SCA 5-74 9025 & 9055 SW BURNHAM ,
"n
Ll PjL J, 9-� '
y
1 1 i
Ll
LL ;
• �� �-�� - �..._,� �__I_i f 1. 1. 1��_; � ' r � '
. b
III l l l l loll Jill l � l l l l l l l t ( 1 �1 t l �1 r ~ 4 � "�lI � III � III � 1 ( I � I I � III � I i � Illfi If �► II ( I I ( I � I � I , I � O ill Iii ISI ISI ISI Iii Iii I1I ISI ISI t
NOTE : IF THIS MICROFILMED —
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE , IT IS DUF TO
THF QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
DRAWING. _
OE 6Z 8Z 1Z 9Z SZ iffi—
tp EZ ZZ 12 OZ 61 91 L I 91 GI tp I E I 21 11 01 6 9 1 9 S b E Z I "
��l1 1.1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt1111111111tI11111111111111�IN�III11111111�,,thl„111111�111111111111111111�1I(.If llll�llllfll!111,i11111I�11II�1111�111111111�1111�11111r111i1111i11I1f11tiI11i�f IIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIII�I�I�ll�j(VJ1111111111111111111111I111111lllld�illllll�11�1►1�U11��1.11111111�� -
.� MICROFILM SERVICE CO.
MAY 1991 Commercial Microfilming, Processing & Supplies
_ Portland, OR. Seattle, WA.
400 TIGARD RADIATOR _
Sign Code Appeals (SCA .5-74
9025 & 9055 SW Burnham
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
September 17, 1974
Agenda Item 7.1
SCA 5-74 (Tigard Radiator)
Sign Code Appeal
For property located in the vicinity of 9055 and 9025 S. W.
Burnham Street.
Applicant
James A. Ochs nor all affected businesses
Applicant's Request
To erect a sign at variance with a 14 foot vision clearance
standard.
Apulicant's Proposal
To erect an 8' wide x 1316" high sign with 6 feet of vision
clearance.
Staff Findings
1. The sign propo-ed by the applicant exceeds the limitations
adopted for industrial park signs by Ordinance No. 74-26.
This ordinance specifies that an industrial park tenant
shall be identified on an industrial park identification
sign within a 4 square foot limitation. The applicant
proposes tenant identification exceeding 10 square feet
for one sign side.
2. The app] icant proposes to locate the subject sign within
a driveway easement area. The exact location has not
been identified by staff.
3. Section 16. 36.040, Tigard Municipal Code, states, "The
minimum clearance below the lowerst portion of a free-
standing sign and the ground below shall be fourteen
feet in any driveway or parking area. "
/+ . Staff feels the sign should be redesigned to reflect the
maximum square footage for tenant identification as
defined by Ordinance No. 74-26. In addition, the appli-
cant should consider alternate sign locations not re-
quiring a variance from standards of Title 16, Tigard
Municipal Code.
5. Section 15.34.020, Tigard Municipal Code, states,
"The Planning Commission may grant a variance from the
provisions of this title based on findings that due to
practical difficulties, undue hardships or inconsistencies
with the objectives of this title , the strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specific requirement
hereunder should be waived or modified. " The applicant
has riot demonstrated practical difficulty or undue hard-
ship.
Staff Recommendation
'fabling the applicant' s request, thereby enabling the appli-
cant to submit a redesigned sign and consider alternative
sign locations.
I r
Planning Commission Staff Report - September 17, 1974 - Item 7.1
page 2
Sept. 59 1974
City of Tigard
Planning Commission
Dear Sirso
It is my understanding that anyone denied a sign permit, has the
right to appeal that decision to the Planning Commission, so in
that regard I am submitting this le•cter.
It was our intention to install a sign on the East side of the
intersection of S. W. Burnham and S. W. Ash. After a discussion
with Mr. Russell Austin, we were informed that while the sign was
with-in the restrictions of the City of Tigard sign code, it would
have to be raised to a point where the bottom of the sign would
have to be 14'0" up from grade.
The five businesses whose names appear on proposed sign, see
enclosed sketch and plot plan, are not located on S. W. Burnham,
but are accessible only by an entrance off S. W. Burnham. By
installing a small name panel for each tenant, 1'4" hi and 8' 0"
long and mounting all fico sign panels on a common structure, we
could keep it' s size to a mLnimum and still let it be known to
passing motorists that our five businesses and services w-re
available. By rising the rign up to 1410" as per Mr. Russels
instructions, the sign would be in contrast to the surrounding
environment, overwhelming existing trees and shrubs.
Zt is our understanding that Mr. Russells decision was based on
the fact, that at only 4' 0" from bottom of sign to grade , the
sign would obstruct traffic approching from the south. In this
regard we feel his decision is certainly justified, however
1410" seems excessive. It is not our intent to create a traffic
forourselves and our customers. so with all considered, we
proppose that the sign be installed at 6'0" from bottom to grade.
At b' 0"there is ample room under the sign to see traffic approac,i-
ing yet keeps the sign down to where it' s f-fight does not over-
whelm it' s surroundings.
We realize it is difficult to write a sigh code that will cover
every situation that could possibly arise, and hope that our
request will be given ,your full consideration, even thc,agh it
varies from prescribed restrictions.
Respectfully,
James A. Ochs
P.S. This letter represents all (
the businesses in this
location. /�
OF
foo k
C -
y ( 2.)