SCA 1-75 GILLEY COMPANY r
400 GILLEY COMPANY _
Sign Code Subdivision (SCA 1-75)
Lincoln Properties
wv.
July 11, 1075
Lincoln Properties Co.
7100 S. Hampton at. , Suite 110
Tigard, Oregon W223
Attention: Mr. hall Larkin Re: rile :SCA 1-75
Dear Rr. Larkin:
Please be advised that the Tigard Planning Commiseion, at thFir
July 1, 1975, meeting, conmidered your request for tin extension
of a 90 clay permit for an oversized real. estate sign located
adjacent the Beaverton-Tigard Expressway and your regupst was
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That an nppropriate permit is obtained for the site.
2. That the total sign area is not to exceed 32 ft.
�. That the sign be relocated so as not to constitute a
hazard to motorists.
If you have any questims or need additional information, please
do not hesitate to call this office at 639-4171.
:sincerely,
.Jerald M. Powell, Assoc. All'
Associate Planner
0T,:ps
Z-
5.4 Conditional Use CU 14-75 (TCT Supply Co. )
4 request to allow a retail auto parts store on a C-3M
zoned site located at 12200 SW Main St. (former Haney
i' Magnavox store) .
A. Staff Report
B. Public Testimony
C. Staff Recommendation
D. Commission Discussion and Action
6. SUBDIVISIONS
6.1 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 3-75 (Leron Heights #3/ J. A.
Paterson)
A request to allow partitioning of a part of tax lot 600
in the NE 1/4 of section 12 of Township 2S, Range 1 West,
W. M. , .located approximately 400' west of SW 72nd on SW
Landmark Lane.
A. Staff Report and Recommendation
B. Applicant's Presentation
C. Commission Discussion and AG tion
7. SIGN CODE APPEAL SCA 1-75 (Lincoln Properties)
A request for an extension of a 90 day permit for an over-
sized real estate sign located adjacent the Beaverton-Tigard
expressway.
A. Staff Report & Recommendation
B. Applicant's Presentation
C. Commission Discussion and Action
B. OTHER BUSINESS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda PC - July 1, 19'15 - page 2
s
MINUTES
Tigard Planning Commission
July 1, 1975
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman
Porter at 7:35 p.m.
2 . ROLL CALL: Members present: mall, Nicoli, Porter, Sakata,
Smelser and Wakem; staff, Powell
o Chairman Hartman attended the first portion of the
meeting, but decli.nrl to participate as a Com-
mission member due 1 ) a conflict he had which would
require his early de )arture.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of JL; e 17, 1975, were not yet
available.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: None
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.2 Conditional Use CU 7.2-75 (Colon al Texaco/Charles Dunn)
A request to allow a car washini machine at the Texaco
Station at 11465 SW Pacific Hwy, (tax map 2S1 36AD, tax
lot 5800) . This matter continues from June 17, 1975•
A. Public Testimony (continued)
o Mr. ?)unn produced a landscape plan showing restoration
of the site screening fencremoved by the adjacent
developer and indicated it was his understanding that
the developer would replace the fence after the -.on-
struction was completed.
B. Staff Recommendation:
Approval subject to applicant's re-establishing ground
cover to the rear of his site and abatement of the
existing non-conforming signs and trash storage on
his site.
C. Commission Discussion and Action
o Commission discussed further the no+.;:,,e problem
they had forseen in their earlier ccrsideration
of this item. They discussed the necessity of
further landscaping as well as the desirability
of limiting the operation to particular hours of
operation.
o Motion to approve ;Ball) based or the conditions
that:
1. Application be submitted to Design Review
Board for review of the traffic flows on
the site.
2. The hours of operat.:.ori be limited to from
8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. , based on the findings
that so conditioned the project would not
have adverse Affects on the commuliity, would
conform to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan
and would fulfill a community need for the
proposed use.
o Seconded (Ni.coli)
o Motion carried unanimously.
5. 1 Zone Change ZC 6-75 (Younger & Neu)
A request for an amendment to the Tigard Zoning Map from
R-7, Single Family Residential, to A-2 , Multi-Family Resi-
dential, for a 9.05 acre parcel located. west of SW Hall
Dlvd. , 600 ft. north of Pfaffle.
A. Staff Report
Staff report was read by Powell. Additional graphic
materials were explained.
B. Public Testimony
o Neither the applicant nor his representatives
appeared.
o ITo one appeared in favor.
o Opposed: Prop-rty Owner, SW Hall Blvd.
Lee Miller, SW Spruce St.
W. A. Earls, 11.185 SW Hall Blvd.
Property Owner, 11165 SW Hall Blvd.
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Widinger, 8850 SW Thorn
John Pickitt, address unknown.
All the above appeared in opposition to the pro-
posed amendment.
C. Staff Recommendation
Not given.
P. commission Discussion and Action
o Motion to deny (Ball) based on findings that no
PC Minutes - 7/1/75 - page 2
corroborative testimony had been offered by
applicant and the impact on the neighborhood
appeared great.
o Seconded (Wakem)
o Motion carried unanimously.
5.3 Conditional Use CU 13-75 (Nine-T-Nine Towing Service/
Gene Dooley)
A request to allow placing an automobile storage area behind
the building presently housing the Tigard Library on SW
Main St. (tax map 2S1 2AC, tax lot 1101) . (Continued .from
June 17, 1975) .
o Sakata excused herself from this item, declaring she
had a conflict of interest.
A. Staff Report
Read by Powell.
B. Public Hearing
o Mr. Charles McClure, attoryney for the applicant,
testified as to the service Mr. Dooley performs
for the community, the insignificant impact of
the proposed project and. the _lack of adequate
alternative sights.
C. Staff Recommendation
o Approval, on conditions that:
1. A redwood slat, 8 ft. cyclone fence be pro-
vided as shown around the storage compound.
2. A paved driveway approach be provided and
sufficient space between the building and the
enclosed storage remain to allow future park-
ing.
D. Commission Discussicn and Action
o Ball asked about interfc . ace. of the fence with
flood plain.
o Staff responded that they felt the fence would not
interfere with the passage of flood waters.
o Nicoll said he thought the driveway approach was
ok without paving.
o Motion to approve (Nicoli) .
PC Minutes - '1/1/75 - page 3
o Ball asked Nicoli if he would. amend his motion to
put a two year time restriction on the conditional.
use with a Planning Commission review -to be held
at the end of that period of time.
o Nicoli said he was agreeable to the amendment.
o Seconded (Ball) .
o Wakem said that he felt this conditional use was
not within the intent of the N.P.O. #1 Plan. as
adopted by the City Council as part of the Com-
prehensive Plan, and he felt the policy statement,
which spoke to the need to improve the M,,--*, . St.
business area, was violated by this action.
o Question called by Nicoli.
o Motion failed 3-2 (Wakem, Smelser, Hansen io , ing
against) .
o Chairman Porter indicated that he felt un-;onvinced
of the adverse impact of the project.
o Mr. McClure told the Commission that he felt that
Hansen should have disqualified himself in the
voting and asked if the Commission would reconsider
its vote.
o Porter indicated that disqualification, in fairness,
is a matter up to the individual Commission member
and that the question had been defeated.
5.4 Conditional Use CU 14-75 (TCT Supply Co. )
A request to allow a retail auto parts store on a C-3M
zoned site located at 12200 SW Main St. (formerly Haney
Magnavox) .
A. Staff Report
Read by Powell
B. Public Testimony
o Alan Holcombe appeared for Doug Martel, the appli-
cant, and spoke in support of the project and
addressed the required conformance questions
after "Fasano".
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommended approval subject to provision of
additional landscaping on the sidewoOk lines and in
front of the building. lot
PC Minutes - 7/1/75 - page 4
D. Commission Discussion and Ar 'L—Jon
o Motion for approval (Ball) isr staff recommendations.
o Seconded (Wakem) .
o Motion carried unanimously.
6. SUBDIVISIONS
6.1 MLP 4-75 (Sabre Construction Co. /S. W. Landmark Lane)
A . application to allow the partitioning of a part of tax
lot 600, NE 1/4 of section 12, Township 2S, Range 1 West,
W. M. , located at the end of SW Landmark Lane, west of 72nd
Av_ (tax lot 600, tax map 2S1 12A) .
A. Staff. Report
Read by Powell. Location of the proposed partitioning
pointed out on disilay maps provided for that purpose.
B. Public Testimony
o Mike McGee, Sabre Construction Co. , explained the
need for a minor land partitioning to accommodate
a new project.
o No one spoke in opposition.
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval on condition that the remaining conditions
of Landmark Lane major land partition be satisfied.
D. Commission Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Hansen) subject to staff
recommendation.
o Seconded (Smelst�r) .
o Motion carried unanimously.
7. SIGN CODE APPEAL SCA 1-75 (Lincoln Properties)
A request for an extension of a 90 day permit for an oversized
real estate sign located adjacent the Beaverton-Tigard Expressway.
A. Staff Report
Staff report, with recommendations for approval for
an additional 90 days, on condition that the appropri-
ate permit is obtained for the site; that total sign
PC Minutes - 7/1/75 - page 5
area is not to exceed 32 ft. and that sign is to
be relocated so as not to constitute a hazard to
.mctorists, read by Powell .
B. Public Testimony
No one appeared.
C. Commission Discussion and Action
o General discussion of the appropriateness of the
sign as presently located ensued.
o Motion to approve subject to staff recommendations
(Hansen) .
o Seconded (Smelser) .
o Motion carried unanimously.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
o Commissioner Ball brought up the topics of recent legal
cases in the area of land use law, citing specifically
Baker vs. Milwaukie. Ball asked the Commission to re-
quest a discussion by the new City Attorney of these
cases before the Commission.
o Porter pointed out that there were a number of unresolved
issues previously attempted by the Planning Commission
over which they had asked some time ago to confer with
the City Council in order to discuss the particular
policies germaine to the issues involved.
o Wakem pointed out that it may be valuable to orient the
Council to the Planning Commission's thinking with
respect to planning and that such a meeting would be
necessary in order to establish rational priorities
for future legislative matters. An example cited was
that of outdoor advertising signs and the amendment
of the Sign Code.
o Sakate asked that the staff address the issue of zoning
code enforcement. She stated that she personally had
noticed, and it had been frequently brought to her
attention, that conditions applted by the Planning
Commission to conditional uses were not being adhered
to and that other zoning code violations were becoming
commonplace.
o ?t was suggested that revocation of conditional uses is
a Planning Commission power and that a check list of
conditional uses and their conditions should be estab-
lished for a vigorous enforcement program.
9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 p.m.
PC Minutes - 7/1/75 - page 6
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Planning Commission
July 1, 1975
Agenda Item 7
SCA 1-75 (Real Estate Sign - Lincoln Properties Co. )
Sign Code Appeal
to extend a 90 day temporary approval given for an oversized
real estate sign in a C-P zone near SW 72nd & Hampton
Staff Findings
1. Signs requiring a permit in a C-P zone are controlled by
the zoning code.
2. Real estate signs are not specifically allowed under the
zoning code in the C-P zone.
3. Signs not requiring a permit include real estate signs
of less than 12 sq. ft. in area; therefore, real estate
signs are not excluded in the C-P zone, but must be less
than 12 sq, ft. in area.
4. The largez4 real estate sign allowed in any zone is 32
sq. ft.
5. Areal estate sign, as proposed by Lincoln Properties Co. ,
serves two basic functions -- one is to advertise the
availability of office space for lease and the other is to
advertise the realty .firm. While staff agrees that ad-
vertisement of the property for lease is necessary to the
conduct of business, staff does not necessarily concur that
advertisement of a real estate firm is necessary to accom-
plish the lease or sale of a particular property.
6. The original action of the Planning Commission allowing the
real estate sign in question for 90 days was an interim
measure to allow the Lincoln Properties Co. to place a
"For Lease" sign on their project until such time as th;,•ir
permanent sign could be approved.
7. Subsequent action of the Planning Commission approved an
amendment to the zoning ordinance that would allow a. free-
standing sign (as proposed for the permanent sign) on the
site subject to approval by the Design Review Board.
8. A preliminary conference with the Design Review Board has
shown the Board reluctant to commit themselves to approve
a sign at the particular place where the real estate sign
has been, and reluctant to commit themselves to the par-
ticular design submitted. As there is some time before the
ordinance amendment allowing the permanent sign becomes
effective, Lincoln Properties Co. has agreed to study the
design theme they submitted and return with an application
when appropriate.
Staff Recommendation
Approval for an additional. 90 days on the following conditions:
1) the appropriate permit is obtained for the sign and
2) Total sign area is not to exceed 3-r- sq. ft. and
3) Sign is to be relocated so as not to constitute a hazard
to motorist:. .
pC Staff Report - July 1, 1975 - item 7 - page 2
; ,,
0
JUN 19 1975
CITY OF TIGARD
.lune 17, 1975
Mr. Jerald Powell
Associate Planner
City of Tigard Planning Commission
12420 S. W. Main Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Powell:
Lincoln Property Company recently requested an appeal of the
signing code for Tigard ant was granted a sign permit, so that
we could install an 8-ft, by 8-ft. leasing sign for our agent,
The Gilley Company, on our property at Southwest 72nd and
Hampton Street in Tigard. As per our January 1975 sign code
appeal, the ninety-day permit has expired. We would like to
request that the City of Tigard extend our permit for an addi-
tional ninety days, or until a decision is made regarding our
permanent project sign which is now before the Sign Review Board
and the Planning Commission.
As you are aware, it is very difficult to identify a project or
a leasing agent without some sort of signing= so it is important
for the success of any development that they have adequate
signing. We would appreciate your help in this matter and would
be glad to answer any gnestions you might have regarding the sign
and the permit.
Regards,
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY
�el
% Qn Ball
Project Manager
WLH:bl
i,invni,, aanPERIV COMPaRY 7100 B.W.HAMPTON!31R=-ET 13UITB 110 TIGARD,oREGON 97223 AREA CODE 503- 6@0-5o5u
7100
cc
. , ty
- 1"�RiN �.,�`• L 1110 -
.
r�
AGENDA
Tigard Site Development and Architectural Design Review Board
June 10, 1975 - 4:30 p.m.
Twality Junior High School- Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 27, 1975
4. PROJECT REVIEW
4.1 SDR 13-75 (Willowbrooke Apartments - Tualatin Development Co. )
A request for review of a fifty-seven unit apartment development
on SW Summerfield Drive, west of 109th Avenue in the Summerfiel;i
Planner' Psvelopment.
A. Staff Resort
B. Applicant's Presentation
C. Public Testimony
D. Board Discussion and Action
4.2 SDR 15-75 (Scott Planned Development)
A request for review of a 14 dwelling unit duplex planned
development on the west side of SW 98th, south of Greenburg Rd.
A. Staff Report
B. Applicant' s Presentation
C. Public Testimony
D. Board Discussion and Action
4.3 SDR 16-75 (Lincoln Properties Sign)
A request for review of the design and location of a free-standing
sign at Lincolnwood Office Park, SW 72nd and Hampton Street.
A. Staff Report
B. Applicant's Presentation
C. Public Testimony
D. Board Discussion and Action
Staff Report
Tigard Site Development Plan and Architectural Design Review Board
June 10 , 3.975
Twality Jr. High School
14650 S.W. 97th Ave.
Tigard, Oregon
Agenda Item
SDR 16-75
Applicant
Lincolnwood Office Park sign
Lincoln Properties Co.
Applicants Request
Review of a proposed sign location and design per proposers
zoning ordinance amendment putting design and location of
certain signs in the Commercial-Professional zone under
the purview of the ':gird Site Development Plan & Architectural
Design Review Board.
5taf f F.indi_ nc s
1. The ordinance effectuating this review functnn of
the Design Review Board (ZOA 2-75) has been approved
and recommended by the Plann:.ng Commission to the
City Council , but will not be heard by the Cuuncil
until June 23, 1975
2. Lincriln Properties is asking that review be done at
this i.ime in anticipation of the Councils
untilnsuch
recognizing that no approval may be given
time as authorized by Council.
3. Lincoln Properties contends that this is a 42 square
fcot sign.
4. Tigard Code states that a "sign" is the face of the
sign as well as its structure--implying they are
inseparable and the visual surface would be computed
not the "message area". Staff finds the area of the
proposed sign to be 100 square feet plus the two 16
square feet "rider" signs (total as shown then equals
132 square feet)
5. Real Estate signs in the C-P zone may not Exceed 12
square feat in area.
6. "Rider" signs are not allowed.
7. The proposed sign is to be located adjacent a freeway
off-ramp, in approximately the location a "For Lease"
sign is presently located. The appropriateness of the
distance the sign is located back from the traffic
nearest the sign is a concern of staff with respect
to this project, as the sign, to be effective and not
be a nuisance, must have a wide field of view.
B. Staff feels a location adjacent the approach to the
office park is most appropriate.
9. The scale (size) of the sign should relate to the scale
of the project and to the perspective differential from
the street (distance to sign versus distance to buildings) .
Staff Recommendations
Approval, if and when Council action approves ZOA 2-75, on
condition that:
1. Sign be setback at least 10 feet from the off-ramp if
that location is still desired.
Page 2 - SDR 16-75
0
May 28, 1975
Mr. Ray Bartel
The Design Review Board
Tigard Planning Commission
12420 S. W. Main Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Bartel:
Lincoln Property Company has finalized the. archi.tectural plans for
the project sign at the Lincolnwood Office Park, 72nd and Hampton
Street, Tigard, Oregon.
You will find enclosed a color rendering and mechanical ple showing
the design and location for the proposed sign. It will be 9' high
and 161wide and will be placed between Buildings 7100 and 7150 facing
Highway 217 and the 72nd Avenue exit. The vertical support posts
will be 2' wide and 9' high; made of masonry rock and will be buff
white in color to conform with the architectural scheme established
for the Lincolnwood Office Park.
The letterino will be designed from redwood material and each letter
will be approAmately 15" high. The wording "Office Park" will be
painted black. The horizontal trim pieces will run 12' between the
masonry supFort posts and will be made from 2" x 4" redwood material.
The color scheme, the types of materials used and the location of the
sign is Fuch that it will complement the project but will not be
offensive to passersby on the freeway or access roads. We feel that
the sign lends itself nicely to the aesthetic values of the community,
and at the same time is in keeping with the overall design of the
project.
\oery truly yours,
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY
John T. Flattery
Partner %
JTF:bl
t,inrnu,n PNOPCN/4 campany 71LC!q W HAMPTON SIRE ET SUITE 110 1IGAHD.URE-GUN 97223 AREA COOS 503 - 820.6090
I
V /
I
7000
-- 61
LINCOLN PROPERTIESSTUDY
F,-AILEV DES,GN G',-,,U
l SIGN LO;AT ION
P0.R TLA IND, 0i-.r��,G0
�J
1 �.• 2
d, 1
ON
kr/ Van
1p
W � J
L
Ill
V
Ai
i
J i
1 i
v
a
• t .�'
1
f'
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board
June 1.0, 1975
Agenda Item 4. 1
SDR 13-75 (Willow Brooke Apts. - Tualatin Development Corp. )
Applicant's Request
review of a proposed 57 unit apartment project in Stimmerf.ield,
a Planned Development
Steff Findings
1. "Summerfield" conditions of approval pev Ordinance No.
73-5 Exhibit "C" state that:
"Each phase of development shal]. be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. At the time of approval of each phase, the
densities and uses shall be approved. "
"The apartments in -the project shall be developed in accordance
with A-2 standards unless otherwise approved on a specific
site plan by the Planning Commission. "
The overall density of the development shall be no greater
11 than 6.25 dwelling units per acre (1250 total units) with
a total population not to exceed 2400 persons. "
2. Staff has been unable to establish firmly the density
entitled the developer for any particular area or portion
of the plan.
a. A-2 standards at the time of this approval were 12 units
per acre. At that density approximately 37 units are
the maximum number that may be allowed on the subject
site. Another view would hold that an additional 1.65
acres must be included in the subject site in order to
meet the density requirement (57 units require 4.75
acres) . Reducing the number of units to 50 would
require development of a 4.1 acre site and so on.
b. Inspection of the approved development plan "King City
II" shows the density for a 3 acre area, randomly
selected, ranging from 13 to 20 units per acre.
The proposed street approaches are shown as radiused cor-
,)ei's, like street intersections. City standards require
, hat driveway approaches to public right-of-way have stan-
,l.►rd concrete aprons and curb cuts.
4. Walkway approaches to several units ( "B" Building #20
"B" Building #1 and "B" Building #6) are shown connecting
to a sidewalk area on an adjacent street, encouraging
on--street parking and providing a lengthy walk from the
tenants ' off-street parking area to his apartment entrance.
5. Parking spaces 66 and 67 are awkwardly arranged, realign-
ment tangent to curve radius would be more consistent
design. Spaces 1 through 9 must each be a minimum of
24 feet long.
6. Parking .r. equired for a 57 unit apartment under Tigard code
would be 86 parking places , predicated an 3 parking spaces
for each 2 apartments.
7. The service drive parallel to Summerfield Drive, in front
of the first row of apartments, appears to be an excessive
use of pavement for the utility derived (about 600 sq. ft. /
parking space as opposed to an optimum of 300 sq. ft. ) .
8. The scale of the largest -trees identified on the landscape
plan is quite small with respect to the building size.
The alignment of the buildings, in a semi-circle around
two rows of similar buildings, contributes to an excessive
linearity which could be broken up by major trees (assuming
that the rows cannot be re-oriented or visually broken up
by re-designing) .
9. Approval apparently has been given by the Planning Com-
mission in "LC 5-72 for a maximum site density of 14. 3
units per acre.
Staff Recommendation
Denial and either submission of a project clearly consistent
with design standards established in "Summerfield" or referral
to the Planning Commission.
SDR Staff Report - 6/10/75 item 4. 1 - page 2
STAFF REPORT
Site Development Plan and Architectural Design Review Board
June 1.0, 1975
Agenda Item 4.2
SDR 15-•75 (SCOTT PD - George Scott)
Applicant's Request
review of a fourteen dwelling unit duplex planned development
Staff Findings
1. Applicant' s submission lacks irrigation plan, drainage
lines and catchment basins.
2. Zoning is A-2 P. D. The submitted plan appears to meet
landscaping and screening requirements for that zone. A
requirement for "usable open space and recreation areas"
has been waived by approval of the Tigard Planning Com-
mission.
3. Additional site screening to provide privacy within the
project appears desirable, especially betweeii patios on the
same side of the same duplex and where patios are in .full
view from the street.
4. "Mahonia" and "barberry" are specified in 1 gallon cans.
2 gallon would give better survival for summer planting.
(Planting interval not specified, but neither should be
mcre than 2 ft. apart if a massing is desired, nor more than
3 .Feet apart under any circumstances. Staff notes that
applicant may have selected "Japanese Barberry" erroneously,
as the place specified seems more appropriate for an ever-
green varberry rather than a deciduous variety.
5. Applicant has indicated he intends to plant additional
"feature p.'.antings" at entrances and add shrubs around or
adjacent to patios.
6. No foundation plantings are shown nor are large shrubs
shown that may serve to "break up" the length of some of
the elevations.
7. "Berm" shown and front street trees are wholly within
future street (98th) .
Staff Recommendation
Approval with conditions of:
1. Large shrub plantings, with a suitable groundcover be pro-
vided adjacent the front entrances and patios of rental
dwelling units. Placement to be such that the plantings
break up the visual length and "duplexy" appearance of the
units and provide some privacy screening.
2. Replace "Red Japanese Parberry" with a similar evergreen
variety where used adjacent street.
3. Provide sprinkler irrigation system.
4. Driveway cuts and storm drainage to be per public works
approval.
5. Move trees at corners on SW 98th back to clear vision clear-
ance area and to avoid future removal, move berm 5 to 10
feet toward house straddling the new property line.
SDR Staff Report - 6/3.0/75 - item 4.2 - page 2
MINUTES
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
May 27, 1975
TwalLty Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1 . CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bartel called the meeting to order
at 5:50 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Members present were Bartel, Cook, Hames,
McMonagle, Wakem and staff--Powell
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 10, 1975 meeting were
approved as read.
o Wakem asked. if staff had brought the color
board for the Harris Bros. Project (SDR 8-75)
o Staff said it hadn't
4. PROJECT REVIEW
4.1 SI)R 6-75 (McDonald's - Robertson)
A request for review of a proposed franchise fast foods restaurant
at SW Pacific Hwy. between School St. and Park St.
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff report read by Powell with recommendations as
follows:
(a) Modify the common access to constrain traffic
to a 900 inter3ection with Pacific Hwy. and
limit cross traffic between the Standard Station
and McDonald's.
(b) Eliminate the exit shown and use School St. as
a common access with the Schocl District, develop
School St. to a minimum commercial drive standard
(30 ft. ) and coordinate such activities with the
School District with respect to curving the edge
of their parking lot.
(c) Expand parking area toward Park St. for an
additional 20-30 ft. , allowing an additional
6 to 12 spaces.
(Capacity as drawn is 71 autos -- seating
capacity of restaurant is 128, probable
employment is estimated at 16 per shift.
Assuming 2 persons per auto, the parking
demand would be 72 spaces. Staff recommends
additional 8-10 spaces to allow for turnover
overlaps and carry out business).
W Provide additional trees along "east" side
of site similar to "north" side.
(e) Provide ground cover in planting areas adjacent
service station and redesign plantings in those
areas to coordinate better.
(f) Provide curbs, sidewalks and necessary street
improvements on Park St. and on Grant St.
(Grant St. will soon develop for multi-family
use and Park St. will experience a rapid in-
crease in traffic. Neither is presently
adequate for its use and introducing the pro-
posed project without those improvements
would be a hardship on the community.
2. Applicant's Presentation
o Mr. Mel Brook (McDonald's) spoke to the points
brought up in the staff report. He felt that staff
had implied that they would approve the plan as
submitted with redline corrections..
o Staff responded that staff had told them that the
plan submitted confc,rmed to City code minimams,
not that staff approved or favored the plan.
o Mr. Fasano said he thought the requirement of street
improvements, curbs and sidewalks exceeded the
authority of the Design Review Board as the action
was not a land use question, but a design review for
a building permit. He further stated that he had
asked that the McDonald's hearing not be started
until he arrived and the meeting was already in
progress when he walked in.
o Bartel asked that staff ask the City Attorney for
his opinion regarding Design Review Board's authority
and responsibility for requiring conformance to
Comprehensive Plan and for street improvements.
3. Public Testimony
o Mrs. Lucy Mayernik asked if the Design Review Board
was trying to prevent access to the site.
o Mr. Dick Kleumpke (chrmn. NPO #3) testified in
opposition.
o Mr. Bob Reynolds (landlord on Grant St. ) asked
what the status of School St. was and offered testi-
mony in favor.
DRB Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 2
o Mr. Bob Greenwood (School District 23-J) said
the school board had indicated its wish to leave
School St. open.
o Mrs. Bibianre. Scheckla testified in opposition.
o Mr. Christenson (McDonald's) testified that based
on a daily customer count of e ;;her McDonald's in
the Portland area, he estimatod a 1023 vehicle trip/
day traffic generation versus the 1570 projected
by the City.
o Mr. Mike Emert (McDonald 's) asked why Planning Dir.
Dick Bolen was not present.
o Staff responded that he was not usually present at
Design Review Board meetings.
o Mr. Larry Haugset said that he felt that the City
was reversing its approval given by the Planning
Director.
o Emert stated that the access proposed was not
acceptable to McDonald's and that the corporation
wanted it reversed to enter at the north east and '
exit on the south west.
o McMonagle pointed out that that was precisely the
configuration that the Oregon State Highway Div.
said it would not approve.
o Emert indicated that the corporation would work
that uut with the Highway Division.
o Chairman Bartel asked Emert if that was what Mc-
Donald's wanted.
o Emert said it was.
o Staff (Powell) asked the applicant's representative
(Emert) if his intent was to change the site plan.
o Emert said that the plan he could approve and the
one he expected to be approved by the Design Review
Board was as he was asking.
o Powell said that there was no recourse for the
staff but to recommend denial.
o Mr. Fasano asked on what findings was the recommen-
dation based.
o Powell said it was based on staff's judgment that
the approach configuration requested was unsafe.
DRE iinutes - May 27, 1975 - page 3
o Motion for denial (Wakem) - died for lack of second.
o Motion to approve (Cook) as shown on Fred line"
drawing, subject to staff recommended conditions
#3 (with a minimum of 80 parking spaces) , #4, #5
and #6 (allowing a waver of right to remonstrate
against an L. I. D. of street improvements in lieu
of requiring the improvements now) .
o Seconded (McMonagle)
o Failed (3-2)
o Motion to approve (McMDnagle) as shown on "red
line" , with direction of traffic flow reversed
and not allowing parking on the "east" (ingress)
side, subject to staff conditions #3 (80 parking
spaccc in the rear of the building) , #4, #5 and
#6 (allowing waiver of right to remonstrate in
lieu of improvements) .
o Seconded (Cook)
o Carried (3 to 2)
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
o Emert and Brook (McDonald's) described building and
supplied additional information.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Cook asked if the facia would Pxtend around the
building.
o Applicant said they would provide a redwood screen
to the rear, but a solid facia would interfere with
ventilation.
o Christenson pointed out that the roof top sign
would be deleted and the free standing sign would
be the 100 sq. ft. version -- somewhat smaller
than some in the Portland area.
o Motion to approve as amended (Cook) .
o Seconded (Bartel)
o Carried (unanimous)
4.2 SDR 2-75 (Oregon Bank - Bissett)
A request for review of a proposed bank at SW Greenburg Rd. and
Pacific Hwy.
SDR Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 4
A. Site Development Flan Review
1. Staff Report was presented by Powell.
2. Applicant's Presentation
o Larry Bissett (applicant) described the project
and provided response to the questions brought up
in staff report.
3. Public Testimony
o none
4. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion (Cook) to approve subject to:
Catch basins on and off the site relocated per
Public Works Director's direction, an approved
.,ariance for exit configuration on to Greenburg
Pd. , approval of a landscape plan.
o Seconded (Hames)
o Carried.
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
o Mr. Bissett described design considerations in
the proposed building and discussed the difficulty
he had with the proposed brick facade.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to board .review of
color and surface treatments and a "cut sheet" on
signs.
o Seconded (Wakem)
o Carried
4.3 SDR 13-75 - rescheduled for the following meeting.
4.4 SDR 1h-75 (Gotter Building - Sam Gotter)
A request for review of a proposed 5000 sq. It. office building
at .1963 SW Pacific Hwy. (west of Walnut St. )
A. Site Development Plan Review
SDR Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 5
1. Staff Report was read by Powell.
2. Appl.icant' s Presentation
o Mr. Gotter presented pland and described project.
3. Public Testimony
o None
4. Roard Discussion and Action
o McMonagle queried applicant about drainage problems
on the site and how they were being corrected.
o Applicant said he �,as constructing a 12 inch storm
sewer across the site and increasing the size of
a sump pwnp used to pump stcr•m water across the
higr •,ay.
o Motion to approve (McMonagle) subject to sidewalk
to be provided as shown and driveway cut to be
built per public works approval (30' max. ) .
o Seconded (Cook)
o Carried
B. Architectural Design Review
1.. Applicant' s Presentation
o Mr. Gotter described the building and materials.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion (Cook) to approve as submitted.
o Seconded (Hames)
o Carried.
5. 0-rHER BUSINESS: none
6. ADJOURNMENT: 3:30 p.m.
SDR Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 6
February 10, 1975
Lincoln Properties Co.
7100 3. lV. Fiamptori St. , ,uite 110
Tigard, Oregon 97,"23
Attention: Mr. Hall Lsrkin
Dear airs
Pursuant to Tigard ;✓,unicipal Code, your request for permission to
place a free-standing sign on your project, adjacent to Highway
217, will require a variance of the Tigard Zoning Code.
Please find enclosed the necessary application form and an extract
of the zoning code pertaining to documentation regaired to prove your
hardship. Please note that variance of the zoning code requires a
substantially different approach and documentation than does a variance
of the sign code which Mr. May of the Gilley Co. previously applied
for.
Your variance request will be placed on an agenda f.; public hearing
on the 16th of March if you can get the applicatirn and supporting
documentation back to us by the Goth of February.
Sincerely,
,Jerald M. POWell, assocAlf-,
,Ti�tY s p a
Enclosures
+r
February 4, 1975
Mr. Ronald G. May
The Gilley Company
900 S. 161. 5th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Reference: CCA 1-75
Dear Mr. May:
This letter officially notifies you that your request for a
sign code variance was acted upon by the Planning Cummirsion at
heir January 21, 1975, meeting. The results are as follows:
1) The temporary sign has been Rpproved for a 90 day
period.
The request for a permanent sign has been tabled to
another date of which you will be notified.
Please feel free to contact this office at 639-4171 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Jerald M. Powe13., assocAlP
JMP:ps
February 3, 1975
MF.140 TO: City Administrator
Attention: Jerry Powell,
Associate Planner
FIZOM: Anderson, Dittman & Anderson
SUBJECT: REGULATION OF SIGNS IN C-P ZONE
various questions were recently presented concerning the
interpretation of the City Sign Code with respect to the C-P
Zone under Section 18.40.070 of the 'Tigard Municipal Code, and
the questions will be treated in the order presented in Mr.
Powell's memorandum.
(1) Section 16.36.040 is quoted in pertinent part:
"(2) No sign shall be permitted in a C-P
Commercial zone except those spe(-ifieri in
Title 18".
In Chapter 13.40, Coimiarcial-Professional Zone, Sub-section 070,
no provision is made for real estate signs. it is to be noted
that the introductory sentence of Section 16.36.040 states:
"Except as otherwise provided in this section with
resl)oct to C-5 and C-P Commercial zones, no sign
for which a sign permit is required shall be
perm t eTfn any comiiercial sone.w--
Sub-soction (11) of 16.36.040 aut.iorizes the 17)lacement of
no more than three real estate signs offering the premises for sale,
lease or inspection by the public."
Section 16.12.050 exempts from permit requirements "real
estate signs riot ex:eeding 12 square feet in area advertising the
sale, rental or lease of the premises upon which the signs are
located."
Inaumuch as a sign permit is not required for real estate
signs, Section 16.36.040 does not limit the proper placing in a
C-P zone of signs which are exempt under Section 16.12.050 of
the Tigard Municipal Code.
(2) In response to Question 02 concerning size, number
and location of real estate signs, it is our opinion that unInss
the exemption criteria of Section 16.12.050 apply to the ciLCMI-
stances you have in mind, n permit world be necessary which would
not be issunble unless properly authorized under the Sign Code
as well as under Section 18.40.070. In other words, vnether
or not a permit is required, signs must comply with the require-
ments of both the Zoning Cole and the Sign Code.
(3) From the question whether a regp:aist from a developer
for the placing of a non-exempt free standing sign in the C-P
zone visible from a public street may b% granted, it is not
clear whether you refer to a temporary sign for use Muring the
development stage or perhaps a sign for permanent use designating
or publicizing the land use purposes. It would be our opinion
t
Page 2
City Administrator
Attention: Mr. Jerry Powell
Associate Planner
rebruary 3, 1975
that during the development phase a free standing sign otherwise
riveting the criteria of the Sign Code and Zoning Code would he
permissible on a temporary basis. It is our opinion further that
fres standing signs which are not exampt from the permit require-
rinnts racy not be permitted in a C-P none on c permanent basis
under the limitations of Chapter 18.40.070 unless a variance is
o,,tained under Chapter 18.76 of the Zoning Code. Such sign must
meet the criteria of Title 16 in the absence of an authorized
variance under Section 16.34.020.
rred. A. Anderson
FAA:pml
Sri
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
January 21 , 1975
T'dality ,Junior High School - L Lure Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman
Whittaker.
2. ROLL CALL
A. All members were present with the exception of Commissioner
Popp. Staff was represented by Powell.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The minutes of the December 17, 1974, meeting and the
January 7, 1975, meeting were approved as read.
B. Chairman moved to amend the agenda to add agenda item #7,
Acceptance of 115th St. L. I. D. dedications and #8,
election of officers for Planning Commission.
C. Mr. Findley of Broome, Selig and O.ringdulph presented
slides and progress report on "Farmers Insurance Co.
Office Park". In substance -- the construction is pro-
gressing. . . site development is slowed for the season due to
winter rain. Broome, Selig and Oringdulph has plans for
a free-standing sign that they would like to propose on
the highway.
D. Chairman Whittaker brought up the N. P. 0. #1 Plan and the
request of City Council for a joint meeting to be held at
a time to be announced. Harris requested that all property
owners concerned be notified individually of the meeting.
Discussion (Harris-Ball) of the prope, conduct of a Planning
Commission member with respect to issuance of his opinions
in public hearings and concerning the responsibility that
such a member may bear for properly stating fact.
PUBLIC HEARING
4 . 1 CU 1-75 (Baunach-Pathfinder Duplexes)
-Hearing opened-
A. Staff findings: amended staff report and findings were
presented by Powell. Findin #3 was amended to read
. . .9,051.2.6 square feet, 7,70.88 square feet and 8081.01
square feet respectively for lots 1, 2 & 3.
Findin #5 was corrected to reflect the correct size of
lot 2 7,740.83 sq. ft. ) .
Finding #6 was deleted entirely with the statement that
recalculation of the planimetry had "found" the missing
65 square feet.
B, Testimony
1. Proponents :
a. Mr . Baunach, the applicant, described his pro-
posed duplexes; detailed market conditions that
he felt made development of his project desirable
and described indicators of community need for
duplexes.
b. Mr. Vincent stated that he was the subdivision
developer, that he was satisfied with the pro-
posed project; that he had assumed that the sub-
division approval. had included approval of the
duplexes and that he was there to answer any
questions 'that may come up on the subdivision.
c. Mr. Ball (TPC) asked staff .if utili+ies were
available at the site and how the Planning Com-
mission had stated its "approval" of the duplexes.
d. Mr. Powell (staff) replied that utilities were
available at the site.
2. Opponents:
a. Mr. Marzenic, 10725 S. W. Fonner, submitted a
petition listing 30 persons opposed. Mme,. Marzenic
was opposed to the increase in traffic and to
"renters" in a single family area.
b. Mr. Hettinger, 13025 S. W. 107th Ct. , felt that
the developer was in violation of title restriction
imposed on purchasers of his lots. Didn't like
design of buildings
c. Mr. Fincher, 10765 S. W. Funner: opposed.
d. Ms. Tierney, 10950 S. W. Pathfir.ler: concerned
about the possibility of setting precedent for
multi-family development and doubts that this is
not a suitable site for duplexes even if there
is a need.
e. Mr. Marzenic stated all Lots were more than 1/3
acre and proposed 8000 sq. ft. lots were too —nall.
PC Minutes - January 21, 1975, page 2
f. Ms. Kartak, 10720 S. W. Fonner, fears apartment:
-too small.
g. Mr. Kernan, 10905 S. W. Fonner, opposed to in-
creased traffic and vandalism that would result
frow duplex development.
3. Rebuttal offered by Mr. Baunach.
-hearing closed by Mr. Whittaker-
C. Staff Recommendation:
1. approval with conditions
D. Commission Discussion and Action
1. Mr. Ball asked staff for his reasoning for approval
recommendation.
2. Mr. Powell responded that the proposal meets City code
requirements and is in line with Planning Commission
policy and that the Commission had furthermore com-
mitted itself at the time of the subdivision approval.
3. Sall felt that no prior "permission" could have been
granted because the Com,ni.ssion had not the authority
to grant a zone change in a subdivision action --
further that community need and the appropriateness
of the place were the issue and he felt these were
not demonstrated adequately by the applicant.
4. Whittaker asked for reading of the Planning Commission
minutes for the 1972 subdivision action; voiced con-
cern that the Commission in 1972 had "traded" the
duplex sites for more open space and that Planning
Commission policy had been to consider duplexes in
single family areas near entrances to subdivisions
and on arterials or other undesirable sites.
5. Nicoli said "no", that most of the subdivision had not
been developablE and that the Com ;mission had not pro-
vided a density trade oaf; also thought the units pro-
posed were not comparable to the existing single family
housing.
6. Hartman felt a density trade had been agreed to and
that the units were all right.
7. Whittaker recalled that the Commission had been in-
fluenced by a then proposed adjacent multi-family
development and that duplexes had seemed appropriate
at that time.
PC Minutes - January ;11, 1975 - page 3
8. Ball felt need was not demonstrated and that any prior
commitment implied was not valid; al�o .felt treat most
of the opponents ' testimony was without merit
9. Porter moved to deny the request and Ball seconded.
The motion carried with a majority of the, Commissioners
voting yes and Hartman v�)ting no.
5PUBLIC HEARING (Subdivision)
5.1 and 5.2 S 1-75 Englewood rD Phase II Subdivision
*Note that staff report says S 3-74 in error.
- hearing opened -
A. Staff Findings - staff report and fi,idings were presented.
Staff indicated that Exhibit "B" , a letter from the Fire
District, had been the result of a misunderstanding and
felt the City was without responsibility.
B. Testimony
1. Proponents:
a. "Bud" Roberts of Murray-McCormick Environmental
Group presented the preliminary plat and recited
the reasons for request of a variance,
2. Opponents
a. none were present
- hearing closed -
C. Staff Recommendation-
Approval with conditions recited in staff report as amended.
#6 and #7 will be conditions on the multi-family develop-
ment. #9 amended to . . . in the 50' right-of-way section. . .
#10 amended to. . . include dedication of a temporary ease-
ment along the 115th right-of-way for utilities.
D. Commission Discussion and Action
Nicoli wanted to know about greenways.
Hartman moved to table, second (Porter) , failed.
Hansen moved to accept subject to amended conditions.
Wakem seconded.
Hartman moved to emend to not allow variance. Di�-d .f,)r
lack of second.
Pct Minutes - January 21, 1975 - page 4
Mr. Roberts asked if the commission wou..d in
an alternative to S. W. Schollwood Ct. - oris g'r.g forth a
sketch of an alternative configuration pu*t'ng Schcllwood
Ct. on Hazelwood loop rather than Spring,, . i Drive.
Ball moved to table with Mr. Roberts to come back with the
amended plat. Hartman seconded. Passed by majc.r,ty vote.
6. SIGN CONTROL APPEAL
6.1 SCA 1-75 (Gilley Co. )
* Mr. Ball and Mr. Whittaker abstaining
A. Oral staff report presented by Powell,.
1) Request is for a temporary 64' real estate sign and
a permanent 72 sq. ft. free-standing sign with two
16 sq. ,t. "riders" on top and bottom in a C-P zone
located in southerly portion of the "triangle" ad-
jacent to Hwy. 2.17.
B. Staff Findings
1. Applicant has submitted written testimony concerning
need and hardship as indicated in Ch. 1634.
2. Ch. 16. 36.040, dealing with signs in commercial areas,
reserves all authority to Ch. 18.40.070, (C-P zone, sign
provisions) .
3. Ch. 18.40.070 does not deal with real ?_tate signs.
4. The City Attorney has opined that real estate signs
are allowed and unrestricted if not specifically dealt
with.
5. Ch. 18.40.070 does prohibit free-standing signs viuible
from the street or public areas.
6. The permanent sign proposed by Gilley Co. does not con-
form to the zoning code.
C. Testimony
1. Proponents
a. Mr. May of the Gilley Co. offered a presentation
of his proposal with illustrations of the project.
2. Opponents
a. There were no opponents present,
PC Minutes - January 21, 1975 - page 5
D. Staff Recommendation
1. Approve the temporary real estate sign
2. Table the permanent sign until an opinion by Mr. Anderson
may be secured on the legality of a sign control appeal
of a zoning code provision.
E. Commission Discussion and Action
Mo-ed (Hanson) seconded (Hartman) to approve the temporary
sign for a 90 day period -- passed.
Moved (Hanson) seconded (Hartman) to table permanent
sign.
7. PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. Nominations were opened by Chairman Whittaker for Chairman.
2. Nominr.ted Whittaker
3. Moved (Wakem) to ^ast unanimo,is ballot for Whittaker,
seconded (,Ball) , sassed.
4. Nomination. for Vice-Chairman opened by Chairman.
5. Nominated: Hartman, Sakata
6. Hartman voted Vice-Chairman
8. 115TH ST. L. I . D. PETITIONS
1. Staff directed to find out what the reason for chairman's
signature is.
a, AGENDA OF WORK SESSION DISCUSSED
1 . NPO joint meeting
2. Herman is ready to present his work on transit plan.
1.0. ADJOURNED.
PC Minutes - January 21, 1975 - page 6
900 S. W. Fifth Avenue 1 Portland, Oregon 97204 / 503 221-1700
G iIiTHE
COMPANY
January 20 , 1975
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Subject: Request for Variance to Signing Code
on Property Zoned C-P
Gentlemen:
Paragraph 13 . 40. 070 of. the Tigard Zoning Cede establishes
the criteria for signing on property zoned C-P.
Paragraph 1.6. 34 . 020 allows for the grantJ.ng of a variance if
the .Planning Commission deems that the code presents undue
hardship or inconsistencies with the objectives of the
zoning code or that practical difficulties preclude the
implementation of the zoning code.
It is our contention that the signing code, as it applies to
the Tigard Triangle in general, and this piece of property
specifically, does, in fact, create a hardship in the identifi-
cation of property within the general area. The signing
code is impractical in this specific area and it does not
conform with the objectives of the City of Tigard in the
development of the Tigard Triangle.
The project is located on 4 . 69 acres of ground at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 217 and the
overpass of Southwest 72nd. It also fronts on Hampton
Street.
The Tigard Triangle Development Plan encourages the use of
property within the area on a much higher density than is
currently in existence. The predominance of the Triangle is
dedicated to the use in the construction of office space and
commercial entities. Pursuant to this initen': , it is necessary
that better sign-ng and identification be made available
than is currently allowed under the provisions of 18. 40 . 070 .
This additional scale in signing is necessary because of the
(1) newness of the area and (2) the speed with which traffic
passes the Triangle .itself.
The Lincolnwood Office Park structures are highly visible
from the f -eeways and surrounding areas; however, because of
the intense industrial development in the area, there is
nothing visible to differentiate this project from any of
the other industrial. project: in the area.
(ailt�
Tigard Planning Commission
January 20, 1975
Page Two
Bacause of the scale of the Lincolnwood Office Park project,
the proposed sign is architecturally sound. The project .is
comprised of three individual office buildings located on a
park-like setting, each building consisting of approximately
27,000 square feet. The proposed style and construction of
the sign will capture the architectural features of the
building and fit accordingly. Anything of a smaller size
would (1) not be visible, (2) would not fit in with the
architectural scheme of the area.
SUMMARY
In summary, I would like to point out the reasons the pro-
posed sign falls within the parameter of the Tigard Triangle
Development Plan:
1. The sign is architecturally pleasing and enhances
the area in general.
2 . The sign lends identification to the project and
to the nature of the area in general.
3. The sign itself will assist in making the project
a success and, in turn, will enhance the develop-
ment of the Tigard Triangle.
4 . Failure to grant this variance will create undue
hardship on the property owners and all subsequent
tenants within the office complex in that ready
identification of the project from the main arterial
approaches will make it difficult for firm; to do
Dusi.ness in the area.
In addition to the above request for variance for the permanent
sign, it is hereby requested that a temporary sign offering
office space for lease will be installed at the same location
for a period not to exceed ninety days, until. such time as
the permanent sign is erected. The temporary sign proposed
measures 8 ' x 8 ' from outside perimeters. The temporary
sign would be removed upon the completion of the permanent
sign requested above.
Ver yours,
THE GI Y C P
Ronald G. Ma}�
RGM: rjml/.10
�1.J 1��'�L���I lj•'r'%.i'��'+�-+y'».t+1;1�!";1 .+ ' ..,t�A'._V:i w•}'�,IC�l:•;�,�j,��,,:, ��`� r • w
~t' ^''N•�..`'1 4•�y�,,i� , ., . .t _ , 17tI" wlts••�1(.may.` 'a ..
r*Y � �•�o, r']i�hwr. 7r'•WI't+•�ill1 y.�dr;,, �►s �,I Hr 't5'►1t*��'rN,3,,,}+,!''�' �`•^,r.
1 ,al rI W... ' ..bra a- • T 1! ,' 1 N� + J. .'».' 1
� wt w` .. � sir•�i }2 ,"1-, r.a� t��.�h+, ..saw'•+ '�tiw +'•..• .�� •,�' r;b.�i�;iL'! �Ft "1,. ,�. .
. ,yam, .•r! "' '' +
I'"." ♦ ~�1. 1 'tiJ Y '�+ + '�' �I�1 �•"'t W«,�•�r 1 _ � 1 +'
n.
�"'- `'�'=� r y •� + '.+�. " www .A''���"'t'� ys •ti': a�v�•�t.. �, .
.�INr'•-1' � Ry .w ..f,91R ►�1: •Qr ��►a •I�`qr.. •" �+�` / �tt'I wn Vt++(.'V�y M ,�.,.�1'�♦
•. r -rr. "'fir t� 1 •.��LLw�4 -•Q7q ���•� '+
�SITE
oft
+
lit
1-5
�.+..a M ltr 1.. � i,.,a.:7.y-' L .�.1..M" L �iil� ♦1.1 t... 61.
6 ,. --
/ " d I STUDY AREA LOCATION
T s 2 DOWNTOWN TIGARD Y 1 J
2 1 S q 7 TIGARD INDUSTRIAL AREA , _
4. MOI WAIN PARK /• 1 Yi ��
5. PORTLANU CONIMUNITY COLLEGE
9 6 PROPOSED REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER .tuesvmoR' I I•✓
It
UR94N MEDIUM•
DBNsrry /
T�, „'' d•C / ^ clw o�eNeav I TORI Ice F%RKPUK
���II
MOTEL
�..--
SITT_
IMEDNM•GB• TY
1 I CLM,�UR!)i ii 1
t I
rEXIGIT1Ne Uw-OZNSrrY
ReN4 -
R6S10@rdTL�t.
\ IL Laws-1P1. _ y —
�,
—I
OPP.CIE. PARK
TIGARD TRIANGLE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
arri.
f rJviHo, IENTAL. FEATURES
aI L%VA, OR •(STING S PROPOSED
�� r EtPRFSSWAv 'IRIMETER LANUS
EEE
9
�M ARTERIAL
PROPOSED 9
BOULEVARD ® PEDESTRIANWAY C
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
SM HAMPTON ST. _
�� •� ��
iIT'rT
• 10 minutes to downtown Portland
• Direct access to major highways
• Prestige office space in a wooded environment \ _
• Ample free parking --
• Interiors finished to tenant's specificationl~
• Air Conditiont d r
• Complete maintenance and janitorial services
/ SIGM
qKi .., eneE
i
N
1
Zkl Stock oC $AMC STYft ~1 Ttmlw�Y
1rN �ittdy�.
AS AUMOPNC 4rO-I1AU"FON 514N
Staff Report
Tigard Site Development Plan and Architectural Design Review Board
June 10, 1975
Twalty Jr. High School
14650 S.W. 97th Ave.
Tigard, Oregon
Agenda Item
SDR 16-75
Applicant
Lincolnwood Office Park sign
Lincoln Properties Co.
Applicants Request
Review of a proposed sign location and design per proposed
zoning ordinance amendment putting design and location of
certain signs in the Commercial-Professional zone under
the purview of the Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural
Design Review Board.
Staff Findings
1. The ordinance effectuating this review functnn of
the Design Review Bard (ZOA 2-75) has been approved
and recommended by the Planning Commi3sion to the
City Council , but will not be heard by the Council
until June 23, 1975
2. Lincoln Properties is asking that review be done at
this time in anticipation of the Councils action
recognizing that no approval may be gijen until. such
time as authorized by Council.
3. Lincoln Properties contends that this is a 42 square
foot sign.
4. Tigard Code states that a "sign" is the face of the
sign as well as its structure--implying they are
inseparable and the visual surface would be computed
not the "message area". Staff finds the area of the
proposed sign to be 100 square feet plus the two 16
square feet "rider" signs (total as shown then equals
132 square feet)
5. Real Estate signs in the C-P zone may not exceed 12
F,quare feet in area.
6. "Rider" signs are r.ot allowed.
7. The proposed sign is to be lccated adjacent a freeUay
off-ramp, in approximately the location a "For Lease"
sign is presently located. The appropriateness of the
distance the sign is located back from the traffic
nearest the sign is a concern of staff with respect
to this project, as the sign, to be effective and not
be a nuisance, must have a wide field of view.
B. Staff feels a location adjacent the approach to the
office park is most appropriate.
9. The scale (size) of the sign should relate to the scale
of the project and to the perspective differential from
the street (distance to sign versus distance to buildings) .
Staff Recommendations
Approval , if and when Council action approves ZOA 2-75, on
condition that:
1. Sign be setback at least 10 feet from the off-ramp if
that location is still desired.
Page 2 - SOF'
O
May 28, 1975
Mr. Ray Bartel
The Design Review Board
Tigard Planning Commission
12420 S. W. Main Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Mr. Bartel:
Lincoln Property Company has finalized the architectural plans for
the project sign at the Lincolnwood Office Park, 72nd and Hampton
Street, Tigard, Oregon.
You will find enclosed a color rendering and mechanical plan showing
the design and location for the proposed sign. It will be 9' high
and 16' wide and will be placed between Buildings 7100 and 7150 facing
Highway 217 and the 72nd Avenue exit. The verti 31 support posts
will be 2' wide and 91 high; made of masonry rock and will be buff
white in color to conform with the architectural scheme established
for the Lincolnwood Otfice Park.
The lettering will be designed from redwood material anJ each letter
will be approximately 15" high. The wording "Office Park" will be
painted black. The horizontal :.rim pieces will run 12' between the
masonry support posts and will be made from 2" x 4" redwood material.
The color scheme, the types of materials used and the location of the
sign is such that it will complement the project but will not be
offensive to passersby on the freeway or access mads. We feel that
the sign lends itself nicely to the aesthetic ralues of the community,
and at the same time is in keeping with the overall design of the
project.
Very truly yours,
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY
John T. Flattery
Partner
JTF:bl
hlnCUIX PROPPRiY cnnrnany 7100 B.W.HAMPTON sTREC-T SUITE 110 TIGAR0.OREDON 972P3 AREA cOOE 903-620-9080
r'
to4—
v
17000
000
,- LINCOLN PROPERTIES G RAvIIC
'� S' 'b lou.
SIGf�I LUGATI�i�I I-►o�,r_c�r r�ralLEv DE��GN G
,J 10 S.W.ASH
POR(LAND, OREGON
.r
r
�r
ll
��N N
yW
LU i
F --�
Emig V
F
ry:
1
R
`Z Cµ)
/"'� �l�>)'/ ♦�`�+� ,7 x'11
�vi> b
s
•lp Ef Y� �� � �ak Cfi�+•*�-�r a+r
w�'{Lc 2 x jr-
r out �o r �� �o a� (�V�I`fir
(7�')fpe Qf�r7
/V /4.e-r.. o::- ~.000
�t µ fitlt�l� lQ� �. ��/ ��v sfr�. . ' , Ce•��v`-�� �o y
i
&2 C+4 Wp.,&J Abe_ 0,4 a.4 e.
-L
r t4rL of v*/.Way 1y l f k C �r�W-t..sa-K T 01"60C 401'e &"rt S UAW,
ea o� is K ass .�•H r e,4j.A'v�.QZr�t.�- 1., la rt rJ1
w .- j arc
to , f„��. s spas s h.,O.Q a e �4 e
�4P...�►wt��f�C �k � d�A'fr''�. �i�r��{r ✓�t-[��� � ��ID�(1�..
Gt C Ct SS 011 �9 (�l�(4�n rorY!'t G ���e1Gr ,,I W. vo. 07�
�e a.� �s�k �� k s cup c.,.- �Or�i����rc� •�+ r..v�`+.rr,(�ra.�
� c�-i�c,� �`p,,fq a•A. �Y a�� r ss {"lecw,. 3 ,t,�
K t1lOF� O!'I•t �Ua+ 7 `40 f 14G "4#-g vp— 2 of .
s;�r. fc-AL 3G. oya s
f- •w w , �dr a 01�u l o chi 14 ,-5(o-°apt e-
3A-G y
IIG.4 i&IST0.,Ok/ retell✓tl
r,fde- S e.c o f �4 e .3 dot i&
r
7Aer k tw•y 4, a af
i� C A /V. gra. o 7o
5 WA
e-W" G 4 heclu.cle ��
k �Z�.x b ac c VA-a .
ler� 4t ptf
Hte—,3 Itj
/. 7� �� c3�.c e1-xr:Q p�t/��r�►�,C� ��, f�c.e_.._3 an�r�4
Code, �o ��`SQ 6l mc�lJ
CQ. & - aAwfo4o OTkeA -
�/r� Gt ira.0`�C 4 & lo"44e"e" o2 d �e
14 for r �atieck.�s
a.c.4, �Omr , ery 1-c-d4-
0-"
�k� a�r�•t a,.� s•�a�� "4"7 logic 104'r-c("461
r �
*It
s
5 of
Lin e Cent
4
•j
✓�. ha''- �. �;y� :,,kyr •�. � �."..
s
O
r
rf �
' � 1
ark NAMFM ST.
_
it
t -
�nud, iii —
17
-ft3
\
1
10 minut:s to downtown Portland
Direct L.-cess to major highways
Prestige office space in a wooded environment
X Ample free parking
• Interiors finished to tenant's specification
• Air Conditioned
• Complete maintenance and janitorial services '
r.
1;
VANCOUVER A THE LINCOLN OFFICE CENTER,de-
signed by Travers&Johnston,Architects,
offers you prestige and canvenience in an
•• AND 10 MI N
atmosphere of quiet beauty. The buff-
tone masonry, wood and bronzed glass
�V.1.1'11111tf 01! combine to form a building with solid
identity while complementing the wooded
surroundings. Landscaped courtyards and
breezeways afford tenants visual pleasure
as well as a relaxed environment for lunch
or conferences.Centrally located and only
10 minutes from downtown Portland, the
Lincoln Office Center is adjacent to the
72nd street exit off Highway 217, which
directly connects the 1-5 and Sunset -
ways. The Center has 80,000 squar et
36
of air-conditioned space available to ac-
commodate anything from the one-man
office to a suite of 30,000 square feet,
with allowances for carpeting, drapes•
partitions, and finishing designed to the
tenant's specifications, Other features in-
clude a full time maintenance and jani-
torial staff, all utilities, and ample free
parking. The Lincoln Oince Center of-
fers style and convenience in a
profes-sional atmosphere for you,your staff and
clients.
"Aft.2
OWNER
Lincoln
� Lincoln Property Company
EXCLUSIVE LEASING AGENT
C�illE��
900 S.W.Fifth Avenue
Portland,Oregon 97204
-1700
503 221
Y '7�17
Al /7/