05/27/1975 - Minutes MINUTES
TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
May 27, 1975
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bartel called the meeting to order
at 5:50 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Members present were Bartel , Cook, Hames,
McMonagle, Wakem and staff--Powell
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 10, 1975 meeting were
approved as read.
o Wakem asked if staff had brought the color
board for the Harris Bros. Project (SDR 8-75)
o Staff said it hadn't
4. PROJECT REVIEW
4.1 SDR 6-75 (McDonald' s - Robertson)
A request for review of a proposed franchise fast foods restaurant
at SW Pacific Hwy. between School St. and Park St.
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff report read by Powell with recommendations as
follows:
(a) Modify the common access to constrain traffic
to a 900 intersection with Pacific Hwy. and
limit cross traffic between the Standard Station
and McDonald 's.
(b) Eliminate the exit shown and use School St. as
a common access with the School District, develop
School St. to a minimum commercial drive standard
(30 ft. ) and coordinate such activities with the
School District with respect to curbing the edge
of their parking lot.
(c) Expand parking area toward Park St. for an
additional 20-30 ft. , allowing an additional
6 to 12 spaces.
(Capacity as drawn is 71 autos -- seating
capacity of restaurant is 128, probable
employment is estimated at 16 per shift.
Assuming 2 persons per auto, the parking
demand would be 72 spaces. Staff recommends
additional 8-10 spaces to allow for turnover
overlaps and carry out business).
(d) Provide additional trees along "east" side
of site similar to "north" side.
(e) Provide ground cover in planting areas adjacent
service station and redesign plantings in those
areas to coordinate better.
(f) Provide curbs, sidewalks and necessary street
improvements on Park St. and on Grant St.
(Grant St. will soon develop for multi-family
use and Park St. will experience a rapid in-
crease in traffic. Neither is presently
adequate for its use and introducing the pro-
posed project without those improvements
would be a hardship on the community.
2. Applicant 's Presentation
o Mr. Mel Brook (McDonald 's) spoke to the points
brought up in the staff report. He felt that staff
had implied that they would approve the plan as
submitted with redline corrections.
o Staff responded that staff had told them that the
plan submitted conformed to City code minimums,
not that staff approved or favored the plan.
o Mr. Fasano said he thought the requirement of street
improvements, curbs and sidewalks exceeded the
authority of the Design Review Board as the action
was not a land use question, but a design review for
a building permit. He further stated that he had
asked that the McDonald' s hearing not be started
until he arrived and the meeting was already in
progress when he walked in.
o Bartel asked that staff ask the City Attorney for
his opinion regarding Design Review Board's authority
and responsibility for requiring conformance to
Comprehensive Plan and for street improvements.
3. Public Testimony
o Mrs . Lucy Mayernik asked if the Design Review Board
was trying to prevent access to the site.
o Mr. Dick Kleumpke (chrmn. NPO #3) testified in
opposition.
o Mr. Bob Reynolds (landlord on Grant St. ) asked
what the status of School St. was and offered testi-
mony in favor.
DRB Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 2
o Mr. Bob Greenwood (School District 23-J) said
the school board had indicated its wish to leave
School St. open.
w
o Mrs. Bibianne Scheckla testified in opposition.
o Mr. Christenson (McDonald's) testified that based
on a daily customer count of other McDonald 's in
the Portland area, he estimated a 1023 vehicle trip/
day traffic generation versus the 1570 projected
by the City.
o Mr. Mike Emert (McDonald' s) asked why Planning Dir.
Dick Bolen was not present.
o Staff responded that he was not usually present at
Design Review Board meetings.
o Mr. Larry Haugset said that he felt that the City
was reversing its approval given by the Planning
Director.
o Emert stated that the access proposed was not
acceptable to McDonald' s and that the corporation
wanted it reversed to enter at the north east and
exit on the south west.
o McMonagle pointed out that that was precisely the
configuration that the Oregon State Highway Div.
said it would not approve.
o Emert indicated that the corporation would work
that out with the Highway Division,
o Chairman Bartel asked Emert if that was what Mc-
Donald's wanted.
o Emert said it was.
o Staff (Powell) asked the applicant' s representative
(Emert) if his intent was to change the site plan.
o Emert said that the plan he could approve and the
one he expected to be approved by the Design Review
Board was as he was asking.
o Powell said that there was no recourse for the
staff but to recommend denial.
o Mr. Fasano asked on what findings was the recommen-
dation based.
o Powell said it was based on staff' s judgment that
the approach configuration requested was unsafe.
DRB Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 3
o Motion for denial (Wakem) - died for lack of second.
o Motion to approve (Cook) as shown on "red line"
drawing, subject to staff recommended conditions
#3 (with a minimum of 80 parking spaces) , #4, #5
and #6 (allowing a waver of right to remonstrate
against an L. I. D. of street improvements in lieu
of requiring the improvements now) .
o Seconded (McMonagle)
o Failed (3-2)
o Motion to approve (McMonagle) as shown on "red
line" , with direction of traffic flow reversed
and not allowing parking on the "east" (ingress)
side, subject to staff conditions #3 (80 parking
spaces in the rear of the building) , #4, #5 and
#6 (allowing waiver of right to remonstrate in
lieu of improvements) .
Y
o Seconded (Cook)
o Carried (3 to 2)
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
o Emert and Brook (McDonald' s) described building and
supplied additional information.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Cook asked if the facia would extend around the
building.
o Applicant said they would provide a redwood screen
to the rear, but a solid facia would interfere with
ventilation.
o Christenson pointed out that the roof top sign
would be deleted and the free standing sign would
be the 100 sq. ft. version -- somewhat smaller
than some in the Portland area.
o Motion to approve as amended (Cook) .
o Seconded (Bartel)
o Carried (unanimous)
4.2 SDR 2-75 (Oregon Bank - Bissett)
A request for review of a proposed bank at SW Greenburg Rd. and
Pacific Hwy.
SDR Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 4
A. Site Development Plan Review
;%W 1. Staff Report was presented by Powell.
2. Applicant's Presentation
o Larry Bissett (applicant) described the project
and provided response to the questions brought up
in staff report.
3. Public Testimony
o none
4. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion (Cook) to approve subject to :
Catch basins on and off the site relocated per
Public Works Director' s direction, an approved
variance for exit configuration on to Greenburg
Rd. , approval of a landscape plan.
o Seconded (Hames)
o Carried.
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
o Mr. Bissett described design considerations in
the proposed building and discussed the difficulty
he had with the proposed brick facade.
2. Board Discussion and Action
14AW
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to board review of
color and surface treatments and a "cut sheet" on
signs.
o Seconded (Wakem)
o Carried
4.3 SDR 13-75 - rescheduled for the following meeting.
4.4 SDR 14-75 (cotter Building - Sam Gotter)
A request for review of a proposed 5000 sq. ft. office building
at 12963 SW Pacific Hwy. (west of Walnut St. )
A. Site Development Plan Review
Aw
SDR Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 5
II; K..
1. Staff Report was read by Powell.
2. Applicant's Presentation
o Mr. Gotter presented plan and described project.
3. Public Testimony
o None
4. Board Discussion and Action
o McMonagle queried applicant about drainage problems
on the site and how they were being corrected.
o Applicant said he was constructing a 12 inch storm
sewer across the site and increasing the size of
a sump pump used to pump storm water across the
highway.
o Motion to approve (McMonagle) subject to sidewalk
to be provided as shown and driveway cut to be
built per public works approval (30 ' max. ) .
o Seconded (Cook)
o Carried
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant' s Presentation
o Mr. Gotter described the building and materials.
2. Board Discussion and Action
A
o Motion (Cook) to approve as submitted.
o Seconded (Hames)
o Carried.
5. OTHER BUSINESS: none
6. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m.
4aw SDR Minutes - May 27, 1975 - page 6