DIR2012-00001 11
/IN IN
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
T I GARD DIR2012 -00001
DATE: January 12, 2012
CODE CHAPTER: 18.610 — Downtown District Development and Design Standards
TOPIC: Flagpoles
LOCATION: MU -CBD Zoning District
I. REQUEST
The Tigard Development Code recognizes that some parts of the code may not provide adequate
guidance in some situations. It was not possible for the code's drafters to anticipate all land use
circumstances. To address this, Chapter 18.340 of the code authorizes the director to render an
administrative code interpretation to provide greater clarity.
City staff has received inquiries about the review process necessary to establish a 50 foot tall flagpole
in the downtown design district. This flagpole would either be a stand -alone installation, or part of
an entry monument demarcating the boundary of the downtown district. The Tigard Development
Code is ambiguous on this matter and does not provide clear direction. In order to address this
circumstance, the following two sections analyze the situation and establish an appropriate
Director's Interpretation on how the code is to be administered.
II. ANALYSIS
The Tigard Downtown Design District Development and Design Standards would apply to a 50
foot flagpole as such a project would not qualify for an exemption to the standards. This exemption
is not granted because a building permit will be required for the pole's foundation, the project is not
related to maintenance and repair, does not further ADA compliance, is not temporary, and does
not involve a pre- existing single - family residence or duplex. As a result, land use review is required.
For those projects not exempted from the design standards, approval is administered through one of
three procedures. A list of specified projects may proceed through a Track 1 Design Review
Compliance Letter. As set forth in 18.610.010.E.1, these projects are minor and limited in nature.
All other projects not specified on this list must proceed through either a Track 2 (Administrative)
or Track 3 (Discretionary) design review process.
Flagpoles are not specifically included on the list of projects eligible for Track 1 review. However,
given their small footprint they present equivalent (or lesser) design impacts than seven of the eleven
types of projects eligible for a Track 1. These would include:
(4) For commercial and mixed -use developments, modification of up to 15% on -site
landscaping with no reduction in required landscaping. Modification refers to
1 of 2
changing the hardscape elements and the location of required landscape areas and /or
trees;
(5) Modification of off -street parking with no reduction in required parking spaces or
increase in paved areas;
(6) Addition of new fences, retaining walls, or both;
(7) Change of existing grade;
(8) An increase in the height of a building(s) less than 20 %;
(9) A change in the type and location of access -ways and parking areas where off -site
traffic would not be affected;
(10) An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by less than 10% or
under 5,000 square feet
Given this similarity it is reasonable to assume that flagpoles were not anticipated, and therefore not
specifically excluded from ministerial review. Inclusion in this category would be consistent with the
purpose of the chapter and the intended level of review while not contrary to the intended design
outcomes.
III. INTERPRETATION
Flagpoles may be processed as a Track 1 procedure, utilizing procedures set forth in 18.610.010.E.1.
(Design Review Compliance Letter).
!� / f 1 E, -70 lz-
gor Ronald B. Bunch, Community Development Director Date
2 of 2