The URL can be used to link to this page

02/01/2010 - Packet " City of Tigard E d Planning Commission Agenda TIGARD MEETING DATE: February 1, 2010; 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS—7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:05 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING— 5.1 ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS DCA2009-00006 7:05 p.m. 6. WORK SHOP 7:45 p.m. BRIEFING ON HWY 99W/HALL/GREENBURG 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:30 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA— FEBRUARY 1, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 1, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Anderson, Fishel, Gaschke, Hasman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh. Alternate Commissioners Schmidt& Shavey Absent: Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Caffall Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Hap Watkins, Assistant Planner; Michael McCarthy, Streets &Transportation Sr. Project Engineer; Doreen Laughlin, Sr. Administrative Specialist 3. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Vermilyea gave a brief report on his involvement (as a Planning Commission representative) on the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (1°1AC) which meets the first Wednesday of every month. He said since he's attended the past 3 months or so, they've had overviews of the existing Transportation System Plan, existing finance options,getting an understanding of what the financing mechanisms are as well as understanding state, regional, and local transportation plans. He noted that this is a standing committee and he'll continue to report as things go on. Commissioner Vermilyea also had attended the joint City of Lake Oswego/Planning Commission meeting. He gave a brief overview of that meeting. He noted there was not a lot of interaction at that meeting;it was more of a presentation. He said much of what they spoke about was not likely to be anything that Tigard would be dealing with for the next 15 years or so. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\PC Packets for 2010\2-1-10\tpc minutes 2-1-10.doc Page 1 of 5 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 1-4-10 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the minutes— there being none, Walsh then declared the minutes approved as submitted. 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING—ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS DCA2009-00003 STAFF REPORT Hap Watkins,Assistant Planner, briefly went over the staff report (staff reports are available one week before each scheduled meeting.) QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS OF STAFF I understand we currently have a school that's out of compliance with our existing sign regulation, is that correct? Yes, Tigard High School. Are there other schools on arterials — schools that could be affected?Yes, Durham Elementary,Tigard High School, St. Anthony School, Mitch Charter School, Westgate Baptist School, and the Muslim Educational Trust School. These could potentially be affected. So we're saying that we're going to allow a sign at a school site that is not less than 200' from a residential zone and it has to be on an arterial. Those are the two issues correct? Yes—200 feet from an abutting residential use. Explain to me what "abutting" is? For example, if the residential use is across the street—is that abutting? No. So the residential use could be less than 200' from the sign but if it is across the street from the sign — this wouldn't prevent the sign from going up? No, it wouldn't. The orientation of the sign would be perpendicular to the arterial so it would have less effect on the use across the right-of-way. Define an arterial. I take an arterial from our GIS overlay. It lists all the arterial streets. I don't have with me a definition of an arterial. It's the highest use street we have in Tigard. PUBLIC TESTIMONY— IN FAVOR: Barbara Fronczak, 19135 SW 52nd St., Tualatin, OR 97062, Vice Chair of St Anthony's School Advisory Council. She stated that she was there in support of this amendment. It would be used as a means of communication. Enrollment is down due to economy. This is good to get messages out to the residents of I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\PC Packets for 2010\2-1-10\tpc minutes 2-1-10.doc Page 2 of 5 Tigard about the school and its benefits, and improve communication within the parent community to inform them of events and activities going on at the school. There were no questions of Ms. Fronczak. David Casias — 12199 SW Hollow Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 stated his support of the amendment of the code. He speaks as a parent of a St. Anthony student. He believes it would be a great asset to the school to be able to communicate to the school parents and the community in general. There were no questions of Mr. Casias. PUBLIC TESTIMONY— OPPOSED: None. PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED DELIBERATIONS One of the commissioners had a question for staff regarding a school that he said is not on an arterial at this time. The question was to whether, as the City grows, perhaps more streets would be considered arterials. Is there any control as to where signs are placed? Is there any flexibility to dictate where a sign can go on a given piece of property? For example, the Fowler property— suppose the sign goes on the corner and shines in across the street to the residences that are right there. Any control over that? Nothing other than the 200 foot set-back for residential use. The schools that I visited(Beaverton,Aloha, and Lake Oswego)generally put these type boards central to the building because it's right there— everyone knows what the sign's for. None of them strayed from that. They were all basically central to the building- the midline of the building. The way it's written right now— it has to be oriented to the arterial street. It would be perpendicular to that street— shining both ways. That's one limitation from across the right-of-way. Another question for staff: When you say school... would that include any place that has, say, just kindergartners? No. Preschools are identified in our land use code as `institutional daycare."To be qualified as a school,you have to teach grades 1-12. There were no further questions or deliberations and the following motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon. MOTION: "I move that we forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend DCA 2009-00006 to allow electronic signs as stated in the staff report." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\PC Packets for 2010\2-1-10\tpc minutes 2-1-10.doc Page 3 of 5 AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Gaschke, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Walsh (7) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Caffall (2) 6. WORK SHOP— BRIEFING ON HWY 99/HALL/GREENBURG Mike McCarthy, Streets &Transportation Sr. Project Engineer, gave an informal "gather `round the plans" type of briefing. He gave a general "5000 foot level" overview of the various projects. Some of these projects would include bus pull-outs, street trees, etc. He noted that much of the construction would be done during the nighttime so as to have the least impact on traffic. The commissioners voiced some concerns and some enthusiasm for the various ideas. McCarthy noted that the City would go to great lengths to ensure extensive public information would be given. Among other things, the City will use the City website, Facebook, &Twitter, to get the word out— to let people know when various activities will be happening. McCarthy will provide a miniature version of the plans for the record (Exhibit A). The following is a basic time-line (given after the meeting). February: Design Completion March: Bidding April: Contract Documents and Paperwork May: Construction Start Spring 2011: Construction Completion 7. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Vermilyea noted that at the last meeting there was a conversation with staff about providing the Planning Commission with a work plan based on the priorities that the Planning Commission had set for the last few years. His recollection is that Ron Bunch said that it would be between 12— 15 pages and he wondered where it is, because now it's February. If they're going to plan for the year, the year is moving on. He feels they've let their priorities slide for a couple of years now since they've finished the Comp Plan process. He'd like to focus on what they said they wanted to be working on. In addition, the consensus was that they would prefer it not be that long. They would like a one page bullet point list for 2010. They would like this to be put on the calendar for March 1st. They would like to go through the calendar and work on priorities on March 1st. Walsh added that he'd forgotten to mention that the Electronic Message Center amendment DCA2009-00006 would be going to Council on February 23rd. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\PC Packets for 2010\2-1-10\tpc minutes 2-1-10.doc Page 4 of 5 8. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 8:00 pm. • A__ • Doreen Laughlin,Planning Cot 'ssion Secretary ,AMAILIP 7Ai ATTEST: ►1 :e t Eid Wals" I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\PC Packets for 2010\2-1-10\tpc minutes 2-1-10.doc Page 5 of 5 . � w,. .. - 0 r LW .•M• • - d • ` • O((J I `` WI • 1.. 'I r i ..I ..`11..x,-; "T •/ ► _ 1 / pi „A. J • • �� ,1 • 1■ ,, �. I 11 1 AllMINI!i '� ,. ll , I 4 4 i , �_ r r i�s I /b / •IL • • / !"'• ` �► � 47-::`! / / e l i .` iiir• - , .�Vi , .If 11 I I, • • r ' + (...) ■ X . • 'an•k�i,f I. n a .. ` O .yam .� II +1 ``,� �°j •',• ,J i OW . LI 1,', I i ...°%"4 / 41410. .... - . . t , - ;, , , z ..?. .... Li , L,. •�. . I+I 11 1 i I 1 f•A S 0 2 ,i . . ' I '''' 44. ...... • W CO Q,f I '� •J 1 �••— 1 ; 1, . . Q, _ cb x ..... . • ili. * 1,I J' \ . .+ N ./� " �' 4- ,t s .'. °' tea{ ./� 1/ 111 Y • Z . .. is ,:-.:.- •. • ., i 1 ..'-'.— ,), '-•".• ,...---- . "i---- ..• ?-10\w`l ., • \ I 11 ,,..1i ,,.., , 4 , 1--- >. u,.. • ii'.‹. .4- — 1,7. —' • --c 'it - . • •4 '. . •• I . -A \ , 4. . 1 , 04; rt . . ...i, i , , ii, • .; , . . i 11 1,i i r A ', .lillee, •. , ... 4...1/4 ri . , ; • Jy ., • it.;II . )11' • I A t 0 I I• .,-----,-. : 1111, ' , • 4 , 11.4 -i .... ,- it .f . .- 4f. . . ., ..•, , •,;_ A.A . ,. .: ,i. ,• J, . / ' rICLIdi r \ , .4.t, , ,i le L.;a , 4 4 ... _r fps v ,.., i.; • rl 9 , . • •. i �, : rV • es . : •• ..• ■ ' ..I l'' fillipl ! I I ,••• I ft • II w ,, 1 •1 v • 1 '• 9 I - { ) (.) . • , COMMUNITY PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: SPI1L ERS 7h' following Wili be('con§idere'd hi'.the 6605 SE Lake Road,Portland,OR 97222 ‘ TICARD PLAN NINC,COMMISSION ON'.. c:MONDAY:•.FEBRUARY 1,'2010,rAT/7:00 PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97269-2109 t,, Plvt at tl�e;Tigard Crvic.Center Town Hall Phone:503-684-0360 Fax:503-620-3433 "I i G ARD 13,125 SW:Hall Bld Tigard,Oregon , f E-mail: legals @commnewspapers.com pub110 or'a of •wri#ten testimony;is invited )The public AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION eaiitig oik this matter 'ill•be held undei,Tltle 18,iand rules of State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS roeedure_.pdopted by the,Council and available at"City H011 or 1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, hC lines qqI procedure set forth in 4eetilon 18 390.p60 E The 1 iiing Commissions review is"fb'r the purpose oI n44 g a depose and say that I am the Accounting oe ecoihnicildation to-tfie Ci1:y counciton the request: The Council Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, will;t"en hold a ul}tic hearzti" onthe re nest rsor`to ixa n a Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of p 1 A g q p' 9 general circulation, published at Beaverton, :„,,,,.3,,,.,,,v., , ; I ,; ,, :5 in the aforesaid county and state, as defined Fui 4 ei information>niay be,obtatned,froin'the OW:,of Tigard by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that Planning Division (Staff &oi�tact )Darr );' Hap ;Watkins):at: l3125'SW`Hall Blvd;Tigarrd,Oi'ego'ii 9'7 23 or by calling 503_ City of Tigard '6390171:0y by e-mail to hap @tigard*gov , ' Notice of Public Hearing/DCA2009-00006 , ,5, DIkVEI,OPMENT COD AMENI�M) HT ' TT11397 t (DCA)2009:,00006, ,, ,, r ELECTRONIC 1M�'IESSAGE CENTERS A copy of which is hereto annexed,was .'' CODE-AMENDMENT published in the entire issue of said REQUEST"lid.melidtheDevelopti entCodeSeetion 18'780 090.•newspaper for • . D.La&b to.allow an electronic message center ag the approved: 1 freestanding'sign atsa Sehool"fronting an arterial street w+s re the week in the following issue: sign:is a,niinimum.of z2QQ feet from'an abutting residenti l tlse. LOCA IOr , Cit wide, COO; PLAN DESIGNATION January 14, 2010 (ityvt)i'de` ` ONES:' citywide`'' AP�'UcABL 'RE '�W". CRITERIA l' Coniinutrlty DevelbMeil("C't de ltapt6�x$;3$0',; b/LCU/ r n a-UA-Lf 1$390, 18 5,'10, iid•l8.780 ,`0onl `t Heh '' kPlatt'Ptilidl'es?1 �2, W 6,7,,and 12;Metro Urban Growth Mai g inent Plar TltlesF1,,$,Iotte Allso Accountin Ma er and,12;Metro}3,egtonal Frainevrprk Plan Policies.1'.14 and';$)1 i Charlotte p (Accounting g ) and Sta>;ewide Planning raoals I, z,•1.0 and 11 Theproposed I amendments ate available f r review on the Citys Web:.§.4P At Subscribed and sworn to before me this }ittpt��,h�{, t}gprd kr'00yrr0004111de04)4$000/4ode an}gh" 0 January 14, 2010. :�f1e>it;asp � t` f ' ` ' :. ' , vt"°':;"i lsli"sh,bll"l4.2010; t� ,-*.:�y l,.V, ,, :C':'` ` '><_�'-1�,ri 39 ', " )' . . NOT ' ITV n LIC :::.:,u•.. .:. .. _ �, r... G(.J (/�[- "' . e NOTARY PUBL{C-OREGON NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGO COMMISSION SS ON EXPIRES N0.43716, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,2013 My commission expires Acct#10093001 • Attn:, Tim Lehrbach , City of.Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size: 2 x 6 Amount Due: $100.20* • 'Please remit to address above, • q PLEASE SIGN IN HERE c Tigard Planning Commission TIGARD Agenda Item # , I Page of 4- Date of Hearing 2.-1- 10 Case Number(s) 'DC Pt 7,OOAI OOOOCD Case Name E CA f ee nt C SS ot � Cpr ct-Cr S Location C'vtic-ocke, If you would like to speak on this item, please CLEARLY PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (FOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: Name: Address: C' , Put .V t Address: City, State,Zip: Tea.`ta,i ` bit 9 7 42., City,State, Zip: Name: F y A G' F c Name: Address: / Z 5 U /4-,/10W L Address: City, State, Zip: --nr,A d, (1? 22 "S City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State,Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: " City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: City of Tigard Planning Commission From: Hap Watkins, Assistant Planner Re: Development Code Amendment, DCA2009-00006 Date: 01/05/10 I would like to place the following Development Code Amendment on the Planning Commission agenda for February 1, 2010. DCA2009-00006 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER FOR SCHOOLS FRONTING AN ARTERIAL STREET February 1, 2010 Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: Strikethrough - Text to be deleted [Bold,Underline and Italic] — Text to be added The applicant has proposed that an electronic message center be a permitted use for a school on an arterial street where the sign is no closer than 200 feet from an abutting residential use. It is not the intent of the applicant to make electronic message centers a permitted use in all residential zones without limitation or to increase the number of signs allowed at a school. The sign size and number of signs allowed will be regulated by the applicable zone standards for signs. The accurate code language should be as follows: CHAPTER 18.780 SIGNS 18.780.090 Special Condition Signs D. Electronic message centers. 1. Electronic Message Center (variable message) sign regulations shall be as follows: a. Electronic message center signs shall be permitted only in the C-G and CBD zones;, and at schools that front an arterial street where the sign is not less than 200 feet from an abutting residential use and is oriented to the arterial street. b. The maximum height and area of an electronic message center sign shall be that which is stipulated for freestanding signs in Sub Section 18.780.130.6; Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date: February 1.2010 STAFF REPORT TO THE II 1I PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER FOR SIGNS AT SCHOOLS FRONTING AN ARTERIAL STREET CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2009-00006 PROPOSAL: The Community Development Director requests an amendment to the text of the Signs Chapter (18.780) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code to allow an electronic message center as the approved sign at a school fronting an arterial street where the sign is a minimum of 200 feet from an abutting residential use and is oriented to the arterial street. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICANT'S City of Tigard REP.: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 ZONE: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390, 18.510, and 18.780; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12; Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 8, and 12; Metro Regional Framework Plan Policies 1.14 and 8.3; and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 10, and 11. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor to amend the Sign Code regulations as proposed by the applicant, with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process and make a final recommendation to the Tigard City Council. DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 1 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The proposal is to amend the sign code to allow electronic message centers as an approved use for a sign at a school that fronts an arterial street. It is further proposed that the electronic message center sign be a minimum of 200 feet from an abutting residential use and oriented to the arterial street. Currently only zones C-G and CBD are allowed to have electronic message centers. Any future development of a school fronting an arterial street will be able to include this use if the proposed amendment is approved. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA Chapter 18.380 states that legislative text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390.060G states that the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: ♦ The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; Forty-five day advance notice was provided to DLCD on December 11, 2009, 52 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by DLCD. The following are the applicable Statewide Planning Goals that are applicable to this proposal: Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and for changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Chapter 18.390. Notice has been published in the Tigard Times Newspaper prior to the public hearing. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process for and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent with Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies with which to evaluate a request for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. Statewide Planning Goal 10—Housing This goal outlines provisions to insure state housing needs are met. The Tigard Development Code allows schools within residential zones as a conditional use, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The electronic message centers will only be allowed on school sites fronting an arterial street. To ensure minimal effect upon surrounding residential uses, the electronic message center is proposed to be a minimum of 200 feet from any abutting residential use and oriented to the arterial street. Statewide Planning Goal 11—Public Facilities and Services Goal 11 outlines the need to plan and develop an arrangement of public facilities and services which will serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Schools are considered part of a community's necessary service needs of public facilities. This code amendment only allows electronic message center on an approved school site fronting an arterial street. Allowing an electronic message center on the school site will enhance efficiency of the service needs by providing a sign easily read in dim light or arterial traffic. Such signs will also enhance obtaining school event messages without entering and exiting arterial streets.. DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 2 ♦ Any applicable Metro regulations; Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Title 1—Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation of this section of the Functional Plan facilitates efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Each city and county has determined its capacity for providing housing and employment that serves as their baseline and if a city or county chooses to reduce capacity in one location, it must transfer that capacity to another location. Cities and counties must report changes in capacity annually to Metro. This amendment is only to allow the use of electronic message centers. These approved sites are commonly in residential zones, but are not for residential use. Therefore, this text amendment does not reduce the City's housing capacity. Title 8—Compliance Procedures This title ensures that all cities and counties in the region are fairly and equitably held to the same standards and that the Metro 2040 Growth Concept is implemented. It sets out compliance procedures and establishes a process for time extensions and exemptions to Metro Code requirements. This title is not applicable. Title 12—Protection of Residential Neighborhood The purpose of this title is to protect the region's existing residential neighborhoods from air and water pollution, noise and crime, and to provide adequate levels of public services. In particular the title addresses making public schools more accessible to neighborhood residents. Allowing electronic message centers on public and private school sites will enhance reading of the sign by making it easier to see in dim light or in arterial traffic. Metro Regional Framework Plan Policy 1.14 School and Local Government Plan and Policy Coordination 1.14.1 Coordinate plans among local governments, including cities, counties, special districts and school districts for adequate school facilities for already developed and urbanizing areas. 1.14.2 Consider school facilities to be "public facilities"in the review of city and county comprehensive plans for compliance with the Regional Framework Plan. Policy 8.3 Schools 8.3.7 Encourage local jurisdictions to prioritize development applications and streamline processes for public agencies, including schools, to ensure that public needs are met without jeopardizing opportunities for citizen input or oversight for health and safety or environmental protection. 8.3.8 Encourage local jurisdictions to partner (including funding)with school districts to jointly use school sites for the public good (such as combined libraries, parks, connections with local services such as police, neighborhood centers, senior centers, etc.). DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 3 These policies have been addressed by the implementation strategies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Allowing electronic message centers on school sites will not adversely affect coordination between local governments and the school districts to insure adequate school facilities are being provided. Currently, electronic message centers are not allowed in residential zones. Allowing electronic message centers as a permitted use enables the school facility to more effectively utilize a sign on land already owned by the school. ♦ Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies: Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1: General Policies The city shall ensure that: A. This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the land conservation and development commission, the regional plan adopted by the metropolitan service district; B. Any neighborhood planning organization plans and implementation measures adopted by the City of Tigard after the effective date of this comprehensive plan are designed to be consistent with this plan; and C. The Tigard comprehensive plan and community development code are kept current with the needs of the community. In order to do this: 1. This plan shall be reviewed and updated at least every five years. As indicated above under the individual Statewide and Regional Plan goals applicable to this proposed amendment, the amendment is consistent with the Statewide Goals and the Regional Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3: Citizen Involvement 2.1.1 The city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 2.1.2 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the city shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve abroad cross-section of the community: The citizen involvement teams shall be the primary means for carrying out the program; 2.1.3 The city shall ensure that information on land use planning issues is available in an understandable form for all interested citizens. This policy is satisfied because the notice was published in the Tigard Times of the Planning Commission public hearing and the City Council public hearing. Public input has been invited in the notice. Comprehensive Policy 6.6.1: Housing 6.6.1 The city shall require: A. Buffering between different types of land uses (for example between single family residential and multiple family residential, and residential and commercial uses, and residential and industrial uses) and the following factors shall be considered in determining the type and extent of the required buffer: 1. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust or to provide a visual barrier; 2. The size of the buffer needed in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; 3. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; 4. The required density of the buffering; and DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 4 5. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Vol. Ii, policy 6-5 Policy 6.6.1 requires buffering between different types of land uses. The Tigard Development Code does not require a buffer between schools and residential homes, but does require increased setbacks around schools up to 30 feet. The proposed 200-foot setback from an abutting residential use and sign orientation in the direction of traffic on an arterial street are intended as buffers from neighboring uses. Comprehensive Policy 7.8.1: Public Facilities and Services 7.8.1 The city shall work closely with the school districts to ensure the maximum community use of[the] school facilities for Tigard residents through location criteria and the provisions of urban services. Schools are considered public facilities. The Comprehensive Plan states the City shall work closely with the school districts to ensure the maximum community use of the school facilities for Tigard residents through location criteria and the provisions of urban services. These location criteria mainly relate to new schools, but are addressed further below under Policy 12. The proposed code amendment will enhance community use of the facilities. Comprehensive Policy 12.4.1: Location Criteria 12.4.1 The city shall provide for the location of community facilities in a manner which accords with: A. The applicable policies in this plan; B. The location criteria applicable to the scale and standards of the use. Medium impact utilities and facilities A. Location criteria (1) access (a) there is direct access from the site to a collector street and traffic will not be routed through local neighborhood streets. (b) site access will not cause dangerous intersections or traffic congestion considering the roadway capacity, existing and projected traffic counts, speed limits and number of turning movements. (c) there is public transit within one-quarter mile of the site. (2) impact of the proposed change on adjacent lands Vol. Ii, policy 12-13 (a) it is compatible with surrounding uses, considering scale, character and use. (b) it will reinforce orderly and timely development. (c) associated lights and noise will not interfere with the activities and uses on surrounding properties. (d) large scale construction and parking lots can be buffered from the adjacent uses. (e) privacy of adjacent residential developments can be maintained. (f) the site layout can respond to existing community identity and street patterns. (g) buffering can screen the project from adjacent uses. (h) there is adequate area landscaping to filter the dust from the site area. (3) site characteristics (a) the land intended for development has an average site topography of less than a DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 5 10% grade, or it can be demonstrated that through engineering techniques, all limitations to development and the provision of services can be mitigated. (note: this does not apply to parks.) (b) the site is of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses and is of a shape which allows for a site layout in a manner which maximizes user convenience and energy conservation. (c) the unique natural features, if any, can be incorporated into the design of the facilities or arrangement of land uses. This policy addresses location of community facilities in accordance with applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and with location standards related to the use. These standards are related to access, impact on adjacent lands, and site characteristics. The proposed code amendment should not impact these standards. As has been discussed previously in this report, impact on adjacent lands will be mitigated by setbacks and orientation of the sign face(s) toward the traffic on an arterial street. ♦ Any applicable provision of the City's implementing ordinances. Code Section 18.380: This section regulates amendments. It outlines the process for reviewing Development Code Text Amendments. The present amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Code Section 18.390: This chapter establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing applications. The amendment under consideration will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as detailed in the chapter. Code Section 18.510: This chapter establishes procedures and criteria for development within residential zoning districts. The purpose of these regulations is: 1. Preserve neighborhood livability. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible non-residential development -- schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care centers, neighborhood commercial uses and other services -- at appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale. The proposed amendment includes provisions to ensure the continued protection of neighborhood livability by requiring that the electronic message center be located at least 200 feet from an abutting property with a residential use. The use is also restricted to school sites fronting an arterial street. Staff believes adding electronic message centers to the list of activities will not increase the impact on neighboring sites. Presently the code does not allow electronic message centers within a residential zone. DCA2009-00006 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER FOR SCHOOLS FRONTING AN ARTERIAL STREET February 1, 2010 Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: Strikethrough - Text to be deleted [Bold, Underline and Italia — Text to be added DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 6 The applicant has proposed that an electronic message center be a permitted use for a school on an arterial street where the sign is no closer than 200 feet from an abutting residential use and is oriented to the arterial street. It is not the intent of the applicant to make electronic message centers a permitted use in all residential zones without limitation or to increase the number of signs allowed at a school. The sign size and number of signs allowed will be regulated by the applicable zone standards for signs. The accurate code language should be as follows: CHAPTER 18.780 SIGNS 18.780.090 Special Condition Signs D. Electronic message centers. 1. Electronic Message Center (variable message) sign regulations shall be as follows: a. Electronic message center signs shall be permitted only in the C-G and CBD zones;, and at schools that front an arterial street where the sign is not less than 200 feet from an abutting residential use and is oriented to the arterial street. b. The maximum height and area of an electronic message center sign shall be that which is stipulated in Subscction Section 18.780.130.6; SECTION V. STAFF ANALYSIS Currently electronic message centers are allowed only in the C-G and CBD commercial zones where schools are not a permitted use. Schools are allowed conditionally in all residential zones and the mixed use zones. The amendment limits electronic message center locations to schools and the busier streets in these zones. In TMC18.780.130.A&B,the area of signs allowed in residential zones is 32 sq. ft. for freestanding signs and 5 % of the gross wall area on which a wall sign is mounted. If it is freestanding, the sign may be six feet in height. The school may choose only one sign, and an electronic message center would be an option for the allowed wall or freestanding sign. The area and height limitations are different in the mixed use zones;however, almost all schools in Tigard are in residential zones. Schools in mixed use zones would comply with the limitations of TMC18.780.130 according to the specific zone in which they are located, provided they front an arterial street and the sign is at least 200 feet from a residential use. Restrictions on sign usage within the residential zones are an important aspect of promoting the peaceful enjoyment of a neighborhood. Schools are typically found in residential neighborhoods to safely and efficiently serve the community's children. The City needs to balance these two uses, and may do so through restrictions on place, size, and buffering. The proposed code amendment addresses the applicant's request by allowing an electronic message center for schools that front an arterial street. To ensure the public welfare and safety is protected, the sign's proximity to abutting properties with a residential use must be 200 feet or greater and the sign must be oriented to the arterial street. Staff believes that the proposed amendment strikes the best balance of restriction while still meeting the needs of the schools. The potential negative impact by allowing electronic message centers at schools is that the sign would be more noticeable on dim days or at night. The intensity of light from a sign is addressed in Section 18.780.080.A and will not change with this amendment. DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 7 SECTION VI. ALTERNATIVES Requested Action —Allow electronic message centers on school sites fronting an arterial street where the sign would be 200 feet or more from an abutting residential use and is oriented to the arterial street. Expected impact would be little to none, only that produced by the light from the sign which is regulated by TMC18.780.080.A. Alternate Actions —Allow electronic message centers on school sites limited by zones, limited by street type or not, limited by location on the property or not, or as recommended by the Commission. Expected impact could be complaints about an electronic message center and its lights from residents on streets with less traffic than arterial streets and/or the sign's light proximity to residential use. No Action — The code would remain unchanged, and electronic message centers would continue to be prohibited in residential zones. Expected impact would be to initiate an enforcement action on one sign, in particular an EMC at Tigard High School. SECTION VII. CITY STAFF & OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, City of Tigard Development Engineer, and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue were sent requests for comments and had no objections. Metro Land Use and Planning and Oregon Department of Transportation were sent requests for comments and did not respond. The City of Tigard Assistant Community Development Director was sent a request for comments and those comments are incorporated in this report. SECTION VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff has received no comments from the public. PREPARED BY: Darrel "Hap"Watkins DA'Z'E Assistant Planner APPROVED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager DCA2009-00006 Planning Commission Staff Report 020110 Page 8