05/13/1975 - Minutes MINUTES
Tigard Site Development and Design Review Board
May 13, 1975
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: 4:45 p.m.
2. ROLL RECORDED: Bartel, Cook, McMonagle and Wakem present
Staff represented by Powell
Hames arrived at 4:55 p.m.
3. MINUTES of April 22, 1975, meeting approved as read.
4. PROJECT REVIEW
4.1 SDR 8-75 (Harris Enterprises)
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff report was read by Powell.
2. Applicant Presentation:
o Dennis Norstrom of Design Forum described the
project and what the owner wants to accomplish
by the proposed design
3. Board Discussion and Action
o Bartel questioned the location of the catchbasins.
o Cook asked if curbs would be located as shown
or if they were there now.
o Applicant responded that the curbs were to be
provided and that the catch basins were shown
as built.
o McMonagle asked about access to the site and
asked whether catch basins would work as shown.
o Applicant explained traffic flow and drainage.
o Wakem asked staff if a non-remonstrance agree-
ment would suffice to ensure the eventual develop-
ment of the Park Street side to conform to City
standards.
o Staff responded that that would work as long as
on-site drainage is taken care of adequately and
the curb line and approach point- is fixed to
conform to code.
o McMonagle questioned the lac' o.-JF' an ir-rigation
system.
o Bartel asked the applicant if he was aware that
the plant materials he provided would have to
survive.
o Applicant said he was.
o Motion to approve as drawn (McMonagle) subject to
staff recommendation that a curb be provided be-
tween the sidewalk area on SW Pacific Hwy. and
the outermost service lane or landscape the first
10 ft. to conform with code and subject to the
additional conditions that:
1) The applicant provide an adequate irrigation
system for landscaped areas.
2) Rain drain from building discharge into
storm drain.
3) The applicant will sign a non-remonstrance
agreement for the eventual improvement of
SW Park and provide a legal driveway approach
per his site plan.
o Seconded (Cook) , passed unanimously
B. Architectural Review
1. Applicant described the remodeling and the materials
to be used.
2. Motion to approve (Cook) , subject to review of
materials. Seconded (Hames) , carried.
4.2 SDR 10-75 (Englewood Gardens/Englewood Too (sic)-. Snyder-
Ryan Interstate Development Co. ,
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff report was read by Powell.
2. Applicant' s Presentation:
o Joe Van Lom, architect for the project, describes:
proposal.
3. Board Discussion and Action
o Bartel asked about garbage collection facilities.
Said he was concerned with the apparent distances
involved.
o Applicant suggested 100 ft. should be a maximum
distance.
DRB Minutes - May 13, 1975 - page 2
o Bartel asked about outside lighti.ng.
vow
o Applicant said there 'd be no luminaires on poles,
that lighting would be from low (mushroom) fixtures.
o Hames asked about wood storage for fireplaces.
o Applicant said probably it would be no problem.
o McMonagle said he felt the distance between
catch basins was excessive.
o Applicant said that the engineers had recommended
the location and sizing.
o McMonagle suggested that the applicant determine
a storm capacity and flood frequency for the
system and then determine if it is adequate.
o Bartel asked if there is adequate parking space.
o Staff replied that there appeared to be more than
sufficient parking available.
o Moved (Cook) to approve Englewood Gardens subject
to :
`AW 1) approval of drainage by staff
2) location of garbage collection points per
approved site plan, as amended and
staff recommended conditions as follows:
3) All on and off-site landscaping, including
screening vegetation and street plantings
will be installed and inspected before
occupancy.
4) Sprinkler irrigation to be provided through-
out.
5) The applicant is to contact Commonwealth
and coordinate landscaping, plant materials,
scheduling, pathways and outdoor play areas
in particular, with them on the Englewood
Too portion of the project, subject to staff
review.
o Seconded (Wakem) , carried unanimously.
o Moved (Cook) to approve Englewood Too subject
to staff conditions, redesign of units bordering
the commons area to provide a blend from develop-
ment to open space, and provision of additional
garbae collection facilities per approved site
plan amended) .
o Second (Hames) , carried unanimously.
SDR Minutes - May 13, 1975 - page 3
B. Architectural Design Review
o The applicant presented elevations and discussed
design concepts involved.
o Moved (Cook) to approve, second (Wakem) , carried
unanimously.
4.4 SDR 12-75 (Coco ' s & Plankhouse - Way Lee)
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff report read by Powell.
2. Applicant's Presentation:
o Tom Amberg, Alpha Engineering, discussed the
site plan. Hal Beigley, Beigley/Kraus, discussed
the landscaping.
3. Board Discussion and Action
o McMonagle asked what should be done about access
to rear of Coco 's.
o Mr. Amberg said he recognized the problem and
that parking spaces could be sacrificed to pro-
vide better access.
o Landscaping and screening of the east lot line
of Coco ' s was generally discussed.
o Amberg said that a bond would probably be an
acceptable solution.
o McMonagle asked how the landscape architect
would solve the problem ::^f the state right-of-way
adjacent the site.
o Hal Beighley said that turf would be an acceptable
solution, taking the plantings near the parking
areas and regrouping; them as feature plantings.
o Wakem asked if the applicant could solve the
problems seen by staff with respect to back out
clearances.
o Amberg said that any problems yet remaining could.
be solved.
o Cook asked about the existing trees (next to Hi-rat)
o Amberg said one row would remain excepting those
ire the service yard area.
DRB Minutes - May 13, 1975 - page 4
o Discussion of how to work around triose trees
followed.
0 McMonagle observed that slopes in the parking
area were greater than desirable and that storm
drainage was not shown.
o Amberg (applicant) said that those details could
be worked out and that drainage would be collected
on site and run into the natural drainage on the
south end of the site.
o McMonagle asked if there was sufficient room
to relocate sidewalks per staff recommendation
and if the easement would be an acceptable
solution to the owner.
o Amberg replied affirmatively.
o Cook asked about the street trees and if they
would constitute a safety problem.
o Staff responded that a large enough shade tree
would clear the vision "cone" area.
o Beighley (applicant' s landscape architect) stated
that another species of maple would be preferable
Iftw anyway.
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to staff recommend-
ations, that items to be yet worked out be approved
by staff before building permits are issued, and
subject to applicant's provision of sprinkler
irrigation in Hwy. R/W (with O.S.H.D. approval) ;
that adequate storm drainage collection be pro-
vided for and that site grading take into account
minimum possible grades in parking areas and
pedestrian convenience.
o Seconded (McMonagle) , carried unanimously.
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant's Presentation
o Elevations and photographs were presented by
applicant.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Cook asked about roof materials.
o Applicant responded they would be wood shake.
DRB Minutes - May 13, 1975 - page 5
o Cook asked about the final grading around
building, and if the finish floor elevation
was below grade as at the Sylvan Coco 's building.
o Applicant responded that it would be like the
Sylvan Coco ' s.
o Bartel asked about the facial treatment of the
Plankhouse.
o Applicant responded that it would be wood siding.
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to shake roof/
screening instead of indicated metal roof.
o Seconded (Bartel) , carried unanimously.
Chairman Bartel turned over chair to McMonagle at 6:45 and left to
attend another meeting.
4.3 SDR 11--75 (Hudson Office Building - Bob Hudson)
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff report was ready by Powell.
2. Applicant Presentation:
I%W o Bob Hudson explained his plans for development
of his site.
3. Board Discussion and Action
o Based in differences between the applicant' s
presentation and his submitted drawings, Mc-
Monagle and Cook asked the applicant to modify
his submitted drawings.
o McMonagle questioned staff about future plans
for Walnut Place and as��(ad if a non-remonstrance
agreement would 'adequately ensure future develop-
ment of the street.
o Staff responded that that approach would suffice.
o Cook asked where hose bibs were provided.
o McMonagle suggested that additional ones be
placed so that the longest hose reach would be
less than 75 ft.
o Motion to approve (Walem) amended site plan sub-
ject to staff recommended conditions 1, 2 & 3.
o Seconded (Cook) , carried unanimously.
DRB Minutes - May 13, 1975 - page 6
B. Arch itec,tura-. Design Rev--; ew
1. Applicant's presentation
o Bob Hudson explained the exteriors, f1oo-r plans
and colors he intends to use.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Cook)
o Seconded (Wakem) , carried unanimously.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
Jack Graaf brought in color samples and roof material sample
per Board instructions at the April 22, 1975, meeting (SDR 9-75) .
o Motion to approve (Cook) , seconded (Wakem) , carried unanimously.
6. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m,
DRB Minutes - May 13, 107-4` - pa c-7- 7