Resolution No. 90-69 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 90-tz
IN THE MATTER OF THE P.90PTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF A
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION APPLICATION (SCE
90-03) PROPOSED BY TIGARD RETAIL CENTER.
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the case at its meeting of August 7, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the application with modifications to the
original proposal (Final Order No. 90-29 PC); and
WnZREAS, this matter, came before the City Council at its meeting of October 8,
1990; end
WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the evidence related to the request and the
Planning Commission decision.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Ccimiss.ion decision is reversed and
Sign Code 2xeeption is DENIED based upon the facts, findings, and conclusions
noted in Exhibit ^A
The Council further orders that the City Recorder send a cony of this final
order to the applicant as a notice of the final decision in this matter.
-"I
PASSED: This -D day of November, 1990.
City of Tigard
John Schwartz, Council President Pro Tem
ATTESTS
Cathy Wheatley _
Tigard City Recorder
SCE 90-03.RESfX1
RESOLUTION NO. 90-/'-'4 PAGE 1
A. FACTS
1. General Information
CASES Sign Code Exception (SCE 90-0003).
REQUEST. For, & sign code exception approval allowing a 508 increase in
sign area up to 105 squarra feet per face, and a 25% increase
in sign heights up to 25 feet,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial General
ZONE: C-G (Commercial Getneral).
APPLICANT. Marlin Brothers signs, Incorporated
Roy M. Boswell
P.O. Box 3.012
Tualatin, OR 97062
OWNER: Tigard Retail center
15800 SW Boones Ferry Road, C-301
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
LOCATION. 13702 SW Pacific Highway (WCT-M 2SI 3DD, Tax Lots 400 and
500).
2. Back<lroun.d Information
The Hudson service station previously occupied this site and during the
last several years the station had been abandoned. Several signs were
subject to the sign amortization program which required their removal
because they were slightly over-sized and abandoned (Case No. 88-102-Z).
In Sept-embers 1939, Site Development Reviews (SUR 89-20/V 89-24) was
approved to establish a commercial retail center consisting of three
separate buildings. prior to construction of that project, the Hudson
service station and all signs on the property were removed. The retail
center is now almost- fully developed and tenants are beginning to occupy
the buildings.
Recently, the property owner has been requested to remove several
strings of illegal banners, as well as an illegal temporary sign.
Although a financial assurance has been provided, a final landscaping
has not been provided and a minor amount of landscaping remains to be
completed.
RESOTUTION NO. 90- PAGE 2
3. Vicinity Information
Properties to the south, east, and north along Pacific Highway are also
zoned and developed C-G (Commercial General). Residential property
zoned R-3.5 (Single family residential, 3.5 Unita/acre) lies immediately
west of the subject property. Thy parcel is located at the southwest
corner of Pacific Highway which is an arterial street, and Watkins
Street which is a minor collector.
4. Site Information and Pr000aal Descriation
The project is developed with three sepazare buildings and will
probably contain between six and ten tenants. At the present time,
automotive businesses occupy all of the northeastern bullding and half
of the northwestern building. The third and largest building on the
southwest side of the property is just beginning to be occupied. The
project has direct driveway access onto Pacific Highway, as well as
(Watkins Street. Presently, there are no freastandina signs on the
property.
The applicant is requesting permivaicn to construct one freestanding
sign that exceeds the normal allowances for sign size and h^,fight as
specified in the sign code chapter of the Community DRvelopment Code.
The applicant proposes a sign height of 21 feet with an 8-foot clearance
at the bottom and sign dimensions of 13 ft. x 8 ft., for a total of 104
square feet of sign area per face. The applicant indicatea that by
using 9 inch letter copy as the minimum aiza, the 13 ft. x 8 ft. sign
dimensions necessary to provide adequate room to advertise the different
tenants in the retail center.
S. Aaencv and NPO Comments
The Building Division and the State Highway Diviaicn have no objections
to this proposal.
NPO /3 reviewed the proposal on July 18, 1490 and the NPO recommends
that the sign code exception not be granted because the buildings are
significantly visible and the NPO has consistently recoAmerded that
additional sign area not be allowed for other properties along Pacific
Highway.
No other comments have been received.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The basic standard in the C-G zone allows for one freestanding sign with a
maximum square footage of 70 square feet per face and a maximum height of 20
feet. Wall signage is also allowed at a percentage of 15% of the size of the
wall that the sign is mounted on. The City Council may grant additional sign
RESOLUTION NO. 40-(/�-�_. PAGE 3
height and/or sign area, if variation from the standard code requirements is
. deemed appropriate in accordance with the criteria found in Section
18.114.145 and Section 18.11-'..130.G of the Code.
Section 10.114.130.G.1(c) states that when a premises contains more than a
single tenant, but is not defined as a shopping center (8 or more tenants),
an addit-Tonal. 50% of sign copy area may be permitted under the design review
process (or sign code exception process in this case) so as to adequately
Identify the separate tenants when it is determined that the increased sign
area will not dater from the purpose of the Code. A shopping center is also
eligible for a 50% sign area tner3ase.
The sign illustratad by the applicant shows advertising space for nine
tenants. " mentioned earlier, one of the three buildings is fully
occupied. Also HollgwccOd Video is intended to Occupy a significant portion
of the third building. Given the space that remains, It appears likely that
the center will be —:cupied by more than six tenants.
Based upon the information present by the applicant, there is not adequate
justification to grant an additional 50% in sign area or sign height.. The
Council finds that the additional area and height would be contrary to the
purpose of the sign code which is "to prevent proliferation of signs and sign
clutter". The increase in the area of the freestanding sign is not
necessary to adequately ir?enti€y the tenan-fa of the center. -
SCE 30-03.RES/kl
RESOLUTION NO. 90--L'C PAGE 4