Planning Commission Packet - 04/02/1974 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
, .
'ALL.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting, April 2, 1974
k Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room •
14650 S.W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
PUBLIC HEARING - 7s30 P.M.
1 . CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 Regular Meeting of March 5, 1974
Regular Meeting of March 19, 19i-4
Planning Session of March 26, 1974
4. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change
4.1 ZC 8-74 (City of Tigard)
A request by the City of Tigard to change existing County 2c7.ing to
comparable City zones within a newly annexed area. City pr .p.ses to ,.. args
County RU-4, (old R-7). Urban Residential District t. City R-7, Single
Family Residential District and County B (Ad C-2), General ENter_Fivt
Commercial District to City C-3, General Conitezcial District. The ,!uhject
/411 area comprises 5.20 acres adjacent S.W. Pacific Highway fr 'n. S,W. 69th
Aven” easterly to Washingtot-Multnsah County boundary. (Tax Map 1S1 36AD,
Te-..ncLots 4200, 5800, 5900, 5901, 6300, 6100, 6200, 6303, 6400, 6, 6390; Tax
Map 1S1 36DA, Tax Lot 100)
Staff Findings
Testimony & Cross Examination
Staff Recommendation .
Commission Discussion and Action
5. INFORMAL REVIEW - Planned Development District,
5.1 ZC 2-74 (Fletcher)
A request by Fletcher, Hansen and Parsons for review and approval of
the Preliminary Development Plan and Program of a proposed office and
bank planned development within a proposed M-4, Industrial Park zone. The
site is located at the southeas't corner of S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W. Varns
Street, comprising 9.36 acres, Existing zoning is County RU-4, Urban Residential
District. (Tax Map 2S1 1D, Tax Lot 900).
Staff Findings
Questions from Audience and Corn.!IssLin
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action
`
. ` _ �______`_-__
•
' 6.1 Proposed ordinance ammending Title 18, Tigard Municipal Code with respect
to the designation of fire zones.
Staff Comments
Testimony
Comffassion Discussion and Action .
6.2 Proposed ordinance ammending Title 18, Tigard Municipal Code with respect
to allowing combined furniture sales, warehousing and assembly as a
conditional u,le in an M-4, Industrial Park zone.
Staff Comments .1
Testimony '
Commission Discussion and Action
6.3 Proposed ordinance ammending Title 16, Tigard Municipal Code with respect il
to allowing transit bench signs, industrial park identification signs, —
directional signs; and further ammending Title 16 to alluw review of sign
standards & criterea as an element of Planned Development District procedure. ,
Staff Comments ,,
Testimony
Commission Discussion and Action '
7. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance L
A request by R. A. Gray and Company to vary a required 50 foot side yard setback I
, 4L: to a proposed 15 feet. The subject property is zoned M-4, Industrial Park
and is adjacent an R-7, Single Family Residential zone. The property is located ;'
at 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. (Tax Map 2S1 2BA, Tax Lot 300).
Testimony & Cross Examination
Staff Recommendation
Commission Discussion and Action 1
8. SUBDIVISIONS - Variance
8.1 Englewood - Phase I (Commonwealth Properties)
ki
Location: South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of Fanno Creek. ri
Staff Findings 1
Applicant's Testimony .
Staff Recommendations i
Commission Discussion and Action
II
•
PAGE 2 - COMMISSION AGENDA - APRIL 2, 1974 f '
r
•
r
• 9. SUBDIVISIONS - Preliminary Plat Approval
9.1 Englewood - Phase I (Commonwealth Properties)
. (
Locations South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of Fanno Creek.
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendations
Commission Discussion and Action_
10. MISCELLANEOUS
10,1 Concept Plan Review = CU 5-72 (R. A. Gray & Company)
Request for approval of concept site plan for warehouse and office develcpme t
located 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. Said plan to satisfy conditions placed on
approval of CU 5-72.
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendations
Commission Discussion and Action
10.2 Concept Plan Review - LC 5-72 (Summerfield) '
f
Request for approval of the phase 1 apartment complex within the "Sommerfie_t" f
development. Subject site located approximately 1000 feet east of the t
existing 'gatehouse° and between S.W. Durham Road and S.W. Summerfield Dive. 6'
r Staff Findings 1
Staff Recommendations I
Commission Discusssion and Action 1
a
' 10.3 Sign Code Appeal I
SCA 1-74 (Tigard Bargain House)
A request by Tigard Bargain House located at 13075 S.W. Pacific Highway,
to vary the standards of Title 16 (TMC) with respect to sign setbacks, sign
i
. content and sign support.
•
Staff Findings
Staff Recommendation
11. OTHER BUSINESS
12. ADJOURNMENT
ir PAGE 3 - COMMISSION AGENDA - APRIL 2, 1974
MINUES
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
( Regular Meeting April 2, 1974
Twality Jr. High School o Lecture Room
14650 S.W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Ball, Barkhurst, Frazier, Hansen, Hartman, Nicoll Sakata;
Chairman Whittaker; Planning Director Brooks; Associate Planner Bolen;
City Attorney Anderson.
B. Absent: Commissioner Mickelson.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The minutes of the March 5, 19 & 26, 1973 planning commission meet n s
were not approved as they had not yet been submitted.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change
4.1 ZC 8-74 (City of Tigard)
A request by the City of. Tigard to change existing County zoning to
comparable City zones within a newly annexed area. City proposes to
change County RU-4, (old R-7), Urban Residential District to City
R-7, Single Family Residential and County ,B-4 (old C-2), General
Extensive Commercial District to City C-3, General Commercial Distri:t.
The subject area comprises 5.20 acres adjacent S.W. Pacific Highway
from S.W. 69th Avenue easterly to Washington-Multnomah County boundary.
(Tax Map lSl 36AD, Tax Lots 4200, 5800, 5900, 5901, 6000, 6100, 6200,
6300, 6400, & 6390; Tax Map 1S1 36DA, Tax Lot 100).
A. Staff Findings
1. Brooks presented findings relevant to this case.
B. Testimony & Cross Examination
1. Proponents
a. Lucy Mayernik, owner of the property on the corner of 69th -. _`:e
and Pacific Highway, had a question concerning the boundaries of
the proposed rezoning. She asked why the lot now used by 7cd ' s
Restaurant for parking to the north of that facility was not
included in the limits of this rezoning.
b. Brooks replied that this lot was not included in the annex_?_:__ awl'
therefore the City had no jurisdiction for rezoning.
2. Opponents
a. No one appeared in opposition to this request.
F `" C. Staff Recommendation
1. Approval of City's request to change existing zoning classifications
to comparable City zones. Said changes are described as follows:
All County B-4, General Extensive Commercial District to City C-3,
General Commercial zone. All County RU-4, Urban Residential District
to City R-7, Single Family Residential zone.
D. Commission Discussion and Action
1. Hartman moved to approve the request based upon the staff findings.
In addition, the staff was directed to research the annexation file
to see that the parking lot adjacent to Todd's Restaurant was not
included in the annexation.
2. Ball seconded Hartman's motion stating his belief that the City has
the obligation to change zones to bring them into conformance with
their ordinances when areas are annexed.
3. The motion was passed by unanimous vote of the members present.
5. INFORMAL REVIEW - Planned Development District
5.1 ZC 2-74 (Fletcher)
A request by Fletcher, Hansen and Parsons for review and approval of the
Preliminary Development Plan and Program for a proposed office and bank
planned development within a proposed M-4, Industrial Park zone. The
site is located at the southeast corner of S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W. Varns
Street, comprising 9.36 acres. Existing zoning is County RU-4, Urban
Residential District. (Tax Map 2S1 lD, Tax Lot 900).
A. Staff Findings
1. Brooks presented the staff findings relevant to this case.
B. Questions from Audience and Commission'
1. Don Puderbaugh spoke for the applicant, introducing Alex Arseniev
who had conducted a traffic engineering study for this site. Mr.
Arseniev presented the results of his study.
2. Brooks asked Mr. Arseniev where he had obtained his traffic count
data for 72nd Avenue.
3. Mr. Arseniev said that he had obtained them from 1972 City of Tigard
traffic counts and had brought them up to the present date by adding
a multiplier of 1.25.
4. Ball asked what effect both ingress and egress from Varns Street
would have upon the traffic circulation pattern of the area.
PAGE 2 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL' 2, 1974
5. Mr. Arseniev replied that system would function adequately with both
access and egress to Varns Street.
6. Hartman asked if one entrance on 72nd Avenue could,be eliminated.
7. Mr. Arseniev replied that this would not be advised due to the
shallow stacking lane for Varns Street which is off-set at the two
points where it enters 72nd Avenue.
8. Hartman said that he was opposed to an access point to the site adjacent
Fir Street on 72nd Avenue.
9. Frazier asked Mr. Arseniev if he foresees any future need for traffic
signals on 72nd Avenue.
10. Mr. Arseniev stated that there is a need at the present time for
a signal or at the very least a 4-way stop sign arrangement at the
intersection of. 72nd Avenue and Hunziker Street.
11. Ball asked Brooks if the school district had been notified as
to
this proposal.
12. Brooks said no they had not been notified.
C. Staff Recommendation
1. Approval, in principal, of the submitted "preliminary development plan
and program" subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant add an additional access-egress point at the
• southwestern corner of the subject site.
b. The applicant revise the traffic consultant's proposal for
exit only at the site access point on S.W. Varns to include
both egress and access to the subject site.
c. The applicant move the proposed bank to the southwestern corner of
the subject site.
d. The applicant add an• attorney and a landscape architect to the
Design Team.
e. The applicant provide, as a program element of the General Development
Plan and Program, a detailed statement of any future ownership pattern
within the subject site and describe in detail how common areas,
access and improvements will be maintained under such future
ownership arrangement.
f. The applicant provide a market analysis of greater detail than the
"Comments on Office Space Survey" provided with the preliminary
development plan and program. Major emphasis should be placed upon
the need for a bank on the subject site.
D. Commission Discussion and Action
PAGE 3 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
1. Ball moved to approve the preliminary plan and program subject to the
staff recommended conditions and with the understanding on the part of
the applicant that the Planning Commission is not contracting away its
final rights as regards the zone change requests.
2. Sakata seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote of the members
present,
3. Ball said that he is concerned about the applicant's ability to demonstrate
a community need for a project which is planned to be constructed in
phases over a period of time. He therefore asked the applicant's concern
themselves with this matter by preparing the final plan and program.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning and Sign Ordinance Revisions
6.1 Proposed ordinance amending Title 18, Tigard Municipal Code with respect
to the designation of fire zones.
A. Staff Comments
1, Brooks presented the staff findings relevant to this case,
B. Testimony
1. There was no one present to testify concerning this matter.
C. Commission Discussion and Action
1. Barkhurst moved to approve the recommended revision to the Tigard
Municipal Code with respect to the designation of fire zones and
send this proposal on to the Building Official for his review and
recommendation prior to being delivered to the City Council,
Frazier seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote of members
present.
6.2 Proposed ordinance amending Title 18, Tigard Municipal Code with respect
to allowing combined furniture sales, warehousing and assembly as a
conditional use in an M-4, Industrial Park zone.
A. Staff Comments
1, Brooks presented staff findings relevant to this case,
B. Testimony
1, Dick Waker, of the Murray McCormick environmental group, spoke in
favor of the proposed amendment and urged the Planning Commission to
recommend its inclusion of the zoning ordinance to the City Council,
C. Commission Discussion and Action
( 1, Nicoll moved to approve the proposed amendment to include combined
assembly, warehousing and retail sales of furniture in the M-4,
Industrial Park zone, Barkhurst seconded and the motion passed by
unanimous vote of the members present.
PAGE 4 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
•
•
6.3 Proposed ordinance amending Title 16, Tigard Municipal Code with respect
to allowing transit bench signs, industrial park identification signs,
directional signs; and further amending Title 16 to allow review of sign
" standards and criterea as an element of Planned Development District procedure,
A. Staff Comments
1. Brooks presented staff findings relevant to this case.
B. Testimony
1. Dave Johnson, of Oregon Sign Company, spoke for the amendments
urging the Planning Commission to adopt the 'portion allowing
Industrial Park identification signs.
C. Commission Discussion and Action —
1. Barkhurst questioned the bench sign portion of the proposed amendment
stating his concern that one person or company could monopolize the
bench sign, locations within the City by applying for permits on all
of the permitted sites.
2. Hansen asked who would hear an appeal concerning the location of
bench signs.
3. Brooks said the Planning Commission now acts as the Sign Code
Board of Appeals and would therefore hear any appeals.
4. Hartman said that the Bench Sign ordinance would not work as there are
not any designated bus stops in the City of Tigard.
{
5. Brooks said that possibly the Planning Commission would be asked to II'
approve designated bus stops and that the Planning staff and Public
Works staff would approve the placement of signs on these designated
stops.
6. In response to a question of Barkhurst concerning the amount of
insurance which a bench sign company should have, Fred Anderson al
stated that if there is such a risk involved that the City
sees a need for insurance, it would not be allowed at all.
7. Ball moved to table consideration of the bench sign portion of
the proposed amendment until a future meeting. Hartman seconded
and the motion passed by unanimous vote of members present.
8. Hansen moved that the proposed amendment concerning directional signs
be approved according to the staff recommendation. Nicoll seconded and';
the motion passed by majority vote. Hartman abstained stating that he
sees no need for directional signs within the City and Barkhurst
voted NAY.
9. Sakata moved to approve the Industrial Park identification portion
of the proposed amendment according to the staff recommendation.
Hartman seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote of members
present.
PAGE 5 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
-.....,..-....--rm , -
. i
• 10. Barkhurst moved to approve the portion of the proposed amendment !
to the sign code which would provide standards and criterea for
( consideration 6f signs as an element of the planned development
'1(: proc,,,,dure. Frazier seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote
of members present. i
7. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance
7.1 V 1-74 (R, A. Gray & Company)
A request by R. A. Gray and Company to vary a required 50 foot side i
yard setback to a proposed 15 feet, The subject property is zoned M-4,
Industrial Park and is adjacent an R-7, Single Family Residential zone. i
The property is located at 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. (Tax Map 2S1 2BA, i
h
Tax Lot 300).
k
_
A. Staff Findings
1. Brooks presented the staff findings relevant to this case. 1
B. Testimony & Cross Examination
t
1. Proponents
a. R. A. Gray spoke for the request referring the Planning Commission ,
to his letter which he stated met the four requirements for a
variance as established by the Tigard Municipal Code, He also
pointed out that a site-development plan for the total project had
(
41: been submitted as requested by the Planning Commission at their ,
previous hearing.
2. Opponents
a. No one appeared in opposition to the request.
r.'
3. Other i
a, The staff presented five letters to the Planning Commission from
ri
adjoining property owners stating their opinion of Mr. Gray's
development.
1'I
C. Staff Recouauendation
r,
1. Staff recommended approval of a 25 foot setback where 50 feet is required p
in the M-4, Industrial Park zone.
D. Commission DiscUssion and Action
1. Ball asked Brooks why he recommended 25 feet rather than the 20
feet being requested.
2. Brooks said that the 25 feet is based upon the proposed 25 foot height
of the building and the need to protect the existing residentially
(41IL zoned property from encroachment.
PAGE 6 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
S
. i
3. Ball stated his belief that Mr. Gray's letter does meet the points
FF previously raised but stated that he is still concerned about
pre-empting NPO #2's ability to plan for this area. He then
suggested that if this variance were approved a condition could
be attached for dedication of a greenway and construction of �.
a bicycle path in consideration of the adjacent residential area. '
4. Barkhurst asked Mr. Gray how he feels about the 25 feet recommended
by the staff versus the 20 feet he had requested.
5. Mr. Gray said that this is in effect stealing 5 feet of landscaping
from the interior portion of this site.
6. Ball stated that the variance should be to 20 feet not 25 feet
because the reason for granting is based upon the fact the adjacent
parcel will be zoned M=4 thereby allowing a 20 foot setback on the applicant'
property. (e
7. Frazier said that if the Planning Commission is going to ignore this
50 foot setback requirement that it should be stricken from the
ordinance and also stated his concern for the adjacent houses.
8. Hartman moved that the 20 foot variance request by approved based
upon the applicant's having met the requirements for a variance
as described by the Tigard Municipal Code.
9. Ball moved that the motion be amended to state that the applicant dedicate
to the City an area for a greenway as shown on the concept
plan submitted by the applicant and will construct a bicycle path in
this portion of the greenway. Barkhurst seconded.
10. Whittaker stated that he will vote for the variance based upon the
inclusion of this amendment but does not feel that the bikepath
construction should be included as a condition.
11. Hartman asked Ball if he would change his amendment to state that the
time the bike path is constructed that the applicant pay 507..
12. Brooks stated that the immediate concern for the greenway program is
acquisition of right-of-way and no means of -financing construction 1
has been established.
13. Ball deleted from his amendment to Hartman's motion the portion
requiring construction of the bicycle path.
14. The commission voted on Ball's amendment and it passed by a majority
vote.
15. The Commission voted on Hartman's motion as amended and it passed
by majority vote with Frazier voting NAY.
8. SUBDIVISIONS - Variance •
l '. 8.1 Englewood Phase 1 (Commonwealth Properties)
Locations South of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of Fannin Creek.
PAGE 7 COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
A. Staff Findings
k. 1. Brooks presented staff findings relevant to this case which included
a letter from the fire marshall of Washington County Fire District #1.
B. Applicant's Testimony
1. Dick Waker, of the Murray McCormick Environmental Group, explained
the requested variances to the Planning Commission, He stated that
the request for reduced street widths was to allow more areas for
open space use to include a 2.5 acre City park and a greenway with
bicycle paths.
The request for deletion of certain sidewalks is for those areas
where a path is located adjacent the subject lots in the greenway,
providing an alternate pedestrian system. —
C. Commission Discussion and Action
1. Hartman moved to approve the variance for street right-of-way width
from 50 feet to 40 feet on S.W. Beechwood Court and S.W. Lakewood
Court. The front five feet of lots fronting these streets shall be a
utility easement. Barkhurst seconded and the motion passed by unanimous
vote of the members present.
2. Hartman moved to approve the variance from the required 34 foot pavement
standard. to allow 32 feet of pavement on S.W. Beechwood Court and
`` S.W. Lakewood Court. Frazier seconded.
3. Ball said that he would vote against the motion as the fire marshall
cites a need for the 34 foot street and to vote for the motion would be
against the public safety.
4. The motion was put to a vote and failed by a majority. Barkhurst
then moved to approve the applicant's request for 28 feet of pavement
on S.W. Beechwood Court and S.W. Lakewood Court. Hartman seconded
and the motion failed by a majority vote.
5. Because the motion failed, the variance request is denied.
6. Hartman moved the requested variance for 40 foot radius cul-de-sac
widths on S.W. Beechwood Court and S.W. Lakewood Court where 50 foot
radius cul-de-sac right-of-way widths are required. He included
in his motion that a five foot utility easement be provided on the front
portion of lots fronting these cul-de-sacs. Hansen seconded and
the motion passed by unanimous vote of members present,
7. Barkhurst moved to approve the requested variance from the sidewalk
requirements, allowing no sidewalks on S.W. Beechwood Court and S.W.
Lakewood Court stating that to require sidewalks on these streets
would involve a hardship and an alternative pedestrian system has been
provided in the greenway. Hansen seconded and the motion failed by
a majority vote and the variance was thereby denied.
PAGE 8 - COMMISSION MINUTES m APRIL 2, 1974
1
8. Barkhurst Toyed to approve the requested variance from the
,Apr sidewalk requirements allowing sidewalks on one side of S.W. Springwood
k IL Drive and cne side of S.W. Dellwood Loop with the exception of lots
1 through 10 on Dellwood Loop. The motion died for lack of a second,
9. Barkhurst then moved to allow sidewalks on one side of S.W. Dellwood
Loop except that a sidewalk be provided on both sides of S.W. Dellwood
Loop in that area of Dellwood Loop frontal by Lots 1 through 12. Hansen
seconded and the motion passed by a majority vote with Sakata voting
NAY,
10. Hartman moved to deny the variance request for a sidewalk on one side
of S.W. Springwood Drive, Sakata seconded and the motion passed by
unanimous vote of members present.
Hartman left at 11s00 P:R.
10, MISCELLANEOUS
10,1 Concept plan review - CU 5-72 (R. A. Gray & Company)
Request for approval of concept site plan for warehouse and office
development located at 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. Said plan to satisfy
conditions placed on approval of CU 5-72.
A. Staff Findings
1. Brooks presented staff findings relevant to this case.
B. Staff Recommendation
I. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's submitted concept
plan subject to the following revisionsg
a. That any industrial building shall be shown no closer than 25
feet to the property line of an adjacent residential zone.
b. That the structures on the site plan be moved to reflect a 20 foot
landscaped front yard.
C. Commission Discussion and Action
1. Barkhurst moved to approve the submitted site plan subject to the
folloWing conditionss
a. That any buildings in the project have a maximum height of 25 feet.
b. That any industrial building shall be shown no closer than 20 feet
to the property line of an adjacent residential zone.
c. That the structures on the site plan be moved to reflect a 20 foot
landscaped front yard.
tlko, d. That the approved concept plan be forwarded to the Design Review
Board for use as a guideline in reviewing specific site development
proposals.
PAGE 9 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
e, That the greenway dedication `line be defined by the line shown on
., the submitted site plan adjacent Fanno Creek and this land be
' dedicated to the public,
f. That the portion of the site located in the greenway be returned to its
natural grade.
Frazier seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote of the members
present,
10.2 Concept Plan Review - ZC 5-72 (Summerfield)
Request for approval of the phase 1 apartment complex within the "Summer-
field" development, Subject site located approximately 1000 feet east of the
existing 'gatehouse' and between SW Durham Road and SW Summerfield Drive.
A. Staff Findings
1. Brooks presented the staff findings relevant to this case,
B. Staff Recommendation
1. Staff recommended tabling agenda item to allow the applicant sufficient
time to revise the subject concept plan to include the following:
a. A loop traffic circulation system, allowing traffic to enter the site
l from S.W. Summerfield Drive and. circulate through the entire site
on the "Main Traffic Lanes",
b. No backing movements shall be allowed onto the "Main Traffic Lanes".
Formal approval of the concept plan should be subject to the following
condition:
That the applicant submit, with the detailed site development plan,
a drainage study and plan acceptable to the City and Washington
County Public Works Departments,
C. Commission Discussion and Action
1. Chairman Whittaker asked the project architect, Ray Bartel, to present
the proposed changes to the Commission,
2, Mr, Bartel pointed out the changes based upon the Tualatin Development
Corporation's inability to retain a parcel of land on Durham Road.
3, Ball said that he would abstain from deliberating on this item.
4. Frazier moved to table the item according to the staff recommendation
to allow provision of additional information from'.the fire marshall
and to allow the staff to further research the need for pavement
width minimums as required by the Tigard Municipal Code.
k
5. Nicoli seconded and the motion passed by majority vote with Barkhurst
voting NAY.
PAGE 10 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
10.3 Sign Code Appeal
SCA 1-74 (Tigard Bargain House) •
A request by Tigard Bargain House -located at 13075 S.W. Pacific Highway,
to vary the standards of Title 16 ( MC) with respect to sign setbacks, sign
content and sign support. ,
A. Staff Findings
• , $
1. Brooks presented staff findings relevant to this case,.
•$ •
B. Staff Recommendation ,
. 1. Staff recommended denial of this request.
" • .
C. Commission Discussion and Action •
1. Ball moved to deny the request and to instruct the staff to work
with the applicant and the sign company, for a,solution of his
problein. Frazier seconded and' the raotion'pas,s,ed by unanimous vote
of members present.
11. OTHER BUSINESS -
A. Whittaker moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council
that the County be requested €o work with the City in providing a traffic
light at the intersection of S.W. klunziker and S.W. 72nd Aven.ue. Sakata
seconded and the motion passed by unanimous vote Ok members present.
12. ADJOURNMENT
A. Meeting was adjourned at 12s10 A.M.
, .
•
. • ,
PAGE 11 - COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1974
. •
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
April 2, 1974
Agenda Item 4.1
ZC 8-74 (City of Tigard)
Zone Change
For property located adjacent SW Pacific Highway from SW 69th Avenue
easterly to Washington-Multnomah County. (Tax Map 1S1 36AD, Tax Lots
4200, 5800, 5900, 5901, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6400 & 6390; Tax Map 1S1
36DA, Tax Lot 100).
Applicant
City of Tigard
Applicant's Request
Approval of a change in zoning classifications from the existing County zoning
to comparable City zones. Requested changes are summarized as follows:
Existing County Zoning Proposed City Zoning
From: RU-4 (old R-7), Urban To: R-7, Single Family Residential
Residential District
From: B-4 (old C-2), General To: C-3, General Commercial District
Extensive Commercial District
Applicant's Proposal
To facilitate administration of Tigard's planning effort and to carry out
the intent of the Tigard Community Plan by changing existing County zoning
to comparable City zones.
Staff Findings
1. Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 227.310 states the following with
regard to zoning in annexed areas.
"Zoning and Land Use regulations applicable to area outside Citx
continue to apply to area when included within City until altered
or discontinued by city. Zoning or land use ordinances or zoning
regulations applicable to any area not Within a City shall not cease to
apply to the area merely because such area is later included within
a city, but shall continue to apply until altered or discontinued by
the legislative body of the City in a manner provided by law."
2. Tigard Municipal Code, Section 18.12.020 Annexations states the
following:
"Zoning regulations applicable to an area prior to annexation to the
city shall continue to apply and shall be enforced by the city until
a zone change for the area has been adopted by the City Council..."
3. Generally, the proposed zone changes involve a strip of commercial
development on the north and south sides of S.W. Pacific Highway.
The following businesses are located within the subject area:
Page 2 April 2, 1974
Staff Report Agenda Item 4.1
Texaco & Mobil service stations
Tigard Inn Motel
M1_ Key West Restaurant & Lounge
Kentucky Fried Chicken
Todd's Restaurant
Gaffer's Pub Office
One single family dwelling exists on the southeast corner of S.W.
69th Avenue and Pine Street. A Portland General Electric sub-station
is located south of S.W. Pacific Highway, adjacent the Mobil service
station and Gaffer's office building.
All property fronting on S.W. Pacific Highway is currently zoned
County B-4, General Extensive Commercial. The single family dwelling
is currently zoned County RU-4, Urban Residential and the PGE sub-station
site is split zoned County B-4 and RU-4.
Please see attached map.
4. The Tigard Community Plan designates, with one exception, the subject
area as General Commercial"' these areas being intended to "accomodate
a range of retail and service commercial uses that benefit from a highway
oriented location".
The exception to the General Commercial designation involves the southern-
most portion of the PGE sub-station site. This area is designated
41; Residential-Commercial by the Tigard Community Plan. This designation is
"intended to accomodate higher-density dwelling structures, including
high-rise apartments, combined with a range of compatible office and business
uses.
5. The existing County zoning designations and the City zoning designations
are roughly equivalent with the following exceptions:
County B-4 (old C-2) General Extensive Commercial District.
Permitted Uses: Any retail business; parking garages & passenger terminals;
wholesale businesses; manufacturing and processing, provided their entire
output is sold on the premises; building supply, equipment establishments,
retail lumber yards, service establishments; automobile sales showrooms &
lots; recreation vehicle sales showrooms and lots; drive-in business; farm
implement, truck and heavy equipment• sales showrooms and lots; mobile
home sales, lots and service facilities; veterinary hospitals; open air
businesses; offices; institutional uses; automobile and vehicle repair,
welding shop and automobile service part facilities.
City C-3, General Commercial.
Permitted Uses: See sections 18.28 and 18.32 (TMC) for permitted and
conditional uses.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of City's request to change existing county zoning classifications to
comparable City zones. Said changes are descirbed as follows:
All County B-4, General Extensive Commercial District to City C-3, General Commercial
zone. All County RU-4, Urban Residential District to City R-7, Single Family
Residential zone.
IS'
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
April 2, 1974
Addemndum to March 5, 1974 staff report f'
Agenda Item 5.1
ZC 2-74 (Fletcher) II
Informal Review - Planned Development District I,
For property located at the southeast corner of S.W. 72nd Avenue and S.W.
Varns Street, comprising 9.36 acres (Tax Map 2S1 1D, Tax Lot 900). ?-
Applicant
Fletcher, Hansen & Parsons
Applicant's Request'
To receive"approval in principal" of preliminary development plan and program
as related to a proposed Planned Devel ment, M-4 Industrial Park zone change.
Applicant's Proposal
Upon approval of a PD, M-4 zone change, to construct an office building(s)
and a bank.
Staff Findings
1. See March 5, 1974 staff report for additional findings 1?
2. The Planning Commission on March 5, 1974 took action to continue this
item so that the applicant could prepare a traffic circulation study
relating to the subject site. The applicant was also asked to provide
a more detailed description of the proposed ownership pattern and, the legal
protection available for common areas and improvements. (See March 5, 1974 ';1
P.C. minutes.)
r4
3. The applicant has completed a traffic circulation study related to the
subject site. The Planning Commission and the staff reviewed the study document
entitled 'Traffic Study for Tigard Commercial Office Park' as prepared by
Sleavin-Kors Consulting Engineers and presented at the March 26, 1974
Planning Commission Study Session. The staff, with one exception, concurs with
the recommendations contained in this study. The exception concerns the egress
only driveway onto SW Varns Street. The staff feels it is unrealistic to assume t.
that no traffic will occur on SW Varns wanting to use SW Varns as an access
to the site. Some vehicles will probably turn onto Varns mistakenly thinking ">
SW Varns an access to the subject site and the having no alternative but to return
to SW 72nd to gain site access. The staff recommends making the Varns Street
egress drive a two-way access point, while encouraging motorists to use the
72nd access points by means of signing and increased stacking room for left
turns from SW 72nd into the site.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, in principal, of the submitted "preliminary development plan and program" 1
subject to the following conditions:
Staff Report -2- April 2, 1974
Agenda Item # 5.1 ZC 2-74
t , '
1. The applicant add an additional access-egress point at the southwestern
corner of the subject site.
2. The applicant revise the traffic consultant's proposal for exit only
at the site access point on SW Varns to include both egress and access to the �.
subject site.
3. The applicant move the proposed bank to the southwestern• corner of the
subject site.
4. The applicant add an attorney and a landscape architect to the Design Team.
5. The applicant provide, as a program element of the General Development Plan
and Program, a detailed statement of any future ownership pattern within the
subject site and describe in deatil how common areas, access and improvements
will be maintained under such future ownership arrangement.
6. The applicant provide a market analysis of greater detail than the
"Comments on Office Space Survey" provided with the preliminary development
plan and program. Major emphasis should be placed upon the need for a bank
on the subject site.
Iiii
1
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
April 2, 1974 (Addendum to March 19, 1974 Staff Report)
Agenda Item 7.1
V 1-74 (R. A. Gray & Company)
Variance
For property located at 9920 S.W. Tigard Street. (Tax Map 2S1 2BA, Tax Lot 300).
Applicant
R. A. Gray & Company
Applicant's Request
To vary a required 50 foot side yard setback to a proposed 15 feet.
Applicant's Proposal
To construct a warehouse structure on the subject property.
Staff Findings
1. This item was tabled at the March 19, 1974 Planning Commission hearing
to allow the staff time to research the requested variance.
2. Zoning, land use and site maps are attached for review as well as the
applicant's justification for a variance.
3. The subject site and the easterly adjacent property are designated
General Industrial by the Tigard Community Plan, said plan stating this
designation is "to provide locations for a wide range of industrial uses
that are compatible with one another." The plan also states an objective
of the General Commercial designation is "to protect land designated for
industry from encroachment by uses which are not compatible."
4. The preliminary Greenburg-Brookside Neighborhood Plan.designates the
subject site for industrial use.
5. Section 18.52.040 (2) (TMC) states that in the M-4, Industrial Park zones
"the sideyard setback shall be twenty feet, except when abutting or across
the street from a residential zone, a side yard setback of fifty feet shall be ,
required. :
6. The minimum side yard setback now occurring on the site is 20 feet adjacent
a County RU-4, Urban Residential District.
7. The applicant has submitted a statement relating to those conditions for
variance approval as described in Section 18.76.020 (TMC). See attached letter.
8. The applicant has revised his setback request from 15 feet to 20 feet.
Staff Report -2- April 2, 1974
Agenda Item # 7.1 V 1-74
9. Section 18.76.010 (Tigard Municipal Code) states "... the planning
commission may authorize variances from the requirements of this title where
it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circumstances related to
specific piece of property, the literal interpretation of this title would cause
as undue to unnecessary hardship...In granting a variance the planning commission
may attach conditions which it finds necessary to protect the best interests
of the surrounding property or neighborhood and to otherwise achieve the
purposes of this title".
In addition Section 18.76.020 (Tigard Municipal Code) states that "no variance
shall be granted by the planning commission unless it can be shown that all the
following conditions exist:
(a) Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the property that-do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity,
which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other
circumstances over which the applicant has no control;
(b) The variance is necessary to the preservation of a property right
of the applicant substantially the same as is possessed by owners of
other property in the same zone or vicinity;
(c) The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to
the purposes of this title, be injurious to property in the zone or
vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise detrimental to
the objectives of any city development plan or policy;
(d) The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions
and standards of this title which will alleviate the hardship."
Staff Recommendation.
Approval of a 25 foot setback where 50 feet is required.
{
Y
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
April 2, 1974
•
Agenda Item 8.1 •
S 1-73 (Englewood - Phase 1) •
Subdivision Varianc e
For property located south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of Fanno
Creek.
Applicant
Commonwealth Properties
Applicant's Request
Approval of the following variances:
Section 17.28.040 - Minimum right-of-way & widths for road surfacing.
1. Right-of-way widths variance from a required 50 feet to 40 feet
on the following proposed streets.
r
S.W. Beechwood Court
S.W. Lakewood Court
2. Street paving widths variance from a required 34 feet to 28 feet
on the following proposed streets.
S.W. Beechwood Court
S.W. Lakewood Court .
3. Cul-de-sac right-of-way widths from a required 50 foot radius to 40
foot radius on the following proposed streets.
S.W. Beechwood Court
S.W. Lakewood Court
Section 17.44.040 - Sidewalks
1. No sidewalks, where sidewalks are required on both sides of street.
S.W. Beechwood Court
• S.W. Lakewood Court
i
2. Sidewalks on one side of street and adjacent curb, where sidewalks are
required on both sides of street and adjacent property line.
S.W. Dellwood Loop
S.W. Springwood Drive
Staff Findings
1. The Tigard Municipal Code states the following with respect to variances
for subdivisions:
•
1
Staff Report -2- April 2, 1974
a Agenda Item 8.1 S 1-73
r "17.48.010 Applicant for exception. Applicant for a variance may be made
with respect to a proposed subdivision, proposed major or minor partitioning,
by filing a request for same with the City Recorder. Such application shall
be supported by a full disclosure of all material facts upon which petitioner
proposes to rely in seeking such variance, including a copy of tentative map
or plat of the proposed partitioning or subdivision."
17.48.020 and 17.48.030 (see attached).
2. On July 9, 1973 the Tigard City Council approved a zone change from County
S-R, Suburban Residential to City P-D, Planned Development District. The Phase
1 subdivision configuration conforms to the General Development Plan & Program
of the P-D approval.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Continue hearing to the Planning Commission's April 16, 1974 regular meeting.
Because the petitioner has not fully disclosed all material facts upon which
they propose to rely in seeking subject variance (Section 17.48.010) and
because Planning Commission findings are required to be reduced to writing
and the particular facts in support of approval or denial fully set forth; the
staff recommends the Planning Commission obtain material facts by applicant,
submission and testimony. Upon acquisition of the material facts, the
Planning Commission should then informally move for approval or denial and
the staff directed to reduce to writing certain findings. These findings
will be submitted to the Planning Commission at their April 16, 1974 regular
meeting.
•
'i a;-,f,t,- , "17.48.020 Findin:s re•' 'fired. A variance from the eta�i ` -k,rt +:3+`
•ar•s o t s t t e s all not be granted by the planning . .
; commission unless the commission' shall find from the faots •
, presented at said hearing all of the following:
L,
"(1) That there are special circumstances or con-
ditions affecting the property which are unusual and
•
, ,}; peculiar to the lands or development of the project in-
volved as compared to other lands similarly situated.
"(2) That the variance sought , is necessary and the
`;-, minimum required for the preservation and protection of a
substantial property interest of petitioner to the degree
• that extraordinary hardship would result from strict com-
f. pliance with the regulations of this chapter applicable
to the particular subdivision, major or minor partitioning
L .
involved.
"(3) That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare but
will be consistent therewith and shall not be injurious
to the rights of other property owners in the near vicinity
nor constitute a departure from or be in violation of the
comprehensive •plan of the City of Tigard.
. "(4) That the applicant's proposal for variance in a
subdivision or major or minor land partitioning conforms
to and is consistent with all other regulatory requirements
of Titles 17' and 18, Tigard Municipal Code, that adequate
:+ provision is made for traffic circulation, recreation, open
spaces and similar factors, and that variance sought has been
iiIr
considered by other public agencies concerned with fire pro-
tection, sewer, water, and other utilities , as well as envi-
ronmental factors, and the written comments of such regula-
";' tory bodies as applicable is submitted as part of the record.
Y "17. 48.030 Grantin_ or denial of variance.
a er ear ng, n ormu a ng indings, the plan-
• ning commission shall adhere substantially to the objectives •
of the particular regulations from the effect of which the
variance is sought. .
"(b) The planning commission may require sueh• restri•c-
1 ;.; tive or other use covenants as may be required to assure
conformity to and achievement of the public interest objec-
'j` tives inherently involved in the proposal.
"(c) The findings shall ,be reduced to writing and the
�: particular facts in support of the approval or denial of
the request shall be fully set forth. The variance, if
granted, shall be specifically defined and fully described
together with all conditions, limitations or additional re-
quirements clearly designated. •
"(d) The planning commission may, at its option, ex
• tend final approval or may by motion transmit its recomen-
dations and findings to the city council. The council may,
after review of-the record, findings and determination of
•� . • the planning commission, amend, rescind or affirm any
action previously taken by the planning commission.
1 •
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
•
April 2, 1974
Agenda Item 9.1
S 1-73 (Englewood Phase 1)
Preliminary Plat Approval
For property located south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and westerly of Fanno
Creek.
Applicant
Commonwealth Properties.
Applicant's Request
Approval of the Englewood subdivision - Phase 1 preliminary plat.
Staff FindilL1 j
1. Because of the staff recommendation related to variances associated with this
item, the staff requests this item be continued to the Commission's April 16, 1974
regular meeting.
'
1.
• 7
i
d
1
y
E
•
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
G
1) April 2, 1974
Agenda Item 10.1
CU 5-72 (R. A. Gray & Company)
■
Concept Plan Review 1
For property located at 9920 S.W. Tigard Avenue. Tigard Industrial Park.
Applicant
R. A. Gray & Company
Applicant's Request
Approval of concept plan to partially satisfy condition #5 of a conditional
use approval as described in Ordinance 72-31.
Staff Findings
1. On April 10, 1972 the City Council took. action to approve a conditional
use on the subject property (Ord. 72-31). Condition #5 of this action stated:
" The Planning Commission shall review and approve the building and site
development plans for Phases I, II, III, & IV prior to the issuance of
building permits. Greenway dedication & easement shall be considered by the 4.
Planning Commission at the time Phase II is submitted."
2. On March 21, 1972 the Planning Commission took action to approve the +{
construction of a warehouse 25 feet from the side property line on the
subject site and subject to the following pertinent condition: "That the
Planning Commission review and approve. the final site development plan".
On June 19, 1973, the Planning Commission moved to approve the site development
plan for Phases I & II of the subject development. ,
3. The applicant, at the request of the Planning Commissiona and the staff, t
has submitted a concept plan and written statement for approval by the Planning
Commission (see attached statement) and to partially satisfy the condition
stated in finding #1 of this report.
4. The submitted plan and statement is an adequate document to guide future
development on the subject site with the following exceptions: °Any sideyard
setback a residential zone should be a minimum of 25 feet and any building adjacent
such a setback should not exceed one story or 25 feet in height. °The front
20 feet shall be landscaped according to Section 18.58.080 (TMC). The
concept plan now indicates a 10 foot landscaped front yard. `
5. The Planning Commission may consider an approved concept plan as a
guideline for review of detailed site plans before the Site Development Plan
& Design Review Board.
Staff Recommendation ,
Ar
IL, Approval of the applicant's submitted concept plan subject to the following
revisions:
Staff Report -2- April 2, 1974
Agenda Item # 10.1 CU 5-72
° That any industrial building shall be shown no closer than 25 feet
to the property line of an adjacent residential zone.
That the structures on the site plan be moved to reflect a 20 foot
landscpaed front yard.
It is further recommended that the approved concept plan.be forwarded to the
Design Review Board for use as a guideline when reviewing specific site
development proposals.
•
•
-TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
April 2, 1974
Agenda Item No. 10.2
ZC 5-72 (Summerfield)
Concept Plan Review
For phase one apartment complex within the "Summerfield" development. Subject
site located approximately 1000 feet east of the existing 'gatehouse' and
between S.W. Durham Road and S.W. Summerfield Drive.
Applicant
Ray Bartel for the Tualatin Development Company.
Applicant's Request
Review and approval of revised concept plan, including approval of density,
traffic circulation pattern; driveway widths and parking ratio so the applicant
drawings fulfill the conditions placed u
may proceed with working draw g placed upon the
y P
"Summerfield" Planned Development zone change. (See attached October 2, 1973
staff report).
Staff Findings
1. On October 2, 1973, the Planning Commission acted to approve the
original concept plan for Phase 1 "Summerfield" apartments. (See attached
staff report & minutes of October 2, 1973 meeting).
liw 2. The applicant's current concept plan should be considered a new request
for approval.
3. The applicant's proposal includes all of Phase 1 and a portion of Phase
2 apartment development as shown in exhibit "D" of the P-D District approval.
4. The lake indicated in said exhibit "D" has been eliminated in the applicant's
proposal.
5. Density - The proposed density of 14.3 dwelling units per acre conforms
with previous information submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the
General Development Plan and Program.
6. The City Engineering staff and the Tualatin Rural Fire District are currently
reviewing the subject concept plan. Their comments will be available on April
2, 1974.
7. Circulation & Driveway Widths - The proposed development contains 160 units
with a potential of housing 400 persons at 2.5 persons per unit. 104 units
and 260 persons will be located on the easterly access drive, an 820 foot
cul-de-sac. Section 17.28.110 of Tigard's Subdivision Ordinance states "a
cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and in no event shall be more than 600
feet long."
The "Main Traffic Lanes" described for major access into the subject units are.
proposed for 24-27 foot paved widths with no parking. The City cannot enforce
�, parking requirements on private property. Access to the subject units will be
via private driveways. The City requires a 34 foot paving width in a standard
single family subdivision, with parking allowed on both sides.
Staff Report -2- • April 2, 1974
Agenda Item No. 10.2 ZC 5-72 I,
More flexible access is necessary for emergency vehicles to adequately
Y., serve the subject site's population.
8. Parking Ratio The applicant proposes 2.2 parking spaces per dwelling
unit. This is well above most parking standards for multi-family units & will
provide adequate off-street parking. The City's standard for A-2, Multi-Family 1
development is 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
9. The project shall be developed in accordance witch A-2 standard unless
otherwise approved on a specific site plan by the Planning Commission.
o The proposed apartments will be constructed to the standards provided
by Fire Zone 2.
o Section 18.24.040, Tigard Municipal Code, reads "where buildings are grouped
as one project .>u one tract of land, the minimum distance between
two buildings at any given point shall not be less than the sum of the
required side yards computed separately for each building at that point.
There are several points on the proposed site plan that do not meet
this criteria.
10. Drainage - Washington County is concerned about storm drainage as related
to the carrying of storm water southerly from the subject site across Durham
Road. They cite the need for a drainage study and plan to deal with storm
drainage from the subject site.
Staff Recommendation
Tabling agenda item to allow the applicant sufficient time to revise the
subject concept plan to include the following:
1. A loop traffic circulation system, allowing traffic to enter the site
from S.W. Summerfield Drive and circulate through the entire site on the
"Main Traffic Lanes".
4]
2. No backing movements shall be allowed onto the "Main Traffic Lanes".
Formal approval of the concept plan should be subject to the following condition:
ti
That the applicant submit, with the detailed site development plan, a 1
drainage study and plan acceptable to the City and Washington County Public
Works Departments. '
k
3
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
April 2, 1974
Agenda Item 10.3
SCA 1-74 (Tigard Bargain House)
Sign Code Appeal
For property located at 13075 S.W. Pacific Highway.
Applicant
Luminite Sign Company for Tigard Bargain House.
Applicant's Request
Approval to erect a projecting sign not conforming to the standards of
Title 16 (TMC).
Applicant's Proposal
To replace an existing projecting sign with a new projecting sign.
Staff Findings
1. Section 16.24.030 (TMC) states "Any sign which is structurally altered,
relocated or replaced shall immediately be brought into compliances with all
of the provisions of this title." The applicant proposes to remove an
existing projecting sign and install a new projecting sign.
2. Projecting signs are allowed within the C-3, General Commercial zone
(subject property is in C-3 zone) subject to the following condition:
"Projecting signs supported by a wall of a building or structure shall
be permitted in commercial zones where there is no building setback or
upon an existing building built within two feet of the front property line
and then only under the following conditions." The most applicable
conditions are as follows:
o "No projecting sign shall be permitted on the same premises where there
is a free-standing sign or roof sign."
o "A projecting sign shall be used solely to identify a business and shall
not be used to advertise services to products sold on the premises."
o "Except as provided in this section, no projecting sign shall be supported
by a frame commonly known as an "A" frame or other visible frame located on
the roof of a building."
3. The subject property currently has a 16 foot front yard building setback.
There is no free-standing sign or roof sign existing on the subject premises.
The applicant proposes the following words be placed upon the sign: "Tigard
Bargain House; New & Used Appliances; Phone Number."
The subject sign is proposed to be supported by a structure commonly
known as an "A frame".
—,.—
Staff Report -2- April 2, 1974
Agenda Item No. 10.3 SCA 1-74
4. Section 16.34.020 (TMC) 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 Title 16, the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specific requirement hereunder should be waived or
modified."
In this case the Planning Commission must find that practical difficulties,
hardships or ordinance; inconsistencies occur with respect to the following: .
o Setback requirements.
o Allowed advertising description.
o Support by an "A-frame" structure.
5. The applicant has submitted the attached letter and sign drawing.
Staff Recommendation
Denial of the applicants request based the finding that no practical
difficulty, hardship or ordinance inconsistancy occurs that would
justify the waiving or modification of a specific requirement of
Title 16.
6.i
. 1.
Illi
1
•
-, }7
a 0,
}
d
TIGMD:. BARGAIN. HODS,
1.
, t , . .
. App ..,7.....1'..:.- :....Nc . . t'
. .. . . . . . .
. . •. ..,:„, .. . ... .. G2,40,..237 _ ,., 1 4 t r
■ 1 I r'
I
1
1 . a
•
•
■
•
1
I
I
Sc4 (- ?4.
p - I-4C>LI 41..c..•.
�h ♦ • Sign C
Lumtinite sign Co. r .
Sales,Service and Rentals r' I •-•/4
9350 S. W. TIGARD AVENUE ----- j0 ii 1
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
PHONE 639-4991
March 21, 1974
City of Tigard
- Sign Board of Appeals
12420 S.W. Main Street
Tigard, OR 97223
"E: Replacing, non-conforming sign with another non-con-
forming sign at Tigard Bargain House, 13075 S .W.
Pacific Hwy.
Gentlemen: 1
The Tigard sign code would allow this sign to be erected
on a steel pole as a free standing signs. A steel pole does p
not fit on the Tigard Bargain House lot very well. Also the
extra cost is prohibitive. The sign would not project on to
public property but would project one ( 1) foot more that the
existing sign.
After viewing our situation, we hope there will be ap-
proval to erect this sign as a non-conforming sign.
I thank you .as the representative of the Tigard Bargain
House.
1
Sincerely yours,
7211.14--t.:://nett,0-.14 ):::11:./y— i,
Arlie Mawhirter 4
Manager
i
Enclosures
AM: cm �;.
:I!
)°
I .-
Cam.
April 2, 1974
MEMORANDUM
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Fire Zone Revision
"An Ordinance Creating & Establishing Fire Zones".
Section 14.04.070, Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
14.04.070 Section 1601 (a) . Amended -- Fire Zones.
Section 1601 (a), Fire Zones defined, Part IV, Chapter 16 of Volume I, 1970
edition of the Uniform Building Code, is amended to read as follows:
"Section 1601 (a) Fire Zones Defined
For the purpose of this Code, the entire city is hereby declared to be
and is established a Fire District and said Fire District shall be known and
designated as Fire Zones One, Two and Three as defined below.
FIRE ZONE ONE shall include:
1. Any commercial building providing said building covers 50 percent or
more of lot area or having less than 20 feet separation between said building
and all property lines.
FIRE ZONE TWO shall include:
1. Any commercial building covering 50 per cent or less of lot area and having
20 feet or more separation between said building and all property 'lines.
2. Any industrial building.
3. Any residential building containing three or more dwelling units.
FIRE ZONE THREE shall include:
1. Any residential building containing 2 or less dwelling units.
2. Any agricultural building.
The following section shall be added to Section 1601, Part IV, Chapter 16 of Volume
1, 1970 Edition of the Uniform Building Code and is amended to read as follows:
1601 (f) Existing Structures
All existing structures falling into a new fire zone are not subject to new
restructions imposed by said new fire zone designations. If an existing
structure is altered or an addition added thereto, such remodeling or additions
are subject to the new restructions. The Building Official may require said
existing strucutre to install an automatic. sprinkler system so as to cause
said existing structure and alterations or additions to be adequately protected.
•
•
4 Page 2 April 2, 1974
Memo to Commission
Section 18.12.120'Fire Zones shall be deleted from the Tigard Municipal Code.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
i
i
i
.
G. 3
•
April 2, 1974
MEMORANDUM '
To: Tigard Planning Commission:,:
From: Wink Brooks, Planning Director
Subject: Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions
TRANSIT BENCH SIGNS
16.08.025 Transit Bench Sign. Bench Sign means a sign utilizing any portion of a
bench, said bench being a long seat people sit upon, being for the free use and
accomodation of persons waiting for transportation.
16.12.020 (7). Concerning Transit Bench Si ns.:Proposed for location on private
property, written evidence of private property owner's agreement to locate such
a sign on said owner's property.
16.40.010 Bench Signs.
(1) Location Permitted. Bench Signs may be located at any officially designated
transit stop within C-3, C-4, C-5, C-P, M-2, M-3, M-4 and A-2 zones within
the City of Tigard.
(2) Additional Permit Requirements. Bench Signs shall be located only at
officially designated transit stops, said official transit stops shall be so
designated by the City Planning Department. If a bench sign is proposed
to be located on private property, the applicant shall furnish written
evidence that said property owner agrees to the location of any bench
sign. Any bench sign proposed for placement within the public right-of-way shall
have its location approved by the City Planning & Public Works Departments.
Official transit stop designations may be removed by the Planning Deparmteet
if a transit route is revised, is no longer necessary or is otherwise obsolete.
(3) Limitations. No bench sign shall have an overall length exceeding 8 feet. No bench
sign shall exceed a height of 42 inches. The number of signs permitted at
any location shall be at the discretion of the City Planning and Public Works
Departments. The sole criterea for the number of bench signs at any Location
shall be the seating demand for transit passengers. All bench signs shall be
anchored formly to the ground.
(4) Sign Content. There shall be no word, message or symbol used or placed upon a bench
sign directing, controlling or otherwise confusing the flow of traffic on a
street adjacent a subject sign. Words such as "slow", "stop", "look", "turn"
or "caution" shall be prohibited.
(5) Insurance. Before installing any transit bench signs or signs, within five days
after issuance of permit the permittee shall file with the City Recorder a policy
of insurance, or a certificate of insurance and form of policy, issued by an insurance
company licensed to do business in Oregon, protecting the City, its officers,
agents and employees, and the abutting property owners, lessees and tenants
from any and all claims for injury or damage to persons or property that might
result through the placing and/or maintenance of the bench or benches. The minimum
amount of the insurance'policy shall be one hundred thousand dollars for...
injury to any one person, three hundred thousand dollars for injuries arising
Page 2 April 2, ,074
Memo to .Commission
V from each accident, and one thousand dollars. for property damage in each
accident. The policy shall also contain a provision that the City
Recorder shall be notified at least ten days prior to any cancellation of
such insurance. The permittee shall maintain the insurance throughout
the life of any permit issued to him for any transit bench sign or sign.
(6) Maintenance. The permittee shall keep and maintain in good and substantial
state of repair each and all advertising benches permitted to him, and shall
paint the benches with sufficient frequency to keep them sightly and
attractive. It shall be the duty of the permittee to keep the advertising
bench unblemished and tree of any offensive matter, writing or thing.
(7) Removal Provisions. If, by action of any transit agency or the City, a
transit route is revised or a transit stop is no longer necessary or
said transit stop is moved to a different location on the same route, or any
other reason, and by said reasons loses its official designation as a transit
stop, the sign owner shall cause to have sign at said obsolete locations removed
in a manner provided by Section 16.40.100 (9). Any permit issued for transit
bench sign shall be cancelled and revoked if the permittee shall fail to temoel
the bench within sixty days after issuance of a permit for said sign.
(8) Remonstrance.
An application for initial placement of an _transit bench
or for the renewal of a permit shall be denied and any outstanding permit revoked,
as the case may be, if sixty percent of the property owners and tenants living
or having a place of business within two hundred feet of the location of the
bench protest.
(9) 17.44.170 Removal. Upon revocation or termination of any permit whether by lapse
of time or for any other reason, the person or persons responsible for the
installation or maintenance of the 4=•. transitu. bench shall, at his or their
own sole risk and expense, remove the bench, and shall leave the site thereof in
a clean and sightly condition and in as good state as when such installation
was made, all in a manner satisfactory to the City Public Works Department. If
the permittee shall fail to remove the bench within twenty days after termination
of its permit, the City Public Works Department may remove the bench from the
street area and may destroy or otherwise dispose of it at his discretion,
all at the sole risk of the permittee, and the permittee shall pay to the
City a penalty of twenty dollars to cover the cost of removal, in addition
to any other remedy provided by law for violation of Section 16.48.030.
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
16.36.020
(4) Directional Signs. Directional signs may be located at street intersections,
on standard City street sign poles, within all zones. Said signs shall be
provided by the City, utilizing the standard street sign format, upon payment
of a twenty-five dollar fee. Directional signs may be allowed for the following
uses.
(a) Public & parochial elementary, junior and high schools.
(b) Public parks and golf courses.
(c) Public auditoriums, coliseums, stadiums, civic centers or other public meeting
places.
(d) Churches. •
+. Page 3 April 2, 1974
Memo to Commission
a
(4) (cont.) Directional Signs shall contain only the common name of the use.
�` The size of directional signs shall be at the descretion of the City. '
FREESTANDING SIGN INDUSTRIAL PARK ENTRANCE
(1) Industrial parks shall be allowed one free standing sign at each entrance
to said Industrial Park from city designated collector or arterial streets.
Said sign shall describe only the name of the Industrial Park and said Industrial
Park tenants. Said sign shall not exceed 125 square feet on any side and the total
area of a multi-faced sign shall not exceed 250 square feet. Identification of
-- Industrial Park tenants shall not exceed 4 square feet for each tenant identified
upon said free-standing sign.
(2) Industrial Park Tenant- Site Identification
Any Industrial Park tenant occupying a structure on a land parcel within an
industrial park shall be allowed one free-standing sign to be located on said
tenants parcel. Said sign shall identify said tenant and direct traffic to various
activities within each tenant parcel. Said sign shall not exceed 32 square feet
on any side and a total area of a multi-faced sign shall not exceed 64 square feet.
Said sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height.
(3) Other Standards. All other standards for signs in commercial zones shall
apply.
PDD - INTERFACE
16.36.060 Planned Development Districts. No sign in a Planned Development District
shall be issued a permit, unless said sign meets the standards and criteria set forth
by an approved general development plan and program as provided by Section 18.56.030
(TMC).
18.56.030 (1) Plan Elements (R)
Sign standards and criteria related to location, design and content of proposed
signs.
•
April 2, 1974
MEMORANDUM
w _ To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Wink Brooks, Planning Director
Subject.: Proposed Sign Ordinance Revisions (Revised)
INDUSTRIAL PARK IDENTIFICATION
16. 08. 185 Industrial Park. A subdivision or 4 or more leased
_ land parcels arranged so as to provide access to various industrial
uses via a central street or other approved traffic circulation
system.
16. 36. 050 Industrial Zones. All types of signs permitted in com-
mercial zones by Section 16. 36.040 shall be permitted in all
industrial zones subject to the following limitations:
(1) Free Standing Sign _ Industrial Park Entrance
Industrial parks shall be allowed one free standing sign
at each entrance to said Industrial Park from city desig-
nated collector or arterial streets. Said sign shall
IL describe only the name of the Industrial Park and said
Industrial Park tenants. Said sign shall not exceed
125 square feet on any side - and the total area of a
multi-faced sign shall not exceed 250 square feet.
Identification of Industrial Park tenants shall not
exceed 4 square feet for each tenant identified upon •
said free-standing sign.
(2) Industrial Park Tenant - Site Identification
Any Industrial Park tenant occupying a structure on a I
land parcel within an industrial park shall be allowed
••
one free-standing sign to be located on said tenants
parcel. Said sign shall not exceed 32 square feet on
any side and a total area of a multi-faced sign shall 1
not exceed 64 square feet. Said sign shall not exceed
8 feet in height.
(3) Other Standards. All other standards for signs in com-
mercial zones shall apply.
.
IL
•
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given thata public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission
of the City of Tigard at Twality Jr. High School in the Lecture Room, at 14650 S.W.
97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, on April 2, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. with respect to the following:
Proposed amendments to the zoning map of the City of Tigard to change the zoning
classification on recently annexed lands from Washington County classifications
to the equivalent City of Tigard classifications. The annexed properties in question
are located adjacent Pacific Highway between SW 69th Street and the Multnomah
County Boundary (east property line of Todd's Restaurant). These properties are
recorded on the Washington County Tax Assessor's maps as follows: Tax Map 1S1 36AD,
Tax Lots 4200, 4300 5800, 5901, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, and 6400, Tax Map
IS1 36DA, Tax Lot 100.
A proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Tigard (Chapter 18.12.120
TMC) to allow certain exceptions in the existing Fire Zone requirements.
A proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Tigard (Chapter
18.52.020 TMC) to allow the retail sale of furniture in the M-4, Industrial
Park zone, in conjunction with furniture warehousing and assembly.
A proposed amendment to the Sign Code of the City of Tigard (Title 16 TMC)
allowing the placement of transit bench advertising signs at transit stops.
Amendments also to be considered would allow directional signs for industrial
parks, churches, schools, parks, golf courses, and public meeting places, and
specify regulations for signs located in Planned Development Zones.
All persons having an interest in this matter are invited to attend and be heard.
Publish TT March 21 & 28, 1974
':I