Planning Commission Packet - 09/25/1973 POOR QUALITY RECORD
PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and
put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the
microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions
please contact City of Tigard Records Department.
•
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Session - September 25, 1973
City Hall - City Administrator's Office
12420 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
Time: 7:30 P.M.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Neighborhood Plan Comments
2. Design Review Ordinance •
3. Project Priority List and Timing
4. Discussion of Next Neighborhood Plan Area
5. Review of Proposed Minor Change
S.W. Summerfield Drive-Design Standards
Gj
•
' t
ii
P
It
•
'_
MINUTES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Study Session
September 25, 1973
City Hall
Members present: Ball, Mickelson, Frazier, Sakata,
Whittaker, Nicoll, Hartman: staff
members Wink Brooks, Dick Bolen,
Bruce Clark
1. ASh Avenue — Downtown Plan Review
1. Ball suggested that the Planning Commission adopt a
recommendation to the City Council concerning methods
of implementing the Neighborhood Plano He stated that
apparently the N. M. had been given the charge of
preparing a plan but not the goal of seeking means
of implementing its proposals. Ball found recommendations
concerning implementation of the Plan an appropriate
Planning Commission action and that they should fulfill
this role by forwarding their recommendations to the !'
City Council.
2. Ball stated that the recommendation should include
the need for the following:
A. Zoning Map amendments
B. Design Review
C. Highway Commercial zone
0. Flood Plain and Fill ordinance
E. A Policy concerning incentive zoning through
perhaps, a revision in the P—D ordinance.
F. Streets Policy
G. Tree cutting ordinance
H. Implementation of the park and greenway system
I. Continuing status of the N.P.O.
J. Straightening of Hall Blvd.
K. Requesting County Commissioners to recognize the
Neighborhood Plan.
3 The staff,-, was requested to draft th above recommend-
, ations for consideration at the October 2, 1973 Planning
Commission meeting.
4. The role of the N. P.O. was discussed and the Commission
agreed that the group should remain in existence and
be given the opportunity to express their views relative
to development and policy proposals affecting their
neighborhood. There was agreement that this group
should not hold hearings and become essentially a
neighborhood planning commission. Their role would
be advisory.
5. Ball expressed his dislike for the recommendation in
the Plan that a "motif" be selected as a theme for the
downtown redevelopment project.
A. The Commission concurred and instructed the staff
to include with the recommendation to Council that
they consider this proposal as a discussion of
possible alternatives and not a policy.
2. Design Review
1. Ball presented a draft of a design review ordinance }'
for consideration. He pointed out that this was a
conservative approach, typified by the fact that a
plan is presumed approved unless a negative vote is
cast by 4 of the 5 members serving on the board.
2. In response to a question from Mr. Brooks concerning
the generalness of the standards provided to guide
the actions of the board, Ball pointed out that.
A. Unlike the standards presently incorporated
in the landscaping ordinance where it is possible
to enumerate specifics such as setbacks and
percentage of landscaping, architectural consider-
ations can not include such specifics without
being unduly restrictive and arbitrary.
B. The need for a four out of five vote to disapprove
a plan is a safeguard against possible abuses
resulting from the general nature of the standards,
3. Ball also recommended that the design review ordinance,
if adopted, be merged with the existing site development
. �^m,G 4, i �,:?1?^ Vt.S "1
c.c.:z lam. '(
Page 2 - PC Study Session - 9-25-73
plan review ordinance and that the new board be
charge with review authority for the new expanded
ordiance. He stated that this would free up the
Planning Commission to do more planning and less
zoning.
4. Tom asked if the developer would be required to take
an additional step toward getting his plan approved.
Ball said no not if the landscape and architectural
ordinance were combined and that, in fact, the deve-
loper would be better off dealing with someone who
knows what their are talking about.
5. Hartman moved that the ordinance draft, related
report, be sent with a cover letter to the City
Council with recommendation for adoption. Nicoli
seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote
of the members present.
3. Priority Scheduling List
1. The discussion centered on neighborhood planning
2. Mr. Clark suggested that the work schedule ..-ubmitted
by the staff may be too ambitious and requested a
break-down of the work load into man hours required,
in order to assess its feasibility.
3. Whittaker suggested that the Triangle Plan be adopted
by the City on an interim basi and that the Greenburg
N. P.O. be formed immediately.
4. Ball suggested that the Derry-Dcll N.P.O. be made
the number two priority.
5. The Commissioners concurred with the suggestions of
Ball and Whittaker.
4. Review of the Proposed Minor Change
S.W. Summerfield Drive-Design Standards.
1. The Planning Commission approved the change to 8 foot
wide side-walks, on either side of the Spine Road in
Summerfield with the concurrence that drop curbs or
ramps be placed at intersections to facilitate bicycle
travel. cu Le04 prexee„ake.
Page 3 - PC Study Session - 9-25-73