SDR16-74 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
[Page Too Large for OCR Processing]
n:.�. ,. „,,<,,;CW.I @.....:��.m:1.4,•ln=+n:k.�.-..•.wi' ..rn•.+V...,,d,»w.rr.:Y. nK,..•,..,n:4.nS>:''.1�',.irr. N.Nt..!.J,rial�hg,..n i..4!«,ia,«�,y...:; i']1-:.•.4+...n ..r...4-':',.✓`":•.+14.R..1,:t.it,t, ,,'..l.....n.,-.:,x.i✓,r4uii l..,nl,N.,,:,A tall+.4.,1N«:A.4;Wr,l:n.:fi.-.,it.l..nh+w,v:G< 4'�y,F;l,f...4,rx.+.'•• . ,�.tilt -r n u«n- `r" '.. �.^", (M'"'"?"y w""",'-•`''"tn,
• ' .: 1 4,i, IM4 ,c41 _ rci r 1' tl 1,1 •
., ..,,..yy�� �'�" ,,.4 i , `/'�-'�,}y��' r'"h 4i 11 a,ll I!a rf I �I' q
' Ldi RTj 1 COM IAN V 4 illl jF, 4a r h,i1 trl ": , S5. •
1 • Si.t °Dv...01c011:teti ''R uierl,'(SDPJ,:"16. M4
. 11 '. r/W���J,,QQI ��7ir��t''{{ �� r��l Iy�, I I 11 1 , J
M�r7�yl IaY1/ �'.{+illJ�:S. �y,wI 4',i I II t
���yyyyyyy���
t � rak�uan6vl
• I ' t ..+:'«.Ai+..+-r,•+.,-4..iL.a.,w.,.,....,-.:.i....`4...,..,...-,,...,&....,r..,:,,L.:w..,a1.,,n'.L.r1.l ..
, d
•
,
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
♦
I
I
1
1, , ...,
•t
I
1
l
I .
.
I
.�• .s�L..IYY. � 1,�y1 ii- �,t, 1,. ,.ee 'Y.Y�1Y1..J' ....,. .. r .I� .. ,,. ., i ., .,,. , ' ,. .,...x, r..,. n t. J,,.t. ., r. ., .,i ,. .. v, w , ,n6, w „ n r ,I q ..•.0.t,,,„vx,.,,.,,, .n..r.,,.,
j •
1I
{ti •
At ••,,,,k I,..,..u.•,,,...,,t•I....• ......,.,...e,_„,..,X ••∎•,.,x..= ,,.,.• , 4.1 44,-...k.,,•_...-..1'.x11..,....•X.44 i.Fu.. .»n:...;x._..ne••.∎.,«.,r.44_c..-,,r,.gnu.i._+...a,.r..,..,..r._c....r„ "14,.ia1K'....4...w.+...�,,::..:1i:W d.41 .p,a•• K' f -,uwwU--irf-v.aa'w»ac,
w,1• �.k �tiM.w:.=�d,'Y+w�.:.1Vitl. 1Ww4:.:.•.t.s.',N.: Wr..Linf.'u;'z,fa,...tJ4n'+.itM1:,..,
AGENDA
Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board . • .
September 23, 1975
General Telephone Building
Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
• 1» CALL TO ORDER
2+ ROLL CALL
■
•
3. MINUTES. September 9, 1975
4. 'COMMUNICATIONS .,,;,
•
I
i, ;. 5. DESIGN REVIEW ' , .
.- 5.1 (Request of Planning Commission,)
Planned nn e d IDevel o rent Design Rev Review
,r
PAYLESS SHOPPING CENTER •I
A review of a proposed shopping center at SW Main St.
and ScofFins
i,
� 1 , , 5.2 SDR 16-74 (Renewal.) Hiranport Co./7585 H
/7585 SW Iunzike
I'
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7 ADJOURNMENT
pi. ,,J I
I
ir �l,
yf
„` I w
I
•
• i
c'
.
i
I
1 ,
I i a. 2a• 4 rn ,.
MINUTES
M
.4.
°' ,i Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board
September 23, 1975
. General Telephone Administration Building
Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:05 p.m.
. . .. I
2. ROLL CALL: Members present:sert» 0 son' j W ak em� McMonagle,
Goo k�
Hammes (arrived at 5:30
3. MINUTES: Chairman McMonagle asked that the minutes of September''
9 be put off until the following, meet ng as the Board',
had not had time to read them.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: None
5. DESIGN REVIEW
5.1 PAYLESS SHOPPING CENTER (Planned Development Design Review)
A. Staff explained that the purpose of the requested review
was to obtain design recommendations from the Design
Review Board prior to the Planning Commission's hearing
on October 7.
B. Mr. Ehman, architect, presented the plan and showed the
alternatives explored since the last meeting of the
P g
Design Review Board.
C. Board Discussion
o McMonagle asked about the situation concerning the
Sambo 's/McCall's ,point access. He asked that whatever
access agreement the parties arrive at be a r,ecorded',
document.
o The Board expressed its concern about storm drainage
retention and asked that the proposed retention n
system be a part of the project design.
o Cook asked if the elevation of the buildings relative
to the street had been taken into account, Mr. Ehman
replied that it had.
I I �
o McMonagle observed that the City had better get the
future grade of Scoffins Street established immediately.
I I .
o Cook asked who would be responsible for providing
landscaping across the front.
o Ehman responded that the developer intended to donate
the land to the City between Main, and Pacific Hwy.
I I
I °
n...K . ., W,•,.....,v. :..,.....:_e.,.:.-.+:.W.,.,N,. ..+....{h:,S.«.awr,.,,w.a,oA:r.a..1.4•.,.i.v:ri..,i7,:Sa.,a,..r,.,-..,.,,.]•+uer.rx'1;.:....-.,N...c.:.w.a,.M.....,.wr,.a,'..,....;t......nau-.aur.,:.xr.....s..w,«iv,kr•.wp.lwrxwlGG r
Paget
' DRB Minutes
r
' September .�2
.3, 19T5
o McMonagle said he was concerned about how the
development would treat future development areas
as far as landscaping is concerned.
•
• o Olson said she was skeptical of the architect's
contention that a 20 ft. offset in the building would
do much to mitigate the linearity of the building.
She asked that a varied roof line be considered also.
o Wakem asked what alternatives had been considered
by the architect that did not use the "200 cars in
200, ft. " criteria. He said he felt this criteria
was not appropriate for prediction of such a develop-
ment' s layout.
o
Motion (Hammes) to
recommend the plan to the Planning
Commission with the following conditions:
1. City to provide profiles for Scoffins St.
2. Applicant to provide storm drainage retention
on site and provide City with engineering data
for future line sizing of Main St.' storm drain.
3. ',Future building sites" to be planted in grass
and maintained until developed.
4. Access road to Hall be constructed by developer
to City Standards with this projected.
5. If joint access is provided to Sambo 's and. McCall
site from Pacific Hwy. , access will be allowed
to Payless site. If no joint access, no Payless
access from Pacific Hwy. should be considered.
6. Applicant will provide elevations and perspective
drawings from main view oint
0
o Seconded (Cook)
o Motion carried. (unanimously)
r r'
A. Staff explained that inasmuch as this was a previously fir , n
4 S
approved project, there was no, staff report.
B. Board Discussion
o Board asked about the materials change proposed.
•
I I
..1;..,.«,+.�....�'..��..',.,,.a�.::h...�w a m...,+.a..ti w.:.-J:�,:u.l...wo-4«..,.:.nJ,+n,«..u.n»«wu..,w.::./.....,k nitnAnt nA.,1.wn..i- AA...t..nr .1:1;:w, n..l.,..�..imrviar.w.r�..no.xs..rFUa�u.exw�l., r...�1
Page 3
DRB Minutes
September 23, 1975
I I
o Applicant explained he wanted to use steel instead
of concrete
o Motion to approve (Olson) extension of the previous
permission for a period of one (1) year.
o` Motion seconded (Hammes) .
o Motion carried (unanimously) .
6. OTHER BUSINESS: None
7. ADJOURNMENT: 6:45 p m.
•
•
•
•
. I
h r
II
4