SDR9-73B 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
.. 'rt ,.
u r. 1' r'. ( l 4 .h ,4 W...,.ar•t"v.',,,•�,.;:dl.n.."I,,,.�+..N,..Aw.oNr,',,..r.;t,,,,Lt,l-"',,tii:+,ir.p,.,Wrl,"«.,+l,i,r. ,,,I -.:IIrMr,,,-„rw.nl,.rr' ,.«;,.�vpT,.:..?.'rnii,ll.',.w4,4'..w;,,«.n+l+. .
, �t o-�y-w r'Pa .+.�w......'wLn.M...+:fih.;r„w n.....J-,.d,�e--rlti"iA:,F.i•,.,,a.l`.:.,:....p Yv.'L.I.,,nw.N�l Gaga rw : Mn,Mw r•',.,r..,li Ax'NUV, 4t .�+I! '� mrA. Jw .;a,' .,... , '
��•yy�����^���,,fi ���''••��ii�tt ..
r C ILtlri.7!s I,e.;$i1,. I, , j a ,,,...,:,,,I.:„” v P
',, I I t I 7t"
:i, I$ite °Dewe ' en kev.e*c ' R II94 G r.<
Cull I A�cr �GW` 3$u `° t 1 124 '' p . .•
�.R f
u.:, ,. -.. I ;,. .,.:..I..,...,. ..,wi a rvrer<ur+r.I..,o&.u�.l.•wl.rsux.i4..r+ tnl,.wkwb; ,;,r.wuw.w.r: ,j.... •,�,,,..[ wuMir.Lr..,-«,+rr ri y a°r.l•:«t.:..uk�.......,..,.+w...,..,I �,tv.,,x.i,....l..a.,..l,.,t .:..r_,:Ir„.�+x..:.:....r..J,'..i.:,a,.r.,IJ,w..;ltr ,
�,N 4
S
'
I
I
'4. I I
.
I
II
.
1 I 1• I'.
'
1
4
1
1 1
1 ,
4
I
I
I
I .
, , , , : ;• , ',,
1
i1'
1
i
I
I
I
I I
t
1
tN. x�i;
i
r
1
i
I
1
I
,. ^ R •
h? I
.
I.
I
it
• ,
,
I.
I' X11
n
I 1
I
r
d1
I
4
1
1
1
I
1
r s; ,,.. �...�I„.uy«,,.,,..,...,�„.,n.,.,,.._-..4„ .�..w...,..,.....,1.,......_,....»,.,...n •..�.,....,,..r..,.,..�..,.,.,. .,,.., .,,.W... ..-..,..,I,,,. .. .I I ..,,,. .........,.., .. .... ..,. .,. .. ................. .. .,.,,.,,,,..,.....,,. I.,..., ..
I
•
5a4,...t„p.,,4,ap,,s,i.144,-:4."!•i,tp„,,,,rq-1{.,nf.,J.d:..U-,.,,.a.w.,.+,+:+7.,IGrA4.4.,,,,,o1,4.J1,,,,4,w./.G 1.,,,,.,_.M1,�Lw;w..,,.a ,,.,A 11, ....-1,,”.w.-, e., w ,.,.c« ,..,,.w,w.,,ti.....,,,-:', ,
.., 'r..,_ �..,..,t4.�.,. .,._.....,.,..�,r....,,,., n�.,ta»,ut.•.:«4.•Hr«.«.., ,r,.aN>»;r„u.uw.1a.,,... p,,.M1,w,..,..,..q�
$ ,
f
•
•
q
H
• 1C
r4 F'
iv...i17 'r
•
'
r
4
April
•
a'
I
b.
8830. W. Becker Dr y
• •
•
Attention:
Chapman ,
•
Reference:
File o. R 7
• d i,ILd letri,et�•�' i�.
Please' 'be advised that the Tigard Site
an
Review Board at th tir April 1975, meeting complied With your
, ' request or architectural design review o y four duplexes at M 4 Wp
i ,, ♦ ,
and Walnut, and your submission was ., rO e .
X ' you, have Ia y que'ati'n or need addition information, please
not h sita t contact this office at 639- 17 `
I
I
Sn eL 0 •
Jerald
I
.
,
T
C.�
,
i
i
`� i
I
i
i
i
■
i
I
i
I i
7
•
It i- r
1\
.
f
MINUTES ,
Tigard ..
i a�rd °Sit Development v and Desi n� Review Board
ee
April 3, 1975 .
.
Twality Junior High School lecture room
14650 SW9
97th A
v enue Tigard,d Oregon
•
,
i
1. CALL TO ORDER
Qhairman Bartel called the meeting to
order at 4:40 p.m.
. 2. ROLL CALL roll was recorded
( by Powell, staff)
Members present: Bartel, Cook, Mann, Wakem
Staff: Powell, Austin (City Building Official.)
Tom Whittaker, Chrmn. Tigard Planning Commission, attended .
` ,' to observe
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
i
The minutes of the last meeting were not yet available.
R Staff asked the agenda be amended to add an Architectural
Design Review item for Clark Industries on a previously
approved Site Design Review
4, SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
4.1 SDR 8-73 (Harris Enterprises dba Awful Brothers)
r
A request for review of the remodeling and site development
of an existing service station on SW Pacific Hwy. at Park St. • ,
A. Staff Report
Staff report (attached) was read by Powell; staff pointed
out additionally that some of the plant materials o
er 1s, shown
were not hardy enough for a service station site. .
B. Applicant's Presentation .
' Mr. Dennis Norstrom (Design Forum, designers for the aap1.i-
cant) told the board that Mr. flarrid had been called away
on business and would not attend, he
o �.d, bu�-t that � was pies
answer what design questions he could.� �"
• ef
C.
.
o
Mr. Dick Kluempke, Chairman of NPO #3, indicated that the 1
NPO had no objection to the plan but wanted barbs and 'side-
walks provided, access to Pacific Hwy, and Park St. re
stricted to conform to City code and would 'additionally like to see the corner sign oubeu moved back to a low ,
better vision when approaching Pacific Hwy. on
Park. i
•
N n
,1
•
't.. ,...,,..,,. u. ,..._..,..a..r._,.,..._....M,. .....^,..., ..- _.....,,_...+..«.... .y a.....,u,. .c................u.',s....,..,,...,...._,.,.i,.....i. .._s.,_.•,+t".a _.........,.., „et.:.u.s:o=...,_.._al:.:..:_ i n,.,..a.y..,.,..,+..4,r.r:ic',:1.,..,.,...._....M"t«."._.,.A..,u.»..:.u.
Tom Whittaker asked if this was an adequate submission.
It appeared to lack many of the items required to be sub-
.
• *mitted before the Design Review Board for consideration.
D. Board Discussion and Action
Motion for approval (Cook) on conditions that:
•
.
1. wCuirdb e cut and on Par k �t b e n o more than 30 feet
2. Areas of landscaping be provided` adjacent that access
(per code) .
4
i or
3. Some curb, bumper rail r other protection be
between the outer service lane , (adjacent to pumps)
and sidewalk. 0,
. i
Bartel
'indicate d he could
not support the motion.
Discussion of the adequacy of the submission ensued. Con-
census was that under the circumstances of a remodeling
•
where much was predetermined, t hat the p lan was sufficient,
even if not entirely complete.
Cook withdrew his motion (there had been no second) .
Mann asked about storm drainage and how the canopy, would : .
be drained.
Bartel drew a diagram of the si n cube with
�
respect to the posts and poles on the street corner, in- ;
dicatin a location about 15 ft. further back on' the site,
g 5
but only 10 ft. further back from the highway, ,
•
Wakem asked if there were sidewalks now on the site.
Staff responded ”yes” , but really they were simply the
edge of the station' s apron.
Motion for denial (Cook) based on the findings that:
•
1. Plant sizes and irrigation were not shown on plan,
2. Applicant had not shown compliance with City code on
drainage' ge disposal.. ,
3. Size and location of driveway' access on Park Ave'.ue was
inappropriate. .''
4. Sign location should be moved back, from Pacific High-
way
q,. unless applicant can show that it doesn't interfere (
with vision' from Park. 1
r.
5. Separation between the outermost service lane and the 414 sidewalk is necessary for safety. ;r�i.,,''r
J Minutes s �,
April 30 1975 page e
2 � ,
WII1p
y
.._... ... ,. ..,..,_..H ..,...a.,—:... -;_,,..„r,w...,.. ..i,., .taxi.,.. .wt ,,. ._.,,.,.-,.✓....�....., .. ..a...,.....+. 1...M.„.w. „i 11„_Fu;U ..,...il.,w.;t.._..ka....4:+..d.«......V..., ..a,...a-..,1_........,.t...»,...«'1.. x.a/..4.a..„.
yl
. I Second (Wakem)
Motion approved unanimously
was , „ ,ter✓1
Norstrom asked if the Design Review Board was going t o
look at the architecture. `�
Bartel 'answered i►n
0"
that the Board would consider the
architecture after it had approved the site plan.
Cook asked if the applicant would bring in more detail on
elevations when resubmitting and bring materials samples
rather than a "color board”.
Applicant said that was possible.
55 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
du
i
es
. , . SDR 9-73 Clark Industries
A request for architectural design review of four duplexes
L The site plan had been approved prior
at l� ►�th and Walnut.
to creation of the Design Review Board, but the project had
not been built and the applicant, now is applying for new build-, ,
ing permits. (Staff provided site plans from file) .
A. Applicant's Presentation
Mr. Orville Chapman presented his proposed project. `+'
Tom Whittaker indicated he had been on the Planning Commission
when the project had been approved and recalled it.
B. Beard Discussion. and Action
Mann asked if the trees at the front of the site were on
the site or in the street right-of-way. 1
Applicant said they were right on the property line.
Bartel asked if all units would be the same color and
materials.
Applicant said they would.
Mann observed that nearly anything tucked back in the site �;
would be ok. because the site was really dominated by the tl
trees. p
Motion (Cook) to approve, second :(Mann) , vote unanimous,,
6. OTHER BUSINESS (none)
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting ng was adjourned ur ne
� at �:00 �
� t
SDR, Minutes - April 3, 1975 - page 3
t r 1 T
.
oI a
i,< jj4
dd i
P'
/A )--
r ZONE CHANGE - CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE T .OR.ARY USE - NON CONFORMING
.
USE REQUESTS
•
, Files
' APPLICATION
Fee R ec d
a I
Tigard Planning Commission 639-4171
12420 SW Main St. , Tigard g ard, Oregon 97223 Receipt #
Dateec q d
R, a
By
PLEASE PRINT IN 'INK OR TYPE
+: Action Requested_4", ' `,
-
Applicant's Name a
Lt -,14/011b J /
Applicant' s Address ,3 0 I� / eciee,-4 7-, , ( 2_?
s- reet city state zip
• Owner's Name S-�
,,` ..__ Phone
, Owner's Address
street city state zip
Applicant is: Oiwner _� Contract Purchaser DeveloperT° Agent _
Other._.. Z5 b'c:.cr'
•
,
Owner Recognition of application
,,.. ,,,L, 2,'-----,,, 'L------ (f.z../.',1,74e'4, ,,,Q, .. :,
.,.s ,
signati-277-(51-07,776777-- " 1.
•
Person responsible for application. k � ` ,
street city State zip-T—
PROPERTY INVOLVED: Tax Map # Tax Lot(s)
Ad dress '4- - i Area�-, - , (acres)
pi
Existing Buildings (# and type) . a . ('.�..,
•
Current C In ,� � Cur en t Us e ' �.r
,
Applicant's Applicant's
. �Proposed 'Zoning Proposed US e �� Z .-e
SUBMISSION �REQUIREMENTS: �rI' tle Report 'Fassn o Regtirerients ;
Description Legal
. � `on Vicinity Mep
I�
Site Tax Map '►�i e Develbpmerit Plan ,"
Sit0 Plan