Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SDR17-75
POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm.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. .a',t ..«a,.. ria,.a:...u4t�,. .:s. ,a.t.tum'r z.x s.''',xnaax' '1.»w,4,P.k,:+a.,.1“...+ ,,,,1 ',n4.:..',rra'4,fi;;14.:1.4.44.�a'4.unt,;.„.t:G.,7„-.,,A,t..a:'4-,:.:ia 4-,.,1,:..r,:r1 ..a....:,..,ir,e,-fmo-,.a,,c:a::�ux, . ,,.,,.,,,..,4,"N...t .,,l,a,,,,,,N..,,:.'.,,.Ihl.t.a,.-r,. .., 1.u.Y,Idi,9'nmF}A{1,',.L""fi ru' . 1 I ,, r f I ��' t ��'�' ,I ,I''Ir 'II `'ja , .r ,`,41 , ` ,GARD WATER,,I isixRIG"xI, ;: , a s � t S±te,De vel.O iezt';I,Re lew:r(SD'R,,1 -75), 1 8841"SW Co e.re al St.'ee I, �,' A t.t , �, +.,-i„+{Y1rt:AwlLtiuii4 .r r -t'yl,,,1'.,.+,w,,,«..n t.,.M...rvl.e,«,.,....,.v+..,.�u..a...»«, ,,...,.d.,,...,v-,..ir..,..,,,..i.t�....�7.r,t :A4,,. I z d ,1 • , , , . Id • , r , 7 r I I I r , , I I i i 4 I I i j' 1 iliiiiiiii 1 1 ' ,1 • . , '' • ii i I • • • • • 1975 August 20, tl n • 1. • Mr, Robert Santee Tigard. IjateTigard. IJater District 8841 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Santee: Please be advised that the Tigard Site Development and Architectural • Design Review Board, at their 'August L2 1975, meeting, considered the resubmission of your ardhitectural plans and your deign was approved subject to your bringing back to the Board samples of the materials and colors which will be used. These samples are to be . approved by the Board before an occupancy permit is issued. If we can be of additional (assistance or if you need additional information, please do not hesitate to call this office at -4171 � �� e re Dick Bole Planning i eoto 'I I D)3 s i I I I i I I I r �. �,..,.� ...i ��� .�A � .�...,, ., e�al.,.....,e. �i ..,. .�,ii i ..,.„_._... . .....il.'� .�.� �..v�.,.i.0 .,. w.r T,baneU.. mA+A.t Ain ..�. .�... ...........mx, r. •�rj i. .uf __ .i�,...w .�J;, air ,• r r a , j f 1 . ?",,,I FTr • . ' ' August 12, ,„1975 r 4 � p ; •Ti ard, Oregon 97 . , ' e e e a SDR' 17-75 ' Day ° ante s: Please be advised bat. the Tigard rit ' G4unc .10 at their August ' . 1 , 1 75, pubilo hearing, .denied your appeal' o Tigard " r Review' Board decision concerning t 'design of your proposed .; addition o be Fir District g s Building on, S. . Commercial St.�l�. ,1. �« y' �N at 63j4171. / x""71" Ww '' 4140 a ., . , 1 • tetocalf. ,�b . ' ficea need additional inThr ation ors 'assistance. Si r City Recorded i . A�1 a I T i 1� • • I ?j{ d rp tl P •.. ._ ...,,, .. .',. .. ..___..._.__._ -..__.._i_r, ...v...... .:.l ik...}'..1:.....I .,, ..,......r.....w•1....1......,n. ., .h........,.r 1.1,... ...,,r_.v.l..«..,..w..+-...«..,,.«•.,,e...r„ .. .,w._. .....wr,.xurlJ r... .... r l.. 1 jwrJ 4 v a 1 4 I.c • Motion by Ct,',1:fr,al.mra,u Cook; seconded by Councilman. :W(... Jse approved 'wi't!,. the following conditions: • (1) Redwood 8° cyclone fence be provided as shown on submitted plan around the storage compound. (2) A paved driveway approach be provided and sufficient space between the building and u the storage area rema.,in, to allow future parking. (3) Adequate security lighting be provided. o• (4) A review by the Planning Commission at the end 5f two years to determine if use should be continued or conditions modified. Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council. otsigz 9e A.PPEAL, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL - Tigard Water District - proposed addition of Water District Office Building at 8841 S. W. Commercial. Councilman Barkhurst abstained from discussion and voting. t Public Hearing Opened 8000 P. M. Discussion by staff and Council if a precedent would be set by hearing the appeal and if held the hearing should be on the basis if the Design Review Board acted properly within their legal charge. Concensus of Council was to hold a Public Hearing. fr,1 Testimony by applicant. r Clarence Nicoll, 9830 S. W. McKenzie, representing Water Board. Bob Santee, Administrator of Tigard Water District. 4 Testimony by opponent. if Gerald Olson Cross Examination by Council. Bob Santee Clarience Nicoll Consideration by Council of Testimony. II Motion by Councilman. Cook to remand the matter back to Design Review Board for written findings and reasons to the applicant; and continue the Public Hearing to August 110 1975 seconded by Councilman Nickelson. ti M' 1 1.1•Yn; Approved by unanimous vote of Council. Meeting recessed 9.55 P. M. - reconvened 10005 P. M. 10, APPEAL - PbANWIN0 COMMISSION ACTION - G. M, Bonn & i enneth Bunn chartg e from R�7 (single family residential. +,t Request for approval of zone g ( ) .o 1q:,)7 Planned Dev ment and for preliminary P � or P y plat approval for an 8,5 acre¢ 70 dwelling unit,.', Planned development proposed to the S. of S. W. Murdock St, and extending forth along Canterbury Lane. (tax ,, x map' 28110AD) • " S. W. 109th Avenue to S. W. Can Ay lot 880. to (Continued from July 140 19' 5` Council meetin 1 8 ) Page � COUNCIL MINUTES « July 28, 1975( •` 'i . r.. •... ...,. .;., .,,. ,, .._..,.1 ,. ,. :,, ,.,,.a..., 'rv„ r,, rnr .,rr .r,. r„m ., ... n;irW.7,lIU.rl utJi«'J • 1 v {, ..,,.. :•..,. . �,.....,,..., ,....�1,_,....._x..,....,..:�..».-..+,....•..,..._.r..,6.,r.,.,l,.. ._.«.,.i.n..:aL£,.:a:.a:.�4I.a;Ai�,.....a..�,,.,...w.r,,.,.,.,w,..,.al,.,...x..-w...r.a...,.._,.+...—c:,.....;».,x..w';,.,. .:.l r�,..r<,.11..1r...d3.-:.{'..:»:'11 ,._x.....u.urq...a«us-.Diu.,M.�w,.,.U�.a..:w..-,+..a«w.ti:vw :,,.l.:nw.cw,,."xa...ti,.wa..u.,,..:... • 4 .AOrnr�w.,r�w.,ww �i r., AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION � ` v ,'`O ' �' , , fi r ,, , ': i k. , '.' � r S� TE OF OREGON t • , x � fi �ss,COUNT OF WASHINGTON, I''''''' a r _ x ;;' �� t, ���y x.�,lh ;, �T �f k r �, , I, : J o s.e. dl. Sea a t3 «_.......... l 1vC �j.h„ `,, Y!' / y;, Tieing first duly sworn, depose and say that T am thy, publisher �.:. i ° �`"c`�_`�°” x ,14%.1,, ....«, of Thy: Tigard Times a, newspaper of genei al circulation, as defined '' yy?? g�' y y`a'k ►f i� _ , , '•4h: �" '`h�Q�Y1 r^ w1 \, rr 4� ) 'Yr by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published at Tigard, in the a1uresaid county and ,u•�I�l]�' ,.i t,!,�. �.tt. : .� �,7t,• .„.1 ,t ti[ , � tr ,,ttA . x14 A� , xId ,r x�:' � f• state, that the legal notice, a printed copy of which is hereto azuxe e ; was u'° 1 ` ', x, ' .��, 1 440°, t' '� �x . (7, i, + r x x i'A �1 '�t,l 1•�,�,F ,4 �;,P a 4 Yt ' published in the entice issue of said newspaper for .. 2 successive and ; Y a'* ,- ,.11. ? .1 �� ' is "o. ' �f consecutive weeks in the following «.. «« I, � ;� a, 1`b ell--' e r 1 , i- ',, W g issues .._ «_ d ,l : i,1�+�; �r . "x f i+��(*?��"tG'[`, j{� "�( y: "J4� n� July 17 & 2 1975 _ 5' x , ,,,. rk .•{ ,' r `.'_ __:.._w..... .J «.«..._ _..,. ._.�...._....� .i _ ..r._:..: i, 1, p+f r`�" 11'4 Q �x�i 2ye ., Hie'p�YNN:•`�t� j N�, ....a A' 111111 �. �y' `t`.tiJ}'.1, 0 Atr r _.4 _'�.. , ,4I 4� .lie, t1 , � t,',,o..ti* i P x' �A 1.�;x .d "��.'e 'N nature} d q A I',Ci J� �YJ 6 ..,M :u .t J,' .,a., r,/31, a ri t x E Ci al' t?4, . r',L, 1,1ok t� a'� �a�•� - 'M ,� I' „ 1t '� r I, L• y.l+ ! 'i ��""''5\y,, r�7ioi� d�A+�' r« 7�'.�C'� 'and.' I �' � � , a S�.4�yb, � ,y a�. s L..•� NW�� �x�r� ' ';�'Stt,,1Sstribd ;swo�rznMto'before me this 2. tht _ ,......___. day'of i� `'� i`K.a7 .' 0. • _' ; d, x'r . � �' 'I'' *M1. ', ■ "ni. ,p 1. ',-. , '-.;•,," ' ze; j G" ,°�`' / woodegon ' 1Viy commission expires ...-............C—. .. .,--.� 19.1.. — : 4 L x • 1, • • ■ ■ i ' N A r I _.......w...,I..r...,_..,.,_........., _.....,._......u_..;.4._,...�.......w,...r_...............a a.��.:..,MII..:....,1Yb.:. .».,«.r. .«w4.«..Ar.....- .,....,.._... ...«.s.r,-r nr,.n.....4.:,.,.r,r .w1i,an...url:.-......ul.-rr.,d.i:a1i..mr-+...1r.4....r.....»A1 ...r.r.-....w.,...II,......N»rt.I..uwW.,...i4.l..tx^xn..l,+•.G..)<.wt1 SUn',-.,I,:G.i,...l;:?.w,u'.r-:FA:.r.1.JG.n.;ul.—„J,.:.-r: • Yw/ e5 . CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ,.• Notice is hereby g iven that a public hearing will be held b Y t the City t Y Council at New Fowler Junior High Lecture Room, 10865 S. W. Walnut, i I Tigard, Oregon on July 28, 1975, 'at 8:00 P. M. with respect to the following applications: c An appeal by. the Tigard Water District of Design Review Board denial of an architectural review for a proposed addition of the Water District Office Building at 8841 S. WI ,, Commercial Street. An appeal by Nine-T-Nine Towing Service of a Planning Commission .denial of a Conditional Use request to allow storage of towed vehicles at the . rear of the building located at 12568 S. W. Main Street, (tax map 2S12AC tax lot 1101). . All interested persons may appear and be heard in favor or. against) • the said appeals a 0, BY ORDER Or THE CITY COUNCIL • I I Doris Hartig TT Publish July 170 24, 1975 • • r `I a I , y • I I I ' d } I/ a .0,. , ', '- �i �.,...,.r .,,, i r I i. . �� r..� ....r,•..n„ ,.,.. rr�+r. v.r+. ..x.,r n r , I, , • 6. APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST (Nine-T-Nine Towiv,g Service,! Gene Dooley) (a) Motion by Councilman Barkhurst that a public hearirag be set for July 28;, 1975, 8000 P. M.; seconded by Councilman Cook. Motion paPSed 'by' unanimous vote. 7. APPE AL TIGARD W A TE R DI S"R xCT OFFICE ADDITION TO T1GATD F IRE STATION -' DESIGN REVIEW ki‘ BOARD ACTION • (a) Motion by councilman Moore that a pu b 11"c hearing be, set. for July 28, 1975, 8 00 P. N. � , seconded by Councilman Barkhurst. Motion,passed:'.by"+unanimous vote. 8. ACC PT AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION SANITARY SEWER, AGREEMENT" -, •JOs h E. & June W. Poitras, 10515 S. W. Johnson Street, Tigard, Oregon P . , (a) City Administrator advised Council that this property was located outside the City. They were experiencing problems with the septic .tank. at that property and desired to i. connect to the sanitary sewer system and 'that, by accepting and authorizing the execution of the Sanitary Sewer Agreement,Council. would' set up the conditions under which the connection could be made. Condition. include non'xemonstrance to annexation. . (b) Motion to adopt Councilman Moore; seconded by Councilman Cook. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 9. ACCEPT AND APPROVE SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT - .E' 9wooD`II (a) City Administrator recommended that this standard Subdivision Compliance Agreement' • form be accepted and execution au thoriZed. (b) Motion by Councilman Cook to accept and approve SUbdivis3,on Compliance Agreement and authorize Mayor and Recorder to execute same; seconded' by Councilman Moore. ' 9 Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 10. RESOLUTION No. 75-38 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGA tD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVE- . CONSTRUCTED WITH PUBLIC RIGF T I F-WAY ON S. W. 115TH AVENUE, FROM S. W. GAARDE TAD A POINT 857 FEET, MORE OR LESS, NORTHERLY THEREOF. (a) City Administrator noted that portion of 115th from Gaard o St. to a point 857 feet •. northerly thereof e f p oved by adjacent developers as a condition of approval of er of �Tas improved �t vat 0 their subdivision, that the street had been inspected' and the Pu Dept. re . commended that the City accept the street. (b) Motion by Councilman Moore that RasolU ti No. be adopted; seconded by Councilman Barkhurst. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 5 39 R IT � .". ' TRIPLE PLE RESOLUTION x�o: 7 - ' P CITY �C4UNCID AG�YQWt�E1pG.LNG: RECEIPT OF MAJORITY 11. RESOLU RESOLUTION 0 I MAJO�.I. ANNEXATION AND RECOMMEND FORW'ARDI'NG TO PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION' S. W. Hampton Street Annexation PACE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1975 l • ' .,.:., ._, .., -..,.. _ .; .,,u.. „.,. ,,.. ,..,.. ..-.u... ..,.,...a. , , .,.. •.G...:.,- ,.....•.. 4.M.•...- •...�+..'.t i:M...am.:, t:.,+....,._, J,.,....,...., ,,.......,a.'.AA' • STREET AND 490 FEET SOUTHEAST OF S. W.JMAIN' STREET, SAID OPEN SPACE COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY TWO AND ONE HALF ACRES; AND 4. FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 4 Motion to adopt: Councilman Mckelson, seconded b y Councilman calman Moore. � , Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 10. VARIANCE REQUEST - Request by Girod's Market to vary Section 15.04.080, Tigard. Municipal Code "Driveway approaches and curb cuts" to permit an 18' wide, driveway, at 12240 S.W. . Main Street, tax lot 4100, tax map 2S1 2AA. Public Hearing Opened. (a) Statement of facts given by City Planner. (b) Public Testimony Proponent Henry Voderberg, Architect for applicant Louis Girod, applicant Opponents - none Paul and Lenore Warner, S. W. 72nd, questioned if variance request was being ' processed in proper sequence with respect to other hearings on the proposed develop- ment. City Administrator responded Council was considering the variance request only at this timer. Cross Examination - None Public Hearing Closed Discussion of testimony and facts by Council. (c) Motion by Councilman Nickelson the variance be granted to allow an 18 foot wide, oneway ingress, from S. W. Main Street: motion seconded by Councilman Cook. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 11. TIGAED WATER DISTRICT APPEAL Councilman Barkhurst abstained from discussion and voting on appeal. 0' a k (a) Continued from 7/28/75 Council meeting. (b) Public Hearing Opened. I I , City Planner distributed copy of minutes and report by Design Review Board. City ' Administrator commented Council's decisi on is h ow to h andle, re view th e reasons f or denial, and determine if the Design Review Board acted impi.operly. F ' (c) Public Testimony A pP el�.an t 0 Clarence Nicoli Ti g a rd Water District I V I II i Page B COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11 1975 it + A+ • G 1 w , , p4.....a...L,,.,, ..'.:. ... f.',..-+m—'..i....r.,._.,'».. 1,."_,_,., F.... r,.....1..I•.U...NW..+.... ....f,»».wAl J1.W.,.».. ,! r. i • ^. ,._.,..,,..»,.».........,.-,t......_.-...d ...,..4. r , ....r.r;..'_+..w-.u.rG..'.'m a«..,.,1;.. ...r-..L..,..».w......,.»...gym. ...,., L .a....,s.+,,. r ..w.i+,.a......,..,>_r..,. , , C, Cif ' ■ C C C C cCt e I Bob Santee, Administrator a r a T" . ard� Water District � � � � �� �, • Cross-Examination • None - Public Hearing Closed j 1 h Discussion of testimony and facts by Council. d) Motion by Councilman Cook the appeal be denied and Council affirm action of the r, Design Review Board based on the fact they have been authorized to review the design and did act according to the ordinance; motion, seconded by Councilman Nickelson. ) A FP rU ve d by 3 l vote of Council.1 Cou• n cilna n Moore voting NAYI and Councilman Barkhurst abstaining. AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.12.100, Subsection (b) regarding maintenance f of vision clearance zone between all intersecting E 'creets, reducing the height limitation from 10 to 8 feet; and amending subsection (d) regarding centerline setbacks for designs- ted arterial and collector streets. (: Public Hearing Opened • (a) Statement of facts and discussion of proposed amendment by City Planner. �� (b) Public Testimony , Maul Warner, S. W. 72nd it . Cynthia Adams, 12815 S.' W. Grant Cross Examination - None � I , Public Hearing Closed. ,. , • (c) ORDINANCE No. 75-40 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER . 18.12, GENERAL PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO VISION CLEARANCE STANDARDS AT INTERSECTING STREETS AND CENTERLINE SETBACKS FOR DESIGNATED ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS; PRESCRIBING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND DECLARING AN ELLERGENCY. Motion to adopt: Councilman BarkhUrst; seconded by Councilman Cook, ' (d) Discussion of facts and testimony 'by Council and staff. Attorney Bailey discussed t with respect trunks limited to Inot m se diameter. Legal d i: pect to tree' tr more recommended th � section 4 (b) wi al Counsel re poles l�.m u r c s� an o l a.t than ten s eliminated Attorney Bailey also stated he would like tolrresearc th e diameter be non-conforming the non con�Forma.ng �; Use status and gill ive g legal opinion at next meeting. (e) Motion by Council man Tarkh urst to table the matter; seconded by Councilman Cook. Approved by unanimous vote of Council RESOLUTION No. 75-41 - RESOLUTION • RESOLU IO.. N_ OF CITY COUNC I L ACKNOWLEDGING RE CEIPT OF TRIPLL MAJORITY ANNEXA TION AND RECOMMEND FORWARDING TO PORTLAND METROPOLITAN� AREA A LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY raoMMIssoN Southern Pac ific Railroad, F' w„rltfwt+ww#r.t'+#+�#•R+t++;strle►�Mrar4',±'h+Y'�'trXwsw++,i�t ft+y++e+1�O"!`Q.C'". g y, ¢ %y ^� ge 4 Council Minutes w August 1. .y ,1975 ^ , r� , ..., o,.., ;�,..,,.. .., ,,.1',...yp a..«._..H+..wo,,... 1+^p •:.,. ,, ...., +•n.dw...,a, ,v. r.... ,, ,.a...,,.,.,,.�� , y/!y yf. art, /e/✓- J' i MINUTES Tigard Site Development and. Architectural Design Review Board August 12, 1975 • Tigard City Hall. 12420 S. W. Main St. , Tigard, Oregon • , 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:05 p.m, 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Cook, Hammes, Olson, Wakem, Mc:Monagle; staff members Bolen and Laws 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes, of the July 22, 1975, meeting . were approved as submitted. 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None were received. • 5. PROJECT REVIEWS • • 5.1 SDR 24-75 (Girod's Market) A request for review of a proposed major remodel of an existing market at S. W. Main St. and Commercial St. A. Site Design Review 1. Staff Report - Read by Bolen with{,the recommendation that wheel blocks be depicted on the site development plan and that landscape islands be shown at the a� south end of the parking lot to define and channelize traffic flow in that area, 2. Applicant Presentation - Henry Voderberg, the project architect,..explained the site plan with the,.'assis±anc.e . ..:,, of Mr. Overby, a representative from United Grocers. 3. Board Discussion and Action o Cook asked Mr. Voderberg the size of the trees intended to be planted in that no size was • specified on, the landscape plan. Mr. Voderberg the trees would 10 ft. in height. stated that th ou.ld be . o Cook then asked where garbage would b2 handled: Overby bephandledainaan enclosed area�adoragey' jacent the loading dock on the south end of the building. 0 " o McMonagle asked if there had been any consideration of possible improvement to Commercial St. at this point. Voderberg said his client is looking for some direction fro m the City on •this point as to what type of improvement could be done at this is , 1 ..L..........».. ... ..,,,,.x«.... . ...1_........... 1._.„....,.,,....w .«,,..i_+,u,_»_.,...w.«....w ..a.m,..+a .,..._.ix4.».„...r.u., J�.u.!!.»,r:..x. ,...:.................I...I..w-.+R,w,»lr.,,L,._' ...4.».+..,,-...,.r..:.:.....I:...:..x_l.ua,7.:w...::w.:_.».1 'u...ua._...,a:v-J..w;N+.cµ • 8/12/75 BRB Minutes - page 2 - 4.- time when the entire street is improved. o McMonagie stated that at this time a sidewalk could be placed adjacent the property line at I the future street profile which has already , been determined by th e City. Thi s sidewalk k is would provide definition for the proposed land- scape platting beds and when the future street improvements come, a curb section could be added , ' at that time. • o Ham mes suggested th�.t lighting be shown on the ° landscape pl an. o Gook moved to approve the landscape plan with the conditions that: ft. sidewalk section be built the (1) • �A 5 length of the Commercial St. frontage at the profiles specified by the City public , , works department in lieu of the extruded curb, shown on the site plan. r ca e islands(2) That Lands s be shown at the south p l end of the parking area in order to channel- i. ize traffic flow and that, in order to do this, it be permitted that one landscape island be deleted from the 90 degree parking stalls. (3) That the landscape plan specify plant types and sizes and the trees be a minimum 10 ft in height. (4) That on-site lighting be designated on the landscape plan.: I I o Seconded Wakem C :) o Motion approver'. unanimously. B. Archite ctural Design n Review II o Mr. Voderberg explained the floor plans and elevations to the Board. Cook I� o (Jock asked about the materials to be used on the , building facia. Voderberg said that a corrugated I' blue metal material would be used with wood "trim ' above and below. It addition, he added that the �R� building face would be ' of broken face concrete blocks. McMonagle asked where the l e o g rain drains will be located and would . the drainage be used. Mr. Voderberg said that j t it would be used with some , e imodificatIons, I o Olson asked d w h �t the s ix box-like shapes W.. are shown along the roof line of e n � elevation of • building Voderb er g width that this �s an existing • t' o Y r,4.m....,.... ....... ..., ,w rl,...I. .. ...., .._....,.,.1'.._.,...r...._..,,,, ...,........ .....11.,._.r-.,a....,.ti ._.... .xlr..n .. i..I.a..... r.«.n. ..,...L -,..+.n.,.a.k4.w'...1...-».-...1., ..I,n....+,.../...+r.., .. ..w..,...r...r4.ti..l.r roof sign. Each box contains .a letter of the name sign. a Girod's. o Cook asked staff.:if this sign conformed to the Tigard Sign Code. Bolen responded that this was a non-conforming sign and would have to be removed by 1980, having essentially 5 years left to remain. o Cook then asked staff if the fact that . I C k they whenever a building is remodeled by more than 50%, that all anon--conforming features must be brought into con-- formance with the Code, would require removal of this non-conforming sign. O Bolen replied that this question had never been put to the City's legal counsel, but it is possible that this could be the case. . o Bolen asked that the st o re presently has o ne free gy standing ame and reader board sign on Main St, and • g � , thin roof sign does represent a second and additional sign. o Cook moved to accept the design with the condition that the non-conforming roof sign be removed. • • o Seconded (Wakem) . o Approved unanimously. • 6. OTHER BUSINESS P 6.1 Bob Santee, Tigard Water District, appeared with an architect from the firm providing services to the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District, Mr. Dwayne Peterson. o Chairman McMonagle welcomed Mr. Santee and Mr. Peterson stating that he was aware the City Council had, on Mon- day night, denied the Water District's appeal of the Board's previous denial of their architectural plans and added that he was happy to see them back to the Board so quickly' in order to resolve this issue. o Mr. Peterson then proceeded to present the design which he had prepared following Mr; Santee 's statement of the ' needs and financial constraints of the Water District. added was the first time Mr. Santee had seen He a d that this as t e this design, and possibly he should give his app^oval before consideration were taken by the Board. . Sant asked the Board to proceed o Mr. Santee a with their con sideration. o Mr. Peterson proceeded to present the design stating that he was attempting to deal With the stated concerns • I I DRIB Minutes - August 12, 1975 page 3 Y • , i ...a_ .... ..i...,a.f. ......-.J:,,n,+..w I...r.....rax r......h.«.....-,4..—.,I..+nn FYry m.»1...-... w........ .l l«..+.mx+,.n..».«.C.m n . , , , • of the Design Review Board and also the needs of the Water District in providing additional space. His pro-posal involveda cantalevered second story which provided the purpose of providing rain shelter for the doors and windows of the first story and being of stud wall construct ion, economical to build while providing a direct service for application of cedar siding. o Cook said he sympathized with Mr. Peterson's problems in attempting to redesign this rather drab building and added that he liked the proposal being made. o Olson, McMonagle and Hammes concurred that they found it an attractive design. o Cook moved to accept the proposal submitted, Qontingent upon the Board seeing samples of the materials and. colors to be used prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. o Seconded (Wakem) . Unanimously approved. . 7. ADJOURNMENT: 6:40 p.m. / . t o • i D .$ � ` Minutes August page 4 • MEMORANDUM ' To: Tigard City Council From: Planning Staff Subject: Findings of Fact: Tigard Water District Administration. Office Architectural Review - (SDR 17-75) Date: August 8, 1975 1. In the official minutes of the Tigard Design Review Board for June 24, 1975, it shows that "Motion for denial (McMonagle) based on findings (stated pre- , viously in the minutes) that a redesign of the building facade would be necessary to conform with the intent of the Architectural Design Review Ordinance". I 2. Staff reviewed the official minutes of the meeting� and then the tape e trans�.ri t g P p of the meeting. That review indicated that the Board found, and advised Mr. Santee, that: a. Their primary objection to the building was not that one material was preferable over another, or that some surface treatment was preferable to. some other, or that the two tiered 'Mansard" roof treatment was ugly -- but simply, when everything was put together, the proposed addition was so out of place and harmony with the test of the building, that the net effect would be less appealing; in a word, worse, than the building as it now is. b. The major parts, of this finding are in statements by Mrs, Charlotte Olson and Mt. Monte Cook. These statements, transcribed directly from the tape are: tit + - st h t e the material stucco �siding isn t the o Gook. Torn ,'�. � : ma a cc or n � t a�xi It's the proportions (and) the sympathy toward the materials (which are) details really lacking. It's a two story, two mansard front stuck on the building -- and this is what's posing the problem."f Olson: "(our) purpose for being here is not to approve or disapprove of a design. It's also to kind of make the City look better.. . I wonder if you're really improving the looks of the building and thereby the looks of the City by doing this thing. It seems like, (the addition) should y Y g � (' improve (the building) so that people can, say this is our City and I'm proud of this City, . .` I l c. The Board encouraged Mr. Santee to return to the De si g n Review Board with improved design more in harmony with the impending development of Commercial. Street: and that would improve the appearance of the building. 3. Commercial Street has been a backwater of Tigard, receiving little attention to its appearance. The Design Review Board is aware of the intended major remodeling of Cirod's Market. The intended remodeling of : 'armcraft,. the planned exterior refurbishing of Tigard Auto Body, and of the City's high priority attached to improvement of the street itself. • I m ended b�. 4. The Tigard Community Plan, a5 en N.P.O. #1 speaks to the issue o;f I ., ,, ., •., ., ..., a „1. „ _, „a..,., , PY, "downtown Tigard," and asks that concerted effort, be made to ';improve the 'i • appearance and attractivenes of the area, citing the benefit to citizens, 1, businessmen and taxpayers to be derived. 5. Sections 18.59.020 and .030 specify high standards of design performance as the City's policy and charges the Design Review Board 'with, adherence to those l standards. 6. The Design Review Board, after review of the proposed remodeling, and after attempting discussion of the proposed remodeling with Mr. Santee, specifically found that the proposed remodeling, as submitted, was not consistent with the criteria and standards of the architectural design review ordinance, 7. For the convenience of the Council, the applicable sections of the Architectural • Design Review Ordinance, as codified, are attached. . . I j . I , I ' I I f I I L. f • „ I � Planting memo to Council - August 8 197 5 page 2 g p g c, • • • L , 111111111111111151111111111111111.111.111111110MINIMINEIMMINIMEMB • 18. 59 . 020 Purpose. • Excessive uniformity, dissimilarity, inappropriateness or poor quality of design in the exterior appearance of structures in the business, commercial, indus- - trial and certain residential areas of the city hinders the harmonious development of the city, impairs the desirability of residence, investment or occupation in the city, limits the opportunity to attain the optimum use and value of land and improvements, adversely affects the stability and value . of property, produces degeneration of property in such areas / ' with attendant deterioration of conditions affecting the peace, health and welfare of the city, and destroys a proper , relationship between the taxable value of property and the cost of municipal services therefor. Therefore, the purposes and objectives of design review • are to: (1) Encourage originality, flexibility and innovation of architectural design; • (2) Discourage monotonous, drab, unsightly, dreary and inharmonrous architecture; . (3) Conserve the city's natural beauty and visual • ' character and charm by insuring that structures are propeily related to their sites and to surrounding sites and struc- tures, with due regard *to the esthetic qualities of the natural terrain and landscaping, and the 'proper attention is given to exterior-appearances of structures; (4) Protect and enhance the city's appeal to tourists and visitors and thus support and stimulate business and industry and promote the deGirability of investment and occupancy in business, commercial and industrial properties; (5) Stabilize and imt)rove property values and prevent blighted areas and, thus, increase tax revenues; (6) Achieve the beneficial influence of pleasant en- ' vironments for living and working on behavioral patterns and, thus, decrease the cost of governmental services; (7). Foster civic pride and community spirit so as to • improve qualty and in local government and in community growth, change and • improvement; (8) Sustain the comfort, health, tranquility and con- . tentment of residents and attract new residents by reason of the eitl?' s favorable environment; and thus, to promote and protect the peace,, health and welfare of the city. (Ord. 74-10 §1 (part) , 1974) . 18 .59. 030 Criteria and standards. The board shall, in exercising or performing its powers, duties or functions* . determine whether there is compliance with the f01J-dwIng: (1.) The proposed structure is in harmony with othet developments in the general neighborhood; (2) The ) cation, design, color and materials, of the ' 4 exterior of all structures are compatible with the proposed • development and appropriate to the character of the immediate • neighborhood. Tho- board in making its determination shal3, be guided by the objectives of Section 18 .59 . 020 and such objectives - shall serve as additional driteria and staff , 74-10 §1 (part) 19/4) . r .. ..JI,.. .....fi. n..IA.k-+.-' .w,ni 4.-nx......+,.x..M..1.1..w...a.x ♦ nN. r .n . i n,J +r+ r�� ��► �'� CITY OF T P. 0. Box 23557 4./ti 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 u 8, 1975 I August 97 'Y,l, Mr. Robert Santee Tigard Water District 8841 S. W. Commercial t I I � Tigard, Oregon 97223 I . Dear Bob. A review of our chronological file and case file; on your request g y �. for site development plan and architectural design .c'evew' has revealed . no copy of corresponderce advising you of the Board's action on your r request. We acknowledge that this is likely an oversight on our part and that the verbal communication of the action and findings of the Board at the Board' s June 24, 1975, meeting and the following day here in our office was not sufficient. , Please be advised, then, that on June 22, 1975, the Tigard Site De- velopment Plan and Architectural Design Review Board met, and considered your !application for review of your proposed remodeling of the Tigard Water District Administration Offices at 88411 S. W. Commercial. The . Board approved your site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. A 5 ft. sidewalk and 10 ft. landscape strip be provided , adjacent ac ent SW Ash Avenue. - � 2. That Th t required landscap in g adjacent S. W. Commercc ia l St. may a be held in abeyance until such time as the Commercial St. Local Improvement District is formed an d st ree improvements I �t' Ii made. 3. Required landscaping is to be provided per a landscape plan to be submitted to staff for staff approval. The architectural ral design,of your proposed remodeling was considered denied by unanimous vote of the rd based Board of the building facade would be necessary Jr by the and was na.e d an he Boa on onorm with the intent of the Architectural Resign Review' Ordinance findings � to �.n�:nce I � c and stating that the applicant could resubmit his plan at any time to t be heard further by l the Architectural Design Review 3oar4« Sincerely, 7r ! Jerald. M. Powell, Assoc. A:P Associate Planner s I I S I I I • • I I I • I I I July M .1Ir Y �1 30, yn M I Robert Santee Tigard Water District 8841 S. W. Commercial St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 r k I I Re: Architectural Review Appeal - SDP, 17-75 Dear Mr. Santee: • • The Tigard City Council, at their regular meeting of July. 28, 1975, tabled consideration o your appeal of the Design RM•ieI• Board denial of your submitted architectural'I plans until you can be provided with the Board's findings and 'reasons for their • action. • Your appeal has been placed on the agenda of the August 11 1 City Council meeting. If you have arr,r 'questions or need additional information., please 1 do not hesitate to call this office at 639-4171. Sincerely, Doris Hartig w I City Recorder I I regps • ...:�'.� i � ..� ,..���.i ,�,.:,�.. .,I ,�., .,..�, � .. ...., i..� ....,�...• .. ,. ..,�„ � �, �..�,,, r ..,..,.,,.•.. .•�•. •.�.� .. ,.mow. u.v� r a rt ra�..�cu.x i•xw�i�cN r 1 h I 11 0 • • . ' H .w....,.... ..nu.r+,.4..r..S•.�M..i-_�.y� " . •,�,•. •. [.i.•, f v .�..,n v.!, 1 ,,� • 1 r i I Memorandum , To: Tigard City Council r Prom: Dick Bolen, Planning Director Subject: Appeal by Tigard Water District of Design Review Board denial of architectural design of proposed office expansion in the Tigard Fire Station 25, 1 July Date: u 5 1975 The attached material documents the Design Review Board action of June 24,, 1975, relative to the Water District's request. Be aware that the appeal concerns only the building architecture as the site ~ r plan (landscaping) was approved by the Board. As is the practice, the staff report refers only to the site plan and does not deal with the building architecture, However, the staff report to the Design Review'.toard has been included as background material. The . . enclosed minutes provide a summation of the substantial issues dis- . cussed concerning the building design, I t seems necessar y to p oint , out that the Board members were exceedingly tactful in expressing ' their concerns to Mr. Santee about his proposed design. As the motion indicates, they encouraged him to come back as soon as ° possible (irrespective of required submission deadlines, etc. ) with . a plan dealing with the particular design problems of concern to the , Board. members. As regards the substance of Mr. Santee 's appeal, I find it necessary to comment about a. statement made by him at the Design Review Board meeting and also in his Letter of appeal to the City Council. The third paragraph of his letter states, ''An architect designed the proposed addition with a modified mansard motif, . . . " • I have attempted to find out who this architect was, as no, register r stamp or name appears on the submitted design. Upon questioning Mr. Santee, I have been informed that the perspective drawing was prepared by Carey Bell, a draftsman for Carter-Bringle and Associates, Engineers. I telephoned Mr. Bell and he informed me that he had not designed the building addition, but rather drew the perspective drawing using a sketch provided him by Mr. Santee. The working drawings were subsequently prepared from Mr. Bell 's drawing by John Adams, a designer (not a registered architect) employed by the Tualatin Development Corporation, Therefore, while Mr. Santee' has p certainly minimized, the costs to the public for the design phase of this project, his assertion that the proposed addition is the product • of an architect is apparently stretching, the credentials of the parties known to be involved. The staff is of the opinion that the ;decision rendered by the Board was within the limits of their delegated responsibility' and the collective expertise, training and knowledge of the members certainly qualifies them to suggest modifications„ of the proposed plan. In addi-bioft', it is noteworthy that the Board showed a desire not only to a: ' assist Mr. Santee im improving his design (free architectural services' ) , `r but also methods of minimizing construction costs, 4r •. r ..,; . .. .. .. • .. •r 'I,v.w.rrdw.e.m+ww4s.eM.v"sw"ic+cAY1�� 1 , r • ti 1 f `9 • July 25, 1975 EC i E JUL, 28 1975 CITY OF TIGARD Bolen e arm Dic.� City Planner i9 City ©f Tigard P. O. Sox 23557 Tigard, Oregon 97223 1 Dear Mr. Bolen t In respons e to your telephone request o n Friday, ' July 25, 1975, 1 affirm that I made a sketch, in perspective y ers p ective la_ out,. for the Tigard Water District, of the proposed vertical addition to the existing Tigard Water District office • , , Information for makin the drawing was supplied to • me by Robert Santee, Tigard Water District Adrnin • istrator, in the form of a rough sketch, general dimensions,, and verbal instructions. Sincerely, • / e//// //,/, C,A RROtL M. BELL • 1 • • • • " .,.,,,,._..s..a�«.,,u,..iu».«.,..,],•. ..i ...Mk.....,.,.........n.w.s.-iw,,..........«'..—,.f,.....r.,,.,,d..-ur ...•,..0 d.....•a...u„-....,....,..,,..»r,+ .,. ....'a.:.....w.a,u.�-...,Wr.....:...»,.•:tir.....�w:ar ..0 M,�kM....,....,,•.mr+,.z....N..r.,. o.n.i.t..t.... kaL..:..,,M ».«�..i+....w.-aMi,.-«+.x:,i,.i.....ti::.�',.a,.k...,:.._..«.,.........u�.{rk.;o,M„k..L.,..f�r, a TIGARD WATER DISTRICT. .� ... ,�e�1y s� W.COMMERCIAL BT. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PHONE (5Q3) 639.1554 • June g5: 1975 � ; 1975 w The Mayor and City Council City of Tigard Re: Proposed water district 12420 S. W. Main Street office addition to Tigard , . Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fire Station, TRFPD Gentlemen In accordance with Section 18.59 A 060, Tigard Municipal Code, the S � decision of the Architectural Design Review- Board of June 24, 1975, regarding the design of the subject office building addition is hereby appealed to the City Council Negotiations for an acceptable design of this much-needed 'addi-� a. tional office space was initiated about a year ago,between, the Fire District (owner) and'the Tigard Water District (tenant). The options were limited, but included (1) utilizing part of the community hall, (2) expanding outward toward 8 Commercial Street, and. (3) con- , . structing an upstairs to the existing office. After considerable study and consultation by both groups, the proposal to utilize an r e was s�hoseu as the preferred coarse because it�did�not upstairs office � infringe upon the 'public community hall, did not obstruct the view of operators in emergency vehicles„ and the fact that the addition could be made compatible ith the existing structure An architect designed the proposed addition with a modified mansard motif, capable of being in harmony with both the existing building and surrounding structures.ctur es This design was selected also because of t h e • • protection from weather the new roof lines afforded the south side of the building. • • . The construction was to ��be of quality material and labor, but wa.,thl n a modest budget of '$15,000 of public funds. `I 1I • , The elected officials cials o f both boards, Tualatin Rural Fire e Protection ' District and Tigard Water , � imousl agreed that the pro- posed design exha�ec� the v dne, and utility of the 1 1 structure., It is co elY at�Y C 4��0. h TC �-p r0-proportioned, and • jf certainl drab, unsi� 3or inharmonious architecture. � • a ,444 4,44 .. 4 e....«L.., w. I. 4,444i, 4w •ro«. !ry whin,. ,h zl!. �,,a„VuIW "r a•,ksuir_aaw.. ,1 It is believed that the criteria and standards as established by Section 18.59.030 have been fully met as follows: (l) The proposed structure is in harmony with other develop- ments in the general neighb o,,Phood. Co, : Other buildings in the neighborhood, consist of Parmoraft Chemical concrete bl.oek), Praire Market (concrete block), Western Plumbing wood frame), and adjacent apartments (brick and wood frame). (2) The location, design, color and materials of the ex- terior of all structures are compatible with the proposed development and appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood. Comments The exterior of the concrete block will be Brayed with stucco and painted a soft color to conform to the remaining unimproved portion of the building. It is believed that the proposed architectural design as shown meets all requirements of the municipal code and will be one of the finest looking structures, public or private, within the City of Tigard. It is with a great deal of civic pride and oommuxity spirit that promotes this remodeling which will change an old, dreary, monotonous concrete block buildin g a into pleasant, acceptable,p and. innovative structure. All requirements proposed by the Review- Board for site development, g landscaping along Street, shall be :fully implemented. i�.clud�.n. S. ��W� '.Ash street consideration •� Your � in this matter would be appreciated. Very truly yours, TIGA D WATER DISTRICT ) Robert E. Santee Administrator by direction I • u 1 r; n v. a rrb . .., r ♦ . a• GN"+ r.p a.. y,. .•I x ,'.r o .rr i ♦ , ,,r ♦ ,127•,,,k#.fwvN.._,.,.7,-.4.-;,;tn•:r ,«. »w*7,1, t w p J MX.rtyk.y„-7,t .n,rt. ..e....rY.u, ..w. r.-..r !%'%''"�'ttP I .r. A. '•'- Y Yl: { w,' - r,.i.w.,.r..rww•#'''`,«r.Y.rwi-«...y L,•.r,r ..r.. ..•,•r i x.d S E ' , n � p, ' • +^� y'c?"ka,Dh�741! �r a,. w' r t r,JH . ,-x K ,,I l r ;;- ` w - � -'aA 0 l 1 1E �v:)• 44 u ," ''kri. J9 }p; I ♦ A, # ° r- r) . f 4:, - N r:',414,..04:46'"4.•:..,04 r } _ r F " ,". F , , ., 'Z r n k.« ° , r r+ p ro w '+., "i4 r ,P w (' A.r'rry:1 r - ; ,ai.r„ •r 'r i�, :n. ; OI ` •t'+e•.. r+. S E 1.L,:.,--,,,. 4r •J v ' Y.�'A L r r."k •�' f - ' - "� .r-rx.,K y I M ar e w,,`'r y'a"',.'+�:sX,Ie, rl-rxY t`i:•tti v IrAr Y�'KF y'- r #)t ,,?_f rfiJ•;+"�+ra#.`',.4.�i r' 4A�''tF't vr,.1,.vy�o'TV kr v k s Y I Fk N_'�'a,f t r.'4 l b nM'-'K+-"t'I t i„l sIt,•-t`tnxi_t v'k l % ,'' 'I, + +.r j;,„•+''.a`: -r ; g LLLav "i ' d y f y # rr 1 ' r •t 't° p, a " r MF 'r�, , I, t '{ KJ#,y f V:,,,•'',',„*';,,,.:;,..':",r h' xr r J'q+: ,i Ji s a'i J + d s a 1 e ',, J 'r f I ,f v, i ,„ t6 hh :,1,,.,,,, ( f ' w y i s' .,r.',-..';,...;,2::., "S r � A _ w ' E • 4' '',,'+"•'•"'. { I• y, .,t; M ^, 1 M<, J{$w^' p;r" r Sfirx yf kY p �4 { E` " ;1 ♦ ••,,,,-J a x q,7.10• ,7,..,,,,, [,,„.,.,,,,,,,,,t,•,,,,,.... 4.:.,.•.. j Z+as ,+ ? , td x 1; .a, 9 ` vK 4 r " XPr. 1 f . fy(hh,y`u• r. :,. • e "r . f° .a .3h'1,•;;', ,;e;" ., w• j, r: .aI • :., r f1 ff.f .Ii„w' p' a�1 rI ,r r r I w , ,",r vrr,,.r ', .;i f o,: Y',., r «wn r.r, t J P, ♦ ,p .a(, +'o, 1d }yr9 N ' ` 4:,r ; ,,• :r.pa yr ., i r+a r, ''S"'t' w,,••'Jr , r4r '•f. I x ? i ,,Y,,:, � Y•■ n•g i .r . A Rv '+,Y"�"yry, yy . '•ns#' a S. 'A . j' - ,I kt rt,;A:C 1 4 61+ I cy'"yl ya dr,>'.,Y x by r ay ,I. • Jrr# 4b .yr xr-"t4%;,404••;4,4,-,,,:,�� 1 f":♦{n } 'at 9 .i . • A "� . yA e ,g F, l C x t1 s £ ,.A hN�4•-"t'tS� +",.:•.,< 1r'a 4 rr^ y?; ra sY v•4r t,',;.', v ,4 w, { rw'4 M", J r ,', S+b• ., E jr k X ., r x, , r a," I ,' lAty t bl' f f ri, ^• • }'+ '} • • r iy , x' t . p; tkr A k i r- d u r 4 Yla N' 4 Ad k r.!' r y E j r y "a I r il. i• I, "` ,r .r , r! A rarr 2 fi r i a '1'rf y " '.:,'' 1 i g ` i h I• I ! :J'�,, r- tjf j a.• I �a w {,� s ig '14,,:;,..,'•}(t ,j ©• tt .. , ''.1,{r J" a si J 'E a e n, r, :`J!, 1i -.r r* '''''.4.,. ,� {,1,,t 3 L , w ,.r p a�,r r eG`�:`�'•vw"r �� , a ' }rttF r' t wyY .., y!v - •n.. 'l ,)'t„. 'I..”r»•x a x:f I _a„rA"k l A r1 u' ,"'1'u,'A'4 wY,'i , .. ,. -' r' J,., r [/, ,rd w'�r,w'r'Yl:,�"r.,.diw,v r r I,_f..i4t-+;_q�`r}%#+, -?.'t«N"r r w?r r'.,l�r,'I M.''._+_H,"l"�•w•g',Y,k Y,146 z'V�7`�,,V.'.4 w[4Lt ir R'1 Ir«1g' �•'7 Y,J-•I:z L,,�+.'1Y Y'N Lv 1+g GY b • w r•„+J Y'I l i'r�A r'�i S r'��^.E k r,'f,yyr f y.'.p,W'k'ry wK K.'1,t•S�}'1 tE r c b-r 1 k�17i"�'n."i,"C h''.'v-?kF,�,f.i},al,}t,A(,f,`u F k,+r1! , :: vII".a a*,>'e,'', ti�t w•y'r.r,r,1'y,�';1�r 1�k,i-1 x�F".ad,c a M'Y'�'4 jr,i�'y'I !r" I}♦i1_I'rP-':,fad.'F10,"'i u.1I�'`i,:'p.aE 3 e 7f N,•r'/��''+,x .'l 5,ar 4 Il',e�I'•,ar"�b n N I �- aa p I . ., , , , .. . . , .. ,, 1g' I`E ( u( I _d'L b 5 I' NA 1, ,t I' « • 1. li '..-! t ':*.'7:1..';'..,' I v ^ •• P,. } ' aq,Ay,�t1v c r , ' t ' ♦ a J 'l♦ •, l'u Y fA " I 6 yy• 'r 4 . 4 : P' r r J»" x ""t,,., / � i e } Y _ <1 ti J F4: } .• t't k o � * 1rrtE if,.„-,,,, .:, r ,' ( if i ` a 4 11 '[ ` ' S� rrrwrw %y�#4` ' { �' M Y N E 1 � ' ' �rW.k ' 1T i�4( I r4 7'1' • x1• w (' .M J f t, J y,r " r { Y 4' Y'' y1r r .r a l '',.,':-..;',..'4,.( r J M•.J wp y, i 1, '^di 1.l f .\ • •, kr�( � rt a+ y 'k'1x r ' p ''v ,, . r,„ al a-:*, ..;•t a ,"•r' 1 Y " l u I { ," . \\. Ja mk a.i s,,:Aa f1 t' ro ';',.T.,. „ I�„ 't j' r,j Ix rd w 1 'Y0, a tl r .' {$ y i '.;',f,....,7'.' r ' 1 9-�'1a '4'..i.,',.., kY , t ''t ,';41,,' : ' ''\,,N..,, ` �' N„ •• n. � � .,.. . V ft-r E w, 4',"0 a r i r y 1 Y,k .+wMdA , \\\\ 1. a:;i 1 ) "No i.,1 . va ``?JJ � .„.," ' s. r 1 n, rl 4bni. T.y T A I'f,r s 4 i:Y ' r r! Yr ;"tvy "N;d N 14€ J< 1,;F r l't.''' ' '. 'L'' L•" ,, Y M k i,, #', a �+' 8 • t y y; rY �,, r4 7,:v -, - r Y, .,p, 9 ir t„ • Cr axi r',C A ,A'1 t %4 i-' +a a r 4', ,? ,rC y-'.eit y 1 '14 f r V,.' e I ';'...,':0,,i. k'k ,ak Y e ” a i u is I't.I r r.{„1.v. ,�Ir i r d k N 7"'4,kt# r`. I )I< '''',:',.',41'J , a. '1'.,,',..,';'..,.1„"4.,:,..'t?-r,,.,,,,4,,,,';,,,,,,.,? 4,y:re� .'? A y " .�.'-a 1 :14,,',.."''', J'' 4 ro tnweK,a 4 4,} + i.:*',"1"i b∎I a' H' II u I. da rk•fi 'YI r•eAn .�J' fai, yY , „, ''yam. r, ;• 1 ,a �” v'SP,t:',.: •k 1.�4:'xe#4,}:�P r ">v,'k t Ig: t,r%fa: ....,i'_..,.....+, ,., — ,...�..............�..,�,.a:.«..—. ...,.,,.a..:,a,t�.,:t..5.,..e.........wJ..»M......_......,al.:,.,..,«..iw.:GU._.v.��.ia�.♦.�..,..........,,'�::�.i.,»......;,:�+,�..o«I��d...�,s..k�.«,r.i.,n 'W�....,.....�..a.l�,.�,�.���♦..,.ir..l,�l.:+.:,.�;M.M.w;«.�:�«.«_:d.; .......ua.,-.s.-sl.,.w.:r;-:;s..�;.:.�:aa;tt�♦ca=♦;skwa 49324 . AGENDA Tigard Site Development and Architectural Design Review Board June 24, 1975 -- 5:00 p.m. Tigard City Hall 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER • 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF. MINUTES • • 4. ' COMMUNICATIONS • • 5. PROJECT REVIEWS 5.1 SDR 1775 (Tigard Water District Administration Bldg. ) • A request for review w af a proposed remodeling g o f an office • building and fire station at 8841 SW Commercial St. • A. S ite Development Review • 1. Staff Report • 2. Applicant's ,Presentation 3. Public Testimony • • 4. BOARD DISCUSSION AND ACTION B Architectural Desi g n Review • 1. Applicant's Presentation • and Action 2. Board Discussion • 6 OTHER BUSINESS • 7. ADJOURNMENT • • • • • • • • •• � I. ��i�' ,i ...�.� ..' . ., '.,,'i,.... .. „�',„ �..♦ � .e.._.i ..�. .�.� .,.�.... ......... .........,. .... .., ..IV ....,111,,1..1 ..._. 'I'.�.�. �.1 .e I.1�,.M; 45'L.',,If.„MtGM,i'.,�tM � .i,t.r�.n,� .r 1my I..r W-.�. .:+nW�wy�.�W' twa.,, .:'..., L 44 L .,. 1 ...�.t.,.,,.i,,.,»—u..,,c,-.,...,t.....M.............,.,a , .....»A :,a...:«.,.•....••,.•.k,::r,c:...,......,,ia ft ' MINUTES • Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board June 24, 1975 Tigard City Hall 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER of The meeting was called to order by acting Chairman Cook at x 5:10 p.m. • o Staff welcomed MoMonagle, Cook and Olson to the Design Review Board, these members havin been appointed by Council the preceeding week to fill vacancies created by the resignations of Cook, McMonagle and Bartel. 2. ROLL CALL Present were: Cook, Hammes, McMonagle (late) , Olson and Wakem; staff: Powell • were not 3� APPROVAL ,OF MINUTES: Minutes �of the preceeding meeting wer available at time of meeting. 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None 5. PROJECT REVIEW SDR 17-75 (Tigard Water District Administration Building) A request for review of a proposed remodeling of an office building and fire station at 8841 SW Commercial Street. A. Site Development Review 1. Staff Report • . • o Powell read staff report and verbally reported on the status of the Ash Avenue Dedication. • o Recommendation was for° approval with conditions as outlined in the staff report. 2. Applicant's Pre s entation o Bob Santee told the 'Board what he intended and addressed s the staff's comments in the staff report. 3. the st Public Testimony o Joe G eulch of Tualatin Valley Fire District read a, letter from the District Board and indicated he • ..i r+....... ... .. ,r...« .t...,.«... ..r.. ...•.A lrl. .Ai...M,r-•x.Yn..l.nl.11,.a.. .1.4:-.k aN - - . i r rr 1 N—• ♦ r ...1.1... .•.i. .. rL. 1.r rA.«.in.aG„+..,r.44/4..YKn»...i.l J .. 1 r.r , rl..LM2+r1..,a• N yy _ r.. f N N.•1tirHh ..Y...r. M r,. « -..V.a✓MVav,4.,14.f.iif-r.r44Y,b.:.r.....F..rr..1.•I.r.ir•.Jn•MnL..r67:rri('rrin'.iri was attending as a representative of the fire district. • 4. Board Discussion and Action o Board discussed the need for parking on the site and possible interference with parking of land-- k soaping if all present code requirements were met. o Greulich asked that attention be given the needs of the fire station for good visibility of the street. He said the fire district had not been aware that there was any problem with the Ash Avenue dedi- cation. • o Discussion touched also on the probability of the Commercial Street Local Improvement District be- , 'coming active' y e ate o Motion for approval (McMonagle) subject to staff • recommendation that a 5 ft. sidewalk and 10 feet of landscaping be provided on Ash Avenue, that , landscaping on Commercial St. be held in advance y 'i until such time as the' Commercial St. L. S. D. might be undertaken. The staff is to review the laxydFicape plan and plant types which will be sub- ject to staff approval. o Seconded (Wakem) • o Passed (unanimously) Bb Architectural Design Review 1. Applicant's Presentation Applicant proposed licant described the ro posed remodeling and the facial treatment proposed. rI Z. Board Discussion and Action o Board discussion with the applicant related to : The blending of surfaces between the stucco (a) The �.� g s � tw concrete block older remodeled andrthe�daf'f�.cu1,��� portion portion, y of dealing with that transition. (b) They'�hey disc, �ed the two,� u roof line s proposed and the existin g parapet wall and the ' relatio nshi p s between those elements. (c) The structural integrity of the remodeling where v a wood frame structure was to be added to a •I I r n .. 'hYw:yV 1 J ., „, .., .r « T9dJ 1J ✓UY1 A w. 5 ”• • q6 concrete block lower and the difficulty pointed out by the applicant with respect c ( to unknown footing qualities. (d) They discussed the difficulty presented by differing door heights and window heights on �. • . the existing portion of the building to re- main as is and discussed the structural aspects of the proposed remodeling. o Motion to approve as drawn (Hammes) . k r f' o Seconded (Olson) • O Discussion o f t he motion pointed d out that "as as dr a wn i included surface surface treatment and "roof detail". o Olson pointed out the •code. def ined responsibility of the Board for improving the appearance of Tigard. o Motion defeated , (Hammes voting for) ► o Discussion continued concerning the appropriate use of a false mansard and the viability of the proposed two layered mansard. o The Board offered alternatives .including ,.(l) the. . use of paint and texture to carry the "functional" design of the building 'with the proposed remodeling; (2) to apply wood siding to the proposed remodding thereby setting the remodeled portion distinctly apart; or to use' a full story mansard on the 2 story portion. o Applicant (Mr. Santee) said he felt the Board was trying to impose their esthetics on the building and that many people had told him they thought ' • his design was an improvement over the existing building and that he had a severe budget constraint , on what he could do • o The Board pointed out that none of their suggestions would add to the cost of the remodeling. O Mr. Santee said his design had been architect� and he thought it was good as had an g h drawn b • ar g the fire district board I I O Consensus of the Board was that architectural mi design a the. tha 'tted by ;the applicant than amended the Board and approved with p such amendments as applicant would have to coordin- ate his design with the fire distri ct 'hoard I o Motion on denied 'based on findings that a redesign of • 1u r'w,t ixx w+.,va,,,w.,,.uua er„u.wrn,,m.,xi<un'w xw .:..,...,.-„ „., ',.VI•• vv r',. ' (i'"'n Y' ;:A'I/•3'A IIYMY;,.... Yb7 Rrr<" w .:L.. ,3, < - • ...Nn.. ..- -1✓., «,.4 i i_t-.....n,.-C4...3 (-� ..-.....N...+n..-..-.w.„_ .-+.r41...lnh;f n.-h.xn...i.NRriA ..f.-.4�.15,4..,...F-m. ..,. r «. .+ ... .-r •1 Kr d rc,,..i6yl...n1ICAYrv.i.. Y rn nn x x1 the building fascade would be necessary to con- form with the intent of the Architectural Design Review Ordinance and stating that the applicant could resubmit his plan at any time to be heard further by the Architectural Design Review Board. o Seconded (Olson) o Approved (unanimously) 6. OTHER BUSINESS A• Election of officers o Nominations were opened by actin g Chairman { Cook o Nominated for' Chairman was McMonagle, for vice--chairman, was Cook. ,1 o There were no further nominations and the nominations were ;, declared closed by Chairman Cook o Motion to cast unanimous ballot s all t W akem 4 o Seconded (Hammes) . o Approved (unanimously) B. I S taff read the memorandum n submit to d to Design R ev i ew Board concerning „McDonaldts current plan. Discussion by the, Board of he plan the Board had considered and the plan submitted ' by McDonald,'s, indicated they felt the staff t s red line drawing conformed with their intent Staff reported that Mr. Mike Evert, who had indicated he would attend this meeting, 'had called earlier to indicate he would be unable to attend. 7. ADJOURNMENT: 7:15 . hill A • STAFF REPORT Tigard Site Development Plan and Architectural Design Review Board June 24, 1975 Agenda Item 5.1 Agenda , SDR 17-75 (Tigard Wate r Distric t Administration ati on Bld . ) c Applicant fs Request , Review of a proposed remodeling of an office building and fire station at 8841 S. W. Commercial St. Staff Findings 1. Drawings of the proposed remodeling do not show any pro- posal -for landscaping g or s ite improvements. 2. Tigard Municipal Code requires compliance with the zoning ,1 code (including landscaping, parking, access, etc. )' when . a building or the use of a building is altered or remodeled. Pertinent code provisions would require adequate parking, a 10' landscaped front yard on both streets, sight screening of the parking area and legal' driveway-street approaches. 3. Improvement of SW Commercial St. both visually and function- ally is a strong possibility in the near future. 4. Special design considerations exist with respect to this project that area a result of the fire station's need for exceptional visibility of the street when pulling out of the station; the large evening usage of the building and parking lot due to Municipal Court evening sessions; the need for excess parking spaces available for the use of fire district volunteers on call. 5, Modest landscaping of the building and the perimeter of the parking lot, using low shrubs where vision interference is a consideration, and using a landocape theme 'that could include a couple large structural shade trees would improve the appearance of the site, help the building environment, and provide some constraint to the rather random parking patterns that now occur in the parking l areas 6. Parking requirement for the, Water District office, as pro posed, is a minimum of 6 p puted. on a basis 5�J0 s ft. , one spaces cum P f space/two one space/ q. ace/two employees and one space/establishment (3+2+1=6) r • Staff Recommendation Aparov yt . condition. that landscaping. areas t to be provided d along both s tr eet frontages adjacent the p arkng aLand- soaping should provide low si g ht screening and some south shade. • • ,..,_•...,.......,i....,.,.a.,. .-..., ..i,. ...•___...a: r.......•,...;;_ .. ...: •...r .............+.i.: ..._w.-x....r.... ..._ .••,...._.. .. ..E..,_, .,,.e.- n .-A...n. .»rv.,_.,,„.,-.....1:....... .,«l.,:..._,.. .,.,.x-«......u.4....,.4„E,u.-.x'-:„J.x�i.....,,,....,,..x....J-,:.n«.uz,,..,w:icm+.wnfi, / gr MINUTES ,, . Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board June 24, 1975 kl Tigard City Hall 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER o .'h.e meeting was called to order by acting Chairman Cook at r' 5:10 p.m. C' ' 0 Staff welcomed McMonagle, Cook and Olson to the Design Review Board, these members having been appointed by Council the preceeding week to fill vacancies created by the resignations- . ' of Cook, McMonagle and Bartel. • 2. ROLL CALL Present were: Cook, Hammes, McMonagle (late) , Olson and Wakeml f: Powell staff: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the preceeding meeting were not P. . available at time of meeting. i • 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None 41 5. PROJECT REVIEW SDR 17-75 (Tigard Water District Administration Building) • p A request foi review of a proposed remodeling of an office 4” I' building and fire station at 8841 SW Commercial Street. A. Site Development Review 1. Staff Report o Powell read staff report and verbally reported, on the status of the Ash Avenue Dedication. s fo, approval, with conditions o Recommendation was r ' w . as outlined in the staff report. 2. Applicant's Presentation a n o Bob Santee told the Board, what he intended d e � addressed the �.taff' s comments in the staff re p or c. 3: Public Testimony o Joe Creulich of Tualatin Valley Fire District read a letter from the District Board and indicated he , r w•!n..:......... , _.,...«._y.....,.:..i�o,...d,.... ._.4..... mn:i.r«.i.,el_,.+,..M h',r.u.i,.'.,e.Nr. ..w.,,_,....u....,G..,....,.,.+.c..i+.r........t.,..r m.,.._....,a w..r.,.,m .,, .a, ar.,rrit ...t<.rr.'1: ":?S..wYrnt.;fe:tl.tn.s r i. ' was attending as a representative of the fire district. 4. Board Discussion and. Action o Board discussed the need for parking on the site and possible interference with parking of land- . scaping if all present code requirements were met. o Greulich asked that attention be given the needs of the fire station for good visibility of the street. I , I3e said the fire district had not been aware that there was any problem with the Ash Avenue ded.a:- • cation. o Discussion touched also on the robdbilit of the Commercial Street Local Improvement District be- caming .active •thi's year. • a Motion for approval (McMonagle) subject. to staff recommendation that a ft. sidewalk and 10 feet . 5 of landscaping be provided on. Ash Avenue, that ' landscaping on Commercial St. be held in advance until ,such time as the Commercial St. 'L. I. D. might be undertaken. The staff is -to review the landscape plan and plant types which will be sub- ject. to staff approval. o Seconded (Wakem) o Passed, (unanimously) B. Architectural Design Review • --. 1. Applicant's Presentation Applicant described the proposed remodeling end the �4r 1 ?� facial treatment ro osed. �? p 2. Board Discussion and motion 4 o Board discussion with the applicant related to: (a) The blending of surfaces between the stucco y ' ortion and. remodeled p a �. the concrete block older gportion, and the difficult. of dealing with hat transitions difficulty (b) They discusse d th e two �oof lines proposed and the existing parapet wall and the - ` relatianships betweep4those elements, The structural n teg rit of the c ctural a. 'remodeling he ( ) g � g r a wood frame structure w ucture gas to be added to a e, ■ .,...m.<..w.,...........,.•.-,•...., .., ,._.-...,,,..,,..,.., ,_u_..•...w,,.,,,,......,+.w:........:s.:v,„,....,.,...u...a.,,emu, .:a:............_..,Nu...._.,:.w-.:al....mKn+....., ,,...u.._.«.,...,,_...,._r.+:.u:n:'..:..a.,.-sx.a.'„9,:...,..au,.:,...::.h.:.:a:t.u:a,.;:.cww-...•au;..':-...,.., .... ,. ,« ..._•, ._ .., «-.-w....+a,c:+.=«:aa ' concrete block lower and the difficult pointed out by the applicant with respect to unknown footing qualities. ' • • (d) They discussed the difficulty presented by differing door heights and window heights on the existing portion of the building to re- ' main as is and discussed the structural aspects of the proposed remodeling. o Motion to , approve v e a s drawn (Hammes) s ) o Seconded (Olson) . o Discussion of the motion pointed out that "as drawn included surface treatme n t and "roof detail"xl" o' , Olson ointed' oft. the' code defined responsibility p of th e Boa rd fo r improving the appearance of Ti gard. � o Motion defeated (Hammes voting for) . ' o Discussion continued concerning the appropriate use of a false mansard and the viability of the proposed two layered mansard.' o The Boa ,offered alternatives including rd 1(. ) the" ., use of paint and texture to. carry the "functional" design of the building with the proposed remodeling; (2) to apply wood siding to the proposed remodeling pi thereby setting, the remodeled portion distinctly. apart; or to use',.a. full story mansard on; -the_ 2 . story portion. o Applicant (Mr. Santee) said he felt the Board was trying to Impose their esthetics on the building and that many people had told him 'they thought his • design improvement the existing . . building and that he had' a severe b d.esi was an im rovem.ent over on what he , budget constraint nt could , o The Board pointed out that none of their "suggestions e would add to the cost of the remodeling. • said is design had o M Santee gn been drawn by an .. h . architect and he thought it was good as had the fire district board. that arch o Consensus of the Board was architectural . design whould be resubmitted by the applicant Board and ^ rather than amended by the a approved with such. amendments. as .applicant would have to coordin- ate his design with the fire distric"t board. Y otiora den�rl.� g redesign a • o M used on �nc�arn s that a red.e „rr .,�,,..,.. .. - i,4._.,..R.,,,.._._.,._,,, ��. ...,.�,�w ..,,,,...,u,.,crda..+:.n.+.•.....,..,+iw.,_. ...;+,w�.7.�..t.r.«.....i�».n.n.,�4.,.x=._......,-..a. r.....a,...ti......._,w:r....:1^re>,.l,.,raY:.,r.r..,....:r u,.t.Akw'fJ'.;.N-,uH.d,rl�r:va.,w. ,.... ..........v.,.,,. __r..�,.,, ...�w..,u,.«M.�.aw 7a.m:>.,.d�. 6 • the building fascade would be necessary to con- form with the intent of the Architectural Design Review Ordinance and stating that the applicant , could resubmit his plan at any time to be heard further by the Architectural Design Review Board. • o Seconded (Olson) o Approved (unanimously) F I ti I I , { , OTHER BUSINESS I e 6. OT I r ti. A. Election of officers' ' o Nominations were opened by acting Chairman Cook ^ t a I oNominated fo . Chairman—was McMona lI e 9 for vice-chairman, was Cook. • o ',There were no further nominations and the, nominations were declared closed by Chairman Cook. o Motion to cast unanimous ballot (Wakrem) . o Seconded (Hammes) . I � o Approved (unanimously) B. Staff read the memorandum submitted to Design Review Board. concerning McDonald's current plan. Discussion by the Board of the plan the Board had considered and. the .plan submitted br McDonald's,ld, indicated the y felt e sI t staff's red line , drawing con for med with th eir in tents Y Staff reported that Mr. Mike Emert, who had indicated he would attend this meeting, had called earlier to indicate r • he would, bI e unable to attend. , 7. A JJJ OURNMENT: 7:15 p.m. I I I I . I I , I I I '1 r II 4 1 r , I I �.. . • i +..e, . r a ,, 4,., ,„ .1,i r,r' „y,,mr,,..rwt«,,..wr+,.,,kww-..-r ,++•+rt7, + ,,,,..ry,p!":k•W,Y r,F u .`..�.1P•y•'tri' `.7,.,1 f y , , 1 - 1 +',•1 rk.,4•,,"'Y:'r+! '.-; ♦;T. K' a 4 _,_.� uw,rr: ,WXMw .;.- . 1 5 •,,,;-!-4.!:,4:,,.:'",,'.... :sy+ '1 .v Lc'P j 1 7. } ` ,, "/r { L '^d4.} p V Sr v'>,, ?' 't� ;�, J tbw""�+ k r s "n e N r,r" 1 y 1 w" w a y r*- r a 6 "kla9Z 245, rY r 1 a 4!-'44:-.,,-",,'41;:-:,.'..411;.......i.,L rr x '' ,‘„,'4,,.#. M • Y N ■ l a.7 4 ?I / � t P, 'Oil. ' M. P�11 �i"u"awwr,G{ GJx ` '...,;„:-,,,,,..7 a.c,4 _ �, L P: r�S 'S.';''''";;;?� 'x `,Y 4;, 4 K�f t . '' t v, b w N *!' y+l�ti' ,a,'.rr• s wl w,;y a' fn 1:, -id: .r,4� h 'M1' . ,,"r,t `>...,4- P, A ',1»ti ?"4 f• ,',& 1,-• •5 k-#,t•r,r xe"� y' .-i,.I}.: 4,r, f w%x.'fi s"': r a• ' �1i l;LF?7' , r:1 n w .r,�l1,-;,-.. !•I j ^ , g, r., , m v,w/4 yb r _ 1 � r }} y y.t" ° ' j4 "d fir' ' ;#J/ 1 +t l 4 4 ei _ ..- ,yr >,'k i r i^"e f" t 7 ,"^ .'q ',,n' J, N r. 'r` ,'a• ., f4,'`. '.t. - SJ a,Ty, , r ' „ w ""„„Y,w. +, n k l"'R'%.,,a. �'h• {y, ''�T�, e'./J �:«;t'P,.i,kk', j 1+N/f*js,i'Pr f_l pF''"a'i�»"d r-k y t"f+ •,�"yyf"r,�11 Y r-„Y#�d:r.WI X,9 R(k/L�,.1.Y'1at, r„�j."w w{t l y'q V A4 sl eyXl i l^fC 1 k i t$h#a rlU,�aa ::,-dte.cl°l,R• . Y.`d. 4 ,5 +M1,r," 4 t.{t'" 'ffi n L r^' ` ^ ^ i' 4'A.,:.".;:,' i :.'I .W'.tµY, . i. _ If' r; J i''N .4:`''i ''' 'I'''''''' ,1'v 11. 1"N•l4 r,S, 1 r, t ,' Ib..”'d wY 'r dJ'„ y ® L t.r 4.4,;,,,,.,:',,,,,,, n. " N 6,M •t Y aL/l YP.Y Jaa .� '',.,,,!...,;,,,,4 ;;4 '. ,y' c„ e h 1 R ', A+' ,` t� 6, �; .}7 > t.:,,,,' 5 .' /�' i rya,P D r 1( = J y#YI.trY G ,Y, n w -1 r t ,• r. -r Gar ak 4 a t11 1t 1 ` 1 ',lilt,' r t.r A .,,r t .S %ya.t{ e'6 V1 l q e. }re ^ pk4 r r ,'S, , ' J� r +1 , " 1 41'. n `''RrA .?t L t.Ij N,..,..;;!!';',4' r 1try L�a k r4 Y'1 P A L•'w Y 1 -:M. 1t .{ r , y" i „ >rN r " u{r- . kD4' a+ •' -tr r 1'-i1n ' yy�,,l: ',ca k ( / fi �. , .d � h „ a c x 4c}x N , *) a,a, _,,,:',-,.,-,4 � alt',-•1,L4 p Y 4,,,,,,,,„,;,,.. `,...f, <M' . 't µi' Y ,K 4 {{ , ri'y J• PP N 4 ....,,.y;-' n N 4 V � )y} # ! ' } 1 r Y 5 af• ,r 1 e c'' ° r 4, , , SF + .•,".',.P" 4 ; e ,a ';` MM wti, r ', 0,F d 4 1'r' Y ✓ 9 A r ' ,C nl " -n+F,✓ 1'Srh' { ryp,'' hJ" a, , l ' ,- .V"r5 1A'. b , T,1 vt a +'"1" x r # Y - 1, . + I�ti t �6 Y ” 't"y{14 '0 1 %'t r ', 'w 4 ,y" A';I s 1 " A .'.Y & 4..." ' a . C /4,44,4 1 ' ll ' rd 4 t.;N ,C /r V,V Y 1 !,: a - r i Ykvl Ar'4 ,j i •a„y;, L! f k. V fri:T '4 4 5 J s • rfE' ,• I'"° a 6 f Y l • •14 tr.;4/ ,,”4 4'.;;"'' t'A., I I r r a i - t# 1 Y, �t .r f � ' Y %fj// 8 h s r .Y ,/"� I T• ' ,M I i . ) P 9I' ;P,, • 3 r'. + •1 ' , � I w r+1 t I /it w r ,. o, „, ',a , w l 1r A'P"1 rF Ita�t" # fi; ;�, { :c iF11tr: ,1r+ ul�w� t rY� :..� 4 r +1 1�1 n:Y vrbsr; 'kS P ,V3 a fI 1\ F{`j xT,M '1 4 tt.r ti ,y k 't,.. el i--� t'a '1.I f r- .1, 1 r t , ''u ,'� .4 ''a 7#t , 4 i 9:.,W'I i/t"' . '4'fjl Y •Kk 4` . t, J l '.i1 P ,ti r"Y ' r'A'c ,, L I dX ,?",1 •'_ a S tl:i, w } ..` )V. �r•" 1 , ,P rT»'1 . 1s. k r" '" 4C ':t r " ° �a lry Y4a 4 '4,,'Ia P « 4 r '�1/r,nr 1 t ' 4 a ,:'r '.. e ', �,w �w ° � "+�.s 1 P, f r _ ' ,✓, ,',e +" h la 4 k ,,_ 1 "'r j. • ,1 r4;t I , „+r -L 4 I � 4R + 9 3r �M (x ���;c t r w � }wi �', 1 , s 1 }'7,, "" ,.,• ,ii, w '.r ,''t Y y x 'Nl rt, :r, ,; a n i;a+ta` It r'.41'A 'r'r' V) 11-•i - ' • .1 g Av /$ , �,'t D " t° 1 A °,a h ^ r '• 1 ' i'- ,,.., ' ! I k r X' !M ,r'a}r ji-Po ' + }, ; '*'ti' r r ♦ . f # ,M C +c r v :4#6,10;44,,t'..:2.* �� r rry x l.x �'u I. ,.i P 4,+v r,„' fr ,r ;i 4 '4 4r4i„ ',"t Ad„A,^r• IdM l lti. rrd+l,,1' ' I , ,C{,,.gyp a Y11,w I.t ,Y' :,,,':"..;L!,:',.:,-;.e, �'f ,'f' -u,,l :,,,r,„„ ,;1 ,3 y f i A,, iii 1„,.,{,,.• kt r. r .a a .∎,' ,S{ .;,', '. �b.a v 7 F I Y A✓ �y "'M� a F q r,{ t, M u.A^ �7,4 i I t �yy�s r,�,+ y 1�; w a sa. ! ,',w" t L r ° 'q iv .tw:m'f ,1''Aa r r w k4 v �”L rf{r rl +a t n, 'w',1 t�' ,^‹yr-,i' -� R• t N omL n k, }.i 7 'W t' _' 4+',�' `h°y,,`i'. '' r'rJA° s,v $ w .J It f4 ..Hi IR ~,r,i ''Y gf ; 'd' y 1: ,1l' Y„'"'r„1 r,„ � _ 'r'f I ,r,,{c 1._ k A,,u; ,M a c .11 f$4,y , t1F,v''I °'���«; 'rly r l}' +-• rP x t ''� t',/I r w r ,,.ti a/I' ,-, r'''m•,' Q ,P v".D',,Y, t, ,l"F•l t-.d• :i x} t, , '✓l/..,.,« c4r., r�7p,d -.:+w}w:r,`u".,w ,w „„,r r 'T 7"..,',">.1/4-�u � , A;y,9 l '1'4 F `k 1 ^Gn),, +j 4 �,i't-.1 y'� Y,t r' 1 6 1 ,1' ' ,” 4"k 1;" ', „ r, ',;I �k w .'1,t1 y P 11 . , Ir 8'',,,,,,',".1.,:',"-;,,:-'1,'H !.4'..!:',;'.'.'...'..-'),''':,...,1:G t -• I , �.,, � W n d c P e4 � 4', `' }, q J�/'4' 1� M,j+1':.1 + +'x?a l I r'l', 1 ' i ri, , a 1'1 "4,• �b ` ` , 4 M1' ., k •t, � u• _ ••,.. , y . v'u. o.'t � ' 6'. ;. J I » 'r R -~,t.. I, '', Y _ t ,l p 1. w ' ;t,Yq:,�' >I w, i 'K� S1x 1, 1'•,u:y 4 ' t�,', 'M"','1 r X e 4 w . i � . - '^ II �+ S 7 lj:Vl. 1 , Y 'x' •�ky r, ' :',"i'",,...1!-. P Yn {. ,N 1 w t . , z f, { r .# " ' ,1 ar 4b 4 ,r Y ,M.;•F{ }iP C'n t `t: t.•v a ,, 1,Cr T,, • ' d,G 1 _,1 NI-�'a 1'a,,,, c t' iI•d-1�M1i'„- 7�pp � '.1w d b 1, Y Y' • 1' ':_ 1:,a tr 1 j p 1 iI r-,)';','"t."-,,-,4.:'''.;•.,-41 r. 9a1 r 4" LI,''A,'IY 'rt ,. -;,.,..:-..1 ,V# ''. 1 p .' � ti r`r. ' f 1 ' t {,," S LA er,S+y a iap,a -4':r f}lr � a ,;,I+q,P,t t, 1 R), sK.• S . r{r,v '1'y.w.y 1 t. 1r.-', Y I.'4'.''./ Fs x' I : e h'i1 w+dr°4 f P t 'l 7 -� d tryt A • .� -,•V ,, A 5 ! Y' ',•G.,,,t9'...,. .,,,,.' I ttP ?•I Y y 1”, tY ��'I.1 ^,•".j..”rV ?aP,R�V O. �k w''h _ { - „d*x* ;f',I.,!J" p �1Ti#',:s' / i'7' L� �k{ I r N r 1 , ,A 1' y,1p rrr a'' l ' i.k 4 n)))),I • �, N ,Y l r ', •• l M:,.4'„,li1gie tl� r P' 4 .i i.,..;- , to{rr A l ,,/:,„-,Oa,•,,,. ., ' :i I w Y. L r r /�t#N y .rb{ j ,P':,Y ” � e , t';x^ , ' ,,ri r 11 "� n a '1' t . 1 " a ' p,,„Fr.,.,„, 1 a r l 4 1+ M .to C A"! ,� ' ,!L A N }y 1, 1 t,' r, 1 . ' .+ . •, •+o w + +1 ... ':. ' , ' .;„l A „'• f ',LL 6Ir:� ,+n' '' # r!'rrr "i+lw ,M. n r , r .. r-+ ,'•—»'• » ' ' ' . _ �1 1.vl', ✓","4," ' o,, :a.'Y '� :. t 'AV"Yr°r} JT,Y"y,rl l t,- .!' 1 ,� ;1 7+ 1 r '^: ..• al.Y'r 1, 1 r,P T . v e..j � 1 4 : 1 -� '_ 1' dt> . x, ,6.a 1'a r :17nr•, Y.<ea.,.4.aN ,t�a tp..1'1w F,4+:l.I„,.�N'!iU11 r{Sh,.,,f:e1.,d4F',1:;k1'«,eG+iwchi..IW, . ,..+I -11,s� :! ;•wV,; ".,,. W.r..A..,..r*.,.,�.wrr,..a w..4.,.�wu«,.,«„w:x.w x,1,.1. .r,n.,swx,,.h 1.,..,w,,,.a r U..r.4,Sr:Nfi n,, . . , . n. „• • . l• • • ,, ...._„»,.,.,.. ,. .... .,s........... .....__m.t....,M�. ...,; ..,.•.,,.�.....t_•s,,.'ti.�Fi•.ti. .. ,.,;• ;,,. ....J:,_ +.....t.,......•....•.. ,�,.:.�i b....«„.,.aw,..M,..4.w.:k.. ....,..��.L;« ..,..H,r.+.l,:.a._.•«,....n..:,1_......M- .,Al..,...,..4..•!.. �W.A,..,.t:,,,,i14», 1 EDEUr�laP�7 ,i�' PLlNANDrr� G ,i � vr �. � a] Site Plan Aru ,ew Aroht;ebturl Raviow • I f Z / .A ” " LL1A APPLICATION F � w p p � IIYLOYYlIwA 49uaIiIWYrYiyl YY�11 YM rmliJ W M w4 • I• Y TIGARD PLPNNING,I,COMMISSION 639,-4171,.' Date Recaived 1� k a Y 1d Y u X f� :J � 12420 S.l,)w Main S b eet ` igord Oreg r 97223'' D ��'MMk.MW.b,.YFI'�lw4,rwYVW141�W�UlIM.1.4kYY�.a�M�G�1,4� ,OMIM� 1 -•`---.... ^.– , ».« 1 . A' .;, ,, �•=.=. • i'.... � . � k , . �••»......_,..„. «w...�t.„"". :_ ..u..,.......... a._: .►•w3=.." s..... , ._. . ,,......., I Office Addition ' Pro jaot T it1e T arhWte r Oat s r 1ad Jmne 1 i r >.�,IJY.R�If(VMMwOlgbltl/ilSwlYgii ■ ' ' ' ' •Owner/Developer Tualatin'Ru.ral Fire Protection Dis t '1"i ard' Water Distric- Addreos 8841 S. V . ComLnorcial St. i axd* Oi"e1.e hone 639.-1554 ' wwo P •>,� � WkkY 4..(11 4\Y.YWI i.4i 'YMn.MNN'IwM..Y��ew;.M.wYl10AMIl�MNkY01YWF.Mga�IMYa1W1411M}Yelbi.l'11 • Designer R E. Santee :Telephone 639-1554 a ti.urowrwrtlwYmNkY.alkakouw4a+ubYWaiYwWMWw11YJMYrcr..w.ww • mwmMirwS+wM ak.Y+lrounwwwr.wn.raw4rrwAWww++o�4ia Yamw+/4Arwu14,w4oali�r+' • P.�IpYMIHYWI....M1'DSCkIPTIDN OF,MaS,aPal,•,R.aYOY,Y4P41..YRkIM7.T.k.Y441{ • ' pica Deed lJ o :'�!Bua.Y .�l ;nY Ur) ,ta Sq� t. ,.. bedrCahM In .....aWeY.p4nil.>.w+arrasnl.o.s+hab+flYa...ia+.a.+4+.rw. .wYnro.mo.w4r.u..xWw w.u.Y.YYiM4uw9Yl..e au:l wlrrinx wwY�l u avrN�i•i.UwYtwums4io.ruwie.iwv4 Jir:ti+.un.,n-... office .� 1 1 40'xl ° X40 t none aa.lY.IrNaPf4O.Y.Mlealq.pYM-wW Wr4M-b�wa1M....,-.....Y..I...,, 'LYJ40M4wwIW.Nww... .44,.Cwa-Na-Yw1..•. N snI.M40r...4 MY41Ww4Y.`aAM J.IWwV...W...N4aN1M.a....a UMlrc'.441,.... Y �wMiY�YipM11kM.WMY}I�f.1M11�;1i!I.Gu1NC..N.4 1 . • i.4004......n:.ri..4,w...r.awwwiwaYreirtar.o.howati..lwwumwwams •.4,1111404.awanaw..aiw akfhwwwsM wu.+.N.;a�....4.1..$1sawwwN'.�14 ..oxataWsu46 1rmw.hw3.wauakMY.mMwaM.W1.en n.au+1✓:IawwNkWwi.eynailrMwY.r.1....r.s.LeoMW.wuaeiwW«aWeel.11 MOUM.YW.M....etwouto........I4.6•4 'i.ww erNMfawMYC.MM.....s Ja.a.4aLANMY...siu MIYo.N.u...torNaMd..W..Wa,M..1 M...to o...io.fWMh.04.0 41“;s:)......1.YI6,44.41 14A031•46.0•0114Y'4.Y.0444WYY• .r.JKY11k.uke41AMM1.1*v*u04•0000tu'o cti Yi.A......m 4...,4UYTYa..∎-∎,*4 1 •, Ye.aM/l rM.'aawn.IW\+k4Y++..d.Y'J 4Y4nr.l.aaNlM•+MW.I.ry..WN.wa.a.MwwY}M+.a.r Ma4Yf N.Ik.+.�IMOLNMfitUtnrY.IMJHIM.I.MH1.4l..iJY9at11 'MnliU lllil.4MNIW.kaMr.YFN.�P4a'naM'I .iUYn.WY4MiMKA�w1'/.kIANr4JYkNMwslwwtwMlIW4Y bYlaaI1Y.IMYa.�tlN1N1Y�41 MrI,W+IkwN)aYWY.WMWI.Y'M/'MNMd4Y,WAMkfalaS ' Site Size 200!.x. 137.8' 27,560 ft' `To.,. F30.0 r't of'' Bt t1r. cng��9®1'x90' i. ,8100 ft 2 . 4,a.4444.l4•Ywruwwc.4,w.Y.nlw:.Y.wwF•..w�wrYrnNWwwr4wwwswY.NYaw.wkwa..a4a'.eh "irlrpa.wnsw.+w.f.w.CYn.Gw.i.rw.iwUa+.ti.w1Yt'y„wn..r4.wY1a44 Sq. Ft. 'of P ry ng 19 310 ft2 q. rte.. of Land ;api 50'x''3' = 150 ft2 �, . { Y'.MWMFY.WWY.K'YY4MiMMInY./MY.IW�YWKq�i11(llilip 'aM1iWWU.NkidMIMwionuk''MY.i.JAkr.YWYwirs0.1 Mlls`N'f.ibriY`,11. a..4i.,,.. .• ' Anticipated Development Date July 1, 1975 dwi.W.4r..whyW ,nikar.aai:aa..a'nlw..w.:cuKd,4,u,w..4 weaw7awd., n.awm,iiinaMkr.d..o.MU�i.maiLw.n.aawwln.wwnr�,nr.iawan....hr...• Anticipated boveloptrient Phr r eo Co 1e October X975 kr . .:a,�.. .,.w Valuation *150000 "„4.� i� M.W1�.Y./f'MII.YIYMYYN�Y1aiIQI!.MY�Y.+!.M�Y M.atlY1Yp4YICaI1fRY Oy.YE •• `J 1�1 1 W i.i�W y1 y ' �"Y WM+I.MMMYM' , .w,,I ii,,,,.w ,,,„.uYibnwYr u,... Yw. w _ _....0 t., !~I,� ..Lw ,..,„.+,„—d..a Y w .. n nK Dedications A , Special (.,anditio e ondir g, d.......n,.,..wtr tia,.,6N4/r�.IMtiniOl,.„-. "., ..,..... , -„ w4+MMMn.kiRW V a ry ; � ',d6µ ,t ,144.Y hMW,Y aaw..aow•M,w».I.N,iu4,npLYDIMgW4W1R Nil,„.. .....wY+:u+....„,1w.Y......Y ,,... .aimu.,,,,,,;MY W.+,,..h.......Y ,, ! ' Yn 1nitt ' . tin Y at iint„..w„.„,Mn..,.q +,..ikY..iAYlµmi:..... .la.gr +Wl..„...r..,..wyki9dMrY144w '' ,...ilwa.....Y w, " ....., • 1 4 i • I 1 q,I r I , rl k. 4f.: 0''''L.... r 14 cj' N\ .'CI'x't 0 C (12 ;Z Z C13" y t zz„ . . `. ,, ,,, �'4f re *� "l" +�, .�'' A " .fey" , e c N Iq' (� � c •f b�A —. ,�^' 0 co �� wrap w ___, -I 0 , ..--.6 � e "'t,4-- '. `' -1 c.J CO� � C '�i • 0 z ;,� r.... yy s , . t , ,v ik, p :P.., rz ,‘ , ,r3ki, s';‘, ' 0 Fi \) * * ' . -1 .. pry . t ...........„ ,,p r, ,,,,,,, r), t Ct :,,..Z t; t*. A ti,,,. . “ -,,,„. 0 \ ', ' \it . () i .!.,Y' 0 -4.''- ;„-. 6,*'--4 s ,4. t. Vs- 4 \ ' i:. k -"'ll 0 1 . i. e '� +r -.� �`ti„ C7- 2t '"'P. °ter+;, Q si ' .1 **'' /,'4% 'j'' 1 :t 4'.,,.,. (4-' .:) "() ° r\ (4\!y!! , V Q.,, y.-„� - `'` r� 4 q - , z . 'i •ii. 1 7 I 4'1 s.. ,\IN*1 rt,,,N 4, 1""'' . ft co --, to c ct. i N- r' t i-,-':',. 4. (* ;,\I 1.,) , 6_,... 0 3 r,,, c :A4. mi 1 a 1/4„... rt., w CI ” 1 11 ikiLI. try 't *Ns,.. ' .$ 1 I , LA__ „..z., is,-- . h: i Board at IA,- •., here in our office �w . . .. f Please be advised, then, that on June 227-a_ , velopmeft Plan and Architectural Design Review Bob-rd ne�..-.�� '` your application for review of your proposed remodeling of tie' 'agar. . , Water District Administration Offices at 8841 S. W. Commercial. The conditions: Board approved your site plan subject to he following z � � 1. A 5 ft. sidewalk and 10 ft. landscape strip 17e7)7767.5.-a2-6" ::;, ad "ac ent SW Ash Avenue. ,,,, .., . .. ' 2. That required landscaping adjacent S. W. Commercial St. may be held in abeyance until such time as the Commercial St. 1 Local Improvement District is formed and street improvements '. made. 3 Required landscaping is to be provided per a landscape plan ,,' .to be submitted to staff for staff approval.. ,? The architectural design of your proposed remodeling was considered by the Board and was denied by unanimous vote of the Board, based on ;, iindings that a redesign of the building facade would be necessary to conform with the intent of the, Architectural Design. Review Ordinance ' w 1 P and stating that the applicant could resubmit;his plan at any time to. # be heard further by the Architectural Design Review Board. I r Sincerely, 1 -.travec,..iew c-2,,u-eiv1/4,___I ,, ": Jerald M. Powell, Assoc. AlP Ii ( ' " Associate Planner 11 . '� i .,..."w. .a: w•»+ «mw✓evm♦+,•* �w« w.w •w+»%•w�v+.wr�winwxn..w.ww.vw.R...+.w.+uer•:.`i-.4. h+r jj}} s t • S' t ; ii 111 s 45' i , + it {' r I i , i ! ,i r,s?,)�w,•.ww' y...Y.r .r j , a w 1 Js`, w: e. • C / /!' i^ , 4,b sr c1 e . . ' /i 1/''..; ' : r-: , • '', , ,,,,'S.,,,4.i,,,,•,,,,, . , i ,,. 1 ' p,..''',41'''''''.":''''.I - : ,' ' „ ,r u r fl .....4.; ec 4 t : .r�,t >c 1 NN �r • - ,{ `C v'b'• ~f { 1 • a. . (( Imo,!. • „ �r.� s 1w ,'4: ��I'' 4 fit, �`�''�`W�7.'�, ;� �� �t,`t5�u Y,W-'o.� : Vv \ j_xv,4 ` ,� ,'t�i 0 f� {S'[�G 1. : : , ,: ::',; s',i,:\,,,','.17,,,.,'',. ,"7";7',,-7-7,,r.-:', , ,, ; 1 ,,,1•k-•,,,, ,, ,,;,,, ,,, .; ,.,„;,0.47.0,,, 'to?,7 •. ,, „ ,,,• : ' , : .. °` rte" �p��( , , , , , . m } { y' { ,• rJS� x xwr fy, y{ t 1 f is a P• � , :.✓ t a' tk$ a 4y f , 1 ' ' ' •'''•:•'',.!i7,, '',.',tsi,!, ".,..-i,,,,, . :',7,, :.,,,,,717,,,7',::,:, ,7,: : ••:, ,,::.,, :,, ,',.,,, ,::,,,,,.,,,,:,; ,,,,,,,,,,..1 , . 1 _ '.,,,,,,,,lti'tr,!"d1.NaN.Wrq',,,tr"'.,,ww.°,N+f..±,1 r.',v!dp.'."',".t:"».y»:'?+,f,rte ,,,o>. ::fivv,r,1 .«!.,,,,it u,,. a».st wjww..+iwl. .F .•,..• . 4 ..4 1 . , i I ) ' . . , • • [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]