SDR7-74 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
ro
. . .
».,.. 1,.aJ..u.-..;""`7r..!"u.tu I.I:,i1„r.;4s.:•ia�.,,�,.....4k.J.,{i.,—t,..,t,-..,,A�.71,r»,;:.'�..��.•-”"ca.k. •
• i.,v.I..aM. :,.I,A....4rz,IWr..,rr.�J.4..Y.4:a-...AI..M.�,1::lai..,+.J.,•F.-..:��'n.�lf Ia1M-.�i7 4:AW rA.,F='Oe..1.,.,1 Nl!.n.«14 w»f {W�+.L A,L I t N6 xw.t 0.,4 S Ar 3«,.,',,,,,,t"' :.ItNC.J�H, :iY.—.r. ri>.:� I� ,
.A.n.....h,.AM,.A4.,�,J:i..`.I,JN+'«r +rt.L,il.wh.t,.,,:ry .-u,". „.,. ....... ,
1` ,,•"1 « ..M M Irt W, 5111
1 , q
of ', t� 1i ti ,
r l 400 C'9LUMBEFe,t?oOL ,A& RECREATION CON?A' Y''1 ',r
site pOvelop lent,f1 eview ,CSDI,37 k74). .i
a'. ''`' .3a,15ti;iSW �Pagific Hich.. wyY ` ' 'f.` a .>o. ' ,
• ulw ; ..., ,LW°'
I 't w,;"
r� w
•
•
■
■
II ,
Y
i
•
r I
!
' I ,
I I
.,
•
•
„
1
I
r
rr�
I
ka
I•
�.N ti ;
�, 4' 1
II
"fir
•
•
is
•
' I
r
I
I
• I
I
x
,
M I L I
a
I
,,� * t
ro
P ,
.l.,i. ..r •., .J._-,a ilA»_.-t:u.•. ,w.iw.lr,J.. ,+...4w:,fluµ.i:{.`:w F.., T<1
•
r ` D. Lucy Mayernik replied not at this time :
would a fence be placed on the property boundary. •
She stated that there was excavation equipment
on the site and that her contract with the
excavator included removal of the hedge.
E. McMonagle asked Mrs. Mayernik about th e fe eli n g
of
the ad j acent property •
owner concerning the removal
of the hedge.
F. lire. Ila ernik stated that the property owner would i
be relieved to have the hedge removed.
G. .McMonagle stated that he was not opposed to
having the hedge removed, but felt the adjacent ,
property owner has a reason to expect that a fence
will be ",built there within a reasonable period of
Q n
,
C
rip
not
stated that the ica .t was• _H. ...:,Lucy i�ayern�.l< � apps,
concerned over the timing of the removal of the
to future development on the
hedge e a
s
related f
ed e e
P
,
9
site.
I. Cook ,,,'fly, ,;ed that he felt the development of . the
propb•ert would be before the design review board
• very sflvrtl
Y
,
J. "Michelson then rc, ved that the applicant's 'request •
be granted. Eaton seconded and the motion passed
by unanimous vote of those present. The
„• r ♦yyy, y
,V174'M''�i F'Qf•ivl� 1,r1fii4.T ^ Ad �,9 i t e H•d K f rtC..44ra) 5 mnsi nyg Oyu}t e rJe yc es s
K
Rtf 'Fkixa1i11uI�P�aM1.!; 'V1fNNMItU'4�IG;,x t yr{'.{,.•'p l,'
3.2 SDR 7-74 (Columbia Pool and Rec. Co. ) ' • .,
l
A request by Columbia Pool and`IRecreation Company '' .
retail swimming Pool
,ales �fac:�lt
for review of a at 15015 �.swimming P n Y
f'o
S. . j Highway r
on a site located W Pacific Hi hwa and
g F . c is located in e C3,
p •
. � com zis�.n . �G acres. The site
General Commercial zone. (Tax Map 251.. 25D, Tax Lot
2900 and 3000) .
I ,
A. Staff read findings as 'described in the ataff 'report
of May 2, 1974. Staff also' ing •
. .1 i Y . � ^d� described e�tist ,
conditions around the site by referring to a map
ate.
g� to the staff report. Staff described ed
a
parking scheme sug gested to the applicant to '
bring his
site into conformance with the City's
off-street parking requirements.
. I ,
Be Bartell expressed his 'opinion that he would
prefer landscaping '!against the fence sui rounding the .
pool area, rather than redwood slats, in order to
achieve site obstruction from adjacent properties
on ,'the highway
II, I
Page 4 SDR Minutely 5-2-74
•
I i
i is i i i
','. :.. i , ,w.: .,,.,,r•.... ............ .....,u,.. , ; ...,.. ..,.,, .... ..,.,,. .. ., .,. .r v.. ,.11:.lr,I 7 Vb•flq n,e Yv+'+vw ..Wxu n.w. x n,r,.. ,...,,..1. ,
A' N 1 ,f(
•
• r
- :..kw,n.wu+i%1ln..N a.l„.o-'..t,,.0 F:.u.t ..AR.•1✓..-w,J.F...k.u.,L'•.A1.11wx»r7:;:»C;»4..L1aJ+t,,:..,W,.vS.+:1w.u::.Y1,t,µ,,.Jw:17.7'xitl7. i
•
' ,. •:.J.,ti:.y„ywlkll,l,1.:VJ.,:W„..h..Y.:;.'16fi,."S.k.R4il:r CC7+4':VIhM!InN w,f.AYtnr.w,.a'«�AY:.,H4.:
C. Dale Long, representing Columbia pool and
Rec. Co. , gave a short Presentation of his
goals concerning the poc i. display area and
p d the details of his proposed con-
.
struction
D. Mickelson removed for approval of the applicant' s
• site development landscape plan received by the
City April 241 , 1974 subject to the sf;aff' s
recommended condition described as follows:
l i
i
, ° T hat the applicant submit a revised site and
landscape plan meeting all provisions of the
Tigard Municipal Code. Said revised site and
landscape plan shall be reviewed by the planning
staff to assure. conformance with applicable
Tigard Municipal Code Requirements. ..
Cook sec The motion pass
seconded the motion. passed by a
unanimous vote of those members present.
'7 • E. The applicant requested that he take the submitted
site plan so that he could redraw it and resubmit,
to st the h aff. he
T staff a
ff co c
n urged with request.his rs s
1
t.
Edin asked the date of the next meeting. Staff
stated that the next meeting had not yet been scheduled
but would notify the Design Review , Board members
when there were items for an agenda.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mickelson then moved to adjourn and Bartell seconded
and the Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
•A
4
s . I
P c
Page g 5C►R Minutes 5-2-74
uw