SCA 1-76 12285 SW MAIN STREET �—-� •Y�Mx+.IY,.rw1.w..yylypw,µ;.,r1Y•I•!�rgl,lwrr�,tre
. - f1NMT,A7tYM/�llIA9:R :9lIUM+SIfII�/Mwf'I�ryy!IY[MRH;YKMaw.V7"xfFu! •L'ERili�l'M'!-7K1iMVK'•'• wlsn'wb{I�1. ...4.•R•'.'.MI►.�. f1r✓/•.WM!>rM•/YV•i a•4y1/111.�YY�s.a�Y7RW:,wi....MM I.+.•��
t
I
r � I
t. 1
1
J`
I Q% a
°
0,0
THE, RTY
':.
L
f
I� t
y
.jS°t Ir•' .v�'`• ,,,� �}
.. rrf'� ,ray"
"It e�• _.!F�R
� rr°I�r
*may.
�r
yyqq •f ��
Ile .�
[NerMllieNliliR6i �,w»nr`•wnnx�aYaw.adc:alYOOwtv/11Ab+1,r.,-^•a:..,�•.Is:w+uw.vs+n+..•'whL.+tar1+�11R1 - - ,•Ar � "- .,.r..u�r.l�.�.r.rw,...w
RE
}rh.
i
/rw•+"Af✓' ;.a.. ds ,-^` ""v.`"`+wuAV.
_ ... .• - .. _ �.. - Yom+,..,
.✓' rw.r"' °.. �..YC1t »..». r .._.. ^„^�.. � � a. a ."'�,..... ^ .. ,•moi ^•."Y.,, �'•'••..
r �
a
e rtwlk•triy� f�!y�'•'F�`'4�� x ..,._, .... ..,...,..•-c...r.....r...- '"•..-•• +, , +..+••.....-..-.._. �...f_ _. «_ ... ........_. ...-. •,w:..... .. �• �" '�" • -,�t �'M.FRnvl,�,.
+ a..+►+�`rs"n:"'°e...,r..ww^''.....n.r.ww.n/w � ' � '•.^.....,,..�,..«,�.....•..,aw... .. .,... ..«++.......... .. -� 4:T' �n � �S`.a+
Ah
. � ..✓y.r-'�M. .........y" . ., ,n,....a 'C✓rvrr ,. ._... I ....,+,n.�
rR
�- ,..,_,r•„�ti,v. ''•yllegt,yr,�'R... ..yM,Y. � �� � _ •, � � ~r •_ ,. .. w..r.r,.rr../+/r„�, .,�VM'w'✓"..... R..ti.Nr'r?M•-'•M.a19y`n' •r..../'^t'..
.,�`�! �......�,..,,,, '�"r�"""r"'•..+-�'.'..•••• :...ri :ay.,w^'v.:” .,rr�'s' .,r.+`s" ..,
-1r.•M Y•.,ggy�h. A ^�,Y,r�...N;M•,Y'.).x.t... ����,�Y�•,.y,Yw,.!^ ..
7-
All
Awl
1
C-1 F7
•a sx•.M .x�o°w�a...•rle••+i7www�w•••w.^.�Mi+.V!'M�SIK+•91eN3slPlwaver.w,•.prlr,M•+•+.�NltiwrvMM>eMRliwW75wnlw!!w.!n-'MMMi�'+Y�_ �•ria•'M.�IIxvM Ir•nbWe,r'lilNY•'ul�lorrs.lnl••.v..,nhn..rv�IRe1wM1•i —.Pm
Jill I .rM MMtM1RYRn*t.^;.l,NRI�^♦1+�-1'rr.
I�ReM1^�+aMLI*flelnyMa+t,�.r.+,'�Cc4ieatwxlrMu�e6ari4:nwt.Kwh'��af.4aMsurle.ee,..m..wvewws......zoo.AYe.laarr+OMextlwa�.�,»,�.w.,.• wswa•.r.sa:aw..w,.+►a,..•++o4na.wwlAwr.�+a+n++a.a,.-.'r.�n,:x,,,,•„• .+•t,,.•n:.„rn:,,,nM.,.
_ _ - i�� ~�,A•' ,r. rMgCINYIR^.!!'MNSR!!i+'n+M.C• ".hMeMFMM�ltl�+err"7N�l�.tiil/{yp�ld r �P
: � f1111111111 .1Illfll11111I1111I111I Illllilllll 111111111111111111111III A
• �_ �� ' I ' � II � IIIIIII � � IIIIII � II111 rl � llil III � II1 , III ill II ! III III III 1111 � 11111111111 � 1111111111 ► I� � t .. -, � _ __ -.�.�...�.�_.e..��
NOTE : IF THIS MICROFILMED I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE , IT IS DUE TO
THF QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
- -- — -
DRAWING, QE 62 92 12 92 SZ tsZ EZ ?Z IZ 0z 61 e _l LI 91 SI tpl EI ZI II 01 6 6 1 9 S b I
HOMES
PARTMENTS".,
VESTMEN
L
I
PROP
REALTOR 63961- 80
!IIIII1111IIII11111111111111111IIIII111IIdoIIIIIIIIItloll 1IISi1Iif1111161111111"11111111111111111111u-IIll IIiIIIIIi
o
�11111111111�1I1111111�11111111I�Illl�itll�filillllllllillllu�llltl�l11�111111111�111111�11�� �If�1111111111111111111�11111 I
MICROFILM SERVICE CO.
Commercial Microfilming, Processing R Supplies
MAY 1991 �- Portland, OR. Seattle, WA.
900 LUMENITE SIGN COMPANY
LIONEL COMPANY REALTOR
Sign Code Appeals (SCF. 1-76)
12285 SW Main Stceet
1-20-76
're
ao
m
m
A
`> r� Or
MINUTES
Tigard Planning Commission
March 2, 1976 - 7:30 p.m.
Twality Junior High School - lecture room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by
Commissioner Popp in the absence of Chairman
Porter.
2. TOLL CALL: Present: Ems, Moore, Ni.coli, Popp, Sakata, Wakem,
Goldbach; staff: Powell and Laws
3. APS-0,0VAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of February 17, 1976, were
approved as read.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: Powell reported the resignations of Commissioner
Smelser and of Mr. Powell from. the planning staff.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 10-76 (Sherr)
A request by Michael Sherr for permission to operate a
billiard parlor and equipment sales establishment at 12160
SW Pacific Hwy. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2BD, tax lot 1503) .
A. Staff Report: read by Powell.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Mr. Sherr stated that there was a need in the community
for an establishment of the nature he proposed; that
his establishment would provide a service needed in
the community, particularly to the youths. He stated
there were 18 parking spaces In front of his building
and those spaces were adequate for their needs.
C. Public Testimony: no on appeared.
r,. Staff Recommendation:
DENIAL, based on findings that parking provided was
not adequate for the proposed use and that permission
of the proposed use would require the Village Square
development to fall below the number of spaces re-
quired for each establishment.
E. Rebuttal
o Mr. Sherr contended that the 18 parking stalls he
had available would be reserved for the use of his
establishment.
�� f
4
THm LIONEL co.
REALTOR
Lionel A. W. Domrpis • Broker
12285 S.W.MAIN STREET
TIGARD,(PORTLAND)OREGON 9722.3 639-6180
page 2
PC Minutes
March 2, 1.976
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Nicoli asked if the present parking would be adequate
for the proposed use.
o Staff stated that it would, probably, but that week-
end operation of the flea market would conflict with
the proposed billiard parlor in that their peak
operation hours would coincide.
o Ems stated he was not aware of any parking problem on
that site as he had never seen a deficit of parking
availability.
o Sakata asked Sherr how much landscaping he was pro-
posing, what his hours of operation were, what
signing he would use and if he had looked for alter-
native sites.
o Chairman Popp directed Mr. Sherr to answer.
o Sherr responded that his hours of operation would
be 12 noon -co midnight, 7 days a week; that he would
use the existing signs on the premises; that he had
anticipated providing la%dscaping along the edge of
the sidewalk, between the sidewalk and the parking
areas and that he had looked for other areas to lo-
cate this establishment.
o Moore asked the applicant if he was presently oper-
ating a similar type business.
o Sherr responded that he was not presently operat-ng
this kind of businesz.
o Sakata stated she did not feel the site wee suitable
for the establishment proposed.
o G-Adbach concurred.
o Moore stated he felt the proposed occupancy load
would clearly exceed the availability of parking,
even if the sites mentioned by the applicant were
reserved.
o Ems stated that the Commission, he felt, was reaching
beyond what the code required for parking; that there
was only a partial conflict of hours of operation and
the Comn.ission ought to approve a conditional use
subject to annual review.
page 3
PC Minutes
March 2, 1976
o Nicoli stated he would be in favor of the proposal
provided the manager of the property allocated
areas of parking for each tenant.
o Motion (Sakata) for denial based on the inappropri-
ateness of the site and the lack of sufficient parking.
o Seconded (Moore) .
o Motion failed to carry for lack of a majority:-- Ems,
Nicoli and Popp, nays.
o Motion (Ems) for the matter to be moved to a later
time on the agenda so that -the applicant could count
the number of parking spaces on the site and the
number of cars there at the present time.
o Motion died for lack of a second.
o Popp asked if there were nearby areas where parking
could be accommodated.
o Staff replied there were not, besides, it wouldn't
make any difference.
o Popp suggested staff undertake a study of the park-
ing needs of the businesses in that area and report
back to -the Commission.
o Nicoli concurred with Popp 's suggestion.
o Moore stated that he saw an additional possible
problem with respect to pedestrian traffic crossing
Pacific Hwy. , particularly young people.
o Motion to table for further consideration (Sakata) .
o Seconded (Moore) .
o Motion carried unanimously.
5.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEWAL. CU: 4-74 (Grahn)
A request by Roger Grahn for reinstatement of a previously
granted permission to construct a duplex In an R-7 (single
family residential zone) approximately 500 .ft. southeast
of Ash Avenue (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2DB, tax lot 2300) .
A. Staff Report: read by Powell. Staff read a letter from
homeowners in Burnham Park in opposition
to the proposed use, into the record.
i
page 4
PC Minutes
March 2, 1976
B. Applicant I , (:septation
o Mr. Grahn appeared and stated that the letter
from the prior owner of the property, Mr. Pruitt,
explicitly states that a duplex was permitted on
the site and that the proposal would not have an
adverse effect on surrounding properties.
o Staff asked Mr. Grahn about the dimensions of the
lot and if those dimensions had been changed after
the previous conditional use permit was granted.
o Staff pointed out that that action would have in-
validated the conditional use anyway.
C. Public Testimony
o Mr. Dick Siever, SW Bill St. , stated that he was
aware that a duplex was going to be built, but he
was opposed to it.
o Mr. William Hooper, SW Burnham Ct. , stated that he
was not aware that a duplex was to be constructed
and he was opposed.
o Mr. Kenneth Stewart, SW Burnham Ct. , stat,-?d he was
opposed to the duplex.
o Mr. Paul Johnson opposed duplex construction as being
detrimental to the neighborhood.
o Don Feller, SW Frewing St. , stated that he felt
duplex construction was not necessarily detrimental,
but that develo ment of the area, with only one
access (Frewi.nZ was undesirable.
1
o Russ Austin, Building Orificial for the City of Tigard,
stated that he was opposed to the proposed duplex.
lie felt that the conditional use permit had expired;
that the lot had been altered since the original
conditional use permit had been obtained and that
theresent lot does not conform with the existing
lot requirements to an R-7 zone.
D. Staff Recommendation: DENIAL
E. Rebuttal: none
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Motion for denial (Sakata) on the basis of points
raised by the Building Official.
page 5
PC Minutes
March 2, 1976
o Seconded (Moore)
o Approved unanimously
5.3 VARIANCE V 1-76 (Benol, Inc. )
A request by Benol, Inc. for a variance of the front yard
setback requirements in a C-3 zone for additions to a Safe-
way Store at 250 Tigard Plaza.
A. Staff Report: read by Powell.
B. Applicant Presentation:
o Mr. Oliver, property owner, gave a brief history
of the site, the reasons for requesting the variance
and stated the hardships that would be incurred were
the variance denied.
C. Public Testimony: none
D. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL, based on findings that
no additional adverse impact will result from -the
variance; that the variance will not contravene the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and that a hardship
would be created by strict application of the set-
back requirements, on the conditions that:
1. Landscaping and screening required by code
adja!:ent residential uses behind the shopping
center be provided.
2. A 10 ft. front landscape setback be provided, per
code, on SW Pacific I3wy. and SW Hall Blvd. , but
not including the areas of the existing or pro-
posed buildings.
3. That shade trees be provided in the parking areas.
E. Rebuttal
o Mr. Oliver stated that staff's recommendation would
result in elimination of some of the existing parking
and that would create problems for the tenants.
o Powell asked Oliver if a restatement of the conditions
to simply make landscaping contingent on Design Review
Board approval would be more satisfactory to him.
o Mr. Oliver stated that that would probably snake no
page 6
PC Minutes
March 2, 1976
difference, that the staff conditions, if they pro-
vided for preservation of parking, world be perfectly
acceptable.
o Moore asked Mr. Oliver how many of the existing
trees on the site to the rear would remain after
development.
o Mr. Oliver responded by indicating the trees which
would remain.
o Popp asked where the proposed new curb cuts would
be in -the rear of the building.
o Iir. Oliver pointed out the location of the curb cats.
o Nicoli asked if 6 ft. of landscaped area adjacent
Hall Blvd. would allow the parking to remain.
o Staff responded that they felt that it would.
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Popp stated he felt the parking stalls that presently
exist should not be eliminated, but that a landscape
strip should be accommodated.
o Moore said he felt landscaping and parking should be
subject to Design Review Board approval.
o Motion for approval (Sakata) with staff conditions,
but modifying condition #2 to include the provision
that parking not be sacrificed for landscaping.
o Seconded (Goldbach) .
o Mot:, on approved unanimously.
SIGN CODE APPEAL SCA 1-76 (Lionel Co. )
A request by the applicant to leave this previously-tabled
item on the table until his return from vacation was
accepted by the chairman.
5.5 SIGN CODE REVISION SCR 1-76
A proposal to amend the Tigard Sign Code, Chapter 16.36,
Tigard Municipal Code, to establish free-standing sign
size standards according to traffic speed and number of
travel lanes and to eliminate free-standtng sign size
restrictions based on lot frontage; also reducing the
maximum permissible height to 25 ft. and clarifying size
page 7
PC, Minutes
March 2, 1976
restrictions of wall signs.
o Motion totable (Sakata)
o Seconded (Nicoli)
o Motion approved unanimously
o (The Commissioners indicated their intent to study
the matter further and to place the sign code re-
vision on the next agenda) .
5.6 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 1-76 (Parking)
(Tabled from February 17, 1976)
A proposed amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter
18.60 - Parking - to reflect standards and criteria for
off-street parking
A. Commission Discussion and Action (continued)
o Motion for approval (Goldbach)
o Seconded (Nicoli)
o Approved unanimously
5.7 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE S 1-76 (Englewood III)
A request for preliminary plat approval and a variance of
the subdivision code provisions requiring sidewalks on both
sides of the street for Englewood III, a proposed third
phase subdivision and development of the Englewood Planned
Development, vicinity of SW 115th and Springwood Dr.
A. Staff Report: read by Powell.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Ernie Platt, Vice President of Commonwealth presented
testimony in support of the preliminary plat pro-
posal and stated he would be willing to participate
in an LID for development of 1.15th, but would no
assume the costs for full street improvements with-
out participation from the other property owners.
o Dick Waker, engineer, gave testimony relating to the
extension of 115th and explained the exclusion o1:
the park and school site westerly of 115th from the
plat.
page 8
PC Minutes
14arch 2, 1976
C. Public Testimony: none
D. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL of the preliminary
plat on the condition that the developer assure
the development of 115th to No. Dakota as required
by the City's 1972 Planned Development approval for
Englewood. Further, recommending APPROVAL Of the
variance for sidewalks.
E. Rebuttal
o Mr. Waker, representing the applicant, suggested
that an alternative would be to "foreshorten"
115th and provide for the development of that
portion of 115th and the portion of 115th south
of the site in an LTD.
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Sakata asked staff about sidewalk variance proposal.
o Staff explained the proposal more completely.
o Moore stated that Commonwealth should be involved
in the development of 115th, but that he felt
they should not bear the entire cost of the improve-
ment.
o Motion for approval (Ems) as requested, but "fore-
shortening" 115th to allow the portion excluded from
the plat, as well as that portion of 115th south of
the plat, to be developed under an LID.
o Seconded (Nicola) .
o Motion carried unanimously.
6. PRELIMINARY PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
6.1 PRELIMINARY REVIEW ZC 1-76 (Carpenter)
Staff pointed out that there was an error in the agenda and
that this was not to be a preliminary review as is stated
in the agenda, but was to be a request by Gordon Carpenter
for a zone map amendment on a site in the vicinity of 11535
SW 98th Avenue from R-7 to A-2 for an a artment development
(Wash. Co. tax snap lSl 35C, tax lot 900 .
A. Staff Report: read by Pow,3ll
B. Applicant Presentation
o Gordon Carpenter, applicant, described his project.
page 9
PC Minutes
March 2, 1976
o Goldbach asked about the nearness of the project
to the rail line right-of-way.
o Sakata asked about the building pattern and if a
planned development would not be in order.
C. Public Testimony: none
D. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL on the condition that
10 ft. of right-of.-way be dedicated on SW 98th Ave.
E. Rebuttal: none
F. Commission Di:3cussion and Action
o Motion for approval (Goldbach) subject to staff
condition based on findings that the pro.,oeal
satisfies Comprehensive Plan conditions; that it
will not adversely impact the community; that it
will provide for ccmmunity needs and -that it "fits
in" with the area.
o Motion seconded (Moore)
o Motion approved, Sakata nay.
6.2 PPELIMINARY REVIEW 7.0 2-76 (Kjelgaard)
A request by Orland Kjelgaard for concept approval of a
proposed residential planned development in the vicinity
of 13778-13840 SW Hall Blvd. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2DD,
tax lot 500) .
A. Staff Report: read by Powell with a recommendation that
the matter be tabled for 'one month, as stated in the
staff report, for further work by the NPO.
B. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Stucky, speaking on behalf of the applicant,
stated if a 60 ft. right-of-way were provided, the
result would be a more pedestrian oriented planned
development. He al,-;o addressed the staff findings
with respect to informational deficiencies and said
that those would be addressed in the presentation
to the Planning Commission for approval.
C. Public Testimony
page 10
PC Minutes
March 2, 1.976
John Avery, Chairman of NPO #5, addressed the
Commission and asked for deferral until the question
of access roads could be resolved by the NPO.
D. Staff Recommendation: given in the staff report.
E. Rebuttal: none
F. Commission Dis:ussion and Action
o Nicoli asked staff about the expense of retention
system on site.
o Staff responded th-,t there was no intent to require
a retention system, but that it should be considered
by the applicant and possibly be required, if appro-
priate.
o Motion to postpone for one month until NPO #5 has
had time to discuss the road system proposed for
this area (Ni.ccli) .
o Seconded (Goldbach) .
o Approved unanimously.
7. OTHER BUSINESS: none
8. ADJOURNMENT: 11 :50 p.m.
5��
t
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Plannirg Commission
March 2, 1976
SCA 1-76 (Lionel Co. )
Agenda Item 5.#
Mr. Domrei.s, principal in the Linoel Co. , has
requested that this matter be again postponed.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF I'U AICATION Tigard Planning Commiss;on
Mai ch 2, 1976 — 7:30 p.m.
Twality Junior Hig}f School -- lecture i
STATE OF OREGON, room
COUNTY Or �VASIi1NG'fUN, �s. 14650 SW 97th Avenue,Tigard,Oregon
5.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
-76
I, ........_......._-•--.J.Os.e.-Joseph-Schafer.............. .. _ ............ C s requos pyr tea ail Sch p for per-
.. m sion too crate a billiard parlor and
equipment sales establishment at 12760
twing first duly sworn, depose and say that I ani the publisher .-___....__._.-_...... SW Pacific Hwy. (Wash. Co. tax map �
2Sl 2BD, tax lot 1503). j
of The Tigard Times, a newspaper of general circulation, aE defined 5.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT fi
RENEWAL CU 4.74 (Grann)
t,y ORS 193.010 and 193.020, puLashed at Tigard, in the aforesaid county and A request by Ro4dr Grahn for rein- i
statement of a previously granted per-
rnission to construct a duplex in an R-7
slate; that the Iegal notice, a printed copy of which is Hereto annexed, was single family zone approximately 500
ft.southeast of Ash Avenue(Wash.Co.
published in the entire Issue of said newspaper for ....._.$-_........... successive and talc map 2S1 2UB, tax lot 2300). •
5.3 FTGN CODE APPEAL SCA 1-76
consecutive weeks in the following issues ....__..._....... ........... (Lionei Co.)'
iOr-
An appeal to the Planning Cummis-
sion of the denial of a permit to con-
)♦el)i"L181'x W ..t111d 2F A_17C -.. _.-�....._�._ struct a new projecting and revolving
sign at 12285 SW Main St. (Johnson
f .__ r+.i ....__.._ Building).
.._.... ... ( - _
�� nature) ' 5.4 SIGN CODE REVISION SCR 1-78
A proposal to amend the Tigard Sign
26t$ Code (Ch. 16, 'TMC) to establish free-
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ........ .............._ .....-_._ day of ...._._... standing sign size standards according
to traffic speee' and number of travel
February 76 lanes and to eliminate free-standing
_....
..... .. 19._.... sign size restrictions based on lot front-
/j' ' age; also to reduce the ,na)'mum p�r-
' missable height to 25'.
L` ��'.Ik i 5.5 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
/ ' ,'Notary Pubic of Oregon
PLAT AND VARIANCE S i•'1� (Eng.
�/ lewood 111) '
My coinniir.sinn expr.es ............... • << � _ 19/ A request for preliminary plat ap-
proval and a veriahce of the subdivi-
1 sion code provisions requiring side- - -
- walks on both sues of a street for j
ENGLEWOOD iii, s proposed third
phase subdivision and development of
the Englewood Planned Development,
vicinity of SW 115th and Springwood
Drive.(Warp.Co.tax map 1S1 348,tax
lots 600 and 602).
6. PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVEL-
OPMENT REVIEW
6.1 PRELIMINARY REVIEW LC 1.76
(Carpenter)
A request by Gordan Carpenter for I
concept approval ' a proposed resi-
denti,,l plannea velopment in the vi•
cinity of 11535 SW 98th.(Wash.Co.tax
snap 1S1 35C, tax lot 900).
6.2 PRELIMINARY REViEW ZC 2-76
SerL:-.nt Paine,an air traffic control
operator with a unit of the Air Force i
Communications Service, previously
served at Webb AFB, Tc>•as.
(Kjelgaard)
A request by ncland Kjelgaard for
concept approval of a proposed rest•
dential p r.ned de%elopmcM. In the vi-
cinity of 13178-13840 SW Hail Blvd.,
Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2013, tax lot
,r00).
(TT2620 — Publish Feb. 19, 26, 1976)
THE Ll NEL CO.
REALTOR
O
Lionel A. W. Domreis - Broker
Feb 23, 1^76
Mr. John Laws
Tigard Planning Commission
Dear Mr. maws ;
1 ha-;e today received notice of the March 2 planning meeting, with
word that my appeal would by heard.
When ! talked to you two weeks ago approx. I complained that the
only way I knew my request was turned down was because my wife
saw word in the Tigard Times .
I did request that I be heard in Feb because the sign was important
to me, plus I stressed that I could not attend March 2nd.
Notwithstanding this I was set up for the March 2nd meeting.
I will take the tAme to advise the planning commission again that
I cannot appear(please give them this notice) .
1 regret, the matter has turned out this way and trust in the future
things will turn out better.
Meanwhile I have had to go ahead and put up much larger signs
against the building, which while they will be effective for South
Main St.. and Commercial Street, they will not be effective for the
North part of Main Street which not only includes the people going
Lo the Post Office but people going to the new Payless Shopping Area.
I do have to make a living, and personally feel the small revolving
sign I was going to put up would clutter up the building less than
the sign I have put up, And be much more logical .
Sincerely,
1,ionel A.W. Domreis
12285 S.W. MAIN STREET 1 P.O. BOX 23351 1 TIGARD, (POR-i LAND) OREGON 97223 I (503)839-8180
_)anuary 27, 1976
'.'s. Arlie l iawhi.rter
Lumenite Sign Co.
;350 S. Tigard Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97223
T-'.,ference: bile No, SCA 1-76 (Lionel Co. Realtor)
Near ':r. i;awhirter:
Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Col-Mission, at their
regular meotin1; of January 20, 1976, tabled your request for a
sign code variance to permit: a projecting siean on the same premises
where a roof sign already exists (Johnson Building, 12205 S',rPtatn St. ) .
We will republish public notice: and set a new hearing date for your
proposal once erre have been advised by you as to fin appropriate and
convenient date.
If you need assistance or information, please do not hesitate to call
this office at 639-41.71.
Sincerely,
Jerald ; Powell, Assoc. ATP
Associate Planner
JMP s pt
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
January 20, 1976 - 7:30 P.M.
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, 'i i.gard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman
Porter at 7:35 p.m•
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Nicoli, Sakata, Popp, Porter, Ems, Wakem,
Moore
Absent: Smelser
Staff present: Bolen, Powell and Laws
3. MINUTES: The minutes of the January 6, 1976, meeting were
approved.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: none
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Conditional Use Permit CtT 1776 (Lass)
A request by Jerry Lass to operate a roller skating rink
in a C-3 zone (general commercial) at 13900 SW Pacific
Highway (former Ernie 's Market) , Wash. Co. tax map 2S1
3DD, tax lot 1201.
A. Staff Report: read by Powell
o Wakem asked staff if staff finding number 5, per-
taining to off-street parking, implied a variance
request and if so could be addressed at this time.
o Staff stated that a separate public hearing must
be held for the variance and that due notice must
be given for the hearing.
o Ems asked staff if a conditional use permit could
be granted by the Commission for a one year period
for the purpose of observing the proposed use.
o Staff rer,lieu that it could be.
o Wakem asked staff if the. bus lane, aj referred to
in staff finding #8, would be a separate lane.
o Staff responded chat it would be, but that it
appeared that nearly enough room was already there
for the lane and only a small amount of extra space
would be required.
page 2
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
B. Applicant's Presentation
o Dick Ausman, architect for the project, stated
that the traffic circulation patterns for the site
needed :further stuc.y and that other comparable
roller :rinks do not use as much off--street- parkin;
as our ,ode requires. Aus�n.:In further sta;ed •that
the site was well-Buited f xr this type of proposed
use. He stated that the traffic generated by the
roller .rink would not be at the usual peak hours
and that the traffic impact of the proposed rink
would bo less intense, particularly at those hours,
than the former use, which was a supermar`tet.
o Popp ast:ed the applicant t1%e hours of operation.
o Applicant responded that they would be from 9:30
a.m. to 10:00 p.m, on weekdays and 9:30 a.m. to
11:30 p.m. on Fridays and 13aturdays.
C. Public Testi.nony
o Nelson flonnznann, owner an(.). operator of the Gresham
Park Rol:'.er Rink stated that the rink in Gresham.
never used all the parkin:; which is provided.
o Moore asked if there would be a buffer between the
proposed use and the adjoining property to the rear
of the site and if there would be any noise prob-
lems generated from within the roller rink.
o Ausman stated that the materials used in the con-
struction of the building would help alleviate
any noise and that a site obscuring fence could
be erected to the rear of the site.
o Hennmann stated that noise emission from the roller
rink would be lass than that of an ice skating rink.
o Powell read into the record a .letter from Lillian
Ashley who resides at 9735 SW O'Mara St. , Tigard,
Oregon, stating her support of the proposed pro-
ject.
o Applicant, Jerry Lass, stated that the proposed
use would be "a big asset to the community".
o Porter asked Mr. Ausman the amount of traffic that
this business would generate.
page 3
PC Minutes
Janu?ry 20, 1976
o Mr. Ausman estimated a 60-'l0 car parking need
and a traffic generation "more like" (200-500)
cars/day on peak days than the (1500-2000) as:, i -
ated with a market.
D. Staff Recommendation
o Staff recommended approval with the following
conditions:
1. One half street improvement on McDonald (to
collector street standards with street trees)
2. One major in/out driveway access on each
fronting street (however, not foreclosing the
applicant's right to plan for and develop
additional access if made necessary by
future development and it can be safely
accomplished) .
3. No approach easterly of SW 105th on McDonald.
4. Landscape buffer and security fencing along
side and rear lot lines and on McDonald east-
erly of the approved access .
5. The applican�. apply for a varl.an( ,, of the City
parking standards.
6. Adequate security lighting of peeking area
with no light scatter beyorJ p4;.;)erty lines.
7. Sidewalks to be provided on Pacific Hwy.
according to current code.
B. That the applicant pursue the provision of
those facilities necessary for bus loading
and bus shelter with the State Highway Divis-
ion and Tri-Met.
o Ems asked Powell if the sidewalk, as proposed by
staff in the staff recommendations, would end at
the service station (Exxon) and if the Commission
should request the developer to extend the side-
walk to Pacific Highway.
o Powell stated that that would be in the Commissionts
power, but that usually the City could prefer to
do this by Local Improvement District.
page 4
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
E. Rebuttal
o Mr. Duane Christy, part owner in the project,
asked for staff clarification of the condition
for approval as it pertained to access from SW
McDonald St.
o Staff identified the location of SW 105th St.
and the residential areas adjacent to it.
u Sakata asked why sidewalks and landscaping were
not shown on the site plan.
o Staff pointed out that it was a preliminary plan
and that the Planning Commission was not to deal
with site design.
o Popp asked for clarification of staff finding #8
as it pertained to a bus lane on Pacific Hwy.
o Mr. Roundtree, real estate agent, asked if the
conditions as stated by staff could be discussed
and if a bus facility was really needed and if
the half street improvement could be postponed
until negotiations with owners of the property
on which the Exxon Servicr Station is located
were completed.
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Moore stated that he would like to see a deceler-
ation lane on Pacific Hwy. in front of the pro-
posed site,
o Sakata asked staff that if a snack bar were lo-
cated in the roller rink, would it require a
conditional use permit.
o Staff stated that as long as the owners of the
roller rink operated the business theinselves,
it could be considered an accessory to the prin-
ciple use in the building.
o Motion (Popp) to approve the application with
the 8 conditions as stated by staff, based on
the findings that there is a community meed for
such a facility and that this type of use would
be compatible at the proposed site and it ful-
fills a need for providing activities for youths.
page 5
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
o Seconded (Wakem) .
o Porter concurred with Popp.
o Motion passed unanimously.
5.2 Conditional Use Permit CU 2-76 (R. A. Gray)
A request by R. A. Gray to construct a professional
office building in a C-3 zone at 13170 SW Pacific Hwy.
(Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 2CB, tax lot 2300)
A. Staff Report
o Read by Laws. Staff stated that additional
findings resulting from information obtained
after preparation of the printed staff report
had been made and that the staff found that
further revisions of the site plan and new
survey information had shown that staff finding
#11 on the staff report was no longer applicable.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Bob Gray, applicant, described his project and
stated that his understanding was that he was
applying for two buildings on the site (tax lots
2200 and 2300) for use as clinics, ne of which
would be built now and the other atosolie future
date as a "Phase II".
o Staff said that the only part advertised or
addressed in the Staff Report was the portion the
applicant was now calling "Phase I".
o Wakem as'Ked staff if this would engender additional
staff findings.
o Staff replied that additional findings must be
made as staff had not had the opportunyty to
evaluate the site plan or plan conform-ince on the
southwesterly portion (Phase TI) and 'ghat adequate
public notice had not been given.
o Gray asked that the Planning Commission approve
the portion for which they hive a plan.
C. Public Testimony
o Mrs. Pam Cook asked if a retail pharmacy would be
a permissable use in a professional building, noting
that a pharmacy was a conditional use also in that
zone.
page 6
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended tabling of
thi proposal to allow time for further review.
o Chairman Porter asked if part of the proposal
could be dealt with at this time.
o Concensus was that the site considered by staff
and advertised could be acted upon, but that the
"Phase II►► portion would require an additional
application.
o Porter than asked staff if it had any conditions
it would recommend if approval were granted for
►►Pha s. III.
o Staff recommended the following conditions:
1. That 5 ft. of additional right-of-way be
dedicated along SW Garrett St.
2. That a half street improvement be made to
SW Garrett St. based on City local street
standards.
3. That diagonal off-street parking be provided
adjacent Garrett St.
4. That overhead telephone lines running along
the north and east property lines be placed
unde. ground.
5. That a 10 ft. utilities easement be provided
along all property lines for utility purposes.
6. That the pedestrian/bicycle pathway as shown
on the site plan be provided, subject to
Design Review Board consideration.
E. Rebuttal
o Nicoli and Ems disputed the need for, advisability
of and fairness of requiring underground utilities.
o Bob Gray said that he wanted some decision, if
possible, on the site. He said hp could accommodate
the conditions staff requested, but- there was some
potential difficulty with a fire plug in the street
right-of-way for which he would not be responsible
and that urdergrounding of the telephone lines was
not his responsibility.
Page 7
PC Minutes
January 20, 1.976
F. Commission Discussion tnd Action
o Moore stated that lie saw no problem with the
pharmacy and drive-up window.
o Wakem stated that the need for a pharmacy had
not been sufficiently addressed by the applicant.
o Nicoli stated that he had no objection to the
pharmacy and drive-up window.
o Gray responded to "Fasano Requirements", stating
that a need for a pharmacy in the proposed site
existed and that the drive-up window would serve
as a convenience to the customers.
o Porter stated that he felt a pharmacy was com-
patible with a clinic, but a drive-up window would
be oriented to passing traffic and really not in
keeping with the pharmacy.
o Motion (Wakem) to approve the professional office
and pharmacy (Phase I) , without the drive-up v,in-
dow and with staff conditions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
o Seconded (Nicoli) .
o Passed unanimously.
5.3 Conditional Use Permit CU 3-76 (James Brien)
A request by James Brien to convert a single family resi-
dence into a duplex in an R-7 zone (single family resi-
dential) at 12115 SW Lincoln St. (Wash. Co. tax map 2S1
2AB, tax lot 501) .
A. Staff Report: Read by Laws. Laws also .-ead into the
record a letter to the Commission from
the applicant, addressing himself to
the "Fasario Requirements".
B. Applicant Presentation
o James Brien, the applicant, testified in support
of his proposal.
o Popp asked if the neighbors had been notified
of the hearing.
page 8
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
o Staff replied that +.hey had not, but that a
letter and an agenda had been sent out to the
chairman of NPO ¢#2, informing him of the request
for action on this parcel of land.
C. Public Testimony: none
D. Staff Recommendation: No recommendation was made by
staff.
E. Rebuttal: none
F. Commission Discussion and Action
o Popp moved for denial based on the findings of
no demonstrated need and non-conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
o Porter stated that this use would meet the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan as a buffer in an area
planned as apartments, but it was a very borderline
issue.
o Brien suggested that his application be tabled
until adjacent property owners could be contacted
regarding his proposal.
o Wakem moved to continue this item at a later
date, once such action had taken place.
o Seconded (Moore) .
o Popp withdrew his motion for denial.
o Unanimously approved.
6. SIGN CODE ACTION
6.1. Sign Code Appeal SCA 1-76 (Lionel Co. /Lumenite Sign Co. )
A request by the Lionel Co. and Lumenite Sign Co. for a
sign code variance (16.40.060 (3) ) to permit a projecting
sign on the same premises where a roof sign already exists.
(Lo,;ation: Johnson Building, 122135 SW Main St. ) .
n Staff informed the commissioners that the applicant was
not present to give testimony.
o Popp moved that the item be tabled.
o Seconded (Moore) .
o Unanimously approved.
page 9
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
6.2 Sign Code Varir,nce SCA 2-76 (Susnjara �- Sherwood Inn)
A request by Farko Susnjara for a sign code variance for
a non-conforming sign in a B-4 zone 'Nash. Co. General
Extensive Commercial) at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferryy Rd.
(Wash. Co. tax map 2S1 12D, tax lot 14000 Sherwood Znri) .
A. Staff Report: read by Powell.
B. Applicant Presentation
o Mr. Susnjara stated his request and the need for
retaining 'the existing sign as it is vital to his
business and serves as a means of drawing customers
to his establishment.
o Popp asked staff to secure a copy of the state
requirements for signing and how they would relate
and differ with Tigard's sign code.
o Popp recommended to table this item until additional
information was made available.
o Nicoli stated that to deprive anyone of the use of
this sign would be unfair.
C. Staff Recommendation
o Staff recommended approval of the requested ex-
ceptions for a period of 5 years, at which time
a re-hearing of the issues would be held to deter-
mine further extension of this exception.
o Nicoli made a motion to approve the variance,
deleting staff recommendatiun that this sign be
subject to a 5 year review period and that Mr.
Susnjara 's sign would correspond with the state
and federal regulations as they pertain to signing.
o Seconded (Fans) .
o Unanimously approved.
7. SUBDIVISIONS
7.1 Minor Land Partition MLP 1-76 (Bartnik)
A request by Glenn Bartnik to partition a parcel of land
in a residential zone (County RU-4, single family- resi-
dential) at SW North Dakota (Wash. Co. tax map 1S1 J5CA9
tax lot 301) .
page 10
PC Minutes
January 20, 1976
A. Sta�•f hef,^rt: read by Powell
B. Applicant Presentation
o Mrs. Hagan, speaking on behalf of the applicant,
stated her reason for wanting to divide the parcel
into two lots. She further stated that an engineer
had recently surveyed the property and the survey
map indicated a 50 ft. right-of-way.
o Staff stated that the county tax map shows only
30 ft. of right-of-way.
C. Staff Recommendation
o Staff recommended approval, with the following
conditions:
1. That a dedication of land for the purpose of
providing adequate right-of--way for SW North
Dakota such that a 25 ft. dedicated area be
maintained from the centerline of SW North
Dakota to the subject property line.
2. That a non-remonstrance agreement be recorded
with the City Recorder for improvement of SW
North Dakota at such time as an L.I.D. is
formed.
D. Commission Discussion and Action
o Popp motioned i'or approval, with staff recommended
conditions to apply.
o Seconded (Moore) .
o Unanimously approved.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
o Dick Bolen informed the Commission that there was a need
to elect officers.
o The Commission instructed staff to inform the City Council
that elections would take place after the selection com-
mi6tee made its appointment of a Planning; Commission member.
9. ADJOUR1vMENT: 11:45 p.m.
P
r
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
January 20, 1976
SCA 1-76 (Lumenite Sign Co./Lionel Col)
Agenda Item 6. 1
SIGN CODE APPEAL
An appeal to the Plunning Commission of the denial of a
permit to construct a new projecting and revolving sign at
12285 SW Dain St. (Johnson Building
STAFF FINDINGS
I. The application does not satisfy provision of section
18. 12. 020 which require (a) the building official to
provide forms for the purpose of ,applying for a sign permit
and (b) that certain information be supplied by the appli-
cant. The following required information has not been
supplied .and conformance of the sign to City code cannot
be evaluated as to those particular matters:
1. scale drawing showing. . . height above ground, method
of attachment , construction and materials, type,
source and intensity of illumination. . . " and
2. "A plot plan approximately to scale .indicating the
location of all buildings, property lines, existing,
signs, streets and overhead piwer lines on the same
promises. "
2. The Tigard sign code section 16. 40. 070 prohibits any pro-
jecting sign on "the sn -ie premises where there is 2 free-
standing sign or roof sign" and provides that "a projecting
sign shall be used solely to identify a business and shall
not be used to advertise services or products sold on the
premises. "
3. The appellant' s letter (q. v. ) states that the Jade Terrace
(a restaurant in tho same building) has a roof sign which
was the basis for denial by the Building Official . The
appellant states further that the Building Official has
denied the permit on the assumption that premises (see #2
means building.
4. Section 16. 08. 270 of the sign code says, " ' Premises'
means a lot or two or more lots on which are constructed or
on which are to be constructed a building ora group of
buildings designed as a unit. " This definition, which
staff has further researched to determine if perhaps an
error had crept into our code, appears to be consistent
with other commonly held definitions of "premises" and
is, even if it were in error, the only definition we may
apply to the word "premises".
page 2
PC Staff Report
Item 6. 1 (SCA 1-76)
1/;'O/76
5. The Commission. endo . provi_sions of section 16. 3,- . 020,
may gront variances of the sign code based on findings
of hardsMp, inconsistency or "practical difficulties" ,
were a variance applied for.
6. The appsal under consideration hare (under prodisicnG of
section 16. 34. 010) does not aJ.low variance of the sign
code. The Manning Commission is to determine in this
appeal whether the building official m.-'-sinterpreted the
wording or i,itent of the code.
7. The provision of the sign code prohibiting a r,ielangn of
roof signs and projecting signs is designed to di-courage
the tasteless, tiresome and pretentious "blanketing" of
signs , a one-upmanship in which the public is seldom
considered.
As this is an appeal of an action taken by the Building Official
to dery a permit for a particular sign, the staff feels it in-
appropriate to recommend a particular action on the part of the
Commission other than that it must rind the Building Official
wrong in order to grant the appeal .
Lurninite sign co.
Salrs, Semite and Rentals
9350 S. W. TIGARD AVENUE
TIGARD. OREGON 9/223
'10NE 639-4991
P. O. Box 23636
December 31, 1975 RE-CEI Va®
114P1 - 5 19I►;
Tigard Planning & Zoning Comm. CITY OF TIGARD
City Mall
12420 S.W. Main Street.
V garu, OR. 97223
ATTN: Gerald Powell
Gentlemen;
Ire have applied for a sign permit for the installation of
a sign display for the Lionel Co. Realtor, located at 12285
S .W. Main Street. The permit has been rafused as submitted on
the assumptior that it does not comply with that part of the sign
code, Section 407, Item 2. It reads:
No projecting sign shall be permitted on the
same premises where there is a free-standing
sign or a roof sign.
'he Lionel Ca. Realtor, Tigard Times, Jade Terrace Rest-
aurant, etc . , all have businesses 'located in the same building.
The Jade Terrace Restaurant has an existing roif sig-ri which is
the reason for not accepting the permit on the assumption that
premises means all of the building.
We contest that this was rLrt the intent of the code to dis-
criminate against any one uusiness located in the same t•uilding
or ;remises. We will bs taking down an existing Office Flec-
tionics sign and replacing with the proposed Lionel Co. Realtor
sign on the same business front. The existing sign does not
fit to the new logo design for the Lionel Co. Realtor.
We do hope you concur with our thinking and can clear this
permit to be issued from the building department. Please refer
to the building department fur the permit that is on file.
Sincereiy yours,
Arlie Mawhirter
Agent and Sign Contractor
for the Lionel Co. Realtor
AM; cm
903\ �S� `" o
��c 11 pA4 Adv 60 °`? \f 9n
4 h5\1° O� '9 a° \a1\
Q' a
,s
914 p Jae d 0\hA
�� ze 905 ��, i+ s o' z'' ' y 313 M m
t Q `' bo• 6 V° a 121
-� 906 °o , � A + \�(/ m 13`
1; 7 y
14 t, \
j1 \ d ..hh�\� rr9O naj4- 3<dJ N.a90 q15
D \
907 `► °° e&a A ,*1b % 's. 12 91I I5 °
\A� „ no o
0 4� ql �h9 h5 C J kb e- "7 N B 7°4 8'4 6"E Ab
\ e. \
` . �'a 910 /r -- alp a
9 0 ? / r 124.22 ° ��'; \•
A3a3�.,e 908 .� I I t,J� i °I6 916 ily`�,\�'e-•_ \ ,//
�' �
0 ?oy '� 19't o tie' 909 VVI, 10Fv% Q a:90 17 J�6 f
/� s� 9 17 \�' PP
j''
CIO
�ti°wry 01
1400 i ~fo - ° 1. �y� `��`6 19
28A9i8 9�
`w c. / rye \
"0
A
Awa °yam 0°4 120) 919 i
o SEE M`�P /.
.'6Ac 2 3 1 2 AA'
s60e
'oo
Ac
614 1202
1200 4,
(c S No h,44' 5~A
\ /° ore
moi.•i Ay �__-�
e\ _ 'S Na
\
to ��� 1328_ I /
�J T =_ 3700'00 - ���III,II•
1 3600 2
/Xcb
p �,Q
5400 A-, �
y� C
A-1/ t - / 9/
3300
A
0, :00
.o�s w�
3200 ' 2" A\y ' � kt\ -cx JOc ^ \p x
\b 1 6 U SE
4 0 3 ° 11102Ac 3900 \ - 2S
' y 9 �h /BAc. \
'oe? a°`; i 3�0 o y 1, r coy \ o°
3000j.ilne
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY Or TIGARD date A2 -o7'—
The undersigned hereby applies for a permit for the Work herein indicated
�r az :shown and app-roved in file accompanying plans and specific�itl.ons.
kl ADDRE55�� , Uj PHONE S
ENGINEER
PHONE 3�_y_29/ ARCHITECT �•
DESIGNER
5TRl1CT1_IRt_ KNEW WRE"MODC !. OADDITION ORCPAIR ORENEWALOFIRE DAMAGER
❑OEMOL IT TON
pRWSIDENCE ,XCOMM OEDUCATTON OGOV` T CRELIGIOUS OPATIO OCAR PORT OGARAGE
_O S T O R A G E O S L A B FENCE
IjBOND ❑LOVING OCONDITIONAL,-USEi)EST�N RFUIE COUNC' It. APPROUED ❑S.Ir NS_
OCCLPANCY LAND USE LONE BLDG. TYPE �, r IRE ZONE
PLAN CHEEK BY HEAT `-` "'-'
7 rc7.1. .c{ i. Ef' 5 1 X RTILH7 SIDE
7HIS PEWT1 l 5 I55iJE SUE33FLT C T� E—' EG LATI
CONTAINED IN THE. GUILDING CODE, LONING REGU!.ATIONS
AND ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES AND IT IS
G`r`r1 t HEREBY AGREED THAT THE WORK WILL BE DONE ►.N
Plan rt-eck ACCORnANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPCCIFIC.ATTONS AND IN
r nL o y cl i n g ___ __ COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES ANC! ORDINANCES,
1_% c3tatO THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT WAIVE RESTRICTIVE
total COVENANTS. CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTRACTORS 'TO HAVE
L14- CURRENT CITY BUSINESS LICENSE . SEPARATE PERMITS
aripx ,11 a d REQUIRED FOR SEWER, E;LUMBINGp AND HEATING.
amara�fit. �
App ' cant or 5gPrT '_
ar1dress n one ~
F) c 0
1 7L