SDR21-75 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PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and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.
r
y,,
MINUTES
Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board
July 8, 1975 ,,
Twalit y High h School Lecture Room
g
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McMonagle called the meeting to order
at 5:00 p.m.
•
2. ROLL CALL: Board members present were: Cook, Hammes, McMonagle,
Olson and Wakem; staff, Powell
r
3. MINUTES: Minutes of the previous meeting were not available.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: ,
a. Current status of McDonald's project was outlined briefly
by staff
b. Staff reported on status of Tigard Water District's appeal
of the Design. Review Board's architectural review denial. (;
t 5. PROJECT REVIEWS "r
5.1 SIR 18-75 (Marine Wholesale/Sabre Construction Co. ) ` ',
A request for review of a proposed warehouse and offices to
be constructed in an M-2 zone on SW Landmark Lane off SW
72nd (north side of Landmark Lane, near west end of street) .
A. Site Development Plan Review f .
1. Staff Report: Read by Powell
2. Public Testimony.
o Applicant's Presentation:
Mike McGee, representing Sabre Construction
Co. , said that he felt that they could live
with the reduced maneuvering area and that
the reduction in the number of parking spaces
wouldn t t be a hardship. He also addressed
r '
the staff questions concerning final grading
of the site, ,the ?location, of loading docks
and landscaping of areas not shown land- l'
soaped.
3: Staff Recommendation
Approval, with sprinkler irrigation to be pro -
) i'
vided on south (front) and east.. sides+des - hardy,
drought resistant plantings (grbund cover) or s `
the north (rear of building) and west sides;
and front landscaping to conform to code.
., _.. 1 raw^+....w,..nn,SM.w I.P,Y-.caca':n.;;,Y.• ., .' i ,.. ...,.,
1 t
c,
M
yp w
•
, 4. Board Discussion and Action
i
on
0 Discussion generally of set back requirements
in an "M" zone, landscape requirements for the
front yard and use of the street right-of-way
in fr nt of the site followed.
Mc Mona g
le said he
couldn't do t see
why
the land-
scaped d-
soaped
area adjacent the street couldn't be '�
used to fulfill the code requirement. '
. p revented this.
o ���Staff indicated the � code prevented
o Matson to app ro ve (Coo k) subject to staff
•
conditions staff to review for conformance
o Seconded (Olson) .. S
o Motion approved (unanimous)
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation:
Mr. McGee presented color chips and discussed
4 building style.;, and materials. He specified
that only the 'ventilator hoods would pr
Crude from the roof and that the AX. ,con-
densers would be pad mounted behind. the office.
portion of the building.
•
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Cook)
o Seconded (Wa.kem) .
o Motion carried (unanimously)
5.2 SDR 19-75 (First State Bank/Norman & Stanich)
A request for review of a proposed addition to an existing
parking lot adjacent the Associated Computer Services ,
Building in the First State BaAk Administrative Services
Center on SW Sandburg St. off SW 72nd Ave.
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff Report
Staff report
s read by
P
owell With
additional backgr ound information
furnished
from file of the original review (SDi. 38-73)
SDR Minutes - July 8, 1975 -- page 2
o .1
.,..•. ....... _r -« _.._..........._......•-_...u,.•,•..,, ..•,.,.._,,.- .•,,.....,.„„. .,.w..'1 ._«......, ...,.,,.....td......... .....". ...,.,...,.,...,.,-.«.m..,,.n._.........-.ik.... , .-r.n...•., n,.,..,u ,..e.w.,.-..—,.1.:,1.:`.-....;,.k+«flu.,...c:...e.,._,.«_.__....r......•..,..._....,,LU'......::..c:k..«i.lk+:in.w' ..
•
2. Public 'T'estimony
o Mr. Nelson, representing the applicant,
. , responded to the staff's concerns about
pedestrian acce s s and landscape
maintenance.enan
ce.
•
o
Mr. Taka sum i Fi rst State Bank, testified
that the bank would do
th e Board
asked.
3. Staff Recommendation: Approval
Commission, Discussion and A ction
h . o Motion to approve (Olson)
•
•
0 Seconded (Hammes)
o Motion carried (unanimously)
y
B. Architectural Design Review
..
(Not required)
5,3 SDR 20-75 (Columbia Hardwood & Moulding Co. )
A request to review a proposed sawdust bunker replacement
at 12700 SW Hall Blvd.
A. Sit e Development Plan an Re
aew
1. Staff Report: Read by Powell. Appropriate
pictures were presented.
2. Public Testimony
D ,
o Bob Ballinger, Columbia Hardwood, outlined !
the history of the application and in- .
dicatcd the time frame they had to work
with.
3. Staff Recommendation: Approval
4. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Olson)
0 Seconded (Hammes
(ry
,
o Motion carried (unanimous)
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
(
Mr. Ballinger showed elevations of the pro-
' 'r» posed structure and indicated the color. ,
, I DRB July 8, 1975 rw
Page
. { r r• r . .v'. ,� •'..-•.•..6n.wr,.n... arµs+6e.,.msx^ w ' . P
A,«•'CDs n . �.0 j; _. ,•i • • i '"
� D
Ii
2. Board Discussion and Action .
o Motion to approve (Olson)
o Seconded (Hammes)
o Motion carried (unanimous)
5.5 SDR 22-75 (Colonial Texaco and Car Wash/Charles Dunn)
, ,
Planning Commission to review the
A. request by ,the Tigard 1 �.g t ev
site design of a service station incorporating a car wash
with respect to the internal traffic flows caused by the
addition of the car wash. Colonial Texaco is now located
at 11465 SW Pacific Hwy.
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. r Staff Report: Read by Powell, ,with additional
pertinent information.
2. Public Testimony
o Mr. Dunn appeared and showed the Board the
traffic flow he had wanted and pointed out
difficulties he had had in the past with
wrong way use ,,of.his easterly driveway. .
approach. `
5. Board Discussion and Action
o Board discussed the particular problems
with wrong way use of the approaches to
the station with the applicant and suggested
alternative ways to guide the motorist to
the proper exit.
o Motion to approve a circular traffic flow
(Hamnes) with the provision of a painted
strip to guide motorist after leaving the
car wash.
o Seconded (McMonagle),
o Motion carried (unanimously) ,
B. Architectural Design Review
(Not applicable)
5.4 SDR 21-75 (TCT Auto Supply/Ed Mote
A request by the Tigard Planning Commission to review. the
..p: . g : t site of .a commercial e
.andsca in and sate des gn c cia,l ' to b,
/Bed as a retail auto parts store at 12200 SW Main St.
STAR. Minutes - July 80 1975 page 4
�r'" .
sir^ .'
i I
•
L.
•
rr
A. Si-be Development Plan Review I,
or Chairman McMonagle stated that in the absence
g,.
applicant he felt the submission was
of the 1 cant It she s ss
pp
viewd
inadequate "end that it could not be•
, 1 b
adequately.
• �� I o Motion
fo r denial (Wakem)em) on findings above.e.
o Seconded (Cook)
o Carried (unanimously)
♦
. , t and
o McMonagle asked staff to contact a lic
do
�IcM
p
, g applicant
i .
° to encourage a rapid return of the project with
r f,1 proposed landscaping specified.
B. Architectural Design Review
Not applicable. 1
1
ry
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Board discussed McDonald' s application for a City Council '• .
..
review of -1-,heir approved site plan and attained consensus '!
that the Council should consult the Design Review Board
before making any changes in their approval. McMonagle
' /p
pointed out that any change on the 'site plan would make
it a new submission, and that he thought it must reappear j
n
before the Design Review Board.•
•
7. ADJOURNMENT: 7:05 p.m.
f
•
•
i•V.•
I I ,
II
I �
DRB Minutes - July 80 19751 page 5
1r
- ., _ .r ,. r, e•4,.� r .n.r ylr:Y.,t Lr I V.:�t'..•V, y
I • " ., ..•. �. r..�m M♦Me.�hyrrrF na+.axe+wlr.wpuv .."ly - .V., .r , .,v .
• U I•
r " e 1 IOW •A •
i
STAFF REPORT
Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural Design Review Board I4 '
\•,L,, July 3, 1975 ''
SDR 21-75 (TCT Auto Su 1 /Ed Mote YI
( pp Y )
Applicant's Request
A request by the Tigard Planning Commission to review the 'land-
scaping ,and site design of a commercial building to be used as
a retail auto parts store at 12200 SW Main St. (former Haney
Magnavox) ,
Staff Findings
1. This matter is referred by the Tigard Planning Commission
to the Design Review Board for consideration of site
development and landscaping of this existing .building which
has been allowed a conditional use by the Planning Com-
mission on July 1, 1975.
2. Parking and access as presently provided meet. Tigard Code
requirements.
' . 3. Landscaping, however, is required per Section 18.58.060 TMC
to conform to the following (paraphrased) requirements in a
C-3 zone.
a. Tree and shrub plantings are required in parking areas
at a minimum interval of seventy feet each way.
•
b. Minimum of 10' landscaped front yard.
c. Minimum of 10% of site to be landscaped.
4. Staff feels that a simple w-°,Pia will,b of the existing front
planters and provision of shade trees in the parking area
would greatly enhance the site, as well as provide some
definition of the aisles between the U.S. Bank' andlthe sub-
1 r / t y l d
J e c t site.I 7�?C ct tya.�i e4e �a tiLL kO wado tit.4 i ctidLa itetee pat S rJiG�YG ¢ 1 c�d �/'rJia7'/
5. There appears to be ample space tc provide shade trees '-t
f-ke: Wcotmt,,,f it'epoi?k1k5. between U.S. Bank and the subject site ,
at approximately 40 feet on center (4 or 5 trees) and not
interfere with aisles or maneuvering space. rxr../r15,„5sa,v,
5 CO He44t t er4 eta r t,�.l�w*�
also of the it owned al b
2300, f he s wn d s th
Tax Lot 00 to the rear e - is the
6. a L 3 t o � by
owner of the subject site. This lot was used as overflow
parking by Haney Magnavox when they used the building but
is used ordinarily by the clinic (on tax lot 2501) . '
' q � fir
three the common
7. Unless it were elected by all. hre� ,users, of t e m
p arking access and parking areas to
,improve and landscape a ':
those common areas y ,Staff would not 'reconimF„nd an all out
ping;project. y appropriate,.. . . 'er, for •j
landscaping It �a� be ��.owe�,'
the desirability of such a coordinated project to be pointed
i' ;ti
out to the several ,par�tie8 involved. '
.., ,.. .. ,,.,. ..,.. .. ,...,............ ............... .. ,.a 1,,..,, i., i„ i I.i ,w ,,,r , i -,--r n r 1 1 r ., M1f,^ .,, :t.J•irv,
'� " i L n:..a w..d.. ....,...r...w..el.+r._{. . .......�•..,. mr. k, .,.�—.,...'w,»....,.}-..�.•.43_-,,...._,..tL.�s ,,..„...7.e a.n_..«I..-#.a.an}vli..w.._w..w......r,-... w,+..41,-w N�........1. ....n. ....».�, ,.r... .a• .,. p1�
J Its
r G ` (�
r.l
< .
i'_
w
1,
V
to
f
II
? N 6'..2.i 1,C.) ' . 1 . ''
530c) 10 j
.. ,(.0 .di 1 -t- 1 \\.\\) '
4
\I
/
4 1 ,' •
d izof)o5 Er) /Y, ,i
So PA/?..7 s
0
f ro �2
r J i �
t
! O
I.
. 0, ` "ej) , /
Y / ajn •
w
■
C`4
Z
i
n .' .'�, - ..• - ',. .«.,wW....+«..,a..,n�r�.,sax/1' ., ,. I. ' .. ........ ..... .. �
h
( „f
h r '_ J