Loading...
SCE1992-00001POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. STATE OP OREGON County of Washingtimm ) esn: City of Tigard I8 �► : . ` ► :r° e being first duly ern /affirm, on oath de ®e and says (Please Print That I , or The City of Tiger ::: , Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC ... BEARING R: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: „ .. City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission +;--"- ti d Bearings Officer Tigard City Council A cc (Public Nearing Notice /Notice of Decision) of which is attac Exhibit "A) was tailed to eadh named rs h at the addr sn shottn o the attached lint eked exhibit "Su) on the •.--day of said notice NOTICE OF DECI ION an her a tack d, was on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of sr . • , �.9 -; and dePqNited in the United Staten Nail on the day of i9 -- ,r' Po tage prepaid. Prepared Notice CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER Ry BEARINGS OFFICER . Concerning Ca Mwe Number(s): SCE 92.:2211./VAR 92 -0005 2. Name of Owner: Chervron USA Inc. Name of Applicant: s ..: 3.: Address PO Box 220 City Seattle State WA Zip 2111111...:,.... �. Address of Property. 15670 SW 1N-, Boo as Far Roab. Tax Map and Lot No (s) . 251 12DD :; tax lot 800 5. Request: agm t gor:Si n Code Face ion and Variance a;j royal to retain one andin jai n of , x a ro tgl 32C EczR e feet r face with a height_gf_appswimataliALlEgt.jdkaml the Cod allows a maximum si area of 160 a are feet s wr si. face and a maximum heir ht of 35 f APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Communit Devel©. r:,ont Code Clan era 18.114. and 18._134. Zone: C (General Commercial) The C .G zone : il,ows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate, and business support services, and single - family residential units among other tacsa Approval as rest Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Ball, and mailed to: The pplicant and owner(s) Owners of record within the regUired distance The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decisions THE DECISION S BE FINAL ON Mae,g 4 99„ , UNLESS AN APPEAL IS-FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions c be obtained from the Planning Dep nt, Tigard City Ball, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. A its Any Party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written aPPeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and. sent. The appeal may be submitted oat City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up to a maximum of $500.00). The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3.30 p.m. May 4, Y9►92 , 10. e2tion If you have any questions, plebse call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. BEFORE TIM LAND USE IMAM:NOS °FT FOR THE arrY OF TIGARD, OREGON In the matter of an aieesill(wion by Chevron USAV Inc. for a si:l code xcepI1oit eerel varitancefer land west I5 and south of Lower Boone s Fry Road ) In t h e City of Ti Oregon ) L SUMMARY OF THE • UEST The hearings o incorporates by reference the sunumy in Section I of the Staff 13, 1992. * the Hearings Officer regardhig SCE 9247001 and VAR 92-0005 dated Al pri IL FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The hearings officer incorporates by reference the findings In Section rx of the S to the Hearings Officer regarding SCE 92-0001 awl VAR 92-0005 dated Apia 13, 1992. DI HEAMICO, TESTIMONY, AND NPO & AGENCY COV1MNTS A. Hearing. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on April 13, 1992. A record of that testimony is mcluded herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the City of Tigard Planning Department, B. Tesiintony. 1. Ron Pomeroy testified for the City and sumeaarizzd the staff report. 2. Ed Abrahannon tesdfied for the applicant C. NPO &Agency COMMeiltS. The hearings officer incorporates by reference the agency and NPO comments in Section III of the Staff Report to di Hearings Officer regarding SCE 92-0001 and VAR 92-0005 dated April 13, 1992, N. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The hearings ()Meer incorpormtes by reference the applicable approval sten ds in Section IV of the Staff Report to eiLie Hearings Officer regarding sCE 92-0001 and VAR 924 I 45 dated April 13, 1992. FINAL ORDER SCE 92-0001 VAR 9240005 (Chevron) V. EVALUATION The hearings officer incorporates by reference the findings and conclusions in Section V of the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer regardies SCE 92-0001 and VAR 92- 0005 dated April 13, 1992. ' Page - Hew lige Officer final order SCE 92-0001IV4R 910005 (Chevron) h e a r i n g s The , ncI s that complies the applicable t -', of, mpg the Summary and other repoits of affected enies and p b e testimony and 3.4 VAR Page 2 - &gr e O cer fined o SCE 92.06011VAR 92-0005 (Chevron) ECj { fi LfjF STAp ' REPORT TO T HEARINGS OFFICER m.®..� APRIL 13, 1992 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST IGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 92 -0001 / VARIANCE VAR 92 -0005 A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to retain one freestanding aign of approximately 320 square feet per face with a height of approximately 60 feet where the Code specifies a maximum allowable sign area of 160 square feet per ign face and a maximum allowable height of 35 feet. I. TION. 14411 SW 7211/2a Avenue (WOW 281 1DDe tax lot 800) APPLICANT: Chevron SSA, Inc. P.O. Box 220 Seattle, Wa. 98111 Chevron USA, Inc. P.O. Box 7643 San Francisco, CA 94120 AGENT: Permit Consulting Services, Inc. 122 SE 27th Portland, OR 97214 = � .NSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Genera L Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (General Commercial) APPLICABLE LAW: Communi ty Development Code Sections 18.114.070 (L) , 18.114..130 (F)( ), 18.114.130 (8), 18.114.145 (A) (3), 18114.145 (E),and 16134.050 (A). II. FINDINGS, ABOUT SITE 7€ D SURROUNDINGS A. �1 i.t_ Y...�.lt�i ®�'e�C'�ti�t� The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of 1.5 and SW Upper Boon: Ferry 3 oad. A service driveway leading from SW Upper Boones Ferry Road to the Sherwood Inn separates the Chevron Service Station from the Union 76 Service Station which is located to the east. The Sherwood Inn and Union 76 Service Station properties are also zoned C. Properties to the north. .nd went of the site are zoned I- P (Industrial (Inarkk ) Park). The pacific Corporate Center euhdiviBiOf is g P currently under development to the. north (across SW Upper Booms Ferry Road) . The property to the west is part of the Oregon Business '?ark. The properties to the west are approximately 20 to 30 feet lower " in elevation than the subject site. 41ghgroun 3 Information or In 1965, the owners of the property now occupied by the Sherwood Inn leased a small portion of their ' property to Standard Oil Company of California (Standard) granting rights to erect and maintain a sign. The lessor is currently listed as Ferman Enterprises (the current owner of the Sherwood Inn). The Chevron sign and the signposts supporting the Chevron sign are owned by Chevron. The Sherwood Inn sign which sits atop the Chevron sign is owned by Martin Brothers Sign Company• and is leased to the Sherwood. Inn. The Sherwood Inn, in turn, leased the top of Chevron's signposts in August, 1971, to display their sign. Cn January 15, ,`,976, the subject property was annexed to the City of Tigard. ' !Followinv the advice of then Assistant Planner Mre Jerald Powell , the current proaty, Mr. Susnjara,. submitted 'a variance application :on January 7, 1976. Thin. variance application requested City approval for the continued us of ' both of • the existing signs (the, Restaurant /Motel sign and the Sherwood Inn /Chevron, sign). In turn,"the Planning Commission approved this variance regnest allowing the exietiz g signs to remain- The City of Tigard amended the Sign Code in 1978 and adopter a Sign code Amortization program stipulating theta Signs located on premises annexed into the City after January 11, 1971, which do not comply with the provisions of this chapter, shall be brought into compliance within a period of ten years after the date of annexation.. On February 17, 1988, Tigard Assistant ; Planner Deborah Stuart sent a letter to Sherwood Inn. General 24anager Diana Giles, stating that the two freestanding .signs on the Sherwood Inn property were non- conforming and would have to be brought intte conformance. Tao. days later, Senior Planner Keith Liden !sent .a letter td Spectrum Corporation (the current land owner) stating that the' existing- eignage did. not conform to the sign code and would' have to be. remedied. Subsequent letters of similar intent were pent by the City. Mr. Dave Alexander, Spectrum Executive Vice President, responded 'off-April ' 12; 'I988 "to" the City that It was Spectrum's position that the 1976. variance remained valid,- '.Additional letters concerning the signing of a Voluntary Compliaace Agreement were sent in. 1989. In August of .1990 , • Sherwood Inn . .elected to. seek continued, tree of their igns independently of Chevron, • and• they have subsequently uently been' heard before the Tigard Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council, reviewed Sherwood Inn's appeal and reversed the Plannins Commission's decision. The City Council approved one freestanding sig4 with a sign height of 65 feet and a size of 750 square feet per face (1,500 square feet total) for the Sherwood Inn. This application, therefore, concerns only the conformity of the freestanding Chevron sign. C. Site Information anal Proposal Descriation eJ The northern edge of the 0.18 acre site abuts SW upper `Boone. Ferry Road. A 40 foot wide accesaway which connects. the Sherwood Inn . to SW Upper Boons Ferry Road is located. along the east side of the subject -site. ' A Union 76 Service Station is located on the other side of this accensway. Interstate 5 is located further to. the east. Several mature Douglas, Fir STAFF REPORT - SCE 92 -0001 / VAR 92 -0005 CHEVRON • PAGE 2'AFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER AGENDA ITEM APRIL 13, 1S0 TIGM D CITY eltALL TOWS HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 I SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: SIGN CODE. OEPTION SCE 91 -0003 / VARIAN VAR 91 -0011 SUMMARY: A request for ign Code . Exception and ariance approval to retain one freestandin sign of approxinate1..: 320 scare feet per face with a height of appr..Yi aate1y' 60 feet wha*re the Code specifies a maximuau allowable sigh ar. of 160 square eat per sign face, . and a maximum allowable height o 35 feet. LOCATION. 14410 SW 72nd Avenue .•WCTZ4 2S . 1DD, tax lot 800) APPLICANT: Chevron USA, Inc P.O. Box 220 Seattle, Wa. 98111 OWNER: Chevron USA, Inc. P.O. Box '7643 San Francisco, CA 9x.:,20 AGENT: Pewit Consulting_ ervicea, In 122 SE 27th Portland, OR 97 COMMPFEHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA :`ION: General Comma cial ZONING DESIGNATION: C -G (General Commercial) APPLICABLE LAW: Commu ity Development Code Sectio s 18.114.. 070 (L) , 18.114.130 (F)(a;, 18.114.130 (G), 18.114.14 (A)(3), 18.114.145 (B),and 18.13 .050 (A). I '; A. Aricinit Informa ion The etub j ect pro ' ,rty is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I- and SW Upper Bconee Ferry Road. A service driveway leading from SW Upper Scone .= Perry Road to the Sherwood Inn separates the Chevron Service Station from the Union 76 Service Station which is located to the east. The Sherwood Inn and Union 76 Service Station properties are also zoned C-G. Properties to the north and we t of the site are zoned I- P (Induetri:;1 Park) . The Pacific Corporate Center subdivision ie currently under development to the north (across SW Upper Boonee Ferry Road) . The property to the west is part of the Oregon Business Park. The properties to the west are approximately 20 to 30 feet lower in elevation than the subject site. STAFF REPORT - SCE 92-0001 / VAR 92 -0005 CHEVRON PAGE 1 trees are locat d to the south of the Sherwood inn. These trees block much 'of the View of the Chevron station from the traffic :. lanes of the freeway. The subject property is presently developed with a Chevron Service Station which has two pump islands with one roof awning over the two island:: Access ' to the property is provided by way of the paved Sherwood. Inn driveway. This driveway is .ahared by the two service stations. The nonconforming freestanding sisee, w'aich is the subject of this application is located to the south of the site's southern property line by . approximately two feet and therefore is located on Sherwood Inn property. III. AGENCY ! NPO COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Di visi n, the City Engineering Departs = nt, Tualatin Valley Fire District #1, Oregon Department of Transportation and' Neighborhowl Planning-Organization #5 have reviewed this proposal and have offered no - coents or objections. No other comments have been received. In, APPLICABLE PIEW CRITERIA The relevant criteria for this proposal are Community Development. Code Sections 18.114.090 (5), 18.114.145 (A), and 18.134.050 (A). A. Section 18.114.090 al states that freeway oriented signs shall be isermi.tted in the ' zone. Freeway oriented signs ' shall be leermitted to locate within 200 feet of Highway 217 and/or 1 -5. One freeway oriented freestanding sign shall be allowed for each parcel, deve1ophent complex, or premises with a maximum height not to exceed 35 feet ream the ground level at its 'base. • The 'total. maximum sign area shall be .161 square feet per sign face (320 square feet total) . The sign 'shell be oriented to be viewed from the freeway„ R. it is specified in Code Section 18.114.1411.11.1 hat" the Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an exception to th = sign code based on findings _ that at ' least one of five criteria are satisfied. The .:.pplicant states that two of the fives . criteria (height . and size) are met by this applic tion as follows: 1) The proposed exception to the height limits in the, sign cods is necessary to make the sign visible from the street ;Iecauae of the, topography of the site, and /or a conforming building or .,si.gn. -on an adjacent property would limit the view of a. sign erected 'oar `the rite. in conformance with Sign Code standards; ' ` 2) Up to an additional 25 percent that sign area ` or , . height. may permitted when it is d termini ` that .the increase .will: not ';deter from the purpose of this chapter. 'This increase shonld� be . ' judged according to specific needs and circus tances ': Which.. necessitate additional area to sake the sign sufficiently legible.•, increase (s) shall not conflict with . any :.: other n onalisensi ona . w *standards or r:- strictiona of this chapter. 9� C. Code section 18.134.050 (A). the criteria for allowance of a variance to a Code standard. The criteria are: 1 ). The . proposed variance .will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be , in conflict' : with the policies of the Compreehenssive. Plan, to any. ether applicable policies of the Community Development .Code,, ta any other , applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. 2) .` There are special circumstances that `exist which are peculiar to the lot 'Size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant' has no 'control, and which' are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; 3) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and. City standards will be maintained to the : greatest extent possible, while permitting .soma economic use of the land. 4) Existing physical and` natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic • land forms or parks will not 'be adversely affected anymore than would occur if the development were located are epeci f led in the Code; and 5) The hardship is .not self-imposed ,and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. SIGN CODE EXCEPTION: 1. Tae' sign which 'is the ' sub je_ ct: of this application complies with some of- , the ' provisions . ' of- Code .Sections 1 114.O9O t t . This 'freestanding sign is oriented toward 1-5, and. is :. within 200 feet of the State of Oregon. right-of-way.- 'However, both the, height and size of this sigh ek"ceed "the' allowances provided. by' this code section. The 'Sigh Code' Exception process. would potentially allow '.a maximum sign .height of' 43.75 feet. and a maximum sign area of 200 square feet per face for 'a freeway oriented freestanding sign (400. square feet total) . The applicant states that 'an exception to the height limit ie necessary in. order to. make the sign visible from the street (I-5) due to the topography of the site. The, ite is approximately 30 feet lower in elevation that of the traffic lanes: on 1 -5. This elevation difference make the sign, difficult to view from 1. @5 whether traveling north or southbound. There are a numerous physical obstacles ;.that impairs ; the'.` site. line for both north and southbound. traffic. These obstacles include buildings, other freestandi.ng signs, and mature Douglas Fir treee which are located on the State of Oregon right -of -way ,south .Of the subject sites Staff 3 y ' �c this analysis. the problem ® sight obstruction, relative to southbound £ 'traffic, ' iss . partially mitigated by the presence of a State _ Highway . Divieion international STAFF REPORT SCE 92-0001 i �� - ®� ®5 CHEVRON PEE - sign ocated at the I -5 / Hwy 217 interchange indicating that.a Chevron Service Station (the subject site) is located at the next exit. With regard to the proposed increase in sign area, the applicant states that, largely due to the stands of mature fir trees which are located to the south of the subject property, only a narrow sight corridor exists by which northbound traffic can clearly see and read the sign prior to arriving at the freeway off -ramp. This viewing window its. approximate .y 2,000 feet south of the sign. Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis of the sight obstructions between this : ign and the freeway. Some additional square footage should be granted for this sign clue to the constraints listed above. The additional amount of square footage which staff recommends shall be discuses in the Variance portion of this analysis. The appl.ioant also contends that since the Chevron site waa annexed into the City of Tigard without the benefit of a 'site development review, that code section 18.11x.130 (G) (1) be applied retroactively. This code sections staters If it . is determined under the development review process that the sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served while maintaining the intent and purpose of this chapter, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area and 25 percent of sign height may be permitted. Staff 'does not agree with this recommendation. This provision clearly applied to either new development or modifications to an• existing development which neoeeeitate a Site Development Review. The 'subject site was developed prior to annexation to the City` and has not applied for site modifications which would require a Site Development Review. Therefore the opportunities provided by this code reference are not applicable. While staff'would'-redommend that both additional height and size allowances, he . granted for this sign, "the uatisting sign presently exceeds those allowances 'approvab1e by the Sign Code Exception process The height of this existing sign J-0-60 feet and .tine sign area is _'320 square feet per face (640 square feet total) Therefore, a variance to the sign code has been requested. B. VARIANdE 1. The applicant states that the sign is not materially detrimental to the purposed of the code for several reasons. 'piret,' this sign is the. same sign that the Tigard' Planning Commission approved a variance for in 1976. Subsequently, a letter from ;Planning Di ector William Monahan dated February. 29, 1984 aclinowledge that the sign(s) did conform to the code. It is argued that presuab1y Mr. Monahan should have indicated that this sign was not in conformance with the sign code and would have to be replaced within . four y :ars. (as defined by the Sign Code Amortization program). Because no Mention was make of this, it has been understood that the variance whi cla was received in 1976 would allow the use of the signs as long as the sign exists. STAFF REPORT ® SCE 92 -0001 / V.AR 92 -0005 cliEvR0N Second, three previously approved variance requests are cited as examples of similar applications which received approval from the Planning Commission. Specifically„ Foress Sign Company (SCE 87-02), Landmark Ford (SCE . 89. -14 / VAR 89-03), and Sherwood Inn (SCE 90 -05 / VAR 90 -27). Chevron contendebthat this proposal is more modest and indistinguishable from these three previous applications. Staff contends that the approval of a variance to the sign code for this freeway oriented Chevron sign will not be ` materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, be in conflict with the policies of the comprehensive plan, to any other applicable policies and standards, c`er to other properties in the vicinity. This sign ' did receive previous variance approval for both excessive height and size in ,1976. The City, however, , does not agree with the applicant that the failure of Mr. Monahan:' 1984 letter to state that the sign was still subject to .the Sign Code Amortization program, irregardless of any .face changes, indicates that the Amortization program does • not apply to this sign due to the 1976 variance .approval. Rather,,,Mr. Monahana' silence of this issue is not meant to be indicative 'of `' either position. With reference to the three examples of other variances to the sign code, staff shall agree that the findings reached by the City Council • for the Sherwood Inn Sign Code Variance do have a direct bearing on this application. 2. Staff. agrees with the applicant that there are special circumstances that exist 'which are particular .to, the lot . size or shape, topography, - or otter circumstances over which the applicant has no control and which are not applicable to other-properties in ethe same zoning district. Several unique factors have previously been mentioned which ,affect ' the size and height necessary for this fr =eway oriented Chevron sign to be legible from the north and southbound- traffic lanes of •1 -5. Therefore, additional sign area and height should be granted. 3v The .proposed signage exceeds the thet height allowed by a Sign Code Exception by 16.25 feet (37 %) .and the allowable sign area by 120 square feet per± + Ifigr Fface (6014. The existing sign height is primarily necessary y in order for the sign to be adequately visible frem the southbound 'lanes of I -6. • Therefore, the .sigra height should • not be reduced from the present height .of 60 feet. The existing sign area is also acceptable as it relates to both the sight constraints, and the City Council . decision �regarding �t the Sherwood Inn signs. The Council approved a freeway oriented sign for the Sherwood Inn of 750 square feet per face (470% of the standard• allowable sign area) . • Unlike the individual letters of the Sherwood Inn sign, the Chevron sign .is largely a company logo. It would seem that the message of the Chevron logo is more easily recognizable and more q►.ickly communicatTd than is that of the Sherwood Inn sign. Chevron nas not applied for the same 470% exception which was approved for the Sherwood Inn. Rather, an increase of 60% above the Sign Code Exception allowance has been requested (200% over the standard allowable area for a .freeway (oriented sign) . In light of the physical constraints of the site and they difference in tyt, of sign messages, staff contends that the existing = ign maintains the City STAFF REPORT SCE 92 -0001 / VAR 52 -0005 • CHEVRON PAGE 6 o hardship : s not :se�.f ' Wised because: the 4 gi irk cation was" erected legally and h'as heccnie n®ncenforui ng a xd �h j t the sign 'code s ization rogr due to changes regulations'. A.':previous variance teas "-a roved :1976, thereby ,demanstrating that.- Situation was net: self. sed�'� Stated . ahave, staff' contends that the V ian ::re nested :i s the minittanta Variance from ", the ..cede ' requi r nts, :which Would alleviate the hardship.: RECOMENDATION Planning. Staff : concludes that the proposed Sign Code Exception an 5 Code Variance will . not" h - significantly , detrimental" tal" ,'nor injurious surrounding land use s. Planning Staff : hereby r :.ca ends APPROVAL of . Sign - de lg2tce ion S 92- 0001 and Sign Code ''7ariance VAR 92-0005 regarding t lot .000 of W . 251 121)DQ THIS ' APPROVAL SHALL RE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF FIG , MONTHS OF THE a. CT DATE OF THIS DECISIO Prepared Ey: Approved arp? a 92 -01 dee STAFF REPORT ®,SCE 92 -0001 / :VAR "92- 10005. OMR LEGIBILITY STRIP Oloitot .date b etep: aeproseo. tenon aeeto i 'od''by the C,i f7 .of Ttoor.d atltlrieg GCoj; —= cis)' aar:aord. letor -`. s s,' mottos portrayed berg tt,i a awl be loteadod to ba uasd oitb'adb-ittoael. a' 0 it to botool.oa.d /or faterpro:tetiso dai.e as doterraleiod` bT the, City ►lgord. fvPSCE021).: .0k {'02121/14 1 ' • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: b DATE: 1992. PROM: Tigard Planning Department s SI DL E PTION SCE 92 -0001< I 92 ®0005 CHEVRON - (N #5) A request for Sign Code Exc: pticn and Variance approval to retain one freestanding sign of approximately 320 square feet per face with ist height of approximately 60 feet where the Code allows a maximum sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and a maxis eum height of 35 feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW I IA: Community DeVelOpelailt Code .. Chapter: 18.114.140 and 18.134. LOCATION: 15670 SW Upper Booms Ferry Road . (WCTM 281 1201), tax lot $00) ZONE: C-G (General Com rcial) The C-G zone ' ellows public ''agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, fin4;ncial, in ittmce, real estate, and business support services, and single-family residential units among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's sit; tent for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from ot! r+ information avai1ab1- to our staff, a report and rec .endation will be pr 4 rG and a decision will be rendered on the pro'' seal in the near future. If you wish to cement on thi pplication, we need your co nts by e, 1992 You may use the space provided below or attach a r, p - rate letter to return your -... nts. If you are unable t® res nd by the ambo Le date m please phone the st , ff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as ssible. If you have any questions r®:rgarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397 y 1312f6 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PRONE: 639 ®4171 STA?F CONTACT: P eroy t'SEASE CHECK TUE 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: Name of Person Commenting: C . Phone Nun ber: (ZS-57411 • REQUEST FOR H NTS DATE is Tigard Planning 1 ' eat gEr SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCR 92 -0001 VARIANCE 92 0005 A request for sign Code Exception and variance . approval to retain one freestanding sign of approximately 320 square feet per face with a height of approximately 60 feet where the Code allows a maximum sign real of 160 square feet per sign face and a maximum height of 35 feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: as unity DeveloPment Code Chapter w: 18. 114.140 and la.134. LOCATION: 15670 SW upper Booneo Ferry Road (TANXMA 2&1, 1200e tax lot 800) ZONE: C-G (General commercial) The C G zone allows public agency and administrative services' Public support facilities* professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate, and business support - erviceae and single-family re{ -i dentia1 'units among other uses. Att shed is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for , your nevi... :w Prey information ;:gpiied by various deg nts 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 comentS by Aura ! _, 1992. You may naaae the space provided below or attach a a eparate letter er to return your co nts. If \you are unable to ree . nd b : the above date., p1 eai?'0 Phone the staff contact rated below with your comments and confirm your cot a in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this' Patter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 Big Bali. Bled., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Poaerra PLEASE CHECK THE roLLDWING 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: Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number �.- .. T O : ( ; t DATE: Feb 26 . 199 FROM: Tigard' Planning Department RE: SIGN E prioN SCE 92.0001 vAnt4 _ cs 92 -0005 :..a .ON t #5) A gs o. retain° one request ��� 3f �t Code Exception � Variance approval freestanding sign oil approximately 320 square feet per face ith a height . of approximately 60 feet wh;- re the Code allows a maximum sin area of 160 square fe r t ' per sigin face and a maximum height of 35 feet. A.PPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.114.140 and 18.134 "PION: 15670. SW Upper Boones Ferry Road , (WCTH 281 2.213p, " tax lot °800) ZONE: C-G (General. Commercial) The C-G zone al i.ows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, profe®aional and administrative services, financial, inanrance, real estate, and business support y. •rvices, and sing]. -family residential unite among other wage. Attached is ti Site Plan and applicant's' stag nt 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 commente by Maw. 192.. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. Ltysat are unable to r+ssper_d bL the abova; date_ please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as- soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box- 23397, 13125 SW Hail Blvd., ; Tigard, OR 9722. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF ' CONTACT: Ron Pomero PLEASE emEeE TEE FelmewiNG ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and hay.- no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. written Comments REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: - DATE: r' ary 26. 1.99 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 92 -0001 VARIANCE 92 -0005 CY ( PO #5) A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance _ approval ° to retain one freestanding sign of approxizn. =.tely 320 square feet per face with a height of apps ®xivately 60 feet where the Code allows a sign area of 160 ssssluaro: feet per sign face and a height. of 35 feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Develoment Cod h Chapters 18.114.140, and 18.134. LOCATION: 15670 SW Upper Boenes Ferry Road (=ZS 251 120O, tax lot 800) ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) The C zone allows public aged -j' and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate, and business support services, and single-family re = idential units among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and appli.c nt'B statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our sstaf f , 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 cn this application, we need your comments by Mater. 1992. You may use the apace provided below or attach 'aseparyte letter to return your comments. I you awe_ unable t® res nci by the v� dam, please phone the staff contact. noted below with your comments comments nts and confirm your in writing as seen as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box .23397, 13125 SW Nall E1ss3. , Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS T 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: TO FROM: Tigard Planning Departmentg q / -pyry�LL/��Q��p a��q N 21_,E - .A rIIe�Ya66o R.SL 9.2z®Vitl _ ___ _ gyaVLif. 1, VI_ retain #5) �i fr1��a® L ®V�1� �® d���KA�07b iO�if� A request for Sign Code Exception and V.= 4.riahce freestanding sign of approximately 320 square feet per face with a height 60 feet where the Code allows a maximum sign area of of square approximately sign face and a u5 height of 35 acluare feet REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.114.140 and 18.134. LOCATION: 15670 SW Upper ones Ferry Road (WCTH 2S1 12DD, tax lot 800) ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) The C zone allows public' agency ) s,.erviee5, public support . agent end administrative professional and administrative services nd ainfle�fa�i.l� residential , units estate, and busingeee support services, {.. among other uses. Attached is the Site X1: n and applicant's statement your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and f rom other information available to our etatf, a report and recommendation saion well If prepared a decision will be rendered on the proposal a 9t ®19�® may to comment on this application, we need your comments _ nts by a your c �nts� oy use the. space provided below or attach nk�dve�d t�� please phone the � aft cr��a�a If on are unable to rye ��* ndb the noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as ssible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639 -4171 • STAFF CONTACT: on PomeroY _ PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: W have reviewed the proposal . and have no objections to it. please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclo = °ed letter. Written Comments: FI NO: SCE 92-0001 / VAR 92 -0005 FILE TITLE: CHEvRoN USA,. , INC. Chevron. USA, 'Inc. P.O. >Sox 220 Seatie, Wa. 98111 OWNER: Same A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance' approval to retain one freestanding sign of approximately' 320 square feet Per face with ,a height of ;approximately 50 feet where the Code ®ecifie ® a maximum allowable sign area of .160 square feet per sign face and. a . maximum allowable height of 35 feet. REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section, 18.114.160# 15870 SW Upper Eoones ferry Road (Haig 4S1 I2DD, tax lot 800) C --G (General Commercial) The General Commercial allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative 0 yrvices, financial insurance, and real estate services, business support services, single-family residential units, among other uses. NPO NO: 5 NPO CHAIRPERSON: Craig Hopkins PHONE NUMBER: 639. 5823 CHECK ALL WHICH ' APPLY: STAFF DECISION COMMENTS DUE BACK TO STAFF oN 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF NEARING: TIME: HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME «7 _ 00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: «32 STAFF CONTACT: Don Fcmtrex € 39 41.71. ADMIN STRATI E VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 / Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639 - 4171 1 GENERAL INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION SITE SIZE 0.18 acres PROPERTY OWNER /DEED HOLDER* ChChevron L USA _ >o ADDRESS PO Box 7643 .., . :.PHONE: (206):62 a &5266 CITY San Francisco, CA ZIP 94120, ,APPLICANT* Clievrolir USA to ADDRESS mss ,..y. %Otic CITY '` PDOI+NECa214!1 r ZIP z G. ®� i � k'/&) Filiig fee t� FOR STAFF USE, ONLY CASE' NO. - o o o OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: Si !® l Application ele ) Application form (1) (B) Owner's signature /written authorization t'r(C) transfer instrument (1) Title trap.... , CD) Assessor's map (1) E) Plot plan (Pre-app chec k list) L eats submitted: F) Applicant 4 :a statement . . (pre -app check list). (G) i, *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must-be the .,purchaser of record or a leasee ., in possession with written autorization from the'` owner or an agent . of the owner with 'written authorization. The owner(s) mustsign this. application in the space provided on Page two or4, i submit a written authorization with this applcat.on. PROPOSAL, SUMMARY `Plhe ::.oers of record of the subject property` request permission for a Variance to the'' f ollong provision(s) of . the Community Development Code: qtr FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: COMP- PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: _ 3. List any variance„ conditi.onal uses, 'r other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: N/A APPlicants: Te have a cemPlee aPPlicatioa YPA 111 neeesto submt'attachmente 4- described in the attached information sheet •at—the time you submi.t this 5. THE AppLicANT(s). SHALL CERTIFY THAT:. .A. reatrithat.-..ma , -to or im °filed u an the subJect..o.r.O,,ert . B. If the application is granted, the applicant Will exercise. ,the., rights granted 'in accordance with the terms and .stibjeet to all ;the conditions' and limitations of the approval. - C, All ,of 'the above statekents and the 'statements' in the plot plan, .. • attachments, and exhibits transmitted •' herewit.4., are -true;. and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit , issued, based on, this application, may be revoked if it 1:a found that any '.such stateMenta, are. false. D. -The applicant has read the enllire contents of the, atiplication, including the policies and criteria, and, uzjder_stancis the, requirements for approving or denying the application. \day 19 ct DATED this of -4kr--t--- t SIGNATURES' �f each (KSL:Pm/0737P). S "l: s . 1 - .e...✓ S kd L.r*; 1 �.1' ,f. '1. 4.. .5 ,. .. � a... .,..V r�.: tKn �. .n.. r. I: +..�C n � �_ � ... +. Y . i •.... l.? j r..,7*': 1, �' ?i;:..Y �} ..::�' 122 S.E. 27th' Portland, Oregon 97214 Phone: (503) 23606000 Fax: (503) 232 -2357 Planning, Landscape Architecture, Architecture, Civil Engineering .February 25 ® 1992 Ron Pomeroy City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 : Chevron Sign Code Exception and Variance Victor Adonri called yesterday to inform me of an error in the application fee for the above referenced project. Enclosed please find a check for $23 to cover the oversight. Mr Adonri also indicated that you would be the Development Review Planner assigned to review this proposal. As you proceed through your review please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions, concerns or cominents. Please give me a call as soon as possible to let me know when this application is scheduled for a public hearing. CHEVRON VARIANCE NARRATIVE Inction Chevron. SA, Inc, (Chevron) is . seeking a . ig n -Code " Exception and'' x , Variance to the Tigard Sign Code to enable . the Chevron service station, located at 15670 SW Upper Boones. Ferry ` Road, to continue usag!i8 of their existing fre astanding sign. °freestanding sign is 320 square feet per face and stands at it height of 60P feet (top of sign) In undertaking this application, . Chevron Is . not waiving any " o the arguments raised in previous correspondence with the city ^o; Tigard, nor any other arguments or defenses, nor doeJ Chevron concede the applicability of ' the city's sign code and amortization rules to the subject signs. To achieve a better understanding of the circumstances . surrounding this application, it: is necessary to provide the background information that brought about this application. In 1965, the owners of the property now occupied by Sherwood Inn leased a small portion of their property (zee site plan) to Standard Oil Company of California (Standard) , granting rights to erect and maintain a sign. In a lease dated May 20, 1971 ire and Mrs. Marko Susnjara succeeded the rights of the` lessor, followed by Spectrum Development Corporation and Ferryman Enterprises (the current owner of Sherwood Inn). The Chevron sign and the signposts suppoting the, Chevron .sign are owned by Chevron. The Sherwood Inn sign is owned by ' martin, Brothers, Inc. and leased to Sherwood Inn. (To eliminate as !' muc confusion as possible, when "Sherwood Inn " sign. is referred toff Chevron is referring only to the "Sherwood Inn" sign .itself ,and not the Motel and. Restaurant signs.) In August, 1971, Sherwood: Inn elected to lease the top of Chevron's signposts to4', display their sign. On June 17, 1974 a sign permit was issued to Standard for a 320 square foot, per side, sign by the Oregon State Highway This sign was referred to, on its permit from the state conforming to the Oregon botori st Information Act (with . expiration date). In a letter from Jerald M. Powell Tigard Associate Planner, dated September 12, 1975, Mr. Powell responded to one of Mr. Susnjara's concerns regarding Sherwood Inn's freestanding signs and the impending annexation of Sherwood Inn to Tigard. Mr. Powell outlined to Mr. Susnjara that his sign(s) was non conforming and subject to their Sign Code, Chapter 16.24. This portion of the code indicated that the owner of a non - conforming sign had ten years from the date of annexation to bring the sign(s) into compliance. Mr. Powell further stated in his letter that Mr. Susnjara had two choices of action to retain the exist ing signs, either course of action that would have substantially the same result, that is, a permanent permission by the City to retain the sign, and the use of the sign as long as that sign stands. The surest approach' would be to apply for a variance of the sign code at that time your property is rezoned to a City zoning district. This would obtain assurance for you that in ten years no action would be taken to require removal of the sign. (Emphasis added.) The other method outlined by Mr. Powell suggested waiting ten years and receive an order from the city to remove the sign and then appeal that order. On January 15, 1976 the city of Tigard annexed the subject property to the city. Following Mr. Powell ' s advice, Mr. Susnjara submitted a variance application to the city on January 7, 1976 requesting continued use of the existing signs at Sherwood Inn. The staff report for this variance request recommended to the Planning Commission that, they approve the variance requested by Mr. Susnjara with the condition that the Planning Co is :ion review the request after a period of five years "to determine further extension of this request." The Planning Commission, at their January 20, 1976 meeting elected to approve the variance request, deleting the staff recommendation that the approval be reviewed five years hence. In 1978, the city of Tigard amended the city's sign code, stipulating that e signs located on premises annexed into the city after January 11, 1971, which do not comply with the provisions of this chapter shall be brought int® compliance within a 'period of ten years after the date of the annexation. On February 29, 1964 (six years after the 1978 sign code amendment requiring replacement of nonconforming signs) € illiam h, Monahan, Director of Planning and Development, responded to a request by Mr. Susnjara to alter one of the freestanding signs (by adding additional square footage) stating: I am satisfied with the alterations which you propose .. will not violate the intent of the January, 1976, sign code variance which you received from the Tigard Planning Commission. It appears that an approval was granted which will not be adversely affected by your proposal. On February 17, 1988 Deborah Stuart, Tigard Assistant Planner, sent a letter to Diana Giles, Sherwood Inn General Manager, that the freestanding signs on her property were in violation of Tigard's Community Development Code. Specifically the signs were now regarded as non-conforming and would have to be brought into conformance as per the Tigard Sign Code, Section 18.114.110().. A February 19, 1988 letter from Keith Liden„ Tigard Senior Planner, to Spectrum Corporatioi,, outlined that the existing signage did not conform to code and would have to be remedied o Mr. Liden stated that the Tigard City Council adopted new sign code reforms in 1978. The Sign Code reforms included a 10 -Year` amortization period. The amortization period was instituted to allow businesses with non-conforming signs 10 Years to bring CD their signs into compliance. Mr. Lsden'e, letter further outlined alternatives available to Spectrum to comply With. the sign code. The city of Tigard subsequently sent letters to Spectrum on March 24, April 27, September 21, and October 12, 1988 demanding that Spectrum sign a Voluntary Compliance Agreement with Tigard regarding the signs. Dave Alexander, Spectrum Executive Vice President, responded on April 12, 1988 to the city that it was their (Spectrum's) position that the 1976 variance remained valid. In July, 1989 Ms. Stuart sent a letter to Mr. Alexander indicating a potential civil inf raction due to a non- conforming sign. As the property had been sold to H.E. Ferryman, Ms. Stuart sent a letter to Mr. Ferryman on July 19, 1989, notifying him that his sign (s) is non - conforming and that it needed to be remedied. A similar letter was sert to Mike Wynne, Attorney to Ferryman, on August 10, 1909 outlining the potential civil infractions pertaining to the non - conforming sign (s) A subsequent letter was sent to Mr. Wynne from Ms. Stuart: on September 8, 1989 demanding conformance to the Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Subsequent to the September 8, 1989 letter, Permit Consulting Serviies was contracted to prepare a sign code exception and variance for both Sherwood Inn and Chevron to allow continued use of the existing signage. In August, 1990, Sherwood Inn elected to seek continued use of their sign(s) independen tly of Chevron, and they have subsequently been heard before the Tigard Planning Commission and City Council (on appeal). The Tigard City Council reviewed Sherwood Inn's appeal reversing the planning commission, approving a sign height of 65 feet and a size of 750 square feet per face. Criteria As is apparent from the history of the signs, there have been a number of issues that affect their status Chevron's position maintains that the 1976 variance granted by the Tigard Planning Commission remains valid. Nonethelee,s, Chevron believes that it satisfies the necessary criteria that justifies continued use of 11 the existing sign, and is therefore wiling to make this application. Section 18.114.14.5 of the Tigard Sign Code outlines the Approve Criteria for Exceptions to the Sign Code. As outlined in this section, the Planning Cor ission shall base their decision on, the determination of whether or not an applicant: satisfies at least one of five criteria elements. Chevron believes that they meet two of the criteria - height and size. Chevron's existing freestanding sign was erected in 1971. The sign is 320 square feet per face and stands at a height of 60 feet (to top of sign) . As a freeway oriented business in a C-G zone, Chevron would be eligible to erect, at a minimum, a freestanding sign 35 feet high and 160 square feet per face, if they were applying for a new sign at the present time. (Section 18.114090, Special Condition Signs.) The Sign Code Exception (SCE) Criteria stipulates that an "exception to the height limits is necessary to make the sign visible from the street (1 -5) because of the topography of the site...." There are several issues that affect the sign's visibility from the targeted market on 1 -5. First, there is a substantial difference in elevation (greater than 30') between the subject property and 1-5. This elevation difference is compounded by the fact that the Chevron sign is placed on the downhill slope from 1 -5 making it difficult to view from 1-5, whether travelling north- or southbound. For southbound traffic there are a number of obstacles that impair the sight line that include, but are not limited to the Bonita Road overpass and the Gsvurtz and pacific Center signs For northbound traffic the sight line given the elevation difference would make it impractical to reduce the height . of the sign to 35 Compounding the northbr►`end viewing difficulty i6 the presence of mature fir trees on state right-of-way south of . the subject property, thereby severely restricting the sight line. To remain visible to northbound traffic Chevron must kai retain the present height of the sign, 60'. The SCE Criteria also allows "up to an additional 25 percent of sign area or height away be permitted when it is determined that the increase will not deter from the purpose of this chapter." This criteria further states that "this should be judged according to the specific needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible." y a ands of nature fir ' trees to �� Previously discussed, there ..are stands • the south of the subject property that make viewing the Chevron sign difficult for northbound traffic. In fact, there is only a narrow corridor for northbound traffic to even see the sign, much less read it prior to arriving at the freeway off -ramp. This viewing window is approximately 2,000 feet south of the subject property. For the Chevron sign/logo to be legible from this distance Chevron must maintain their existing sign:. Chevron, like many other national corporations, utilizes uniform signs at all their locations for ease of identification by consumers. Chevron considers the existing sign to be the most appropriate for this location. Otherwise, Chevron would be required to construct a custom sign solely for this location. Additionally,, Section 18.114.130 of the Sign Code subsection G.1 states that: If it is determined under the development review process that the sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served while maintaining the intent and purpose of this chapter, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area and 25 percent of sign height may be permitted Since the Chevron site was annexed to the city of Tigard without benefit of a development review, we would request that this section of the code be applied retroactively. A SCE would allow the sign to be increased from 160 square feet to 200 square feet per side. Invoking subsection G.1. could add another 50 percent or 100 square feet to the size of the sign, for a 300 square foot sign, only 20 square feet less than what currently exists. • will not be materially detrimental to The proposed variance policies "• the � the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with � policies �' to any other applicable p. of the Comprehensive Plan, and. standards, and to other properties in the same zoving district or vicinity. det�ia�aen���- to the .vt is apparent that the sign is not materially ei. l under It pp First, the sign .., purposes of the code for several reasons. r ` d the same sign that the Tigard Planning consideration here is Commission reviewed and subsequently approved a variance for in 1976. the Sign Code was amended, the sign was reviewed :. Although _ t g under similar criteria and was approved, deleting for a variance and ears staff recommendation that the variance be reviewed five y {y ; a etaf � policies it :r5 hence. If the sign were in conflict with the city's p he should have been pointed out at that time. Subsequently Plan. Director William Monahan's February 29, Planning • letter to Mr. Susnjara acknowledges that the sign (s ) did 1984 to the code could be construed that -.he signs were not conform t Monahan Fres��dmab;l,� �g o subject to the amortization clause. was n ®t in =tr Susnjara that his sign(e) should have, indicated to �r a • to be replaced four conformance with the sign code and would have Mr. Monahan that.. the. r ..:< years hence. Because no mention was made �' Susnjara relied on the { sign(s) would have to be replaced, Ntr. ` his lgii � letter that a provided by Mr. . Powell in information p � the City to retain the sign, o ° "permanent permission by variance �.� p�rmana.nt p and the use of the sign as long as that sign stands." roved b three revious variance requests that were app by Second, P the Tigard � g lannin Commission and City Council are comparable to ' 4 and have a direct bearing on this request. The other requests were as follows First, ovemmber, 1987 the Planning Commission heard a request (SCE 87 02) �.n . � from Foress Sign Company to allow continued use 6 side .de at 12323 �SW sign 32 feet tall and 228 square feet p er se� request, the Although the Planning Commission denied th i q est, ti.. The applicant app ealed the decision before the City pp appealed approve a sign 114 square feet per side. city Council elected to app g (Whereas the Planning Commissions had restricted the size to 87. square feet.) The City Council also approved a height of 32 feet The second request was made by Landmark Ford for a sign code exception and variance (SCE 89 -14 and V 89 -3) . Landmark . Ford sought approval to construct three freestanding signs along their I.5 frontage consisting of 505 square feet per side total. (The City Council had previously approved a request (SCE 2-86) allowing a fifth freestanding sign 25'11" high, 151 square feet per side, where one freestanding sign with a 70 square foot area and 20 foot was height g permitted.) Planning staff recommended denial of Landmark Ford os request, recommending approval of one freeway oriented sign with a maximum area of 160 square feet per face and a maximum height of 35 feet The Planning Commission elected to permit Landmark Ford to erect a single freeway oriented sign 249 square feet per facer 35 feet high, or; retain the existing 151 square foot Landmark Ford and 154 square foot Ford signs along 1 -5 with no other freestanding signs along this frontage. Whereas Landmark Ford received approval from the Planning Commission to utilize signs significantly larger than that allowed under the Sign Code, they appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. The City Council upon review of the Planning Commission decision, elected to approve Landmark Ford's request that included 362 square feet per side for a freeway oriented sign. The third request is the recent decis =ion, regarding Sherwood Inn. This particular case is of particular significance as it involves signs that are directly connected to this variance request. As outlined in the "History" section of this application, the "Sherwood Inn /Restaurant" sign sits at the top of the Chevron sign posts. These posts are owned by Chevron that also includes the Chevron sign under considerations CP Sherwood Inn submitted a request for a Sign Code Exception (SC� o� 90-0005) and Variance (VAR 90-0027) to all ®w two freestanding freeway signs where only is g � one permitted® One sign is approximately 69 feet high and 698 square feet (this is the sign a on top of the Chevron sicj,n) and the other is 1,100 quare feet: and approximately 65 ee1i in height. The planning com .ssi°n approved only one sign nQt to exceed 200 square feet with some additional heigt . Sherwood inn appealed this decision to the Tigard City Council, requesting approval for a single sign 65 feet in height and 1,194 for SCE square feet in area. The City Council reversed the Planning Commission's decision for VAR 90^0027. Althoudecision iodecision 5 and the City Council did not approve Sherwood Inn's request as submitted, they . did approve one freeway oriented sign with a maximum area of 7 50 square feet per face and a maximum height of 65 feet. To•assist in determining the size necessary to convey. Sherwood Inn's message on a sign the city of Tigard utilized a study prepared by the Bailey/Warner Group. The report from the Bailey /Warner Group suggests a sign of a minimum of 650 square feet (per face) is necesaaxy for the retention of existing message Six hundred fifty square feet is 433% greater than what is normally allowed by code. however to `help ensure legibility, the city council allowed an additional 100 square feet per face to be added to the sign, or five times what would nornna]. y be allowed. Chevron contends that their proposal is more modest and indistinguishable from the . Foress Sign, Landmark Ford and Sherwood Inn requests. Unlike the Foress Sign and Landmark Ford requests® Chevron is not applying to erect a new sign, but to continue using an existing sign that has an approved variance Furthermore, these three previous requests have established a precedent for allowing a variance to the Sign Code as they have proven not to be detrimental to the purpose of the code. 2. There are special circumstances that exist wh cax are particular to the lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances which the applicant has no control and which •'- . ?.�— ..._ .7'''''''''. .. -.. ''''''.7...;....:'-'''''. ... ,. a . .. ., . .- :,:• :: .t. :. . ..E •,l.l i (. A�'7 S•. .J �i, ! a '. . __ :F t. ., .. � P .� •' , - ,.: . : � ,:.. i � s - .,.,.. u r •.. , '. u• , i ._{ ,s tom:• 4, '.; , are not applicable to other Properties. In the 8asme zoning district. We have outlined earlier in this narrative several unique factor that affect the size and 'height needed for Chevron's sign. It should also be reiterated that Chevron's sign has been in existence since' 1971 and that the city of Tigard had previously approved a variance request allowing continued use of the ,existing sign. The three examples cited under the first variance criteria allowed signs that were either substantially taller or larger than what is allowed under the code. However only the Sherwood Inn examples face the same sight line restrictions that Chevron experiences Therefore it would seem reasonable that Chevron would be given similar consideration as• Sherwood Inn, especially when factoring in the topographical constraints that Foress sign and Landmark Ford do not face. 3 The use proposed gill' be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting some economic use of the land. As this variance request is for a sign and not a use, and the use that is occupying the site is that which is allowed under the zoning code, this request iss, therefore, the see as that which is permitted under the code. 4 Existing physical and natural systems, but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, or Parke will not be adversely affected anymore than would occur if the development were located as specified in this title. The Chevron sign has been at its present location since . 1971 without adversely affecting either existing Physical or natural systems. There would be no net affect to the existing Physical or natural systems if Chevron were ordered to replace the sign as any new sign would be located where the current sign is located. 10 A hardship is not self imposed and the variance requested is minimum variance which would relieve th{ .hardsip Chevron s sign conformed to the W ashingtora County code when it was erected in. 1971. Subsequent to the property's annexation to the cit y . of Tigard in 1976, a variance was requested and approved. allowing continued use of the sign. As the sign was erected to the applicable code at the time of its construction and a i previous variance was approved, it is clear that this situation is not self imposed. In addition to meeting the SCE Criteria and the Variance Criteria, there are several other factors that require 1.9? 6 consideration. These factors center around Mir. Susnjara variance request to the Tigard Planning Commission. This request sought to retain the existing signs, including the Chevron sign, located at the Sherwood Inn. This variance request was approved without any conditions being imposed. Based upon the September 12, 1975 letter from Mr® Powell to mrm the Susnjara, it was felt that the proposed variance would bring existing sign(s) into compliance and that no further action would required to retain continued use of those signs through their be re q � � Monahan 's useful life. This belief was further reinforced , by �r � letter to Mr. Susnjara on February 29, 1984. In 1984 Mr. Susnjara submitted plans to the Tigard planning Department for review. Mr. Susnjara was about to undertake alterations to one of the freestanding signs (adding additional square footage) at the Sherwood Inn Property. Mr. Monahan's response to Mr. Susnjara's request stated that he was satisfied with the alterations ro osed and they "will not violate the P F intent of the January, 1976, sign code variance which you received from the Tigard. Planning Commission." Presumably Mr. Monahan would have noted in his response to Mr. Susnjara that his freestanding sign(s) was non - conforming as per, the 1978 revision to the code. Although a sign face or message change is allowed on a non-conforming sign prior to its amortization : date, ,r. onahan reinfQrced the ?. belief that the F : E� �� ��° ��lt� that '� sign(s) ' were no considered non- conforming . w re subject to the amortization clause he should have stated this in his response to .$r. Susnjara. In fact, at the time of the correspondence between I r. Monahan and Mr. Susnjara, Mr. . Susanjarc had no knowledge of the fact that There appears to be no evidence is sign(s) vas non-cs�aanfrnrma.ng. , ether . received by Mt. Susnjara, nor t the city of Tigard of an correspondence sent to Mr. Susnjara alerting him to the , 1 - was non- confor.ng ,, either :in 197 0 possibility that his sign(s) when the . new sign code was adopted, or in 1904 when Mr. Susnjara applied to make, alterations to his freestanding sign. `t. Baas not until' February 17, 1988, in -letter sent to Diana Giles, General Manager of Sherwood Inn, by Deborah Stuart, TigarC Assistant Planner, that anyone at Sherwood Inn received o written notice that the freestanding signs did not conform to Tigard's code and would have to be brought into conformance. This was the first indication by the city that the 1976 variance granted to Sherwood Inn did not allow continued use of the signs covered by that variance While the above addresses the fact that Tigard did not notify' Sherwood Inn until 1988, ten years after it should. have, that the signs were non-conforming, there remains Yet another issue, This issue addresses the applicability of the 1976 variance. Whitlock (Chevron's attorney ) , in a letter to Mr. Eiden on December 20, 1989 (attached) Provide ) an analysis that we believe exempts Chevron (Sherwood Inn) from the amortization clause based upon the 1976 variance. rant, bargain sell I, RHOW ALL NEN BY THESE PRESENTS hereby ht LEONARD V. OY '8 v hereinafter called Grantor, hereinafter called Grnaatsiea, and convey unto JOANNE C. RYAN, his ones -half interest her heirs, successors, and assigns, with -hea. tenements, iere heand to that and appurtenances 6oashington�.and 5t�,te3 ap�re�rta e►nta, situated app appertaining. e�iguatsdd in the County of Oregon, described an follows: Beginning at an iron pig in the SoutherlY l ne of Upper scones Ferry Road, which iron pipe is 319.20 from a feet whit mark he4Southeast 54°12'30° West Section 12 Pram w stone which mats t in Township 2 South, Range `1 West of the thence South 09yapie'4�" Washington CountY, oregont and runniegc t . south uth 08°2 East 130.00 0. 00f feet to an iron pipe; line of West 90,00 feast to an it ®n pip�ainthence 8 ®uthF3..ly 26 °40" west 83.45 feet to an iron pnp n Upper Sos�naa �'erry Road: thence North 54°12'30" 30 Bast, along said Southerly line, 101.32 feat to the point of beginning. Subject to the following easements in, over, to and upo the described parcels of real property: the following Beginning at the Southeast corner8of the0abovo� escri®ed ®tact of lane and running thence South Together thence South 74 °28'40" Beet 49.25 feet; thence North 0 zi° ha adds io.ateasementho ritho 35�foot widexaace �aDd " rotd an the additional then above described p road to the Norte adjoining easement. Beoinni' g' at the Northeast corner of then premises forts the Northeast corner of the longed herein described, namely, inthence South 08 °26'40`° E. 150.00 feet to and t, said she true point of beginning feet to as point, paid paint. being 81°33'20° W, 105.00 feet, North ,001 eet" of the Northean8 °' area; thence 95.00 feet; thence E. thence North 08 2e c ®" W. 49.25 ® e � 83°45 �eeatg thence North t o 81° 33' " E. 45.00�feset, thence Southeasty feat, 01.33 20 point of beginning. feet, more or less, to she true herein Beginning at the Northeast cornertofashecpreeises first leased garemin s, and continuin9, thence South 54°12'30° W. 110.3 x ito ®, the true point gof beginning feet to a point, said point of the easement area= thence South 08°26'40° E. 38.00 feet; thence forth 08°26140 W. 76. South 81°33'20" t nee North 54 °12'3. B. 43.00 feet.. MOre W. less, tot point of beginning• or leeaeo to �® true ALSO; line of Doper Boo Beginning at a point on the Southerly Road which beginning point in also the Noreht set corner of that - deed Oregon shwa cerhrou exact St to Highway Commission by d cd re orded Washington by and through its Ego page 415, Deed Records August 3, 193 ?, in Book 166, i� g along the Southerly line County, Oregon; thence SouthWeaterly point; Butner Se�lin Upper net Ferry Road.- 150 feet to a of l3' ° Points thence Oast 110 feet to 0 ®Z� ° 1� Bast 100 feet to a �wa Tract; thence North 0°22'18° a point in, the said State Highway Tract 100 feet to a point: heat along the said State Highway of ct 100 f o thence West 110 feet to the pa ABJECT ' O that certain promissory note in -f avo3: of United States National. °Bank of Oregon, Ladd S Bush Drench, dated July uly� 140.`1966 in the fount:. of .$68,000.00 and due on August 10 1981. SUBJECT TO that certain promseory note in favor of United States Ais tional Ears of Oregon, Ladd & Bush Branch, dated September r 1, 1966, ` in the amount of $62,000.00 and due on 1Nove tber 1, 1991. The true and actual consideration in $ 10,000,00,. To have and to iaoigrarn+tee and described n heirs, anuccessorn, premiset eteto the said g and ast4gns forever. Asia ee,id, grant�; hereby to d said grantee and grantee .J heirs, �encces�ord3114n�sigx�that .. grantor in lawfully seised in fee • simple of, the abo ove. granted premises, free, from all encumbrances, ;. and grantor will ;warrant and orever eefendrthe, above the premises„ and every part and lawful olaaable and demands of all persons wheresoever. WITLESS grantor's hand as l∎d seal, this day of o 1911. 1971, pernonaally eta a. I AN, and acknowledged to be _ hie volunt } act ,and deed. STATE OF OREGON Gouty o9 !P+►oshirotor'r i Repo litomuoo, tilrseto at Recoa�h teavna Etectt� 9nd Ett43111clo ii,coader of � � that t 6 for sold acoraxity do elate twos resolved the rd so iewt ' o9 tee' r eCmlved :esa� t®sordm% ,,, ... 6ate»ss rr? rid arid sot offixe?3. OMER SIENr Dlrasd°' of Rocwits 'err ���t� ^7��1F!`r ►.t ": 8 i'• _..�• -. - � ®: , .�'�!".$'�d�. Ssb4&s sa a.easv ua -. -., g�g • a� . � �' dials executed aith• easrpot'a$e"eni affixed pars ; { ;a p pN Iy,'it e;d ' ®f •Directerat'a of:thsa s• daaaay,a ' • _•:�. ,lseteitstISAronaa.wasena.00.6tasita201WW9 esseas v am ma tai. asaaa,W= I P aro A :of ma aaw ea asp ec no Q Wel TM VETTaa TO AM' MN. Otatei of California City.. G �ty 'of Prancing)) areas , • . .,. •, before Tw . "• , before o the undersigned, a Notary 101.11410 se'And or eats Cit end t' and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and sewn peweanally aa!t p ad t- T- t- t� g ta9� t�va �o ® tip $ SIB � • '�' �$'�$'f 9 Pac S ®YL ��' � C� o tat3e d s executed l A�®o Toft r� . U C Corporation a t® named, of aiffiti t aj ha t ta. t ®+ s end they', 3edg� tame that h Cotrotatien caseated t • d`' ®� have hereunto resit al hand *td affixed my fiay4dl• clo at eiy Ofticaa ' the City County a State aforesaid than day 7 caatif9 ibo� ittS0. a',;;,, ':., ♦ - :�n4� :;A'., i4.. ;c ^h mow:- ,....• :.garaCoaaa.aaaat err c TEST MR ?Me • 01,1PINE Pei 1191110 Oil. oe._ syy !, ;1 . Notary Public 151'106 for said City'@'ta$e . qty of San Stcn tacog State ®f , g T 3s Pacific Realty Asr4ociates 111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2950 Portland, OR 97204 UNOCAL PO Box 7600 Los Angeles, CA 90051 H.E. Perryman 9110 NE Highway 99 Vancouver, WA 98665 Joanne Ryan & Bob Smith c/o PC Box 2508 Salem, OR 97308 ilO Fran State of Oregon On Premise Sign Permit; June 17, 1974. Letter from Jerald M. Powell; City of Tigard, to Marko A. Susnjara, Sherwood Inn; September 12, 1976. Letter from Susiijara to City of Tigard; January 7, 1976. Minutes from January 20, 1976 Planning Commission Hearing. 5. Lease agreement between Susnjara and Standard Oil of California (Chevron); October 5,1965. 0. Letter from William A. Monahan, City of Tigard. Director of Planning and Development, to Su ara February 29, 1984. 7, Letter from Deborah Stuart, City of Tigard, to Diana Giles, Sherwood Inn; February 17, 1988. . Letter from Keith Liden, City of Tigard, to Spectrum Development Corporation; February 19, 1988. 9. Letter from David J. Alexander, Spectrum Development Corporation, to Stuart; February 1988. 10. Letter from Liden to 4soanne Gagl9o, Spectrum Development Corporation; March 24, 1988. 11. Letter to Stuart from Alexander; April 12, 1988. 12. Letter to Alexander from Liden; April 27, 1988. 13. Letter from Stuart to Gaglio; September 21, 1988. 14. Letter from Stuart to Giles; September 28, 1988. 15. Letter from Stuart to Giles; October 12, 1988. 16. Letter from Stuart to Alexander; July 14, 1989. 17. Letter from Stuart to H.E. Ferryman; July 19. 1989. 18. Letter from Stuart to Mike Wynne; August 10, 1989. 19. Letter from Stuart to Wynne; September 8, 1989. 20. Letter from Whitlock to Liden; December 20, 1989 ISSUED TO D.B.A. BUSINESS ADDRESS Stzm lord Oil Company of California - Standad. `Service Station 15670 SW , Upper Boones Ferry Road,/ Lake C ego 0 OR 97034 BUSINESS LOCATION HIGHWAY ® R 3°UTE SIDE- MILEPOINT U• 29O 8S �a:�hi�agtcn County �: �-.� 1-5 '� W OWN ISSUE DATE .mn 17, 1974 .. EXPIRATION DATE Continuous ER CODE 00 S PERMIT NUMBER ,Fs0009 FEE' ;PAID Non ,required THIS PERMIT COVERS THE FOLLOWING LISTED SIGNS: No Ty, Size Back to Back 20' x 17'5" ,/ Total. sign area'. 700 Sq. Ft No. TPA* , 5ism N See reverse for asdc flonal signs THIS PERMIT MAY RE TRANSFERRED TO A NEW OWNER PROVIDING TRANSFER REQUEST IS MAILED TO OREGON STATE HIGH. WAY DGVISION, PERMIT UNIT, EAST SALEM HIGHWAY BUILDING, SALEM, OR 973)0, WITHIN 30 DAYS PROM DATE CHANGE OF OWNER OCCURS, • THIS PERMIT MUST BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED AND AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY HIGHWAY DIVISION PERSONNEL PRIOR TO CHANGE. RECONSTRUCTING, OR MOVING ANY SION COVERED? BY THIS PERMIT, A NEW APPLICATION WITH APPRO. PRIME FEE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PERMIT UNIT FOR APPPROVAL. STATE OF OREGON, BY AND THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAY DIVISION F. R. KLAEOff Adminlstrelor and SIsso H10 EnsI fr Faeroe No. 01.7344M P. O. Box 23557 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 . s ark° A. Susnjara Sherwood Inn 15700 S Upper Boones Ferry Rd. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear Mr. Sus ara a recent conversation concerning y'o sign on In reference to our � pertinent is to clarifY and record Sherwood Inn, this letter points discussed. Your sign is a non-conforming sign un der Provision of Section 16.36. Tigard al Cede due both to its size and height. 040 of the ligarc� �Iunic�p � des that you However, Chapter 16.24, Non-Conforming Signs, prow have a period of ten years from the effective date of annexation to time � the City. to bring that sign into compliance. If, by that t in ,.1 should decide that .r time a n the interim y o Years from now) al at any separate on- always be necessary for the identification and con- tinued sign commercial al e your site, then you have two Pos- sible courses ofl ction. Either course of action would have sub e star courses s action. •t' ha�t"''IS a permanent permission %y , �,� sub- stantially 'the. same res � ��a� "that.,. to retain the sign, and the use, of the' sign as long' sign s surest approach would be to appijr" for a variance of stories ® 'rho, s time that your property is rezoned to a ®i' tie sign code at the you that in district. This would obtain assurance for �u of the City zoning d�.s your re • to years no action would be taken to require y � �. an card. =F�r is issued. by the C�,ty to The other method is to wait until sal that order to remove the :sign (ten years from now) discussed, don't feel that the planning Commission. As we have � Obviou.s�.y concern for your sign is unwarranted at this time. other your co adjacent you and the e�.evati®n of the highway dl our area.. makes adequate signing of highway oriented business in y paramount importance to your business. Mr. Marko :. Susnjara September 12 , 1975 pg. As we discussed, Tigard's "Community Plan" identifies that: interchange as "General Cor ercial" and the City would zone lands there as C-3, our General Co er°c ial zoning. ., This action in itself will generate more interest in, commercial. development * rhich should generate, it ` :rn P more demand for commercial facili- ties. I think I've addressed most of the concerns you've voiced with respect to' the impact of annexation to 'Tigard on your . property g Should you want further information or assurances, please all me a;t 639 -4171® Sincerely, CITY OF TIGARD Jerald M. Powell, Assoc. a Associate Planner i,tf► Eli. 'r.;. i, 'Pr<tl[ m .11 :h1+, [ }F. r. (,r. ”:, S.W. 1.2pilv :Se,011b i y. R.I. ,t'c.. ti q,+. „ Q•a „+; '97°4 City of Tigard P 04, Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Centlemsn I have a sign at the Sherwood Inn Motel and Restaurant which ie approximately 65 feet high with 10 foot modules that reels "restaurant" undcrnms;a4h which is a sign with 8 foot modules that rea oa "motel " and an additional sign of 5 foot modules that reads "Sherwood Inn's which is Placed on top of a Chevran sign also to a height df ' approximately 65 feet. These signs were placed in operation according to Washington County` specifications and have been in place approximately 8 years and are the only means of identification From I5. Upon annexation into the City of Tigard I understand that these signs are not in accordance with the City of Tigard sign code. I hereby request a hearing as soon as possible- for the purpose of obtaining a variance. Please advise Me at the following address: Marko Am Susnjara 15700 5m W. Upper` Boonos Ferry Rd. Lake 0owaga, Oregon 97034 5incerolY SHERWOOD INN v A.°. ° 6.2 Sign r(lode Variance SCA 2-76 (Susniara Sherwood, ° F, • Marko Susn ara for a • s a g i code v .riance` for A nen -con by Si in a B-4 zone (Wash.-00. General a non-- eon�orm�.n,� �� Extensive Commercial) at 15700 SW Upper' Boones F ) (wash.' Co tax map 23]. 12D, tax lot 1400 Sherwood • A. Staff Report ''read by Powe].]... 'Applicant Presentation • request. and the need for o ®• Sa sn ja ra stated. his reg, as it is vital to his . retaining the existing a ga��as a ����in� o�� ®a�e�° business and, serves as a . to his establishment. asked staff to secure a copy' Of the .state o Popp in and how they Would relate requirements for sib ,• and differ with ,y/' @� �s "F ° s Tigard� s si '�cyd o Po reooaiae.nc ed t� , b].e this .i.tem until. •additional information was made available.. ° that to deprive anyone of the use of. o �i.co�i stated this sign would: be unfair Stiff Recommendation o Staff recoended approval of the requested ex- ceptions for a period of 5 years, at which time a re-hearing of the issues would be held. to deter- mine further extension of this exception. o 23 col.i- mad a motion to QuPr®� the variance be deieting staff recommendation that d s sign b jest to . a - year rev ew period an Susn jara' s si would corragR .d with . the. s. tate signing. and federal. re at ions as they per' a n o g o Seconded (Ins). o ' Unanimously approved. _ Lis 7 SUBDIVISIONS d .Part tion ILP 1- 76 (Bar'tni!s of land • . . A request by Glenn Bartnik to partition Parcel r �e], dentiai .� Comet D single fiily� resi.. . , in a�. �es.i. •�� y, �t',J �• � -.�� ma�� ill 35C� :. den-�ia1.) at s�f or Dakota (gash. o • tax lo,t 301) . 15 , . Emma ;; d as of y 'a 197 1 betwElt! . . SUSILIARA and DEM Ho SUS , hie "o usn ar �� and ST . hereinafter called S 3 � /7N a hereinafter call .r d "S tabdar ; " By lase dated October 5, 1965 (an indenture of whidh wag recorded August 31 1966 in Book 610 page 654 Deed RecOrds, County: �J�of a ) g on Bob 1. Smith et at l . ased to Stn d h Washington property therein described and by d June 2 9 1966 , the rq was granted . rd` an id �� dat easement for the right 02 ingress and egress to and frop d#ioed premi,ses over the following described premise0 premise lying. • . �di$t y el SoutheSoutherly o , the demised premises » to-I./it: :.. Beginning at the Southeast corner of .. th e leased Premises and 'running thence South 81. O . 33» 20" West 45,00 feet; thence South 74 28! 40" East 49.25 feet; thence Northa�� 261 40" West 20.0 feet to the point of beiti, Susnjara has succeeded to the interests of in said tease and the said amendment thereof and the covered thereby and the parties hereto mutually the euuOre . property the grant of the easement hereinbe ore mentioned as hereinafter set forth. desire to NOW FORE, it is agreed between the rtie Veto as follow 1 Susnjara hereby gives and grant to , Standard right to install, maintain, repair end operate nPon the premises above described one sign, including footings ►` columns of such size and height �� may be determined Standard yrovided the installation v "maintenance and use �f the sign c'nplies with all sPPlica it laws and ord, *noes consideration th reof ,s Standard. harebi ives and, grants to t arm the right to ins .,.,, atlerates at SusnJara6a sole CO the tops of the columns hereinhefore A� = ntioneds ulttlAal sign shall be equipped with ee ara ei electric an meter and shell ea!y with all aPPlicable ances. 3. This r eft and the riahts and privlle .8 rob) given shall nti iue in force 4nd effect so long as the above mentioned leas4 or any extension thereof re in force and effect. IN WITNESS WNEREOF9 these presents are hereby signed r ,. ®;., ACA'. M ar Mr. Marko Susnjara Sherwood Inn 15700 SV? Upper Booties Ferry Ad. Lake Oswego!) Or. 97034 Dear 14r. Susnjara, I. have reviewed your request for the alteration of your free standing a sign . as well as your w :: it sign. Upon reviewing the site with you and examining the drawings which you have prepared I am satisfied that the alterations which you purpose mad the new wall sign facing F-5 will not violate the intent of ®® ��ss • e cod g °� Q�j���`,�,.8�gypc received from � � o„`Ti a�rdo„. 0�YAdt�7.:avr,��IMKJNaTVr JpN gvP�•raew.!irJFi�ya'A i V6� • .s Planning. ,Cue LssAmp. It appears from a review o toe of that proceeding eedi that an approval was granted which will not be adversely affected by your new proposal. A copy of this letter will be submitted to the Building Division in support of your aPP , lication. You may submit your plans and sign application whenever convenient. Will iam A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development 12755 S.W. ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGAAD, OREGON 97223 PA 639 -4171 ' Mo. Blana Diana General Manager Sherwood Inn 15700 S Upper Scones Ferry ltd Tigard, Ott 97224 RE: Two Freestanding Signs Located at 15700 SW' Upper Uoonee Perry Road Dear He Giles: I an writing to confirm , that the two freestanding signs erected on Code. ® Development property are • in fact, in violation of Tigard 's Community type ve violation C e 6 Both signs are too tall and are too large') and as of sections 18.114.130(c) (l.) (D) and 18. 114 130(c) (1.) (D) and (C) respectively. Moreover() the Code allows only, one freestanding sign per premise in aect cn 10.114.130(0) (1) (k) () . The signs can be classified as nonconforming a aasigns because they do not conform with sign height,. area and number contained in Tigard's current sign code® N ®racanf ®z rein g, eign g a are allowed to be continued in use as long as they are not expanded or atructurellY altered, relocated or replace d �® erweter, a� e Section 10.114.110(a) stipulates that all nonconforming g 20, a a March by 20 1978 be brought into conformance with existing code standar March 20, 1916. Current standards. for signs in. the C-C zone include a ma ref ®r®, sign area of 20 feet in height and 70 square feet Per sign face. We will h, the City would not allow You to expand either sending a second letter under separate cover explaining Your alternatives* Should you have any further questions, please call the Planning Division at 639-4171. 111447A-''/ . 'Deborah Stuart Assistant Planner ht/3245D 13125 I.i/ fl Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 9/223 (503) 639-4171 Spectrum Development Corp. 1250 US Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Dear Property Owner: To comply l with City Code requirements, you may need to make some eignage revisions. Many signs that are too high, too large in area or otherwise not in conformance with City Sign Code standards will soon be required' toTconform with current standards. Signs affected are those that were within Tigard's limits .prior to the 1978 Sign Code revisions and have not yet been brought into conformance. In 1978, the Tigard City Council:. responded to complaints of increased sign clutter adjacent to roadways by creating more stringent standards for allowable signs. The ordinance that instituted those Sign Code reforms included a 10 -year amortization period. That is, businesses unable to eet the revised sign standards in 1978 were given 10 years to.come into conformance.. The 10 -year amortization period ends on March 20, 1988. The following .tonc©nf orming signs have been identified at the business located at 15706 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road: 1. Too high freestanding sign, a violation of section 18.114.130(c)(1) (D). 2 Oversize (area) freestanding sign, a violation of section 18.114.130(c)(1)(B) and (C). violation of of section 3 More than one freestanding sign, 18.114.130(c)(1)(A)(i). Several alternatives exist to rectify your potential sign violations. It of utmost im ortance that you contact us soon. Alternatives include. to Should the March 20, 1988, compliance date not be feasible for some ac reason, a voluntary compl.ianc e agreement is possible. A Voluntary Compliance Agreement would allow an extension of time for the following reasons': a. An extension of time is necessary to allow a sign company to erect t�& a new sign; b. An extension of time is necessary to remove the existing An extensionngofitime is necessary to prepare and submit a. Sign Code c. An extension application; or, d. The Planning Director finds that a gr: ce period ". is needed to provide for compliance within a reasonable timeframe. 13125 SW Hal! Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, ilgard, Oregon 97223, (503) 639.4171 Page 2 Februakey 19, 1988 2. A Sign Code Exception application is a: second aite ativ(i. An approvel... of this application by the,. Planning Commission : would . allow : a the continued use of a nonconforming sign. A preapplication meeting With the City Planning staff is necessary to determine the feasibility of • this approach. Bch 50 The third .alternative would be to remove the sign /signal' prior to March 2 09 I9SS ® f you propose t® install a new replacement sign, ypt will need to file an application for a City sign permit. Many businesses have already used the l®- year' lead-in period to update and change their signs per the Sign Code. With continued assistance from the remaining businesses, the City looks forward to an overall improved community appearance over the next. Year. Should you have further questions, please cone -. ct the Planning Division aft 639 -4171 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ondarrrriday. Thank you for ' your attention to this matter. Deborah Stuart, Jerry Offer, and ,l are most ready to assist you in achieving Sign Code compliance. i(eith S. Lide:a Senior Planner The Planning Div4.:i 04 City of Tigard c: Sherwood Inn Motel cn /3307D SPEtIRU_ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIOR 1 SW. fifth Ave. V Suite 1250 Portland V Oregon 97.204.3616 (503) 778 -7600 February 24, 1988 Ms. Deborah Stuart City 01 Tigard Planning Division P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Nis. Stuart • Enclosed Y au will find various documentation on our sign variants for the Shetwocd Inn. Should you need anything ewre, please do not hesitate to contact sae. Sincerely, 'SPECTRUM D .VELOPHENT CORPORATION xatnde Executi Vice President march 24, 1988 Ms. Joanne Gaglio Spectrum Development Corp 1250 US Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR Case # 88-90-Z Ms. Gaglio, Property Owner City staff contacted you in writing concerning a nonconforming Recently, y reciates your sign(s) located at 15700 SW Upper Boones Ferry. The staff app sins Your s onoe to � this letter so that. we could discuss the problem. The fo�.i.o�ing Yo p Your property and the options available to resolve nonconforming sign violations on Your property were noted: ,1;.,r�1�OCc)i1)CO) 9 hi`h freestanding sign, a violation of section 15 of section 2. Too freestanding sign, a violation. 2. Oversize (area) 15.114.130(c)(1)(B) and (C)• din sign, a violation of section 3� More than one freestanding 15.114.130(c)(1)(A)(i)o changes to the City Sign Code on March 28, 1988 or The City expects. to adopt shortly thereafter., As a result, we intend to Postpone sign civil infractions until after the revisions are adopted. Becaus �n the enforcement procedures the City now offering an extensi revisions may. affect your sign(s), time via a voluntary compliance agreement (see attached) .is. willing to grant an extension, this agreement must be Although the.., City signed by either the business owner, the property owner, or an authorized representative and'ret urned to the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , PO Boy 23397, Tigard, OR 97223 within 10 days of reeeiptof' this letter. Failure to return the signed voluntary compliance agreement to the City within . 10 days or to proceed with any of the alternatives mentioned nib will the PreVieus with letter will. result in no extension t ®cedureetime� and uniform infraction summons and civil infraction enforcement procedures. of up ; to complaint will be issued and a maximum civil infraction penalty comp. per violation may be imposed X250000 per day P Please contact Deborah Stuart Jerry Offer or myself at 639 -4171 should you . s have any questions. S') erely Keith S. Liden Senior Planner cs /3906DS PS: This letter was sent to the business and a sign company representative (if 13125 S W Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 owner or manager, the property owner, known to the City). March 24, 1988 Ms. Joanne Gaglie Spectrum Development Corp. 1250, US Bancorp Tower 111 s41 Fifth' Avenue e Portland, o RR: Case # 88 -90- -Z Property Owner: Nip. 4>8agl�.o, � � = nonconf or�ing concerning City staff contacted you in writing The staff appreciates your signs) Upper BooneB Ferry. signs r respon located at �. response to this letter so that cold riacusee nonconforming The f ®.loing rc� erty and the options available to resolve re noted: your P P Your property nonconforming sign violations on Y 1. 4.1300 c) C 1) C�) freestanding sign, a -violation of section l8.11 ®f seeti® �. ®o' 1�ig�s fr freestanding sign, a violation ' 2 . (area) Oversize rea) a violation of . section loa�.l4. than Clone and freestanding sign, . More than one free 10 ®il4 4130 (c) (1) (A) ( i) March 2� p 1988 or Sign Code on Ma Cit expects to adopt changes to the City sign civil infractions The City we intend to postpone sig Because shortly thereafter. As a result, until after the reviciona are adopted. extension the e revisions procedures the City is now offering revfe3.Qr�s gay affect your sign(s), ,. agreement (gee attached). • time via a voluntary compliance ag an extension, this agreement must be .is willing to grant a or a m authorized t be signed eAlthough the . City the property owner,. signed by ettici�• the business owner, Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. representative and' returned to the Planning los of xece t° etf this �e r. red Tigard s OR 97223 jai tin l Y Pty Box 23397 s within voluntary compliance agreement to the City i hn 1days Failure to return the signed ny will proceed u 10 de or to proceed with any of the. alternatives mentioned in the Previous l resu�.t in �o exl;eu.s3.on of dime unifor� � f �set�.ou, eu�ong end letter will procedures. penaltY of summons nd. civil infraction enforcement P he issued and a maximum civil infraction p co�.plaint will t250s00 per day per violation may be imposed. Please contact Deborah Stuart, Jerry Offer or myself at 639°°4171 should you • have any questions. cs /3906D otiasa�rg sign theproperty letter way sent: to the business owner or the City). PS: This representative (if known to and.. sign company 397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -4'� 7i 3� 25 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23 � _ . , VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT CITY OF TIGARD To: Ms. Joanne Ga lio Case' ; #: 88--90-Z Respondent Sectr pum tevj op®leflt 1250 US Bancorp Tower, 111 SW 5th Tax Map Portland, OR 9720$ and Lot o.:25.1 12DD SOO and 900 l . Josnne Ga o asEcei o�re -�n�v Development Corp. agree to 1) pay a deposit towards transcript of Spectrum - — Corp. on an appeal of SCE 87 -03; or 2) submit a completed application for a Sign Code Exception or an Administrative Variance or an Administrative Exception within one month (31 days) of City notification of adopted Sign Code Revisions; or -3)." remove, relocate, or modify my sign(s) to comply with provisions of the City Sign Code (Chapter 18.114) within two Months (60 days) of City notification. I understand that the City of Tigard will withhold further actloi on case # 8€3m -90 -2 until above date of compliance, and upon full compliance the City of Tigard agrees to drop all proceedings and consider the case closed. I understand that if the above time, date and conditions are not det I may be cited with an Additional infraction ,for failure to co :ply' with a Voluntary. Compliance Agreement. Shed a Date Signed:: Signed: City of Tigard 13125ceffiT &vd.. P.O. Box 23397,11gard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-417i SPECTRUM S )M i�t�1p DEVELOPM E Suite 12�Q COPP FI° � Ave. '" i �. ? /. Fifth eR Fc► 41and , Oregin 97204.3616 (WC3) 778.7600 Ms. Debra Stewart City of Tigard Planning Division Pa Box 23397 97223 Tigard. OR RE: Case 58-50° Dear Ms . Steward R en° sJ.attsar of March 24, 1938 Road. Reference this letter in res�onse to Keith gooney Ferry I am wri in s located a;„ 15700 Sty Pp 19, 1988 anob:. d. response e concerning our sign to tter of P�bruary getter•of: PehruarY is wade to Mr. i�idd a earlier �e with mY Along ` dated February 24, 18a$ • in to a Previous variance issued uicklY you► !° lenclo d ortunf.ty to 3 encl ®sed etarioy docum oulc likes to take this oPP r ti t2 a pruic ly ls8 v - uegtion. 1 �; for the Biggs se sequence of events which transpired leading up summarise the sequenc issued variance from the ordinance. i Mr. Marco roached the thei owner of the property. to the In 2975 the City re to annex the Sherwood Inn Property t With the Susnjara, Tigard. ThesAi a desire of the ompli As a i ns at the Sherwood Inn wet ®� of in yantp e City of Tigard. The essential to the operation Permanent A varianc result, sign code hut were es Provided a P n e,ra agreed to annex to the �va�iance was granted at the result, ARs. Sus code was granted. The permanent 20, 1.076. from the sign of January Planning Commission meeting Gar�pllance Liden's letter of March 24. 1988 was a Voluntary y C malture Enclosed Agreement. T Mr. paragraph of Mr. jiden's letter indicates The final p Agreement within ten days will andutheita Agreement Compliance Agr the part of the will to sign fr tion en procedures on Per day. BY of up to $250.00 F �, r fire d:o one civil in l ofta c enforcement l infraction penalty we S250d 0 er day Potential the a l Compliance Agreement ��;al; oo�,t Wn an a,�:- execuree hJ Voluntary PaY• a daposit towards transcript or (1 i exception or �ar.��,-�ce (2) three it ags with the City sign cad) (e� submit an application for sign code remove, relocate or modify the signs to comply Ms. Debra 'Stewart City of Tigard Page 2 With no intention of being argumentative, we are Unable to alb. the Voluntary Compliance Agreement because it is our Position that we already have'a perman `t variance from the sign cede. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for us to remove, relocate or ,m dif our signs . or to submit an application for exception or variance from the sign code. You have indicated that You will be submitting this file to the 4 ity Attorney's office for their opinion. Please let me know if there is any additional information which I might supply to you or the City Attorney to expedite a resolution to this matter. Sincerel ours, . Dave ikk ander Execdtive `lice President Mr. Dave Alexander Spectrum Development Co ill SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1250 Portland, OR. 97204 Case # 88-90-g Dear Mr. Alexander, Property Owner; nonconf orffiin Recently, City staff contacted you in writing concerning a �reciesming sign(a) located at 15700 SW Upper Bowies Ferry. The staff app response to this letter so that we could discuss the nonconf or ming folln on your property and the options available to resolve the problem. nonconforming sign violations on your property were noted: 1� 15'30 c� (�») ��) m Too high h freestanding sign, a violation of section 15.l re of .section ( . 1. sin -a violatio 2. � and ��� • Oversize (area) freestanding sign, �% 18.114.l3©(c)(W)() a violation of section 3 More than one freestanding sign, 15.1141.3O(c) (W.) (A.) (i)' 9 a 1988 or City expects to adopt changes to the City Sign Code on i it 9, 19 8 or. The �. P shortly thereafter. As a result, we intend to postpon sign rcement procedures until after the revisions are adopted. � ale lion the es.fo p revisions may affect your sigr(s) , the City is now offering a time via a voluntary compliance agreement (see attached). • tension, this agreement r must be Although the City- is willing to grant an ex d by either the business owner, the property owner, or an authorized sig>�xe �' Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., ,representative and :. returned to the Planning da��i of �ecel.pt �f this .totter® PO Box 23397, Tigard, OR 97223 within return the signed voluntary compliance agreeme; , to the City within Failure to .ref �, the previous 10 days or to proceed with any of the alt�:n ande+theeCit�y will proceed:. with letter will result in no extension of time civil infraction enforcement procedures. A unif.orm infraction summone and complaint will be issued and a maximum civil infraction Penalty of up to per day per er violation may be imposed. Jerry Offer or myself nt 639-4171 should you Please contact Deborah Stuart, , Y' have an questions. cs/4475 PS: letter was sent to the business owner or manager, the proper; P5. This Teti. ..,- 13125 5 VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT CITY 07 T IGARi? 0 to Too Mr, Dave Alexander Case Respondent g2ef ` = °r 9a Develop me1L Co pany 111 SW Fifth Ave.;, #1250 Tax Map and 1I,ot No.: ,2$1 12DD 900 Portland OR 97204 as ,I���)p "etty owner re resenta<tive of Sherwood Inn �iY UW I�t�IY� i� :/IL1.'Olil/OO1Nh agree to 1) submit a completed application for a Sign Code Exception or an Administrative Variance or an Administrative Exception within one month (31 days) of City notification of adopted Sign Code Revisions or a /City Attorney determination on this case -- whichever is sooner; or 2) remove, relocate, or modify my sign(s).. id comply with prov�fs ons of the c',ty Sign Code (Chapter 18.114) within two months (60 days) of City notification. a'. understand that the City of Tigard will withhold further action on case 9 until above date of compliance, and upon full compliance the City of Tigard agrees to drop all proceedings and consider tte case closed. I understand that if the above time date and conditions are not met I may be cited with an additional infracticn for failure to comply with a Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Date Signed: Date Signed: 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 11151. Joanne Gaglio Spectrum Development Corp. 1250 US Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR' 97204 RE: Case # SS --9O -? on Fonda y , July 25$ x.988, the Tigard City council This is to n ®tfy you that ® i adopted Ordinance SS -20, which amends several poNtions of Chapter 1S ®114 of the City Sign Code. This ordinance became effective on August 26, visions may affect .the status of your nonconforming sign. As a These new .:pro..... Division within gebult, it is imperative this you to contact the h� City dons Planning to you ' to 31 days of receipt of this letter to discuss p correct yot,:r sign problem. The options are: 1. Fiiing . an application for a City - approved sign Permit; 2. Piling an application, for an Administrative Exception.. or 3. Filing an • aPP lioatiori for a Sign Code Exception; or 4. Filing an application for a Variance; or 5 Modification or 6. Relocation; or 7. Removal of your nonconforming sign (s) Please contact tti,e Planning Division immediately at 639-4171 to wake an appointment for a pre - application confeence, which is required prior to your submittal of nn a ,p�.ication� Staff wf1�. advise you as to which � options application to be most f easib',e and will assist you in preparing ant necessary materials. have not yet,; signed a voluntary compliance agreements which the City If you, ha offered you as an extension of time last spring, we can i begin civil infractions' you. Please contact our office. should this be the case and procedures against �► you wish to sign a voluntary compliance agreement. Deborah A. Stuart 'eery Offer Keith S. Liden Planning Division (P.O. Box 23397.11gard.Oregon 97223 (503)639-417i �l I GeJ Jvv 11�1e ��.1 Jf - Hs. Diana , il.e� • Sherwood . I �$��. 15700 ''SW Tipp : ognee Ferry Road • �rl RI Q�� �! g{ « :11 + 4 : Cash «. `88'- 0 Z • �' ;� z r • °' nL '; : .r {� , , r r Thliq , , � otlf 4 Ou that on Mo nday � Ju y ° gar the • d c y ;'C®unciiadopted . y e• an � t',�-2 ®s which amends several p ortions of } �• "' . ' . ,. x• ordinance became effective o n August 26 ;,1��m+ ° i•,' .• ,, ,,, .' our noueonf ors�ing , eigna As • , : the status of y x x ��p�p pg w r ®v1 s 00,e ®ay of feet nivi g nn r. s a resin hie iY .?rTr ....4 r . •. ! ! ": result; ;itr�ie.4 imp�erat�.ve , f ®r qou t® contact the the City o �ion� Planning mv�ilable. }4,0 , yoa� to .. .z letter to discuss cuss 31 days " f� r ei . �f this ` Oblem. The options are: carreet . 7 ®ur � �', 1. Filing an, application for 'a city - approved sign 2. Fi licatiof'for an Administrative Exception; or �.�•��; am , alp' 3 Filing. ,application for a Sign Code Exception;. or 4. Filing' an''application for .a Variance; or 5. Modification$ r O • 6. Relocation; or.. 7. Removal of your nonconforming signs) ' Please contact the Planning Division immediately at 639:4171 • . ta make an � which is required, prior ` to Your . w appointment for a pre�apF l.ication conference, Staff will 'advise advise you as to which options ,appear - eub�nittal of nn aPp �.gcati ®na eseary app�.icaticxa to be most feasible and will aeb`�. ®t °yoga in prtwPar ng any aec, materials. which the City If You have not yet signed a voluntary compliance. can re m t0 w civil infractions a ty offered you as an extension of time last spring' we ur office should this be the OC Please contact our case and procedures against you. you wish to sign a voluntary compliance agreement. t ea Deborah A. Stuart Jerry Offer Keith S. Liden Planning Division keI6185D 13125 W Hall Blvd., Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -4171 Ms. Diana I;. Giles Sherwood Inn Motel 15700 SW Upper foones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 E • Case # 88-90 -Z This is to notify you that on Monday, July 259 1988, the Tigard City adopted Ordinance 88-20, which amends several portions of Chapter 18.114 c City Sign Code. This ordinance became effective on August, 26, 1985. These new provisions may affect the status of your nonconforming sign. As result» it is imperative for you to contact the City Planning Division withi 31 days of receipt of this letter to discuss the options available to you to correct your sign problem. The options are 1. Filing an application for a City - approved sign permit, 2. Filing an application for an Administrative Exception; or 3. Filing an application for a Sign Code Exception; or 4 Filing an application for a Variances or 5. Modification; or 6. Relocation or 7. Removal of your nonconforming sign(s). Please contact the Planning Division immediately at 639 -4171 to make .an appointment for a pre-application conference) which is required t; prior to your which o submittal of an application. Staff will advise you as to 1� ions appear to be most feasible and will assist you in preparing any necessary application materials. If you have not yet signed a voluntary compliance agreement, which the City offered you as an extension of time last spring, we can begin civil "infractions procedures against you Please contact our office should this be the case and you wish to sign a voluntary eompliaace agreement. Deborah A. Stuart Jerry Offer Keith S. Liden Plana!' Division ke/6185D 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 • �. Mr. Dave Alexander Spectrum Development Company 111 SW Fifth Avenue *1250 Portland, OR 97204 REz Civil Infractions Case No.. 88 --90eZ 16700 SW Upper Soonee Ferry Road Dear Mr. Alexander: This letter is in response to your correspondence of last year in which stou asserted that the Sherwood Inn received approval from the City of Tigard to g g in perpetuity. You stated and provided ermt two freestanding signs to re�aira , documentation th t the City Planning Commission granted a Variance in January, 1976. Since your last correspondence, I have been busy with other sign cases and needed to meet with City attorneys and research your claims further. This delay has in no way affected your case. An amendment to the City Sign Code in 1978 ad0ed the amortization clause, pertaining to nonconforming eigne and the City is now enforcing thl b provision (18.114.110.A). After thoroughly researching our annoxation recoade, the minutes to the Planning Commission hearing on, the above Variano: (SCA x-•76) , the minutes to the Planning Comm3esion and to the City Council hearings regarding the Sign Code amendment, I can find , no conclusive evidence that the Sherwood Inn is exempt' from the requirements of the amortization regulations. If approval of those signs was given a® a condition of annexation or prior to adoption of the new Sign Code amendment, staff can find no record of this condition in any City records. Absent clear evidence of 'such an agreement, staff concludes that the legislative change adopted to the Caty'e sign Code by the city council. in 1978 was intended to apply to all properties in Tigard, including the Sherwood Inn. I invite you or a representative to city Hall for a pre -- application conference during which we 'an discuss the various options available to the business owner, yourself as property owner representative and /or a sign company representative. In light of the fact that we have no signed volunt ry compliance agreement, should I not hear from you within 21 days of your receipt of this _letter, I shall have to initiate civil infractions enforcement actions against you You may contact me directly at 639- 4171x369. sincerely, _- e. • Deborah A. Stuart Assistant Planner cc Diana Giles, Manager of the Sherwood Inn Tim Ramis, City Attorney 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 233970 Beard. Oregon 97223 (503) 639 -4171 Mr. H.H. ' Ferryman 9110 N.E. Highway 99 Vancouver, WA 98665 Dear Mr. Ferryman s informed me ent Ccann�aae�ay recently area. During the souse th. Dave you rthe Alexander of o eggs of the Sherwood Inn in Tig co%fl E3 of the past that you are the current owner of has been r <� ®eareolaing the history ear- arad_a -half® the City �� a result h� freestanding signs located on . tho Sherwood inn still maintains these two two �resea 9 requested by Br. Alexander, the i y thi.e research acequ past their amortization signs that are erected P ®i.�n® are nonconforming and are thus iillegal. r ; expiration date (March 20, 1988) a unaware of these proceedings and discussions the City you are no doubt ®c�rne:9 and Dias�� �i.i�aeo` the has Y at City Alexander and Joanne �a�li.® , ®� �p ea to a meeting hor former with Mr. t would like to invite Inn r��nage�c® disposition of this Hal. During educate you on the disp Hall. We ca the meeting I can �ef.ckl�. you in rectifying �1a� can then discuss the various options available to y and ®T1P�ts with Spectrum t��i6. this situation. Enclosed are copies of former e�earr ®�� Development Co 9 eaiutme��t t Please contact m4 at 639 - 4171X368 ao that we might make an app discuss those signs. Sincerely, s 71 Deborah A. Stuart A,r ®iatant Pl .nner 13126 SW Hall Blvd, P.O. Box 23397,11gard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639.4171 Mr. Mike Wynne, Attorney 15911 N W. 41st Avenue Ridgefield ®_ VA 98642 s . Civil Infractions Case SS-88-Z, Sherwood Inn Dear Mike: This is in response to our meeting in late u� which we discussed the e above-referenced civil infractions case concerning the Sherwood Inn our client, ��® Ferman, have been freestanding signs. Since you and y the City to grant you a recently, is willing introduced to this case only you can formulate Your plan of action- have thirty (30) day period during which �' our former �a�mnnnni�.y have discussed this matter with Bill Monahan, would one document which Development Director. He was not able to locate any Codes. ct our efforts to bring the signs into conformance with City Coded Therefore, You notice to take . one of the following therefore, � am hereby giving Y �em.- ro er�y in Tigard by 9 on the two freestanding signs at the Sherwood Inn P P r, it, 1989: completed application for either a Sign Code E ception and /or a 1. Fil3Filing a c om � Sign Variance: and /or 2. Modification of one or both signs and filing an application(s) for G %ty. si jn permits; andior Complete removal of one or both signs from the property. 3. P Please contact me if i can be of further assistance. Sincerely, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 233973gard, Oregon 97223 Mr. Mike Wynne, Attorney 15911 11.W 41st Men% R degefield® WA *98642 Civil: Infractions Cases SS' 88 ®2 and 88.90 -Z Hear Hikes in response to our gneeting' with Craig to grant an extension. og y willing later than 4 v. :ti^ . Friday Septemher 29, one of the f mowing to Banning on Septemblsr et 1989m .Z .. voluntarY compliance agreement ent - to * no 1989. 7= this date , the City expects Q Filing a completed appI ,catl.c9sl for .eith sign Variance: and/or ' ✓ , 2. Modification fication or replacem nt of both signs and filing . ' for City sign permits/ and /or ,, • Complete .. oval of one or both signs from tho property. meeting l 'ate JulY1 If 1 can be of further It h�� been some time since our 9 aseistance in explaining those optione# pa,ii.1, . do not hesitate to contact 803-839-4171 or 503-884-:7297 .(€ ) o :" ✓ a Sign cos Mr. Craic, Banning Mr. Coy Humphries, Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Ken, Fox, City Attorney 13125 SW Hail Bind„ P.O. Box 23397 :i gard, Oregon 97223 Z I.989 SPEARS, LU3EIERSIcrir, BLE DSOE, ANDERSON, YOUNG & HILLIARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 520 S,W. YAIMH1L1. STREET.. SUITE 500 PORTLAND, .OREGON 97204 -1383 1503) 226.0151 FAX: SO3) 224 -0358 TELEX: 269020- SP:4S -UR 185-2223 OUR FILE No, . WASHINGTON OFFICE PACIFIC FIRST PLAZA 1220 MAIN STREET, SUITE 3SS VANCOUVER; WASHINGTON 98560 (206) 693.4100 FAX (206) 694-5350 Mr. Keith S.:/Liden Senior planner City of/yr''Iigard P. Q. /1: ox $2397 Tigatd, Oregon 97223 Re: Sherwood Inn /Chevron Signs Dear Mr. Liden: This letter is written in response to your office's correspondence with Mike Wynne and Dave Alexander in the matter of civil infractions 80-88-Z and 88-90-Z. To briefly summarize the current state of. affairs, You have alleged that the freestanding sign i,ocated at the Sherwood Inn in Tigard violates certain provisions of the City's Sign Code and is subject to amortization provisions which required abatement o the violations by March 1968. It is our opinion that these amortization provisions are not applicable to the freestnnding sign because the sign is covered by a variance issued by the City in 1976 (SCA 2-76). This variance has the effect of rendering the sign "conforming" within the meaning of the City' .8 zoning ordinance Therefore, the rules governing nonconforming signs (including the amortization of such signs) simply have no application to the Sherwood inn /Chevron sign. Because we have concluded that the nonconforming sign rules are inapplicable, W9 have found it unnecessary to address other legal impediments to the City's ability to force the removal or modification of the sign. Q.g round 1 �c ts,�t 1t In 19660 the owners of the property now occupied by the Sherwood Inn leased a small portion of the property to 3 Standard Oil Company of California, granting rights to erect and maintain a sign. In a series of transactions not relevant here, Mr. and Mrs. Marko Susnjara succeeded to the rights of the lessor,, followed by Spectrum Development and then Ferryman Y Enterprises (the current owner of the Inn) . The sign itself is Y J currently owned by Martin Brothers, Inc. The sign advertises the Inn, the Inn's restaurant (operated by Craig/Banning) and the Chevron gas station. On January 15, 1976, the City of Tigard annexe the subject property. By letter dated September 12, 1976 Mr. Jerald Powell, Associate Planner for the City, informed Mr. Susnjara .that the freestanding sign was nohc ®nforming under the then existing sign code•1/ Mr. Powel.. informed Mr. Susnjara that he could obtain a variance which would �n constitute "a permanent permission by the `City N. �=� retain the sign, and the use of the sign as long as that sign stands." BY y .1•etter dated January 7, 1976 mr.> Susnjara requested such a variance. On January 20, 1976 the Planning Commission heard and unanimously approved Mr. Susnjara's application. Significantly, the Planning Commission declined to adopt a staff recommendation that the variance be limited to a term of . five ® the application was granted . �.. f ��e years. • �n VtheB. words, without limitation, except that the signs remained "subject to 1 federal and state sign regulations." See letter of J. Powell to M. Susnjara, January 27, 1976. q thor 4 , In 1984, Mr. Susnjara re requested and received authority to alter the freestanding sign. In a letter dated February 29, 1984, William Monahan, the City's Director of Planning and Development, certified that the alterations complied with the 1976 variance. In February, 1988, you notified Spectrum Development of your belief that the freestanding sign was nonconforming and subject to amortization under the Sign Code. By letter to Deborah Stuart dated April 12, 1988, Spectrum submitted its position that the signs were protected by the 1976 variance. After requesting that the affected parties sir,-n ° °voluntary 1/ Copies of the relevant correspondence, are enclosed for your information. compliance agreements, Pls. Stuart responded to Spectrum 's argument in a letter dated July 14, 1989. Ms. Stuart stated d that she could "find no conclusive evidence that the Sherwood Inn [sign] is exempt from the requirements of the amortization regulations.' We understand the City's position to be that, in the absence of some ,specific "grandfathering provision on recognizing Variance SCA 2 -76 and the subject sign, the Sign' Code's amortization rules will apply. For :reasons ,:O be explained in detail below, this argument is incorrect. To the contrary, in the absence of specific language revoking ot modifying the rights granted in the 1976 variance, the Siga Sit Code has no application to the sign permitted by that variance, The Sherwood Inn /Chevron sign issue can be resolved by fs reference to several well- established rules which apply to a ;y zoning variances First, a variance is an administrative authorization or property to be used in a manner departing from fryom th�egq ■q■literaal for M Variances S.!/00 .✓ WPB \> granted in requirements of a zoning ordinance. r order to avoid the inequities and injustice which might result from the rigid application of zoning rules. figg g,ly <air r 6 2on• 4r . 3 �= : a ,w 1:�. , ! _ § 20.02 (1988); (1939) 3 R. Anderson, � 19a�) • 38.07 (4th Ed. , �,athkopf, 3 Law of Zoning and._glanni�, � 133.02 (Rev. N. Williams, Ed. 5 Amerac arr nd Fla'ling Law § &�l.r � § 266 (1g°76) . Ed. 1985); 82 Jr JtA 2d Z a f ilk Once granted, a variance runs with the land, enabling' subsequent transferees of the subject property to enjoy the rights established by the variance. Bohan, 4v . 02 [6] (c) (ii) , E. McQuillan, _ § 25. 163 (3rd Ed. 1983) . A landowner's rights under a variance are determined by the terms of the variance itself. 101 CJS Variances may may be 260 (1979) . granted with ®r without conditions or time limits. In the 1.11 • ^� ' e granted &�� thout .any °; present instance, variance SCA 2-76 was rinin Commission limit on its duration. Indeed, the Planning specifically rejected a staff proposal to limit the duration to five years. The final and most significant aspect of the law of variances is that "when a variance is granted, the use Permitted comes A g nfg,xminig . a . _, r athkopf , 131211E4 at § 38-07 (emphasis added) . This principle has been uniformly recognized by the cases and commentators. agar JA MPS V T '_Df.. „mow ..tfQ tl, 373 NY Supp 2d 938, 941, 49 AD2d 247 (1975); P'. .v v. an 138 NJ -Super 52, 350 A2d 246, 249 (1975) (and cases cited therein); rD'..l3 °..e.c"r Imo,_ Ca.tY ® Garf xeld, 119 NJ duper 161., 290 A2d. 737, • 738 (1972) , ggmt i d,, 61 NJ 160, 293 A2d 290 (1972); AR2gA Qf_arefoot, TJ 473 Pa 323, 263 A2d 321, 322 (1970); McQuillan, supra, S.25.160; Rathkopf, BliPras § 36.07 r Y`FT` For example, in ��ns 3�Ls_..Ie3wn of Ngia Hartf©rd, .La, landowners were granted a variance permitting them to construct 4 : ; a restaurant in a residential zone. The building was later damaged by fire. When the owners began to rebuild the structure, the City moved to enjoin construction, arguing that the zoning code prohibited restoration of nonconforming uses. The court rejected the City's argument, ruling "that a building constructed under a variance is not a nonconforming use within the meaning of ordinances limiting nonconforming buildings, and .Y° uses." 373 NY Supp 2d at 941. A similar result was reached in Industrial 'wear . Ci tu,_of GIxf a Here again, the court permitted the reconstruction of a building erected pursuant to a variance from the underlying zoning requirements. In reaching its conclusion, the court observed. that "a variance is vastly different from a nonconforming use. i * * * A variance * * * is an official quasi - legislative, quasi - judicial. determination that the use or structure allowed is not offensive to the ordinance in co the broad context of the particular circumstances which, * * * have authorized the grant. — 1 - ed bee - Although a variance can perhaps be lost by abandonment * * it otherwise Partakes to a large degree of the charactsristics of a vested right running with the land. 290 A2d at 738. ■Citation, omitted, emphasis added] In a third example, a landowner applied for a special exception granting him Permission to construct a dwelling on a parcel smaller than the applicable minimum lot size. The ProPerty was then sold, and when the purchaser sought"a building permit to construct a house, the municipality argued that the structure would violate the underlying zoning ordinance. The court ruled that when a variance is granted "the use becomes a conforming use, and such use enures to the benefit of a subsequent owner of the land and is. not abandoned in the absence of a time limitation in the exception itself or in the zoning ordinance." . t. ,...- pupra 26 A2d at 322. Tur.aing to the City's current allegations, we note that the Sign Code's amortization and abatement provisions, Chapters 18.114.110 and 18.114.120, apply by their terms to "nonconforming signs." These provisions make no mention whatsoever of signs which have been exempted from regulation and thus rendered confi)rming) by variance. The amortization provisions could only apply to the subject sign in the event of a structural alteration, relocation, or replacement in violation of the original variance. Zeg Chapter 18.114.110(d). As previously noted, the City has conceded that the only changes made to the subject sign were within the terms of the variance. Clearly, the referenced provisions of the City's Sign Code do not affect signs permitted by variances. We are aware of no other provisions of the Sign Code which might affect the Sherwood Inn/Chevron sign, nor any official municipal act repealing or modifying Variance SCA 2-76. concluslAna The planning Commission's variance permitting the maintenance of the Sherwood Inn/Chevron sign constitutes a permanent permission to maintain the sign, which runs with the land and which is not limited in duration. The variance has the legal effect of rendering the permitted use a conforming use, and the terms of the variance define the owners' right3 with respect to the sign. The nonconforming use provisions of the Sign Code have no application to uses authorized by variance. Thus, the owners of the sign are not required to remove or modify the sign, nor are they required to apply for any special exception, variance, or other permission. Keith S. Laden, December 20, 1989 Page 6 We trust , that this discussion adequately sets forth, the controlling law. If you have any questions concerning . this matter, please ado not hesitate to call, Respectfully submitted, SPEARS, LUBERSKY, BLEDSOE, ANDERSON, YOUNG & HILLIARD Of Attorneys for Chevron nc ?if /I' iet/C.C.- Michael J. Wynne Attorney for Ferryman Enterprises cc: terls. Peggy E. Soolniok Mr. Craig Banning Mr. Brian Ferryman Mr. Ho E. Ferryman Mr. Fred Drysda is SPEARS, LTJ B H S , y� BLEDSOE, ANDERSON,. YOUNG G 8c HILLIARD ATTORNEYS AT LA{A! 520 S.W. VAMI-M.A.:STREET, SUITE 800 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 -1383 (503) 226 -6151 • FAX: (503) 224 -0388 TELEX: 289029 -SPR S -U R 185 -2223 Cum FILE No WASHINGTON OFFICE PACIFIC FIRST PLAZA 1220 MAIN STREET, SUITE 355 VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 98800 (206) 893- 4100 FAX (206) 894 -5350 December 20, 1989 Mr. Keith S. Eiden Senior P1 ifnex City of igard P. C. ox 22397 Tig/a, d, Oregon 97223 Re: Sherwood Inn /Chevron Signs (City file NOS. aa=a8 -z a. 8a 9.Q 2) Dear Mr. Liden: This letter is written in response to your office's correspondence with Mike Wynne and Dave Alexander in the matter of civil infractions 88 --88 -Z and 88-90-Z. To briefly summarize the current state of affairs, you have alleged that the freestanding sign located at the Sherwood Inn in Tigard violates certain provisions of the City's Sign Code and is subject to amortization provisions which required abatement of the violations by March 1988. It is our opinion that these amortization provisions are not applicable to the freestanding sign because the sign is covered by a variance issued by the City in 1976 S 2-76). This variance has the effect of rendering the si n "Conforming within the meaning of the City's zoning ordinance. Therefore, the rules governing nonconforming signs (including the amortization of such signs) simply have no application to the Sherwood Inn /Chevron sign. Because we have concluded that the nonconforming sign rules are inapplicable, we have found it unnecessary to address other legal impediments to the City's ability to force the removal or modification of the sign. Background In 1965, the owners of the property now occupied by the Sherwood Inn leased a small portion of the property to Standard Oil Company of California, granting rights to erect and maintain a sign. In a series of transactions not relevant here, Mr. and Mrs. Marko Susnjara succeeded to the , ights of the lessor, followed by Spectrum - Development and then Ferryman Enterprises (the current owner of the Inn). The-sign itself is currently owned by Martin Brothers, Inc. The sign advertises the Inn, the Inn's restaurant (operated by Craig Banning) and the Chevron gas station. On January 15, 1976, the City of Tigard annexed the subject property. By letter dated September 12, 1975, Mr. Jerald Powell, Associate Planner for the City, informed Mr. Susnjara that the freestanding sign was nonconforming under i the then existing sign code.1" Mr. Powell informed Mr. Susnjara that he could obtain a variance which would constitute "a permanent permission by the City to retain the sign, and the use of the sign as long as that sign stands." BY letter dated January 7, 1976 Mr. Susnjara requested such a variance. On January 20, 1976 the Planning Commission heard and unanimously approved Mr. Susnj ara s application. Significantly, the Planning Commission declined to adopt a staff recommendation that the variance be limited to erm of five years. In other words, the application was granted without limitation, except that the signs remained "subject to federal and state sign regulations." letter of J. Powell to M. Susnjara, January 27, 1976. In 1984, Mr. Susnjara requested and received authority to alter the freestanding sign. In a lett&r dated February 29, 1984, William Monahan, the City's Director of Planning and De7relopment, certified that the alterations complied with the 1976 variance. In February, 1988, you notified Spectrum Development of y our belief that the freestanding sign was nonconforming and subject to amortization under the Sign Code. By letter to Deborah Stuart dated April 12, 1988, Spectrum submitted its position that the signs were protected by the 1976 variance. After requesting that the affected parties sign "voluntary 1/ Copies of the relevant correspondence are enclosed for your information. Mr Keith S. Liden December 20, 1989 Page 3 opiploombe c,mp l i ance agreements," Ms. Stuart responded to Spectrum's a'gument in a letter dated July 14, 1989. Ms Stuart stated that she could find no conclusive evidence that the Sherwood Inn [sign] is exempt from the requirements of the amortization regulations." We understand the City's position to be that, in the absence of some specific ®egrandfathering" provision recognizing Variance SCA 2 -76 and the subject sign, the Sign Code's amortization rules will apply. For reasons to be explained in detail below, this argument is incorrect. To the contrary, in the absence of specific language revoking or modifying the rights granted in the 1976 variance, the Sign Code has no application to the sign permitted by that variance. Anal.vsi The Sherwood Inn /Chevron sign issue can be resolved by reference to several well - established rules which apply to zoning variances. First, a variance is an administrative authorization for property to be used in a manner departing from the literal requirements of a zoning ordinance. Variances are granted order to avoid the inequities and injustice which might resul from the rigid application of zoning rules. Eaa ggngLaIli, P. Rohan, Ed.', 6 • n' gi n• L . _giant l § 43.01[2] (1989); R. Anderson, 3 Anarigpn baw q _Zon1fc1 § 20.02 (1986); Rathkopf, 3 Law of zone ng_ P fd § 38.07 (4th Ed. 1988) . � .Law 133e02 Rev® N. Williams, Ed., 5 Americana Lan P z § Ed. 1985), 82 Am Jur 2d anina'alanning § 266 (1976) . �,. Once granted, a variance runs with the land, enabling subsequent transferees of the subject property to enjoy the rights established by the variance. Rohan, ►pr=a• 43 .02E6) (c) (i1), E. McQuillan, 8 ..sssy...���' Vises. landowner's rights under a variance �$ § 25 01.63 (3rd Ed. 1983.) , A land° are determined by the terms of the variance itself. 101 CJS •: § 260 (1979) . Variances may be granted with or without conditions or time limits. In the present instance, variance SCA 2-76 was granted without any limit on its duration. Indeed, the Planning Commission specifically rejected a staff proposal to limit the duration to five years. • The final and most significant aspect of the law of variances is that "when a variance is granted, the use permitted biAggifiga A conforming Rathkopf, at § 30.07 (emphasis added) This principle, has been uniformly recognized by the cases and commentators .egg,., jAmgl. v, Town cif. w artfcrd, 373 NY Supp 2d 938, 941, 49 AD2d 247 (1975); D ,fl rov v. r $on, 138 NJ Super 52, 350 A2d 246, 249 (1975) (and cases cited therein): ^' tj is � c • Ci.t.Y_DI_Garfield., 119 NJ Super 18i, 290 A2d 737,-738 ( 1972) , _cart nied, 61 NJ 160, 293 A2d 250 (1972), A2PgAl-Dif-2A-Kgfoot, , 473 Pa 323, 263 A2d 321, 322 (1970); McQuillan, s r'a.e 25.1.60; Rathkopf, sup, § 38.07 For example, in landowners were granted : a variance permitting them to construct a restaurant in a residential zone. The building was later damaged by fire. When the owners began to rebuild the structure, the City moved to enjoin construction, arguing that the zoning code prohibited restoration of nonconforming uses. The court rejected the City's argument, ruling "that a building constructed under a variance is not a nonconforming use within the meaning of ordinances limiting nonconforming buildings and uses." 373' NY Supp 2d at 941. A similar result was reached in . zadMst,rial iGessors. znc. v. pity of�rfi eid® uRr . Here again, the court permitted the reconstruction of a building erected pursuant to a variance from the underlying zoning requirements In reaching its conclusion, the court observed that "a variance is vastly different from a nonconforming use. * * * A variance * * * is an official quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial determination that the use or structure allowed is not offensive to the ordinance in the broad context of the particular circumstances which, * * * have authorized the grant. I the uae or st u al lctrgde!ongs apnfrgsc . Although a variance can perhaps be lost by abandonment * * * it otherwise partakes to a large degree of the characteristics of 'a vested right running with the land." 290 A2d at 730. [Citations omitted, emphasis added] "'sr..: fr,. �.. 't'. ...... .. , h rc.; 'J'> , S .4i �• _ ,�a, e.4r .. - .. . Mr. Keith S. Liden December 20, 1989 Page 5 In a third example, a landowner applied for a special exception granting him permission to construct a dwelling on a parcel smaller than the applicable minimum lot size. The property was then sold, and when the purchaser sought a building permit to construct a house, the municipality argued that the structure would violate the underlying zoning ordinance. The court ruled that when a variance is granted "the use becomes a conforming use, and such use enures to the benefit of a subsequent owner of the land and is-not abandoned in , 3 i e absence of a time limitation in the exception itself or • �► •.4. .� :�_,, -,�. , s1dp]��, 263 A2d in the zoning ordinance." } at 322' Turning to the City's current allegations, we note that the Sign Code's amortization and abatement provisions, Chapters 13.114 .110 and. 18.114.120, apply by their terms to "nonconforming signs." These provisions make no mention whatsoever of signs which have been exempted from regulation and thus rendered conforming) by variance. The amortization (and apply to the subject sign in the event of provisions could. only aFp a structural alteration, relocation, or replacement in violation of the original variance. Egg Chapter 18.114.110(d). As previously noted, the City has conceded that the only changes made to the subject sign were within the terms of the variance. Clearly, the referenced provisions of the City's Sign Code do not affect signs permitted by variances. We are aware of no other provisions of the Sign Code which might affect the Sherwood Inn /Chevron sign, nor any, official municipal act repealing or modifying Variance Se: 2 -76. Conclusions The Planning Commission's variance permitting the maintenance of the Sherwood Inn /Chevron sign constitutes a Permanent permission to maintain the sign, which runs withatthe land and which is not limited in duration The variance the legal effect of rendering the permitted use a conforming use, and the terms of the variance define the owners rights with authorized i ions of wxtl� respect to the sign. The nonconforming use proves the Sign Code have no application to sign uses autho y the owners of the sign are not required to variance. Thus, remove or modify the sign, nor are they required to apply for any special exception, variance, or other permission. Mr. ieitn S. Liden December 20, 19 8 Page 6 We trust that this discussion adequately sets` forth the controll ing law. If You have any questions concerning this matter, Please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, SPEARS, LUBERSKY, BLEDSOE, ANDERSON, YOUNG & HILLIARD Of Attorneys for Chevron U.S.A., I'nc. Michael J. Wynne Attorney for Perryman Enterprises Peggy E. Scoln.ick Mr. Craig Banning Mr. Brian Ferryman Mr. H. E. Ferryman Mr. Fred Drysdale 6444 66,0Sidtritral. PROPERTY LOCATION , ? $: ADDRESS: TAX MAP & TAX LOT: NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): PROPOSAL DESPTION: . � �G`' w �...,✓ - °._fir.' 1r4fit) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #®_ CHAIRPERSON: PHONE: ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot, size: ' sq. ft. Minimum lot width: ft. Setbacks: front- a.�.- ft. side- ft., ream ft. garage ft. corner -- ft. from both streets. Maximo site coverage: Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: Maximwm building height: ft. ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum. 15 foot wide access easement. Maximum lot depth to width ratio of 2.5 to 1. SPECIAL SETBACKS streets: ft. from centerline of Established areas: ft. from • -Lower intensity zones: ft.,' along the site's boundary Flag lot: 10 ft. side yard setback Accessory structures: up to 528 sq. ft. in size =5 ft. setback from side and rear lot lines Lill Accessory structures: up to 1000 sq. ft. (where allowed) ' - See . applicable zoning district setbacks Zero lot lire lots: minimum 10 foot separation between buildings Multi- family residential building separation: See Code Section 18.96.030 spECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Flag Lots: Maximum height. of 1-1/2 ; stories or 25 ft .g whichever is less in most zones; 2 -1/2 stories ` or 35 ft. in R-7, R.-12, R-25 or R -40 zones if standards of Code section 18.98.030(B) are met. Building Height Exceptions (Code Section 18.98.020): Buildings located in a non- residential zone may be built to a- height of 75 f mow, ovided: 1. A mini FAR (building floor area to site area ratio) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; All actual building setbacks will be at least 1/2 the building's height; and The structure will not abut a residential district. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION Community Development Code Chapter 18.92 specifies that the net residential units allowed on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable area by the minimum number of square feet required Per dwelling unit in the applicable zoning district. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: 1. All sensitive lands areas a- land within the 100 year floodplain -- slops exceeding 25% drainageways 2. Land dedicated for park purposes 3. Public right - of-way dedication 4. A.1l land provided for private streets through parking areas) The City of Tigard allows a residential density transfer of up to 25% of the units that could otherwise have been developed on sensitive lands areas listed in (1) above to the developable portion, of the site in accordance with Code. Section 18.92.030. It is the responsibility of the applicant for a residential development application to provide a detailed calculation for permitted residential density and density transfer. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Effective May 1, 1991 all subdivisions and minor partitions are: subject to solar access requirements which state that 80% of all lots developed must be solar - oriented. The characteristics of a solar- oriented lot are high levels of wintertime sun striking the south walls and roofs of the house, house orientation maximizing south window area, and a south- sloping roof • area. To achieve this, one may utilize the following: 1. Basic requirement: Design a lot with at least 90 feet of north- south lot dimension and an orientation, within 30 degrees of south; • 2. Protected Solar Building Line: The solar building line must a) be oriented within 30 degrees of south, b) have a minimum of 70 feet, between it and the middle of the lot to the south, c) have a minimum of 45 feet between it and the northernmost buildable boundary of the lot on which the building line is located. Performance Options: The first option requires the house to be oriented within 30 degrees of an east -west axis and have at least 80% of the ground floor south wall protected from shade. The second option requires at least 32% of the glass and 500 square feet of the roof area to face south and be protected from shade. Total or partial exemption of a site from the solar access requirement can be for the following reasons: 1. East, west or north slopes steeper than 20 %. 2. Offs -site shade sources (structures, vegetation, topography). 3. On -site shade sources ( vegetation) . Adjustments allowing reduction of the 80% solar lot design re quirement can be for the following reasons: 1. Reduced density or an increased cost of at least five percent due to: - easy., west or north slope greater than 10%, significant natural feature, - existing road or lotting pattern, - public easement or right-of-way. . Reduction in important development amenities 3. Pre- existing shade (vegetation). Maps and text sufficient to show the development complies with the solar design standard, except for lots for which an exemption or adjustment is required, including all of the following items: 1. The north -sout ► lot, dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot. 2. Protected solar building lines' and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. 3. For the purpose of identifying trees exempt from Section F, a map showing existing trees at least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade, including their height diameter and species,, and stating that they are to be retained and are exempt. 4. Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. If an exemption or adjustment is requested, maps and text sufficient to show that given lots or areas in the development comply with the standards for such an exemption or adjustment shall be submitted. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSITION Regardless of the allowed housing density in a zoning d5Lstrict, any property within 100 feet of a designated established area shall not be developed at a density greater than 125 percent of the maxim= Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacent Parcel- PARKING AND ACCESS Required automobile parking for this type of use: Secondary use required parking: 25% of required spaces may be designated compact -only spaces. Standard parking space dimensions 9 ft. X 18 ft. Compact parking space dimensions: 8.5 ft. X 15 ft. Handicapped parking: All parking areas providing .. in excess : of five required automobile parking spaces shall provide appropriately located and, designated handicapped parking spaces. The minimum nu r of handicapped.. Page parking spaces to be provided and parking space size are mandated by the Oregon Revised, Statutes (see handout) . A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be provided. Bicycle racks are required for civic uses, non - residential uses, commercial uses, and industrial uses providing 15 or more automobile parking spaces. Bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of one bicycle rack space per 15 auto. parking spaces. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic. The planning; Division can provide specifications for approved bicycle rack types. All parking areas and driveways must be paved. Drive -in use queuing areas .�, Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access, width: Maximum access width: Pedestrian access must be provided between building entrances and parking areas, outdoor common areas, and public sidewalks and streets. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses, see Community Development Code Chapters 18.106 and 18.108. CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision be maintained between three and eight feet above grade at road /driveway, roLd/railroad, and road /road intersections in specified clear vision areas. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon t: ;ate abutting street's functional classification. LANDSCAPING Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street or a driveway more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right -of -way or on private property within sir feet of the right -of -way boundary. - treet trees must have a minimum ca %iper of two inches at four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on mature tree size. Further information on regulations affecting street trees and a list of recommended street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A minimum of one tree per seven Parking spaces must be planted in and around parsing areas in order to provide a canopy effect. Landscaped screening of p :king areas from views from public rights-of-way must be provided. Page 4 BUFFERING SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to reduce or el . to adver o noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments especia3ly between dif ferent land uses, the City res -:.eas landscaped buffer areas along. Certain site perimeters. Required !milker areas are described by the Code in terms of width Buffer r areas must be occupied by a . mixture of da &i.duoua and evergreen trees and shrubs.: Site obscuring screens or geucec are also reqtaired in some cases, and often are advisable =.ven if not required. Required buffer areas may only be occupied ; by . vegetation, fence. util.it%e , and sidewalk. Additional information on required buffe r area Materials and si;ses may be found in Code Chapter 15.100 and the P]. ingf Division buItletin on landscaping and buffering. , Required buffer widths applicable to your proposal areas ft. along noh boundary ft. along east boundary ft. along south boundary ft. along weit boundary :n addition, sight obscuring screening is required along SIGNS Permits must be obtained before erecting any sign in .the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sic jn Permits* handout is available upon request. Additional sign area oe height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development application. ,. SENSITIVE LANDS Administrative staff review. _ Pub1i,c hearing before the land use hearings officer. Public hearing before the Planning. Commission. .. Plc hearing before the Planning Commission with the C.onsaission , making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. another, public hearing is held by the City Council. - All , applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member at the Community Development Department counter at City Hall. Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's applications for processing. No applications will be accepted after 3 :00 P.M. on Fridays or 4.30 on other days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded in advance to, 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. The Planning Division and Engineering ` Division will do a prel review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 10 days of submittal. Staf f will notify an applicant if additional information or copies of the submitted materials, are needed. The administrative decision /public hearing typically will occur approximately 45 to 60 days after :nn application is accepted .as complete by the Planning Division. Appi „cations involving difficult issues or , requiring review by other jurisdictions. may take additional time to review. Written decisions are iasu, d within 10 days of the hearing. A 10 day appeal 'period follows. all decia..ins. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the A basic flow diagram illustrating the review process is available from the, Planning Division. The pre- application conference and the notes' of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant . of th = primary' Community Development Code requirements applicable to development of ,a particular site and to allow the staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements • and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide any information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. ments. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. Another pre - application conference i = required if an application is to be submitted More than six months after this pre - application conference, unless the second conference is deemed unnecessary by the Planning PREPARED RED BY: PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: 639.: -4171 PUBLIC PA.CILITIE5 The pulse of the 'Pre application conference is to: (i) identify applicable ble Co rehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions; (ii) to Provide city staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns; and (iii) to review the application review process with the applicant including identifying who will be the final decision maker for the appltc tion. The extent of public improvements and dedications to be required cf the applicant will be recommended by City staff and approved by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision maker by City staff until all commenting ;agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your project. i.9ht=of -wav de bt The City of Tigard requires that ..land area be dedicated to the public to increase abutting public rights -- of-way to the ultimate functional street class tication rights -of -way width specified by the Community Development Code. Approval of a development application for this site will require dedication of right -of -way for 1. 2. Street imps ®vemental street improvements will be necadtiary along feet from centerline. 2. street improvements will be necessary along .. 3. Needed street improvements will include feet of pavement from centerline, curb and gutters, storm sewers, a five -foot wide sidewalk, necessary street signs, streetlIghts, and a two year streetlighting fee. In some cases where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the street improvements may be deferred. In these cases, as. a condition of development approval, the property owner (s) must execute a non - remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against. the formation of a local improvement district formed to improve Sanitary Sewer % The closest sanitary sewer to this inch line located .at__,,®, development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed Storm s im.Froveaents property is an -: . The proposed is the developer's development site's, ater Su ?ly:e The ` Water District (Phone: provides public water, service in the area of this site. The District should be Contacted for information rear . water supply for your proposes development. Fire prota ction Tuaiati.n. Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene airchi1i, 645 -8533) provides fire protection services w3.' hi..n the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted. for information regarding the adequacy of circulation' systems, the T need. for fire hydrants, or other questions ons related to fire protections. Other Agency Permits: TRAFFIC IWPACT FEES in AuguBt, 1990, the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted the county -wide Traffic Impact Fe _ (TIP) Ordinance and referred . the measure to the Washington county voters. In September, 1990, the Washington .County approved expanding the TIP prima .throughout electorate overwhelmingly alp all jurisdictions within the county. This .actien placed into effect' an increased street development ent fee on all. new development in Washington County. The City of Tigard has adopted the county's program. The City Traffic Impact Pee program will collect .fees from new development: based on the development's projected impact on the transportation system. Developing will be required .to. pay based on the number of trip they are projected to generate. The TIP Le calculated based on type of use, size of project, and a genera.l use base f .category. The TIP shall be calculated at time of building pelt i.sstianae. In limited payment of the TIP may be allowed to . deferred until circumstances, `� issuance... of occupancy permit.. Deferral of payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIP 'is greater than $5,000.00. STORM:1MM QUALITY FEES The Unified Sewerage Agency hoe established. and the 'City has agreed to enforce,• Resolution No. 90 -43, Surface Water Management Res lations, requiring the construction of on -site water quality facilities- or fees in 1i.eu of their construction. The resolution, require = that a fee and /or construction of a water quality facility be built. The fee is based on the amount of impervious surface; for every 2640 square" feet or .portion thereof, the .foe shall be $375.00. The City of Tigard determines if .a fee or facility shall. be built. STMET OPENING PERM'LT No work within a public right -of -way shall commence until the applicant has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS On all projects that require a grading plan the a#Plicant shall submit' with the grading plan a typical floor plan for each lot which shall have the elevations of four corners of that plan along with elevations , at the corner of each lot. PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING DIVISION PHONE: 639-4171 JO: PREAPP .MST STAFF: PRE-APPLICATION CHZnKLISTS FOR SIGN CODE EXCEPT/ON AND ADMINISTRATIVE VABIKES; All application shall be made on forms provided by the Director or designee and shall be accompanied by TOTES: • Sheet size for plans) and any required drawings shall preferably be drawn on sheets not to exceed 18 inches by 24 inches, and 2. The scale of the sign site plan shall be an engineering coals; and • All drawings of the sign elevations and structural components shall be a standard architectural sc r le, being one - fourth inch or one - eighth inch; 4. The required information may be combined and may not have to be placed on separate maps. Se74.t1: �. SIGN CODE EXCEPTION OR SIGN VARIANCE APP. TYPE: c ‘44t (Al Three :coo .es for review by the 'Director of the sign playas (s) and any necessary data or narrative which explains ho e sign plan proposal conforms to the standard m . :< ��F. _nor review by the of the sign plans for sign code exception: m.'e'Agg (B) The Proposed sign site plan shall include the following information 1. The location of the proposed sign, and all .. f existing signs on the site, 2. The location of all existing and proposed buildings on the site QC 3. .The location of all existing and proposed streets and rights -of -way, including names CO )- and widths, and 4 The location of all overhead power and x: utility lines located the site; s 5, The distance of th .. sign to the nearest CD public right (s) -of -way; 5. The address of the site where the sign will be located, and 7. The name, address, and phone number of the applicant. (C) The proposed sign arch tecthraI, plans shall REQUIRED RECEIVED including the following information 1 : The sign dimensions; 2. the materials 4110,1MqMMIaPto he u d; 3. The height of the sign above the ground; . The source and intensity of any illumination; and e ` Construction drawings indicating size. ,of footings, anchorages and welds' 6. The address of the site where the sign(e) will be located; 7 • For those: cases where an existing sign is to be modified, the applicant shall provide documentation or verifiable proof of when $ sign was erected, and wherever possible, shall submit a copy of the original sign permit; • Distance of the proposed freeway-oriented freestanding sign to the freeway interchange off -r pW A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are property owners or record within 250 feet of the site. Applicant's statement ' (No. Copies '..... ..e. .) Proof of current City business tax certificate. A, tax assessor 6 a map A title transfer instrument The required fee { $- [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] NOTIFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATION CPO NO. CITY DEPAWNENTS Building Inspector /Brad R. y Recorder Engineering/Gary A. SPECIAL DISTRICTS', District (pick -up box bldg.) Tigard Water District € 777 SW Burnham St. Tigard, OR 97223 Metzger Water District 8501 SW Taylors Ferry ;Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 AFFECTED YRISDICTIONS School Dist. No. 48 (Beavr Joy Pahl. PO Box 200 Beaverton, OR 97075 School District 23J (Tire) 13137 SW Pacific H. Tigard, OR 97223 Wash. Co. Land Use & dransp 150 N. First Ave, Hillsboro, OR 97124 Brent Curtis Kevin Martin —__ Joann Rice Boundary CommiSsion 320 SW Stark Room 530. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Jim Hendryx City of Beaverton P0 Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Siva a Highway Division Lee Gunderson PO Box 565 Beaverton, OR 97075 DLCD (CPA's only)" 1175 Coutt St. NE Salem, OR 97310 -0590; Other Portland General Electric Brian Moore • 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Beaverton, oR 97007 5. SPECIAL AGENCIES General'Telephone Mike Lutz 12460 SW Main St. Beaverton, OR 97007 NW Natural Gas Ronald D. Polvi, PE, PLS 220 NW Second Ave. Portland, OR 97209 Metro Area Communications Harlan Cook Twin Oaks Technology Center 1815 NW 169th Place S -6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 -4886 US West Pete Nelson. 421 SW Oak St." Portland, OR 97204 TCI Cahlevision Of Oregon, Inc. 3500 SW Bond Portland, OR 97201 ike Railock LEGIBILITY STRIP Mr , t,rr Digital datt & map reproeRe Itt1ea e®spiied 9y the City el 1IjCf4 etatiaied Camgrt- pbie >iafermatioe Sete CIS) eatttare. Teter - ,�, elation portrayed Dort mer be ieteeded to be seed tit& edditiatei, N O R T H tetbeieei eed /ae ietorprotetivt deti to ditertiiaed by F u�t��•':yt» the Ctii al TiCetd. IMPSCS121) 2 440 {b2 /21!12} • PLACE UNDER CI?!! OF TIGARD LOGO The following: will be considered by the Tigard . Hearings Officer on Monday, Aarj.1 13 1992 at 7:00 PM at Tigard Civic Center m Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall The hearing on this matter will be conductednin®ac testimony accordance invited. ith the ' public hearing public ordance wit�a the rule,,. of Chapter 15.:2 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a co tuna is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Or 97223, or by calling 639- 4171. PUBLIC BEARINGS SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 92-0001 V I E 92 -0005 CHEVRON (NPO #5) A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to retain one freestanding ;.sign' of approximately 320 square feet per face with a height of approximately 60 feet where the Code allows a maxim sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and a maximum height of 35 feet. APPLICABLE VIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.114.140 and 15.134. LOCATION: 15670 SW Upper Doonea Ferry Road (EWCTM 251 12DD, tax lot 800) ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) The C -G zone allows public agency and . administrative services, public support facilities, profes Tonal and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate, and business support services, and single - family residential units among other uses. CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER Concerning Case Number(s): SCE 92 -0001 VAR 92 -0005 Name of Owner: Chervron USA Inc,„_ Name of Applicant Same Address po Box 220 City Seatt State WA Zip 98 Address of Property: 15 W uoMer Boone r Road Tax Map and Lot No (s) 2S1 12DD tax lot '800 Request: A re set for S icy cde� Elcce and V cep a l to retain one freestandinc_ftigp of approicimately 320 sure feet r face with a heal of ap_ oxim t S0 et where the _ allows a maximum el n area of 15Q aguare feet ter ai n face and a maximum ImaAalt of 35 feet. APPLICABLE RE 7IEW CRITERIA: Cot un l9� t Ood ARtREE 15...114.140 and 18,., Zone: C -G (General Commercial) The C-G zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate, and business support services, and single-family residential units among other u .es. 6. Acts Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial 7. Nom Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X - X The applicant and owner(0) Owners of record within the required distance The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, dalcision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9 Aooeals Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(5) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent,: The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up to a maximum of $500.00) . The deadline fc -. filing of an appeal is 3 :30 p.m. 10. Q stions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. STATE Q OREGON CountY"45Y Washington City of Tigard depose end say: Please print) t.:..� . ,� for That I am a / IC. -- The C ty of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR City of Tigard Planning Director aigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice /Notice of Exhibit "A ") was mailed to each named attached list marked exhibit "B" on the said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto bulletin board on the -_ day of �. in the United states mail on the postage prepaid. Decision) of which is attached (;eked ons at the Cdr s shoe oiuthe day of 19 L , attached, was posted on an appropriate 19_____; and deposited _... s x.90 day of r_ - -1-- NOT } PUBLIC OF OREGON My iiss ion Expires: Person who delivered to POST CWFICE jet_ pubs ci.D�ed and sworn /affix�ta to me on the 19. a .r ° . o �: P1..)y��.). `IS,WWJa @aid R,0 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON ( Avw HY Commis lion Expire,: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A METING I� G ON M� OND AY2, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THA OF THE TIGARD CIVIC April 13, 1392, AT 7 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL SW HALL BLVD , TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO SCE 92_0001/VAR 92-0005 FILE TITLE Chevron APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONE: Chevron USA, Inc. PO Box 220 Seattle, WA 98111 SIGNi C®AE EXCEPTION SCE 92 -0001 VARIANCE . 92-0005 CHEVRON request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to retain A req� 320 square feet per face with one freestanding sign of approximately a height of approximately 60 feet where the Code allows a maximum sign area of 160 square feet per sign face a mum ighof 35 feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA : Community D Code Chapters 18.114.140 and 18.134. 15670 SW Upper Boanea Ferry Road (WCTM 2S1 12DD, tax lot 800) The C -G one allows public agency and administrative (General Commercial) ere public support facilities, professional and administrative service ®r administrative istrative services, financial, insurance, rm . , and bu aineS® support services, and single-family residential units among other uses. RULES ONE. CHAPTER 18 32 O T ON THIS SMATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE ADOPTED AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET OF CIiP�PTE�? 18.32 OF TEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30 ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO TED IN THE PRIOR RI G. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. , TESTIMONY SOS FTCER WILT, R5CIEVE A TIIE PUBLIC HEARING:. AT THE PUBLIC OPEN THE �UHLIC HEARING; STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; ARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL Al PERSON INFORMATION, OR EVIDENCE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE. APPLICATION. IF PARTY IS ENTITLED TO IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER .Mal�' THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED IN; AT OPEN REQUEST P� CONTINUANCE OF THE HEAR REARING, IPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD HEAs.__..: r AL`JY PARTICIPANT AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. FROM INCLUDED IN THIS COMMUNITY IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST QDUE T UPON FR THE TIGARD COP�'IUN DEVELOPMENT BYOTHS HEARINGS O TIGARD FFICER OFFS. CER WILL BE BASED THAT APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL HEE THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT REQUEST PERTAIN SPE �COMIMENTS RELATING TO THE REQ LISTED. NPO NO: 5 OWNER: Sate FAILURE TO ' RAISTR AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO AFFORD THE DECISION MAItER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT XSSL_7E. ALL DOCUMENTS .?" APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN TH.E ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR CENTS INSPECTION AT ,RO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CEN PER PAGE. 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 TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLAN R. 2l Pomeroy AT 639 -4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) CHAIRPERSON: Oral. Ho king .. PHONE N ER: 639 5823 SCE 92-0001 Si te Area 014ltat till 1 o.ob tell,. 1aep11o/ by 010 City. if 111er1' et111ii11 Caaara- pile lilaraotl.. Spetas CIS) settees Iatar- mittae portrays* Isla My la t0t1e1i1 In be oiedmitt el /ltl*ael. tasbeicol 6.1 /er N o- v H A alarprotiliro fat. Ii 0itiriiiiaIy -•± p�.r,�{r. plbepla iba City of fttotp, idfiitOlft Ce' 14114100 BY PACIFIC REALTY ASSOC 2P1l5'SW' SEQUOIA ;Phan #20044111 PORTLAM OR ; 97224 2511200 -)070 0 •�••••9raee,s••eeV•{sa PACIFIC REALTy ASSOCIATES 111 SW 5TH SUITE `,2950 PORTLAND OR 97204 #295.0 7204 2S112DYrJT,009Q0 • • : • • O • :. • • • • • 0 0 0 • to m'. SPECTRUM DEVELOPMENT CORP FERRYMAN , H 9U0 NE H IGHWAY 9 VANCOUVER WA 98665 28112BD- 41100 ♦O.aO ®,64,.0.6• .• • SPECTRUM DEVELOPMENT ARP • remarman, H 99 98665 2S112DD O1300 0 0 0 • • • • • •. e 0 e 0 e • • 0 RYAN, JOANNE C ET AL BY UNION OIL CO OF CALIF A :' "PROPERTY TAX DID PO BOX 760.0 LOS ayANGELES CA 90051 2811200 -01500 ..................... PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATIM L P 15115 SW SEQUOIA PM( #200 I PORTLAND OR 97224 25111200 °407. . s•n.ee • ®.aeem.•• o• PACIFIC r.r: IRTES 111 SW 5TH Stilt v 2950 PORTLAND OF ;97204 251120041000 ..••m •.0000 .•....000 SPECTRUM DEVELOPVENT CORP 1 FERRYMAN, H 9110 NB HIG : %:Y 99 VANCO .:}. WA 98665 2S1l2DD •01200 ® • •f►'- i • 6 0. 0 • O O 0 • U •:'O tl O •. •: RYAN , LEONARD JOANNE SMITH, BOB L Rama E 280 SE LIBEW.EY PO BOX 250 S OR 97308 281120D...01400 •e•e • • o00 ®s• •0 . PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES L P 15115 SW SEQUOIA 200 - I PORTLAND OR 97224 2511200.01600 •••••••.••ae••w.o PAO US A - 15115, SW SEQUOIA PA" STE200 TIGARD, OR 97223 CHEVRON USA, INC. • BOX 220 SEATTLE WA 98111 CRAIG HOPKINS 7430 SW WARNS ST TIGARD OR 97223 3JGEF, LME NY PACIFIC REALTY ASSOC 15115 SW SEQUOIA PKWY 20O -4 1X.. PORTLAND OR 97224 2S112DD -00700 •••s•••.3.9me.,,. PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES 111 SW STH SUITE 2950 PORTLAND OR 97204 ATTN: DAVID � r$ 111 SW 5TH ` 42950 PORTLAND OR 97204 • • • 2$112DD -00701 •, a • a • • e • 'a. PACIPIC TY ASSOCIATES 111 SW 5TH SUITE 2950 PORTLAND OR 97204 2S112DD- X009 -O • • • s o • 0.0 . o •,• • • e e •' SPECTRUM - DVILCPENT CORP % FERRYMAN, N E 9110 NE FlIt4HWAY 99 VANCOUVER 98665 2S112DD ®0311 :' O )D 'A.. • O O q • • d ! • O O.H • • •: • •.. SPECTRUM DEVELOPMENT CORP % FERRYMAN, H E 9110 NE HIGHWAY 99 VANCOUVER WA 98665 2.S112D13- 01300 •a9•O 90.009.99.9 RYAN, JO E C ET AL BY UNION OIL CO OF CALIF ATTN: PROPERTY TAX DIV PO BOX 76013 LOS ANGELES CA 90051 2SI12DD -01500 • o 900.00.0....... PACIFIC REALTY ASa OCIATE3 L P 15115 SW SEQUOIA PEITZ 200 - WMI PORTLAND OR 97224 2S112D18 -.01000 o e • • • • • • .g • ®• a SPECTRUM DEVELOPMENT CORP % FERRYMAN, N E 93.10 NE HIGHWAY` 99 VANCOUVER WA 98665 28112DD -01200 •9Oe•0000ao9.600•6O•0 RYAN, LEONARD V AND JOANNE SMITH, BOB L AND PAMELA E 280 SE LIBERTY PO BOX 2508 SALEM OR 97308 2S112DD -.01400 O••0O' ••eb -eO•. •.••O. O.•.•O PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES L P 15115 SW SEQUOIA PKWY #200 -6 I PORTLAND OR 97224'' 2S1:121)D -01600 99C090•0000000009990 PACTRUST 15115 SW SEQUOIA PARKWAY STE #200 TIGARD, OR 97223 GMs Tigard Planning Department s 5 ODE E 92 =OOO1 C VARIANCE 92 -0005 3. #5) A request for Sign Code Exception and Variance approval to freestanding sign of approximately 320 square feet per face with a height of approximately 60 fe -t where the Code allows a maximum sign area of 160 square feet per sign face and a maximum height of 35 feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters i8.114.140 and 18.134. LOCATION: 15670 SW Upper Boone Ferry Road (WCTI4 2S1 121 D, tax lot 800) zo : C-G (General Commercial) The C-G zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, real estate, and business support service and single --f aanily residential units among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and = pplicant's statement: for your review. From information wupplied by various departments and agencies and from other information, available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision w111 be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to coment on this\ application, we need your comments by Mar. 9 1992. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. are urcd- bh a above date please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as Boon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PC Box 23397, 13126. SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639 -4171 STAFF CONTACT: Ron Pomero 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. t ritten Comments ee Bp0 N0. CITY ;8E ARTNER4'"1 /CAT"ION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATI Building Offf tl/0red R. ity Recorder AgiA riflg /Chrlaa O. ...�. PerrDitea Ccordie,atoriMola 0. SPECIAL DIS CTS Fire District (Pick -up Tigard Water District '-" 6777 SW Burnham St. Tigard, OR 97223 Scheel it No. 48 (Beaverton) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 Beaverton, OR 97075 School Dist. 233 (Tigard) 13137 SW Pacific Hwy- Tigard. OR 97223 Tualatin Valley Water District 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, 013 97223 AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS Haah. Co. Laud Use 4 Transco- 150 H. First Ave. Silleboro, OR 97124 Brent Curtis --"" Mein Martian Joann Bice - Scott Xing ,... Fred Eberle Mike Bo resort. Boundary Commission 320 SW Stark 'doom 530 Portland, 02 97204 City of Beaverton --- Jim Hendry x PO Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 City of Xing City - City Manager 15300 SW 116th Ring City, OR 97224 • City of Lake Oswe t, - City Manager 380 SW A Lake Oswego, OR 97034 state Dighwaay Division Bob Oran PO Box 25412 Portland, 013 97225 -0412 DLC0 (CPA's only) 1175 Court St. NE Sales, OR 97310 -0590 Other City of Durham . City Manager 17160 SW Upper 1locnes Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97224 City of Portland `�...� Planning Director 1120 SW 5th JQortland, OR 97204 5. SPEC/AL AGENCIES General Telephone Rues Wells 12460 SW Main St. Tigard, OH 97221 N Natural Gea Scott Palmer 220 NW Second Ave. Portland, OR 97209 TCY Caab1evieion off Oregon Mike Saallacir 3500 SW Bond 0t. Portland, DR 97201 Columbia Cable (Frank Stone) 14200 SW Brigadoon Ct. Beaverton, OR 97005 OWINNIMIOM r ODOT i4dwis Rahman 9002 SS McLoughlin Blvd. MileenAio, OR 97222 Portland Caaaral R1 a. Brian Moore 14655 SW Old Scholia Fry. Beaverton, OR 37007 Petro Area Coemunicatione ""°" Jason Hewitt Twin Cake Technology Center 1815 NW 169th Place 8 -6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 -4 086 138 Walt Pete Nelson 421 SW Oak St. Portland, OR 97204 STATR AnEscrE8 1 eronautice Div. (ODOT Engineer -"' Board of Health Fish 4 Wildlife Parks 4 Recreation Diva Subdivision Supervisor - Dept. of Energy - Dept. of Rnviron. Quality FEDERAL AGENCIES Corps. of Engineers Post Office INVIMMNIIMMO O Southern. Pacific Transportation Cony ----Duane M. Forney, PLS - Project Engineer 800 NW 6th Avenue, Be 324, Union Station Portland, OR 97209 �1 [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]