Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
DIR2014-00002
DIR2014 - 00002 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES IIII UI DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION T I GARD DIR2014-00002 DATE: July 28,2014 CODE CHAPTER: 15.520.1 Use Table: Commercial Zones TOPIC: Recreational Vehicles Sales LOCATION: All Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts That Permit Vehicle Sales/Rental Uses I. REQUEST City staff was asked to sign off on a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Land Use Compatibility Statement for a recreational vehicles sales business (RV Northwest), located at 11655 SW Pacific Highway. The site is split zoned; the southern half is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and the northern half is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-12). The proposed use, RV Northwest, is classified as a motor vehicle sales/rental use which is permitted in the C-G zone. The City determined that the previous use, Raz Transportation, was within the same motor vehicle sales/rental use category. According to information provided, RV Northwest is within the same use category as the previous use; therefore it is not considered a change of use and a land use approval is not required for sales and rental of recreational vehicles on the site. The Applicant requests a Director's Interpretation as confirmation of this. It is anticipated that some terms or phrases within the code may be ambiguous and therefore subject to two or more reasonable meanings. Because it is not possible to identify or remove all ambiguities in the code, a process should be established for resolving these ambiguities in advance of or concurrent with applying for a particular permit or other action. Director's interpretations provide a process for resolving ambiguities in such a manner. All directors' interpretations are subject to appeal to the City Council. II. HISTORY The site, 11665 SW Pacific Highway, is located in Tigard on the north side of SW Pacific Highway. Until at least February 19, 2014, the site was utilized by a charter bus rental company (Raz Transportation) which was determined to be within the motor vehicle sales/rental use category. Raz Transportation utilized the entire portion of the C-G area and a majority of the R-12 zoned portion of the site;with the exception of the northernmost 200 feet. The use of the R-12 portion of the site was established in a 1997 Director's Interpretation and again through a Resolution No. 98-24 passed by the Tigard City Council. The resolution states that the owner/lessee may maintain a non- conforming use within the R-12 area on the property but that such non-conforming use cannot occur within the northernmost 200 fee of the R-12 area of the property. DIR2014-00002: Recreational Vehicles Sales 1 of 3 III. ANALYSIS: TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Firstly, the Tigard Development Code (TDC), under section 18.130.060 Commercial Use Categories, provides a list of characteristics, accessory uses and examples of each use category. Section 18.130.060.I, excerpted below, describes the motor vehicle sales/rental use category. I. Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental. 1. Characteristics: Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental includes land uses involved in the sale, lease, and/or rental of cars, motorcycles, light and heavy trucks, mobile homes, boats, and recreational vehicles. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses commonly found include parking, auto repair and maintenance facilities, office space,and storage space. 3. Examples: Examples include auto dealerships,used car lots, and car rental facilities. RV Northwest falls under this category and is specifically called out under the characteristic section. Secondly, the Tigard Development Code, Table 18.520.1 Use table: Commercial Zones, shows that the motor vehicle sales/rental uses are either permitted outright or as a conditional use within the C-G zone. The table points to footnote no. 12,which states: "Cleaning, sales and repair of motor vehicles and light equipment is permitted outright; sales and rental of heavy vehicles and farm equipment and/or storage of recreational vehicles and boats permitted conditionally." The footnote indicates that sales and rental of heavy vehicles and farm equipment are a conditional use. It also states that the storage of recreational vehicles and boats are only permitted conditionally. Therefore, storing recreational vehicles and boats (not associated with sales or rental) requires a conditional use permit. Storage of recreational vehicles, other than inventory for sale, is classified as a self-service storage use, as listed below. And as listed in the commercial use table, self-service storage uses are a conditional use in the C-G zone. Section 18.130.060 Commercial Use Categories, states: R. Self-Service Storage. 1. Characteristics: Commercial operations which provide rental of storage space to individuals or business uses. The storage areas are designed to allow private access by the tenant for storing or removing personal property. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses commonly found include parking, office space, and a dwelling unit for a residential caretaker. 3. Examples: Examples include single-story and multi-story facilities that provide individual storage areas for rent, often called mini-warehouses or self-storage facilities; and the storage of boats and recreational vehicles. 4. Exceptions: a. Does not include moving and storage companies where there is no individual storage or where employees are primary movers of the goods to be stored. Such uses are considered Warehouse/Freight Movement. DIR2014-00002: Recreational Vehicles Sales 2 of 3 b. Does not include the storage of fleet vehicles,which is considered non-accessory parking, or the storage of sales or rental inventory,which is considered Motor Vehicle Sale/Rental. Under No. 4, exceptions, it specifically states that storage does not include sales or rental inventory, which are considered motor vehicles sale/rental uses. RV Northwest is a business that rents and sells recreational vehicles and the only storage of vehicles will be the rental and sales inventory, vehicles undergoing maintenance or repair, and other permitted accessory uses; therefore, the use is considered motor vehicles and sales/rental, as defined by CDC 18.130.060.I. RV Northwest may not sell or rent heavy vehicles or farm equipment, and may not store recreational vehicles or boats as part of a self-service storage operation, as defined by CDC 18.130.060.I, unless granted a conditional use permit as required by CDC Table 18.520.1, note 12. So long as RV Northwest abides by those limitations, the use is permitted outright and a conditional use permit is not required. IV. INTERPRETATION As discussed in above, Planning Division staff may complete and sign Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Land Use Compatibility Statement as this new business, RV Northwest is an outright permitted use within the same use category as Raz Transportation. The new business does not constitute a change of use and land use review is not required. Kenny Asher, Community Development Director Date DIR2014-00002: Recreational Vehicles Sales 3 of 3 Agnes Kowacz May 16, 2014 City of Tigard, Planning 1 3125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Agnes: V Based on the meeting held May 14, 2014 between myself,you and Tom McGuire; CIDA respectfully request, on behalf of RV Northwest,the ability to occupy a portion of the property located at 11655 SW Pacific Hwy (current site occupancy request is limited to the property that 15895 SW 72ND AvE is zoned R-12): SUITE 200 The existing use on the property is motor vehicle sales/rental (Raz Transportation).We propose PORTLAND,OR 97224 maintaining that use category. PHONE:503.226.1285 FAX:503.226.1670 Conditional Use (C-G Zone): INFO @CIDAINC.COM For the southern portion of the site, currently zoned CG,we will review the requirements and as WWW.CIDAINC.COM needed submit a conditional use application specifically for the motor vehicle sales/rental of recreational vehicles (RVs).We anticipate submission of that application in approximately 3-4 weeks, based on meeting a civil engineer on site during the week of May I9th,drawing preparation time and attendance of the pre-application conference.We understand that the approval process takes approximately 6—8 weeks after submission. Non-Conforming Site (R-I2 Zone); The northern portion of the site is currently residentially zoned R-12;the existing use is non- conforming and has been maintained.We propose to continue this non-confirming status for motor vehicle sale/rental for recreational vehicles. The northern most 200 feet of the R-12 property is unused and acts as a buffer between this site and residences to the north.We will continue to respect this buffer, and propose no activity in this area. Use Request and Proposed Restrictions: During the approval process for the southern portion of the site,we propose limiting immediate use to the existing non-confirming northern portion of the site.After we receive city approval for Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental for RV's on the southern portion of the site we will expand our use to that area. Based on our meeting,this request meets the intent of the non-conforming status. I have attached the DMV Application to Correct Dealer/ Rebuilder Vehicle Dealer Certification for your signature as required by the DMV for the northern portion of the site. RV Northwest or CIDA can bring the original form if you would prefer. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, , ' { � ARCHITECTURE WW ° u- ENGINEERING Jennifer M. Beattie, RA P L A N N I N G President I N T E R I O R S L A N D S C A P E F:\GENADMIN\PROJECTS\I4\0085.00 RV Northwestl5-16-14 northern property requestdocx * fy Project Notes Date: May 17, 2014 V Subject: 1 1655 SW Pacific Hwy Use of conditional and non-conforming site Project Title: RV Northwest 15895 SW 72ND AvE SUITE 200 Project No: 140085.01 PORTLAND,OR 97224 PHONE 503.226.1285 By: Jennifer Beattie, RA FAX:503.226.1670 INFO Q(.CIDAINC.COM To: Agnes Kowacz, Associate Planner W W W.CIDAINC.COM Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director We met on Wednesday, May 15, 2014,to discuss the existing use at 11655 SW Pacific Hwy (Raz Transportation) and the proposed use (RV Rental by RV Northwest). The site records stretch back to 1944 with annexation into the city of Tigard in 1987. The site has gone through a series of permits including a director's determination regarding the use of the site within the R-12 zoning. The outcome of that determination was an appeal to the Planning Commission / City Council which permitted the non- conforming status but restricted the use on the northern most 200'. Other uses that city planning has record of is in 1994 Pool Sales (possible use category of bulk sales which would have been permitted in the CG zone and maintaining the non- conforming status of the R-12), 40,000 SF business office and site/building improvements in 2005. An open discussion occurred on what use classification Raz transportation was. The planning records do not clearly define what use it was considered. It does appear that Raz was considered a conforming use on the CG zone as all references to non- conforming uses occurred for the northern portion of the site designated as R-12. It appears that the closest use description based on characteristics for Raz would be Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental. The proposed use of Recreational Vehicles rentals would fall into the same use category. The city stated that the RV use would trigger a new conditional use process. CIDA questioned if it is the same use category if it truly triggered another conditional use. It was the City's belief that it did. ARCHITECTURE Tom explained that a new conditional use is required each time a tenant changes even if it is within the same use category and thereby triggering sites to be brought into ENGINEERING compliance with current code. The example provided to CIDA is that if a new church P L A N N I N G buys and existing church and no improvements are proposed within or outside of the facility,they are still required to go through a new conditional use process and upgrade I N T E R I O R S the site to current standards. CIDA requests to further review this scenario. L A N D S C A P E As a long term solution it may be possible to apply for a zone change on the R-12 land. This can be a costly and time consuming process (estimated at 6-8 months) and there is F:\GENADMIN\PROJECTS\I4\0085.00 RV Northwest\mms S-IS-14.docx approval risk involved. CIDA will review the viability of this as a long term solution understanding that it doesn't meet the current time constraints. The front southern portion of the site (CG) and rear northern portion of the site (R-12) are considered separately from a zoning code standpoint. The front portion of the site is triggering a jurisdictional process while the rear portion of the site is permitted to maintain its non-conforming status as long as the status has not been discontinued for more than 6 months. Therefore a conditional use process and upgrades are not required to the rear R-12 zoned portions of the site. Based on our meeting, I have included a request to use the rear portion of the site maintaining the non-conforming status while the jurisdictional process is completed on the front portion of the site. Please see attached letter. F:\GENADMIN\PROJECTS\1410085.00 RV Northwest\mms 5-I5-I4.docx Perkins Coie Q1120 N.W.Couch Street,Tenth Floor` ,� Portland,OR 97209-4128 Michael C.Robinson PHONE:503.]2].2000 PHONE (503)727-2264 FAX (503)346-2264 ^� 0\� FAX:503.727.2222 www.perkinscoie.com EMAIL: MRobinson @perkinscoie.com `e June 11, 2014 \''"" BY HAND DELIVERY Mr. Ken Asher Community Development Director City of Tigard Community Planning 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Appeal of a Type II Director's Interpretation • Dear Ken: This office represents Aman Enterprises. Please find enclosed a notice, required fee, and narrative for an appeal of a Director's code interpretation concerning property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway. It is our understanding that this is an appeal of an administrative decision that will be heard by a Hearings Officer. Please include this office on any official notice or other communication concerning this appeal. Very truly yours, MjJAJ4rV pedi t Michael C. Robinson MCR:rsr Enclosure cc: Mr. Walter Aman(via email) (w/encl.) • Ms. Jennifer Beattie (via email) (w/encl.) Mr. Garrett Stephenson(via email) (w/encl.) 113995-000 1/LEGAL 122317724.1 ANCHORAGE BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO DALLAS • DENVER • LOS ANGELES • MADISON • NEW YORK PALO ALTO • PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE • SHANGHAI • TAIPEI • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP APPLICANT MATERIALS vkeG E.N, £0 JAN 112 111111 City of Tigard Gov 10 �Gr1,0.0C, I , . G,IEN TIGARD Land Use Decision Appeal Filing dorm The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code,therefore,sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process,please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF US):ONLY Case No.(s): 4/S 20/1/"Cava.? Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application �AY 23 2e9 4 Case Name(s): Being Appealed: JQ 6GTp Q S e ee s: PP () 'Zile-ER p 2 E44- J Cgue.L •SEC) ype II Director's Decision to HO/PC: How Do You Qualify As A Party?: g AN YNE PARTY cud Ms" ❑Expedited Review(Deposit): Na 7S DEcEstno.5 . ❑Hearing Referee: ❑HO/PC to City Council: f + Total Fees: .2.-Ia� Appellant's Name: L)ALtre APIA Pi 11‘9q7 Q Receipt No.: Zr K Appellant's Address: 'Po . D'( 4'I L: — Application Accepted: ZJ/ By: 6AVAI K City/State: Po 2?CFl.u0 1 De— WZip: q 72-4-41z:7 Approved As To Form: By: I( Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(5°3) 7gy—2 i. .7 Denied As To Form: By: Rev. 6/24/2013 Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: 11.4p' 2 st 2c,l 4 l:\CURPIN\Masten\land Use Applican.ms\Appeal of land Use Decis on.doc Date On Which Notice Of Final Decision Was Given: 14.41 2g/ 20 f 4 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: (601A tt)IJLty RE UIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS DfV EL.0 pommy DZ. c.V oak Dee=S ztai ✓ Application Elements Submitted: $rr cc.w'-Rep.EQ /Ir P PCIL.4eLE MO. kLeA-CE ❑ Appeal Filing Form(compktcd) ❑ Filing Fee gIC Ewx,LoSED 01)4RR.4a~rut Si: ture(s)of Appellant(a): 1 j u4L.TE'1 L . 4i"IAI ' City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-718-2421 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 2 BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the Matter of an Appeal by Aman ,Nelle•V) Enterprises, Inc. of an Decision by the '""‘ Community Development Director WRITTEN STATE i U I SUPP€RT Interpreting the Tigard Community OF APPEAL 1'l. Development Code to Prohibit a Continued �0 Legally-Nonconforming Use O.A4C0 � I. INTRODUCTION Q Walter Aman, dba Aman Enterprises, Inc. (the "Appellant"), is the sole trustee and manager of property located at 11655 SW Pacific Highway (the "Subject Property"). The Appellant submits this appeal of an interpretation (the "Decision") of the Community Development Director(the "Director") of the City of Tigard (the "City"), issued on May 28, 2014. Exhibit 1. The Director erred in interpreting the Tigard Community Development Code ("CDC") to prohibit continuation of an acknowledged legally-nonconforming use. For the reasons explained below, the Hearings Officer should reverse the Director's decision and find that the proposed use may occupy the subject property without a land use review. This appeal is timely filed prior to the appeal deadline of June 11, 2014. H. REASON FOR APPEAL The Subject Property has been used for"Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental" since at least its annexation by the City in 1987, and before that, was used for heavy equipment uses since at least 1944. Exhibit 2. The Subject Property is split-zoned. The north half is zoned "Medium Density Residential" (R-12) and the south half is zoned "General Commercial" (C-G). On February 19, 2014, the previous tenant, Raz Transportation, stopped operations. Exhibit 4. The Appellant then entered into a contract to lease the Subject Property to RV Northwest, a recreational vehicle dealer. The City has not verified the Appellant's legal nonconforming rights on RV Northwest's Oregon DMV Land use Compatibility Statement ("LUCS"), which is required before it can commence its operations on the Subject Property. Although the challenged Decision acknowledges that the Raz Transportation use is legally-nonconforming and that the RV Northwest use is in the same use category, the City contends that a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") is required to allow RV Northwest to occupy the Subject Property. This interpretation is erroneous because it effectively prohibits the continuance of an acknowledged legally- nonconforming use, in violation of CDC Chapter 18.760. An informal director's interpretation is an appealable land use decision pursuant to ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A). Love v. Klamath County, 54 Or LUBA 747, 749-50 (2007). III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The existing use of the subject property was acknowledged as legally-nonconforming on April 28, 1997 in an administrative Director's Interpretation. Exhibit 2. A 1998 City Council decision prohibited "Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental" within 200 feet of the north lot line. Exhibit 3. I 13995-0001/LEGAL 122278850.1 An informal meeting to discuss RV Northwest's occupancy of the site was held between the Appellant and the City on May 14, 2014. The Director issued the challenged interpretation through an email sent from associate planner Agnes Kowacz to Appellant's representative, dated May 28, 2014. Exhibit 1. IV. APPLICABLE APPEAL CRITERIA The following criteria apply to an appeal of Type II Director decisions, pursuant to CDC 18.390.040.G. As explained below, this Appeal is proper because it meets all applicable appeal criteria. i. Time for filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the director within 10 business days of the date the notice of decision was mailed. RESPONSE: The Director issued his decision on May 28, 2014 (Exhibit 1). The deadline for this appeal was June 11, 2014. This Appeal was submitted on June 11, 2014 and is therefore timely. ii. Content of notice of appeal. The notice of appeal shall contain: (A) An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision; RESPONSE: The decision being appealed is a code interpretation by the Community Development Director. The decision was issued via email on May 28, 2004 (Exhibit 1). It erroneously determined that RV Northwest's use is not legally-nonconforming, despite being within the same use category as the existing nonconforming use. It also erroneously states that the Appellant must apply for a conditional use permit ("CUP") in order to change from one nonconforming use to another in the same use category. An informal director's interpretation is an appealable land use decision. Love v. Klamath County, 54 Or LUBA 747, 749-50 (2007). Although the interpretation was initially composed by a staff planner and not the Director, the Director adopted the interpretation as his own, as stated in the May 28 email: "I've asked Kenny Asher, our Community Development Director, to weigh in on my position and he fully concurs." Exhibit 1 (emphasis added). For this reason, the May 28, 2014 email is an appealable land use decision. (B) A statement demonstrating the party filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal; RESPONSE: All applicants have standing pursuant to 18.390.040.0.1.a. Mr. Aman is the sole trustee and manager of the Subject Property, and can be considered the aggrieved "Applicant" for the purposes of this appeal. In the alternative, Mr. Aman has standing as a receiver of notice and/or as a participant in the proceeding under 18.390.040.G.1, subsections b. and c, because his representative participated in the challenged Decision. Exhibit 5. (C) A detailed statement of the specific issues raised on appeal; - 2 - 1 13995-0001/LEGAL 122278850.1 RESPONSE: The Appellant proposes to continue an existing legally-nonconforming use by leasing the subject property to an RV sales and service company. The City erred in finding (1) that the proposed use of the site for RV sales and service is not a continuance of a legally- nonconforming use and (2) that the RV sales and service use requires a CUP or other land use permit in order to operate. Because this is a continuation of a legally nonconforming use, the City cannot require a land use review, and must acknowledge RV Northwest's legally- nonconforming status on the LUCS form. A. THE PROPOSED USE IS A CONTINUANCE OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE. Non-conforming uses may be continued unless abandoned. CDC I8.760.040.B. Raz Transportation used the Subject Property for storage, maintenance, and dispatch of its charter buses. This use was acknowledged by the City as legally-nonconforming in April, 1997. "The entire site has apparently been utilized for this purpose or other heavy equipment uses since 1944. The property was annexed to the City in 1987 and since that time, the nonconforming uses have continued." Exhibit 2. The existing use has not been discontinued for six months or more, as Raz Transportation was operating on the site at least as late as February 19, 2014. Exhibit 4. The continued use will be service and sales of RVs. Pursuant to CDC 18.120.030, a"change of use" is "any use that differs from the previous use as defined in the Chapter 18.120, Use Categories. (Emphasis added.) The City has determined that the two uses, Raz Transportation and RV Northwest, are in the same use category, "Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental," pursuant to CDC 18.130.060.I. and Table 18.520.1. Exhibit 1. The Appellant agrees that the Raz Transportation and RV Northwest uses are both "Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental" uses. This being the case, RV Northwest does not constitute a new use or a"change of use" as defined by the CDC. A change in the ownership of a nonconforming use does not change the status of the nonconforming use. CDC 18.760.020.2.B. The Appellant proposes a change in ownership of the use, from Raz Transportation to RV Northwest, not a change in the use itself Although the product involved in the use (RVs) will be different, the use itself will not change from one category of use to another, and is therefore not a "change of use" as defined by CDC 18.120.030. Therefore, the Director erred in determining that "despite being in the same use category, RV Sales is not a continuation of Raz Transportation operations, under our code." Exhibit 1. B. THE CITY MAY NOT REQUIRE A LAND USE REVIEW TO ALLOW RV NORTHWEST TO OPERATE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. The existing "Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental" use is permitted to continue on the Subject Property without a land use permit because it predates application of both the C-G and R-12 zoning districts to the subject property. The Director erred in determining that the Appellant is required to obtain a CUP to allow RV Northwest to occupy the site. The stated basis for the Director's interpretation is that because "Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental" is a conditional use in the C-G zone, a CUP is required. This may be true if this were a new use. But, as explained above, RV Northwest is not a new use. It is a continuation of an acknowledged legally- - 3 - 1 13995-0001/LEGAL 122278850.1 nonconforming use under new ownership. Because the "Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental" use was active prior to the City's annexation of the property in 1987, it has legally-nonconforming status in the C-G zone regardless of the fact that a new use might have to obtain a CUP permit. The existing use is also legally-nonconforming in the R-12 zone and may be continued there without a land use permit. Moreover, the City cannot require a CUP for a nonconforming use simply because a CUP is potentially available. Pursuant to CDC 18.760.020.C.3, "[a] nonconforming situation use may be changed to a conditional use permitted in the underlying zone if approved through a conditional use review." (Emphasis added). The use of the word "may" demonstrates that a nonconforming use is not required to become a conditional use. The same nonconforming rights apply on the R-12 portion of the site to within 200 feet of the north property line. According to CDC 18.760.020.C.3, if the existing use were to become a conforming conditional use, all nonconforming rights would be lost. Under the City's interpretation, this would also mean that the nonconforming rights on the R-12 portion of the Subject Property would be lost. The Appellant has no desire to terminate the Subject Property's nonconforming status. The City acknowledged that Raz Transportation's use is legally non-conforming in both the C-G and the R-12 zones, and that RV Northwest's Use is in the same use category. As previously mentioned, the CDC only considers a use to be a different use if the new use is in a different category, and a change in ownership of the use does not equal a"change of use." For these reasons, a CUP cannot be required so long as this nonconforming use is continued. Thus, RV Northwest has until at least July 19, 2014 to preserve its legal nonconforming use rights lapse.' For these reasons, the Hearings Officer should reverse the Director's decision and find that RV Northwest, as a continuation of an existing legally-nonconforming use, may occupy the site without a land use review. The Hearings Officer should also instruct Staff to verify the nonconforming status of the use on RV Northwest's LUCS form. (D) A statement demonstrating that the specific issues raised on appeal were raised during the comment period, except when the appeal is filed by the applicant; RESPONSE: Mr. Aman is the sole trustee and manager of the Subject Property, and can be considered the aggrieved "Applicant" for the purposes of this appeal. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Even if this criterion applies, the issues of conforming use rights were raised in the email exchange between the Appellant's representative and the City. Exhibit 5. (E) Filing fee. RESPONSE: The required filing fee of$272.00 is submitted with this Appeal. Raz Transportation discontinued operations on the Subject Property on February 19,2014. Legal nonconforming status is lost six(6)months after the use is discontinued. CDC 18.760.040.B. - 4 - 113995-0001/LEGAL 122278850.1 V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Hearing Officer should reverse the challenged Decision. Exhibits 1. May 28, 2014 Director Interpretation 2. 1997 Nonconforming Use Director Interpretation 3. 1998 Appeal Decision 4. Oregonian Article Demonstrating Closing Date for Raz Transportation 5. Email Exchange between Appellant's Representative and City Planning Staff - 5 - 1 13995-0001/LEGAL 122278850.1 Jennifer Beattie From: Agnes Kowacz <AgnesK @tigard-or.gov> Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:38 AM Jennifer Beattie Cc: Tom McGuire; Kenny Asher Subject: RE: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest Hi Jennifer- Thanks for your reply, and I'm sorry that you're struggling. Hopefully,this email can clear up the confusion. Fundamentally, I believe you are misinterpreting my"stated position." I have not said that the city"won't permit the ongoing use of a permitted, existing, non-conforming use..." The city would in fact permit the ongoing use at 11655 were that the case here (e.g. if the new use were an outright permitted use within the Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental category). But there is no "ongoing" use here.The fact that there are two zones on the site isn't relevant because there is considered one site.And, because the Directors Interpretation allowed the prior use on the site (which we determined to be Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental), including on the residentially zoned portion, uses within that category can continue. However, while RV sales and the Raz Transportation use are within the same use category(Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental), they are in fact subject to different approval processes and treated differently under our code. As we have pointed out, Boat and RV sales require a conditional use permit, where as other types of motor vehicle sales and rentals would be permitted outright (see Table 18.520.1 Use Table: Commercial Use Zones, Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental, Footnote 12 - http://www.tigard-or.gov/business/municipal code/docs/title18/18520-1.pdf) a conditional use permit is approved for the C-G portion of the site, the use would be allowed on the R-12 portion 211 because it is one site. To further clarify, with respect to your questions below, I offer the following: 1. If we did nothing on the front portion of the site then we should be permitted to use the rear portion of the site for the continued use and wouldn't trigger a conditional use process. Yes, if you only wanted to use the R-12 portion of the site for the continued use,you could do so. However as above,you aren't proposing a continuation of the prior use. Despite being in the same use category, RV Sales is not a continuation of Raz Transportation operations, under our code. 2. RAZ could have moved their buses to the rear of the site and we could have leased the front to any outright commercial use. No conditional use would be triggered. Yes, Raz could have used the rear portion of the site but that isn't relevant because Raz Transportation was not conducting RV sales. Depending on the business that would be leasing the front of the site, in this scenario, the C-G portion of the site may still be required to go through land use review, perhaps not a conditional use review but some degree of site development review. 3. We could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site (a use permitted outright)and RV's on the rear of the site. Then later if that use changed, we would have applied for conditional use on the front while continuing to drive RV's across. Yes,you could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site, but in this scenario,you still would not be permitted to sell or store RV's on the rear of the site. You wouldn't be driving RV's across the CG site because the RV's wouldn't be there in the first place. Access isn't really the issue. Regarding the DMV form,we will not be signing off on the northern portion of the site only for the reasons I explain above. RV sales or storage on ANY portion of the site requires a conditional use permit, and we cannot sign off on the form for a use that requires a conditional use permit. 1 EXHIBIT 1 At your request, I've asked Kenny Asher, our Community Development Director, to weigh in on my position and he fully concurs. Please let me know when you are ready to begin the conditional use application process so I can assist you. I noticed that you submitted a pre-application conference and it is scheduled for June 10`h. Most of us are out this week at a conference, so we need to reschedule for June 17th at 10 or 11 am, please let me know which time works best for you . Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503.718.2427 agnesk@tigard-or.gov From: Jennifer Beattie [mailto:jenniferb @cidainc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:57 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Cc: Tom McGuire Subject: RE: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest Agnes— I am struggling with this. With your stated position,you have in effect stated that the city won't permit the ongoing use of a permitted, existing, non-conforming use and thereby are restricting use of 50%of the site due to access. This makes a portion of the site non-usable, which can't be right. The use discussions, in the previous director's interpretation, remained silent regarding accessing of the rear. If it had been an issue, it should have been raised on those determinations. I need to ask you to re-evaluate your position. • If we did nothing on the front portion of the site then we should be permitted to use the rear portion of the site for the continued use and wouldn't trigger a conditional use process. • RAZ could have moved their buses to the rear of the site and we could have leased the front to any outright commercial use. No conditional use would be triggered. • We could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site (a use permitted outright) and RV's on the rear of the site. Then later if that use changed,we would have applied for conditional use on the front while continuing to drive RV's across. We can't be of the only site that has split zoning or joint parking agreements over split zoning in Tigard, where one use has to cross but isn't permitted outright in the crossing zone. The tenant needs to relocate their RV's and unfortunately have a deadline of June 1st. They are negotiating to get 30 more days on their existing site but it is unclear if the existing site landlord will approve this request. I would suggest we get around the DMV form issue by inserting the following language. You can write on the form under New Location: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy(northern 486' of site only) We could provide you an exhibit for your files,which you could release a condition of approval to the owner if that would relieve your concerns. Please note the 486' is based on utilizing my existing survey and connecting the adjacent residential lot line which aligr with the zoning map. 2 KECE7VF'n := - • • • April 28, 1997 Henry S. Raz, President CITY OF TIGARD Raz Transportation Company OREGON 1660 SW Bertha Boulevard Portland, OR 97219 Re: Director's Interpretation of Non-Conforming Use Status Dear Mr. Raz: This letter is in response to your request for a Director's Interpretation of the non-conforming use status for the property located at 11655 SW Pacific Highway in the City of Tigard. This has been requested because the site presently has a split zoning designation. Approximately one- half of the southern portion of the property is zoned General Commercial (C-G) in both Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations. The northern half of the property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (6-12 dwelling units per acre) and an R-12 residential Zoning designation. Presently, the property is being used for bus shuttle service providers and for construction contractor uses. Raz Transportation has proposed to become the sole bus service provider from the existing facility and intends to continue to use portions of the property that are presently zoned for residential use. Upon review of the historic use overview of the property and a site inspection of the current property improvements, the proposed non-conforming uses of the commercial and residential portions of the property are in compliance with the non-conforming provisions of the Community Development Code. These provisions are set forth in Section 18.132.040(B)(1)(a-f) of the Community Development Code. The standards have been addressed as indicated below: a. No such non-conforming use is enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land or space than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this title. The proposed bus shuttle service use does not appear to increase the intensity of the heavy equipment type uses that have taken place on the property since 1944. b. No such non-conforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this title. The entire site has apparently been utilized for this purpose or other heavy equipment uses since 1944. The property was annexed to the City in 1987 and since that time, the non-conforming uses have continued. c. The non-conforming use of land is not discontinued for any reason for a period of more than 6 months. This non-conforming status request does not involve the use of a non-conforming structure. The existing structure on the General Commercial zoned portion of the property accommodates permitted office and related storage uses. The remainder of this property is undeveloped. Page 1 of 2 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 EXHIBIT 2 d. if the use is discontinued or abandoned for any reason for a period of six months, any subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the zone in which such land is located. At such time as the use is discontinued, this standard will then apply. Based on the use history that has been provided for the site, the property has apparently been in constant use by the non-conforming land uses prior to annexation of the property to the City of Tigard in 1987. e. For purposes of this section, a use is discontinued or abandoned upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events: (i) on the date when the land was vacated; (ii) on the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise or the provision of services; (iii) on the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the non- conforming; or (iv) on the date a request for final reading of water and power meters is made to the applicable utility districts. When any of the following events has occurred, the current non-conforming use status will no longer apply to the site and it will then be required to be developed to current City Development Code Standards of the zoning district. f. No additional structure, building, or sign shall be constructed on the lot in connection with such non-conforming use of land. Through the determination of this use status, no structured are proposed to be constructed on the property. The heavy equipment uses on the property have not been discontinued for any six (6) month period since 1944. As provided in Section 18.32.310(A) of the Community Development Code, you may appeal this decision within ten (10) days from the date of issuance of the decision. Please feel free to contact me concerning this information or if you have any other questions. Sincerely, ) James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director is\curpin\mark_r\raz 1.d oc c: Mr. Art Luckett 1997 Correspondence File SDR 94-0017 Land Use File Page 2 of 2 t RECEIVED APR 2 4 197 --em■u� ,�p'��3 April 22, 1997 ` a_ CITY OF TIGARD ry OREGON Henry S. Raz, PresideritI;%- Raz Transportgtron Company 1 660- *Bertha Boulevard -Portland, OR 97219 Re: Minor Modification for an above ground fuel storage tank Dear Mr. Raz: This letter is in response to your request for a Minor Modification of the previous land use approval for the property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway. You have requested to install a 15,000 gallon above ground diesel tank to serve the Raz Transportation bus shuttle use. The Director has approved this request as proposed. The fuel tank would be located approximately 470 feet north of SW Pacific Highway. Because the residential (R-12) zoning begins at approximately 560 feet north of SW Pacific Highway, the tank can be sited at the location as proposed. Based on the related Director's Interpretation Letter concerning the non-conforming use of the commercial and residential portions of the - property, no screening and buffering measures are recommended at this time. In order to avoid any delays, please submit a copy of this letter with your building permit - application. Please also feel free to contact me concerning this information. Sincerely, Mark Roberts Associate Planner, AICP ilcurpinVnark_r\raz.doc : xa.,r r . : iF4. c._ 1ukettt '' 1997 Correspondence File 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ,—v___.--• CITY OF TIGARD Community'De:c pment Shaptngtl Be rter Community CITY OF TIGARD Washirgton Count, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Case Name(s): APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO PARTIALLY REVOKE A PORTION OF A I " 1 I I i 1 . ' I . • . . • 1 ' 11 • I I ' 1 ' 1 '- 1 ' 1 ' IN`I COMMERCIAL USE ALLOWED OH A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY RAZ TRANSPORTATION. i Name of Owners: Grace & Donald Hall and John Parker and Carol Hall Owner's Rep.: Walter Aman, AKA Business Services 'Address of Rep.: 10626 SW Barbur Blvd., PO Box 19089 City: Portland State: OR Zip: 97216 r I Address of Property: 11655 SW Pacific Highway City: Tigard State: OR Zip: 97223 Tax Map & Lot No(s): WCTM 1S136CA, Tax Lot 01600. Appeal: > An appeal was filed by the property owner concerning the Planning Commission's Modification of a previously issued Director's Interpretation concerning the extent of non-conforming use allowed on a residentially zoned property, to require that the northerly 200 feet of the subject property be restored to its previous unused state and not be used for commercial purposes. On April 28, 1998 and May 12, 1998, the City Council held public hearings on the matter. The Council adopted Resolution No. 98-24 upholding the Planning Commission's decision that the owner and its lessee may maintain a non- conforming use within the R-12 area on the property but that such non-conforming use cannot occur within the northernmost 200 feet of the R-12 area of the property. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.12, 18.32, 18.54 and 18.132. Zone: Multiple-Family Residential, 12 units per acre; R-12. The purpose of the R-12 zoning district is to provide for single-family attached and multiple-family residential units for medium density residential developments. Action: > 0 Approval as Requested 0 Approval with Conditions © Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ID Owners of Record within the Required Distance a Affected Governmental Agencies © The Affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator a The Applicant and Owner(s) Final Decision:% DATE OF FILING: MAY 14, 1998 THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 5/ I , 1998 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 7/2 , 1998. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or the City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. RAZ TRANSPORTATION'S APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTORS INTERPRETATION EXHIBIT 3 NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY CITY COUNCIL 6/5/2014 Charter bus company Raz Transportation will close its doors Wednesday OREGONLIVE Charter bus company Raz Transportation will close its doors 'ednesday bus.jpg (Raz Transportation) Mike Francis I mfrancis @oregonian.com By Mike Francis I mfrancis @oregonian.com Follow on Twitter on February 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM, updated February 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM Raz Transportation, a privately owned charter bus company based in Southwest Portland, says it will stop operating this week. Some of the company's customers are scrambling to find other carriers. "We are very sad to say that yes unfortunately we are closing down and the last day of service is Wednesday, Feb 19th" Raz owner Cris Schulz said in an email to The Oregonian on Tuesday. The company, which has 49 buses and about 60 employees, will begin trying to sell its fleet, she said. At least two of the company's customers - Portland Public Schools and Washington Special Olympics - said had told them last week it was shutting down. "From what we know, they closed their doors last Friday," said Lori Friedt of Washington Special Olympics, which is planning a series of events, including a statewide winter games day in Wenatchee at the end of the month. "We're looking for alternatives." Elena Mark, a transportation planner with Portland Public Schools, said Raz informed her last week it wouldn't fulfill contracts it had to carry students on field trips. The company was founded by the Raz family in 1937. Family members ran it until about eight years ago, Schulz said, at which point it was sold to a series of absentee owners until she acquired it last fall. She said she took ownership almost immediately after Raz had lost a major contract. "I told the employees I should have walked away," she said Tuesday. "But then the doors would have closed that week." She said she promised employees at the time she wouldn't fire anyone and she kept that promise, she said. Last week, a Raz employee sent some customers an email that began: "Regretfully, this message is to inform you that Raz Transportation is going to stop conducting business effective immediately." EXHIBIT 4 http://blog.oreg onl i ee.corNbusi nes s_i rrpact/pri nt.html?entry=/2014/02/raz_transportati on_a_charter_b.html 1/2 continuation of the prior use. Despite being in the same use category, RV Sales is not a continuation of Raz Transportation operations, under our code. 2. RAZ could have moved their buses to the rear of the site and we could have leased the front to any outright commercial use. No conditional use would be triggered. Yes, Raz could have used the rear portion of the site but that isn't relevant because Raz Transportation was not conducting RV sales. Depending on the business that would be leasing the front of the site, in this scenario, the C-G portion of the site may still be required to go through land use review, perhaps not a conditional use review but some degree of site development review. 3. We could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site (a use permitted outright) and RV's on the rear of the site. Then later if that use changed, we would have applied for conditional use on the front while continuing_to drive RV's across. Yes, you could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site, but in this scenario,you still would not be permitted to sell or store RV's on the rear of the site. You wouldn't be driving RV's across the CG site because the RV's wouldn't be there in the first place. Access isn't really the issue. Regarding the DMV form, we will not be signing off on the northern portion of the site only for the reasons I explain above. RV sales or storage on ANY portion of the site requires a conditional use permit, and we cannot sign off on the form for a use that requires a conditional use permit. At your request, I've asked Kenny Asher, our Community Development Director, to weigh in on my position and he fully concurs. Please let me know when you are ready to begin the conditional use application process so I can assist you. I noticed that you submitted a pre-application conference and it is scheduled for June 10`h. Most of us are out this week at a conference, so we need to reschedule for June 17`h at 10 or 11 am, please let me know which time works best for you. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz Associate Planner City of Tigard .5 SW Hall Blvd. d, OR 97223 5ui.718.2427 agnesk@tigard-or.gov From: Jennifer Beattie [mailto:jenniferb@ cidainc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:57 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Cc: Tom McGuire Subject: RE: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest Agnes— I am struggling with this. With your stated position,you have in effect stated that the city won't permit the ongoing use of a permitted, existing, non-conforming use and thereby are restricting use of 50%of the site due to access. This makes a portion of the site non-usable, which can't be right. The use discussions, in the previous director's interpretation, remained silent regarding accessing of the rear. If it had been an issue, it should have been raised on those determinations. I need to ask you to re-evaluate your position. • If we did nothing on the front portion of the site then we should be permitted to use the rear portion of the site for the continued use and wouldn't trigger a conditional use process. • RAZ could have moved their buses to the rear of the site and we could have leased the front to any outright commercial use. No conditional use would be triggered. 3 EXHIBIT 5 • We could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site (a use permitted outright) and RV's on the rear of the site. Then later if that use changed, we would have applied for conditional use on the front while continuing to drive RV's across. We can't be of the only site that has split zoning or joint parking agreements over split zoning in Tigard, where one use • has to cross but isn't permitted outright in the crossing zone. The tenant needs to relocate their RV's and unfortunately have a deadline of June 1st. They are negotiating to get 30 more days on their existing site but it is unclear if the existing site landlord will approve this request. I would suggest we get around the DMV form issue by inserting the following language. You can write on the form under New Location: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy (northern 486' of site only) We could provide you an exhibit for your files, which you could release a condition of approval to the owner if that would relieve your concerns. Please note the 486' is based on utilizing my existing survey and connecting the adjacent residential lot line which aligns with the zoning map. In Tom's absence is there someone that we should be discussing this issue with or is the information above enough to make you comfortable in signing the DMV application? Thank you for reconsidering. JENNtfi FR BENT 1 ft_ RA CIDA ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS PRESIDENT, ARCHITECT PHONE:503.226.1285 X304 From: Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesKCa�tigard-or.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:22 PM To: Jennifer Beattie Cc: Tom McGuire Subject: RE: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest Hi Jennifer- Tom and I discussed your proposal with the group last week and we determined that the use for Raz Transportation could be categorized as motor vehicles sales and rental. However, the C-G portion does need a conditional use permit and then the use could continue on the R-12 portion. I don't believe that we could allow the R-12 piece to be used alone before the CUP is approved as you will be utilizing a portion of the C-G site (you actually have to go through the C- G site to get to the R-12). I can discuss this further with Tom (as he is on vacation and returns 6/2). I would not be able to sign off on the DMV form because it is for the entire property and at this point the RV sales is not a permitted use. Please let me know how you would like to proceed.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503.718.2427 4 agneskptigard-or.gov From: Jennifer Beattie [mailto:jenniferb @cidainc.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:52 AM Tn: Agnes Kowacz iect: RE: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest I am traveling today but I know that the tenant is anxious so I wanted to follow up with you today about the request to use the rear of the property. I will be checking my emails intermittently today and back in the office tomorrow. Thanks! CI DA ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS PRESIDENT, ARCHITECT PHONE:503.226.1285 X304 From: Jennifer Beattie Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 4:25 PM To: 'Agnes Kowacz' Cc: 'Tom McGuire (TomM @ tgard-or.gov)' Subject: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy- RV Northwest Hello Agnes and Tom— Please find attached my notes from the meeting on Wednesday. I have also prepared a request for use of the non- conforming portion of the site as we complete the requirements for the land zoned CG. orthwest need to relocate shortly and I based my request on our discussion. I believe this is a good and viable path to meet the timeframe and the requirements of the City of Tigard. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thank you for all of your assistance, Jennifer JENNIFER BEA I TIE, RA PRESIDENT, ARCHITECT 1 5895 SW 72ND AVE,SUITE 200 g II PORTLAND,OREGON 97224 PHONE:503.226.1285 x304 FAX:503.226.I670 W W W.CIDAI NC.COM ARCHITECTURE 'ENGINEERING*PLANNING 'INTERIORS 5 • DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested. e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-rnails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules`City General Records Retention Schedule-" • 6 • RECEIVED Perkins JUN 19 2014 Cole CITY OF TIGARD 1120 N.W.Couch Street,Tenth Floor PLANNING/ENGINEERING Portland,OR 97209-4128 Michael C.Robinson PHONE: O S 37 7 2 .2000 PHONE'(503)727-2264 FAX: 37 5 o 7 2 .2222 FAX (503)346-2264 www.perkinscoie.com EMAIL MRobinson©perkinscoie.com June 18, 2014 • VIA CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7003 2260 0001 3350 7728 Land Use Board of Appeals • Attn: Kelly Burgess Department of State Lands Building 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 330 • Salem, OR 97301-1283 Re: Aman Enterprises,LLC v. City of Tigard Notice of Intent to Appeal LUBA No. 2014- Dear Kelly: This office represents Aman Enterprises, LLC. Enclosed for filing with the Land Use Board of Appeals please find the original and two (2) copies of Aman Enterprises, LLC's Notice of Intent to Appeal in the above-referenced matter, together with a check in the amount of$400.00 to cover the filing fee and deposit for costs. Please process this filing. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR:rsp Enclosures cc: Client (w/enc.) (via email) Persons Listed in Paragraphs III and IV (w/enc.) (via first-class U.S. Mail) 1 14 1 02-0001/LEGAL 122413610.I ANCHORAGE • BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE - CHICAGO • DALLAS - DENVER LOS ANGELES MADISON • NEW YORK PALO ALTO PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE • SHANGHAI • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie«P BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 AMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. 3 4 Petitioner, 5 V. LUBA No. 2014- 6 CITY OF TIGARD, 7 Respondent. 8 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 10 I. 11 Notice is hereby given that Aman Enterprises, Inc. ("Petitioner") intends to 12 appeal the decision of the City of Tigard ("Respondent") entitled "RE: 11655 SW 13 Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest," which became final on May 28, 2014. The 14 decision was a final written interpretation by Respondent's Community 15 Development Director. The decision concluded that RV Northwest, which 16 proposes to occupy Petitioner's property, could not be considered a legally- 17 nonconforming use and was thus subject to a land use review. A copy of the 18 decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 19 II. 20 Petitioner is the applicant in this matter. Petitioner is represented by 21 Michael C. Robinson and Garrett H. Stephenson of Perkins Coie LLP, 22 1 120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor, Portland Oregon, 97209-4128, 503.727.2000. 23 24 III' 25 Respondent City of Tigard has as its mailing address and phone number: 26 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, 503.639.4171. Respondent has as Perkins Coie LLP PAGE: 1- NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor 113995-0001/LEGAL122287456.1 Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 its legal counsel in this matter: Tim Ramis, City Attorney, Jordan Ramis P.C., Two Centerpointe Drive, Lake Oswego Oregon, 97035, 503.598.7070. 2 3 IV. 4 As the decision was issued via email, Respondent did not send a public 5 notice of the challenged decision. Email recipients of the decision are listed on 6 Exhibit B. 7 NOTICE 8 Anyone designated in Paragraph IV of this Notice who desires to participate 9 as a party in the case before the Land Use Board of Appeals must file with the 10 Board a Motion to Intervene in this proceeding as required by OAR 661-010- 11 0050. 12 13 DATED: June 18, 2014. 14 PERKINS COIE LLP 15 / 16 By 17 Michael C. Robinson, OSB No. 910909 Garrett H. Stephenson, OSB No. 136356 18 19 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 20 503.727.2000 21 Attorneys for Petitioner 22 Aman Enterprises, LLP 23 24 25 26 Perkins Coie LLP PAGE 2- NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor 113995-0001/LEGAL122287456.1 Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 18, 2014, I filed the original and two (2) copies of this Notice of Intent to Appeal via certified mail, return receipt requested with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 330, Salem, Oregon 97301-1283. I further certify that on June 18, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on all persons listed in paragraphs III and IV of this Notice pursuant to OAR 661-010-0015(2) by first-class mail consistent with the governing body's records. DATED: June 18, 2014. PERKINS COIE LLP By Michael C. Robinson, OSB No. 910909 Garrett H. Stephenson, OSB No. 136356 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 503.727.2000 Attorneys for Petitioner Aman Enterprises, LLP 1- CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE Perou Coie Tenth Floor 1 13995-0001/LEGAL122287456.I Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 Jennifer Beattie From: Agnes Kowacz <AgnesKPtigard-or.gov> ': Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:38 AM Jennifer Beattie Cc: Tom McGuire; Kenny Asher Subject: RE: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest Hi Jennifer- Thanks for your reply, and I'm sorry that you're struggling. Hopefully, this email can clear up the confusion. Fundamentally, I believe you are misinterpreting my"stated position." I have not said that the city"won't permit the ongoing use of a permitted,existing, non-conforming use..." The city would in fact permit the ongoing use at 11655 were that the case here (e.g. if the new use were an outright permitted use within the Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental category). But there is no "ongoing" use here.The fact that there are two zones on the site isn't relevant because there is considered one site.And, because the Directors Interpretation allowed the prior use on the site(which we determined to be Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental), including on the residentially zoned portion, uses within that category can continue. However,while RV sales and the Raz Transportation use are within the same use category(Motor Vehicle Sales and Rental), they are in fact subject to different approval processes and treated differently under our code. As we have pointed out, Boat and RV sales require a conditional use permit,where as other types of motor vehicle sales and rentals would be permitted outright(see Table 18.520.1 Use Table:Commercial Use Zones, Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental, Footnote 12 - http://www.tigard-or,eov/business/municipal codejdocs/titlel8/18520-1.pdf) a conditional use permit is approved for the C-G portion of the site, the use would be allowed on the R-12 portion .,II because it is one site. To further clarify, with respect to your questions below, I offer the following: 1. If we did nothing on the front portion of the site then we should be permitted to use the rear portion of the site for the continued use and wouldn't trigger a conditional use process. Yes, if you only wanted to use the R-12 portion of the site for the continued use,you could do so. However as above,you aren't proposing a continuation of the prior use. Despite being in the same use category, RV Sales is not a continuation of Raz Transportation operations, under our code. 2. RAZ could have moved their buses to the rear of the site and we could have leased the front to any outright commercial use. No conditional use would be triggered. Yes, Raz could have used the rear portion of the site but that isn't relevant because Raz Transportation was not conducting RV sales. Depending on the business that would be leasing the front of the site, in this scenario, the C-G portion of the site may still be required to go through land use review, perhaps not a conditional use review but some degree of site development review. 3. We could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site (a use permitted outright) and RV's on the rear of the site. Then later if that use changed, we would have applied for conditional use on the front while continuing to drive RV's across. Yes, you could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site, but in this scenario,you still would not be permitted to sell or store RV's on the rear of the site. You wouldn't be driving RV's across the CG site because the RV's wouldn't be there in the first place. Access isn't really the issue. Regarding the DMV form,we will not be signing off on the northern portion of the site only for the reasons I explain above. RV sales or storage on ANY portion of the site requires a conditional use permit,and we cannot sign off on the form for a use that requires a conditional use permit. EXHIBIT A At your request, I've asked Kenny Asher,our Community Development Director, to weigh in on my position and he fully concurs. Please let me know when you are ready to begin the conditional use application process so I can assist you. I noticed that you submitted a pre-application conference and it is scheduled for June 10`r'. Most of us are out this week at a conference, so we need to reschedule for June 17"'at 10 or 11 am, please let me know which time works best for you Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 503.718.2427 aP,nesk(EO1igard-or.gov From: Jennifer Beattie [mailto:jenniferb @cidainc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:57 PM To: Agnes Kowacz Cc: Tom McGuire Subject: RE: 11655 SW Pacific Hwy - RV Northwest Agnes— I am struggling with this. With your stated position,you have in effect stated that the city won't permit the ongoing use of a permitted, existing, non-conforming use and thereby are restricting use of 50%of the site due to access. This makes a portion of the site non-usable, which can't be right. The use discussions,in the previous director's interpretation, remained silent regarding accessing of the rear. If it had been an issue, it should have been raised on those determinations. I need to ask you to re-evaluate your position. . • If we did nothing on the front portion of the site then we should be permitted to use the rear portion of the site for the continued use and wouldn't trigger a conditional use process. ■ RAZ could have moved their buses to the rear of the site and we could have leased the front to any outright - commercial use. No conditional use would be triggered. • We could propose automobile sales on the front portion of the site(a use permitted outright) and RV's on the rear of the site. Then later if that use changed,we would have applied for conditional use on the front while continuing to drive RV's across. We can't be of the only site that has split zoning or joint parking agreements over split zoning in Tigard,where one use has to cross but isn't permitted outright in the crossing zone. The tenant needs to relocate their RV's and unfortunately have a deadline of June 1". They are negotiating to get 30 more days on their existing site but it is unclear if the existing site landlord will approve this request. I would suggest we get around the DMV form issue by inserting the following language. You can write on the form under New Location: 1 1655 SW Pacific Hwy(northern 486' of site only) We could provide you an exhibit for your files, which you could release a condition of approval to the owner if that would relieve your concerns. Please note the 486' is based on utilizing my existing survey and connecting the adjacent residential lot line which align with IIn' Lolling map. 2 Exhibit B LISTED RECIPIENTS OF DECISION Kenny Asher Community Development City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.718.2443 Jennifer Beattie CIDA 15895 SW 72nd Ave#200, Portland, Oregon 97224 503.226.1285 • Agnes Kowacz Community Planning City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.718.2421 Tom McGuire Community Planning City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.718.2421 1 13995-000.1/LEGAL 122410934.I EXHIBIT B 1i Agenda Item No. 3,1 Meeting of (0/a3/qg TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 12, 1998 .: • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli,Councilors Paul Hunt,Brian Moore,and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst.to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley;Mike Miller(Public Works);Finance Director Wayne Lowrey;Community Development Director Jim Hendryx;Legal Counsel Chuck Corrigan,Legal Counsel Tim Ramis,and Tony Reghellis of . • • Harper Haugh Reghellis. > Executive Session The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:32 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. > Executive Session recessed to Study Session at 7:40 p.m. > Agenda Review Bill Monahan,City Manager,noted a non-agenda item on the Washington Square Regional - Center Task Force. Mayor Nicoli said that he had some non-agenda items also. Mayor Nicoli reported on the Board and Commission interviews at Councilor Scheckla's request. He mentioned that they asked staff to look into increasing the Library Board by two to three people over the next one to two years because of the significant role the Board would play - in promoting the bond issue. Liz Newton,Asst.to the City Manager,said that she would contact Craig Dirksen to see if he was still interested in volunteering for the Planning •`'' Commission. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order-City Council& Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Troop 847 led the Council • in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Nicoli thanked the scouts and presented each scout with a lapel pin. - 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports Councilor Hunt reported on the Willamette Water Supply Association(WWSA)meeting last week. He said that WWSA has already drawn up bylaws and established a budget. He • zentioned that Sherwood and Tualatin have included WWSA in their budget for next year. • He commented that nothing was yet finalized as Clackamas River Water had a question about allocation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 1 t I Councilor Hunt reported that Wilsonville has not"signed on"because of concern that they would lose control of their water rights. He stated that while Wilsonville has been . • represented at the meetings,he was not certain that they had internal agreement on what direction to take. He emphasized that the budget was only for planning to investigate property acquisition,water line routes, and costs. No jurisdictions have yet committed funds for implementation of a plan. The Council agreed that their anticipated portion should be included in the FY 1998/99 budget. 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mayor Nicoli mentioned a discussion on moving Council meetings to Monday night,and • initiating a zoning ordinance change regarding paving parking lots. • Mr. Monahan noted the resolution to appoint the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force. 2. PROCLAMATIONS: 2.1 National Police Week(May 10-16)and Police Memorial Day(May 15) 2.2 Emergency Medical Services Week(May 17-23) Mayor Nicoli noted the two proclamations which he would sign after the meeting. Mary Boyle,Metro West Ambulance Public Relations Director,introduced Sam Joe,Senior Paramedic and Field Training Officer. Mr.Joe expressed the appreciation of the EMS workers in Tigard and Washington County for the City's proclamation of May 17 to May 23 as Emergency Medical Services Week. He said that it v.-as their goal to meet the emergency needs of the community in a compassionate,timely,and professional manner. He invited the Council to participate in the VIP Ride-along,and to come to the EMS Week celebration on Thursday, May 21,at noon. On behalf of the EMS workers,he presented to the Mayor a plaque from Metro West Ambulance. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA > Chief Steve Winegar,Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police,presented the Paul Nagy Award for 1998 to Chief Ron Goodpaster for his dedicated work as a member of the Board of Directors in upgrading the training provided at the policy academy. He said that Chief Goodpaster was the Police Advisory Committee Chair for the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training for the State of Oregon and worked hard to address problems the - department has had. Chief Goodpaster thanked Chief Winegar. He explained that Paul Nagy was the Chief of Police at Dallas for whom the award was created in remembrance of his dedication to the Association. > Trish Stormont introduced Pam Benson and M3rland Henderson. She announced that the Tigard Farmer's Market was opening Saturday,June 6, in the Healthfirst Parking Lot on Hall Blvd at Greenburg/Olson with hours from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.(on every Saturday through October). She thanked the Council for their past support of the Farmer's Market. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES- MAY 12, 1998 -PAGE 2 • 4. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Scheckla,seconded by Councilor Hunt,to approve the Consent ' Agenda. • Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,Councilors Hunt,Moore,and Scheckla voted"yes.") • 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 14,1998 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for the Construction of 24-inch • Diameter Control Valve Vault to DaNeal Construction,Inc. 5. CONSIDER PROPOSED ORDINANCE-PUBLIC.CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council discussed this item in detail at their last study session. Chief Goodpaster reviewed the staff work on investigating options and alternatives in T" developing this tool that the police needed to deal with a particular problem. He said that the ordinance was modeled after the City of Beaverton's ordinance which they felt best met the concerns expressed by the Council while still giving the police an appropriate tool to deal with these situations. He pointed out the department policy attached to the ordinance that set the enforcement criteria for this ordinance. • Chief Goodpaster explained the process of implementing this ordinance. He said that the police could not arrest someone for public consumption of alcohol but only issue them a citation. However,if the violator did not appear in court,then the judge could issue an arrest warrant for failing to appear. He reiterated that this was a tool for the police to stop a type of behavior ;- (which frequently generated criminal activity)before the criminal activity occurred. He -• `� recommended adoption of the ordinance. • Motion by Councilor Hunt,seconded by Councilor Moore,to adopt Ordinance No.98-10. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 98-10,AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 7.32.180 PROHIBITING . CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt,Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW-VISIONING PROGRAM UPDATE Ms. Newton presented a summary of the activities underway in the target areas of the Visioning .• Program. She reported that in the Public Safety area,they have selected a volunteer assistant to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 3 �. help staff coordinate the Neighborhood Watch Program. She noted the hiring of the Community • Volunteer Coordinator,Susan Koepping,(under the Community Character area)who has already placed volunteers in departments where they have not been extensively used(Municipal Court and Planning Department). Ms.Newton mentioned the review of infrastructure needs in the Public Facilities Plan to accommodate infill,redevelopment,and increased densities as part of the Development Code Update and the appointment of a Washington Square Regional Center Task Force(Growth and • Growth Management). She noted the partnership work between the School District and the City in providing community based recreation activities and in working on sharing resources between the libraries(Schools and Education). Ms.Newton said that under Transportation and Traffic,staff would look at more traffic calming • projects in the upcoming budget. She mentioned the positive response from parents and drivers • to the"double traffic fines in school zones"signs. She noted the successful pilot program at Fowler Middle School to provide recreational activities to children during Spring Break. She said that during the summer staff would try to identify citizens'parks and recreation needs and move forward to create appropriate programs. Ms.Newton said that she would report to Council every quarter. She encouraged citizens to read the report,available in the library and City Hall lobby. Councilor Scheckla asked for further information on the Quality of Life goal to work on the • Central Business District. Ms.Newton reported on the April 22 meeting held at the Water Building which 15 business and property owners in the downtown attended. She mentioned that the staffs role was to provide resources. A member of the Chamber Business Advocacy Group facilitated the meeting. She said that at the meeting tomorrow night(May 13 at 5:30 p.m.)the • group would discuss the boundaries of the downtown,its image,and how to proceed. She said that staff would continue to mail notices and information to the over 300 downtown business and property owners on their mailing list. Councilor Hunt mentioned the WWSA meeting tomorrow night in the high school Commons with City staff, Oregon Environmental Council representatives,Tualatin Valley Water District, and the consulting team from Murray Smith&Associates. 7. DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from April 14, 1998,City Council Meeting) The Dartmouth Local Improvement District has reached the assessment stage. Tigard • Municipal Code Section 13.04.060 requires that a proposed assessment be prepared and presented to the City Council in a resolution. The resolution,upon arproval by the City Council adopts the proposed assessment,directs that property owners be notified of the proposed assessments and that a public bearing be set to consider objections. On April 14,the Hearing was left open in order to receive any additional information on - the matter. a. Mayor Nicoll reconvened the public hearing. • • • b. Staff Report and Notation of Additional Information Received CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 4 ~ c Tony Reghellis,Harper'Haugh Reghellis,reported that he received updated wetlands information from the Martins,Costco,and Waremart. He said that there was only one minor discrepancy but all parties understood that he would go with the information provided by one of . the parties. He noted his updated net developable acreage calculations,as submitted to Mr. Corrigan. , Chuck Corrigan,Legal Counsel,entered into the record Mr.Reghellis' final proposed . • • assessment,the 1988 Ordinance 13-04,excerpts from the R.A.Wright deposition taken in 1989, and a summary of the City Attorney's opinion. He stated that,although they have not yet found the archive transcript from 1989, Mr. Van Dyk has agreed that the contextual pages surrounding the excerpt he submitted could be introduced. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Tigard Municipal Code 13.04.060,the binding document for the City,read the same in 1988 as it did today: the final assessment began after the project was • completed. He concluded that according to this statement,if the Council in 1988 had provisionally adopted anything,it was done within the context of how the process would work . within the final assessment. Mr. Corrigan pointed out that the assessment procedure began in either 1994, 1995 or 1996, depending on one's point of view. He observed that at this point,6 to 8 years after 1988,staff lacked the necessary expertise to develop an assessment formula,and the mediation effort of the property owners to find a mutually acceptable formula had failed. He mentioned that each property owner during that mediation submitted a formula different than the 1988 formula. Mr.Corrigan commented that the task of ascertaining a formula now fell to the Council who hired a consultant to develop the final assessment formula. He pointed out that even if the original Wright formula had been used,Council would have been obligated to review it prior to distribution and could make modifications to it. He stated that the Council's obligation(no matter which formula was used)was to hold public hearings on the formula. The only standard • for their decision was that the assessment charged against each lot within the LID was according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement. Mr. Corrigan said that the Council could not by law preordain its conclusions. It had to take testimony,sift through the facts,and make its decision based solely on special benefit. He emphasized that the Council did not have the power,even if it assumed that it did adopt something in 1988,to tie the hands of a future Council with regards to the analysis now before it. Steve Van Dyk,attorney for the Martins,requested that the 1984 Tigard Municipal Code also • . be entered into the record. Mr. Corrigan had no objection. c. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. d. Staff Recommendation. r. ' Mr. Corrigan noted Mr.Reghellis' recommendation as presented to Council. He said that the City Attorney recommended that Council proceed with the understanding from the City . Attorney's Office that the Council could in fact consider all the formulas before it,including the Harper-Reghellis formula. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 5 • . • e. Council Deliberation: Motion Directing Staff to Prepare Ordinance in Accordance • with Council Findings;Set Date for Consideration of Ordinance. Councilor Hunt expressed his dismay that the Council was put in the position of deciding this issue. He pointed out that none of the current Councilors were on Council when the original • Wright formula was reviewed,and therefore did not know the reasoning that went into it. He 7. observed that the property owners' failure to reach agreement forced the issue to come before • Council;but whatever Council decided,someone would not agree with it. He said that he supported Mr.Reghellis' formula as a logical and fair way to distribute the costs. Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Hunt that referring this back to Council after 10 years was not good. He said that he thought that both methods were fair. He asked for confirmation that the sequence of events(followiig the property owners' inability to reach an agreement)included one party suggesting a return to the Wright method. Staff confirmed that was so. He said that right now he leaned toward the Wright method, commenting that this should have been taken care of long ago. • • Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's and Councilor Moore's comments. He • said that he supported the Reghellis method. • Mayor Nicoli said that while he thought that the Reghellis method was the best method,the • original formula did have merit and he would be comfortable supporting either one. He _ mentioned the fact that when the LID was originally formed two of the three property owners with single family residences on their lots opted out of the LID. He commented that the third • property owner may have made some assumptions and therefore did not ask to be exempted. He asked that the third property owner be allowe i the exemption at this time,if he so desired, because the other property owners had received it, • Councilor Hunt said that he would not favor a combination of the Wright and Reghellis • • methods,on the grounds that trying to find another formula would simply drag the process out longer. Mayor Nicoli explained that he proposed basing some portion of the assessment on one _•formula(e.g. 75%),the remaining portion on the other formula(e.g. 25%)and totaling the two amounts together as the total assessment. He pointed out that Mr. Reghellis reviewed the variety of possible assessment formulas in his presentation,and indicated that a combination of them could be used. He said that he did not want a new equation,just a combination of the two methods. - Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Hunt that a combination method could cause more difficulties. He suggested making it clear that this was a tough choice between two options, each of which assessed the properties accurately. He reiterated that he could go either way. Although he leaned towards the Wright method, he would support the majority Council decision. Motion by Councilor Hunt,seconded by Councilor Scheckla,to direct staff to draft an ordinance in support of the Reghellis method of distribution of costs(as submitted on May - 11, 1998,on the Dartmouth Sty_t Assessment Roll Comparison,right-hand column)and bring it back tc the Council. • Mayor Nicoli restated his request to allow the third property owner to request exemption for his CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 6 • property,the same as the other two property owners were allowed to. He asked if the entire lot • • or simply the area around the single family residences had been exempted in 1984. Mr. Corrigan noted that in the Reghellis formula there was no exemption for pre-existing dwellings that were not exempted in 1984. He said that he did not know how much of the properties were exempted from the district. Mr.Reghellis clarified that the exemptions for the single family residences were taken on a lot basis. He reviewed the location on Map 4 of the three tax lots with single family residences on them in 1984. He explained that a pure exclusion(that would not impact the other LID members)would reduce the total assessment. Otherwise,exempting the property would trigger - a recalculation of the amounts assessed against each of the other properties. • Mayor Nicoli asked if the boundaries of the Martin property were known. Mr.Reghellis said that Mr.Van Dyk had that information. Mr.Van Dyk said that he has just been informed that there was an additional tax lot affected beyond the cross-hatched one shown on the map. Mayor Nicoli proposed a motion to allow the Martins to exempt their reciden!i ,' structure in the same manner as was allowed for the other two property owners. Councilor Scheckla asked how that would affect the redistribution. Mr.Reghellis reviewed a scenario which involved a 1% reduction in land and corresponding 1%increase in assessment. Councilor Moore suggested that staff prepare two ordinances,one as recommended and one with the exclusion. Councilor Hunt asked that staff review the size of the Martins'property and provide the Council with the recalculated assessments. With regard to the Mayor's suggestion,Mr. Corrigan explained that the staff would analyze the special benefit to the various properties. He emphasized that Council's decision should be based on special benefit. Motion by Councilor Hunt,seconded by Mayor Nicoli,to move to amend the motion to direct staff to include this property amongst those that were exempt from the assessment. Amendment was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt,and Moore voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla abstained.) •• Motion was approved by majority voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,Councilors Hunt,and Moore voted "yes."Councilor Scheckla abstained) Mayor Nicoli expressed his appreciation for the excellent work done by the attorneys in this matter in presenting their various clients'cases. Mr.Van Dyk informed the Council that he would submit a request to Mr. Corrigan on behalf of his client for the Council to make some other specific rulings as a part of this quasi-judicial • proceeding. • • Mr. Monahan noted that staff wo'tld bring back the ordinance on May 26. 8. PUBLIC HEARING-RAZ TRANSPORTATION APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION CONCERNING A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE STATUS OF A NON- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 7 • • • CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE (Continued from the April 28, 1998,City Council Meeting) a. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the public bearing. — b. Staff Report Jim Hendryx,Community Development Director,reported that the findings were provided • by the appellant and found i'cceptable by staff. c. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended adopting the findings. d. Council Deliberation: Resolution No.98-24 Motion by Councilor Moore,seconded by Councilor Hunt,to adopt Resolution No.98-24. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. • RESOLUTION NO. 98-24,A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS (EXHIBIT A) CONCERNING AN APPEAL BY RAZ TRANSPORTATION OF A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE STATUS OF A NON- CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE. • Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,Councilors _ Hunt,Moore and Scheckla voted"yes.") • • 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS • > Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Motion by Councilor Moore,seconded by Councilor Hunt,to adopt Resolution 98-25. • The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-25,A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER TASK FORCE. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,Councilors Hunt,Moore and Scheckla voted"yes.") > Co;mcil meetings Mayor Nicoli mentioned Councilor Rohlf's interest in moving the Council meetings to Monday night because of Tuesday night conflicts he was having with his new employment. Councilor Scheckla stated that he would miss half the Monday night meetings because he frequently traveled on the weekends, returning on Monday. Councilor Moore said that he was comfortable • with either Monday or Tuesday night meetings. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MAY 12, 1998- PAGE 8 . • Councilor Hunt said that he had no strong feelings cn Monday or Tuesday night meetings. He t' commented that he liked Tuesday night Meetings because it gave the opportunity for Council to consult with staff on Monday to answer questions raised by the Friday newsletter/packet. He • agreed with Councilor Moore's concern at moving the meeting to accommodate one Councilor . while at the same time penalizing another Councilor. Mayor Nicoli suggested holding one meeting a month on Monday night and the other two meetings on Tuesday. Councilor Hunt commented that doing so would cause a lot of confusion. He asked to discuss the matter when Councilor Rohlf was here. > Paved Parking Lots Mayor Nicoli noted the previous conversations at Council meetings regarding the requirement to pave all parking lots in the city. He suggested asking the Planning Commission to develop a proposal and return with a recommendation to Council on this issue. Councilor Moore agreed that the Planning Commission was the appropriate body to consider this issue but pointed out ' ,. that they have discussed it before. The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion- The Mayor pointed out that increasing runoff into streams by paving parking lots was a major issue. Councilor Scheckla supported the Mayor's suggestion. Mayor Nicoli noted several examples in Tigard of existing large gravel lots used infrequently by the owners or only on certain days of the week(Washington Square, the Catholic Church,Cook Park,trucker parking lots). Councilor Moore noted an issue of maintaining the lot attractively,as gravel lots could look _ ugly with weeds and mud puddles. Mayor Nicoli concurred. He commented that staff could - add conditions on gravel lot appearance,size,and methods to reduce the amount of gravel kicked out on the roads to address those concerns. Mr.Monahan said that staff would pass on the Council's concerns to the Planning Commission. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. • STUDY SESSION > Post Office Mayor Nicoli reported on a conversation he had with the local Post Office manager. He said that the Post Office would be building a warehouse facility for joint use by the Beaverton and - Tigard Post Offices from which the mail carriers would pick up their route mail for delivery. The downtown Tigard and Beaverton Post Offices would be retained with some improvements. The Council discussed the annoyance that businesses located in Tigard used"Portland"as their mailing address instead of"Tigard." _ Councilor Scheckla reported that the Post Office food drive was successful,loading two National Guard trucks with food. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 9 • • • • > With- Water Supply Agency Councilor Hunt reported that from his conversation with the Wilsonville City Councilors at the • WWSA meeting,it appeared that the Council,the staff,and the Mayor were not communicating. He said that the Councilors had no prior knowledge of the information presented at the meeting, • and were quite surprised that WWSA was looking at property other than Wilsonville's for the • water treatment plant. Mayor Nicoli asked staff to make sure that the appropriate people knew of Wilsonville's communication problems. • > Survey results Ms.Newton distributed the one page summary from Adam Davis analyzing the survey results. The Council discussed the survey results. Councilor Hunt commented that he thought the survey was very inconclusive. Councilor Moore pointed out that the answers to Question 7 • indicated some confusion. Ms.Newton agreed that the respondent's support of renovating facilities over building new facilities did not indicate an understanding that before the city could • renovate the library building for new city offices,they had to build a new building for the • library. Ms.Newton commented that while the survey did not send an overwhelming message to the Council,it did indicate that they might want to look at the best use they could make of the • existing facilities. Councilor Hunt said that he read the results as saying that the people were • divided and without strong opinions; therefore,if the City presented the facts and figures well, the bond measure stood a good chance of passing. Councilor Moore pointed out that the answers to the first three questions showed a focus towards transportation improvements. Councilor Hunt mentioned that the respondents indicated that asking for a road bond a few years after the library bond would make no difference to their - support of the road bond. Councilor Scheckla asked staff to find out how many people the consultants had to call in order to get 300 respondents. Ms.Newton mentioned Mr.Davis' note that while only 20%had heard about a possible facilities bond,40%supported it. She agreed with Councilor Hunt's observation that educating • the public as to the City's needs would he beneficial. Mr.Monahan noted that 80%of the respondents read the Cityscape,which meant that the newsletter was a valuable vehicle for disseminating information. Ms.Newton said that she learned at a seminar on surveys that in the Pacific Northwest bond measures did better when a lot of information was given to the voters. She cited the City's success in passing their tax base by focusing on providing information to _ the voters. The Council discussed how to proceed. Mayor Nicoli stated that the consensus of the Council was to move forward with the facilities bond Councilor Scheckla asked to wait on the May 19 • election results before developing a plan. Mr. Monahan noted the various people and groups invited to the May 26 study session on election law and procedures. He suggested holding a discussion at that time about the options for the bond. • Mayor Nicoll suggested asking others from the community to join in that discussion to generate CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-MAY 12, 1998-PAGE 10 additional ideas. Councilor Hunt commented that they needed to be careful that they did not _ _ send a message to their committee that the Council was not interested in their recommendation ' but wanted other people's opinions. Mr. Monahan suggested a discussion between the Council and the Space Committee(following the election law discussion)regarding what to do and how .. to proceed. He noted that the Committee could suggest other people to include in the discussion. Ms.Newton commented that the Space Committee had been uncomfortable being only four people to work on this issue. • Mayor Nicoli asked what the timeline was to get the measure on the ballot. Ms.Newton reviewed the staff requirements and County Election Office deadlines. Staff needed the ballot title finalized by August 11 in order to meet the filing deadline of September 3. > Miscellaneous 6 Councilor Hunt and Moore mentioned the good comments they have received regarding the Cityscape. • Councilor Moore reported that,as a PGE official,he met with Bruce regarding the Festival lighting. He said that they were looking to put in permanent power in the park,commenting that he hoped that that became part of the park plan. The Council discussed the power needs at Cook Park. Mayor Nicoli reported that he told staff to study the overall electrical needs of the park before running power to the two new gazebos, and to develop a plan. Ms.Newton said that PGE informed her that the City might be eligible for funding from the business program called"Betsy"that was sunsetting in 1999. Councilor • Hunt suggested informing the Budget Committee of the capital expenditures contemplated for the park. Mayor Nicoli agreed that it would be good to inform the Budget Committee regarding the Council's intent to aggressively pursue the purchase of land and pathways,as well as the water matter. • Mr. Monahan advised the Council that he saw no reason to hold his annual review on the new May 15 review date,as they had just held it on the old November date. The Council agreed. • Mr. Monahan suggested scheduling June 2 for a meeting to review the Council ground rules and rules of staff. The Council agreed. • Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Monahan saw any problem with him attending the downtown • business owners' meeting tomorrow night. Mr.Monahan encouraged Councilor Moore to attend and reinforce the City's role as a resource rather than as a facilitator. Ms.Newton said that she thought that the business owners would like a Councilor to attend. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Cit;'would assist the downtown merchants financially. Mr. _ Monahan mentioned that there was still$27,000 left of the$50,000 Council allocated to the downtown merchants four years ago. He explained that Mr. Hendryx included$50,000 in his budget for next year because of the discussions during the Visioning process of hiring a consultant but that money was simply a placeholder. • Mr. Monahan encouraged the Councilors to attend the water meeting at the high school,noting that the Oregon Environmental Council sent out information about the meeting to people outside of the Tigard area. Councilor Hunt commented that they were finding that half of the Tigard CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES- MAY 12, 1998 -PAGE 11 residents have lived in the city for less than 10 years. The residents have lived in areas that got • water from worse places than the Willamette River,and therefore were not as concerned about it as were the long time Tigard residents who were fed the story that they had to have Bull Run water. Mayor Nicoli said that he intended to make opening remarks at the meeting to inform those present that Tigard had a strong record of being environmentally conscious,and intended to << move forward in the future with the same commitment it has shown in the past. Councilor Hunt commented that no one disagreed on the need for water,the issue lay in fish habitat. Mayor Nicoli said that he would let the technical people deal with that issue. 10.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 11.ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m. 444 • �' ' ' ' • Attest: Catherine Wheatley.a ,City Record 4 r,City of igard/ �/ sate: i� C��l Ii/ ter: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-MAY 12, 1998- PAGE 12 : - ' 0 =411::: / /NM*. MIN I=IIIIN L-7- I - L-J- MI M - r=. /`�9- BI - I - / TRANSPORTATION II COMPANY 1660 SW BERTHA BLVD. PORTLAND, OR 97219 (503)246-3301 (800)666-3301 FAX(503)246-9791 • April 4, 1997 To Whom It May Concern: RAZ Transportation Company will be moving its operations to 11655 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon, 97223 . In 1944, Hall Construction built that facility for their offices and shop for their heavy construction business. Hall Construction later joined with four other companies to continue to provide heavy construction (particularly road and dam building) . One of those companies, Mellow Trucking, continued to operate from that site until it was turned over to Appolo Bus Company for tour and charter bus service. The site continued to facilitate additional tour and charter bus companies (N.W. Tours and Pacific Tours) as well as RAZ Transpor- tation until this date. RAZ Transportation will now be the sole tenant providing bus service from that site. Sincerely, RAZ TRANSPORTATION COMPANY // y S. z President _Member r NATIONAL TOUR �� BBOCIATION,INC. AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION • • PAGE TWO - THE FOLLOWING IS: • A CHRONOLOGICAL DETAIL OF THE ATTACHED COVER LETTER, TO THE TIME FRAMES OF EACH OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THIS PROPERTY, FOR OVER THE PAST 50 PLUS YEARS. FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME -JULY 1944 THRU JUNE 1995: THE HULL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,A MAJOR ROAD AND DAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. THEY BUILT A PORTION OF THE 1-5 CORRIDOR, JOHN DAY DAM, AND THE McNARY DAM. THEY STAGED THEIR HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND ROAD EQUIPMENT AT THIS LOCATION. THIS WAS THE CENTRAL OFFICE, SERVICE AND REPAIR CENTER, FOR ALL OF THEIR OPERATIONS DURING THIS TIME FRAME. DURING THIS TIME, THEY WERE A PART OF OVER 150 PIECES OF HEAVY OR ROAD EQUIPMENT THAT WAS STAGED, DISPATCHED, SERVICE, REPAIRED, OR STORED AT THIS LOCATION. MOST OF THIS EQUIPMENT WAS IN THE YARD DURING THE WINTER MONTHS. WHEN THIS FACILITY WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE AREA WAS ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. THIS DOES SOUND LOGICAL, OR THE FACILITY, OR THE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY, WOULD OF NOT BEEN ALLOUD, AT THAT TIME. FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME - 1950 THRU PRESENT: THE AMEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, WITH IT'S PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT, WERE ON THE SAME PROPERTY, AND WORKED ON SOME OF THE SAME PROJECTS WITH HULL. THEY ALSO STAGED, DISPATCHED, SERVICED, REPAIRED, OR STORED THEIR EQUIPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY, DURING THIS TIME FRAME. THEY WERE A PART OF THE 150 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, WORKING FROM THAT LOCATION. FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME - 1970 THRU 1980: MELLOW TRUCKING COMPANY, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 70 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, AVERAGED, RUN A LOCAL AND LONG HAUL FREIGHT COMPANY AT THIS LOCATION. THEY OPERATED A FREIGHT TERMINAL, DISPATCH, STAGING AREA, SERVICE AND REPAIR CENTER, FROM THIS FACILITY. THIS WAS A VERY BUSY AREA, DURING THIS TIME. • • • PAGE THREE: FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME- FEB. 1979 THRU MARCH 1993: APOLLO BUS/TRANSPORTATION AND TOURING COMPANY, ALSO OCCUPIED THIS FACILITY DURING THE ABOVE TIME. THEY OPERATED, STAGED, SERVICED, REPAIRED,AND DISPATCHED OVER 125 STAGES/BUSES, THROUGH THIS FACILITY, DURING THE ABOVE TIME FRAME. FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME-AUG. 1992 THRU DEC. 1996: NORTHWEST TOURS, BUS, AND STAGES, ALSO OCCUPIED THIS FACILITY DURING THE ABOVE TIME. THEY OPERATED, STAGED, SERVICED, REPAIRED,AND DISPATCHED OVER 100 BUS/STAGE UNITS,THROUGH THIS FACILITY, DURING THE ABOVE TIME FRAME. FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME - 1993 THRU OCT. 1996: A SPIN OFF OF NORTHWEST TOURS, MADE A TRANSITION TO PACIFIC TRAILS TOURING BUS SERVICE. OVER 100 BUS STAGES WERE IN SERVICE, FOR THIS PORTION OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BUSES IN SERVICE DURING THIS TIME, WAS OVER 125 TO 150, FOR THE ABOVE TWO COMBINED COMPANIES, THROUGH AND AFTER THE TRANSITION PERIOD. FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME - MARCH 1994 THRU PRESENT: RYSON GUNITE AND CONSTRUCTION CO., A SPIN OFF OF AMEN CONSTRUCTION CO. THEY HAVE DONE THE SAME CONSTRUCTION WORK, WITH THEIR 40 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, DURING THE ABOVE TIME FRAME. FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME- FEB. 1994 THRU PRESENT: RAZ TRANSPORTATION CO. HAS STAGED, SERVICED, REPAIRED, DISPATCHED, PARKED BUSES ON THIS PROPERTY DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. THEY REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO CARRY ON THE SAME TYPE OF BUS SERVICE, THAT HAS BEEN OPERATING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR THE PAST EIGHTEEN YEARS. THEY NOW WISH TO MOVE THEIR GENERAL OFFICES TO THIS LOCATION. THE EXISTING LARGE CONCRETE BUILDING WILL CONTINUE AS A COMBINATION OFFICE AND SHOP FACILITY, AS IT HAS IN THE PAST, SINCE 1944. THEY ESTIMATE THAT THE SAME NUMBER OF BUSES WILL BE USED, AS HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. THAT BEING APPROXIMATELY 125 UNITS. THESE UNITS ARE OFF OF THE • • PAGE FOUR: PROPERTY A GREAT DEAL OF THE TIME, DOING THEIR ASSIGNED PROJECTS. THE PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT LOADING OF THIS PROPERTY WILL BE FAR LESS THEN IN THE VERY EARLY YEARS. HOWEVER, WE DO EXPECT TO SEE THE PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT LOADING, ON THIS PROPERTY, TO BE THE SAME AS IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE 1979 START, AND THROUGH THE FOLLOWING YEARS, OF THE BUS OPERATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY. A SMALL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WILL ALSO BE ON THE PROPERTY, AS IT HAS BEEN SINCE 1944. WE WISH TO THANK YOU FOR THE ASSISTANCE THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN SO WELL. PLEASE ADVISE IF WE MAY BE OF FUTHER ASSISTANCE, IN HELPING YOU APPROVE OUR REQUEST. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEE; TROY TOE RA TRANSPORTATION CO. IDMVI i APPLICATION TO CORRECT DEALER / REBUILDER VEHICLE DEALER CERTIFICATE OEP■RTUCNT Or TRANSPORTATION ORIYER ANOMOTOR VENICLESERNCm -- --. --.-- _MS LANA AVE NE SALEM O99EGON 9n9a I DEALER NUMBER CUSTOMER NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE I EXPIRATION DATE I CURRENT BUSINESS NAME INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form for a name change, address change, name and address change, add or remove an owner, partner, LLC member or corporate officer,and change type of organization(like LLC to corporation,partner to corporation).Complete both sides of this form and submit it to DMV Business License Unit, 1905 Lana Ave NE, Salem Oregon 97314.NOTE: If the dealership has been sold,the new owner(s)must obtain their own vehicle dealer certificate using Form 370 Packet since a vehicle dealer certificate is not transferable. •The fee for a corrected certificate to change your business name, VALIDATION USE ONLY location,organization structure or to add/remove owners is$30. •The fee for a corrected certificate to change your business name AND location is$60. • Each new owner must complete and sign Lines 12-16 or 17-21. •Each owner being removed must sign Line 22 or 23. •One owner must sign Line 24. • Provide copy of photo ID if changing residence address. •Your dealer number and expiration date will stay the same. 1 Check the reason you are applying for a correction: silly E]Name Change($30) Address Change($30) El Add./Removing Owners($30) u Name&Address Change($60) 0 Org./Structure Change($30) NAME CHANGE NEW BUSINESS NAME Of assumed business name.fill in Registry Number.) OREGON REGISTRY NUMBER BUSINESS TELEPHONE 2 ( ) Any alteration of Line 3 voids location approval. ADDRESS CHANGE NEW LOCATION WHERE BUSINESS WILL BE CONCUCTED(STREET ADDRESS) 0 RESIDENCE ❑PREVIOUS SUPPLEMENTAL BUSINESS TELEPHONE 3 �I A 5_s_SW p`Jir'e ,y y ( ,s-c3 ) e Yr - /ye) ZIP CODE COUNTY r RESIDENCE ADDRESS , ---- - ---- ZIP CODE Foie, s411 /Z °. 7 7 7/11 `�_ 7' 7 MAILING ADCRESS CITY ZIP CODE 6 Pd IiiX 95 /36::k>;" _ 1r4/ 4/''207J PREVIOUS S^LOCATION �`(, ryJ{fie CITY /�� ZIP CODE 7 q.3�� ✓ 6-4i�i' //; ''( /3� C-eirn 97k-',3' LOCATION APPROVAL - Required only if dealer is changing business location_ Certification of Local Zoning and Business Regulatory Compliance.ORS 822.005 requires a vehicle dealer license. unless exempt under ORS 822.015,for any person who: (a) Buys,sells,brokers,trades or exchanges vehicles either outright or by means of any conditional sale,bailment,!ease,security interest,consignment or otherwise;OR (b) Displays a new or used vehicle,trailer or semitrailer,OR (c) Acts as any type of agent for the owner of a vehicle to sell the vehicle or acts as any type of agent for a person interested in buying a vehicle to buy a vehicle. THE CERTIFICATION BELOW IS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LOCAL ZONING OFFICIAL.Your approval below should be based upon whether the applicant can do ANY of the activities listed in(a)through(c)above under your ordinances,at the location of the business given on Line 3.Pursuant to ORS 822.025(6)(b)(A)(B), applicant meets requirements below. As the zoning official fcr the locality in which this business is located,I verify by my signature below that the location of this business as stated on this application, complies with any land use ordinances and business regulatory ordinances of the city or county,as appropriate pursuant to 0RS822.025.6(a) 8 TELEPHONE NUMBER ® CITY OF:Tvorm v�� r1 COUNTY OF: (5C3 )-7(B 2421 PRINT NAME ._ l t TITLE 9 A-GNes LLCWPCZ 06-147V4C VVI,VIGA-- 10 SIGNATURE, - 'oalsaaaataia, DATE X Lri1 .J 0►:•-1 �,'�`'_F T�Sz,_� col 251 114 t: ea • j r▪ I S t.:': A L -p( m ,1 v n '�� S .v +O ; �qT O R /C.)-s,r ✓® `.I \ O-- O r ,,,S' STK*300205 11. OWNERSHIP CHANGE Check your organization type on Line 11, list all owners and provide other required information below. Your dealer number and expiration date will stay the same. If adding names, please attach (staple) copies of ALL new owners, partners, LLC members or corporate officers official photo ID's(driver license or state issued identification card ONLY). Copy must be legible. If the residence address on the photo ID is different than the residence address listed below, submit a statement explaining why the addresses do not match. 11 ❑Individual ❑Partnership ❑LLC ❑Corporation(If corporation.under whose law is business incorporated?) ADD NAMES List each person being added as a partner, LLC member or corporate officer. PRINT NAME(MUST SIGN ONE tot TITLE 12 CATE OF BIRTH DRIVER UCENSE NUMBER STATE OF ISSUE HOME PHONE NUMBER 13 RESIDENCE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 14 MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 15 SIGNATURE OF PERSON CERTIFYING DATE 16 X PRINT NAME(MUST SIGN LINE 21) TITLE 17 DATE OF BIRTH I DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE OF ISSUE HOLIE PHONE NUMBER 18 ) RESIDENCE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 19 MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 20 SIGNATURE OF PERSON CERTIFYING DATE 21 x REMOVE NAMES List each person being removed as a partner, LLC member or corporate officer. PRINT NAME SIGNATURE TITLE 22 X PRINT NAME SIGNATURE 23 TITLE CERTIFICATION False certification is a Class B misdemeanor under ORS 162.085, and is punishable by six months in jail, a fine of up to 51,000 or both. In addition, civil penalties of up to$1,000 and DMV sanctions against you or your dealer certificate may be imposed. With the above penalties in mind: I CERTIFY I am an owner, partner, LLC member or corporate officer of this dealership and all information on this application is accurate. I give consent for DMV to check my name through OSP Central Bureau of Criminal Investigation, and to check DMV records to determine whether I owe money on an outstanding civil penalty. SIGNATURE OF PERSO /J TITLE ,/ /1.7 24 X 25 BOND ENDORSEMENT LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT 26 Attach rider from bonding company Attach new certificate of insurance from insurance company