Planning Commission Packet - 07/22/1975 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
i� �
AGENDA
� Tiga.rd Planning Commission - STUDY SESSION
July 22, 1975 - 8:00 p.m.
Twality Junior High Schoo�. - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TU ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. DISCUSSION TTEMS
3.1 Discussion of staff proposed sign code amendment
3.2 N.P.O. #3 Plan - distribution of completed plan text
and map
4. Insertion of change sheets in Tigar.d Municipa7. Code books
(BRING YOUR CODE BOOK) .
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNNiENT
�
�.
MINVTES
Tigard Planning Commission
�„' Study Session - July 22, 1975
Twa�ity Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S, W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
l. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m.
by Chairman Porter.
2. ROLL CALL: Members present: Ball, Nicoli, Porter, Sakata,
Smelser, Wakem; sta�f: Bolen, Powell., Laws
o Chairman Porter requested a change to the agenda to bring
up the subject of the CRAG transpor.tation plan under
��other business'� , item 5.
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
� 3.1 Discussion of staff proposed sign code amendrnen.t
o Bolen and Powell presented a discussion of 3 alternative
approaches to amen:ding the sign code. Briefly, the 3
alternatives werE specified as: �
(1) retaining the sign ordinance a.s presently aadified ',
� and amending specific standards to "tighten" the '
code; '
(2) amending the code to provic�e tighter standards as
in (1) above and prividing design r�eva.ew authority
over requests for increases in allowable standards
or;
(3) completely revising the code to utilize a per-
formance standard approach to sign code enfo-rcement.
o Staff discussed in more detail the need for revisions
of provisions within the sign code which allow oversized,
fre�-standing signs, allowing roof signs and allowing �'
f�.ashing signs and rota�;ing signs. Zt was further
pointed out that provisions of the sign code which �
allow street frontage on side streets and rear streets �
to be computed as part of the street frontage for the �
purpose of establishing sign size must be dealt with . �
as this provision has had the effect of allowing super �
sized signs in inappro�riate locations.
o Nicoli indicated he felt the best way to amend the sign
code was to amend it piecemeal at this point, rather -
than attempting a massive revision and that establishing
.�`�" ;, Design Review Board authority over signs would 'be a
� mistake. �
��
. .,` . . . `.. . .. :' ,�
.,.. �
. _ r�
i
o Smelser indicated agreement with Nicoli with respect �
to his approach to amending the sign code and said
he felt the key to an effective sign code was an
�' effective enforcement program. He further indicated '
he disagreed with Nicoli concerning Design Review !
Board as he felt tha-t was the most appropriate body �
to act as an appeal board and as a review authority on ;'
signs. j,
I
o Ball indicated an important question to be asked waS �
what irnpac-t signs would sti�T have on Tigard after {I
1980 when the removal provisions of the 1971 code �
would come into effect. He said a 5 year amortization 'I
period applied to signs made non-conforming by further
revision of the sign code would be fair. He felt
further that the citizens of Tigard would support a
"facelifting�' and that the Planning Commission, as ''
representative of the citizens of Tigard, should
respect that v-iewpoint as we�l as that of the business >��
interests who may be opposed to a more restrictive
code.
o Porter said he felt that the staff could develop a
revision package that would take a �'good whack" at ��I
the present standards. �;
o Further topics of discussion dealt with the establish- ��
ment of a committee for work on the sign code. A ;I,
� concensus was obtained �;hat Sme�ser and Ball be appointed �I
to assist staff in development of sign ordinance revision. ;
o l�mortization. was discussed. The question of wh.ether a
5 year/10 year or some intermediate period shou�.d be
used was left moot, concensus being that time period
could perhaps be re�.ated to value of sign as in Mult-
nomah County's ordi.nan.ce or to the impact of the code
upon each individual signing situation:. il'
�i
o Smelser indicated that his experience showed a strong ��
sign code yielded private as well as public benefit 4
and that this fact shou�d be emphasized strong.ly to �,
the business community as well as to the Councilo ��
o Porter asked staff to work up a proposal for Planning �
Commission consideration for the second meeting in
August. ��
�I
3.2 N. P. 0. #3 Plan "
�I
o Staff distributed the completed plan text and map to �I
the Commission and an explanation by Bo�.en of the ;I
procedure that staff would propose for taking both �I
Comprehensive P1an Review and zoning map amendment �
simultaneuous].y to the Commission and then to the City �
�. Council.
�.I
:�
PC Minutes - Jul.y 22, 1975 - page 2 �
: t�
,
.
� , .
�_ _ .
};
��
� :,, ,rr�
�, �� �i
�
o Discussion of how this might be accomplished ensued. �
� � o Concern was voiced by members of the Commission on �'
the length of hearings that rnay be involved.
�
o Staff responded that they recognized the possible t
length of such hearings; however, staff felt a need !
to discourage the bouncing back and forth between �
P�anning Commission and Council which has happened �
wi-L-h N.P.0. #1 and #2.
�
�,
o Porter asked that notice be sent to all property owners
affected by the Comprehensive Plan revision and/or �
the zoning code amendment before the August 5, 1975, '
meeting at which the matter would be taken up. ;,
,
4. INSERTION OF CHANGE SHEETS IN TIGARD MUNICSPAL CODE BOOKS: f'
� � � ��
;,
Staff distributed the annual changes for the code books with e�'
instructions to the Commission as �o insertion of those changes. ``
5. QTHER BUSINESS
Porter indicated that it had come to his attention that the
CRAG Transportation Plan, which had recentl:y been adopted by i
the CRAG Committee, had not passed through the Planning Com- '
mission of Tigard for review and that a copy he had seen con- '
tained severa� errors with respect to Tigard planning area. �
� , He said additionally he fe�t that an answer to that may be to �
develop its own transportation plan or at least to be afforded '
the opportunity to comment on the CR.AG p1.an.
' 6. ADJOUR.NMENT: 9:30 p.m.
I
� � ;I
�
;I
,�
, `�
E
� .. . � . . � i�
i
. . . . � � � ��� ^I
��
�
I,
C�
. �� � . � �. � . .. � . 9
�. - � � � � � � � � � � � �. . . . . . � � . . .;X�
d
H
Y
� � . . . � . � . .. � - � . . . ".�.
. . � . � . �� . . . ..�
� . � � .. �. . � i
. . . . . . . . . � � � .� � . ��. �
���.� . .. . . . . . . . ..� t'
l
, i
PC Ma.nutes - July 22, X975 -� page 3:
� _ , _