4 zone Mash. Co. General.
Extensive Commercial) at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry'Rd.
(Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 12D, tax lot 1400, Sherwood Inri).
A. Staff Report: read by Powell.
B: Applicant Presentation
o Mr. Susnjara stated his request and the need for
retaining the existing sign as it is vital to his
business and serves as a means of drawing customers
to his establishment.
o Popp asked staff to secure a copy of the state
requirements for signing and how they would relate
and differ with Tigard's sign code.
o Popp recommended to table this item until additional
information-was made available.
o Nicoli stated that to deprive anyone of the use of
this sign would '6e unfair.
C. Staff Recommendation
o Staff recommended a roval of the re uasted ex-
ceptions or a eri-od of 5 ears, a which time
a re-hearing -othe issues wou be e o e er-
mine further extension o this exception.
o Nicoli made a motion to approve the variance,
deleting staff recommendation a is sign e
subject to a year review period an that Mr.
busnjarars sign woul correspond with the state
and federal regulations as they pertain to signing.
o Seconded (Ens).
o Unanimously approved.
7. SUBDIVISIONS
7.1 Minor Land Partition MLP 1-76 (Bartnik)
A request by Glemn Bartnik to partition a parcel of land
! in a residential zone (County RU-4, single family resi-
dential) at SV1 North Dakota (Wash. Co. tax map 1S1 35CA,
tax lot 301)_
EXHIBIT
Page a of
ExHiBrr
l
February 29, 1984 CITYOF T11FARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY; OREGON
Mr. Marko Susnjara
Sherwood Inn
15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, Or. 97034
RE: Sign Alternation, SCA 2-76
Dear Mr. Susnjara,
I have reviewed your request for the alteration of your free standing sign
as well as your wall sign. Upon reviewing the site with you and examining
the drawings which you have prepared I am satisfied Mat the alterations which
you purpose and the new wall sign facing I-5 will not violate the intent of
the January, 1976, sign code variance which you received from the Tigard
Planning Commission. It appears from a review of the record of that
proceeding that an approval was granted which will not be adversely affected
by your new proposal.
A copy of this letter will be submitted to the Building Division in
support of your application. You may submit your plans and sign application
whenever convenient.
a
Sincerely,
William A. Monahan,
Director of Planning and Development
WAM:dmj
cc: Building Official
t
EXHIBIT S
Page of
! Pages
//'4~s't.KO• 'A. ~1L1f1ls'tri G' ~ ~ ~''=.c„~-.mot L
EXHIBIT
t~
January 31, 1991
City Council of Tigard FFB
c/o City Hall 4 j99~
P. 0. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223 - ~g
Re: Sherwood Inn Sign
Dear Members of the City Council:
I am aware that you are considering a sign ordnance-
problem with the Sherwood Inn and had hoped to be at the last
meeting to disclose the series of transactions that spell out
the history of the sign. I was the owner of the Sherwood Inn
Restaurant from 1968 to 1982 and the owner of the Motel until „
1987.
From what I have been told you have received most of the
information I may have provided. There was one fact that I
had not disclosed before but came to mind only recently again,
that could be of help in making your decision. In 1973 the
~s late Governor McCall required that all commercial signs be shut
off to conserve energy during the original "energy crisis" of
1975. They were only off for a matter of 24 to 72 hours but
the impact on the Sherwood Inn was devastating. The business
coming directly from highway traffic dropped dramatically and
even people who were referred to us had difficulty finding us
in the late night hours. There is no question in my mind that
a removal or lowering of the signs could have a major negative
economic impact on the Sherwood Inn.
If you have any questions that I can answer I would be
happy to do so.
Sincerely,
Marko A. Susnjara
MAS/hh
cc:file
t
5031 234-6811 s LLOYD CENTER TOWER • 825 N.E. MULTNOMAH • SUITE 1001 a PORTLAND. OREGON 972;32
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Directed L
DATE: April 9, 1991
SUBJECT: Sherwood Inn
TIMELINE
RE: SHERWOOD INN FREESTANDING SIGNS
1. The two freestanding signs were erected in approximately 1968.
It is assumed that the size of these signs when erected was the
size of the current signage: 2,360 square feet and 696 square
feet, which totals 3,056 square feet.
2. 1971 - Sign Code-Section 303 (Commercial Signs)
Freestanding Signs: Height limit - 45 feet
Area limit - 750 square feet/face = 1500 square feet total
As specified in ORD 71-5 SS 205(2), 1971: Signs located on
premises annexed into the City after January 11, 1971, which do
not comply with the provisions of this title, shall be brought
into compliance with this title within a period of ten years
after the effective date of the annexation.
3. September 12, 1975 - Jerry Powell's letter which stated that
the Sherwood Inn signs were non-conforming. This letter also
stated that a Variance would give the Sherwood Inn signs a
permanent legally non-conforming status.
4. January 7, 1976 letter from Marko Susnjara to City requesting
a Variance hearing for the freestanding signs. This request
was made just prior to annexation.
5. January 15, 1976 - Sherwood Inn site annexed into the City.
6. January 20, 1976 - Planning Commission approved the Variance
SCA 2.76 (Sign Alteration) permitting the existing signs to
remain.
7. October 10, 1977 - City Council amended Sign Code Ordinance
(ORD 77-89). Section 16.36.040(d)(1) amended as follows:
Sign height and area limits for commercial properties fronting
i
on a local street - Height limit - 16 feet
Area limit - 26 square feet/face = 52 square feet total
8. March 20, 1978 - City Council approved amended Sign Code
regulations (ORD 78-16) including the addition of a ten (10)
year sign amortization program. (Amortization program to run
from 3-20-78 to 3-20-88)
9. February 17, 1988 - Deborah Stewart notified Sherwood Inn by
letter of the culmination of the amortization program. She
required Sherwood Inn to comply with the current Sign Code
Section 18.114.
10. November, 1989 - Sherwood Inn applied for a Site Development
Review (SDR 89-23) and Variance (Var 89-40) for expansion of
the motel site. Approval was granted with the condition that
the signs be brought into conformance.
11. August 7, 1990 - Sherwood Inn applied for Sign Code Exception
(SCE 90-05) and Variance (VAR 90-27). Planning Commission
denied the Variance and approved the Sign Code Exception as
follows: One freestanding sign - Sign height 50 feet - Sign
area 200 square feet/face = 400 square feet total.
Sherwood Inn appealed the decision. Scheduled for City Council
on December 10, 1990 - January 22, 1991 - March 12, 1991 -
April 9, 1991.
1991
APv~ g~„0021
SCE 90_00p5 /
INN TRIX
S GE E EWAJ SIGN MA
FREESTp,IyDIN C01001sON
PAC TRUST
LAND~iA1~
KING
SxERWOOD INN
SHERWOOD ISSION FORD
NE
SHERWOOD 10 By?ROBED 0
TWO
vor TKE INN NOW OFFEND ONE 34 FE
ET
CODE IAS ONE
ALLOWS TWO 35 FEET
?V'E'T 50 FEET 35 FEET 114 FT
ONE
# OF 65 F 154/FACE TOTAL
SIGNS 65 FEEEET 240/F CE 308 114.
FEET 69.15 1194/FACE 400
FT
xEIGHT 35 SQ. gT. SQ.
118 CE 2388 TOTAL 208/FACE
60/FACE
AREA 1. 340 TOTS' = 416
IOTA' S4 . V.
TOTAL 348/FACE
696 72TOTAL EET
TOTAL S,j% TOTAL
3056
I
t "
7e
TRAVEL
INFORMATION
April 9, 1991
COUNCIL.
Hal Hewitt
Greenhill Associates, LTD
9999 SW Wilshire
Portland, OR 97225
RE: Sherwood Inn
Dear Mr. Hewitt:
This letter is in regard to your request for Northbound Logo
signing on I-5 exit 291, for the above business.
There is no room for Logo boards to be installed in the Northbound
direction. We must follow rules set by the Federal and State
government regarding spacing of signs, advance notice to motorists,
spacing of boards in relation to the exit ramps, etc. They are
very clear as to when, where and how boards can and should be
installed.
Under these many rules and regulations it was found that there was
not enough room to install any Logo boards.
I appreciate your interest in our sign-ing program, and regret that
we cannot provide the signing you have requested.
Sin~ ,
/j
Melissa Houston
Sign Project Coordinator
' BARBARA ROBERTS
Governor
i '
C
229 Madrona SE
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378-4508
VAX (503) 378-6282
1
Rf:
-c
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: April 9, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Parkin on PREVIOUS ACTION:
i
Benchview Terrace
PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Shall parking be prohibited along the north side of Benchview Terrace?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Benchview Terrace is designated as a minor collector street. When it was t
designed and constructed as part of the Benchview Estates subdivision, it was
intended that parking be prohibited on at least one side of the street. "No
Parking" signing was installed as part of the street improvements; however,
through an oversight, no ordinance was adopted to validate the signing.
The subdivision was designed so that the lots on the north side of Benchview
Terrace have no direct vehicular access to Benchview Terrace; they receive
access from other streets. Along the south side, a few lots do front
directly on Benchview Terrace.
Staff proposes that parking be prohibited on the north side and allowed on
the south side of Benchview Terrace (as currently signed). The attached
ordinance would adopt this proposal.
-
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the attached ordinance.
2. Amend the ordinance.
3. Direct that all "no parking" signing be removed.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
-
SUGGESTED ACTION
,Adoption of the attached ordinance.
rw/bench-s
r
is III III I
ij!