Loading...
ZON1996-00006POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON agiamstottRaggRamgenei CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639 -4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Zc�N 5 G-0 CASE NO. OTHER CASE NO'S: /l44 RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: . GENERAL INFORMATION I Application elements submitted: 3OPERTY ADDRESS /LOCATION I ')-15--c 51.1/ r%41ti St (A) Application form (1) 1-1,1 4/1401 9,) Glg- g1a415 (B) Owner's signature /written AX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. I- 2-S K w Sec o . *4 I authorization 1,04- # S`/oa (C) Title transfer instrument (1) :ITE SIZE Bq /(Al 4 fYd?(. S_?,TC7U so, , ,f/-, I (D) Assessor's map (1) ROPERTY OWNER /DEED HOLDER* ftc{vr.l "NPgc.k�fiun /kixo (E) Plot plan (pre -app checklist) :ODRESS 1 a -(fa.( SUl 1 /Wil $+ ✓ PHONE 3 a n%1( 5"-- (F) Applicant's statement :ITY 1r1`dir4 ZIP g72-d-3 I (pre -app checklist) .PPLICANT* 45awn e (G) List of property owners and ADDRESS PHONE addresses within 250 feet (1) 7ITY ZIP (H) Filing fee (1520) Men the owner and the applicant are different eople, the applicant must be the purchaser of record -r a leasee in possession with written authorization rom the owner or an agent of the owner with written . uthorization. The owner(s) must sign this =_pplication in the space provided on page two or :.ubmit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request a e sitive Lands Permit to a llow 4 1revitQ cif o Vpi/u y 007-e 2eml P; si-rl t1of 4 %ja j -Fei►- d, ), -k)A, o 17ve. "T,,j d re I6I tddlebl, )523P/13P 'ev'd: 3/88 DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: COMP. PLAN /ZONE DESIGNATION: N.P.O. Number: Approval Date: Final Approval Date: Planning Engineering • • 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: A//47- . 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. S. THE APPLICANT(S),SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants -so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. / DATED this 1'716- day of �U ( y 19 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. 69Yel4141 , c6 ki- (KSL:pm /0737P) i•'igard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 639 -1656 July 17, 1996 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 • We are applying for a removal of the Historic Overlay District to the Tigard Feed and Garden building on SW Main St. We would like this removal of Tigard Municipal Code 18.82 for the purpose of demolition of the building on that site. In Code Section 18.82.050 Criteria for demolition, point B6 states that this could be granted if leaving it on would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. We are stating that it would. We are a non -profit corporation set up for the benefit of the businesses of the City of Tigard. We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site, and the quotes we received stated that it would cost up to 300% more to remodel the current structure than to build a new one. Also the building now encroaches on the railroad right of way and has to be moved. The back portion of the property is owned by the City and will be used for a parking lot to enhance the central business district and merchants around that location. Originally the Historic Overlay District was put on this site due to its association with the variety of colorful owners since it's construction. But currently, the building is vacant and has not been used as an active business for almost one year, so none of these owners are associated with the building any more. In Point C it states that the Washington County Museum shall obtain a pictorial and graphic history of the resource and artifacts from the resource it deems worthy of preservation. We will be glad to assist them in any way possible to achieve this. Also on site we plan on having as many of both of these as we can. This would include a picture and history of the structure and its owners. Also saving part of the structure and encompass it into the new design and decorating. Examples would be signs, doors, glass from the windows etc. We feel that we have met the criteria for removal and ask that of you. If you have any questions, please call John L. Cook at 590 -2933. Colleen Willis President •gard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 639 -1656 July 17, 1996 City Counsel City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 • Enclosed please find our Sensitive Lands Application for removal of a Historical Overlay District. We are asking a waiver of the $2,190 fee for this application. We are a non -profit corporation set up for the benefit of the businesses of the City of Tigard. This site will house the chamber office and visitors center for the City. The back portion of the property is owned by the City and will be used for a parking lot to enhance the central business district and merchants around that location. If you have any questions, please call John L. Cook at 590 -2933. Sincerely, Colleen Willis President AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE Historic Application Fee Waiver Request PREPARED BY: D. Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City grant a request by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce to waive the required fee for the submittal of an application to demolish the Tigard Feed and Garden building? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Grant the request. INFORMATION SUMMARY The chamber and the city recently have acquired the property on which the Tigard Feed and Garden building is located. The chamber now owns the building, having acquired it from the Johnson family. The building was designated in 1986 as historically significant to the city because of its association with a variety of colorful owners and as the only wood frame building on Main Street. The building has deteriorated over the years and presently is in very poor condition. As a condition of the land sale, Burlington Northern has required that the building be moved away from the railroad tracts. The chamber has explored options and determined that building removal is the only economically feasible option.. As such, the chamber has submitted a request to allow the demolition of the building on the basis of economic hardship. The required fee for this type application is $2,190. The chamber has asked that the fee be waived. The code allows the director to waive application requirements, of which the application fee is one. The justification for granting this request is that (1) the city is co -owner of the property and, in effect, would be paying a fee to itself, and (2) the chamber is a private non - profit organization whose activities benefit the city. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Impose the full or a partial fee. FISCAL NOTES Granting the waiver would mean a revenue loss of $2,190. As co -owner of the property, the city could be expected to pay a share of the fee. Therefore, the revenue actually lost would be less than the full amount of the fee. i:\citywide\sum\hist.fee MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Duane Roberts DATE: July 17, 1996 SUBJECT: Chamber Application According to Dick B., there is nothing in the code that explicitly allows the waiver of application fees. A way around this is the provision that says the Director can way waive application requirements. The fee is one of the requirements. The justification would be that the city is a co -owner of the property and, in effect, would be paying a fee to itself. This of course would make no sense. Jim H. prefers that Council make the determination regarding the chamber fee waiver request. Please let me know if we should put together a packet item for council action. NOT OF PROPOSED A / 'NDMENT This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660. Division 13 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction :City of Tigard Date of Final Hearing September 24. 1996 Local File #-01 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? ___Yes XNo .. Date z ail/ __ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment __ Land Use Regulation Amendment __ New Land Use Regulation __ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment X Zoning Map Amendment Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." A request to remove the historic overlay designation of the Tigard Feed and Garden building located at 12420 SW Main St. (2S12AB 5400. A1) Flan Map Change From CBD to Same Zone Map Change From CBD (HD) to CBD Location: 12420 SW Main St. Specified change in Density: Current Density n/a Applicable Goals: Goal 1. 5 Acres Involved: 0.5 Proposed Density n/a Is an Exception proposed? __ Yes X No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: City of Tigard Local Contact: Duane Roberts Phone: 639 -4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. OR 97223 DLCD File # Date Rec'd # Days Notice SIMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 1 Send this Form and Three (3) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 -0590 2. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2), proposed amendments must be received at the Salem DLCD office at least 45 days before the final hearing on the proposal. Submittal of proposed amendments shall include the text of the amendment and any other information the local government believes is necessary to advise DLCD of the proposal. "Text" means the specific language being added to or deleted from the acknowledged plan or land u se regulations. A general description of the proposal is not adequate. 4. Submittal of proposed "map" amendments must include a map of the affected ea showing existing and proposed plan and zone designations. The map should be on 8 1/2 by-1.l inch paper. A legal description, tax account number, address or general description is not adequate. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the - proposed language of the exception. _ If you need more copies of this form, copy it on green paper or call the DLCD office at 503-373 - 0050. d SENDER: v I» m I • Complete items 1 and/or 2,! . additional services. • Complete items 3, 4a, an( • Print your name and addn� �, the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. ■ Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. ■ Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. av 3. Article Addressed to: • DEPT. OF LAND CONS. & DEV O 1175 COURT ST. NE cnl SALEM, OR 97310 -0590 W a a z 5. Received By: (Print Name) 6. Si I also wir` •a receive the following iices (for an extra fee,. -! DUANE ROBERTS 'P 474 569 753 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail iNo Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse u) FA •' Sent to DEPT LAND CONSERV /DEV Street & Number 1175 COURT ST NE Post Office, State, & ZIP Code SALEM, OR 97310 -0590 Postage $ 1 J Certified Fee ) t 1 Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delivered k l I DTOTAL Return Receipt Showing '— Date, & Addressee's , 09 Postage Wes $ A� �- PS Form Postmark or Da d-,,..)\---- 7 4,67 ($1 - /�� w - FAX TRANSMITTAL - i PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LUGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE:September 6. 1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620 -3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639 -4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on September 24. 1996 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639 -4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-(GPAM -96 -0AA- TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD TT PUBLISH September 12. 1996 Vicinity Map Note: neap is not to scale //`` -CPA 96.0607 96 -'CO' LJ TIGARD FEED STORE • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) CSTY OF TIGARD I OREGON I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn /affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer X Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A ", was mailed to each named person(s) at `, e address s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B ", on the 3rd day of - ,-e--,,--, 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, w. pos ed on an appropriate bulletin boa /. on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the 3 sd day of ✓ .., 1996, postage prepaid. Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the _/1L day of OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 NOTA PUBLIC OF My Commission Expir fUBLIC HEARING • NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, September 24. 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: ryXHIB1T g zeA/ y6'000(0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639 -4171, EXT. 323 (VOICE) OR (503) 684 -2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER September 3. 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAAN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPON THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TN/REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEA O THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE -NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY -FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY -FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Duane Roberts. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale A CPA 96 0007 zaiU 96 cX /4 TIGARD FEED STORE N 2S102AB-03900 CAPISTRANO. NICHOLAS III 12370 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102A13-04200 CAPISTRANO. NICOLAS III 12370 SW MAIN ST T1GARD,OR 97223 2S102AB -04500 COOLEY, MARK R PO BOX 812 TUALATIN,OR 97062 2S102A8-01200 COOPER DEVELOPMENT CO do SUNNARBORG, MARSHALL H AND JOANNE E 7670 SW VARNES STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102A8 -03300 FISHER. DONALD D AND CAROLYN ANN 9295 SW ELECTRIC STREET T1GARD,OR 97223 2S102AB- 03600 JOHNSON, WARREN W & BETTY TRS JOHNSON, REES C & MARYANNE G 3112 SW SANTA MONICA ST PORTLAND,OR 97201 2S102AB-01901 MAWHIRTER, ARUE L & IRENE TRS do COOLEY, MARK R & UNDA L 9350 SW TIGARD ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AB -05700 OREGON, STATE OF DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION C/O RENTAL/THOMPSON A54888A 411 TRANSPORTATION BLDG SALEM,OR 97310 2S102AB-04000 PFAENDLER, ROBERT F AND WILLIAMS, SUE E 12380 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AA-05000 BISHOP, WILBUR A AND MARTHA E PO BOX 230003 TIGARD,OR 97281 2S102AB-04290 CAPISTRANO, NICHOLAS III 12370 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AB-03100 CHRISMAN, RICHARD E & HEATHER 940 UPPER DEVON LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 2S102AB-04300 COOLEY. MARK R PO BOX 812 TUALATIN,OR 97062 2S102A8 -03500 ERDMAN. TERRANCE E AND ERDMAN, THOMAS M 12405 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AB-04700 HOFFARBER. RAY ALBERT do COOLEY, MARK & LINDA 13135 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD TIGARD,OR 97224 2S102A8 -04400 MARK. ROBERT M BY R MICHAEL MARR 12420 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AB-03400 MCCLURE. CHARLES J AND ELLEN R 9250 SW TIGARD T1GARD,OR 97223 2S102AB -04600 PEREZ JOSE EVODIO POZOS 8915 SW COMMERCIAL T1GARD,OR 97223 2S102AB -04100 SPEEDY LINGUINE, INC 5405 SW JEAN RD LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 EXHIBIT 2S102AB-02800 THOMPSON, DENNIS C 9523 SW 82ND DRIVE PORTLAND,OR 97219 2S102AB -05302 WISE, RONALD H AND BETTY J AND FOSTER. LONNIE D PO BOX 230607 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AA -04900 U S BANCORP 555 SW OAK ST PL- 7(TAX) PO BOX 4412 PORTLAND,OR 97208 TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 12420 SW MAIN ST TIGARD, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD 1313 W. 11TH ST VANCOUVER, WA 98660 -3000 - FAX TRANSMITTAL IIILACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE:August 23 1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620 -3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639 -4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on September 9, 1996 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639 -4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS .Zoe/ y6 -ow COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ( IGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation land permit the demolition of _the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD TT PUBLISH August 29. 1996 Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale A eP 96.0067 2.0/t/16 -deb ° TIGARD FEED STORE N .1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) . CSTY OF TIGARD OREGON I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn /affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director X Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A ", was mailed to each named)? sons) at t e address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B ", on the / ' day of , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was post-d on an appropriat ulletin boar. on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the /c day of 1996, postage prepaid. Prepare otice Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the /6 day of OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC- OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046142 COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 NO1RY PUBLIC Or IRE My Commission Exp s: OUBLIC HEARING • EXHIBTI'� NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, September 9, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: zO/V 7(0 —X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-(CPA)-96 =990-7 TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639 -4171, EXT. 323 (VOICE) OR (503) 684 -2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER August 19. 1996, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMA AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND O THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE ' CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TWREQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APP E0 THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE -NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY -FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY -FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Duane Roberts. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. Vicinity ,tap Note Map is not to scale -96= 886O,✓ 76-0006 /\ � a TIGARD FEED STORE N • 2S102A8-03900 CAPISTRANO. NICHOLAS III 12370 SW MAIN ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AB04200 CAPISTRANO. NICOLAS III 12370 SW MAIN ST TIGARD.OR 97223 2S102A8.04500 COOLEY. MARK R PO BOX 512 TUALATIN.OR 97062 2S102A8 -01200 COOPER DEVELOPMENT CO do SUNNARBORG. MARSHALL H AND JOANNE E 7670 SW VARNES STREET TIGARD.OR 97223 2S102AB -03300 FISHER. DONALD 0 AND CAROLYN ANN 9295 SW ELECTRIC STREET TIGARD.OR 97223 2S102AB03600 JOHNSON. WARREN W & BETTY TRS JOHNSON, REES C & AAARYANNE G 1112 SW SANTA MONICA ST PORTLAND.OR 97201 ZS102AB-01901 M 4IRTE . ARUE I. & IRENE TRS Ye COOLEY. MARK R & LINDA L 1350 SW TIGARO ST TIGARD.OR 97223 tS102A8 -05700 )REGON. STATE OF DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 10 RENTAUTHOMPSON 454858A 111 TRANSPORTATION BLDG 1ALEM.OR 97310 IS102AB04000 3FAENDLER. ROBERT F AND MLU AMS. SUE E 12380 SW MAIN ST IIGARD.OR 97223 2S102AA -05000 • BISHOP, WILBUR A AND MARTHA E PO BOX 230003 TIGARO,OR 97251 2S102A13-04290 CAPISTRANO. NICHOLAS III 12370 SW MAIN ST TIGARD.OR 97223 2S102AB -03100 CHRISMAN. RICHARD E & HEATHER 940 UPPER DEVON LAKE OSWEGO.OR 97034 2S102AB04300 COOLEY. MARK R PO BOX 812 TUALATTN,OR 97062 2SIO2AB -03500 ERDMAN. TERRANCE E AND ERDMAN. THOMAS M 12405 SW MAIN ST TIGARD.OR 97223 2S102A8-04700 HOFFARBER. RAY ALBERT do COOLEY. MARK & UNDA 13135 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD TIGARD.OR 97224 2S102AB.04100 MARR. ROBERT M BY R MICHAEL MARR 12420 SW MAIN ST TIGARD.OR 97223 2S102A8-03400 MCCLURE. CHARLES J AND ELLEN R 9250 SW TTGARD TIGARO,OR 97223 2S102AB-04800 PEREZ. JOSE EVOOIO POZOS 8915 SW COMMERCIAL TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102AB-04100 SPEEDY LINGUINE, INC 5405 SW JEAN RD LAKE OSWEGO.OR 97034 EXHIBIT 15 III 2S102AA-04900 • U S SANCORP 555 SW OAK ST PL-T(TAX) PO BOX 4412 PORTLANO,OR 97204 TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 12420 SW MAIN ST TIGARD, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD 1313 W. 11TH ST VANCOUVER, WA 98660 -3000 HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS 1988 • • • // • .._.p . p ; ...._.:_.,77, -:11/..... • • .: rICARD .S7' .. • • . • • • • . • • • . • . _ • . . • ....„...... . • . • . . • / / / --, • •-• , .. t.', . . ' • ...,s,.... , • ...",...... . . • sf• - ,i. ' . ... -.. ..././......:'5.,.' .. . ti.....o.• - ' • SITE---- Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale ePk9&o007-70 96 cc'' TIGARD FEED STORE [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] {circle one) _CIT Area: (W) (S) (E) (C) R•UEST FOR COMME NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT APPLICA ® Placed for review in Library CIT Book Ea Z17�q€_I. TV DEPARTMENTS .LDG. DEPT. /David Scott, Blending Official /CITY ADMIN. /Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder ADV. PLNG. /Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor _ POLICE DEPT. /Kelley Jennings, Crime Prevention Officer YQPERATIONS /John Acker, Maint. Spvsr. JENG. DEPT. /Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer _COM.DEV. DEPT. /D.S.T.'S WATER DEPT. /Michael Miller, Operations Mgr. /Operations Mail Box SPECIAL DISTRICTS:-. _ FIRE MARSHALL Gene Birchell Wa. County Fire District (pick -up box) _ UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY SWM Program /Lee Walker 155 N. First Street Hillsboro, OR 97124 _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DIST. PO Box 745 Beaverton, OR 97075 AFFEC'T'ED JURISDICTIONS::: WA. CO. DEPT. OF LAND USE & TRANSP. 150 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 _ Brent Curtis (CPA's) _ Jim Tice (IGA'S) _ Mike Borreson (Engineer) Scott King (CPA's) _ Tom Harry (Current Planning App's) Lynn Bailey (Current Planning App's) CITY OF BEAVERTON Larry Conrad, Senior Planner PO Box 4755 _CITY OF BEAVERTON Mike Matteucci, Neighborhood Coordinator PO Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Beaverton, OR 97076 _ CITY OF TUALATIN PO Box 369 Tualatin, OR 97062 _ CITY OF KING CITY City Manager 15300 SW 116th King City, OR 97224 METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION 800 NE Oregon St. #16, Suite 540 Portland, OR 97232 -2109 _ STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION Sam Hunaidi PO Box 25412 Portland, OR 97225 -0412 _ OREGON DLCD (CPA's /ZOA'S) 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310 -0590 CITY OF PORTLAND 1120 SW 5th Portland, OR 97204 _ CITY OF DURHAM Planning Director City Manager PO Box 23483 Tigard, OR 97281 -3483 4OTHER% _ METRO - GREENSPACES Mel Huie (CPA's /ZOA's) 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232 -2736 METRO Mary Weber 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232 -2736 _ ODOT /REGION 1 Laurie Nicholson/Trans. Planning 123 N.W. Flanders Portland, OR 97209 -4037 _ ODOT /REGION 1, DISTRICT 2 -A Bob Schmidt /Engineering Coord. 2131 SW Scholls /PO Box 25412 Portland, OR 97225 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO City Manager PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 SPECIAL AGENCIES _ GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC Elaine Self, Engineering PO Box 23416 Tigard, OR 97281 -3416 _ NW NATURAL GAS CO. Phone: (503) 721 -2449 Scott Palmer Fax: (503) 721-2502 220 NW Second Avenue Portland, OR 97209 -3991 _ICI CABLEVISION OF OREGON Linda Peterson 3500 SW Bond Street Portland, OR 97201 _ PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC Brian Moore 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. Beaverton, OR 97007 _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS Jason Hewitt Twin Oaks Technology Center 1815 NW 169th Place S -6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 -4886 _ US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Pete Nelson 421 SW Oak Street Portland, OR 97204 _ COLUMBIA CABLE CO. Craig Eyestone 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Beaverton, OR 97005 TRI -MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Kim Knox, Project Planner 710 NE Holladay Street Portland, OR 97232 _ SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. Clifford C. Cabe, Const. Engineer 5424 SE McLoughlin Portland, OR 97202 STATE>AGENCIES > FEDE RAL. AGENCIES _ AERONAUTICS DIVISION (ODOT) _ COMMERCE DEPT. -M.H. PARK PUC _ DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OTHER _ DIVISION OF STATE LANDS _ FISH & WILDLIFE DOGAMI U.S. ARMY CORPS. OF ENGINEERS _ US POSTAL SERVICE Randy Hammock, Growth Cord. Cedar Mill Station Portland, OR 97229 -9998 h : \togin\patty \masters \dcnofic.mst Request for Comments Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Society Attn: Kathy Davis 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Washington County Historical Society and Museum 17677 NW Springfield Road Portland, OR 97229 Tualatin Historical Society (Jerree will you please ask Kathy Davis or the City of Tualatin for the address. Its not in the phone book. Cf - o 7 ir (, o % /0J 5— 4( 4. 7 0 e--xo ---rusb 0+- October 2, 1996 Colleen Willis, President Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Willis: CITY OF TIGARD OREGON / On July 17, 1996, you submitted a written request under the terms of TMC 18.82.035 for the removal of the historic overlay district from the Tigard Feed and Garden building located at 12355 SW Main Street. Your request was submitted on behalf of the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, which is the legal owner of the building. On September 20, 1996, John Cook, Jr., acting on the Chamber's behalf, requested the withdrawal of this application and filed a new request pursuant to ORS 197.772(3). This statute requires a local government "... to allow a property owner to remove from the property a historic property designation that was imposed on the property by the local government." Therefore, by this correspondence, the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce's request to remove the City of Tigard's Historic Overlay Designation from the Tigard Feed and Garden Store is officially approved. The state statue under ORA 660 -23- 200(9) imposes a minimum 120 -day waiting period on the issuance of demolition permits. The waiting period is measured from the date of the owner's request for removal. Since the chamber has indicated that it is contemplating demolition, please be aware of the mandatory waiting period. Sincerely, Jim Hendryx Community Development Director c John and Judy Fessler. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772 J, • --- September 24, 1996 To Tigard City Council From Judy Fessler Re: Tigard Feed Store Historic Designation and Demolition SEP 2 4 1956 _..__L v :✓ Not knowing how the City of Tigard and the City Council will decide on the new information in regard to the State Statute interpretation on preservation that took effect Sept. 1 , 1996 I would like to offer the following concerns and comments: 1. Using the New State statues on Historic Preservation the City of Tigard must be consistent or risk a challenge . In my opinion, The City and the Chamber started the process with a Public Hearing Sept. 9, 1996, at the Planning Commission and notification of a Public Hearing on the issue September 24, 1996 at the City Council. Both dates after the effective date of the State Statue took effect. City of Tigard in my opinion decided to use the current TDC procedures to do this. 2. Looking through the options and interpretation from the attorney's office It appears that the automatic 120 day demolition from the date of application is a fair interpretation of the new statute BUT.. After receiving a copy of the initial application and letter from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, there is no officia lseceived- (date) stamp from the City of Tigard - thus, in my opinion, not an official document. 3. Due to the this lack of official date stamp on the application, I would recommend that the City require the Chamber of Commerce reapply to avoid a challenge. The 120 day clock would start new. 4. I testified at the Planning Commission that they deny this application and they did, but I was also hopeful that they would also recommend that the Building be publicly advertised to get the best exposure to find a new home and owner. For example, siting the Gaarde house. Where the City purchased the property it was put out for public bid and new owners did come forward to move it. The Gaarde house wasn't a city designated. historic- property_at_that -time. ,, 5 -.'r' I further recommend that if the building doesn't get a new home or owner, after the 120 days, that the C of C pay the full amount for demolition, etc. Testimony at the Planning Commission indicated the demolition could run $50K. 50% coming out of taxpayers money. TAHPA was going to have to pay ford ALL the demolition. Equal opportunity doesn't appear to exist to any or all non - profits. The city of Tigard could also offer a bounty of 25K to move the building if they are going to pay for demolition to d the potential new owner. Would the funds come from the Downtown Merchants Association (taxpayer money)? r i __________________ Thank you for your cor}Sideration. d-Af Judy Fessler 0 11180 SW Fonner Tigard, OR 97223 CC: City Administrator, City Attorney Paul Elsner, Tigard Times, The Oregonian 07/23/96 14:45 DATABASE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 5987515 NO.018 P002 110 Tigard Area Historical & Preservation Association July 23, 1996 Mr. Duane Roberts Tigard Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 1996. Dear Mr. Roberts, The Tigard Area Historical & Preservation Assn. does not feel that the Chamber of Commerce has provided sufficient cause to have the Historic Overlay Designation removed from the Tigard Feed Store. First of all, during City Council meetings last summer, Chamber representatives stated as a matter of public record that they were aware that the costs of rehabilitating the Feed Store building would be significantly higher than the cost of erecting a new structure, but that they were willing to make the investment if the City would help them acquire the land, and if TAHPA would give the Chamber control and ownership of the building. Both the City and TAHPA agreed to those terms. In their letter requesting removal of the Historical Designation, the Chamber reveals the true reason for the request: "We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site..." Second, the Chamber states in their request that because the building is now vacant, it is somehow no longer historically significant. While it is true that the past owners have contributed to the historic value of the Feed Store with their colorful character, the building itself remains as one of the last reminders of Tigard's agricultural past, and has outlived all but its last owner. The Feed Store is older than probably 9n of Tigard's current population, and that alone makes it significant. Even though the years have not been kind to the Feed Store building, we at TAHPA feel that it deserves the protection afforded by the Historic Overlay Designation. We feel that the Chamber has not proffered sufficient grounds to grant the removal of the designation, and that the removal of that designation should be denied. Sinc-rely, ss President, TAHPA Tigard Planning Division 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR. 97223 Att,n Duane Roberts Dear Duane, 2e1N9G2104,6 Re M-IS 96 -0010 Tigard Feed Store. • Tualatin Historical Society P.O. Box 1055 Tualatin, OR. 97062 July 31st 1996 An alternative to the demolition of this obvious Historically significant Building, would be to dismantle it, document it, and store it for future restoration, although a site may not be available now, one will surely come later. The Tualatin Historical Society had a similar situation in 1988, when an 1875 Farmhouse was due for demolition, the owners gave us permission and time to remove it, with vollunteer labor we dismantled it and stored it in an onion barn, donated by one of our members. Today, the restoration of this house is a definate reality, on a parcel of land recently acquired by the city, we intend to raise this house again as an interpretive center. Please keep me informed of hearings ets. Iwould be happy to share our experiences with you. Sincerly John Bowles, Chairman 6 2 - 3 6 / Hedges House Restoration Committee 08/05/96 16:24 '250 a 001 _ 7)pard Area Historical & Prrservation Association June 20, 1996 Mr. John Cook Tigard Chamber of Commerce 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Cook: We are disappointed by the news that the Chamber does not intend to pursue its publicly stated plan to save even a portion of the Tigard Feed Store. Not surprised, d, frond you, but saddened nonetheless. We had hoped when we were coerced into relinquishing the structure tojour _ organization, that you would stand by your word to preserve 'the Essence of the Feed Store'. That no longer appears to be the case. In response to your offer to purchase the building, TAHPA feels that the only viable venue freer the restoration of the Feed Store is the one it currently occupies, and that moving it to another location would diminish its historic value. We therefore regretfully decline your offer to purchase the building on the condition that it be moved (or removed), and resign its ultimate fate to your ICevOEkian mercies. If I might offer a suggestion whereby the building might perform one more service for the community, contact the Tigard The Bureau and see if they might use the building for a practice bum. This could also provide you some positive press and reduce demolition costs. Yours, c411/4, lass President, TAHFA • • May 24, 1996 Tigard Area Historic Preservation Association Gary Lass, Re: Tigard Feed and Garden Building Dear Sir /Madam: This letter is to offer to TAHPA the ability to purchase the Tigard Feed and Garden Building ( "Building ") for the amount of $1.00, upon the condition that TAHPA pay for all costs of removing the Building from its current location and for placing it at a different location. Additionally, if TAHPA accepts this offer, the Building must be removed from its current location on or before September 30, 1996. Please notify Mr. John Cook, at the Chamber, 12420 SW MAin Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223, of your acceptance of this offer in writing on or before Friday, June 28, 1996 by executing in the space provided below. If Mr Cook has not heard from TAHPA in writing by that date, then TAHPA has agreed by its silence, to waive any and all rights TAHPA may have in and to the Building by way of the Agreement, or otherwise and to hold the Chamber and the City harmless for the moving or removal of the Building in any manner. Time is of the essence in this offer. If you have any questions regarding this offer, please feel free to contact John Cook at 590 -2933. Very truly yours, Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce By: cc: William A. Monahan, City Administrator Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association hereby accepts the above - mentioned offer. Dated this day of , 1996. Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association By: 7C12c 9, 'P 20-00-91>—vel r� /--;-) �v� -0--tr,•1 0 0A-7 0 677 - r - o .0-1r to 0 . :e'"V� r-r --§a—' cN C/. .,-, 77 J 0 / ›-T C1 / jp C, C "T /1 3 y // ' p ✓ C, c-✓ -� P'-7 0 • /177 "4/ Les 0 /--a cs—t/ 1('� Ofl Wzg • • Q‘ -Jo °, /-1/ j r v /sue /7 J-1 n / 5 �7/ /vo / /7 A/J O /' 4'Z 32- - rv�T iJ //v/,0 c1- <.z�� -J / /1 / J/z 47,, /3147 -, c, • /_Q �c.� --�,� _ e-� : e /c__; // .-? / 3 /-1-2 Hinf-1-7 6-7/ 9/7 elt-k) ,u /0 tc.----, "--- -,:,---, -t-,-i i ,e- Q—...elL, / 7 ...fL..).._. el--4.) h 1, .4„,t- i .7-74 - CL- i 0 e 0 I / . < 4 e---k,. 61"/‘ , j. Ili Q "- r v i A..-o ch.- L.,47 g 4 -,-4_, 'I., 0 ,-- /1,4,„ 7LA-g--n 2477 6 d" 74' /1 7;-_. 4_ -CA /e-e.-1Z7 ior.t.1 4 /A/ T4— 00.4_ Vd 0 /7 / I e4.04 / e-'•• /L, • According to Shipo, SB 588 applys to-the retroactive removal of designation Jim Hinman, 373 -0088, DLCD Rule not effective until Sept. 1st. Until then go back to statue. Apply directly. Lvh / 4-;04), 197.646 provides for the direct application of statute without modification of local ordinance. Says when local gov does not adopt, shall implement state statute, apply directly ; invent process to apply directlyapply our own interpretation -- Cleaner, safer to use ordinace we have in place. Feed and Garden, Dick B., 8/12/96 put in CPA docket book 6 —0 0 7 notify owners within 250 feet, 8/19 submit ad, 8/23, both hearings publish ad 8/29 Plan Commission, Sept 9th City Council set for 9/24 add in paper due 2 weeks before, advertise both hearings attache ESEE analysis to staff report as exhibt check with state re ESEE process seek copy of ESEE from Forest Grove staff report: lease with BN has expired, not willing to extend cost is high, chamber has limited resources restore, cannot afford to move, FROM : EMMERT INTERNATION• PHONE NO. : 503 655 3111 EMMERT INTERNATIONAL Apr. 02 1996 02:39PM P2 March 28, 1996 S. Carolyn Long 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 DIVISION OF EMMERT INDUSTRIAL CORP. 11811 S.E. HIGHWAY 212, CLACKAMAS, OREGON 97015 PHONE (503) 655 -7191 FAX (503) 655-3933 Re: On Site Structure Relocation Dear Carolyn: Emmert International respectfully submits the following proposal: Relocation: • Prep Structure • Trench if Required • Install Beam Pocket Openings • Excavate as Needed to Install Steel • Cross Timber • Shim • Dig In for Cribs • Raise Structure • Load Structure • Build Cribs for Dollies • Move Structure to New Location • Spot • Raise • Remove Dollies • Crib and Support Structure • Lower to Final Resting Place • Remove Steel • Clean up Price: $24,000.00 Foundation: The following foundation prices are approximate, as a set of blue prints will be required to bid exact cost. • 8 " X 18 " Footing • 8 " Thick Wall • 2 ' 0 " Wall Height Approximate price: $4,875.00 installed. Price does not include floor or rebar. • Puc:t:.c 1� -n,, liatKe4, five. P.O. Box 230 130 TIGARD, OR 9728 I (503) 639 -6237 May 1, 1996 S. Carolyn Long Director Executive Luc��Gr Tigard Chamber of Commerce 12420 S.W. Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Feed Store Dear S. Carolyn: At the request of the Tigard Chamber of Commerce we have again reviewed the Tigard Feed Store located at 12355 S.W. Main Street, Tigard. The last time we visited the Feed Store the Johnson's were still occupying the space. Lots has changed since then. It was a good opportunity to see the rest of the building since it is nearly empty now. Unfortunately what we saw (and smelled) was not very appealing. The building over the last few months has been taking a real beating. The day we were there I couldn't tell if it was raining harder inside than outside or if the drops were just bigger. The roof has some serious leaks that have not helped the interior wood. Much of the unprotected wood inside the building has swelled begun to decay due to the moisture problem. In some areas the floor is so full of moisture the floor has warped and buckled. I suspect that even on drying days the humidity inside the building is doing as much damage as the leaks on rainy days. Other than fire not many things damage a building as fast or as bad as water can. Without tearing the building apart it is difficult to tell how much of the structure that we can't see is damaged as well. Much of the building that we might have been able to save during our previous visit is no longer salvageable. Though the idea of saving the Feed Store is a noble idea, it is our opinion that about the only thing left to save are photos and memories. Sincerely, Rae President arland enderson onstruction 12900 S.W. Pacific Hwy, Suite 2B Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -2419 May 10, 1996 S. Carolyn Long Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Demolition of Tigard Feed Store in Tigard, Oregon Dear S. Carolyn: In support of constructing a new office facility for the Tigard Chamber, I offer the following sound objectives in support of the demolition and removal of the Tigard Feed Store. This building has no true merit; In my opinion, there are no advantages to retrofit it for an office facility. As a feed store, it was neglected and has needed serious repair for several years. The lack of a heating and ventilation system has added greatly to its degeneration. By not having a real heating system to dehumidify and circulate the air, the building has become laden with dust and saturated with airborne chemicals from the storage of hazardous herbicides and pesticides. To convert the use to office from agricultural, much of the existing surfaces will need to be either covered, sealed or completely encapsulated, making many, if not all surfaces, unusable. Even though the building was built with reinforced frame members, the overall condition is poor, weathered and worn. Due to the time lapse, from business closure to present date, the structure has deteriorated even further due to the extreme weather conditions, as of late, coupled with the lack of proper heating and ventilation to dry it out. The exterior drop -lap siding is not water tight, especially on the southwest faces; the windows are beyond repair, the roof needs to be totally replaced. The building was set on individual posts, on top of the ground, that were above frost line and have been heaving ever since it was built. Today's building codes require foundations to be a minimum of 18 inches below grade to prevent the movement of ground heaving problems. Unfortunately; this building will need to be moved from its original foundation on the railroad easement. This will further weaken the main structure. There exists no seismic bracing which would leave the building more out of plumb, square and level. This building was never plumbed, wired or fire protected properly. No advantage of existing utilities exists. In summation, the condition of the building and its prior use do not lend positively toward the conversion to an office facility. Remodeling an 86 year old feed store, with present day building codes and environmental requirements, is not practical or economical. Respectfully.S and Henderson SABRE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Ms. S. Carolyn Long Executive Director Tigard Chamber of Commerce 1242 S.W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. Long: May, 16, 1996 This letter is to report the findings of my inspection of the "Tigard Feed Store" building on May 10th, 1996. At your request, I inspected the building to consider the feasibility of relocating the building and restoring it to be used as the new Chamber of Commerce office building. Please review the following brief report and conclusions regarding this project. Building Description - Wood frame construction. Poorly braced for seismic and /or wind conditions. - Concrete pier footings without a perimeter foundation. No apparent seismic restraint. - Raised wooden floor. Uneven with water damage. Appears to be subject to fertilizer, chemical and /or oil spills. - Floor beams may be undersized for the spans as built. Will need structural review. - Wood siding with blistered paint. Some siding is damaged and it is very brittle. This will require new matching siding which may be a custom mill product. - The metal roofing is corroded with loose fasteners. It is very loose in places and it could present a threat to surrounding property or persons under wind conditions. Roofing will need to be replaced. It is leaking badly and is causing damage to the roof structure and floors. - The roof structure is a combination of wood rafters and trusses constructed on site. The rafter spans may exceed . the maximum spans for the size and grade of the lumber. (This will need inspection by the structural engineer to determine the grade and stress rating since it appears to have not been graded at the mill.) The roof structure and spaced board sheathing does not have shear bracing. 7235 SW Bonita Road • Tigard, OR 97224 • PO Box 231026 • Portland, OR 97281 • Phone 503/639 -5151 • Fax 503/620 -6005 Page 2 - The building needs gutters, downspouts and connection to the -storm sewer. The windows are not insulated and they are poorly sealed. Several are' broken. New custom windows or inside storm windows.' will be required.. . - The doors will require major reworking or replacement. If ' reworked, they will not be energy efficient and they will need considerable routine maintenance. -.The building is not insulated and it will require ceiling, wall and floor insulation. Some of the exterior walls have interior sheathing which will have to be removed. - The building will need to be completely rewired. - The building will need to be completely plumbed. The existing sink drains through the floor onto the ground under the building. (You should investigate under the building to determine if chemicals or pesticides exist where the sink drained. - There isn't any existing heating or cooling system currently and this will be required along with ventilation. Work required to relocate and upgrade to the current code requirements. - The building must be jacked up and moved. - Requires new foundation and floor structure modifications. - Requires public water, sewer, storm sewer, electrical service along with telephone and natural gas service. - Entrances and doorways must be modified to meet the ADA requirements. The entry may require a ramp. -- Requires new restrooms designed to current ADA standards. - Require seismic upgrades, siding, insulation, interior sheathing along with interior partitions and modifications. - The south and west sides will require siding and structural work after the sheds are removed. - New electrical outlets and lighting will be required to meet the current codes and /or to make useable as an office. - The wood floors will need to be leveled, sealed or replaced. The chemical odors must be removed. Floor coverings, base mouldings will be needed to provide a workable environment. - The existing roofing will need replacement. Seismic and shear bracing or plywood may be required. Damaged or rotten framing will need to be replaced. Additional rafters along with framing clips may be required. - Cleaning,'scraping /pressure washing and priming will be required prior to painting. Extreme care will be required to blend the new materials with the existing materials. - Other finishes such as millwork, cabinetry, dropped ceilings, fixtures and related items will be required to complete the interior. - The site will require parking, sidewalks, landscaping and half the street improvements. Page 3 Conclusion -. This is • "a very interesting project and a noble cause, but I question the feasibility. • While it may be possible to preserve a portion of the building at agreat expense, it is doubtful that it will be possible to fully - meet the requirements for a functional office or Chamber of Commerce Center. If the existing building is utilized, it will need to be substantially changed to meet the current codes and requirements for use as a public office building: I am also very - concerned about the possibility of "chemical odors remaining in the building after it is remodeled. If you want to look into this project in greater detail I recommend that you assemble a team consisting of an Architect, Structural Engineer and Environmental Engineer /Analyst to thoroughly inspect, and analyze the building. If you decide to relocate and renovate the building, I. expect the costs to be 200% to 300% of the cost of new construction. My conclusions are based upon my 17 years of general construction and renovation experience. Please contact me if you have any specific questions regarding this report. Sincerely, SABRE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY John Boutinen Building Consultant JB /krw F:\JOHN\CITYTIGD.REP FAX To: Dave Skilton, State Historic Preservation Office; Fax (503) 378 -6447 From: Duane Roberts, City of Tigard, Fax (503) 684 -7297, Phone (503) 639 -4171 Date: 8/26/96 Number of Pages: 9 The city has received a request from the owner of the Tigard Feed and Garden Store located on Main Street to remove the city's historic overlay designation. The building is a local goal 5 resource, but is not listed on the national historic register. I have enclosed some background information related to the request. If you wish to comment, please fax your comments to me at the above - listed fax number or call me with your comments at the phone number also listed above. I need your comments by sometime this week, if possible. Please excuse the short turn-a- round time. I would appreciate a phone call or fax if you do not wish to comment, as well. Since this request was submitted before the new goal 5 administrative rule takes effect, which require on -going owner consent to the overlay designation, we are following our local review process. Thanks for your time and interest. • 1 GOAL 5 BULLETIN An Update on the Goal 5 Project, LCDC's Effort to Evaluate and Refine Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 5 From the Department of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD) 1175 Court Street NE, Salem OR 97310 Phone (503) 373 -0050 June 28, 1996 Goal and Rule Amendments Adopted On June 14, 1996, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted amendments to statewide planning Goal 5. LCDC also adopted a new administrative rule to guide citizens and local governments in carrying out the requirements of Goal 5. The new rule, OAR 660, Division 23, replaces the previous Goal 5 rule, OAR 660, Division 16, except with regard to cultural resources. A copy of the new goal and administrative rule is attached. You may request additional copies by contacting Doni Wolfe at 503- 373 -0063, or at the above mailing address. You may also send your request by e-mail to doni.wolfe@state.or.us. These documents will be available soon on this department's web site under the Current Activities section at http://www.lcd.state.or.us. -.7The new goal and rules take effect on September 1 ;71996. However, for most local governments these changes will not be applicable until periodic review, unless the local government amends its land use plan or ordinances prior to periodic review. This de artme ..._ • p _ _ nt will be conducting regional workshops about these�rules`:In the.meantime;:_. if you have - questions about specific goal or rule provisions, please contact the DLCD field representative for your area, or call the department at the above number. Statewide Goal 5 Background Goal 5 contains policies and procedures for local land use planning concerning a variety of resources: riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish habitat; wetlands; wildlife habitat; mineral and aggregate resources; energy sources; natural areas; scenic views and sites; open space; groundwater resources; wilderness areas; historic resources; cultural areas; Oregon recreation trails; federal wild and scenic waterways and state scenic waterways. i:\goaseuI3 d • • 358.605. In developing local historic preservation programs, local governments should follow the recommendations in theiSecreta „r�r,of,the-lnterioi's.Standards and:Guidelines for - Archeology= - -::and- Historiceation. Where possible, local governments should develop a local historic context statement and adopt a historic preservation plan and an historic preservation ordinance before commencement of local historic inventories. (4) Local governments shall provide broad public notice prior to the collection of information about historic resources. Local governments shall notify landowners about opportunities to participate in the inventory process. Local governments may delegate the determination of significant historic sites to a local planning commission or historic resources commission. The determination of significance should be based on the National Register Criteria for Evaluation or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Evaluation. (5) Local governments shall adopt or amend the list of significant historic resource sites (i.e., "designate” such sites) as a land use regulation. Local governments shall allow owners of inventoried historic resources to refuse historic resource designation at any time prior to adoption of the designation and shall not include a site on a list of significant historic resources if the owner of the property objects to its designation. (6) T The local government shall allow a property -owner to remove from the property a _ / ,historic- property - designation that was imposed -on the property by the local government. • • (7) Local governments are not required to apply the ESEE process in order to determine a program to protect historic resources. Rather, local governments are encouraged to adopt historic preservation regulations regarding the demolition, removal or major exterior alteration of all designated historic resources. Historic protection ordinances should be consistent with standards and guidelines recommended in the Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation published by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. (8) Local governments shall protect all historic resources of statewide significance through local historic protection regulations, regardless of whether these resources are "designated" in the local plan. (9 tAklocal government shall not issue a permit for demolit ion or modification of a j liisforic.r?esouroe-d described undef,subsaction;(6) of this rule for at least I 20 days from the date a; property.ow_ ner;requestssremoval offhisfo c resource designation from the property. +�•tiw�mt?SVS .r +- L.: -sue- F e�R.. w �� -. _ FFi iw iS.-.:'S- 660-23 -210 [This section is reserved for future rules.] 29 i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Jim, Bill FROM: Duane DATE: August 6, 1996 SUBJECT: Tigard Feed and Garden I need some guidance on how to proceed with the chamber's request to do away with the feed store. The chamber has applied for the removal of the historic overlay designation and a permit to demolish the building. The process for removing the designation requires DLCD notification. As a plan amendment action, the city is required to provide DLCD 45 days notice of the date set for a hearing and to apply a goal 5 ESEE process, which would be subject to state review. Those opposed to removal of the overlay would have the opportunity to file objections with DLCD. Two local groups are on record as opposing removal of the designation and may very well choose to object to any ESEE analysis completed by the city. Potential objectors also include the state historic preservation office, which a few year ago recommended against the city allowing modifications to the Joy Theater. In addition to these pitfalls, the chamber's application is subject to SB 588. Under this bill, adopted last year, a permit to demolish a locally designated historic structure may not be issued 120 days from the date requesting designation removal (see attached). A quicker, easier process would be for the chamber to apply for a demolition permit without also requesting overlay removal. This is the course I recommended in the pre - application conference. Demolition review is a local process that does not require DLCD notification, a state - approved ESEE analysis, or a 120 -day waiting period. DLCD notification would not be required because in performing a demolition review the city would be implementing an existing state - recognized ordinance and not amending the ordinance. An state approved ESEE analysis would not be required for the same reason. The application would escape SB 588 because the owner would not be requesting removal of the designation. After the building is feted. The chamber could then request q removal v al of the overlay on the basis that the resource no longer exists. No one would have any reason to object, because the resource would be gone. The quickest way for the chamber to obtain permission to remove the building is to apply for demolition under our local ordinance. As submitted, the chambers proposal is subject to a 120 -day or longer delay , since we are manditorily required to apply SB 588 and goal 5. i:Irpn\dr\feed.memo 08/06/96 THE 10:46 FAX 503 378 6447 OPRD HQ 1• ?ost -It° brand fax transmittal memo 767 , des • m D WA`rJE RD 3821f5 i o. Ggtt2.D FrontA JE Skit-707v cause, the State Fits Phone 37$ SQOI x :come imme- diately effective for Paz* � t ui� (3) Appointment Cog % �- 9-% of interests of the county assess - (4) A majority of the transaction of business. SECTION 17. Notwithstanding the term of office. specified by section 16 of this Act, of the members first appointed to the Historic Assessment Review Committee: (I) One shall serve for a term ending July 1, 1997. (2) One shall serve for a term ending July 1, 1998. (3) One shall serve for a term ending July 1, 1999. SECTION 18. (1) Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, lla, 11b, 19, 20, 21 and 22, chapter 5, Oregon Laws 1995, are repealed. (2) Section 15, chapter, 514, Oregon Laws 1975, as amended by section 2, chapter 346, Oregon Laws 1979, section 1, chapter 321, Oregon Laws 1985, and section 18, chapter 5, Oregon Laws 1995, is repealed_ SECTION 19. (1) Property first classified and specially assessed as historic property for a tax year beginning on or before July 1, 1994, shall continue to be so classified, specially assessed and removed from special assessment as provided under ORS 358.475 to 358.545 as those sections were in existence and in effect on December 31, 1992. (2) Property shall not be granted classification and special assessment as historic prop- erty pursuant to application filed pursuant to ORS 358.485 and first applicable for the tax year 1995-1996. _ (3) Property may be c1•4zsified and specially assessed under ORS 358.475 to 358.545 pur- suant to application filed under section 3 of this Act on or after the effective date of this Act and first applicable for the tax year 1996-1997 or- any tax year thereafter. (4) Property shall not be classified and specially assessed pursuant to .application filed under section 3 of this Act if the application is filed on or after Jnly 1, 2002 SECTION 20. Section 21 of this Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197. SECTION 21. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government shall allow a property owner to refuse to consent to any form of historic property designation at any point during the designation process. Such refusal to consent shall remove the property from any form of consideration for historic property designation under ORS 358.475 to 358.545 or other law except for consideration or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U_S_C_ §470 et seq.). (2) No permit for the demolition or modification of property removed from consideration for historic property designation under subsection (1) of this section shall be issued during the 120 -day period following the date of the property owners refusal to consent. (3) A local government shall allow a property owner to remove from the property a his- toric property designation that was imposed on the property by the local government SECTION 22. The State Historic Preservation Officer shall report the implementation of, and the effects of, this Act upon the historic property special assessment program. The re- port shall be made to the interim committee functioning after adjournment sine die of the Sixty -ninth Legislative Assembly to which revenue matters are assigned. The report shall be made no later than September 30, 1998. SECTION 23. Section 22 of this Act is repealed on December 31,.1998. De Ft. p L 4 N N a a 4 • members of the review committee constitutes a quorum for the Enrolled Seaate Bill 588 Page 9 1J001 From: "Bill Monahan" <FINANCE /BILL> To: "Duane Roberts" <FINANCE /DUANE> Date sent: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:12:20 +0000 Subject: Re: Tigard Feed and Seed Copies to: JimH Perhaps you and I need to talk with Jim about this. What do you folks in Community development recommend? I want to shorten the process but follow the correct rules. Can we meet tomorrow and final our opinion? From: "Duane Roberts" < FINANCE /DUANE> To: Bill, JimH Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:46:12 +0000 Subject: Tigard Feed and Seed John Cook asked me to point out to you that under SB 580, the 120 -day waiting period required for the demolition of an historically designated building would run approximately one week longer than the comp plan ammendment process we are now following. This includes the 30 day waiting period after Council approval of the overlay removal. As such, he doesn't see any advantage in terms of time in going through the hearing process. I don't have a response, except that they possibly could request Council suspendsion of the 30 -day waiting period, if desired. John is not making a formal request at this time to switch processes, however. Meanwhile, I'm moving ahead with notications, staff report, and ESEE analysis as called for by city code for overlay removal. -oh Cook__ 4 --- COMPR.EHENS E 1 7D USE PLANNING RDINATION hearings authority shall reopen the record pursuant to subsection (7) of this section. (d) A continuanr.. nr ..N'.,' A. C. T 1 Bill Moahofsky Vico President for Government Affairs 8255 SW Hunziker Rd., Suite 200 P.O. Box 230837 9 d, OR 9728) av +4% sion granted be subject to or 227.178, erasion is re- licant. pplicant, the he applicant cord is closed final written lication. The 1 be consid- 1 not include (503) 820.0258 Home: 292.3150 FAX (503) 639.6891 body, plan- s ,,vul:tu-zzturri-- hearings ooc1 or hearings officer reopens a record to admit new evi- dence or testimony, any person may raise new issues _which relate to the new evidence, testimony ' or criteria for decision - making which apply to the matter at issue. (8) The failure of the property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the local government can demonstrate by affida- vit that such notice was given. The notice provisions of this section shall not restrict the giving of notice by other means, includ- ing posting, newspaper publication, radio and television. (9) For purposes of this section: (a) "Argument" means assertions and analysis regarding the satisfaction or vio- lation of legal standards or policy believed relevant by the proponent to a decision. "Argument" does not include facts. (b) "Evidence" means facts. documents. data or other information offered to demon- strate compliance or noncompliance with the standards believed by the proponent to be relevant to the decision, (1989 c.761 §10a (enacted in lieu of 197.762); 1991 c.817 §31; 1995 c.595 *2) Note: 197.763 was enacted into law by the Legisla- tive Assembly in lieu of ORS 197.762 which was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 197 or any se- ries therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. 197.765 11973 c.482 §2a: repealed by 1977 c.665 §24J 197.767 (1987 c.729 §4; repealed by 1989 c.837 §34J 197.768 Local government adoption of public facilities strategy. (1) A local gov- ernment may adopt a public facilities strat- egy as described in subsection (2) of this section. A public facilities strategy may be implemented if it: (a)(A) Is acknowledged under ORS 197.251; or (B) Is approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under ORS 197.628 to 197.646; and Title 19 772 (b) Meets the requirements of subsection (2) of this section. ( 2) A public facilities strategy adopted under subsection (1) of this section shall: (,a) Include a statement of purpose that limits the public facilities strategy to situ- ations in which clear and objective standards demonstrate that: (A) There is a rapid increase in land de- vellopment in a specific geographical area; d (B) The total Iand development would exceed the planned or existing capacity of public facilities; (b) Include a detailed description of ac- tions and practices a local government may • engage in to control the time and sequence of development approvals in response to the identified deficiencies in public facilities; and , (c) Set forth the procedures. notice and findings that allow the local government to proceed urAder this section. 11995 c.•163 5) 197+.77() Firearms training facilities. (1) Any firearms training facility in ezistence� on September 9, 1995. shall be allowed to con - tinue operating until such time as the facil- ity is no Ionger used as a firearms training facility. (2) For purposes of this section, a "fire - arms training facility' is an indoor or out- door faciii• :y that provides training courses and issues certifications required: a: For law enforcement personnel: b' By the State Department of Fish and Wildlife: or c, By nationally recognized programs that promote shooting matches. target shoot- ing and safety, 11995 c.475�,; 19T.ri ani Jc'27for designation as historic piroperty. (1) Notwithstanding any ' other provision of law, a local government shall allow a property owner to refuse to consent to any form of historic property des- i ignation at any point during the designation process. Such refusal to consent shall remove the property from any form of consideration for historic property designation under ORS 358.475 to 358.545 or other— law except for consideration or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. as amended (16 U.S.C.*4 70 et seq.). .2) No permit for the demolition or mod- ification of property removed from consider- ation for historic property designation under subsection (1) of this section shall be issued during the 120 -day period following the date of the property owner's refusal to consent. t'3) A local government shall allow a property owner to remove from the property Page 227 ( 1995 Edition/ 197.805 • MISCELLANEOUS IVLATTEPc. a historic property designation that was im- posed on the property by the local govern ment. 11995 c.693 §211 197.775 11973 c.482 111: repealed by 1977 c.665 §241 197.780 11973 c.482 §12: repealed by 1977 c.665 §241 177.78i 11973 c.4S2 §13: repealed by 1977 c.665 124) 197.790 11973 c.482 *14: repealed by 1977 c.6G5 §24) 197.795 (1973 c.482 §10; repealed by 1977 c.665 §24) LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 197.805 Policy on review of land use decisions. It is the policy of the Legislative Assembly that time is of the essence in reaching final decisions in matters involving land use and that those decisions be made consistently with sound principles governing judicial review, It is the intent of the Legis- lative Assembly in enacting ORS 197.805 to 197.855 to accomplish these objectives, 11979 c.772 §la: 1983 c.827 §28) 197.810 Land Use Board of Appeals; appointment and removal of members; qualifications. (1) There is hereby created a Land Use Board of. Appeals consisting of not more than three members appointed by the Governor subject to confirmation by the Senate in the manner provided in ORS 171.562 and 171.565, The board shall consist of a chief hearings referee chosen by the referees and such other referees as the Gov- ernor considers necessary. The members of the board first appointed by the Governor shall be appointed by the Governor to serve for a term beginning November 1, 1979 and ending July 1, 1983. The salaries of the members shall be fixed by the Governor un- Iess otherwise provided for by law. The sal- ary of a member of the board shall not be reduced during the period of service of the member. (2) The Governor may at any time re- move amember of the board for ineffi- ciency, any incompetence, . neglect of duty, malfeasance in office or unfitness to render effective service. Before such removal the Governor shall give the member a copy of the charges against the member and shall fix the time when the member can be heard in defense against the charges, which shall not be less than 10 days thereafter. The hearing shall be open to the public and shall be con- ducted in the same manner as a contested case under ORS 183.310 to 183.550. The deci- sion of the Governor to remove a member of the board shall be subject to judicial review in the same manner as provided for review of contested cases under ORS 183,480 to 183.550. (3) Referees appointed .under subsection (1) . of this section shall be members in good standing of the Oregon State Bar. (1979 c.772 §2; 1983 c.827 428n1 197.815 Office location. The principal office of the board shall be in the state capi- tal, but the board may hold hearings in any county or city in order to provide reasonable opportunities to parties to appear before the board with as little inconvenience and ex- pense as is practicable. Upon request of the board, the county or city governing body shall provide the board with suitable rooms for hearing; held in that city or county. (1983 c.827 §29) 137.820 Duty to conduct review pro- ceedings; authority to issue orders. (1) The board shall conduct review proceedings upon petitions filed in the manner prescribed in ORS 197.830. (2) In conducting review proceedings the members of the board may sit together or separately ;is the chief hearings referee shall decide. (3) The chief hearings referee shall ap- portion the business of the board among the members o1' the board. Each member shall have the power to hear and issue orders on petitions filed with the board and on all is- sues arising under those petitions. (4) The board shall adopt rules governing the conduce: of' review proceedings brought before it under ORS 197,830 to 191.845. (1979 c.772 §2a: 1983 c.827 §28b1 197.82:5 Jurisdiction of board; limita- tions; effect on circuit court jurisdiction. (1) Except as provided in ORS 197,320 and subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the Land Use Board of' Appeals shall have ex- clusive jurisdiction to review any land use decision or imited land use decision of a lo- cal government, special district or a state agency in the 'manner provided in ORS 197.830 to 197.845. (2) The , urisdiction of the board: (a) Is limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies avail- able by right before petitioning the board for review: (b) Is subject to the provisions of ORS 197.850 relating to judicial review by the Court of Appeals: (c) Does not include those matters over which the Department of' Land Conservation and Development or the Land Conservation and Development Commission has review authority under ORS 197.251, 197,430 to 197.455, 197.628 to 197.644, 197.649 and 197.650: (d) Does not include those land use deci- sions of a state agency over which the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction for initial judicial review under ORS 183.400, 183.482.. or other statutory provisions; Title 19 Page 228 (1995 Edition) • AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of 77 1, r c"%5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE Appointment of a Councilor to the Historic Sites and Districts Committee D / CITY ADMIN OK / PREPARED BY:Dua_� __ADEPT HEAD OK IAA- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the mayor appoint a Councilor to the Historic Sites and Districts Committee as called for in the Community Development Code? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the mayor make the appointment. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard- Tualatin School District is in the process of preparing a request to expand the new Durham Elementary School building. The new school is located behind the old Durham School, now known as the Durham Educational Complex. The old school was designated as a local historic site in 1984. This site designation applies to the entire six -acre tax lot within which the school is located. The proposal to expand the new school does not include any alterations to the old school. However, because the new school is located on the same tax lot as the old school, approval of the proposed expansion by the Historic Sites and Districts Committee is required. Similarly, as a local historic site, the recently discussed demolition or external alteration of the Tigard Feed and Seed also will require Historic Sites and Districts Committee review. According to the Community Development Code, the Historic Sites and Districts Committee shall consist of one City Councilor, one Commission member, and one planning staff member, and be appointed each time an evaluation is required. Therefore, the appointment of a Councilor to serve on the Historic Committee for the purpose of reviewing the School District and Tigard Feed and Seed proposals is requested. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES The appointment will have no fiscal impact. DR/hist.council June 30, 1995 • • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Duane Roberts, Associate Planner DATE: June 29, 1995 SUBJECT: Tigard Feed and Seed The Tigard Feed and Seed building was designated as a local historic site in 1986. The designation is based on the building's association with a variety of colorful owners and its status as the only unaltered wood frame building on Main Street. According to the Community Development Code (section number 18.82), the demolition or external alteration of any City recognized historic structure requires review by the Historic Sites and District Committee. The relevant criteria to be used for the alteration review include: 1. The purpose of the historic overlay district as set forth in Section 18.82.010; 2. The provisions of the Tigard comprehensive plan; 3. The economic use of the structure in a historic overlay district and the reasonableness of the proposed alteration and their relationship to the public interest in the structure's of landmark's preservation or renovation; 4. The value and significant of the structure or landmark in an historic overlay district; 5. The physical condition of the structure or landmark in an historic overlay district; 6. The general compatibility of exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture, and materials proposed to be used with an existing structure in an historic overlay district; 7. Pertinent aesthetic factors as designated by the Hearings Officer; and • • 8 . Economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences related to LCDC Gaol No. 5. (This so- called ESEE review is a local and not a state requirement.) The criteria to be used for the demolition review are: 1. The Tigard comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose of this chapter as set forth in Section 18.82.010; 3. The criteria used in the original designation of the district in which the property under consideration is situated; 4. The historical and architectural style, the general design, arrangement, materials of the structure in question, or its appurtenant fixtures; the relationship of such features to similar features of the other buildings within the district, and the position of the building or structure in relation to public rights -of -way, and to other buildings and structures in the area; 5. The effects of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of the district which cause it to possess a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value; 6. Whether denial of the permit will subject, the City to potential liability, involve substantial hardship to the applicant, and whether issuance of the permit would act to the substantial detriment of the public welfare and would be contrary to the intent and purposes of this title; and d. The economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences related to LCDC Goal No. 5. (Again, this ESEE review is a local and not a state requirement.) Under either of these processes, the City would not be required to notify DLCD. The reason is that in performing an alteration or demolition review the city would be implementing an existing state - recognized ordinance and not amending the ordinance. An alternative method provided in the Code for dealing with the Feed and Seed Store's historic site designation would be to remove the designation. This would involve a much simpler city review process than that required under demolition or alteration. For example, a finding that the historic designation is causing the property owner to bear an unfair economic burden by itself would be adequate justification for its removal. However, unlike alteration or demolition, removal of the designation would require DLCD notification. As a plan amendment action, the City would be required to provide DLCD 45 days notice of the date set for a hearing and, although not stated in the City Code, also would be required to go through a goal 5 ESEE process, which would be subject to state approval. The Historic Overlay District Chapter of the Code does not directly address the proposed relocation of a historic building. Since the historic designation is an overlay applied to the tax lot, it is reasonable to conclude that the relocation of a building within the same lot would not require committee review. DLCD notification also would not be required in conjunction with a relocation as long as the City were not also proposing to take the building off its historic properties list. If the City decided to move the building onto a different tax lot, the overlay designation would need to be transferred from the old to the new lot. DR/his.feed July 3, 1995 Aug-01-96 01:58P FILE NO.: i CITY Of OREGoN CITY APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: REVIEWER: CRITERIA: STAFF REPORT Historic Review Board June 30, 1994 HRB94 -16 Urban S. Arbour 714 Main Street Oregon City, Oregon 97045 P_02 COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT P.O. Box 351 Oregon City, OR 97045. 21 (503) 657-0891 FAX (503) 857 -3339 Exterior Alteration to a Designated Building: Rebuilt exterior stairs and landing on the rear elevation 714 Main Street Tax Lot 5800, Map 2- 2E -31AB Denyse C. McGriff The criteria for reviewing exterior alterations are set forth in Section 17.40 of the Oregon Municipal Code, 1991, as follows: "For exterior alterations of Historic Sites in a Historic District or Conservation District or individual landmark, the criteria to be used by the Board in reaching its decision on the certificate of appropriateness shall be: (a) The purpose of the Historic Overlay District as set forth in Section 17.40.010 (A); (b) The provisions of the Oregon City Comprehensive PIan; (c) The economic use of the Historic Site and the reasonableness of the proposed alteration and their relationship to the public interest in the structure's or landmark's preservation of renovation; (d) The value and significance of the Historic Site; SO Aug -01 -96 01:58P • • HRB94 -16 /Arbour 2 (e) the physical condition of the Historic Site; The general compatibility of exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture and materials proposed to be used with the Historic Site; Pertinent aesthetic factors as designated by the Board; Economic, social, environmental and energy consequences; Design guidelines adopted by the Historic Review Board." ENTRANCES. PORCHES. AND STEPS Recommended Not Recommende1 Stripping porches and steps of original material and architectural features, such as hand rails, balusters, columns, brackets, brick. BASIC FACTS: 1. The property is addressed as 714 Main Street and is further identified as Tax Lot 5800 on Map 2 -2E -31 AB. 2. The property is zoned "CBD ", Central Business District, and is planned Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The building at 714 Main Street is a designated landmark within the proposed Downtown Historic District. The building is known as the Petzold Building, and was built c. 1905 in the 20th Century Romanesque style. The building is significant for its age and architecture, and also occupies a lot in the original portion of Downtown Oregon City. 4. The property owner is proposing to repair and rebuilt the stairs and landing on the rear elevation of the building (Railroad Avenue). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. The applicable criteria are (c), (d), (e), and (i). 2. Regarding Criterion (c), the building is currently being occupied as a an office building.. The addition of the stairs, rails and balustrades are need to safety reason for entering and exiting the rear of the building safety. P.03 Aug -01 -96 01:58P • • • HRB94 -16 /Arbour 3 3. Regarding Criterion (d), the Petzold Building is significant for its age and architecture. Any alterations should be reviewed with its historic and architectural significance. 3. Regarding Criterion (e), the physical condition of the site is good. The property is maintained by the owner, and this past year the building was painted and refurbished on the interior as well. 4. Regarding Criterion (i), the Design Guidelines recommend retaining porches and steps that are appropriate to the building and its development. The proposed additions as submitted will contribute to the character of the structure, as well as the safety aspect.. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the request to add stairs, landing, railing and balustrades to the rear elevation (facing Railroad Avenue) be approved as submitted. The addition shall met all building code requirements . P_04 AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: October 4, 1993 - 7:30 PM HEARING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall - Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information, CASE:Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93 -0005 REQUEST: Amend Section 3.4, Natural Areas, of Volume Two, Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies, of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This change involves the addition of findings to section 3.4 and the amendment of policy 3.4.2 pertaining to the designation of areas of significant environmental concern. APPLICANT: City of Tigard LOCATION: City -wide STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Plan amendment. 2. Background Information Statewide Goal 5 requires a community to plan for its wetland resources once it has available information on the location, quantity, and quality of the resource sites. Based on criteria set by the local government, it must first define significant wetlands within its jurisdiction and place those wetlands on an inventory. The jurisdiction must next determine whether there are potential conflicts with protecting those significant sites. A resource site - specific Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) Consequences analysis is required to consider the impact that protecting the resource has on conflicting uses and the impact that STAFF REPORT - CPA 93 -0005 - NATURAL AREAS POLICY AMENDMENT - PAGE 1 • • allowing the conflicting uses has on the resource. In the ESEE analysis, the jurisdiction must balance the advantages and disadvantages of protecting wetland resources against the advantages and disadvantages of allowing the conflicting use. Finally, the jurisdiction must develop and adopt implementation measures to carry out the decisions made by the community. As outlined, the first step in complying with Goal 5 is an inventory of the location, quantity, and quality of each resource site. If an inventory does not adequately address each of these aspects, OAR 660 -16 -000 requires a local government to adopt a plan policy to address Goal 5 requirements in the future after adequate information is available. This plan policy is required to include a timeframe for obtaining the missing information and completing the Goal 5 review. The City has completed an inventory of Goal 5 wetland areas located within its active planning area. This inventory includes information on the location and size of wetland areas. But, although the inventory does assess the wildlife habitat value of wetlands, it does not assess other valuable functions, such as flood and storm water runoff control, sediment removal, and groundwater recharge. Therefore, the City lacks the information required to proceed with further review. The proposed plan ordinance amendment states that the City will complete its Goal 5 wetland process when it completes the necessary assessment. The adoption of this amendment will allow Tigard's periodic review to be closed. 6. Agency and NPO Comments The Neighborhood Planning Organizations have reviewed the City's wetlands inventory. NPO members identified twelve wetland ares not identified on the inventory. These sites have since been assessed and added to the City's inventory. The Tigard Planning Commission and Tigard City Council in joint and separate meetings have reviewed and discussed the Goal 5 rule requirements pertaining to wetlands and the need to delay Goal 5 review until adequate inventory information is available. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93 -0005 - NATURAL AREAS POLICY AMENDMENT - PAGE 2 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 5 and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 4.1 The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program. City staff have reviewed Goal 5 rule requirements with all of the City's former neighborhood planning organizations. All public notice requirements related to this request have been satisfied including advertising the hearings in the Tigard Times. 2. Goal #5 is satisfied because OAR 660 -16 -000 (5)(b) requires a local jurisdiction to delay the Goal 5 process when it determines that adequate information on the quality of a resource site is not available. Staff has determined that the proposed Plan Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based upon the ,findings below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because City staff have reviewed the Goal 5 procedures and requirements pertaining to wetlands with all the City's former Neighborhood Planning Organizations. Two public hearings on this request are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Plan Policy 3.4.1, Natural Resources, is satisfied because the proposed amendment identifies the need for additional information on the quality of wetland resources before deciding which areas are scientifically and ecologically significant. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93 -0005 - NATURAL AREAS POLICY AMENDMENT - PAGE 3 • • C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93 -0005 based upon the foregoing findings. City Council review of this application is tentatively scheduled for Novenber 23, 1993. STAFF REPORT - CPA 93 -0005 - NATURAL AREAS POLICY AMENDMENT - PAGE 4 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Historic Sites and Districts Committee FROM: Duane Roberts, Administrative Planner DATE: April 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Hearing on April 25th Attached is the packet for the hearing on this Wednesday the 25th. I apologize for not getting it to you earlier. I would like to call your attention to a few points about the hearing. First, please note that the site of the hearing has been changed to the Tigard Senior Center. This was necessary because another group has reserved the Town Hall. Item number two on the agenda, the .cGaa- e ' Historic Designation proposal, was initiated by the Tigardville Preservation Society. According to 18.82.020 and 1832.020, an application for a historic overlay designation may be initiated by: 1. Council 2. A majority of the Historic Sites Committee 3. The Community Development Director 4. A NPO or City advisory board or commission 5. The property owner. Since the Tigardville Society is not an official City board or commission, it may not initiate a request for historic overlay designation. Howeier, as indicated above, the Historic Sites Committee does have this prerogative. Therefore, the Gaarde House proposal is submitted to the Historic Sites Committee for a determination regarding whether the Committee itself wishes to initiate this proposal. If a majority of the Committee does wish to initiate, it could be heard at this time. If a majority of the Committee does not wish to do so, the Gaarde application may not be reviewed at Wednesday's meeting. To assist the Committee in preparing for the hearing, I thought it might be useful to provide a brief summary of the procedures for historic overlay designation and of the role of the Historic Sites and Districts Committee: TDC 18.82.0230 empowers the Historic Sites and Districts Committee to approve, approve with conditions, or deny requests for: • 1. Historic overlay (HO) district designation. 2. Exterior alteration and new construction in a HO district. 3. Demolition in a HO district. As per TDC 18.32.020.D.2, 18.32.310.8, and 18.32.340, decisions made by the Committee may be reviewed by the Council when: 1. Appealed by a party to the decision. 2. Referred by either the Council or the Committee on its own motion prior to the effective date of the notice of decision. 3. Referred by the Committee when a case presents a policy issue which requires Council deliberation and determination. Decisions regarding the removal of a historic overlay district designation are made by the Council. (18.82.035) Removal is allowed in cases of error, resource elimination, or cessation of significance. Removal also is allowed in cases where the designation is causing the property owner to bear an unfair economic burden. Unfair burden refers to the cost of restoring and maintaining the property as a historic or cultural resource and does not address the loss of potential economic opportunity. //As per the City Attorney's office, the hearing is required to be v conducted under the normal procedures for quasi- judicial decision making. A copy of these is attached. An important item is that the Historic Overlay chapter of the community development code does not delineate who should chair the hearing. Therefore, the committee will need to select a chair at the beginning of the hearing. 18.32.160 Hearings Procedure A. B. Unless otherwise provided by the rules of procedure adopted by the Council, the approval authority shall have the authority to conduct a public hearing, and: 1. Determine who qualifies as a party; 2. Regulate the course, sequence and decorum of the hearing; 3. Dispose of procedural requirements or similar matters; 4. Rule on offers of proof and relevancy of evidence and testimony; 5. Impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and set reasonable time limits for oral presentation and rebuttal testimony; 6. Take such other action appropriate for conduct commensurate with the nature of the hearing; and 7. Approve or deny applications or approve with conditions pursuant to Section 18.32.250. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedure adopted by the Council, the approval authority shall conduct the hearing as follows: Revised 1/17/91 Page 60 C. Announce the nature and purpose of t rules hearing and summarize the conducting the hearing, and i proceeding is an initial evid ary hearing before the Hearings Officer, the Planning commis ion, or the City Council, make a statement that: a. Lists the applicable substantive criteria; b. States that testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, or to the other criteria in the Comprehensive Code or the Code which the person believes apply to the decision; c. States that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision -maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. 2. Recognize parties; 3. Request the Director to present the staff report, to explain any graphic or pictorial displays which are a part of the report, summarize the findings, recommendations and conditions, if any, and to provide such other information as may be requested by the approval authority; 4. Allow the applicant or a representative of the applicant to be heard; 5. Allow parties or witnesses in favor of the applicant's proposal to be heard; 6. Allow parties or witnesses in opposition to the applicant's proposal to be heard; 7. Upon failure of any party to appear, the approval authority shall take into consideration written material submitted by such party; 8. Allow the parties in favor of the proposal to offer rebuttal evidence and testimony limited to rebuttal of points raised. New testimony will not be heard; 9. Conclude the hearing by announcing officially the public hearing is closed; and 10. Make a decision pursuant to Section 18.32.250 or take the matter under advisement pursuant to Section 18.32.180. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedures adopted by the Council, the following rules shall apply to the general conduct of the hearing: 1. The approval authority may ask questions at any time before the close of the hearing, and the answers shall be limited to the substance of the question; 2. Parties or the Director must receive approval from the approving authority to submit questions directly to other parties or witnesses or the Director; Revised 1/17/91 Page 61 3. A reas 'le amount of time shall be gi o persons to respond to questi 4. No person shall testify without first receiving recognition from the approval authority and stating his full name and address; 5. The approval authority may require that testimony be under oath or affirmation; 6. Audience demonstrations such as applause, cheering and display of signs, or other conduct disruptive of the hearing shall not be permitted. Any such conduct may be cause for immediate suspension of the hearing; and 7. No person shall be disorderly, abusive, or disruptive of the orderly conduct of the hearing. (Ord. 90 -41; Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) STAFF REPORT - 1990 - 7:00 PM TIGARD HISTORIC SITES AND DISTRICTS COMMITTEE TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW HD 89 -01 REQUEST: A request for Historic District Review approval to allow for installation of two modular classroom buildings at the Durham Elementary School. The modular buildings will each contain two classrooms. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: R -12 12 /units /acre, Historic Public Institution APPLICANT: Tigard School Dist. 23J 13137 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 8040 SW Durham Road (WCTM 2S1 13B, Tax Lot 300) 2. Background Information On October 27, 1988, the Historic Sites and Districts Commitee and the Hearings Officer reviewed a proposal to construct a new classroom building on the southern portion of the site of the Durham Elementary School (CU 88 -08, HD 88 -01). Access to the new classroom building was to be developed from SW 85th Avenue through the Unified Sewerage Agency's Durham Road Wastewater Treatment Plant. The proposed expanded school use of the site included continued use of the two existing school buildings with no changes to those buildings or to the developed portion of the site. The proposal was approved subject to several conditions. The new classroom building was occupied in September, 1989. (HD (Residential, District). OWNERS cThgard 1 District Prior to that action, the City Council on August 22, 1988, approved 1) a plan amendment from Light Industrial to Public /Institutional for 2.89 acres of the adjacent STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DURHAM SCHOOL HD 898 -01 Page 1 • Hambach property and the 20 -foot wide accessway of the adjacent PGE property (CPA 88 -03); 2) a zone change from the I -L (Light Industrial) zone for those two properties as well as a zone change for the Durham School property from I -P (HD) (Industrial Park, Historic District overlay zone) to R -12 (HD) (Residential, 12 units /acre, Historic District overlay) (ZC 88 -08); and 3) a lot line adjustment which allowed combination of the 2.89 acre portion of the adjacent Hambach property with the Durham School property (M 88 -12) into the current configuration of tax lot 300. Prior to those applications, no other land use or development applications had been reviewed by the City regarding the Durham School property. The Comprehensive Plan, however, makes the following comments regarding the Durham School: "The Durham Elementary School was determined to be a significant historic structure. The school site includes 5.59 acres. Now part of the Tigard School District 23J, the durham School was erected in 1920. In 1951, an addition was added to the facility which now houses classes to the sixth grade. In addition, this school house is the only remaining institutional landmark in the southeastern portion of Tigard. Efforts are continuing to place the structure on the National Historic Register. The Comprehensive Plan Map indicates the site as Public /Institution. The designation would restrict conflicting uses on the site to public or institution, therefore, no other residential, commercial or industrial uses would be permitted on the site. The Community Development Code includes a Historic Overlay District (HD) which is placed on the school site property. This overlay district requires any development proposal to be reviewed in a public hearing. The standards within the Historic Overlay District chapter require that all changes with the district be compatible with the historic structure. The staff recommendation for this resource is to preserve the structure as historic and facilitate, if possible, placing the structure on the National Historic Register. An Historic Overlay District designation should be placed over the zoning." STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DURHAM SCHOOL HD 898 -01) Page 2 • • The City Council applied the Historic District overlay to the site as recommended. At present, the site has not been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Vicinity Information Properties north of Durham Road in the vicinity of the subject property are zoned R -12 (Residential, 12 units /acre) and contain single family residences. Properties to the east are used primarily for agricultural uses. A few single family residences are also located to the east. Parcels to the west are occupied by two residences, the Unified Sewerage Agency's wastewater treatment plant, and other industrial uses across SW 85th Avenue. Properties south of Durham Road other than the school property are zoned I -P (Industrial Park). Durham School is located on the south side of Durham Road, a two lane road functionally classified as an arterial street. Durham Road is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon State Highway Division between Hall Boulevard and Upper Boones Ferry Road. Access to the new classroom building, as well as to the proposed modular classroom buildings, is from a driveway and sidewalk across the wastewater treatment plant's grounds from SW 85th Avenue, just south of the Durham Road /Hall Boulevard intersection. SW 85th Avenue is functionally classified as a local industrial street. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description Tax lot 300 is occupied by the Durham Elementary School. --The school includes the original two -room school building constructed in 1920, an additional four - classroom building constructed in 1951, and the new school building constructed in 1989. The school district desires to expand the elementary school operations at this site through installation of two modular classroom buildings to be located separate from the existing buildings. The modular buildings are proposed to be located approximately 30 feet north of the new classroom building, between it and the older school buildings (See attached site plan and building elevation drawings). Development of a school within the R -12 zoning district requires Conditional Use approval by the Hearings Officer. Because the property is also designated with STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DURHAM SCHOOL HD 898 -01) Page 3 • • the HD (Historic District) overlay zone, the proposal for construction of a new structure on the site also requires Historic District review for conformance with the criteria of Code Section 18.82.040(e). B. HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW Code Section 18.82.040(e) requires that new construction within a Historic District be reviewed to ensure that the new construction will be compatible with existing structures and will not significantly affect the historic values of the district. The criteria to be used by the Historic Sites and Districts Committee in reaching a decision on a recommendation related to proposed new construction are the following: (1) The purpose of the Historic Overlay District as set forth in Section 18.82.010; (2) The provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; (3) The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; (4) The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; (5) The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture, and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure; and (6) Economic, social, environmental and energy consequences related to LCDC Goal #5. The plan for the Durham School expansion proposes that the additional modular classrooms be located to the south of the original historic school building to allow this building to remain the visually dominant structure on the site as viewed from Durham Road, the primary viewing point for the public. This dominancy is also enhanced by the original structure's location close to Durham Road. Separation of the buildings provides the opportunity for landscaping between the structures to provide for greater visual distinction of the original building. Additionally, the modular buildings will be earth tone in color, similar to the new school building, so as not to compete visually with the earlier buildings. These design considerations combine to minimize the potential impacts of the proposed modular buildings on the historic values embodied by the original school building. STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DURHAM SCHOOL HD 898 -01) Page 4 • • The Planning Division provides the following conclusions regarding the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of the proposed new development upon the historic values related to the site. These conclusions also relate to the other criteria of Code Section 18.82.040.I.3) and demonstrate that the purposes of the Historic District designation of the site will be upheld by the proposed expansion of the Durham School. - Allowing placement of the proposed modular classroom buildings helps the School District use the historic Durham School site for continued school purposes in an economical manner. Needing to provide classrooms at another location could constitute a significant economic hardship for the School District because of possible land acquisition and additional development costs that would not be necessary at the Durham School site. - Continuation of use of the historic school building along with the addition of classrooms at the site will further assure continued exposure of the site and its historic values to area citizens and visitors. Most significantly, students of the enlarged school will become better acquainted with the historic attributes of the site. - No environmental consequences are foreseen whether the modular buildings are placed on the site or not. - Energy consequences related are difficult to ascertain alternative school site(s) proposed modular classrooms at the Durham School site. C. RECOMMENDATION to the proposed development because it is unknown what might be necessary if the are not allowed to be built The Planning Division recommends that the Historic Sites and Districts Committee find that the proposal for expansion of Durham School through installation of two temporary modular classroom buildings conforms with the criteria for construction of new structures within the Historic District overlay district as noted in the preceding paragraphs. These findings should be forwarded to the Hearings Officer for consideration in the Conditional Use review of the proposed expansion of Durham School. The Committee should request that the Hearings Officer respect these findings in the Conditional Use review. The Committee should also request that the Hearings Officer consult with the Committee if revisions to the site plan are necessary STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DURHAM SCHOOL HD 898 -01) Page 5 • • which could potentially conflict with the historic values of the site. Prepared By: br /HD8901.jo Jerry Offer Development Review Planner STAFF REPORT HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DURHAM SCHOOL HD 898 -01) Page 6 • ',. CITY OT TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 06-07)- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.82 OF THE FIGARO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (CPA 14 -85). WHEREAS, the land Conservation and Development Commission acknowledged the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission has placed a condition on acknowledgment of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the condition placed on the City's acknowledgment is that the City ensure.the protection of sites designated as historic sites by the City; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18.81 of the Community Development Code sets forth requirements for sites within the City's Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, the. Tigard City Council reviewed proposed changes to Chapter 18.82 on January 13, 1986. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 18.82 of the Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its approved by the Council and signature of the Mayor. PASSED: By (-..k ha n vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 13T3 -, day of C ,., „r,,-e , 1986. APPROVED: This ) T1 (EAN:bs /2299P) ORDINANCE NO. 86-0P- Page 1 day of Loreen R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder John E. Cook, Mayor STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 4, 1986 - /::30 PM TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI 10865 S.W. WALNUT TIGARD, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Zone Change ZC 2 -86 AGENDA ITEM 5.4 REQUEST: A request by the City of Tigard to assign the Historic Overlay on the Zoning District Map to the following properties: it9440;Gra e �j�. T?`9s� seed,. a� o } Er Eden ore T g?rrSe�`' ey 4 d??t4 i 11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Joy Theatre - General Commercial Tigard Grange - General Commercial 'Tigard Feed and Garden Store - Central Business District Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill - Medium Density Seven Gables Upshaw House - Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: Joy Theatre - CG Tigard Grange - CG Tigard Feed and Seed - CBD Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill- R -12 Seven Gables Upshaw House - R -3.5 APPLICANT: City of Tigard 12755 SW Ash Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Joy Theatre.- J and Pauline Taggart Tigard Grange No. 148 Tigard Feed and Garden Store Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill - .Forrest Cowgill c/o Hebert L. Burns and Donna Flemmer Seven Gables Upshaw House - Mary Jane Fredricks c/o Dennis and Susan Reed STAFF REPORT - ZC 2 -86 - Page 1 LOCATION: Joy Theatre'- 11055 SW Pacific Highway (Wa. Co. Tax Map 181 35DD, Tax Lot 2700) Tigard Grange - 13770 SW Pacific Highway (Wa. Co. Tax Map 1S1 300, Tax Lot 600) Tigard Feed and Garden Store - 12355 SW Main Street (Wa. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2A8, Tax Lot 5400) Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill 10525 SW Tigard Street (Wa. Co. Tax Map 1S1 3400, Tax Lot 100) Seven Gables Upshaw House - 10520 SW 100th (Wa. Co. Tax Map 2S1 11BD, Tax Lot 1521) 2. Background During the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan process, 8 sites were identified as having significant historical value to the City. Late in 1984, the City placed the Historic District Overlay Designation on 3 sites, the Durham Elementary School, the John F. Tigard House and the Windmill at 121st and Katherine. Letters were mailed to the owners of the five additional sites regarding the designation of the Historic Overlay District on their properties. Those five sites are the subject of this application. At that time, the property owners of those sites indicated that they did not wish to have the historic overlay designation placed on their property. In October of 1984, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the Historic District Overlay designation be placed on property only with the property owner's consent. Further, the Planning Commission recommended that owners of property under consideration for the Historic District designation be encouraged to participate. On October 22, 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance 84 -62 which initiated an informal policy that the Council would place the Historic Overlay designation on sites only with the support of the property owner. In addition, the City Council adopted Chapter 18.82 to apply to all sites within the City's Urban Growth Boundary which are designated as historic sites. Chapter 18.82 required sites designated as historic to be reviewed by the Hearings Officer prior to demolition or exterior alteration of historic sites. There were specific criteria set forth in Chapter 18.82. for approval of demolition or exterior alteration of a historic site. On October 11, 1985, the Land Conservation and Development Commission acknowledged the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. There is, however, one remaining item which needs to be addressed as a condition of LCDC acknowledgment of the City's Plan. One of STAFF REPORT - ZC 2 -86 - Page 2 • the elements of Goal 5 (OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES) is to ensure the protection of sites designated as historic sites by the City. For identification purposes, the City of Tigard used information provided by the Washington County Museum" which conducted inventories to identify historic sites throughout Washington County. The five sites identified by the City and the County as having some historical significance have not been designated with the Historic District Overlay designation: On November 25, 1985, the City Council held a discussion regarding the Historic Overlay Designation. A "presentation was made by Mr. Dick Matthews, Director of the Washington County Museum. In order to comply with LCDC requirements, consensus of the City Council at that meeting was to modify Chapter 18.82 of the Community Development Code and to designate the remaining sites identified in the Comprehensive Plan as historic sites with the Historic .District Overlay. The City of Tigard Planning Staff prepared an ordinance which modifies Chapter 18.82 to make the requirements less stringent for owners of property designated with the historic district overlay. A copy of the ordinance is attached. There are two major changes to Chapter 18.82 with the adoption of Ordinance 86 -02. The first "change deletes the requirement that demolitions and exterior alterations be approved by the Hearings Officer and appoints the Historic Sites and Districts Committee to review demolitions and -- exterior alterations. This change removes the public hearing - requirement and allows the City to charge a minimal fee for the cost of these reviews. The second important change to Chapter 18.82 allows the City Council to remove the Historic District Overlay designation from a site so designated at any time under certain criteria. Those criteria are underlined on the bottom of page 2 of Ordinance 86 -02 attached. These major changes to Chapte 18.82 substantially alter the requirements placed on the owners of property designated with the Historic District Overlay and are intended to be as flexible as possible while ensuring the protection of the City's Historic resources. 3. Vicinity Information Joy Theater — The Joy Theatre is located on the north side of SW Pacific Highway. It is bordered on the west by SW 87th Avenue and on the north and east by Commercial General uses. Tigard Grange — The Tigard Grange is located on the south side of Pacific Highway. The Oddfellows Hall is to the northeast and Nelson Tire Warehouse lies to the southwest. The property to the east is zoned R -3.5 and is developed as residential. STAFF REPORT — ZC 2 -86 — Page 3 Tigard Feed and Garden Store - Tigard Feed and Garden Store is located on the north side of SW Main Street in the Central Business District. The property is bordered on the east by Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and on the west by SW Tigard Street. The Pacific Highway viaduct right —of --way borders the site on the north. Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill — The Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill property is located on the north side of SW Tigard Street. The Fanno Creek floodplain forms the eastern border of the property. Large lot residential uses lie to — the north and west of the property. Seven Gables Upshaw House — The Upshaw House is located to the east of SW 100th. Access to the house is provided off of 100th via a private access strip. It is surrounded by residential development on land zoned R -3.5. 4. Site Information The Joy Theatre — The theater is set back only a few feet from SW Pacific Highway. There -is a sidewalk between the theater and Pacific Highway. There are no setbacks between the theater and the adjacent buildings. Tigard Grange — There is a gravel access drive which encircles the building and gravel parking areas on both sides of the building. Large Oak trees border the rear lot line and the rest of the property is planted in lawn. Tigard Feed and Garden — There is a gravel parking lot between the front of the store and SW Main Street. A three foot loading dock is located behind the building. There are no landscaped areas on the site. Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill — The residence is surrounded by a well — tended lawn, hedges, flowers, fir, spruce, apple, filbert, pear, walnut and other fruit trees. One of the large walnut trees is plagued: "Black Walnut Tree rom the Field of Gettysburg ". The residence has been legally partitioned from the remaining property on which the windmill structure is located, Seven Gables Upshaw House — The property totals 3.6 acres and is land scaped with trees, shrubs, grass and flowers. A large western Red Cedar tree just east of the house was planted in circa 1919. 5. Agency and NPO Comments No written comments had been received at the writing of this report from any NPO's or agencies contacted. STAFF REPORT — ZC 2 -86 — Page 4 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION. The relevant: criteria in this case are City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 3.7.1, and Chapter 18.82 of the Community Development Code. The Planning staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization members and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Plan Policy 3.7.1. is satisfied because the sites under consideration were identified in Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as historically significant resources worthy of protection. The Planning staff has determined that this proposal is consistent with the purpose of Chapter 18.82.010 in that the designation of the Historic Overlay District on the five sites and the application of the requirements of Chapter 18.82 will assist the City in protecting a part of the history of the City of Tigard. C. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission assign the Historic District Overlay to the following sites: Joy Theatre Tigard Grange Tigard Feed and Garden Store Tigard Street Farmhouse and Windmill Seven Gables Upshaw House ( ,t1 c111 -1/l • / PREPARED BY: Ea 1/1 1/1 liza h Newton Senior Planner (EAN:br /2334P) STAFF REPORT — ZC 2 -86 — Page 5 APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan Director of Community Development • U U •111[1 1r• t • I ,t '4l f moot tA n. \ ff 3040$43 'If f ®n' / 44444 4400a AVE. p V[ NA f. soy AVE sot AVf. St 1! /4 ly 11; U rili 'Y /1: ST•TE z I j ? ;; r !!g !1 .ht w . /IT frr,, (177/-1 s Q p E 11 7U 711 • •f.� a.JJ. �.�� • � ( If11A0r P. © :0 ' =J r I l�> Off WASHINGT• COUNTY CULTURAL RESeRCE INVENTORY CITY OF TIGARD -' PRESENT OWNER: H- ORIGINAL OWNER:A1°ust Schubrin ARCHITECT/BUILDER: 12355 Main Street, Ti A. Johnson LOCATION: COMMON/HISTORIC NAME: /W. Biederman USE: PRESENT ORIGINAL Store Store and RESOURCE NO.: 25318f8 T 25 R 114 Sem2 1/4 AB TAX LOT #: s4 oo — CONDITION: CONSTRUCTION DATE:1924 Tigard Feed and Garden Store Fair Commercial: Business THEME: & Industry- TYPE Descrip' Zin of the resource and statement of historical significance: (Contir :: c on back if necessary) ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The Tigard Feed and Garden Store.edermanit 1924 operated by his partner Wilbur Bi gable roof covered with in plan, one and:one half stories r iectafromathe gable ridge. There is corrugated tin. A metal cupola p ] s an interior metal flue on the NE gable slope. The building is clad with tongue and groove siding, and finished with corner boards. In 1941 two additions were built onto the store. A one story, low pitched i::b roof is attached to the rear ePro lto•thenaddition, therethad beenealdrive story, flat roof attachment. pick ups. up ramp on this side to facilitate customer p P A shed roof porch, supported by three square posts, stretches across porch three quarters of the facade. on Side hi ged doublewdoors, each platform. One One of the entries having three wood panels and a single light. Another door has four lights and three panels. Track sliding doors are located on the east and west elevations. Fixed windows of three and six lights are seen throughout the building. The foundation is constructed of concrete piers and od.) Sources consulted: . Johnson, H. A. Interview, March 1984 . Moore, Mr. & Mrs. Robert. Interview, Ma . 1984 . Root, Neva. Telephone Interview, May . The Tigard Ties, June 30, 1974. Recorded by: McLaughlin /Demuth PRESENT OWNER'S ADDRESS (If different from above): Date: Ma 1984 • URAL DESCRIPTION (CON'T.) e feed and garden store is sited to the NW, off of Main Street, between -SW Tigard Street and several sets of railroad tracks. In front of the store is a gravel parking lot. A three foot loading dock is located behind the building, and Highway 99 passes above and behind the property. Other commercial buildings are sited along Main Street. ARCHITECTURAL & HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE Wilbur Biederman, built the In 1924 August Schubring and his partner and nephew, Tigard Feed and Garden Store as an adjunct to their existing grocery store on Main Street. As a graduate of the Oregon Agricultural College (now OSU), Biederman took responsibility for managing the feed store and Schubring continued to operate the grocery store. For twelve years Biederman used his technical knowledge to ground feed to order for his Tigard customers. In 1936 he and his family moved to Wisconsin leaving Schubring to operate the warehouse by himself. The feed and garden store was sold in the late 1930's to the partnership of Gray and Rasmussen. (For additional biographical information on Biederman and Schubring see form number 262/829. The feed store was moved forward to its current location to make room for the Highway 99 overpass during the Grey - Rasmussen ownership period. The overpass was constructed in 1939 -40. The Tigard Oregon Electric depot locatedointfront of the feed store, and the Portland Gas and Coke Company Warehouse, behind the store, were both razed at this time. According to Neva Root, long time resident of Tigard, it was during this time that the east facade of the store was used as a screen for showing outdoor motion pictures. After K. P. McLean purchased the store in 1941, he constructed the two additions, that gave the building its current appearance and size. The business was sold to the Harvest Milling Company in 1948, and then to the current owner, Hal Johnson, in 1954. Johnson's earlier experience of having served as a chief store keeper in the Navy, and in merchandising feed,were put to good use when he became owner of the feed store. Little has changed on either the interior or exterior of the building in keeping with Johnson's belief that modernization would cause the store to lose its identity. After nearly thirty years of successfully operating the Tigard Feed and Garden Store, his philosophy rings true. The store is significant to the City of Tigard in its association with the variety of colorful owners since constructed in 1924, and as the only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered. • • • DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITES CITY OF TIGARD Year Property /Address Tax Lot No. Designated '1 Durham Elementary School 8040 SW Durham St. 2S1 13B 300 1984 Built in 1920, the school is significant in its association with early Oregon pioneer and businessman Albert Durham. 2 John F. Tigard House 10310 SW Canterbury Ln. 2S1 11 BC 2600,2700 1984 Built in 1880, the house is one of two Tigard sites listed on the National Historic Register. John Tigard was the eldest son of Wilson Tigard, the founding father of Tigardville. John operated a coach route from Tigardville to Portland. The house is significant in its association with John and as an example of early frame construction. Ye -Olde Windmill 121st St. and Katherine St. 2S1 3BB 6500,10200 1984 Built in 1909 by Edward Christensen, the water tower stands as a visible testimonial to the surrounding land's original agricultural use and to the Wood - Christensen families who lived and farmed there. 4 Charles F. Tigard House 11180 SW Fonner St. 2S1 3 AC 1700 1984 Constructed in 1902, this is the second house occupied by Charles T. Tigard, the second son of Tigard's namesake. Charles established the area's first general store and was involved in other commercial activities. 5 Tigard Farmhouse and Windmill 10525 SW Tigard St. 1S1 34DD 100 /101 1986 Built in 1900's, the house is significant due to its association with the Cowgill family. Hal Cowgill, who • • purchased the property in 1936, was a long -time employee of Pacific Power and Light. The residence is one of the few bungalow farmhouses with a water tower still intact. 6 Tigard Feed- -and- - Seed_ __, 12355 SW Main St. 2S1 2AB 5400 Al 1986 Built in 1924, the building is significant in its association with a variety of colorful owners and as the only unaltered wood frame building on Main Street. 7 Joy Theater 11959 SW Pacific Hwy. 1S1 35DD 2700 1986 Constructed in 1939, the theater building is significant as an example of the Art Deco /Moderne Style. Substantial exterior alteration, approved by the City, occurred in 1992. The basic massing and style of the building was preserved and enhanced by the alterations. 8 Tigard Grange # 148 13770 SW Pacific Hwy. 2S1 3DD 600 1986 In continuous use since 1925, the building is an important landmark because it is representative of the efforts of early grange members, including Wilson Tigard. 9 Seven Gables Upshaw House 15020 SW 100th Ave. 2S1 11BD 1521 1986 The residence is significant in its association with the Upshaw family since 1909, when the Rev. William Loomis Upshaw retired to the house after serving as the minister of a north Portland church and became involved with the production and marketing of apples. 10 Gaarde House 11333 Gaarde Rd. 2S1 3DC 1700 1991 The house was built in 1922 by Hans Gaarde, the son of John Gaarde, who established a blacksmith shop in 1893 across the road from Charles Tigard's store. The house is one of the few remaining examples of the bungalow style with Craftsman • • detail. Its significance rests primarily on its association as a landmark of the Gaarde family's early presence in Tigard. *11 Shaver - Bilyeu House 16445 SW 92nd Avenue 2S1 1300 *1993 Constructed in 1906, the Shaver - Bilyeu House is the best surviving vernacular Queen Anne Cottage farm residence in the Durham community of Tigard. It is significant culturally due to its association with the Shaver family, who contribution to the formation of the local school district, and to its later association with J.C. Bilyeu, first postmaster of Tigard. [note: listed on the national but not the local registry] Hist /DR Address Neighborhood Resource Type Construction Type Architectural Style SHPO Period Zone Description 1995 Status Zoning Packalervice Building 121 N.W. Twenty-third Avenue Portland OR 97210 Northwest District Commercial Concrete with Brick Commercial The Progressive Era (1884 -1913) • CS Built in 1910, this two story brick building was designed in the 20th Century Commercial style. The building is flush with the sidewalk and is an integral part of the streetscape. It fronts both N.W. Westover and N.W. Twenty -third Avenue. The building has 15,470 sq. ft. and is on a 7,910 sq. ft. lot. The building is an excellent example of a 20th Century Commercial style building and an excellent example of materials, construction and artistic quality. Yes No ❑ E National Register Landmark Portland City Landmark Included in 1984 Inventory Year Listed Year Designated Rank II 1994 The site is zoned CS, Storefront Commercial. The CS zone is intended to preserve and enhance older commercial areas that have a storefront character. The zone allows a full range of retail, service and business uses with a local and regional market area. Industrial uses are allowed but are limited in size to avoid adverse effects different in kind or amount than commercial uses and to ensure that they do not dominate the character of the commercial area. Residential uses are allowed and may occupy the same building envelope as a commercial building. The desired character includes areas which are predominantly built -up, with buildings close to and oriented towards the sidewalk especially at the corners. Buildings with a storefront are encouraged. Uses allowed in the CS zone include Household Living, all commercial categories, except Quick Vehicle Servicing, Self- Service Storage, and all institutional categories except Basic Utilities and Community Service. The following uses are allowed on a limited basis or through the conditional use process in the CS zone: Group Living, Major Event Entertainment, Manufacturing and Production, Agriculture, Radio and TV Broadcasting Facilities and Rail Lines and Utility Corridors. Possible conflicts have been identified as: incompatible alterations to the site or building exterior, neglect, and demolition. 121 N.W. Twenty -third Avenue Economic The buill mg use is in compliance with the Port lan omprehensive Plan since Retail Consequences Sales and Services are allowed uses in the CS zone. The CS zone allows a FAR of 3:1 and additional floor area is allowed for additional residential development. However, all development; residential, mixed -use and non - residential, must meet the development standards for the zone such as height, setbacks and building coverage. The CS zone would allow a 23,730 sq. ft. building plus an additional 7,910 sq. ft. of residential development provided the building height did not exceed 45 feet. This would allow a 31,640 sq. ft. four story building on the site. In this case, the existing commercial building utilizes about 49% of the development potential of the site. The site is slightly underdeveloped. Historic protection would create adverse economic consequences. Historic protection does not preclude adding density to the site, however, it would be difficult to add density without substantially altering the historic character of the building and site. Social The urban environment of Portland's neighborhoods is enhanced by protecting Consequences historic resources. The Northwest District is a historical part of the City of Portland and has a fine collection of historic properties many of which are on the National Register of Historic Places. Protection of the Northwest District's individual properties enhances the historical qualities of the area. The building has architectural significance as an excellent example of the 20th Century Commercial style and as a good example of materials, construction and artistic quality. The Northwest District Policy Plan supports diversity of building uses to insure the economic stability of the neighborhood. While maintaining the residential quality of the neighborhood, the Northwest District Policy Plan recommends that provisions must be made to allow for expansion of existing nonresidential uses in the area of N.W. Twenty -first and Twenty -third Avenues. Protection of this resource supports this policy. Environmental Consequences Portland has completed a city -wide inventory of Goal 5 natural/open space resources. Significant environmental areas have been protected with the environmental overlay zone.The ESEE analysis in the Northwest Hills Natural Areas Protection Plan and the Balch Creek Watershed Protection Plan provided the foundation for the environmental zoning in the Northwest District. This site is not located in an environmental protection zone. Preservation of low density residential or commercial buildings in higher density zones causes pressure to expand the Urban Growth Boundary. There are adverse environmental consequences associated with the suburban sprawl caused by expanding the Urban Growth Boundary. There are some adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. 121 N.W. Twenty -third Avenue Energy The St•ransportation Planning Rule requires 41, zoning and planning actions Consequences which will lower the vehicle miles traveled per capita within urban areas. The Transportation Element of the Portland Comprehensive Plan complies with the state / rule by setting policy that prioritizes the funding and development of regional mass `_ transit systems and encouraging transit- oriented development along Major City Transit Streets and Regional Transitways. This location is on Northwest Twenty -third Avenue which is a major city transit street. The site is well served by transit. If the site was re- developed the cost of demolition and re- construction would require energy resources. Clearance of such a large building would consume a substantial amount of energy. Also, the energy initially spent to construct the building would be lost. Older structures such as this one, do not rate high as energy efficient structures. However, they can be retro- fitted to improve their energy efficiency. There are no significant energy consequences associated with protection of this resource. Summary Historic protection does create adverse economic consequences. The building use is in compliance with the Portland Comprehensive Plan, however, the building is only built to 49% of the site's maximum density. Historic protection does create adverse energy consequences since protection of the resource complies with the City's policies designed to meet the State Transportation Planning Rule by supporting the continued use of an established low density commercial use at a location that is well served by transit and where a higher density is allowed. The development of a high- density commercial project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. Historic protection does not create adverse social consequences. Social values are enhanced by the protection of historic resources. Protection of this resource reinforces the historic qualities of the area. Preservation of low density residential or commercial buildings in higher density zones causes pressure to expand the Urban Growth Boundary. There are adverse environmental consequences associated with the suburban sprawl caused by expanding the Urban Growth Boundary. There are some adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. The historic value of this resource outweighs any other conflicting values. This resource should be protected. BOP Comments Tentative BOP Historic Landmark Recommendation Tentative BOP Score 25 121 N.W. Twenty-third Avenue Designation Includes: Purpose of Designation NWDA N/A Recommendation NWDA Score N/A Mailing Address if different from above: Sncipal Building Material Color Building Interior Features Accessory Structures Landscape Features Site Charles Shafer 3190 N.W. Valle Vista Terrace Portland, OR 97210 Creation Date: June 6, 1995 121 N.W. Twenty -third Avenue • Address Neighborhood Resource Type Construction Type Architectural Style SHPO Period Zone Description 1995 Status Zoning Montgry Ward and Company 2741 N.W. Vaughn Street Portland OR 97210 Northwest District Commercial Reinforced concrete Utilitarian The Motor Age (1914 -1940) EXd The Mongomery Ward warehouse was built in 1922 on the site of the Lewis and Clark Exposition. The building is nine stories and made of reinforced concrete with industrial sash windows. The building was designed by W.H. McCaully of the Mongomery Ward Company. One of the building's prominent features is a massive steel framed sign which can be seen from a long distance. The building was redeveloped in 1985 and still has a commercial/ retail/ warehouse use. The building also has significance for its association with the Montgomery Ward Company, the nation's first mail -order merchandiser. Yes No O National Register Landmark O Portland City Landmark Year 0 Included in 1984 Inventory Year Listed 1985 Designated 1985 Rank II The site is zoned EX, central employment. The zone allows mixed -uses and is intended for areas in the center of the City that have predominantly industrial type development. The intent of the zone is to allow industrial, business, and service uses which need a central location. Residential uses are allowed, but are not intended to predominate or set development standards for other uses in the area. Other uses allowed outright include all commercial categories, except major event entertainment and commercial parking which requires a conditional use, and all institutional categories. In the industrial categories, all categories are allowed except railroad yards and waste - related uses which are prohibited. Agriculture and rail lines and utility corridors are allowed by right. Aviation and surface passenger terminals, detention facilities, radio and TV broadcasting facilities are also allowed on a limited basis or through the conditional use process. The Portland Comprehensive Plan required that the EX zone be accompanied by the "d" design overlay zone. The "d" is intended to allow new development which is similar in character to existing development. Possible conflicts have been identified as: incompatible alterations to the site or building exterior, neglect, and demolition. The "d" design overlay addresses these issues by requiring demolition delay and design review on most exterior alterations. 2741 N.W. Vaughn Street Economic Historic protection does not create adverse econo c conditions. The EX zone Consequences would allow a 1,445,422 sq. ft. building on this site since the EX zone allows a maximum FAR of 3:1. The existing building has 728,910 sq. ft. The site is developed to 50% of the maximum denstiy allowed by the EX zone. Social The urban environment of Portland's neighborhoods is enhanced by protecting Consequences historic resources. The Northwest District is a historical part of the City of Portland and has a fine collection of historic properties many of which are on the National Register of Historic Places. Protection of the Northwest District's individual properties enhances the historical qualities of the area. The building has architectural significance as an excellent example of the 20th Century concrete Utilitarian style and as an excellent example of materials, construction and artistic quality. The building also has significance for its association with the Montgomery Ward Company, the nation's first mail -order merchandiser. One of the building's prominent features is a massive steel framed sign which can be seen from a long distance and makes the building very conspicuous in the landscape of the City of Portland. Environmental Consequences Portland has completed a city -wide inventory of Goal 5 natural/open space resources. Significant environmental areas have been protected with the environmental overlay zone.The ESEE analysis in the Northwest Hills Natural Areas Protection Plan and the Balch Creek Watershed Protection Plan provided the foundation for the environmental zoning in the Northwest District. This site is not located in an environmental protection zone. There are no adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. 2741 N.W. Vaughn Street Energy The St•ransportation Planning Rule requires zoning and planning actions Consequences which will lower the vehicle miles traveled per capita within urban areas. The Transportation Element of the Portland Comprehensive Plan complies with the state rule by setting policy that prioritizes the funding and development of regional mass transit systems and encouraging transit - oriented development along Major City Transit Streets and Regional Transitways. This location is on Northwest Vaughn Street which is a transit street. The site is well served by transit. If the site was re- developed the cost of demolition and re- construction would require energy resources. Clearance of such a large building would consume a substantial amount of energy. Also, the energy initially spent to construct the building would be lost. Older structures such as this one, do not rate high as energy efficient structures. However, they can be retro - fitted to improve their energy efficiency. There are no significant energy consequences associated with protection of this resource. Summary Historic protection does not create adverse economic consequences. The building use is in compliance with the Portland Comprehensive Plan and the building is built to 50% of the site's maximum density. Historic protection does create adverse energy consequences since protection of the resource complies with the City's policies designed to meet the State Transportation Planning Rule by supporting the continued use of an established low density commercial use at a location that is well served by transit and where a higher density is allowed. The development of a high - density commercial project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. Historic protection does not create adverse social consequences. Social values are enhanced by the protection of historic resources. Protection of this resource reinforces the historic qualities of the area. There are no adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. The historic value of this resource outweighs any other conflicting values. This resource should be protected. BOP Comments Tentative BOP Historic Landmark Recommendation Tentative BOP Score 34 2741 N.W. Vaughn Street Designation Includes: Purpose of Designation NWDA Recommendation NWDA Score Mailing Address if different from above: B •ncipal Building O Material Color O Building Interior Features ❑ Accessory Structures ❑ Landscape Features ❑ Site N/A N/A Norwest China Company 55 West Burnside Street Portland, OR 97209 Creation Date: June 2, 1995 2741 N.W. Vaughn Street • Address 2076 • Neighborhood Resource Construction Architectural Type Type Style SHPO Period Zone Description 1995 Status Zoning • N.W. Marshall Street Portland OR 97209 Northwest District Commercial Brick Commercial The Motor Age (1914 -1940) RH Built in 1926, this one story brick commercial building was designed in the Stripped Classical style by architect Chappell P. Browne. The building is an intact example of a service station/ garage. The building is a good example of the style and a good example of materials, construction and artistic quality. Yes No E National Register Landmark © Portland City Landmark El Included in 1984 Inventory Year Listed Year Designated Rank Not significant The site is zoned RH, a high density multifamily residential zone. The RH zone has a minimum density of 1 unit per 1,000 sq. ft. of site area and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 4:1 in this part of the Northwest District neighborhood. Generally the density will range from 80 to 125 units per acre. The major types of new housing development will be low, medium, and high -rise apartments and condominiums. Generally, RH zones will be well served by transit facilities or be near areas with supportive commercial services. Household Living and Parks and Open Space are the only use categories allowed by right. The following use categories are allowed in residential zones if they comply with the conditional use approval criteria, the development standards and other Title 33 regulations that may apply: Group Living, Retail Sales and Service, Offices, Basic Utilities, Community Service, Schools, Colleges, Medical Centers, Religious Institutions, Daycare, Radio and TV Broadcasting Facilities and Railroad Lines and Utility Corridors. Possible conflicts have been identified as: incompatible alterations to the site or building exterior, neglect, and demolition. 2076 N.W. Marshall Street Economic Histori otection does cause adverse economic sequences. The RH zone would Consequences allow a maximum FAR on this site of 4:1 and the existing building is built to an FAR of only 1:1. Vehicle Repair is a prohibited use in the RH zone. The building was constructed and the nonconforming use was established before the RH zoning was applied to the site. Historic protection does not affect the building's nonconforming status. Social The urban environment of Portland's neighborhoods is enhanced by protecting Consequences historic resources. The Northwest District is a historical part of the City of Portland and has a fine collection of historic properties many of which are on the National Register of Historic Places. Protection of the Northwest District's individual properties enhances the historical qualities of the area. The building has architectural significance as a good example of the 20th Century Commercial style and as a good example of materials, construction and artistic quality. The Northwest District Policy Plan supports diversity of building uses to insure the economic stability of the neighborhood. While maintaining the residential quality of the neighborhood, the Northwest District Policy Plan recommends that provisions must be made to allow for expansion of existing nonresidential uses in the area of N.W. Twenty -first and Twenty-third Avenues. Protection of this resource supports this policy. Environmental Portland has completed a city -wide inventory of Goal 5 natural/open space resources. Consequences Significant environmental areas have been protected with the environmental overlay zone.The ESEE analysis in the Northwest Hills Natural Areas Protection Plan and the Balch Creek Watershed Protection Plan provided the foundation for the environmental zoning in the Northwest District. This site is not located in an environmental protection zone. Preservation of low density residential or commercial buildings in higher density zones causes pressure to expand the Urban Growth Boundary. There are adverse environmental consequences associated with the suburban sprawl caused by expanding the Urban Growth Boundary. There are some adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. 2076 N.W. Marshall Street Energy The Stransportation Planning Rule requires 1 zoning and planning actions Consequences which will lower the number of per capita vehicle miles traveled within urban areas. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan complies with the state rule by setting policy that prioritizes the funding and development of regional mass transit systems and encouraging transit - oriented development along Major City Transit Streets and Regional Transit -ways. This property is well served by transit. It is located within one - quarter mile of N.W. Twenty -first Avenue which is a major city transit street. Protection of this resource complies with the State Transportation Planning Rule by supporting the continued use of good housing stock in Portland's inner city residential neighborhoods. By providing housing in the city, the pressure to build housing outside the urban area is reduced. Vehicle miles traveled per capita are reduced when more people live and work close to the central city. However, the development of a high- density residential project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. If the site was re- developed the cost of demolition and re- construction would require energy resources. Also, the energy initially spent to construct the building would be lost. Older structures such as this one, do not rate high as energy efficient structures. However, they can be retrofitted to improve their energy efficiency. There are some adverse energy consequences associated with protection of this resource. Summary Historic protection would create adverse economic consequences. The building use is in compliance with the Portland Comprehensive Plan, however, the building is only built to about 12% of the site's potential maximum density. The site is significantly underutilized. Historic protection does create adverse energy consequences since protection of the resource complies with the City's policies designed to meet the State Transportation Planning Rule by supporting the continued use of an established low density commercial use at a location that is well served by transit and where a higher density is allowed. The development of a high- density commercial project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. Historic protection does not create adverse social consequences. Social values are enhanced by the protection of historic resources. Protection of this resource reinforces the historic qualities of the area. Preservation of low density residential or commercial buildings in higher density zones causes pressure to expand the Urban Growth Boundary.There are adverse environmental consequences associated with the urban sprawl caused by expanding the Urban Growth Boundary. There are some adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. BOP Comments Tentative BOP No Protection Recommendation Tentative BOP Score 12 2076 N.W. Marshall Street Designation Includes: Purpose of Designation NWDA N/A Recommendation NWDA Score N/A P•pal Building Material Color Accessory Structures Building Interior Features Landscape Features Site Mailing Address Dean Muckle if different 2062 NW Marshall Street from above: Portland, OR 97209 Creation Date: May 17, 1995 2076 N.W. Marshall Street • Address 916 • Neighborhood Resource Type Construction Type Architectural Style SHPO Period Zone Description 1995 Status Zoning • N.W. Twenty -first Avenue Portland OR 97209 Northwest District Commercial Masonry Bearing Wall 20th. Century Commercial The Motor Age (1914 -1940) CS Built in 1929, this one story brick building has 2,000 sq. ft. and is on a 2,000 sq. ft. lot. The building is flush with the sidewalk and is an integral part of the streetscape. The building is compatible with dominant commercial/ residential character of the area. The building is an excellent example of a 20th Century commercial style building of the Motor Age and as an excellent example of materials, construction and artistic quality. Yes No National Register Landmark Year Listed Portland City Landmark Year Designated EIncluded in 1984 Inventory Rank The site is zoned CS, Storefront Commercial. The CS zone is intended to preserve and enhance older commercial areas that have a storefront character. The zone allows a full range of retail, service and business uses with a local and regional market area. Industrial uses are allowed but are limited in size to avoid adverse effects different in kind or amount than commercial uses and to ensure that they do not dominate the character of the commercial area. Residential uses are allowed and may occupy the same building envelope as a commercial building. The desired character includes areas which are predominantly built -up, with buildings close to and oriented towards the sidewalk especially at the corners. Buildings with a storefront are encouraged. Uses allowed in the CS zone include Household Living, all commercial categories, except Quick Vehicle Servicing, Self - Service Storage, and all institutional categories except Basic Utilities and Community Service. The following uses are allowed on a limited basis or through the conditional use process in the CS zone: Group Living, Major Event Entertainment, Manufacturing and Production, Agriculture, Radio and TV Broadcasting Facilities and Rail Lines and Utility Corridors. Possible conflicts have been identified as: incompatible alterations to the site or building exterior, neglect, and demolition. 916 N.W. Twenty -first Avenue Economic The bg use is in compliance with the Portlaomprehensive Plan since Retail Consequences Sales and Services are allowed uses in the CS zone. The CS zone allows a FAR of 3:1 and additional floor area is allowed for additional residential development. However, all development; residential, mixed -use and non - residential, must meet the development standards for the zone such as height, setbacks and building coverage. The CS zone would allow a 6,000 sq. ft. building plus an additional 2,000 sq. ft. of residential development provided the building height did not exceed 45 feet. This would allow an 8,000 sq. ft. four story building on the site. In this case, the existing commercial building utilizes about 25% of the development potential of the site. The site is significantly underdeveloped. Historic protection would create adverse economic consequences. Historic protection does not preclude adding density to the site, however, it would be difficult to add density without substantially altering the historic character of the building and site. Social The urban environment of Portland's neighborhoods is enhanced by protecting Consequences historic resources. The Northwest District is a historical part of the City of Portland and has a fine collection of historic properties many of which are on the National Register of Historic Places. Protection of the Northwest District's individual properties enhances the historical qualities of the area. The building has architectural significance as an excellent example of the 20th Century Commercial style and as an excellent example of materials, construction and artistic quality. The Northwest District Policy Plan supports diversity of building uses to insure the economic stability of the neighborhood. While maintaining the residential quality of the neighborhood, the Northwest District Policy Plan recommends that provisions must be made to allow for expansion of existing nonresidential uses in the area of N.W. Twenty -first and Twenty -third Avenues. Protection of this resource supports this policy. Environmental Portland has completed a city -wide inventory of Goal 5 natural/open space resources. Consequences Significant environmental areas have been protected with the environmental overlay zone.The ESEE analysis in the Northwest Hills Natural Areas Protection Plan and the Balch Creek Watershed Protection Plan provided the foundation for the environmental zoning in the Northwest District: This site is not located in an environmental protection zone. Preservation of low density residential or commercial buildings in higher density zones causes pressure to expand the Urban Growth Boundary. There are adverse environmental consequences associated with the suburban sprawl caused by expanding the Urban Growth Boundary. There are some adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. 916 N.W. Twenty -first Avenue Energy The St'ransportation Planning Rule requires zoning and planning actions Consequences which will lower the number of per capita vehicle miles traveled within urban areas. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan complies with the state rule by setting policy that prioritizes the funding and development of regional mass transit systems and encouraging transit - oriented development along Major City Transit Streets and Regional Transit -ways. This property is well served by transit. It is located on N.W. Twenty -first Avenue which is a major city transit street. Protection of this resource complies with the State Transportation Planning Rule by supporting the continued use of good housing stock in Portland's inner city residential neighborhoods. By providing housing in the city, the pressure to build housing outside the urban area is reduced. Vehicle miles traveled per capita are reduced when more people live and work close to the central city. However, the development of a high- density residential project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. If the site was re- developed the cost of demolition and re- construction would require energy resources. Also, the energy initially spent to construct the building would be lost. Older structures such as this one, do not rate high as energy efficient structures. However, they can be retrofitted to improve their energy efficiency. There are some adverse energy consequences associated with protection of this resource. Summary Historic protection would create adverse economic consequences. The building use is in compliance with the Portland Comprehensive Plan, however, the building is only built to about 25% of the site's potential maximum density. The site is significantly underutilized. Historic protection does create adverse energy consequences since protection of the resource conflicts with the City's policies designed to meet the State Transportation Planning Rule by supporting the continued use of an established low density commercial use at a location that is well served by transit and where a higher density is allowed. The development of a high- density commercial project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. Historic protection does not create adverse social consequences. Social values are enhanced by the protection of historic resources. Protection of this resource reinforces the historic qualities of the area. Preservation of low density residential or commercial buildings in higher density zones causes pressure to expand the Urban Growth Boundary.There are adverse environmental consequences associated with the urban sprawl caused by expanding the Urban Growth Boundary. There are some adverse environmental consequences associated with protection of this resource. The historic value of this resource outweighs any other conflicting value. This resource should be protected. BOP Comments Tentative BOP Conservation Landmark Recommendation Tentative BOP Score 18 916 N.W. Twenty -first Avenue • Designation Includes: © Pi pal Building • Material Color ❑ Accessory Structures Building Interior Features Landscape Features Site Purpose of Designation NWDA N/A Recommendation NWDA Score N/A Mailing Address if different from above: Creation Date: April 6, 1995 916 N.W. Twenty -first Avenue • THE CITY SHALL PRESERVE THE KALLSTROM FIR GROVE ON SW 100TH AVENUE. a. ANY DEVELOPMENT ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SITE ON WHICH THE TREES ARE LOCATED SHALL INCORPORATE THE FIR GROVE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. b. A DENSITY TRANSFER SHALL BE PERMITTED IN LIEU OF DESTROYING THE TREES. S. Tigard Farmhouse and Windmill The Washington County Museum has performed a cultural resource inventory on the Tigard Farmhouse and Windmill and determined that it is a significant resource, due to its association with the Cowgill family for many years. It is also one of the few bungalow farmhouses remaining with a watertower still intact on the property. The house was constructed in the early 1900s. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the resource is Medium Density Residential (6 - 12 units per acre) with an underlying zoning of R -12 (Multiple Family). The land use designation could be a potential problem related to land values and the feasibility of keeping the single family farmhouse and windmill structures amongst higher density development. In 1982, the owner of the site partitioned off the farmhouse and windmill from the remaining 10 acres; thus somewhat deterring extensive development of the resource. In addition, it is possible to integrate the farmhouse and windmill architecture into any development proposal. This would be accomplished via the Planning Development (PD) process. In order to protect this resource,;the City approached the property owners, Herb Burns and Donna Flemmer, about assigning an Historic District Overlay to the property. The owners have indicated to the City that they are not interested in the Historic Overlay District for the property at this time. It is the City Council's policy not to place the Historic Overlay District designation on a site without the support of the property owner. (Rev. Ord. 84 -62) T. Tigard Feed and Seed The Washington County Museum has completed a cultural resource inventory on Tigard Feed and Seed. The store is not determined to be historically significant but is significant to the City of Tigard in its association with the variety of colorful owners since it's construction in 1924. The store is the only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered. The Comprehensive Plan designated the site as Central Business District (CBD) with the same underlying zoning district. In addition, this site falls within the Tigard Urban Revitalization Area which is currently the subject of a revitalization effort. • Even though the store is not considered historically significant, the owner was contacted about assigning an Historic District Overlay to the site. The owner, H.A. Johnson, was interested, however, Mr. Johnson owns only the building. The land is owned by Southern Pacific. The Land Development Manager at Southern Pacific indicated that Southern Pacific usually resists assigning Historic Overlays to their property. It is the City Council's policy not to place the Historic District Overlay designation on a site without the support of the property owner. In addition, since the site has not been determined to be historically significant, the Historic District Overlay designation may not be appropriate on this site. (Rev. Ord. 84 -62) 1 • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.82. HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT. 18.82.010 18.82.015 18.82.020 18.82.030 18.82.035 18.82.040 18.82.050 18.82.060 18.82.070 18.82.080 18.82.090 18.82.100 18.82.110 Purpose. Applicability of Provisions and Initiation. Administration and Approval Process: Application for District: Demolition of Structure. Criteria for Historic Overlay District Designation. Criteria for Removal of Historic Overlay District Designation. Criteria for Exterior Alteration and New Construction Criteria. Criteria for Demolition. Application Submission Requirements. The Site Plan. Architectural Drawings. Landscape Plan. Sign Drawings. Additional Required and Requirements. Information Waiver of 18.82.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Implement the comprehensive plan; 2. Effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of such improvements and of districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history; 3. Safeguard the City's historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and districts; 4. Complement any registered historic or cultural areas designated in the City; 5. Stabilize and improve property values in such districts; 18 -82 -1 6. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past; 7. Protect and enhance the City's attractions to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to business and industry thereby provided; 8. Strengthen the economy of the City; 9. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure, energy conservation, housing, and public welfare of the City; and 10. Carry out the provisions of LCDC Goal No. 5. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.015 Applicability of Provisions and Initiation. A. The historic overlay district shall apply to the following: 1. Historic sites and areas, Section 18.82.030; 2. Cultural sites and areas, Section 18.82.030; and 3. Landmarks, Section 18.82.030. B. The provisions of this chapter apply to: 1. The demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, Section 18.82.050; and 2. The exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, Section 18.82.040. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.020 Administration and Approval Process: Application for District: Demolition of Structure. A. The_ applicant for an historic overlay district designation shall be as provided by Section 18.32.020; however, application for a demolition Reformatted 1994 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE permit, or for new construction, or for alteration to an existing structure shall be submitted by the record owner of the property or an agent ,authorized in writing by the owner. \ B. A preapplication conference with City staff is required. (See Section 18.32.040.) C. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is valid not more that six months: 1. Another preapplication conference is required if any application is submitted more than six months after the preapplication conference; and 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standards, criteria or requirements of the applications. D. The Historic Sites and Districts Committee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application filed under the provisions of this chapter. The Historic Sites and Districts Committee shall apply the standards set forth in Sections 18.82.030, 18.82.040 or 18.82.050 as appropriate, when reviewing an application. 1. The ,,Historic • -- Sites- and -Districts\ Committee shall consist of_ one- City - Councilor,. one -, Commission - member- and" _one planning staff member, and be appointed each time service is required; and 2. Decisions of the Historic Sites and Districts Committee shall be made in a public meeting, notice of which has been posted at least five days prior to the meeting. E. The decision of the Historic Sites and Districts Committee may be reviewed by the City Council in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.B. 18 -82 -2 F. The Director shall mail notice of any application to the persons who have a right to receive notice of a hearing before the Historic Sites and Districts Committee in accordance with Section 18.32.130. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 86 -02; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.030 Criteria for Historic Overlay District Designation. A. Approval of an historic overlay district designation shall be made when the Historic Sites and Districts Committee finds that any of the following criteria have been met: 1. The proposed district or landmark would serve the purpose of the historic overlay district as stated in Section 18.82.010, Purpose; 2. The site or 'area proposed for the designation reflects the broad cultural or natural history of the community, state, or nation; 3. The site or area is identified with historic personages, or with important events in national, state, or local history; 4. The site or area proposed for the designation embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural specimen inherently valuable for a study of a period, style, or method of construction; or 5. The proposed site or area is a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect. B. The age of a specific building is not sufficient in itself to warrant designation as historic. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 86 -02; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.035 Criteria for Removal of Historic Overlay District Designation. A. Removal of an historic overlay district_ designation shall be made when the-City Council `t finds that any -of -the following - criteria have been me } Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1. The original historic overlay district designation was placed on the site in error; 2. The resource designated with the historic overlay district designation has ceased to exist; 3. The resource designated with the historic overlay district designation is no longer of significance to the public; or 4. _\ The historic overlay district designation is_causing the property owner to bear an unfair ;economic burden to maintain the property . as an historic or cultural resource. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 86- 02) 18.82.040 Criteria for Exterior Alteration and New Construction Criteria. A. Except as provided pursuant to Subsection 18.82.040.E, no person shall alter any structure in an historic overlay district in a manner as to affect its exterior appearance, nor may any new structure be constructed in an historic district unless approved by the Historic Sites and Districts Committee. B. Exterior remodeling, as governed by this chapter, shall include any change or alteration in design or other exterior treatment excluding painting. C. For exterior alterations of structures in an historic overlay district, the criteria to be used by the Historic Sites and Districts Committee in reaching the decision shall include the following: 1. The purpose of the historic overlay district as set forth in Section 18.82.010; 2. The provisions of the Tigard comprehensive plan; 3. The economic use of the structure in a historic overlay district and the reasonableness of the proposed alteration and their relationship to 18 -82 -3 the public interest in the structure's or landmark's preservation or renovation; 4. The value and significance of the structure or landmark in an historic overlay district; 5. The physical condition of the structure or landmark in an historic overlay district; 6. The general compatibility of exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture, and materials proposed to be used with an existing structure in an historic overlay district; 7. Pertinent aesthetic factors as designated by the Hearings Officer; and 8. Economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences related to LCDC Goal No. 5. D. If alteration of the historic resource is intended, a condition of approval shall be that insofar as feasible and as funds are available, the Washington County Museum shall obtain: 1. A pictorial and graphic history of the resource; and 2. Artifacts from the resource it deems worthy of preservation. E. For construction of new structures in an historic overlay district, the criteria to be used by the Historic Sites and Districts Committee in reaching the decision shall include the following: 1. The purpose of the historic overlay district as set forth in Section 18.82.010; 2. The provisions of the Tigard comprehensive plan; 3. The economic effect of the new structure on the historic value of the district; Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 4. The visual effect of the proposed new structure on the architectural character of the district; 5. The general compatibility of the exterior design, arrangement, proportion, detail, scale, color, texture, and materials proposed to be used in the construction of the new building or structure; and 6. Economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences related to LCDC Goal No. 5. F. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any architectural features which do not involve a change in design, material or the outward appearance of such feature which the Building Official shall certify is required for the public safety because of its unsafe or dangerous condition. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 86 -02; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.050 c- Criteria for Demolition: �A -No person shall demolish a structure located,. - n within "historic overlay district unless it is, ,approved- under- the-provisioris- of'this chapter.:. B. In determining the decision regarding a requested demolition permit, the Historic Sites and Districts Committee shall consider the following criteria: 1. The Tigard-comprehensiveplan; 2. The purpose of this chapter as set forth ,in- Section 18.82.010;- 3. The criteria used in the original designation of the district in which the property under consideration is situated; 4. The historical and a dutectural- style,_the general design, arrangement, materials of the structure in question, or its appurtenant fixtures; the relationship of such features to similar features of the other buildings within the district, and the position of the building or structure m 18 -82-4 relation to public rights -of -way, and to other buildings and structures in the area; 5. The effects of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of the district which cause it to possess a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value; 6. c-1Alhether denial— of= the_permit_ will subject the City to potential liability, tinuol-Ve> csubstantial _hardship =to= the_ applicant; and whether issuance of the permit would act to the substantial detriment of the public welfare and would be contrary to the intent and purposes of this title; and 7. (-The economic, social, environmental and energy consequences related to LCDC -Goal No. 5.' _ C. If demolition of the historic resource is intended, a condition of approval shall be that insofar as feasible and as funds are available, the Washington County Museum shall obtain: 1. { Al-pictorial and graphic history of -the cresoutte; and 2. Artifacts —from the resource it deems --- worthy of preservation. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord:- 86 -02; Ord.- 83 =52) -- 18.82.060 Application Requirements. Submission A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: 1. Five copies of the historic overlay district, exterior alteration, new construction or rdemolition -site lan(s and necessary data or narrative which explains how the proposal conforms to the standards: Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE a. Sheet size for the proposed site plan and required drawings shall preferably not exceed 18 inches by 24 inches; and b. The scale of the site plan shall be an engineering scale; and c. All drawings of structure elevations shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4 inch or 1/8 inch; 2. A list of the names and addresses of all who are property owners of record within 30 days before the application and whose property is within SAdeet . e site; and The required fee. B. The required information may be combined and does not have to be placed on separate maps. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 86 -02; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.070 The Site Plan. A. The proposed historic overlay district plan shall include the following information: 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties; 2. The location, dimensions, and names of all existing streets; 3. The location and dimension of: a. Entrances and exits on the site; b. Parking and circulation areas; c. Loading and services areas; d. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation; e. Outdoor common areas; f. Above ground utilities; and g. Existing landscaping; 18 -82 -5 4. The location, dimensions, and setback distances of all: a. Existing structures, improvements, and utilities which are located within 25 feet of the sites and are on adjoining property; and b. Proposed structures, improvements, Landscaping and utilities on the site. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.080 Architectural Drawings. A. The historical overlay district plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures existing and proposed for use on -site; and 2. Elevation drawings of each proposed structure and elevation drawings or photographs of each existing structure. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.090 Landscape Plan. A. The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale as the site plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Location and height of fences, buffers, and screenings; 2. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, and common open spaces; and 3. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials. (Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 83 -52) 18.82.100 Sign Drawings. A. Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52) Reformatted 1994 • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.82.110 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements. A. The Director may require information in addition to that required by this chapter in accordance with Subsection 18.32.080.A. B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information in accordance with Subsections 18.32.080.B and C. (Ord. 89 -06; Ord. 83 -52)■ 18-82-6 Reformatted 1994 12/31/1998 9:38 am Doc. Ref. Item Action Date Ref. Code Brief Description PLG 9/24/1996 ZC ZON 96 -0006 Ret Code -182 File Ref #....- Cont- Security Class - Exp - Referred to...- sIIY OF fIrAWi Clerks Index for Windows Search Cross - Reference /Keyword Report Keywords Page: 1 ZON 96 -0006 REMOVE TIGARD HISTORIC FEED STORE OVERLAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MAIN STREET, 12355 CPA 96 -0007, MIS 96 -18 1 Items Printed User ID: RECORDETTE • NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL /DENIAL This form must be mailed to DLCD as required by OAR 660- 18-040 Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File # MIS 95 -0018 Changed to DON 96 -0006 Date Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD 8/9/96 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Land Use Regulation Amendment x Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Regulation Summary of Proposed Action (Write a brief description of the proposed action.) A request to remove the historic overlay designation of the Tigard Feed and Garden building located at 12420 SW Main (2S12AB 5400) This Proposal Was: x Withdrawn Local Contact: Duane Roberts Phone: 639 -4171 Denied Address: 13125 SW Hall, Tigard, OR 97223 Send this form to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 -0590 DLCD File # DLCD Field Representative c.• N w N 0 v w 0. E : • • P[,Ama% DIVISION/ 7'J Y/01/1-Ail Z 4,63 2°51 392 us Postal Service ei Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse) DEPT OF LAND CONSERVATION & DEV 1175 COURT STREET NE SALEM OR 97310 -0590 ou I rnr-I a Q- 0 0 01 co O CO C31 u_ a V Postage $ 300 Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee •� L Retum Receipt Sho rat Whom & Date Deily red Retum Receipt Showing . , Date, & Addressee's TOTAL Postage & Fee Postmark or Date • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL .vN %(U- 01 o Agenda Item No. 3, MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Meeting of 1 DkQa jQCL • STUDY SESSION • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt. • Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. • Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Acting City Engineer Greg Berry; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Administrative Analyst Loreen Mills; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. • Discussion of Annexation Analysis Option for the Walnut Island Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the staff report describing four options available to Council. He mentioned that this issue came to the Council as a result of septic tank problems on James Street. He reviewed the methods of annexation available: double majority, island, and health hazard. He noted on a map where the problem was located. Mr. Hendryx explained Option A, a cherry stem annexation, involving only "Area A." The Council could direct staff to initiate an island annexation or to request the neighbors to request a double majority annexation. Mr. Hendryx explained Option B which involved a larger area of 49 acres with just under 100 parcels (all the developed land west of SW 121st). He commented that with a larger group, an island annexation by the City might meet more opposition from those uninterested in annexation. He recommended having a financing plan in place to extend the sewer and pointed out that they could make a good case for annexing a subdivision that already had sanitary sewer. Mr. Hendryx explained Option C, the alternative of annexing the entire Walnut island (225 acres with 441 lots of varying sizes and development). He said that the critical factor in an island annexation was proving that the City had a plan in place and the capacity to meet a specific need; with this size of annexation, doing so would be a challenge to the City. Mr. Hendryx explained Option D, a modification of Option C to delay annexation of the large undeveloped parcels until they developed. Acting City Engineer Greg Berry commented that the cost estimates in the staff report were the overall costs that could be expected; they did not include any potential challenges. Mr. Hendryx noted the estimated costs for each annexation: Option A - $600,000; Option B - $860,000; and Option C - $3,900,000. Finance Director Wayne Lowry noted that the revenue expenditures were based on an update of the 1993 assumptions which had included a review of the storm water system. He said that the cost of dealing with the lack of a storm water system in the area would outweigh the revenues received from the area for quite some time. He said that the general fund expenditure of providing police protection was pretty equal to the revenues received. Mr. Hendryx recommended going with either Option A or B, both of which would meet the James Street neighborhood's immediate needs. Council President Hunt expressed concern that City sewer fund money would be used to pay for this extension to those who have not been paying City taxes. He noted that citizens who have been paying City taxes were in need of sewer extensions also. He supported an LID where those receiving the extension paid for it. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 1 • • Mr. Berry said that all the options were open, and that with the larger parcels in Option C, the developers might pay for sewer hookups. He said that the area was large enough to make an LID feasible. He said that an LID in Option A was also feasible though more marginal. Mr. Hendryx said that the staff intent in its recommendation was that the property owners would pay for the extension. In response to a question from Council President Hunt, Mr. Berry said that the cost estimates were for sanitary sewer only and did not include the storm system. He explained that it was difficult to put in a storm system without street improvements, especially curbs, whereas a sanitary sewer system could be put in at any time. Mr. Hendryx noted that a substantial cost would be added if they tried to put in the sanitary sewer and storm systems at the same time because of the need for a sidewalk collection system. Councilor Rohlf asked if staff checked with the neighbors in Option B. Mr. Hendryx said that staff has not done any canvassing. He suggested holding an open house to inform the residents in Area B of what was happening and to determine interest. Mrs. Tibbetts said that she canvassed the neighbors primarily on James, Alberta and Marion Streets. She commented that the people realized that annexation was inevitable and that neighbors on James Street fear a tragedy in the future because of the pollution level. City Administrator Bill Monahan suggested starting with Option A, since they did not have evidence of 50% support in Area B, and holding the open house to determine interest in Area B. Council President Hunt commented that timeliness was extremely important but preferred getting both areas if it wouldn't slow the process too much. Councilor Scheckla asked if they had evidence of better than 50% support in Area A. Mr. Hendryx said that the evidence of support came from Mrs. Tibbetts' efforts and that the City had no formal petition from the neighborhood. Mrs. Tibbetts stated that she did not canvass every house but said that the pollution was so bad in her neighborhood that this could not be a situation where people could say no. She described the polluted and unhealthy living conditions currently existing in the neighborhood. She said that if the County was forced to deal with this as a health problem, people would be evicted from their homes. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that Mrs. Tibbetts' neighbors did not attend the Council meetings to show their support. Mrs. Tibbetts explained that the neighbors were not informed that this was the meeting to attend. Councilor Scheckla commented that the people wouldn't want this until they knew the price tag. Mrs. Tibbetts said that the situation was irreversible and that the price tag was irrelevant, commenting that they knew the City did not put in sewers based on an unlimited budget. She reiterated her concern for the health of the children. Council President Hunt suggested that staff see how fast the City could move on Options A and B. Councilor Moore commented that, given the history of the cold reception in the Island to proposed annexations, he wanted to make sure that the City was welcomed by the homeowners. He concurred with starting with Option A and moving on to Cption B if there was sufficient acceptance in the neighborhood. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City had any authority to alleviate unhealthy conditions. Mr. Ramis said that the City was authorized by statute to allow an annexation to take place because of a health hazard, and therefore could apply for a health hazard annexation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • Mr. Berry explained that if there was a problem, they could bring in health officials to verify the need for a health hazard annexation. Mr. Monahan reviewed Council direction which was to hold a neighborhood meeting for Areas A and B to determine interest. Mrs. Tibbetts stated that Gearhart Mathias at the County was fully aware of the situation. Mr. Monahan suggested asking Mr. Mathias for background information at the neighborhood meeting. Councilor Rohlf stated that bigger chunks of the Island Marion Streets neighbors to Place to brine Area B in at opposed to bringing in Area he was biased in favor of bringing in at a time and encouraged the James and work with those on Alberta and Tibbett the same time. He said that he was A just by itself. Councilor Moore concurred with bringing in more people at one time, noting that doing so lowered the cost to the individual homeowner. Discuss Solid Waste Task Force Assignments Loreen Mills, Administrative Analysis, referenced the September 26 staff memo. She reported that Councilor Rohlf, the Council liaison to the Solid Waste Task Force, suggested broadening the scope of the study to include not only the haulers' efficiency recommendations but also examination of the cost effectiveness of the franchise operations, consideration of City participation in hauler business decisions, examination of current service standards, development of service measurement criteria, and discussion of regional issues and Tigard's role as a regional player. Ms. Mills noted regional issues such as the difference in the tipping fee between the Metro transfer sites and other transfer sites and whether or not Metro had the right to require that cities in the Metro region use their facilities. Councilor Rohlf commented that he wanted the time spent on the Task Force to be worthwhile for the members and that looking at only the hauling efficiencies was too limiting for the Task Force. He suggested looking at the larger issues that affected the rates and garbage hauling methods in the City. He expressed concern that the Task Force lacked residential and commercial customer representatives. Councilor Moore, as not know much about educational element the expanded scope. to the Council from a newer Council member, commented that he did this topic. Ms. Mills stated that an for the Task Force members would be included in She said that there was a standing invitation the haulers to ride along with a truck. A hauler, who was present at the meeting, asked for clarification on the objective of the Task Force. Councilor Rohlf said that he proposed to review the efficiency suggestions and make recommendations to the City along with looking at regional issues and discussing Tigard's role. A second hauler, also present at the meeting, commented that if Council understood the issues and problems the haulers dealt with, then Council could better answer citizen questions on rate increases or program changes. The Council agreed to direct staff to expand the role of the Task Force and to add more members. The matter will be placed on the October 8 Consent Agenda. Agenda Review Mr. Monahan reported on the vandalism by juveniles at the Windmill on Friday. He said that the fire damace was limited; the City had a $1,000 insurance deductible but the insurance company should pick up the rest. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 3 • • Mr. Monahan noted that the Council needed to elect a voting delegate and alternate to the National League of Cities Conference in November. Mr. Monahan noted the staff recommendation to discontinue the public hearing on the Tigard Feed and Seed store and referred to the state statute dealing with removal of historic designations. Mr. Monahan noted Councilor Rohlf's request to discuss calling up the Hillshire Hollow subdivision for review to consider the issue of private streets. Mr. Ramis cautioned that Council could not accept testimony on this matter if the Council decided to call it up for review. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that the Planning Commission wrestled with the issue of private streets, eventually conditioning the application to put property owners on notice through the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC &Rs) that it was a private street and that they had maintenance responsibility. Council President Hunt concurred with Councilor Rohlf on calling up the application up to discuss the issue of private streets. He said that he'd like to see private streets prohibited or built to city standards if allowed. • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:20 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Executive Session adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Council President Hunt called the business meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. • Council Communications /Liaison Reports Council President Hunt reported that the Cook Park open house meeting has been postponed until the consultant produces plans more in accordance with the committee's objectives. He said that in his opinion they had asked the consultant to find a way to preserve the wetlands while at the same time still allowing the City use of the property; the consultant had returned with plans that allowed no use of the dairy property the City was purchasing. Mr. Hendryx stated that ample notice of this meeting would be provided once the date was set. • Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items: City Administrator Monahan noted Councilor Rohlf's suggestion to discuss whether or not the Council wanted to call up the Hillshire Hollow subdivision for review. • Council President Hunt noted three proclamations: October 1996 as Crime Prevention Month, October 1996 as Disability Employment Awareness Month, and Recycling Awareness Week. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA John L. Cook, 12314 SW Millview Court, Chamber of Commerce representative, expressed the Chamber's support of the visioning process initiated by the City. He commented that he has heard only positive feedback from the Board and from Rotary Club members on staff's presentations to the groups. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported on the status of the presentation phase of the visioning process, noting that they had 30 presentations scheduled for the next month with more groups in line. In response to a question from Council President Hunt, Ms. Newton said that they were working with the schools to develop appropriate activities for 3rd, 4th graders and 7th graders and high school juniors to participate in the process. There is a contest underway at the Tigard High School to design the logo for the visioning project. Mr. Monahan commented that the meetings were accomplishing the purpose of getting people involved who have not been involved before. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Council President Hunt asked for confirmation that the approval of the Planning Commission bylaws would not negatively affect the issue of the roles of the CITs and the Planning Commission in the CIP process. Ms. Newton reviewed the process whereby that issue was being resolved, noting that the CITs wanted to report their comments directly to Council, and not go through the Planning Commission. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: August 20, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: Planning Commission Bylaws and Rules of Procedure 3.3 Approve Updated Water Rate Structure - Resolution No. 96 -58 3.4 Approve Dedication of Property at SW Burnham Street and SW Main Street to the Public as Right of Way - Resolution No. 96 -59 3.5 Approve the Interest Rate for 196/97 to be Applied to All Reimbursement Districts Formed During the Year - Res. No. 96 -60 4. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer, presented the staff report. He noted that this was the first sewer extension project in the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program (Council Goal 6). He reviewed the specifics of the project to extend the existing sewer on SW 170th Place approximately 335 feet along Tigard Street to serve four parcels. He said that each property owner has requested the extension with two of them anticipating immediate connection. He noted that the contractor was available to begin construction upon Council approval. Mr. Berry explained that in this Reimbursement District, the property owner would pay a fair share of the total project costs at the time of connection to the sewer. The property owner will not be required to connect to the sewer once it was installed or pay any fee until connected. He reviewed the estimated costs of the project. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Berry said that the City would recover all its cost over a 15 -year period if all four connected. He said that construction could be done by the end of the week with only one traffic delay on Tigard Avenue. Councilor Scheckla requested advance signage in the area to warn motorists of the traffic delay in order to allow them opportunity to find alternate routes. Council President Hunt asked if there were other sewer extension requests waiting to be processed. Mr. Berry said that staff was CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • working on two others at this time and talking to other interested property owners. c. Public Testimony: None d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Berry recommended approval of the Reimbursement District and direction to proceed with the construction. e. Council,Questions: None f. Council President Hunt closed the public hearing. g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96 -61 RESOLUTION NO. 96 -61 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 8. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution 96 -61. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") 5. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96 -0005 SANDERS ANNEXATION REQUEST: The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R -5 to City of Tigard Low Density Residential /R -4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R -5. a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Nels Mickaelson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the annexation request, noting the parcel location on the map and the single - family house located on the southern portion of the lot. He said that the owners were requesting annexation by double majority to obtain sanitary sewer; their request met all the applicable annexation criteria of the City and the Boundary Commission. He noted a correction to an error in the original proposal; the parcel already had a Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the parcel was adequately served by City facilities and services. He reviewed the notices sent out and reported that they received no objections from citizens or private or public agencies. He recommended adoption of the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the proposal to the Boundary Commission. He said that staff would send letters to adjacent property owners encouraging them to add to this annexation at the Boundary Commission level. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Mickaelson stated that the application for annexation came from the new owner. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 6 • • d. Public Testimony PROPONENT Steve Sanders, 12390 SW 106th Drive, applicant, stated that they wanted annexation to hook up to the sewer. He commented that others in the neighborhood were interested as well. Councilor Scheckla noted that the streets in that area were recently paved and expressed his disappointment that the sewer installation could not have been timed to occur prior to the County repaving the roads. In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Ms. Wheatley stated that the City sent notification to have the franchise fees changed upon annexation. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Mickaelson recommended annexation of the parcel. f. Council Questions g. h. Councilor Rohlf asked how much it would cost the City to have this approved. Mr. Mickaelson said $225, explaining that the rate was based on acreage. He noted that if other property owners tagged onto this request after Council approved it, the fee was not increased. Mr. Hendryx said that there were approximately 1,000 parcels in the Walnut Island. Councilor Rohlf requested a separate policy discussion to encourage larger groups of the Walnut Island parcels to annex at the same time so that the City could avoid incurring the fees over and over again in a piecemeal approach; it was the current taxpayers who bore that cost, not /the applicants. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff did contact property owners to see if there was any interest in annexation but that they did not hold up a request in the hope that others would "hop on." Councilor Rohlf requested a cost study comparing the cost of annexing the optimum number of parcels at one time as opposed to the piecemeal approach. Council President Hunt closed the public hearing. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96 -62 and Ordinance No. 96 -35 The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96 -62. RESOLUTION NO. 96 -62, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B (ZCA 96- 0005). Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 96 -62. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96 -35. ORDINANCE NO. 96 -35, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96- 0005) . Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96 -35. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") 6. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96 -0006 HATCH ANNEXATION REQUEST: The applicant requests annexation on behalf of the owner for four parcels of land with a total acreage of 2.52 acres into the City and a change of the zoning from Washington County R -5 to City of Tigard R -4.5. LOCATION: West of 114th Avenue and South of Gaarde Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R -5. a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Mr. Mickaelson presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the annexation request, noting the parcels' location on the map and the single - family house located on the middle parcel. He said that the owners were requesting annexation by double majority to obtain sanitary sewer; their request met all the applicable annexation criteria of the City and the Boundary Commission. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the parcel was adequately served by City facilities and services. He reviewed the notices sent out and reported that they received no objections from citizens or private or public agencies. He recommended adoption of the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the proposal to the Boundary Commission. He said that staff would send letters to adjacent property owners encouraging them to add to this annexation at the Boundary Commission level. d. Public Testimony Council President Hunt read the hearing criteria. PROPONENTS Nick Stearns, 4035 Douglas Way, Lake Oswego, applicant, requested the annexation primarily to obtain sewer so that he could develop the properties in the future. He said that he agreed with the staff findings. Councilor Rohlf asked if the owners of the two properties adjacent to the parcels were interested in annexing to the City. Mr. Stearns said that he did not know but that he understood they refused annexation opportunities before. In response to a comment from Council President Hunt, Mr. Monahan said that the Council could discuss forced annexation of those two properties and add them to the recommendation they send to the Boundary Commission; the property owners would have the opportunity at the Boundary Commission hearing to object. Council could also forward the request on without adding the properties and the Boundary Commission on its own motion could decide to include them. Brad Wright, 14235 SW 115th, spoke to the Council discussing a more aggressive annexation policy to bring in the Walnut Island, pointing out that piecemeal annexation led to a scattered service area for police. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 8 • • e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Mickaelson recommended annexation of the parcels. f. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked the City Attorney for his opinion on the ramifications of forced annexations. Mr. Ramis stated that historically the Council has avoided forcing island annexations but that they had the authority to revisit the policy and take a more aggressive approach. Mr. Monahan noted the ramifications in public relations, pointing out that citizens forced into the City could be unhappy citizens who expressed their discontentment at the ballot box. Councilor Scheckla commented that while the City might win in the short term over forcing annexations, it could lose in the long term if unhappy citizens voted down city ballot measures. Mr. Hendryx commented that there were statutes and procedures that governed the annexation process, pointing out that while the City could initiate an annexation request, the Boundary Commission had to approve it. Mr. Ramis concurred that the City did not make the ultimate decision on annexations. Mr. Wright concurred that issues existed at the ballot box regarding forced annexation but argued that economically it didn't make sense to do it piecemeal. He reiterated his suggestion that the Council consider a more aggressive policy and annex those parcels that were surrounded by annexed properties within the island. He said that there was recourse for people to object. He commented that the Boundary Commission looked not only at economic issues but prudent planning also. Mr. Wright concurred that some people would be upset but contended that the City would save the taxpayers considerable money by cutting its costs by bringing in several parcels at once. g. Council President Hunt closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96 -63 and Ordinance No. 96 -36 The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96 -63. RESOLUTION NO. 96 -63, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B (ZCA 96- 0006). Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 96 -63. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96 -36. ORDINANCE NO. 96 -36, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96- 0006). Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96 -36. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") > Mr. Monahan announced that Mr. Mickaelson has accepted a position with Washington County to work on their GIS system. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96 -0006 TIGARD FEED STORE A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, Chapter 18.82. ZONE: CBD Mr. Monahan noted that the application tonight was to remove the historic overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Seed Store building. He explained how the passage of ORS 197.772(3) by the legislature in 1995 preempted the cities' authority in the historic designation process; if a property owner requested removal of the historic designation, the City had to grant it. He cited the City Attorney's opinion given to the City of Milwaukee. Mr. Monahan said that he explained to the Chamber what had happened and that the Chamber chose to ask for suspension of the City's proceedings and to come under the new statute and DLCD administrative regulations, which mandated a 120 -day waiting period prior to issuance of a permit for demolition. He said that he understood they were willing to have someone step forward during that 120 days and remove the building rather than demolish it. Mr. Monahan noted that this matter was an administerial decision which must be granted upon request. Councilor Scheckla asked for staff analysis on Ms. Fessler's letter. Mr. Monahan noted that Judy Fessler and her husband were the only opponents at the Planning Commission hearing -- staff advised her of the change in state law. He explained that he understood from her letter that she realized the City had to follow the new regulations. She requested that the City complete its process since the application was made under the old rules. Mr. Monahan said that while he thought that completing the process was discretionary on the City's part, he saw no reason to mislead the public by having a hearing and implying the right to appeal. In response to Mrs. Fessler's suggestion that the Chamber bear the full cost of demolition following the 120 -day waiting period, he commented that the City has always understood that the Chamber would pay full cost of demolition in any case. Council President Hunt noted that Mr. Cook from the Chamber indicated his agreement. Mr. Ramis stated that in his opinion the City did not have the ability to conduct a hearing because the state preempted authority in this area and established the simple rule of granting removal of the designation upon request. He noted Mrs. Fessler's alternate interpretation of when to start the 120 days but gave his opinion that the staff's interpretation was reasonable and would provide 110+ days for someone to come up with another solution. Mr. Monahan reviewed the agreement between the City and the Chamber, noting that the Chamber agreed to remove the building within six months of purchase or the City would have the option of buying the building and removing it. He recommended that the Council direct staff to amend the agreement to allow the Chamber the time it needed to comply with the statute, but noted that the City could exercise its option to buy the building and take full responsibility for its removal. Councilor Rohlf suggested that the City invest some money in advertising the availability of the store in hopes of finding a party interested in saving the building; he cited the interest of a segment of Tigard citizens in saving the building as justification for spending a little taxpayer money on the possibility of saving it. Mr. Monahan said that staff could research how they handled the Gaarde building, which was a City -owned building that found another home. Mr. Monahan commented that once the 120 days was up, the Chamber had control over when the building was demolished or turned over for removal CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • to another site. He noted that the Chamber has been accepting inquires from people interested in saving the building. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to accept the staff recommendation that because of the existence of ORS 197.772(3) and the advice of the City Attorney that the City discontinue the process of the land use hearing at the request of the Chamber of Commerce. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") Councilor Rohlf asked John Cook, Chamber representative, if anyone was interested in the building. Mr. Cook said that they did not want to actively publicize the building until the historic overlay was removed but that they have been talking privately with some interested groups. He noted an interested party who was looking for a site for the building. Councilor Rohlf asked if the Chamber would be willing to contribute the cost it would have paid for demolition towards the cost of removing the building. Mr. Cook said that he could not speak for the Chamber Board on that question but that they would entertain the idea. He said that they have discussed writing a press release to advertise the building's availability, noting that physical possession could not occur until after 120 days. Mr. Cook explained that the Chamber had always intended to take between 30 -90 days to demolish the building once the designation was removed, and that they would be willing to offer that same timeframe to anyone who wanted to remove the building, especially since the 120 days were up in January. He asked for a 12 -14 month period in the contract to allow time for removal or demolition. Councilor Scheckla referred to the construction report which said that the building was contaminated and asked if the ground was also contaminated. Mr. Monahan said that the City had an ESEE analysis done on the property prior to its involvement in the purchase; the consultant reported that the ground was fine but expressed concern about the building which had been used to store chemicals and pesticides. He commented that precautions were still required in the demolition and /or removal process. Mr. Cook explained that the Johnsons had removed most of the chemicals in accordance with Metro regulations, and that the Chamber intended to use the same process to remove the containers still remaining. Councilor Scheckla said that he wondered because a Halloween party had been held in that building about a year ago. Mr. Cook said that the Johnsons had owned the building at that time. He said that the Chamber Board has closed the building to all activity except showings to prospective purchasers. The individuals who had signed up to speak at the hearing in opposition, Jim Griffith and Gary Lass. Both stated that in light of the new information they had no comments. Mr. Monahan suggested that staff work with the Chamber to write something up for the Cityscape and possibly share the costs of advertising elsewhere. The Council concurred. Council President Hunt asked if the Council established an historic designation, did they then have the authority to make the owners maintain the property in a presentable condition, citing the peeling paint on the Tigard house. Mr. Monahan pointed out that a property owner could simply request removal of the designation, which reduced the City's ability to require maintenance of an historic property. He said that the City liaison to TAHPA was Kathy Davis, City Librarian; this budget cycle included money to repaint the structure. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 11 • 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Hillshire Hollow subdivision. Mr. Monahan reviewed that Councilor Rohlf requested discussion of calling this property up for review because it included a private street, an issue of concern to the Council. Council President Hunt said that he favored Councilor Rohlf's suggestion but asked how fast Council could deal with this issue. Mr. Monahan said that staff has not moved quickly on this, as Council had indicated that it wanted the policy reviewed in conjunction with the Code update. Mr. Ramis confirmed that the Council could legally call this application up for review but advised them that their discussion would be limited to interpretations under the existing rules referencing the question of private streets. Concerns noted could provide the basis for future discussions possibly leading to Code amendments. Mr. Monahan said that staff did not want to mislead Council into thinking that simply calling up the application for review meant that they could change something when in fact the rules might dictate otherwise. He noted Mr. Hendryx's comment that the Planning Commission discussed this in depth, which was an indication that the provision of private streets was discretionary on the part of the City without any strict standards mandating particular actions. Mr. Ramis concurred. Councilor Rohlf asked that the applicant come prepared to speak to the issue of private streets. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to pull up the Hillshire Hollow Subdivision for review. Councilor Moore said that while he agreed with discussing the issue of private streets, he did not think that this 100 -foot street, given the Planning Commission conditions, was a big enough issue to hold up the application. He stated that he would oppose the motion. Motion was approved by a 3 to 1 voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Rohlf and Scheckla voting "aye "; Councilor Moore voted "no. ") Mr. Monahan noted for the record that the 120 -day waiting period for the demolition permit requested by the Chamber began today. He would notify the Chamber and Ms. Fessler by letter. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None 10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 p.m. 4 • Ca erine W eat ey, Cit Record CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 - PAGE 12 • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Members of the City Couicil FROM: William A. Monahan DATE: September 20, 1996 SUBJECT: Tigard Feed and Seed Attached is a legal opinion from the City Attorney stating that the City must remove a historic property designation if requested by the property owner. As a result, the City does not have authority to apply the approval standards of Section 18.82.035(A)(1) through (4) of the Development Code. I have advised John Cook of this opinion. John has requested that the City take no further action on the application before the Council on Tuesday night. Instead. the Chamber requests the City remove the designation pursuant to ORS 197.772(3). The City can act on that request administratively. I am prepared to issue a letter stating that this administrative request is approved. The Chamber will then need to wait at least 120 days before removing the structure. The Chamber is in agreement with the 120 day holding period. In fact, it allows for the possibility that someone may step forward and request the opportunity to move some or all of the structure to another site. The City Attorney will he present to advise Council at the study session portion of the meeting Tuesday evening. Those individuals who participated in the Planning Commission hearing on this matter will be notified of this change in process prior to the meeting. A copy of ORS 197.772 is attached. SEP 20 '96 10 :37AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.1 O'DONNELL RAMIS C CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 222 -4402 FAX: (503) 243 -2944 MASS AMPLY TO YOATL.AI®OFFA 3 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET awwr ww_; '_:"_:_: _}_3'�9�i= .i�I�2'vi_:t_.Y -:[�'. THIS COIMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE 18 NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT; OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED —HAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO U8 AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SEf VICE. THANK YOU. DATE: September 20, 1996 TO: 7;m- Hendtyx — 7 FAX 11: 684 -7297 Phone #: 639 -4171 FROM: Paul C. Elsner FAX # (503) 243 -2944 CLIENT NO.: 90024-04 DBSCxU'iTON OF-DOCUMEiNT TRANSIVIITTBD: Memorandum to Bill Monahan re: Tigard Feed and Garden historic overlay. COMMENTS: ,3 PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF TIM PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222 -44O2I MEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Anja Mundy AN ORIGINAL IS BEING MAILED: AN ORIGINAL I3 AVAILA13LE UPON REQUEST: • SEP 20 '96 10 :37AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.2 • O'DONNELL RAMIS CRAP CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hurt street Portland, Oregon 97309 TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 SAX: (S03) 243-2N4 DATE: September 20, 1996 TO: William A. Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Paul C. Elsner, City Attorney's Office RE: Tigard Feed and Garden - Historic Overlay Impact of ORS 197.772 and OAR 660 -23 -200 Earlier t 's week you and I discussed the impact of the above statute and rule on a pending applica . n for removal of the Historic Overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Garden store. As I and and it, the Chamber of Commerce (which presently owns the Feed and Garden building `Building ")) has applied to the City under the terms of Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 8.82.035 for removal of the historic overlay district designation on the Building with an eye tow= ds demolishing the structure in the near future. The hearing on the Chamber's applicati., n is presently set before Council at its next meeting. However, there is now a question as to wh er a hearing on this matter need occur inasmuch as the above statute and rule arguably obviate e need for the hearing. As you 197.772. designati is no pro local req designati require statute's e aware, the 1995 Legislative Assembly enacted SB 588 which was codified as ORS Under both its teams, and the terms of recent DLCD rules, a local government is "... to allow a property owner to remove from the property a historic property n that was imposed on the property by the local government." ORS 197.772(3). There sion in either statute or in the rule (OAR 660 -23 -200) for the imposition of additional ements prior to a property owner's exercise of the right to remove the historic n. The property owner does not, in other words, have to comply with any additional that may be imposed by the local government through its own regulations -- the age is, in our judgment, a clear mandate. In light which w consider it advisa and that designati that mandate, there seems to be little utility in holding a hearing, the only purpose of uld be to address the criteria set out in Section 18.82.035(A)(1) through (4). These tions are, as pointed out above, no longer relevant or enforceable. Therefore we believe le to tell the Council that the hearing is unnecessary and therefore should be canceled hey can only take one (essentially ministerial) action — to remove the historic n. SEP 20 '96 10 :38AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS O'DONN LL RAMIS CR. CORRIG & BACHRACH Memo = Tigard Feed and Garden - Historic Overlay Septemb a 20, 1996 Page 2 • P.3 Alternati ely, the Chamber could withdraw its Chapter 18,82 application and file a new request pursuant to ORS 197.772(3). The City would then simply act upon this application admini: atively. There would clearly be no need for a hearing. As a cor nary to the above opinion request, you also asked for an opinion as to the impact of the provi ' • found at OAR 660 -23- 200(9) which imposes a damn 120-day delay on the issuance of demo tion permits measured from "... the date a property owner requests removal of historic resource designation from the property." The question is complicated by the fact that this rule became = ffective on September 1st and thus post -dates the original request for removal of the Historic • erlay District Designation made by the Chamber. Specifically, you wanted to know when th "clock" on the 120 day period begins. There ar four (4) possible outcomes if the Chamber proceeds with its present application and one (1) if it e ects to withdraw its present application and file a new request under ORS 197.772. If the C • er elects to withdraw its present application, and proceed under ORS 197.772(3), the date wo d, of course, be measured from the date of that request. Howev , if the Chamber elects to continue with its present application, the matter is not so clear: 1. I could be argued that the right to demolish is a substantive one which accrued at the time the on „ : application was made this past summer and is one concomitant with the unfettered right to ave the historic designation removed under ORS 197.772(3). As such, the right cannot now be = ected by the latter enactment of a rule limiting its effectiveness (Le., timing) and is subject • y to lawful limitations existing at the time of the application (i.e., none). The City's attempts to impose its own procedures through TMC Chapter 18.82 were void ab initio since the statute ntrolled; as that statute had no timing limitations on demolition the property owner had the right o exercise demolition whenever he/she choose. The Chamber need not comply with any time limitation and can demolish now. 2. I could also be argued that although the right to demolish the structure is a substantive one, the hamber's failure to exercise it prior to the effective date of the newly imposed " proced " restriction of OAR 660 -23- 200(9) makes that right now subject to the limitation. As such, like other substantive rights in other areas of the law, this right becomes subject to new proced at restrictions that come into play prior to its exercise, i.e., a minimum 120 day wait to be measure from the rule's effective date of September 1. . SEP 20 '96 10 :38AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS p'DONN =LL RAMIS CP CORRI & BACHRACH Memo r Tigard Feed and Garden - Historic Overlay Septemb 20, 1996 Page 3 • P.4 3. could also be argued (although I believe less forcefully than No. 2 above) that the 120 day rule `relates back" to the time of the original application and will run sometime in November (ass ' the application was made in early August). 4. the Cou cil performs the ministerial act of removing the designation pursuant to ORS 197.772. y, the 120 day period could start to run from the date of the Council meeting where Of the • r options, I believe the most conservative is No. 4, since under that one everyone gets the m • um protection afforded by the statute and rule in terms of timing. The most aggressive is No. 1 'th two and three being both of the more moderate approaches. The City will need to weigh th- risk of challenge when determining which course to select. Please feel free to call if you hay = any questions or would like to discuss this matter further. cc: P : . Beery, Esq. Tim . Ramis, Esq. Jim endryx pcelacm/90 24/historic.racl i TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TIGARD • _- Members of the City Cou ci11 William A. Monahan September 20; 1996 Tigard Feed and Seed Attached is a legal opinion from the City Attorney stating that the City must remove a historic property desig nation if requested by the property owner. As a result, the City does not have authority to apply the approval ha e standards advised John Cook of this opituon(1) through (4) of the Development Code. John has requested that the City take no further action on the application before the Council on Tuesday night. Instead. the Chamber requests the City remove the designation pursuant to ORS 197.772(3). The City can act on that request administratively. I am prepared to issue a letter stating that this administrative request is approved. The Chamber will then need to wait at least 120 days before removing the structure. The Chamber is in agreement a t with the fact, allows for the possibility that someone may step forward and request the opportunity to move some or all of the structure to another site. The City Attorney will he present to advise Council at the study session portion of the meeting Tuesday evenine. Those individuals who participated in the Planning Commission hearing on this matter will be notified of this change in process prior to the meeting_. A copy of ORS 197.772 is attached. SEP 20 '96 10:41AM O'DONMELL, RAMIS •O'DONNBLL RAMIS CREA COT9GAN V B A ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Sind Pond, Oregon 97209 TELEPEONEt (SO3) 222-4102 FAXt (SO) 212,79 4 DATE: September 20, 1996 TO: William A. Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Paul C. Elsner, City Attorney's Office RE: Tigard Feed and Garden - lEstoric Overlay Impact of ORS 197.772 and OAR 660 -23 -200 P. 2 Earlier 's week you and I discussed the impact of the above statute and rule on a pending applicati n for-removal of the g'istoric Overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Garden store. As I and - and it, the Chamber of Commerce (which presently owns the Feed and Garden building `Budding")) has applied to the City under the terms of Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 8.82.035 for removal of the historic overlay district designation on the Building with an eye tow : • a demolishing the structure in the near future. The hearing on the Chamber's applicati ., is presently set before Council at its next meeting. However, there is now a question as to w ' • er a hearing on this matter need occur inasmuch as the above statute and rule arguably obviate t ' need for the hearing. As you aware, the 1995 Legislative Assembly enacted SB 588 which was codified as ORS 197.772. Under both its terms, and the terms of recent DLCD rules, a local government is nuked "... to allow a property owner to remove from the property a historic property designati • n that was imposed on the property by the local government." ORS 197.772(3). There is no pro sion in either statute or in the rule (OAR 660 -23 -200) for the imposition of additional local regi iirements prior to a property owner's exercise of the right to remove the historic designation. The property owner does not, in other words, have to comply with any additional requirements that may be imposed by the local government through its own regulations -- the statute's anguage is, in our judgment, a clear mandate. In light o that mandate, there seems to be little utility in holding a hearing, the only purpose of which would be to address the criteria set out in Section 18.82.035(A)(1) through (4). These considerations are as pointed out above, no longer relevant or enforceable. Therefore we believe it advisable to tell the Council that the hearing is unnecessary and therefore should be canceled and that 4tey can only take one (essentially ministerial) action — to remove the historic designati • n. SEP 20 '96 10:42AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS P.3 Memo : Tigard Feed and Garden - Historic Overlay Septem . er 20, 1996 Page 2 Al = y, the Chamber could withdraw its Chapter 18.82 application and file a n request pursuan to ORS 197.772(3). The City would then simply act upon this application adminis • atively. There would clearly be no need for a hearing. Asa • . llary to the above opinion request, you also asked for an opinion as to the impact of the proviaio found at OAR 660 -23- 200(9) which imposes a minimum 120 -day delay on the issuance of demo lion permits measured from "... the date a property owner requests removal of historic resource designation from the property." The question is complicated by the fact that this rule became _ on September 1st and thus post -dates the original request for removal of the Idistoric • clay District Designation made by the Chamber. Specifically, you wanted to know when th- "clock" on the 120 day period begins. There : four (4) possible outcomes if the Chamber proceeds with its present application and one (1) if it ects to withdraw its present application and file a new request under ORS 197.772. er elects to withdraw its present application, and proceed under ORS 197.772(3), the d, of course, be measured from the date of that request. Howev , if the Chamber elects to continue with its present application, the matter is not so clear: 1. I could be argued that the right to demolish is a substantive one which accrued at the time the o ' application was made this past summer and is one concomitant with the unfettered right to . ve the historic designation removed under ORS 197.772(3). As such, the right cannot now be :: - d by the latter enactment of a rule limiting its effectiveness (Le., timing) and is subject o y to lawful limitations existing at the time of the application (i.e., none). The City's attempts impose its own procedures through TMC Chapter 18.82 were void ab mitfo since the statute c ntrolled; as that statute had no tinning limitations on demolition the property owner had the right exercise demolition whenever he/she choose. The Chamber need not comply with any time imitation and can demolish now. 2. It could also be argued that although the right to demolish the structure is a substantive one, the ',plumber's failure to exercise it prior to the effective date of the newly imposed "procedural" restriction of OAR 660 -23- 200(9) makes that right now subject to the limitation. As such, other substantive rights in other areas of the law, this right becomes subject to new proce restrictions that come into play prior to its exercise, i.e., a minimum 120 day wait to be measure from the rule's effective date of September 1. SEP 20 '96 10:42AM O'DONNELL, RAMIS ODON ELL RAMIS CRS. CORM & BACHRACH Memo : Tigard Feed and Garden • Historic Overlay S • er 20, 1996 Page 3 P.4 3. could also be argued (although I believe less forcefully than No. 2 above) that the 120 day rule ates back" to the time of the original application and will run sometime in November (assu i ' - the application was made in early August). 4. 'inally, the 120 day period could start to run from the date of the Council meeting where the Co cil performs the ministerial act of removing the designation pursuant to ORS 197.772. Of the • ' options, I believe the most conservative is No. 4, since under that one everyone gets the . . protection afforded by the statute and rule in terms of timing. The most aggressive is No. 1 'th two and three being both of the more moderate approaches. The City will need to weigh risk of challenge when determining which course to select. Please feel free to call if you . - any questions or would like to discuss this matter further. cc: Pam . Beery, Esq. Tim ' Ramis, Esq. Jim ' eridryx peelaam/90 'sbr c.m el ,KCOMPRNSIVE LAND USE PLANri • iIVG • COORDINATION 197.772 hearings authority shall reopen the record pursuant to subsection (7) of this section. (d) A continuance or extension granted pursuant to this section shall be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.428 or 227.178, unless the continuance or extension is re- quested or agreed to by the applicant. (e) Unless waived by the applicant, the local government shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments in support of the application. The applicant's final submittal shall be consid- ered part of the record, but shall not include any new evidence. (7) When a local governing body, plan- ning commission, hearings body or hearings officer reopens a record to admit new evi- dence or testimony, any person may raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision - making which apply to the matter at issue. (8) The failure of the property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the local government can demonstrate by affida- vit that such notice was given. The notice provisions of this section shall not restrict the giving of notice by other means, includ- ing posting, newspaper publication, radio and television. (9) For purposes of this section: (a) "Argument" means assertions and analysis regarding the satisfaction or vio- lation of legal standards or policy believed relevant by the proponent to a decision. "Argument" does not include facts. (b) `Evidence' means facts, documents, data or other information offered to demon- strate compliance or noncompliance with the standards believed by the proponent to b relevant to the decision. (1989 c.761 §10a (enact in lieu of 197.762); 1991 c.317 331; 1995 c.595 32I Note: 197.763 was enacted into law by the Levis) tive Assembly in lieu of ORS 197.762 which was n added to or made a part of ORS chapter 197 or any - ries therein by Iegislative action. See Preface to Ore; Revised Statutes for further explanation. 197.765 (1973 c.A82 32a: repealed by 1977 c.665 §24 197.787 [1987 c.729 §4; repealed by 1989 c337 3341 197.768 Local government adoption public facilities strategy. (1) A local go% ernment may adopt a public facilities strat egy as described in subsection (2) of thi section. A public facilities strategy may b implemented if it: (a)(A) Is acknowledged under ORS 197.251; or (B) Is approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under ORS 197.628 to 197.646; and Title 19 (b) Meets the requirements of subsection (2) of this section. (2) A public facilities strategy adopted under subsection (1) of this section shall: (a) Include a statement of purpose that limits the public facilities strategy to situ- ations in which clear and objective standards demonstrate that: (A) There is a rapid increase in land de- v an eldopment in a specific geographical area; (B) The total land development would exceed the planned or existing capacity of public facilities; (b) Include a detailed description of ac- tions and practices a local government may engage in to control the time and sequence of development approvals in response to the identified deficiencies in public facilities; and (c) Set forth the procedures, notice and findings that allow the local government to proceed under this section. (1995 c.463 351 197.770 Firearms training facilities. (1) Any firearms training facility in existence on September 9, 1995, shall be allowed to con- tinue operating until such time as the facil- ity is no longer used as a firearms training facility. (2) For purposes of this section, a "fire- arms training facility" is an indoor or out- door facility that provides training courses and issues certifications required: (a) For law enforcement personnel; (b) By the State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or (c) By nationally recognized programs that promote shooting matches, target shoot - 197.772 Consent for designation as historic property. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government shall allow a property owner to refuse to consent to any form of historic property des- ignation at any point during the designation process. Such refusal to consent shall remove the property from any form of consideration for historic property designation under ORS 358.475 to 358.545 or other law except for consideration or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.). (2) No permit for the demolition or mod- ification of property removed from consider- ation for historic property designation under subsection (1) of this section shall be issued during the 120 -day period following the date of the property owner's refusal to consent. (3) A local government shall allow a property owner to remove from the property 227 (1995 Edition) 197.805 MISCE US MATTERS a historic property designation that was im posed on the property by the local govern ment. (1995 c.693 *211 197.775 (1973 c.482 §11; repealed by 1977 c.665 §241 197.780 11973 c482 §12; repealed by 1977 c.665 §241 197.785 11973 c.482 §13; repealed by 1977 c.665 *241 197.790 11973 c.4S2 *14: repealed by 1977 c.665 *241 197.795 11973 c.482 §10; repealed by 1977 e.665 *241 LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 197.805 Policy on review of land use decisions. It is the policy of the Legislative Assembly that time is of the essence in reaching final decisions in matters involving land use and that those decisions be made consistently with sound principles governing judicial review. It is the intent of the Legis- lative Assembly in enacting ORS 197.805 to 197.855 to accomplish these objectives. 11979 c.772 §la: 1983 c.827 *281 197.810 Land Use Board of Appeals; appointment and removal of members; qualifications. (1) There is hereby created a Land Use Board of Appeals consisting of not more than three members appointed by the Governor subject to confirmation by the Senate in the manner provided in ORS 171.562 and 171.565. The board shall consist of a chief hearings referee chosen by the referees and such other referees as the Gov- ernor considers necessary. The members of the board first appointed by the Governor shall be appointed by the Governor to serve for a term beginning November 1, 1979, and ending July 1, 1983. The salaries of the members shall be fixed by the Governor un- less otherwise provided for by law. The sal- ary of a member of the board shall not be reduced during the period of service of the member. (2) The Governor may at any time re- move any member of the board for ineffi- ciency, incompetence, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office or unfitness to render effective service. Before such removal the Governor shall give the member a copy of the charges against the member and shall fix the time when the member can be heard in defense against the charges, which shall not be less than 10 days thereafter. The hearing shall be open to the public and shall be con- ducted in the same manner as a contested case under ORS 183.310 to 183.550. The deci- sion of the Governor to remove a member of the board shall be subject to judicial review in the same manner as provided for review of contested cases under ORS 183.480 to 183.550. (3) Referees appointed under subsection (1) of ti-.is seczio. sha :i be members in god standing of the Oregon State Bar. 11979 c.772 §2: 1983 e827 §28a3 Title 19 197.815 Office location. The principal office of the board shall be in the state capi- tal, but the board may hold hearings in any county or city in order to provide reasonable opportunities to parties to appear before the board with as little inconvenience and ex- pense as is practicable. Upon request of the board, the county or city governing body shall provide the board with suitable rooms for hearings held in that city or county. 119x3 c.827 *291 197.820 Duty to conduct review pro- ceedings; authority to issue orders. (1) The board shall conduct review proceedings upon petitions filed in the manner prescribed in ORS 197.830. (2) In conducting review proceedings the members of the board may sit together or separately as the chief hearings referee shall decide. (3) The chief hearings referee shall ap- portion the business of the board among the members of the board. Each member shall have the power to hear and issue orders on petitions filed with the board and on all is- sues arising under those petitions. (4) The board shall adopt rules governing the conduct of review proceedings brought before it under ORS 197.830 to 197.845. (1979 c.772 §2a: 1983 c.827 *28b1 197.825 Jurisdiction of board; limita- tions; effect on circuit court jurisdiction. (1) Except as 'provided in ORS 197.320 and subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the Land Use Board of Appeals shall have ex- clusive jurisdiction to review any land use decision or limited land use decision of a lo- cal government, special district or a state agency in the manner provided in ORS 197.830 to 197.845. (2) The jurisdiction of the board: (a) Is limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies avail- able by right before petitioning the board for review; (b) Is subject to the provisions of ORS 197.850 relating to judicial review by the Court of Appeals; (c) Does not include those matters over which the Department of Land Conservation and Development or the Land Conservation and Development Commission has review authority under ORS 197.251, 197.430 to 197.455, 197.628 to 197.644, 197.649 and 197.650; (d) Does not include those land use deci- sions of a state agency over which the Court if P_ppeals has �.:;isd� _zinn for initial i:''i?ial review under ORS 183.400, 183.482 or other statutory provisions; Page. 2-€.),S (1995 Edition) (b) For proposals involving energy sources not under the jurisdiction of EFSC or FERC, the local government shall follow the standards and procedures of OAR 660 -23 -030 through 660 -23 -050. (3) Local governments shall coordinate planning activities for energy sources with the Oregon Department of Energy. Historic Resources 660-23 -200 (1) For purposes of this rule, the following definitions apply: (a) "Protect" means to require local government review of applications for demolition, removal, or major exterior alteration of a historic resource. (b) "Designation" is a decision by a local government declaring that a historic resource is "significant" and including the resource on the list of significant historic resources. (c) "Historic areas" are lands with buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts that have local, regional, statewide or national historic significance. (d) "Historic resources" are those buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts which have a relationship to events or conditions of the human past. (e) "Historic resources of statewide significance" are buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and within approved national register historic districts pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89 -665; 16 U.S.C. 470). (2) Local governments are not required to amend acknowledged plans or land use regulations in order to provide new or amended inventories or programs regarding historic resources, except as specified in this rule. The requirements of the standard Goal 5 process (see OAR 660-23 -030 through 660- 23 -050) in conjunction with the requirements of this rule apply when local governments choose to amend acknowledged historic preservation plans and regulations. However, the sequence of steps in the standard process is not recommended, as per section (3) of this rule. The provisions in section (3) of this rule are advisory only. Sections (4) through (9) of this rule are mandatory for all local governments, except where the rule provides recommended or optional criteria. (3) Local comprehensive plans should foster and encourage the preservation, management, and enhancement of structures, resources, and objects of historic significance within the jurisdiction in a manner conforming with, but not limited by, the provisions of ORS 28 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 9/24/96 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE /AGENDA TITLE Tigard Feed and Garden Zone Change Request PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK . CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council deny a request to remove the historic overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Garden property as recommended by the Planning Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached ordinance approving the zone change request. INFORMATION SUMMARY On September 9, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a pubic hearing to consider a request by the Tigard Chamber of Commerce and the City as a co- applicant to remove the historic overlay designation on the Tigard Feed and Garden property. With one abstention, and one vote to approve, a Commission majority voted to recommend the Council deny the request. The reason cited by the majority was lack of an independent evaluation of the condition of the building, including cost figures for its rehabilitation. Copies of the full reports from three building contractors who have inspected the building are attached. The staff report to the Planning Commission included only summaries of these reports. The City Building Official has reviewed these reports and concurs with their conclusions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny the request. 2. Table the request until additional, independent evaluation information with cost estimates is provided by the applicant. FISCAL NOTES A decision to accept or deny the request will have no fiscal impact on the City. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGOO ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY THE TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE CITY OF TIGARD (ZC 96 -006) WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a zone change from Central Business District (Historic Designation) to Central Business District on approximately 0.4 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Main Street and SW Tigard Street; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed zone change at its meeting of September 9, 1996, and recommends denial of ZC 96 -006. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed zone change is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions notes in the attached staff report Exhibit "A "; SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the staff recommendation and approves the request to designate the parcel illustrated on the attached map (Exhibit "B "). SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1996. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 1996. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney ORDINANCE No. 96 -_ Page 1 Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date: 9/9196 STAFF REPORT. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY. OF. TIGARD, OREGON SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: Tigard Feed and Garden Store Zone Change CITY OF TIGARD ZC 96 -006 [ne: CPA 96 -007] PROPOSAL: The applicants have requested removal of the historic overlay designation on the Zoning District Map to the Tigard Feed and Garden Store property APPLICANTS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 2420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 OWNERS: same COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: CBD ZONING DESIGNATION: CBD (HD). LOCATION: 12355 SW Main (WCTM2S1, Tax Lot2AB5400A1). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.82, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1, Statewide Goals and Rules 2 and 5. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 1 SECTION It STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed overlay removal will not adversely affect the health, safety • and welfare of he City SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The Washington County Cultural Resource Inventory provides the following background information on the Tigard Feed and Garden Store: "In 1924 August Schubring and his partner and nephew, Wilbur Biederman, built the Tigard Feed and Garden store as an adjunct to their existing grocery store on Main Street. As a graduate of the Oregon Agricultural College (now OSU) Biederman took responsibility for managing the feed store and Schubring continued to operate the grocery store. For twelve years Biederman used his technical knowledge to ground feed to order for his Tigard customers. In 1936 he and his family moved to Wisconsin leaving Schubring to operate the warehouse by himself. The feed and garden store was sold in the late 1930's to the partnership of Gray and Rasmussen. The feed store was moved forward to its current location to make room for the Highway 99 overpass during the Grey- Rasmussen ownership period. The overpass was constructed in 1939 -40. The Tigard Oregon Electric depot located in front of the feed store, and the Portland Gas and Coke Company Warehouse, located behind the store, were both razed at this time. According to Neva Root, long time resident of Tigard, it was during this time that the east facade of the store was used as a screen for showing outdoor motion pictures. After K.P. McLean purchased the store in 1941, he constructed the two additions that gave the building its current appearance and size. The business was sold to the Harvest Milling Company in 1948, and then to the current owner, Hal Johnson, in 1954. Johnson's earlier experience of having served as a chief store keeper in the Navy, and in merchandising feed, were put to good use when he became owner of the feed store. Little has changed either the interior or exterior of the building in keeping with Johnson's belief that modernization would cause the store to lose its identity. After nearly thirty years of successfully operating the Tigard Feed and Garden Store, his philosophy rings true. The store is significant to the City of Tigard in its association with the variety of colorful - owners since constructed in 1924, and as the ,only -wood-frame-building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered." The site is identified in Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as a historically significant resource worthy of protection. On February 'A, - -1986, -The Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overlay to the site. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 2 Vicinity Information: Tigard Feed and Garden Store is located on the north side of SW Main Street in the Central Business District. The property is bordered on the east by Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and on the west by SW Tigard Street. The Pacific Highway viaduct right -of -way borders the site on the north. Site Information and Proposal Description: There is a gravel parking lot between the front of the store and SW Main Street. A three foot loading dock is located behind the building. There are no landscaped areas on the site. The applicant has requested a zone change to remove the historic district overlay on tax lot 2S1 2AB 5400A1 A written narrative has been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant has - expressed a desire to dernolish -� the feed store building_and to construct a new building and parking tot on the site -There are no plans or submittals, however, pertaining to demolition of the existing building or to the erection of a new building as- part- of-this- application: SECTION IV: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Department has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. The Operations Department has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. The Engineering Department has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION V: AGENCY COMMENTS The State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "I've had a chance to review our inventory information on it [the Tigard Feed and Garden Store Building] and to look over the provisions of your ordinance. If, as it appears, the owners are arguing that the designation imposed an unreasonable financialchardship=on them, they should present supporting evidence, such as comparative bids, rather than a simple assertion. I do not mean to imply that no hardship exists, but rather that it is rot ci-demonstrated in the materials you have forwarded to me. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 3 • With regard to historic significance, I believe the building continues to meet the criteria for designation. Its current condition, although regrettable, in my opinion would not enter into consideration. Finally, this sort of building represents a diminishing historic resource type. Feed stores served historically as important central gathering places for their communities. Today not many of them remain. My understanding is that some effort has been made to find an alternative to demolition, such as moving. That would be preferable from our point of view, and if there is anything I can do to facilitate that process, please contact me [David Skilton] at extension 260." The Tigard Area Historic and Preservation Association has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "The Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association does not feel that the Chamber of Commerce has provided sufficient cause to have the Historic Overlay Designation removed from the Tigard Feed Store. First of all, during City Council meetings last summer, Chamber representatives stated as a matter of public record that they were aware that the costs of rehabilitating the Feed Store building would be significantly higher than the cost of erecting a new structure, but that they were willing to make the investment if the City would help them acquire the land, and if TAHPA would give the Chamber control and ownership of the building. Both the City and TAHPA agreed to those terms. In their letter requesting removal of the Historical Designation, the Chamber reveals the true reason for the request: "We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site..." Second, the Chamber states in their request that because the building is now vacant, it is somehow no longer historically significant. While it is true that the past owners have contributed to the historic value of the Feed Store with their colorful character, the building itself remains as one of the last reminders of Tigard's agricultural past, and has outlived all but its last owner. The Feed Store is older than probably 90% of Tigard's current population, and that alone makes it significant. Even though the years have not been kind to the Feed Store building, we at TAHPA feel that it deserves the protection afforded by the Historic Overlay Designation. We feel that the Chamber has not - offered sufficient grounds to grant the removal of the designation, and that the removal of that t designation should be denied." The Tualatin Historical Society has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "An alternative to the demolition of this obvious historically significant building, would be to dismantle it, document it, and store it for future restoration; although a site may not be available now, one will surely come later. The Tualatin Historical Society had a similar situation in 1988, when an 1875 farmhouse was due for demolition, the owners gave us permission and time to remove it, with STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 4 • volunteer labor we dismantled it and stored it in an onion barn, donated by one of our members. Today, the restoration of this house is a definite reality, on a parcel of land recently acquired by the city, we intend to raise this house again as an interpretive center. Please keep me informed of hearings, etc. I would be happy to share our experiences with you." SECTION IV: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 5, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1 and 3.7.1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.82. COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE GOALS: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program. All public notice requirements related to this request have been satisfied, including advertising the hearings in the Tigard Times. 2. Goal #5 (Natural and Cultural Resources) is satisfied because OAR 660 -16 -000 (5)(b) outlines a process for the identification and protection of historical resources in Oregon. Where conflicting uses are identified, the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting, partially protecting or not protecting a significant resource must be determined. In 1986, the City conducted the required ESEE Analysis for the Tigard Feed and Garden building, and on February 4, 1986, the Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overlay to the site. In conjunction with the formal review of the present application to remove the overlay, the City has updated the ESEE Analysis for this historic resource (see attached) in compliance with the provisions of the Goal 5 rule. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies based upon the following findings: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has provided broad public notice and is conducting two public hearings on this request in accordance with the requirements of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 5 • 2. Policy 3.7.1 (Historic Preservation) is satisfied because the City has developed an index of historic structures and has attempted to promote the preservation of these structures to the extent feasible. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Community Development Code Sections based upon the following findings: Section 18.22._0.35_ of the Community - Development Code sets -forth- criteria for-- removal of historic overlay district designation. A recommendation -or a- decision -to --approve or- -to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on the following standards: i A— Removal of an historic_ overlay_district. designation shall be made when the City Co uncil '-- -finds than any of the following criteria have been met: 1. The original historic overlay districtcde-signation was_placed on the site in error; 2. The resource- designation with the historic overlay district designation has ceased to exist; – _- 3. The resource designated with the historic overlay district designationjs _ no longer of -7 significance- to,the public; or 4. This historic overlay district designation is causing the-property-owner-to-bear an unfair < economic burden to maintain the property as an historic or cultural resource. The development code does not fully define economic burden. Based on the commonly accepted, dictionary definition of the words, staff concludes that criterion four is met, the chamber and city have adequately documented that the building is not useable in its present condition and that only at undue expense could be brought to a level that would make it useable. The chamber has submitted separate written reports from three building contractors who have inspected the building in recent months. One report asserts that "while it may be possible to preserve a portion of the building at a great expense, it is doubtful that it will be possible to fully meet the building code requirements to convert it to an office or other non- agricultural use." According to a second report, the building's "lack of a heating and ventilation system has added greatly to its degeneration. By not having a real heating system to dehumidify and circulate the air, the building has become laden with dust and saturated with airbome chemicals from the storage of hazardous herbicides and pesticides. To convert the use to office from agricultural, much of the existing surfaces will need to be either covered, sealed or completely encapsulated, making many, if not all surfaces, unusable." A third report concludes that since the vacation of the building by the previous STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 6 • owner in 1995, the 86- year -old feed store has suffered extensive water damage and is now unsalvageable. None of the contractors who inspected the building were able or willing to develop specific cost estimates or bids for its rehabilitation. In order to provide accurate estimates, as one contractor pointed out, it would be necessary to assemble a team consisting of an architect, a structural engineer, and an environmental engineer tot thoroughly inspect and analyze the building. This lack of bids, contrary to what some suggest, does not equate to a lack of evidence. Rather, as the contractor narratives make abundantly clear, it reflects the particularly bad condition of the building. How bad? In the opinion of all three it is unsalvageable. Beyond this, it does not seem necessary to go. As mentioned, the code does not provide a quantitative guide or standard for determining hardship. Although quantitative definitions are widely used, in the present situation it does not seem necessary to require bids in order to prove hardship. The reports leave no doubt that it would berexorbitantly- expensive to-restore the- feed building- for - commercial purposes. Suggestions have been made that the city, as a condition for approving overlay removal, require the owners either to: (1) relocate the feed building to another site, (2) dismantle and store the building, and /or (3) incorporate design features of the building into any future building that may be constructed on the site. The answer to all these suggestions is that the code does not give the city the authority to impose any conditions when considering an application to remove a historic district overlay designation. As with any other zone change amendment request, the scope of the overlay review process is limited to the application of a different zoning designation. The scope does not extend to review of any subsequent action that may or may not be contemplated by a land owner if the zone change is or is not granted. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the removal of the historic overlay designation based upon the foregoing findings. City Council review of this application is tentatively scheduled for September 24, 1996. l ��<September 3. 1996 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts, AICP DATE Associate Planner APPROVED BY: Nadine Smith Planning Manager September 3. 1996 DATE STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 7 • • Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Analysis Tigard Feed and Garden Building Address: 12355 Main Street Resource Type : Commercial Zone: CBD Description: Erected in 1911, the original building is rectangular in plan, one and one -half stories high, and has a gable roof covered with corrugated tin. A metal cupola projects from the gable ridge. There is an interior metal flue on the northeast gable slope. The building is clad with tongue and groove siding, and finished with corner boards. In 1941 two additions were built onto the store. A one -story, low pitched roof is attached to the rear elevation. On the west elevation there is a one story, flat roof attachment. Prior to the addition, there had been a drive up ramp on this side to facilitate customer pick ups. A shed roof porch, supported by three square posts, stretches across three quarters of the front facade. Side stairs lead to the two foot porch platform. One of the entries on this facade has hinged double doors, each having three wood panels and a single light. Another door has four lights and three panels. Track sliding doors are located on the east and west elevations. Fixed windows of three and six lights are seen throughout the building. The foundation is constructed of concrete piers and wood posts . The feed and garden store is sited to the northwest, off of Main Street, between SW Tigard Street and several sets of railroad tracks. In front of the store is a gravel parking lot. A three -foot loading dock is located behind the building, and Pacific Highway passes above and behind the property. Other commercial buildings are sited along Main Street. Zoning The site is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The CBD zone is intended to provide for a concentrated, central commercial office and retail area. Civic, high density residential, and mixed uses are allowed. Industrial and single family uses are prohibited. The desired character is a predominately built -up area, with buildings close to and oriented towards the street. Uses allowed in the CBD zone include all civic and commercial categories and multi - family residential. The following uses are allowed through the conditional use process in the CBD zone: Adult Entertainment; Automotive and Equipment Sales; Drive -up windows; Utilities; STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 9 • • Heliports; Hospitals; Spectator sport and entertainment facilities; Vehicle fuel sales; and Wholesale, storage, and distribution. Possible conflicts have been identified as: incompatible alterations to the site or building exterior, neglect, and demolition. Economic Consequences The building is vacant at the present time. As it applies to this particular site, the CBD zone allows for 85 percent coverage of the site area and a nonresidential building height of 80 feet. The dimensional requirement for residential uses allow for 80 percent site coverage and a height of 60 feet. In this case, the existing commercial building utilizes less than 50 percent of the commercial development potential of the site. The feed store has been examined by three separate building _contractors. - All conclude_ that the store is a; highly substandard structure, requiring rehabilitation at exorbitant expense. The restriction that the building must be restored in order to use it, creates an adverse economic consequences for the building owner. CSince no reasonable economic use can be made of the- building -in its present condition/ and only at great expense can it be brought to a level that would make it useable, continued imposition of the historic overlay is likely to cause the building to remain vacant and undergo further deterioration. Should this occur, it would have the consequence of creating an eyesore that would adversely affect the image and character of Main Street. Recent efforts to improve the business climate of the downtown area, such as the reconstruction of Main Street and the installation of planters and benches, would be undermined. Social Consequences The building is significant in its association with a variety of colorful owners and as only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered. In general, the urban environment of Tigard's downtown is enhanced by protecting historic resources. The downtown area is the historic center of the city and today contains the largest number (four) of surviving historic properties. Protection of the downtown's individual properties enhances the historical qualities of the area. The City Center Development Plan calls for the protection of significant historical and cultural resources. Protection of this resource supports this policy. On the other hand, the overall goal of the plan is to eliminate blighted conditions and to create a sense of place and identity as the heart of the city. The feed store is a blighted structure, in terms of building and health codes, and removal of the overlay supports the policy of eliminating blight. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 10 • Environmental Consequences Tigard has completed a city -wide inventory of Goal 5 natural /open space resources. Significant environmental areas have been protected. This site is not located within an inventoried natural /open space area. Eneray Consequences The State Transportation Planning Rule requires local zoning and planning actions which will lower the vehicle miles traveled per capita within urban areas. The provisions of the CBD zoning district comply with the state rule by encouraging transit - oriented development. This location on Main Street is a major transit street. The site is well served by transit. If the site was re- developed, the cost of demolition and re- construction would require energy resources. Clearance of such a large building would consume a substantial amount of energy. Also, the energy initially spent to construct the building would be lost. Older structures, such as this one, do not rate high as energy efficient structure. However, they can be retro -fitted to improve their energy efficiency. There are not significant energy consequences associated with protecting or not protecting this resource. Summary Due to the extremely poor and contaminated condition of the building, protection of this resource creates severe economic consequences for the building owners. Additionally, the blighted condition of the building adversely affects the image of the downtown as a place to do business. Removal of the historic protection does not create adverse energy consequences since the site is well served by transit and a higher density is allowed. The development of a high - density commercial project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. Removal of historic protection does create adverse social consequences. Social values are enhanced by the protection of historic resources. Protection of this resource reinforces the historic qualities of Tigard's traditional downtown. Removal of the overlay supports the policy of eliminating blight. No adverse environmental consequences are associated with protecting or not protecting this resource. In conclusion, the adverse economic consequences of protecting this building outweighs any other values. This resource should not be protected. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 11 Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale N FEED STORE ZON 76 "0000 —0041 IP -D7 • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson, DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar Staff Present Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager Mark Roberts, Associate Planner Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Scolar seconded a motion to approve the August 5, 1996, meeting minutes as written. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioners Padgett and Collson abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff advised the Commissioners of a training session being held in Gresham on November 23rd. He told the Commissioners to call the Planning Commission Secretary if they were interested in attending. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96 -0004/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96- 0005NARIANCE (VAR) 96 -0006 /SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96 -0002 HILLSHIRE HOLLOW REQUEST: Subdivision approval to divide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. The parcels would range in size from approximately 1,983 square feet to 6,029 square feet. Planned Development Review approval to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet. Variance approvals to allow the street length at greater than the 400 foot length for a cul-de -sac, to provide access for more than 20 dwelling units and to reduce the rear-yard setback from 15 feet to the minimum allowed by the Uniform Building Code. Sensitive Lands Review portions of the site in excess of 25% and to perform land form alterations and fill wetlands. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units per acre) ZONE: R -7 Single Family Residential/Planned Development PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 1 • • LOCATION: 13011 SW Ascension Drive (WCTM 2S1 04CB, TAX LOT 2100). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.120, 18,134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Mark Roberts presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He stated that this was a 6.08 acre parcel that would be divided into 24 Tots, ranging from 1983 to 6029 square feed. He said that planned development approval was needed to reduce the minimum lot size to below 5,000 square feet. He also said that the variance was to allow a cul-de -sac length greater than 400 feet to provide access for more than 20 dwelling units, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to the minimum allowed by the Building Code for 4 lots. He advised that the applicant was also requesting sensitive lands review because portions of the site are in excess of 25% and because some portions contain wetlands that he proposes to fill or partially fill. .. Roberts used an overhead to review the site location and design considerations. He advised that Tract C has approximately 25% slope. He said staff was recommending that Tract E be dedicated as a public street and that Tract D be a private street. He said the 24 dwelling units would be attached (12 duplexes). Roberts referred to an error on page 13 of the staff report, removal of trees. He said the applicant was proposing to remove a large number of trees on the developable portion of the parcel. Roberts advised that the normal setback requirements for this zone is 20' to the garage. He said this would mean that 10 of the home plans proposed would have to be revised. He said the setbacks vary, but are down to about 8' which is the minimum allowed with a planned development on a private street. Development Review Engineer Brian Rager talked to the Commission about the public facility portion of the staff report. He discussed the recent problems and concems with existing private streets in the Benchview subdivision. He said that based on comments received from citizens living on private streets, staff was recommending that Tract E be dedicated as a public street. He said the code allows a private street to serve no more than 6 Tots, staff is willing to allow Tract D to be a private street. He remarked that this tract looks and feels like a private driveway. Rager then went over the list of citizen comments listed on page 29 of the staff report. Rager talked about the steep slopes on the parcel. He noted that a creek on the property would have to be realigned to make room for Tots on both sides of the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 2 i► • • Rager said the recommendation for a public street has serious implications for the developer. He said the developer will be required to meet the front yard setbacks, and in some cases, there is no way for him to do that with the way the subdivision is currently platted. Commissioner Griffith asked about the Fire Department's response to the non -tum around on the street extension. Rager answered that the Fire District did not raise a concem. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Mark Dane, Alpha Engineering, 9600 SW Oak, #230, Portland, OR 97223, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He referred to a list of altemate recommended conditions of approval on page 35 of the staff report. He noted that this plan allows for the private street. He said that with the private street, an 8' setback is permitted and that everything they have requested is permissible and can be granted. He noted that private streets are located all over the city and that the only way this project can be built is with a private street. Dane argued that the comments from Benchview homeowners should not be considered in this case. He said he believed this project meets all the criteria and should be approved with the conditions of approval listed from page 35 on (with the private street). Ed Freeman, Sierra Pacific Development and Prime Sierra Partners, PO Box 1754, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, noted that this parcel is the last parcel remaining from the original Summit at Bull Mountain approved several years ago. He said they would try to save as many trees as possible and that a portion of the creek would be re- channeled to lessen the impact on some of the lots. Freeman said his impression of this project was a private street with a gate and a security call box. He said he could not compare this development to Benchview - Benchview is a single family subdivision and this project is almost an apartment project in comparison. Commissioner Griffith asked about the grading plan and relocating the stream. Ed Freeman showed the channels of the stream and noted that they would be redirecting the channels. He also showed the wetlands that would be filled. He noted that they would be obtaining the proper permits from the Corp of Engineers. Commissioner Griffith asked where the storm water would be directed. Mark Dane answered that all the water on the impervious surfaces will eventually go into the public storm drain system. Ed Freeman noted that there would also be a water quality facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 3 • • PUBLIC TESTIMONY Nobody signed up to speak on this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Anderson noted that if this street was to dedicated to the city at a later date, there could be problems if it was not built to public standards. Commissioners Wilson and Collson clarified that the front yard setbacks would be about 11 -12 feet if the street was private. President Wilson asked if the Commission had a desecration to deny the - application if it was allowed by code, or if the PD process more discretionary. Mark Roberts answered that the staff report was written so the Commission could approve it with a public street, but that certain units would have to be redesigned. He said that under a planned development, setbacks are limited except for the 20' garage setback. Roberts noted that the applicant has not asked for a variance for the setback requirement. Commissioner Holland remarked that this townhouse development was like an apartment complex and thought that there was more than sufficient setback. He said that if they make agreements with the buyers to maintain the private street, so they won't come to the city later and want it changed to a private street, he would be in favor of the private street. Commissioner Padgett said that private streets sometimes cause trouble, but that since this development simulates an apartment complex, he likes the private street concept. Commissioner Anderson asked if condition #3 of the alternate conditions of approval, included the area between the setbacks. Brian Rager answered no, that this condition applied only to the road base itself. After further discussion, Commissioner Holland moved to approve Subdivision 96- 0004/ Planned Development Review 96- 0005Nariance 96- 0006 /Sensitive Lands Review 96 -0002, with the alternate recommended conditions of approval allowing the private street rather than the public street. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 3. Commissioners Anderson, Griffith, Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Wilson, Collson, and DeFrang voted against the motion. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96 -0007 TIGARD FEED STORE NOTE: AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, THIS CASE WAS RENAMED ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96 -0006. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 4 • • REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBO Commissioner Padgett declared that he was a former member of the Chamber of Commerce and that he was acquainted with the people who would be testifying, but he did not feel this would influence his decision on the issue. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Duane Roberts presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He passed out a site map and explained that this was a zone change request remove the historic district overlay. He said the request was submitted jointly by the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Tigard. He said the Chamber has expressed an interest to remove the building itself, but that this was not a part of the current request. Roberts gave a brief history of the property and advised that the City has received comments from the State Historic Preservation Office, the Tigard Historical Society, and the Tualatin Historical Society. He said that both the State and the local Tigard Society oppose granting the request, on the basis that the applicants have not adequately documented economic hardship. He said an oral comment was also received from Heather Chessman who is a downtown property owner. She suggested that any future building constructed on the site should have an "urban look ". Roberts explained that there are 4 criteria used for considering this request, any one of which would satisfy the requirement for removing the designation. The 4 criteria are: • the designation was placed in error • the resource designation has ceased to exist • the resource is no longer of significance to the public • the designation is causing the property owner to bear an unfair economic burden Roberts advised that -the Chamber and City are basing their request on the fourth criteria - that there is an unfair economic burden. He said that "unfair burden" is not defined in the code. He said the Chamber has submitted reports from 3 contractors, indicating that the building is substandard, violates building safety cedes, is contaminated, and that it would be exorbitantly expensive to bring it to the level to make the building useable. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 5 • • Roberts said staff was recommending approval of the request. He referred to an error in the staff report which states that the Planning Commission and Council have no authority to require conditions. He said that the Commission could choose to impose conditions if they recommended approval of the request and the building were subsequently demolished. Roberts suggested that some of these conditions may have to do with photographs or artifacts saved from the building. Commissioner Padgett asked staff about criteria #3. He asked if there was any kind of an objective yardstick to determine whether the property is of significance to the public. Roberts answered that there is a national registrar requirement that the building be open one day a year to the public. He said the Chamber has met the fourth criterion, demonstrating economic hardship. President Wilson asked if there were any uses the building could be used for if it were upgraded. Roberts answered that the building was in violation of all the health and safety codes, no matter what the use. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION John L. Cook, 12314 SW Mil!view Ct., Tigard, OR 97223 and John E. Cook, 10455 SW Johnson, Tigard, OR 97223, spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. John L. Cook reported that they agreed with the staff report. He reported that they were anticipating building another structure on the property and were requesting removal of the historic overlay. Cook advised that they had originally looked at remodeling the structure, but the building has been unoccupied for over 8 months and the harsh winter took its toll on the building. He reported that there was a strong smell of agricultural use in the building. Cook referred to letters from 3 contractors that stated it was not worth their time to bid on remodeling the building because they knew it would be too expensive. He stated that just to move the building to the Chamber's portion of the parcel would be $23,000. He said this was not including the foundation. John E Cook reported on the condition of the building. He said the building is just . not the same as it was 10 years ago when the historic designation was put into place. He said he believed it was time to remove the designation. John L. Cook advised they want to and agree to keep some historic value to it. He said they have Tined up a photographer to take pictures and they have all the writings from the City and County Historical Societies. He said they would like to take parts of the current building and reuse them elsewhere. He said they have offered the building to a number of different groups at basically no cost. He said all offers have been declined. PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 6 • • Commissioner Padgett asked what would happen if nothing happened. John L. Cook answered that within 5 years, the front half of the property, currently owned by the Chamber, would revert back to the City. John E. Cook added that the condition of the building will be considerably worse. Commissioner Holland asked the Cooks if they realized what the cost would be when they agreed to take over the building. John L. Cook said the agreement with the City was to just build a new building. He said the agreement anticipated removing the old building. President Wilson asked if any studies had been done to determine soil contamination. John L. Cook answered that the City has done a Level One on the land and has found no contaminants. Commissioner Scolar remarked that when the Chamber bought the building, it already had the historic designation. He asked the Cooks if it was their intent at that time to both preserve the building and build another building. John L. Cook answered that they did not actually buy the building - it was given to the Chamber by the past owners. He said it was given to them because the Chamber and the City bought the land from the railroad and the building was leased from the railroad- at the time. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Stan Baumhofer, 10250 SW Greenburg Rd., #120, Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to speak, but chose not to. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Judy Fessler, 11180 SW Fonner, Tigard, OR 97223, addressed the staff report. She referred to page #3. She noted that the historic designation was on the land, nct just the building. She asked if the City shouldn't have to go through the ESEE analysis to turn their portion of the property into a parking lot. Fessler noted that the building could still be used as a warehouse or possibly a Farmer's Market. She referred to the social consequences mentioned in the staff report. She advised that the buildings referenced in this section do not have a special designation - the only building on Main Street that has a designation is the Feed Store. She said that there were only 12 historically designated sites in all of the City of Tigard. Fessler provided some history of the building and how it came to be owned by the Chamber. She questioned who would pay for the demolition of the building. She said the Chamber knew the building would need substantial rehabilitation when they bought it, but that they still wanted to preserve the building. PLANNING COMLLIISSION MEETING `IINU TES - September 9, 1996 - Page 7 • • Fessler recommended that the application be denied for non - factual proof and lack of ESEE (Economic Social Environmental Energy) from the City of Tigard. She asked the Chamber to publicly open the process to see if anybody would move the building. Jon Fessler, 11180 SW Fonner, Tigard, OR 97223, agreed with his wife. He suggested going back to the Council minutes from the Summer of 1995 to see what the original agreement was between the Chamber and the City of Tigard. He urged the Commission to deny the motion and recommend one year for someone to move the building. APPLICANTS REBUTTAL John L. Cook advised that the demolition costs would be shared half and half, but then said there was an agreement with the City that the Chamber would be solely responsible for removal of the building. He discussed the original agreement between the Chamber and the Railroad, requiring the building be moved and the property be fenced. He then highlighted subsequent agreements between the Chamber, the City, and the Historical Society. Commissioner Griffith asked where the building could be moved. Cook answered that it could be moved onto the Chamber's portion of the property or it could be moved to a different site. He advised that Emmert estimated it would cost $24,000 to move the building. Cook concluded his rebuttal by saying that agreement between the City and the Chamber is not relevant to removing the historic overlay. He said the only issue was if there was an economic hardship for the Chamber to hold onto this building. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith said he would like to see facts and figures to show what kind of financial burden this building was putting on the owners. He said he would like to see a private evaluation done, that it was not appropriate for the City to use their own people for estimates. Commissioners Holland said he would like to see somebody who deals with historical buildings do the evaluation, so it could be determined if this has historical significance. President Wilson remarked that the question was about financial burden, not historical significance. He also said that having the City as a co- applicant taints the process. Commissioner Anderson said she would like to see more information about environmental contamination inside the building. She said that one statement from one contractor was not sufficient to convince her that it was economically PLANNING COMMISSION MMEETTNG MINLTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 3 unfeasible to bring the building up to standard, where it is habitable for some purpose. Commissioner Holland said he would like to table the issue until more information was provided. He did not want to make a wrong decision about a historical site that could be gone forever. President Wilson asked staff if the building could be relocated or dismantled without first removing the overlay designation. Duane Roberts answered that the building could be relocated on the same tax lot, but couldn't be relocated off -site without going through a review process. President Wilson then asked if there were restrictions on what type of alterations can be made on a historic building. Roberts answered yes. Roberts advised that the feed store is not a state or nationally designated historic structure - it is only locally designated, but it is a recognized Goal 5 resource, adopted as part of our Comprehensive Plan. He said that, because of this, we have to go through an ESEE process to remove the designation. Commissioner Neff noted that the applicant might like to ask the Commission to move for a continuance, in order to have time to provide more information. Commissioner Padgett said that it was up to the applicant to decide what type of evidence to present to show economic hardship. He said the burden of proof was on the applicant and they had to provide documentation that the Commission could either accept or reject. John Cook (applicant from the Chamber) said that they had provided what information they had to the City Council. He said he was not willing to hire an independent consultant to look at the building; that if the City wants to do so, they can. Commissioner Holland remarked that no one from the City had testified and that the Commission had not seen the reports, so they had nothing to go on. Duane Roberts noted that he had highlighted the reports in his staff report. Commissioner DeFrang said she did not feel that the applicant had shown economic hardship. She then moved to forward a recommendation for denial of the application. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a 7 to 1 vote (Commissioner Padgett abstained). Commissioners Anderson, Collson, DeFrang, Holland, Neff, Scolar, and Wilson voted for the motion. Commissioner Griffith voted against the motion. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 9 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Jerreeaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTES r: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 10 ,, AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96- 0004 /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96- 0005NARIANCE (VAR) 96- 0006 /SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96 -0002 HILLSHIRE HOLLOW REQUEST: Subdivision approval to divide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 Tots. The parcels would range in size from approximately 1,983 square feet to 6,029 square feet. Planned Development Review approval to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet. Variance approvals to allow the street length at greater than the 400 foot length for a cul-de -sac, to provide access for more than 20 dwelling units and to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to the minimum allowed by the Uniform Building Code. Sensitive Lands Review portions of the site in excess of 25% and to perform land form alterations and fill wetlands. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units per acre) ZONE: R -7 Single Family Residential /Planned Development LOCATION: 13011 SW Ascension Drive (WCTM 2S1 04CB, TAX LOT 2100). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.120, 18,134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Oi‘) (e -p60 (° 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96 -0007 TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A request to remove the historic - overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT < E C E I v E D COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. ;BEN 04 1996 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684 -0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 •Ii :y OF TIGARf Legal Notice Advertising •City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 •Accounts Payable • ❑ Tearsheet Notice Ai 96 -d Legal Notice TT 8 611 • ❑ Duplicate AffidP■%1 i,lJ:tt 'I :pal.;.. • The followi ng will be. 'considered iby the Tigard Pl a September: 9 1996,. at 7:30P.Matthe'1i g0d'o Civi 13125 5.W.iaIl 13oulevazd; Tigazd,Sregon:Both'F testimony:is, invited := The.public;heartng df this+ma rn accordance:with thertiules of'Cliapter'.18.32'of• Code, `and rules and procedures oftiythe Planningi C rarse`an issuetin person;or by lettcrat some point pi hearing on the request ortfailure td providetstatem< cient to afford the 'decisionmalicr an opportunity,t■ prior to the close of the hearing on the request, pre; Land.Use Board.of•Appeals based' on tha t issue; Flip on be obtained from the Planning Divisr'at13125.: Tigard, Oregon 972 3, r by, cal g (5 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTiga rrl —Tin a l a t i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti gard in the aforesaid county and state; that the CPA 96 -0007 Tigard Feed Store a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 29,1996 K 03),639 -4171 ?1i! 41d ant? V;ei' "thy. Subscribed and sworn afore me this 2 9th day of Auctustri.I. C SC . EJt�4 Notary yPjiblic for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT ,COMPREHENSIVElPLAN AMENDMENT( # ti r v'T TIGARD FEED STORE REQUEST: A;regpest to,remove the:historic'oveia permitthe demolition',of,the;Tigard Feed'and.Garderiit as historically;," significantby .,thesCitv�of:Ti'aardiL( • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson, DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Mark Roberts, Associate Planner; Duane Roberts, Associate Planner; Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Scolar seconded .a motion to approve the August 5, 1996, meeting minutes as written. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioners Padgett and Collson abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff advised the Commissioners of a training session being held in Gresham on November 23rd. He told the Commissioners to call the Planning Commission Secretary if they were interested in attending. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96- 0004 /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96- 0005NARIANCE (VAR) 96- 0006 /SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96 -0002 HILLSHIRE HOLLOW REQUEST: Subdivision approval to divide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. The parcels would range in size from approximately 1,983 square feet to 6,029 square feet. Planned Development Review approval to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet. Variance approvals to allow the street length at greater than the 400 foot length fora cul-de -sac, to provide access for more than 20 dwelling units and to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to the minimum allowed by the Uniform Building Code. Sensitive Lands Review portions of the site in excess of 25% and to perform land form alterations and fill wetlands. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units per acre) ZONE: R -7 Single Family Residential/Planned Development PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 1 Rager said the recommendation for a public street has serious implications for the developer. He said the developer will be required to meet the front yard setbacks, and in some cases, there is no way for him to do that with the way the subdivision is currently platted. Commissioner Griffith asked about the Fire Department's response to the non -turn around on the street extension. Rager answered that the Fire District did not raise a concem. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Mark Dane, Alpha Engineering, 9600 SW Oak, #230, Portland, OR 97223, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He referred to a list of alternate recommended conditions of approval on page 35 of the staff report. He noted that this plan allows for the private street. He said that with the private street, an. 8' setback is permitted and that everything they have requested is permissible and can be granted. He noted that private streets are located all over the city and that the only way this project can be built is with a private street. Dane argued that the comments from Benchview homeowners should not be considered in this case. He said he believed this project meets all the criteria and should be approved with the conditions of approval listed from page 35 on (with the private street). Ed Freeman, Sierra Pacific Development and Prime Sierra Partners, PO Box 1754, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, noted that this parcel is the last parcel remaining from the original Summit at Bull Mountain approved several years ago. He said they would try to save as many trees as possible and that a portion of the creek would be re- channeled to lessen the impact on some of the lots. Freeman said his impression of this project was a private street with a gate and a security call box. He said he could not compare this development to Benchview - Benchview is a single family subdivision and this project is almost an apartment project in comparison. Commissioner Griffith asked about the grading plan and relocating the stream. Ed Freeman showed the channels of the stream and noted that they would be redirecting the channels. He also showed the wetlands that would be filled. He noted that they would be obtaining the proper permits from the Corp of Engineers. Commissioner Griffith asked where the storm water would be directed. Mark Dane answered that all the water on the impervious surfaces will eventually go into the public storm drain system. Ed Freeman noted that there would also be a water quality facility. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 3 • • REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed. and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD Commissioner Padgett declared that he was a former member of the Chamber of Commerce and that he was acquainted with the people who would be testifying, but he did not feel this would influence his decision on the issue. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Duane Roberts presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He passed out a site map and explained that this was a zone change request remove the historic district overlay. He said the request was submitted jointly by the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Tigard. He said the Chamber has expressed an interest to remove the building itself, but that this was not a part of the current request. Roberts gave a brief history of the property and advised that the City has received comments from the State Historic Preservation Office, the Tigard Historical Society, and the Tualatin Historical Society. He said that both the State and the local Tigard Society oppose granting the request, on the basis that the applicants have not adequately documented economic hardship. He, said an oral comment was also received from Heather Chessman who is a downtown property owner. She suggested that any future building constructed on the site should have an "urban look ". Roberts explained that there are 4 criteria used for considering this request, any one of which would satisfy the requirement for removing the designation. The 4 criteria are: • the designation was placed in error • the resource designation has ceased to exist • the resource is no longer of significance to the public • the designation is causing the property owner to bear an unfair economic burden Roberts advised that -the Chamber and City are basing their request on the fourth criteria - that there is an unfair economic burden. He said that "unfair burden" is not defined in the code. He said the Chamber has submitted reports from 3 contractors, indicating that the building is substandard, violates building safety codes, is contaminated, and that it would be exorbitantly expensive to bring it to the level to make the building useable. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 5 • • Commissioner Padgett asked what would happen if nothing happened. John L. Cook answered that within 5 years, the front half of the property, currently owned by the Chamber, would revert back to the City. John E. Cook added that the condition of the building will be considerably worse. Commissioner Holland asked the Cooks if they realized what the cost would be when they agreed to take over the building. John L. Cook said the agreement with the City was to just build a new building. He said the agreement anticipated removing the old building. President Wilson asked if any studies had been done to determine soil contamination. John L. Cook answered that the City has done a Level One on the land and has found no contaminants. Commissioner Scolar remarked that when the Chamber bought the building, it already had the historic designation. He asked the Cooks if it was their intent at that time to both preserve the building and build another building. John L. Cook answered that they did not actually buy the building - it was given to the Chamber by the past owners. He said it was given to them because the Chamber and the City bought the land from the railroad and the building was leased from the railroad at the time. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Stan Baumhofer, 10250 SW Greenburg Rd., #120, Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to speak, but chose not to. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Judy Fessler, 11180 SW Fonner, Tigard, OR 97223, addressed the staff report. She referred to page #3. She noted that the historic designation was on the land, not just the building. She asked if the City shouldn't have to go through the ESEE analysis to tum their portion of the property into a parking lot. Fessler noted that the building could still be used as a warehouse or possibly a Farmer's Market. She referred to the social consequences mentioned in the staff report. She advised that the buildings referenced in this section do not have a special designation - the only building on Main Street that has a designation is the Feed Store. She said that there were only 12 historically designated sites in all of the City of Tigard. Fessler provided some history of the building and how it came to be owned by the Chamber. She questioned who would pay for the demolition of the building. She said the Chamber knew the building would need substantial rehabilitation when they bought it, but that they still wanted to preserve the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 7 • • unfeasible to bring the building up to standard, where it is habitable for some purpose. Commissioner Holland said he would like to table the issue until more information was provided. He did not want to make a wrong decision about a historical site that could be gone forever. President Wilson asked staff if the building could be relocated or dismantled without first removing the overlay designation. Duane Roberts answered that the building could be relocated on the same tax lot, but couldn't be relocated off -site without going through a review process. President Wilson then asked if there were restrictions on what type of alterations can be made on a historic building. Roberts answered yes. Roberts advised that the feed store is not a state or nationally designated historic structure - it is only locally designated, but it is a recognized Goal 5 resource, adopted as part of our Comprehensive Plan. He said that, because of this, we have to go through an ESEE process to remove the designation. Commissioner Neff noted that the applicant might like to ask the Commission to move for a continuance, in order to have time to provide more information. Commissioner Padgett said that it was up to the applicant to decide what type of evidence to present to show economic hardship. He said the burden of proof was on the applicant and they had to provide documentation that the Commission could either accept or reject. John Cook (applicant from the Chamber) said that they had provided what information they had to the City Council. He said he was not willing to hire an independent consultant to look at the building; that if the City wants to do so, they can. Commissioner Holland remarked that no one from the City had testified and that the Commission had not seen the reports, so they had nothing to go on. Duane Roberts noted that he had highlighted the reports in his staff report. Commissioner DeFrang said she did not feel that the applicant had shown economic hardship. She then moved to forward a recommendation for denial of the application. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a 7 to 1 vote (Commissioner Padgett abstained). Commissioners Anderson, Collson, DeFrang, Holland, Neff, Scolar, and Wilson voted for the motion. Commissioner Griffith voted against the motion. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 9, 1996 - Page 9 Agenda Item: -31' S• Z Hearing Date: 9/9196 SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: Tigard Feed and Garden Store Zone Change ZC 96-006 [ne: CPA 96 -007] PROPOSAL: The applicants have requested removal of the historic overlay designation on the Zoning District Map to the Tigard Feed and Garden Store property APPLICANTS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 2420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard ' Tigard, Oregon 97223 OWNERS: same COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: CBD ZONING DESIGNATION: CBD (HD). LOCATION: 12355 SW Main (WCTM2S1, Tax Lot2AB5400A1). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.82, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1, Statewide Goals and Rules 2 and 5. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 1 SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Pia will! not adversely affect that the proposed and welfare SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: verlay removal The Washington County Cultural Resource Inventory provides the following background information on the Tigard Feed and Garden Store: "In 1924 August Schubring and his partner and nephew, Wilbur Biederman, built the Tigard Feed and Garden store as an adjunct to their existing grocery store on Main Street. As a graduate of the Oregon Agricultural College (now OSU) Biederman took responsibility for managing the feed store and Schubring continued to operate the grocery store. For twelve years Biederman used his technical knowledge to ground feed to order for his Tigard customers. In 1936 he and his family moved to Wisconsin leaving Schubring to operate the warehouse by himself. The feed and garden store was sold in the late 1930's to the partnership of Gray and Rasmussen. The feed store was moved forward to its current location to make room for the Highway 99 overpass during the Grey- Rasmussen ownership period. The overpass was constructed in 1939 -40. The Tigard Oregon Electric depot located in front of the feed store, and the Portland Gas and Coke Company Warehouse, located behind the store, were both razed at this time. According to Neva Root, long time resident of Tigard, it was during this time that the east facade of the store was used as a screen for showing outdoor motion pictures. After K.P. McLean purchased the store in 1941, he constructed the two additions that gave the building its current appearance and size. The business was sold to the Harvest Milling Company in 1948, and then to the current owner, Hal Johnson, in 1954. Johnson's earlier experience of having served as a chief store keeper in the Navy, and in merchandising feed, were put to good use when he became owner of the feed store. Little has changed either the interior or exterior of the building in keeping with Johnson's belief that modernization would cause the store to lose its identity. After nearly thirty years of successfully operating the Tigard Feed and Garden Store, his philosophy rings true. The store is significant to the City of Tigard in its association with the variety of colorful owners since constructed in 1924, and as the only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered." The site is identified in Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as a historically significant resource worthy of protection. On February 4, 1986, The Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overlay to the site. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 2 • • Vicinity Information: Tigard Feed and. Garden Store is located on the north side of SW Main Street in the Central Business District. The property is bordered on the east by Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and on the west by SW Tigard Street. The Pacific Highway viaduct right -of -way borders the site on the north. Site Information and Proposal Description: There is a gravel parking lot between the front of the store and SW Main Street. A three foot loading dock is located behind the building. There are no landscaped areas on the site. The applicant has requested a zone change to remove the historic district overlay on tax lot 2S1 2AB 5400A1 A written narrative has been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant has expressed a desire to demolish the feed store building and to construct a new building and parking lot on the site. There are no plans or submittals, however, pertaining to demolition of the existing building or to the erection of a new building as part of this application. SECTION IV: OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Department has reviewed this application and has comments or objections. The Operations Department has reviewed this application and has comments or objections. The Engineering Department has reviewed this application and has comments or objections. SECTION V: AGENCY COMMENTS offered no offered no offered no The State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "I've had a chance to review our inventory information on it [the Tigard Feed and Garden Store Building] and to look over the provisions of your ordinance. If, as it appears, the owners are arguing that the designation imposed an unreasonable financial hardship on them, they should present supporting evidence, such as comparative bids, rather than a simple assertion. I do not mean to imply that no hardship exists, but rather that it is not demonstrated in the materials you have forwarded to me. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 3 • • With regard to historic significance, I believe the building continues to meet the criteria for designation. Its current condition, although regrettable, in my opinion would not enter into consideration. Finally, this sort of building represents a diminishing historic resource type. Feed stores served historically as important central gathering places for their communities. Today not many of them remain. My understanding is that some effort has been made to find an alternative to demolition, such as moving. That would be preferable from our point of view, and if there is anything I can do to facilitate that process, please contact me [David Skilton] at extension 260." The Tigard Area Historic and Preservation Association has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "The Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association does not feel that the Chamber of Commerce has provided sufficient cause to have the Historic Overlay Designation removed from the Tigard Feed Store. First of all, during City Council meetings last summer, Chamber representatives stated as a matter of public record that they were aware that the costs of rehabilitating the Feed Store building would be significantly higher than the cost of erecting a new structure, but that they were willing to make the investment if the City would help them acquire the land, and if TAHPA would give the Chamber control and ownership of the building. Both the City and TAHPA agreed to those terms. In their letter requesting removal of the Historical Designation, the Chamber reveals the true reason for the request: "We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site..." Second, the Chamber states in their request that because the building is now vacant, it is somehow no longer historically significant. While it is true that the past owners have contributed to the historic value of the Feed Store with their colorful character, the building itself remains as one of the last reminders of Tigard's agricultural past, and has outlived all but its last owner. The Feed Store is older than probably 90% of Tigard's current population, and that alone makes it significant. Even though the years have not been kind to the Feed Store building, we at TAHPA feel that it deserves the protection afforded by the Historic Overlay Designation. We feel that the Chamber has not offered sufficient grounds to grant the removal of the designation, and that the removal of that designation should be denied." The Tualatin Historical Society has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: "An alternative to the demolition of this obvious historically significant building, would be to dismantle it, document it, and store it for future restoration; although a site may not be available now, one will surely come later. The Tualatin Historical Society had a similar situation in 1988, when an 1875 farmhouse was due for demolition, the owners gave us permission and time to remove it, with STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 4 volunteer labor we dismantled it and stored it in an onion barn, donated by one of our members. Today, the restoration of this house is a definite reality, on a parcel of land recently acquired by the city, we intend to raise this house again as an interpretive center. Please keep me informed of hearings, etc. I would be happy to share our experiences with you." SECTION IV: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 5, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1 and 3.7.1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.82. COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE GOALS: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program. All public notice requirements related to this request have been satisfied, including advertising the hearings in the Tigard Times. 2. Goal #5 (Natural and Cultural Resources) is satisfied because OAR 660 -16 -000 (5)(b) outlines a process for the identification and protection of historical resources in Oregon. Where conflicting uses are identified, the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting, partially protecting or not protecting a significant resource must be determined. In 1986, the City conducted the required ESEE Analysis for the Tigard Feed and Garden building, and on February 4, 1986, the Tigard Planning Commission assigned the Historic District Overlay to the site. In conjunction with the formal review of the present application to remove the overlay, the City has updated the ESEE Analysis for this historic resource (see attached) in compliance with the provisions of the Goal 5 rule. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies based upon the following findings: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 (Citizen Involvement) is satisfied because the City has provided broad public notice and is conducting two public hearings on this request in accordance with the requirements of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 5 • • 2. Policy 3.7.1 (Historic Preservation) is satisfied because the City has developed an index of historic structures and has attempted to promote the preservation of these structures to the extent feasible. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Community Development Code Sections based upon the following findings: Section 18.22.035 of the Community Development Code sets forth criteria for removal of historic overlay district designation. A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for a quasi - judicial amendment shall be based on the following standards: A. Removal of an historic overlay district designation shall be made when the City Council finds than any of the following criteria have been met: 1. The original historic overlay district designation was placed on the site in error; 2. The resource designation with the historic overlay district designation has ceased to exist; 3. The resource designated with the historic overlay district designation is no longer of significance to the public; or 4. This historic overlay district designation is causing the property owner to bear an unfair economic burden to maintain the property as an historic or cultural resource. The development code does not fully define economic burden. Based on the commonly accepted, dictionary definition of the words, staff concludes that criterion four is met, the chamber and city have adequately documented that the building is not useable in its present condition and that only at undue expense could be brought to a level that would make it useable. The chamber has submitted separate written reports from three building contractors who have inspected the building in recent months. One report asserts that "while it may be possible to preserve a portion of the building at a great expense, it is doubtful that it will be possible to fully meet the building code requirements to convert it to an office or other non- agricultural use." According to a second report, the building's "lack of a heating and ventilation system has added greatly to its degeneration. By not having a real heating system to dehumidify and circulate the air, the building has become laden with dust and saturated with airborne chemicals from the storage of hazardous herbicides and pesticides. To convert the use to office from agricultural, much of the existing surfaces will need to be either covered, sealed or completely encapsulated, making many, if not all surfaces, unusable." A third report concludes that since the vacation of the building by the previous STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 6 • • owner in 1995, the 86- year -old feed store has suffered extensive water damage and is now unsalvageable. None of the contractors who inspected the building were able or willing to develop specific cost estimates or bids for its rehabilitation. In order to provide accurate estimates, as one contractor pointed out, it would be necessary to assemble a team consisting of an architect, a structural engineer, and an environmental engineer to thoroughly inspect and analyze the building. This lack of bids, contrary to what some suggest, does not equate to a lack of evidence. Rather, as the contractor narratives make abundantly clear, it reflects the particularly bad condition of the building. How bad? In the opinion of all three it is unsalvageable. Beyond this, it does not seem necessary to go. As mentioned, the code does not provide a quantitative guide or standard for determining hardship. Although quantitative definitions are widely used, in the present situation it does not seem necessary to require bids in order to prove hardship. The reports leave no doubt that it would be exorbitantly expensive to restore the feed building for commercial purposes. Suggestions have been made that the city, as a condition for approving overlay removal, require the owners either to: (1) relocate the feed building to another site, (2) dismantle and store the building, and /or (3) incorporate design features of the building into any future building that may be constructed on the site. The answer to all these suggestions is that the code does not give the city the authority to impose any conditions when considering an application to remove a historic district overlay designation. As with any other zone change amendment request, the scope of the overlay review process is limited to the application of a different zoning designation. The scope does not extend to review of any subsequent action that may or may not be contemplated by a land owner if the zone change is or is not granted. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the removal of the historic overlay designation based upon the foregoing findings. City Council review of this application is tentatively scheduled for September 24, 1996. PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts, AICP DATE Associate Planner September 3, 1996 September 3. 1996 APPROVED BY: Nadine Smith DATE Planning Manager STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 7 Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Analysis Tigard Feed and Garden Building Address: 12355 Main Street Resource Type : Commercial Zone: CBD Description: Erected in 1911, the original building is rectangular in plan, one and one -half stories high, and has a gable roof covered with corrugated tin. A metal cupola projects from the gable ridge. There is an interior metal flue on the northeast gable slope. The building is clad with tongue and groove siding, and finished with corner boards. In 1941 two additions were built onto the store. A one -story, low pitched roof is attached to the rear elevation. On the west elevation there is a one story, flat roof attachment. Prior to the addition, there had been a drive up ramp on this side to facilitate customer pick ups. A shed roof porch, supported by three square posts, stretches across three quarters of the front facade. Side stairs lead to the two foot porch platform. One of the entries on this facade has hinged double doors, each having three wood panels and a single light. Another door has four lights and three panels. Track sliding doors are located on the east and west elevations. Fixed windows of three and six lights are seen throughout the building. The foundation is constructed of concrete piers and wood posts . The feed and garden store is sited to the northwest, off of Main Street, between SW Tigard Street and several sets•of railroad tracks. In front of the store is a gravel parking lot. A three -foot loading dock is located behind the building, and Pacific Highway passes above and behind the property. Other commercial buildings are sited along Main Street. Zoning The site is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The CBD zone is intended to provide for a concentrated, central commercial office and retail area. Civic, high density residential, and mixed uses are allowed. Industrial and single family uses are prohibited. The desired character is a predominately built -up area, with buildings close to and oriented towards the street. Uses allowed in the CBD zone include all civic and commercial categories and multi - family residential. The following uses are allowed through the conditional use process in the CBD zone: Adult Entertainment; Automotive and Equipment Sales; Drive -up windows; Utilities; STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 9 Heliports; Hospitals; Spectator sport and entertainment facilities; Vehicle fuel sales; and Wholesale, storage, and distribution. Possible conflicts have been identified as: incompatible alterations to the site or building exterior, neglect, and demolition. Economic Consequences The building is vacant at the present time. As it applies to this particular site, the CBD zone allows for 85 percent coverage of the site area and a nonresidential building height of 80 feet. The dimensional requirement for residential uses allow for 80 percent site coverage and a height of 60 feet. In this case, the existing commercial building utilizes Tess than 50 percent of the commercial development potential of the site. The feed store has been examined by three separate building contractors. All conclude that the store is a highly substandard structure, requiring rehabilitation at exorbitant expense. The restriction that the building must be restored in order to use it, creates an adverse economic consequences for the building owner. Since no reasonable economic use can be made of the building in its present condition and only at great expense can it be brought to a level that would make it useable, continued imposition of the historic overlay is likely to cause the building to remain vacant and undergo further deterioration. Should this occur, it would have the consequence of creating an eyesore that would adversely affect the image and character of Main Street. Recent efforts to improve the business climate of the downtown area, such as the reconstruction of Main Street and the installation of planters and benches, would be undermined. Social Consequences The building is significant in its association with a variety of colorful owners and as only wood frame building on Main Street that has not been significantly altered. In general, the urban environment of Tigard's downtown is enhanced by protecting historic resources. The downtown area is the historic center of the city and today contains the largest number (four) of surviving historic properties. Protection of the downtown's individual properties enhances the historical qualities of the area. The City Center Development Plan calls for the protection of significant historical and cultural resources. Protection of this resource supports this policy. On the other hand, the overall goal of the plan is to eliminate blighted conditions and to create a sense of place and identity as the heart of the city. The feed store is a blighted structure, in terms of building and health codes, and removal of the overlay supports the policy of eliminating blight. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 10 • 1 Environmental Consequences Tigard has completed a city -wide inventory of Goal 5 natural /open space resources. Significant environmental areas have been protected. This site is not located within an inventoried natural /open space area. Energy Consequences The State Transportation Planning Rule requires local zoning and planning actions which will lower the vehicle miles traveled per capita within urban areas. The provisions of the CBD zoning district comply with the state rule by encouraging transit - oriented development. This location on Main Street is a major transit street. The site is well served by transit. If the site was re- developed, the cost of demolition and re- construction would require energy resources. Clearance of such a large building would consume a substantial amount of energy. Also, the energy initially spent to construct the building would be lost. Older structures, such as this one, do not rate high as energy efficient structure. However, they can be retro -fitted to improve their energy efficiency. There are not significant energy consequences associated with protecting or not protecting this resource. Summary Due to the extremely poor and contaminated condition.of the building, protection of this resource creates severe economic consequences for the building owners. Additionally, the blighted condition of the building adversely affects the image of the downtown as a place to do business. Removal of the historic protection does not create adverse energy consequences since the site is well served by transit and a higher density is allowed. The development of a high - density commercial project in its place would be a more efficient use of the transit available at this location. Removal of historic protection does create adverse social consequences. Social values are enhanced by the protection of historic resources. Protection of this resource reinforces the historic qualities of Tigard's traditional downtown. Removal of the overlay supports the policy of eliminating blight. No adverse environmental consequences are associated with protecting or not protecting this resource. In conclusion, the adverse economic consequences of protecting this building outweighs any other values. This resource should not be protected. STAFF REPORT CPA 96- Page 11 Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale N FEED STORE ♦J a) E co 0 a 0 0) co 0 0) p 4O - U Planning Commission Notes, Tigard Feed and Garden ESEE did not address parking lot use building could be used for warehouse, farmers market use (bdlg would not have to be brought up to code for use to go in, city as owner would be liable for any injury or harm) arrange blight is defined as violation of building and health code city as applicant is not objective request independent evaluation of the building condition what cost figures for rehabing from an independent source lack of objective, independent appraisal qualitative, cost information city has conflict of interest city is applicant as land owner To Do: arrange health inspection TO: FROM: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Cb "0 Brian Rager. Engineering Tigard Planning Division Z o/ti 000 RE: MI S-96:0r:fig TIGARD FEED STORE APPLICANT: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 DATE: Jul 2. 1996 CiTY OF TIGARD OREGON STAFF CONTACT: Duane Roberts Phone. - s 639 -4171 Fax: (503 6 ; • 7 OWNERS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 2, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: 110 Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce • 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 639 -1656 July 17, 1996 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 We are applying for a removal of the Historic Overlay District to the Tigard Feed and Garden building on SW Main St. We would like this removal of Tigard Municipal Code 18.82 for the purpose of demolition of the building on that site. In Code Section 18.82.050 Criteria for demolition, point B6 states that this could be granted if leaving it on would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. We are stating that it would. We are a non -profit corporation set up for the benefit of the businesses of the City of Tigard. We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site, and the quotes we received stated that it would cost up to 300% more to remodel the current structure than to build a new one. Also the building now encroaches on the railroad right of way and has to be moved. The back portion of the property is owned by the City and will be used for a parking lot to enhance the central business district and merchants around that location. Originally the Historic Overlay District was put on this site due to its association with the variety of colorful owners since it's construction. But currently, the building is vacant and has not been used as an active business for almost one year, so none of these owners are associated with the building any more. In Point C it states that the Washington County Museum shall obtain a pictorial and graphic history of the resource and artifacts from the resource it deems worthy of preservation. We will be glad to assist them in any way possible to achieve this. Also on site we plan on having as many of both of these as we can. This would include a picture and history of the structure and its owners. Also saving part of the structure and encompass it into the new design and decorating. Examples would be signs, doors, glass from the windows etc. We feel that we have met the criteria for removal and ask that of you. If you have any questions, please call John L. Cook at 590 -2933. Sincerely, Colleen Willis President • Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale N MS9- -OO 18 za,(/ 6 - * FEED STORE • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: Ed Wegner. Operations FROM: Tigard Planning Division 2D V 96 D00,6 RE: 18 TIGARD FEED STORE APPLICANT: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 DATE: July 22, 1996 CSTY OF TIGARD OREGON STAFF CONTACT: Duane Roberts Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Fax: (503) 684 -7297 OWNERS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 2. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: /ql#/re 5;-11 e- dPN/t iaotit W w/ C 117 P60,00,1 cip; S.4-' . ) _s. w et LucatA. se'wece (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: *REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: David Scott, Building Div. DATE: July 22. 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division �zA/ 96 RE: -MIS -96 -001 -8 TIGARD FEED STORE APPLICANT: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 Cal' OF TIGARD OREGON STAFF CONTACT: Duane Roberts Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Fax: (503) 684 -7297 OWNERS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 2. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 3) Se%), l CO 4- Se, v '11) A - \cl S , J4 ik — OA\'‘\a\qi,. (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: Origard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 639 -1656 July 17, 1996 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 We are applying for a removal of the Historic Overlay District to the Tigard Feed and Garden building on SW Main St. We would like this removal of Tigard Municipal Code 18.82 for the purpose of demolition of the building on that site. In Code Section 18.82.050 Criteria for demolition, point B6 states that this could be granted if leaving it on would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. We are stating that it would. We are a non -profit corporation set up for the benefit of the businesses of the City of Tigard. We would like to build a new structure on the front portion of that site, and the quotes we received stated that it would cost up to 300% more to remodel the current structure than to build a new one. Also the building now encroaches on the railroad right of way and has to be moved. The back portion of the property is owned by the City and will be used for a parking lot to enhance the central business district and merchants around that location. Originally the Historic Overlay District was put on this site due to its association with the variety of colorful owners since it's construction. But currently, the building is vacant and has not been used as an active business for almost one year, so none of these owners are associated with the building any more. In Point C it states that the Washington County Museum shall obtain a pictorial and graphic history of the resource and artifacts from the resource it deems worthy of preservation. We will be glad to assist them in any way possible to achieve this. Also on site we plan on having as many of both of these as we can. This would include a picture and history of the structure and its owners. Also saving part of the structure and encompass it into the new design and decorating. Examples would be signs, doors, glass from the windows etc. We feel that we have met the criteria for removal and ask that of you. If you have any questions, please call John L. Cook at 590 -2933. Sincerely, v Colleen Willis President Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale N MIs zoo 96 0006 FEED STORE a) cts E a) co a cti 0) 1 4- O REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: Tigard Historical & Preservation Society FROM: Tigard Planning Division ..ZOO RE: - MIS-96=091-8 TIGARD FEED STORE APPLICANT: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 DATE: July 22. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON - STAFF CONTACT: Duane Roberts Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Fax: (503) 684 -7297 OWNERS: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: A request to remove the historic overlay designation and permit the demolition of the Tigard Feed and Garden building, designated as historically significant by the City of Tigard. LOCATION: 12355 SW Main St. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 3.7.1 and Community Development Code, chapter 18.82 ZONE: CBD Attached is the vicinity map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: August 2, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. . Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: 6 fia-y 7), LRSS August 26, 1996 Duane Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Tigard Feed and Garden Store Building Dear Duane: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed removal of historic designation from this building. I've had a chance to review our inventory information on it and to look over the provisions of your ordinance. If, as it appears, the owners are arguing that the designation imposes an unreasonable financial hardship on them, they should present supporting evidence, such as comparative bids, rather than a simple assertion. I do not mean to imply that no hardship exists, but rather that it is not demonstrated in the materials you have forwarded to me. With regard to historic significance, I believe the building continues to meet the criteria for designation. Its current condition, although regrettable, in my opinion should not enter into consideration. Finally, this sort of building represents a diminishing historic resource type. Feed stores served historically as important central gathering places for their communities. Today not many of them remain. My understanding is that some effort has been made to find an alternative to demolition, such as moving. That would be preferable from our point of view, and if there is anything I can do to facilitate that process, please contact me at extension 260. Sincerely, Dave Skilton Preservation Planner cc Lisa Burcham, Historic Preservation League of Oregon PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 1115 Commercial St. NE Salem, OR 97310 -1001 (503) 378 -5001 FAX (503) 378 -6447 73410 -807