SDR2-75 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
�!r
'...... - i...t.....^,.....:._.,: iA.- .a<.n.,..r•..a..:..x.ry..G_..4...J'. .r^...- '..+.+n.....i...•.Ir.-.i........:.... '` - P
•
1 f
A. After discussion, consensus of Council was to adopt the following verbage
4, for the ballot.
v
�a new tam base of 2 tJ to be
a rd,
establish 56 98 b
C of Ti
Shall the City $ :
QUESTION:
Y g
effective in fiscal year 1981-82?
PURPOSE: This new tax base would finance police, parks, library, streets, and
other services to city residents, with state revenues offsetting part
of the cost. This measure submits for, voter approval, a tax base of
h $562,098 effective July 1, 1981. Future taxes levied within the
4 the proposed new tax base would be partially paid by the State under
existing state law.
EXPLANATION: The present City tax base was established in 1968. Today it is not.
sufficient to fund City services such as police, library, parks and
streets. In order to continue providing the present level of services,,
the City muslt receive additional revenues. If this measure is
approved, the estimated tax 'would be $1.10. per $1,000 of ,assessed value. •
Taxes'lee led within the tax base would be; partially funded by the State.
(b) City Administrator reminded Council that a committee should be formed for
. suppoY t of the tax base measure. The ordinance will be presented for
• Councia, approval on August 11, 1980.
j d
6. AGREEMENT WITH ODOT - Re: Traffic Signals at Hall Blvd. and Hunziker
(a) City Administrator stated the Oregon Department of Transportation has
requested the City enter into an agreement for a signal light at the .
4 intersection of Hall Blvd and Hunziker Street'.. He noted that the City
would be paying for the energizing of the lights.
(b) Cov cilman Cook requested staff contact ODOT to see whether the light is
u nziker or Scoffins.s.
be installed at the intersection of H n r r .£ a.n Agreement
will be considered at the August 11th meeting.
7. OTHER
(a) City Administrator distributed a copy of a notice of sale for land surround-
ing the present City Hall site. He expressed his desire for Council td ' 30'
consider the matter. e() .
(b) City Administrator also advised Council that the room for the computer
was being made ready for the arrival of the system.
(c) o nclm an Brian requested City Administrator check into a signing P
l eta
at the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Pacific Hi hwayfor'the
oversized.
woo�.stove sstore. I'he signs seem to be i
• (d) Councilman Brian and Mayor Mickeison expressed their appreciation to the
planning group for town and country days. They also expressed concern
regaruing the liquor sales (beer garden). They suggested 'next, year the
Town and Country Days Committee p res ent their Plan for tha beer garden
to the Council for, approval. Discussion followed regarding the ways
'1%08 3 - Study Session Minutes August 4, 1980
'Iq rn
* •
u..ti.w-w..s..,•. ,v~.....,.,r,r,,,„"ra.J,.na.s..:f Srtl,r.„r” 1.'.:1..tM.�'. .. .. ."'1" .. w G`:.:�.X.{,.;».,u�,.,:s+.�
NH.♦m.w4H+nif M' J 1'.t k:f t Ft 1 N U.= u1•J...4f 1 Yi ::JSr�U(F..'.n:..,�14....ki.:...lJt R.l
1'
CAMP BELL/YOSi GRUBE/PARTNERS AIRCHITECTURE+PLANNIN
2040 SOUTHWEST JEFFERSQN STREET, PORTLAND, OREGON 97201/TELEPHONE 1 508 721-0150
•
•
II
June 9, 1976
I
Mr. Richard Bolen C%J‘ .
Planning Director
• City of Tigard
, 1
• •• P. O. Box 23397
Tigard,, Oregon 97223
IL I
a
lie., Bank & Office Building
Bissett & B issett
Tigard, Oregon
Dear Sir:
I I ,
Reference i!► made to our meeting on June 7, 1976. As discussed, we are forwarding
a sketch indicatin g the th .,parking lot revision. 'Due to an error in layout, one compact
p g
space was below minimum size and was converted to a planting area. r' `
Very truly yours r
4X. Vest
Bernard R, Martell
d
Encl.
cc. L. Bisseff - Owner
\\ B. Hess - Contractor
•
•
•
•
I
/�.yy
f1I 4 CiAf1W A.WA�,y ppyy��-yn�I'f7L+
1YI L
W.RoGell YOS f MAC
,JCACIAIM C.ORUSE MA
F.AF V A"RAND AIA
tieN N 87Id' "
W.NELSON MA
I1IOWAt#Ci b,SURLINCi
O.RIC;HAFitr LraNaY,
JO5EPII A.MACCA
JERRY I:,MARTIN ;
h
•
I J
k, y
1 I
y�t5_..r S i i d �-
t'X x-,�;:-cam' -;: 4 `' � 1_ SSSt- _ -
�` -tom, � �^•i;.,w� __ - **'��6„ _ i....—.....--Tit--5.-:-------tii-7-1%—illi.„------ _ _!.._------ -,, - liaximmso,z _T a >�it°' -_ - / - f ,- PAI7 i,j 4''7 '-'4'# i - t "'r t'T F"s, -_
I -1 E`i s ' SA \ ,, g�'c_ t�' �€ I.._. x r,.,, "�
E4 t 4 ,.4< ..,` 3 - a y..
�` tt _ �r CA1'.. t � i I'i`i F`'_, r
'► . Fri` ;ii t
s'j ;'. i •;_ oar'," Fz _: If J L y E
l
,i-eiii---_z.0-,-"'-'--** N.N. I t E-- N.
B:LI. cc
:-. ' ‘' '1 ''' 1>-'-.C :)2—..."-1, ) SI, � rte.. '": r _ z _ _gam IS 1 ECTS . PLAN NERD
-.,A,i-t--wsk...,.i, -t-i/:-0'0NN..-,,-■.-,.,.J....!.1.-4N-•1,•.-.-.--.. ,_--2_t-.-:-g- -r-1714.7'''-.
11E_A..R4-K-•-----'-.'-4'.,-4c.-„'z1.i..`o'0`"„-,....\--,1-i.1..•1..6-.-..-,.-.
c. i t'L-
' 01\70:: f.11:47:g ,„:„---- v.- 1, t '
- **IV I Gt.7. \-......... ...,..\ \ \
�, \ i 127.4.3 -
\ / \
{
s
� I # ,1 \i17.Sc ,_IN
- i \, ___________—.-,74-....e __
.......-f 00't `� € -`" :
...-. ,e*,.• i ov‘--
VfC\3
, t
- 11 f '''''''..::.: -i. N.. '`
_ = t � s ;
'''`N,4
,, /14:i .
_ ", ' . . AC\ '
„, ..... .. ix' \'*'1° — .1';)t-- 1-17.-ts. \
''''...<7_ : ` -;; i j xis .-� - _' _ �`'• F. ,_ A - - - -
walk
_ - -
\ \ \i. 4. I - ;ii
T C Y li }
\ \ - -
a
' t:l fit y
•
•
August 80 1975
. Robert Bisset and
Mr. Larry Bisaett
8863 S W. Center St
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Reference: rile No SDR 2-75 (The Oregon Bank)
Dear Mssrs. :
r I
Please be advised that the Tigard Site D avelopmexit and Architectural .
Design Review Board, at their t:Tuly 220 1975, meeting, considered ?
Your presentation of a mode l of the proposed Oregon Bank and
revised landscape plan. Therefore, the requirement under Site
Development Plan Review that you provide a landscape plan for
approval has been satisfied. The Architectural Desi gn Review ,
condition stipulated at, the May 27, 1975, meeting (that the oars
f e ,1 r� g
�c�r�.e�, color and �u��"�t�� treatments �.d. a cud; ��e�r ,q c�� signs)
has also been satisfied.
Please do not hesitate to Call this office at 639-4171 if
you
-
teed additional information or assistance.
I I
,fie
► ince .''el
•
I
Jerald m Powell
Assoc. AX?
Associate Planer
I I ,
Q
•
I I
I I
I I
ti
Ili
.,,,.,..,,.. ,... ..-.,1�...n......,.,.:,1,.M.,.c.,,.w..w_.....,..I'.,._...I' »,..,. 4„I..,•.c.,n"x,.«,...x,,........ ,......0+..x.l,»....„,N:.a,;i.,. ..:.J-1✓.t,Y.,..,..,.u.s..x,m W,i:,wn.:r.G.i.l.._» ,.,,.,..M .. ,. y
'g MINUTES
Tigard Site Development and Architectural Design Review Board
July 22, 1975
5:00 p.m. - Tigard City Hall
12420 S. W. Main St. , Tigard, 0',, :g`on
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McMonagle called the meeting to order
at 5:1.5 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: , Members present: Cook, Hammes, McMonagle, Olson,
Wakem; staff: Powell, Bolen and Laws
3. MINUTES: The minutes of the June 10, 1975, June 24, 1975, and
July 8, 1975, meetings were approved as submitted.
4. PROJECT REVIEWS
4.1 SD (Gevurtz Furniture)
� R 23-75 (Gev
A request for site design and architectural review of a
proposed furniture warehouse and showroom at 15 and Bonita
Rd.
A. Site Design Review
1. Staff Report: read by Powell with recommendation
to provide irrigation and landscaping
on all sides of building and to pro-
vide a hard surfaced access to rear
loading dock.
2. Applicant Presentation: Gary Michaels of Michaels,
Mann and Lakeman, presented slide ”
graphics and additional information
concerning the project.
3. Board Discussion and Action
o Discussion of the proposed site design centered
,.
primarily on access drives and need for paved
access loading and maneuvering area at '
to the to �n .
the rear of the building.
o. Discussion of sign.' location by Cook and
McMonagle
Yielded agreement that the locations
proposed were reasonable.
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to provision
i
of an irrigation plan and details of landscape
plan for staff's approval
o econded S
s (Hammes)
o Motion approved unanimously.
•
•
4
B. Architectural Design Review
o General Discussion of building design centered on
the shielding of rooftop mechanicals and the
• surface textures to be applied on two sides of
the building. Some concern was shown by the Board '
for the finish of the sides not shown as broomed.
o The Board further discussed the topic of sign design,
concluding that actual design of the signs should be
resubmitted for their approval.
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to submission of
. actual graphics of the sign design.
o Seconded (Wakem)
o Approved unanimously.
4.2 SDR 16-75 (Lincoln Properties, Sign)
A request for review of the location and design of a project
identification sign at 72nd and Hampton'.'
I , \
A. Staff Report: read by Powell
B. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Ron May (Gilley Co. )
representing Lincoln Properties, •
testified that the design now
presented was a result of pre-
.
vious comments made by the Board
and that he felt it satisfied
,
criteria they had applied.
C. Board Discussion and Action
o The Buard briefly discussed the sign and its location.
o Motion to approve (Olson) .
o Seconded (Hammes) .
o Motion carried unanimously.
5, OTHER BUSINESS
' 5.1 Larry Bissett presented a model of the proposed Oregon Bank
Building and a revised landscape plan to satisfy requirements
of the Board's previous approval (SDR 2-75) . It was also
pointed out that an unforseen problem with the original survey
had resulted in a need to redraw the site plan with the
resultant loss of parking space. Bissett'S solution to
the problem had been designation of 4 compact parking
Lpaces in place of 4 regular spaces, "
SDR Minutes - July 22, 1975 - page 2
•
•
P
(
r,,. .trta .r..... ..1....,...r,.» ..,t+K..„.,_.r-.,.,_,r•..J,:'.,'»„w0a.un,s...,wwC,.1 ,,.N. , .G..r,s31,=CG U✓<A,0..,'JSU=..R....-rr...,»nn.u l,.{��_I.✓Alr...».a3%h:n':`.A rr:Laurti'e-r11CwuWR':
h i
•
•
o
o Staff pointed out that, at the time of the .original
Design Review Board meeting, the applicant had been
unsure of the type of materials he would use.
o Th e applicant s aid tha t at thi s t ime
they had worked •
out the
technical difficulties in using "slump block”
and that the building would be as had been originally
shown to the Board.
o Bissett pointed out the addition of street trees on
* o
Pacific Hi 'hwa Highway.
5 •
Board notes the o The s a;ts of concept of street
tree planting and asked staff to pursue obtaining
approval by the State Highway Division.
o General discussion of other aspects of the plan followed. ` »
o Motion to approve as submitted (Cook) as I.an amendment to
the earlier Design Review Board approval, requesting
staff to recommend `approval of the street tree theme
to the State Highway Dept.
o Seconded. (Wakem)
o Motion carried unanimously.
5.2 Extension of a previously approved parking lot for l Assembly
of God Church on SW Gaarde
A. Staff Report:
])i.e to the character of this request for review of an
extension of an existing project, no new site design,
review was being required and that due to the time
constraints on staff and the limited time available
for review of this project, no staff report had been
provided.
o Staff described its concerns with the proposed
project which were:
1. Scale of the shade treks was unspecified. Staff
n landscape
t t ee d, a
feels I that shade trees provided the
islands ought to be, of sufficient size to shade
a goo d portion of parking lot and break up
the expanse
of unshaded asphalt.
Thelscre screening provided on the Gaarde
2« en St. side
of the parking lot appears insuffic,ient.
3 Ground cover in the areas not planted with major
shrubs is specified on the plan, by note,. Staff
r3quests that a planting interval sufficient
r I
in s 1a.t e July 22, page�
I I I
o
o
• i...•, ,. , ...,.....,...,..,....,_. ...,.. ......_ i•Iw..,.,µ.,r .Ir.W.-.M....:.1, ...r.. ....ru._ a...n. . _ A,
..,.a... a.. „ ,..°•:zu HJ:.a+.:..,>.a,w,M++.:w-.i iu%.;,.:a.r.,a. _ .,.. _
•
o
•
•
M
to ensure ground coverage and to ensure
survival of. the planting be agreed upon.
4. The site plan does not show this project
relationship to the existing access to the a
church and the circulation pattern is therefore .
r
unknown
5. The long row of diagonal spaces nearest Gaarde
St.should be broken up with at least 2 land-
.
"' scaped islands such that no more than 6 or 7 r
r spaces would be In any l one unbroken row.
B. Mr. Olson, designer of the parking lot, speaking for
the church, said that ground cover in the form, of ivy .
and Oregon grape would be provided and that he felt
that planting ,intervals and so forth could be arrived T. T.
at with staff. He also said that it was his intent
that large shade trees such as Norway maple be pro-
� ''l , vided in the parking areas. Mr. Olson indicated that ,
at the request of the Dept. of Environmental Quality,
11 . they had contacted Tri-Met, who had in turn voiced
a, ; interest in the use of the parking area for a park
and ride station during the week.
/ C. Staff Recommendation • 1
, Staff recommended that: M
1. , Ground cover be provided in those areas not
covered by shrub plantings, particularly along
banks adjacent fences.
2. That arborvitae or a similar evergreen screening
planting be provided on Gaarde to screen the
parking lot.
• 3. That an irrigation system be provided.
4. That parking spaces 1 thru 7 be revised to allow
adequate back out
5. The two landscaped islands, 6 spaces apart• be
shown on the south side on the • '
south side of the �parking
landscape '
lot nearest Gaarde St. Those` pe islan;ds ,
and the central landscape islands to be provided
teal la •
with 6 or 7 structural shade trees placed in a
random pattern. , ,
// D. Board Discussion and Action
•
o Olson moved to a rove, er staff r�eoommen� ,a bions� with ,-
the exception' of ten 5 and t.. ,,
.. h de trees requested by staff require
that the 6 or 7 s a qu y be
•
DRB Minutes - July 22; 1975 page 4
, It .M
i I, ...,.,....-, _..'_ ..r, -...,. iF -... .,n,.,1. _...., Iw4:...,.. I,.,e...,.r.. •k+,.. ,. h rl.J+k....A.-..,,,tli..,..1,.».I' ...4."I.,. ,.n,....,, ...,..+,.,,tt4,wXat el....4 '
I 6.
placed within the parking islands shown.
o Seconded (Hammes),
r
o Motion carried unanimously
5.3 Staf f copies A ossed out
of a memorandum moran dum suggesting e ti
n criteria
is
•
for design review of sig ns in commer cia l zen es. (See
•
exhibit attached) .
No N discussion of this item em was requested at this -�'
rather the board was asked b � s time,
Y staff to look� �the��suggested
criteria over for discussion at the next Board meeting. ti
6. ADJ' o
UURN:NLEI�TT. 6
.3 d� p�m.
. I.
•
ti
DFt3 Minutes - July 220 1975 * page 5
•
I I
•
I � �
1
al '1
I
a
I
' June 160 9` 5 ' ..
i ,
I
Robert Ixx Bissut
8863 .1)% Con reet
Tigard C
Dear Sirs'
I
1
ease 'be advised onz June 9 x 975 the �gard: City. Co cil ap
proved ' ' .
a request by:Dick;' eleri, Pla in
Director, 'varying the drive k
'' 1nrid:t} standard (T C 15 O4'O8O (d) ' ) to ',allow construction of the H
in r . 1.
i
o r
Cty' Recor
• der
,w w
!
I
4.
. I
1
1 •
. , ''•
y
i
r
I
I
'1
' .� • . '
!
1
T1 .
r X15 r n•
n;
dC
' June 3, 197 , ' .
�e"fit azee .?
y ��11 �K�p �vv ✓,r Y
. Tigard, Oregon 97223 1
Deference: ' ile 'NQ* ' D 2 75 '
' ' Please he advised, that the Tigard Site 'Development end Design Review '
j
Board,' a -the meeting,' ► s deed e re e for a
• site 'plan' :and' arch ,tectural' review and your submission was approved ;, rr
a
u ec to, the c e rig ee ditions:
'1.' Catch, basins 'en and off' the site ' could ••be reloca.tet '
' • per public works director'e' direr tionm.I r
. !
I
a Y red ay
on' to Greenburg d® ' ' ' Fd
E.
3. Approval of a landscape plan. -;
1' 6./
With regard. to' architectura design, submission 1 was 'approved. subject '
' � review of
to �a.a'�d. ecc7►lo and:surface treatments and ° e� sheet"
on sign rt
■
c
Please to
d. areeda .ca�. me a -- have,
ue s-biens additional' i 'o ation.e
s
P erald , Powell, ' Also , AID
Associate Tanner
i
,
i4
1
I
t
i
r
P -....«„a.as,...6y,..,ysM.✓++1:,eMlthYrq�Uy
•)? �r
Cross Examination and rebuttal.
Attorney Lou Fasano i
Public Hearing Closed.
(d) Consideration by Council
Council discussed testimony and proper procedure under the existing problem as well
as closing off exit on S. W. Park. Street.
(e) Motion by Councilman Mickelson to deny the appeal; close off S. We Park Street, exit
and retain the right to review; approve the plans and conditions as placed by the i.
Design Review Board; motion seconded by Councilman' Moored
Motion passed' by 4-1' vote of Council with Maror Bishop voting NAY,
Meeti rece sed 12:25 A. M. - reconvened 12035 A. M.
14. VARIANCE REQUEST BISSETT & OREGON BANK
(a) Continued from May 12, 1975 meeting
ti Public Hearing Opened.,.
• (b) Statement of facts by ,Planning Divector.
(c) Public Testimony
None
Public Hearing Closed.
•
(d) Motion by Councilman Barkhurs t to approve the variance request and staff
recommendations; seconded by Councilman Moore.
. • Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
15. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS w RESTROOMS JACK PARR
(a) City Administrator recommended Council approve plans and specifications, subject to
City Legal Counsel final review, and authorize the calling' for bids. '
(b) Motion by Councilman Moore to approve plans and specifications and call for bids;
seconded by Councilman Barkhurstb
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
:. 16, APPROVE PENSION PLAN AMENDMENTS - BANKERS LIFE
(a) City Administrator commented the amendments would bring the pension plan in
conformance with requirements set by the 1574 legislature,
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook to approve the amendments to the pension plan and
authorize execution; motion seconded by Councilman Earkhurst.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
17. RESOLUTION No 75-29 w A RESOLUTION ROAD
f TO FUND,
' , AU�'t-fCRIZINC
`TRANSFER OP BALANCE THEREIN TO THE GENERAL PUNT AND AUTHORIZING
DEPOSIT OP COUNTY ROAD TAX REVENUES TO THE
THE ... TAX r CI'TYw8TATE TAX
STREET FUND.
(a) Motion to adopts Councilman Moore, seconded by Councilman. Cook.,
• Approved by UtatiiMai8 vote of Council.
.
ORDINANCE 75��o AN�ERDI����P�`OR�`T�IE�PURPC�SE�OE SUBMI�T1CNC��!OE�I��LDEOAL VOTERS th DAY .',
16. ORD C THE OP
• CITY PIVE (5) MEASURES TO LEVY TAXES IN OP R
DESIGNATED ITEMS OP THE ...,..� PUND OP THE
TAX EASE 1i OR;
'� CITY IS S GENERAL T UND POR THE FISCAL YEAR
. 976
. 1, 175 � FIXING i � AND EMERGENCY.
JUNE �O� l ET'FEC�TI�'E
' BEGINNING JULY dU a �NG
DATE AND DECLARING AN EMERGE
Page ;5 Council Minutes w June 9 i 1575
•
. , •
., .,. ... -.L..,,.w., .. .._.r wN.......................... 1 :.r w...,,,,i4......._:ra-..._.a-;.b,,._..,.1.4-..t..:.w{.1;L.«...:./_....a,...A..w U. aiw- u<- a...,., u,-...a....wa.lxl4.,..4,4„...,:..l..::ua...4..4,J1:r..4J.ti,44.k... „,...0r4..-.,.« ..,..krv._.. w.5t;,;.a........a..,,4,...,,•,,.N...,al, q.,...,'..rr
' . c pie 2,- 12 s""
Tigard Site Development and Design Review Board
Staff Report
May 27, 1975 - 4:30 P.M. it
-
Bank o -Bissett)
re n B
SDR
� 7s (Oregon
,A�.ppla.cant
Larry and Robert. Bissett
a a1
.c os
la anus pr
A
To build a 5,828 ft. full service bank
facility, including a drive-up window.
r I
Staff Fin 1 9 4
1. The• applicants' submission is deficient of a
landscaping plan and color and material sample;;.
The latter will be brought to the Design Review„:;'
Board meeting by the applicant while the former
are to be considered at a later meeting. The
applicants have stated that even though they
have not been able to produce a •landscape plan
for the project they would like to have the
. the, Design Review Board pass ,�udgelnent on k► site
plan and architectural design before Larry Bissett
must leave for `Philadelphia.
2. The Drive-up window feature of this facility required
the applicant to obtain conditional use approval
from the Planning Commission. This approval was
granted on January 7, 1975 with the following
conditiomms
' 1. that no access be provided from Pacific Highway.
2. that the applicant provide 18 ft. of pavement
width from the center line of Greer►burg Road
show
to the reconstructed curb se ction shown
on the
submitted site plan
that ent
�� hay you provide improvements to S.W. pacific '
. Highway and Greenburg Road,, erase 'to include curbs sidewalks and �.__
expense, nclud a
p d �
f" driveway ,;access and curb cut on S.W. Greenburg
Rd. , such -improvements to be constructed per
applicable city, county and state standards.
.
( n . ,-y • • .
4 n tl "^
If
,.s. ,.._.........i...M.,_dk .. Me_.,a..:l..:,.ft.;.._.ui.,'.......,u.......at,..,.w,,,,.r,L.n...:,>:fz,:.....ti;ti,,:.,x,.c'.r,.A..v.eF ..tu.,:+u-r.• •,m ... .,.,w... «a.. ',...1.a,.«..:..1,kf.,is..:A,l,.MaUl.x,wM,.,w:.3r.,ai.t7 4::::u„..»+i.x,..:,+..«,a«,i.Jn.,.l.:+«'. ...,a:.:i,.,.,...a,..,.5 ,,«,=1.'.i7,;tti'1.+A11 ,
4. that no left t urns be p ermitted from the.
'
site onto S.W. Greenburg with controls
provided according to the approval of the
City Public Works Director.
5: that the outside drive-up Jane be used as
parking area until such time as this lane
is utilized as a second drive-up service
lane.
3. The driveway configuration shown on the site
plan at Greenbur g Read meets the staff' s approval
1
,
according to ;the Planning Commission concern
in #4. However, ' in order to
expressed condition �.'I
construct as shown a variance from the streets
y section (Chapter 15) of the Tigard Municipal
Code must be approved by the City Council. The
Planning Commission has no authority to vary the
standards of Chapter 15. This• variance will be
considered at the June 9, 1975 City Council meeting.
If approved, the staff wishes to seethe driveway
constructed as proposed. If . the variance is not .
approved it will be necessary for the curb cut
to be 30 feet in width rather than a 20 foot
opening and a 15 foot opening separated by an
8 foot divider as shown.
4. The location of catch basins at corners` should
be relocated so as not to pose a traffEp hazard.
A
5. The applicant has stated that a free standing ,
sign will be located at the corner of Pacific
Highway and Greenburg Road. The buildings
• dominance' of this cornet makes it questionable
if a free standing is appropriate. A building
mounted sign would appear to be a solution.
Staff. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the site development
•
plan subject City Council nci l p
t
roval of a variance
ar
iance
to allow the driveway approach to Greenburg Road as
proposed by the applicant and sub j ect to at er
approval o f the landscape plan by the Design Review
Board. In addition the catch l basins at the corner of
pacific-Greenburg and Center should be moved to the
curb-line new �� and any signs directed to pacific Highway
should be mounted on the building faces
page 2 Staff' p o Oregon bank .4
8
is
e SbF
-
, I �
•
,r. . , •
YY
WuK
1.wru x..,u w r
i R ♦ kl .a.hair 1_ ,
+a ,�„ Y may„
P. . MINUTES ,
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
. :° May 27, 1975
• Junior High• ' . Twality��Tality �7un, �h School - Lecture Room
14650 3. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
wa
to order
tel called� the meeting r�d
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bar g
at 5:50 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Members present 'were Bartel, Cook, Hanes,
McMonagle, Wakem and staff;-Powell
' . :3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 10, 1975 meeting were
,, approved as read. .
' o Wakem asked if staff had brought the color
board for the Harris Bros. Project. (SDR 8-75) 1 .
o Staff said it hadn't
4. PROJECT. REVIEW ,
4.1 SDR 6•-75 (McDonald's - Robertson)
.
s ,
. A request for review of a proposed franchise fast foods restaurant
at SW Pacific Hwy. between School St. and Park St. ' .
A.
Site Development nt Pl
an Review
1. Staff report read by Powell with recommendations' as `
^, followso
(a) Modify the common access to constrain traffic
to a 90° intersection with Pacific Hwy. and ,
limit cross traffic between the Standard Station ,
and McDonald's.
(b) Eliminate the exit shown and use School St. as
a common access with the School District, develop
School St. to a minimum commercial drive standard
(30 ft. ) and coordinate such, activities with the .
Schoo l District with respect ect to curbing
the edge
of their parking lot.
(c) EXpand parking area toward Park St. for an
additional 20-30-ft. , allowing an additional
6, to 12 spaces
N
l
(,Capacity as drawn is 71 autos - seating
capacity of restaurant is 128, probable
e y � .i
mplo ment s estimated at 16 per shift.
, Assuming 2
persons per auto,• ehe parking
..
demand would be 72 spaoes*. Staff recommends
` Scd%tional S- ld spaces to allow for turnover
overlaps and:carry out business).
i r i
k ,
, - a , 4
(d) Provide additional trees along "east" side i',
of site similar to "north" side,.
/ (e) Provide ground cover in planting areas adjacent
service station and redesign plantings in those
, areas to coordinate better. � .
(f) Provide curbs, sidewalks and necessary street .
improvements on Park St. and on Grant St.
(Grant St. will soon develo p for multi-family
use and Park St. will experience a rap id in--
crease in traffic. Neither is presently
adequate for its use and introducing the pro-
posed project without those improvements
i
on the community.
a ha ' sh
i n
rd
would be
p
' ,
2. Applicant's Presentation
k
y
o Mr. Mel , Brook (McDonald's) spoke to the points
brought up in .the staff report. He felt that staff t;
had implied that they would a.pp rove the plan a s
a
•
submitted with redline corrections.
•
o ; Staff responded that staff had told them that the
conformed
pla.�. submitted to City code minimums,
not that staff approved or favored. the plan.
o Mr. Fasano said he thought the requirement of street f'
improvements, curbs and sidewalks exceeded the
' authority of the: Design Review Board as the action
was not a land use question, but a design review for
a building permit. He further stated that he had '
asked that the McDonald's hearing not be started "
` meeting was already ',,in
until he arrived and the me � e
progress when he walked in.'
o Bartel_ asked that staff ask the City Attorney for'
his opinion regarding Design Review Board's authority ,
and responsibility for requiring conformance to
Comprehensive Plan and for street 'improvements
Public Testimony
Y''
o Mrs. Lucy Mayernik asked if the Design Review J3oa'rd
was trying to':prevent access to the site.,,':,„%1
n Mr. Dick Kleu.m ke (chrmn. NPO #3) testified in
opposition. h i1 •.
o Mr. Bob Reynolds. (landlord on Grant St. ) asked ,I
what the ,status of School St. was and offered test - 1 ,
•
many in favor.
DRB Minutes
May 27,, 97.5 .
Page 2
. . . - .., ... „_ ,. „ .. -.,. _ ,.. .. r.MU,.:,..,.p-n ,,.,....u.n,u„k-�.n+t...:«w.:» °.°:.+,..a,.X,...:.w,: :n,ae.-a...ae4r.,i.aroraµnuwr..+ra+.4..<i..:.a.ara<a,;,.raa..0 ...ea......x....,u-!,..f,txrvt•urrl,.
o Mr. Bob Greenwood (School District 23-J) said
the school board had indicated its wish to leave
School St., open.
0 Mrs. Bibianne ScheckJ.a testified in, opposition.
•
o Mr. Christenson (McDonald's) testified that based
•
on a daily customer count of other McDonald's in
. the Portland area, he estimated a 1023 vehicle trip/
r, i
day traffic generation versus the 15/0 projected
by the City.
0 Mr. Mike Emert (McDonald' s) asked why Planning Dir. •
Dick Bolen was not present.
o Staff f
responded ax e d t
1
at he was not usually present,n
a
t
,
Design Reviv3w Board meetings.
o Mr. Larry Haugset said that he felt that the City
was reversing its approval given by the Planning
Director.
o Emert stated that the access proposed was not
acceptable Lo McDonald's and that the corporation ..
wanted it reversed to enter at the north east and
exit on the south west.
o McMonagle pointed out that that was precisely the
configuration that the Oregon State Highway Div. 0
said it would not approve. ,
o Emert indicated that the corporation would work
that out with the Highway Division
o Chairman Bartel asked Emert if that was what Mc-
.
• Donald' s wanted. .
o Emert said it was.
o Staff (Powell) asked the applicant' s representative .
(Emert) if his intent was to change the site plan.
o Emert said that the plan he could approve and the
one he expected to be approved by the Design Review
Board was as he was a s
o Powell said that there was no recourse for the
staff but to recommend denial.
o Mr. E'asen.o asked on what findings was the recommen
dation based.
o Powell said it was based on staff's judgment that
the approach configuration requested wr1.s unsafe,
D118 Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 5
1 4 I
k wa.a,Mn.-......,ltip.....i»r.u.,r.w.-..,.f,.a+4..._.....n.u..,..«47.-.i-i.:.-t..,.,wu.-r.A,+,,.1m...x..!.mug--!...t„....,,»..,..�n,.-...-,a74...,.»....L,M+a..„...,,«.x:'...la,,..,J..7.,MF';:,,..M�S_h„«Mri.«. ..+.......Ri.. ,,.ri,::..1%:..:�- ,,+M::,�?i;6.:s.G,.!a✓.u4,.;.x..a:nl:+s,..yy.' '
Wr41
o Motion for denial (Wakem) died for lack of second.
0 Motion: to approve (Cook) as shown on "red line”
drawing, subject to staff recommended conditions k '
#3 (with a minimum of 80 parking spaces) , #4, #5
and #6 (allowing a waver of right to remonstrate
against an L. I. D. of street improvements in lieu
of requiring the improvements now) .
0
Seconded McMon
ec nded ale
g
o Failed (3-2)
"red
Motion to approve 1 0
line" , �with� pp t�C(McMonagle) as shown on red,
t �c,Mona
" , direction of traffic flow reversed
o ' "east" t;
and not ���all w� parking on �th east (ingress)s
g
e n r s
g
g ��
side, subject to staff conditions #3 (80 parking
spaces in the rear of the building) , ' #4, #5 and �.
#6 (allowing waiver of right to remonstrate in
lieu of improvements) .
c) Seconded (Cook) ,
o Carried (3 to 2)
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
o
Emert and Brook (McDonald's) described
( ld s) des ribed building and
supplied additional information.
2. Board Discussion and Action
r o Cook asked if the facia would extend around the
building. i a
o App licant said they would provide a rr ee dwood screen
1a .
to the rear, but a solid facia would interfere_with
ventilation.
o Christenson s o n p o ant o out t ha t
the roof to p sigh gn ,
would be deleted and the free standing sign would
be the 100 sq. ft. version -- somewhat smaller
than some in the Portland area,
o Motion to approve as amended (Cook)
o Seconded (Bartel)
o
Carried d unani o
us
•
4,2 SDR / (Oregon Ba �k
i
sse b
A request for review of a proposed b at SW areenb�•r. l .d. an�.
o
g
f a p p � ink d.
Pacific Hwy.
SD
R i 1
N! :� utes
May
AtOP
.......,.._.L ,..,., .... ,.6, .. .,... ._....,......i., .. ..,...:,...w. ..................-,......_4-.a,.Y;,....a;,1... ., ...ti ,...-..,....�. ........,..,.,.'1......i4..........A.-...:...c-...r,.lam::.t::.:l...._.. v..L A..... ,.,.:wi4l....,...,.,..M,.,_,,,.....:.1,:.I.,,M."..,..N.4.N7....:.-...-.n,:..:;.«.7..a.u+1.-rte=.
M
•
• o Review
A. Site Development P lan Re
V
1 e
o was presented by Powell.
•
1. Staff Report s p Y
2. Applicant's Presentation
�
o Larry Bissett (applicant) described the project
and provided rosponse to the questions brought up
in staff report.
I) 3. Public Testimony
o none .
4. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion (Cook) to approve subject to:
Catch basins on and off the site relocated per
Public Works Director' s direction, an approved
G variance for exit configuration on to Greenburg
Rd. , approval of a landscape plan.
o Seconded (Hanes)
o Carried.
B. Architectural Design Review •
t
® r
. 1. Applicant Presentation .
o Mr. Bissett described design considerations in
the proposed building and discussed the difficulty
io he had with the proposed brick facade.
2, Board Discussion, and Action
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to board review of ' .
color and surface treatments and a 'lost sheet" on -
signs.
o Seconded (Wakem)
, o Carried
. 4.5 SDR 1,3--75 - rescheduled for the following meeting.
4.4 SDI: 14-75 (Getter Building - Sam Goiter)
. . A request for review of a proposed, 5000 s ;. ft, office building
�,!. at j2963 SW Pacific Hwy. (west of Walnut St. )
A. Site Development Plan Review ,`
r
j .
SDR-Minute s - May y 2
3 1975 ?age 5
6
.:.:'
t
•
4 I' w
d .
to Staff Report was read by Powell.
jl •
2. Applicant's Presentation
o Mr. Cotter presented pland and described project.
3 Public Testimony
o None
4. Board Discussion and Action
o McMonagle
q ueried
applicant about drainage problems
on the site and how they were being corrected.
o Applicant said he was constructing a 12 inch storm
sewer across the site and increasing the size of ;
a sump pump used l to pump storm water across the
i
tl
highway.
I i
o Motion to approve (McMonagle) subject to sidewalk ,
to be provided as shown and driveway cut to be
built per public works approval (30' max, ) .
o Seconded (Cook) : w
o Carried
B. Architectural aural De s i r Review
e
w
1. Applicant' s Presentation
. . I
o Mr. Gotter described the building and materials,
• 2. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion (Cook) to approve as submitted.'
o Seconded (Hames)
o Carried.'
5. OTHER BUSINESS't nond
6. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p m
•
I I
SDR' Minutes - May 27, 1975 page
`,+,
r
• w.... ...... .............«,...._...I.i_. .,,,. ,-..,,.6.. ,._,.,. »i ,., d .....L,'..+.,-..ri..,r..,„ .I,... ......I,..,lw....,,,.,,., a .�..,,,..,..-,■,_.,.......,«.L4 r.,.,,.,,-,.1:La.._,...._a,.«..«,,..:,x..,,,-,.-,_<....., ,.«.u...4,:.J.'„_."t.t,-...:t_:.4..,».t-...,.t,a..t-,N+.-.,L4.,.-...wm,.._-....k.a u.r,. .
i
I
f
P DESIGN.'N REVIEW'. f,
SITE ��uc�.��r1�P�T PLAN AND �
' r'
2 ' • . APPLICATION
. .....,........o ae...+wuWw.„—..n......wd,mh,.a•pn+w,..— .. ,
c� Gef ;i v 'd 11
• Rwprrwres narws.n...tmormodoswormsv+4_ I',is
Rece p
..ra.eewm
TCA;D PLINNxNG r oIN5SxoN 639-4171� . l� Day e
• • 12420 S.Wn ',Main Street. Tiga , egon ' y �
fi
Yb1iw.Ya...1>MMrn4 1.
b..;..b. �'
' Project Title iL : r .,; ..1, ,,. ,-, #. . .. Dais Filer .�..�.:. , , r,w�.
j'
M ' /g1.MV.IgYewl...lf..
.q.I...G..,.r,
. '
' n
, ddress �� k p �� 'Te1ephen6 ' )" ) '
..hWU .gmummtaI.Y.
Mcrouslidiolimmta.14,0, wlYi1.M.
y ,,,^y_r'Desa gnex a - �, �,.:c. r,1� 1I'e1ePh10ne { F 'nx,«o.«n+.rm ru.nw .......n.. t wN.w.x.Mw.w.w ♦I.Yw.e'W.M. xrw�.w$2.n�.�6 ...ww.4w.wawauu.aur®.+M
DF� if �wrr «N OF pIDPC' Tv
S:.blY.xtlYYbI.r11.4,b..A41pYy.p...,HpFM..%p�IP,...YM.Y..p[MM9�.L�.I..w..C..N,.•.t ,.�.i : •�
pzoNd Jsr . � D. wrwn w w Unite H__ »r : rs
n°""" he..41...raw+.no airs11 11.goo k..1...ww....4.1% iwp wtxrw«.»pr n wair�k+x. wnwnw w .�Swwl.roit4Mxnlwwwkes rmruuruwran. w,4...0Jw.xwp etta,w,p+n...w
wnw.m.AMN••'—'II
• , MwMN+. - w1...tw.eW.+Mw.e..w..r n.nwv,xJ.x.wuu.ur�M ,w1.wwN,.owuww.vyYw++.^�.�.+,ar.w.w..rw. .u,r xM.rvrwm lurvn„MO.r. ,w.VrwrW. ,..'f�•• VMi....+a+r+' 'r'
Inota"..;..4,1,.....f.ia.w,....a,u.1... rm. ..rnw,wv+..Y..wr... w.t.:n.♦.+x....m.rw4WN.++......tworm. 14sw../..wn.4x:J6tnwrw4.1.0o,' wM+wwuswW10.041,11...owahwb.n■uwx, 01.4.1.1i wrwu,.rnx.nw rr.+u.wn f..rWalliiims...nwwv,.+nxubiria '
. ..,.W..w.V..w.w.......n+ea.rr..c.wNTM•1.1,,,.,wr:V.N.,a..I. 00...ew.004ma4 w,rw:gWr..r..1...W4.rawMr...U.w.4.44 aWxWwWWru.141111 uwwwlwt`.0 W.xwW..W.rW.w.wu.uwx.u+.,..01 uVt+td oroo 11Wr N4.,i.M„nkww.r."1,-,prn..rJliMww I.
/vMierW„ip.w......,.wf(1 ...A,wWwwMNVi.NVN , rMta'..f.w4r.W.....11,ktro..41.141,04iW111 MnMli.k.114:1M„kprNM.WM4x,L,4WatYa MM.x.x4Y.70.1tM"I....11.x.lw},.4,.....owl 4M,...rstNxlaxel...1..iN•11.N.11.0.4dN.1.4.YLEw1I,,,,,1 WWn,g1/#4.?.n '
•
.%,'L S �55L _ . •T c,.y ry S g r t,, c ,. E,r.♦a1, n O• „..wnw I,.u„.....w n,.y,.....,,....w
S q a EF' P
tr pN�+ iwiKlJWi,wW.vww4n.N.aow.xlrr,U i,.w;Wevrw+ui.YWtt«+rr ewiw.n.Wlr:w.l♦4tdYr/uw MGGtI....iapllar/4w.C', •
. .l v, Q l C,'�y 1'.. .
• Anticipated Development a
.+.+Id.A,...1.MdWm,.�.....ww..,4�Wxaldwi}4Y�tnp,.L.Jr.YY��tuM.wMNi,W.,u.14n.M.re..vx:H...wpup.kwr,weu.nwpw.w.uo.wni.ui....x..�,run..4e..an..:. ,, •,.1:.
Anticipated Development phase 1
au,.w..rw:w.„,...„.Ww...,. p.. ...x. h•
,w ..... ...... n. toxxud.... ir_.1w..nr. , ..
Valuation i.,.M r wM� n Mi go wr u w. ,. .. ., DO NOT W BELOW TH S r NC. w � ww uw
• .'Spaci:al., Co�ida,ta;one ..i1 DedicatI.�on,
�i.bw.xxi�pclruFi a,.wiowa.:..»+oe:,Cs.new�wwa♦iw4
• w . N4
d�w. . w
D ale-�h/ �spe c �or B „.n i !... ... .tw ... ...i« nr.ilww ..d... ,. .., ... i+. .......:+4x..,. . ..,Y w
.
•r
,
,. ....... .. •,..,..„ ,. ., ..... .. � ,. ,�,,. .,..,.,., ,..„S•,-,.r .......,..,«..,,,...+.,...^.K, �....,,,., .._,,,.,,.. .„„.„,rtl n wr•.„�r d•,;r m ..... u,ur,W-c,u•.-.aror.,„; r' ;V'
•
• �:. d' r
..,i.... .,•.',a,.. ,.,._,.....,u. .. ..,,,��...u,.,.,'.t.....atL.u:.,u.�...�u...i...::✓,,.4k r.,,u.w,:,',.. r�..:.»�..,•s�. .,i.,.:«.�.•a..a-,ru,.�t y.. .., w,.•
"'u. M.'1.• v,,,•N•:n•F:•N~�1',;.hi1,r.,..„t+.•.J'..1'.., .iu i:::.l'J k.R,i,...a.+� n..V•A».• ..Ir ../�:M1,_i.'.AMw:�3•
.� a:k'.r4 •-:wL=.+rbl-.d,. ,-+ +: ..q. al Lw 'i`.`..:l.:.4�»,t•.n4_;J;?'lasW11w441tGWW,;
r
'
Iv
,
•
.
.
«�
• a•
do o e. o f
, . ' W' Cater, ', ^ 'n
' * Or
e e d S "'. S M7 Ty O n r
. Dear
thThis E ar` to i.ae ou that our. o . "o o a * rL 1
E ' 0 O r6 tho. :Tigard Tito' o.;00 a oOi n fie, ''le. ' O x'd ha
' , beef t . vex to .M hh' * 1973 at , 0
r
o oasts o i , e
•
do not hesitate o ' our, o � c' ”' ' i7 0. '
•
» � ,,
, •
o . '
. 58
' ' I p
.
.
•
i
i d.- ,,.,
-. ..,,, .,.r ,,,,.,.r,n w._,,.......r.,-.w....,..t..ti'W.:.,....r......u....,,u-.,,..—.∎,.,:.,:,:..:i«.«....1m,.li....4s.+..,;..:+..,:n.:,., . .4...,.:x.....»a......,.;.«,,,.«.zur...,..u. -.:., ,44,ai:jr.144r.I'...a:4�
„r,.w rA&;L1K„a>,1'..G;-r•,ika.aawr;u.:slu,.=aal w.1=r,.,a F Fti...-...,n,,»vd.'.1.1?,..„xb`4,rrri:.i,1,.. .4.4.t.,.+.krM::::..,:1 1,71rrirJG l;.,AhR:;rS,.wu.,a:,a+:;
I 1 I
ti
•
•
,,, �'1
f.. o- .., ,
, , . •
. • " � �. .a .,, ..r , . . ,.. vv„ I,e v. „„a ,,, it r„ ,
. , .1 .•
, ,
• . ,
, •
. .
, . ,
® .r..,, , .
.1., , i ., xx.W'r., .� w . �. .Y,C. �,,x.. .,. ay. „ W,w w wn ',ku:.a .. ,r., i„ < ♦,
�I;�
« 7 41
. t I
I , 7c, ) o(.•t 4 19 le ..,_.i..,..(d 2 Z.-et.,i.,/t/i,:.>e s-,t.()f'--,, : ,
I ,
. . ' ,7 ”
( `e ve Cif' ,ece 1 (lst--t C, , !ee,t,,�c vgac.,...4,14-t-47 pf, ' , 1 .,_ ' „ ex-)2e........ • '.5' .c-c-i, e ,-4, 'ra.)? r)._,... -'.4 1 aCt e y- . c_iike.i(f746,Get, i ,
. r .i, .
,,, . ,
oS C [
, 1 , , �C
, , ttv 1..,. -.5,c) „ : 6t.)1 '.. ' g.e$ -veti7 :. t)-1_, ki-{a---'(e)?/,le...e.1 1 c:,..'tFe--44-e,I,e,„q. ,. \
Q
t'
x
r ett....e.. td.'I Je_ ' et. e.'. 'ed,i' ','' ' it. ' i ilet-e-,4' , , .
, ' e9-r--(. it-e.e,Q,_ eii...aeL-t.c...(0L. , ,-- ' ' , , '.' ,,,' :: ,. . , , 1 , , , .
•
I
I
1
0
I
ti,i{i, •;'Y
1.:
•
M1'
• + _ /
,',...�....,.-, !.._.':.1'.,M1� ...................+,.:4,».....1 ,.-:....a.✓xr_:n._.,...ua.Ar.t.,._�-..,:.....�..«,.....w.R—»r+..M,.:.-:.,F.»,r.,..»t..,. �aS'1:..,1...-;..,t....,..t....aa........a:4,a....w,i.,ac,.«.,,wl.wr-,m.tA;...,r...L,.l.!'...:i
x.«u,r aw ,u k,.:e>•, v«•a��r� �� ur ,re;n,r_war+,.-�
,,_. The Oregon Bank .t ; tAt43M Y
,{
s SIGN SPECIFICATIONS'
$L) .
•
'L) li ,1— .7' \-,,,,,...) .' ('
r
c:$ baiktU it:),'.:.
, i 13, --- .
nd h rant a
. _, Double faced plastic display internally illuminated. ' Background of acrylic plastic sprayed
with acrylic paint flat brown 4 . Paint to be applied on interior surface of face in
sufficient number of coats to be opaque. Exterior surface of face to be treated or coated
' to chi eve MATTE FINISH. "
. All channels and retainers painted to nia tch flat
brown matte finish.
All ',;ropy and graphic marks of acrylic plastic sprayed white t
All fltupports to be square tube painted to match flat brown matte finish
I.Y.. I•w..—______________,_,__,...,„s
1 .�wy.FvM�L.-rCr, i � � .....r , TYPE• ' • i i i
. ,....,... ....... ..... ,4„-.,,-.......,,,,,--,t;,.. k. , '1'..& ' 1.''''';.! 11' rn o Lor bat n ---. 4 - .
1,,t,../,, -4 - . -fr.' ' . motor Bank — ,
RR Directional
Specfioat±ons same as- Type A.
' 1 ,Y Y I .1 Y T�Y/ • '! V.�' f 1 t MM.r1 'MrJr." + ' , r Y.+r!
t
9
vk.b4: t 4 o Motor r Sank;
, . si .1/2/: ,..b;" '�� do,'r
�'�3:rr1,
Specifications same as Type A. (exception. SINGX,L x10.4 ,
~ 1 I
n
ill
i! 3 * I'll 'ef ,.,:- 41. .,wu t�},7.e>✓tt , j'n •
, LI .,ji,...1c311K 4:4:V''' ' I
..
'. n9 . . .
3
,i
t
i
i.•
n ape oir r ca Y
i
ori5 same a
s I
�,.ty`�pe ,A:'��
r. w ,
.. �,..�...xpr.�. wr..
a