06/24/1975 - Minutes MINUTES
Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board
VOW June 24, 1975
Tigard City Hall
12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER
o The meeting was called to order by acting Chairman Cook at
5:10 p.m.
o 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 Wakem;
staff: Powell
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the preceeding meeting were not
available at time of meeting.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: None
r 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 Presentation
o Bob Santee told the Board what he intended and
addressed the staff's comments in the staff report.
3. Public Testimony
o Joe Greulich of Tualatin Valley Fire District read
'w., a letter from the District Board and indicated he
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.
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 this year.
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
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 and the
facial treatment proposed.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Board discussion with the applicant related to :
(a) The blending of surfaces between the stucco
remodeled portion and the concrete block older
portion, and the difficulty of dealing with
that transition.
(b) They discussed the two roof lines proposed
and the existing parapet wall and the
relationships between those elements.
(c) The structural integrity of the remodeling where
a wood frame structure was to be added to a
-2-
concrete block lower and the difficulty
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 as drawn (Hammes)
o Seconded (Olson)
o Discussion of the motion pointed out that "as drawn"
included surface treatment and "roof detail" .
o Olson pointed out the code defined 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 (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
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 drawn by an
architect and he thought it was good as had the
fire district board.
o Consensus of the Board was that architectural
design whould be resubmitted by the applicant
rather than amended by the Board and approved with
such amendments as applicant would have to coordin-
ate his design
g with,,'the fire district board.
� Hyl.at�$4k,
o Motion" denigc based aon findings that a redesign of
-3-
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 acting Chairman Cook
o Nominated for Chairman was McMonagle; 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 (Wakem) .
o Seconded (Hammes) .
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
by McDonald's , indicated they felt the staff's red line
drawing conformed with their intent.
Staff reported that Mr. Mike Emert, who had indicated he
would attend this meeting, had called earlier to indicate
he would be unable to attend.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 7:15 p.m.
err
-4-