Loading...
03/20/1975 - Minutes MINUTES TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD March 20, 1975 Twality Junior High School - lecture room 14650 SW 97th Avenue , Tigard, Oregon 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 114W 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mann, McMonagle, Edin, Bartel, Wakem, Powell (staff) 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the March 6, 1975, meeting were not yet available. Chairman Bartel noted that McDonald' s site plan and architectural plan would not be available for consideration at this meeting, so item 4.1 would be stricken from the agenda. 4. SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 4.2 SDR 5-75 (Sabre/Bethlehem Steel) Request for review of a proposed warehouse and office space to be constructed in an M-2 zone on SW Landmark Lane off SW 72nd Ave. This is a resubmission item. A. Staff Report read by Powell (see attached) B. Applicant' s Presentation Presentation by Mr. Mike McGee for Sabre Construction Co. indicated that they had attempted to comply with requests of the Board, but felt that they could defend the requested large maneuvering area. The maneuvering area was therefore not reduced in size, although an additional 5 ft. of planting A&W area was given on the west side and an additional planting area had been provided in the parking area next to the building. Mr. McGee also stated that he agreed with the staff' s recommendations with the exception that he felt that no landscaping need be provided along the railroad easement at the back of the parking lot. He then further explained the traffic patterns in the maneuvering area and explained the schematic drawing of those traffic patterns that he had provided the Design Review Board. 1 C. Board Discussion and Action Motion (Wakem) to deny based on lack of time to review the proposal. Seconded (Edin) , Motion defeated with Mann, McMonagle and Bartel against. Motion to accept (Edin) on the conditions that: (l) No permanent or temporary storage of parked trailers should be allowed in the parking or maneuvering areas. (2) that the northwest corner of the maneuvering area be landscaped (3) that the landscaped islands adjacent to the parking and truck loading door be relocated and that some major plantings be provided there (4) that an irrigation system be provided (5) that Northern Yards landscaping and Bethlehem Steel landscaping be tied together with a common plant material theme McMonagle seconded '++W Approval was by majority vote, (Wakem nay) Architectural Design. Review A. Applicant's Presentation Mr. McGee presented the color board and architectural elevations of his proposed building indicating the basically metal building would have tilt slab lower portions and that a broom finish would be applied to those areas. He also indicated that mechanical equipment would be lo- cated on top of the building. B. Board Discussion and Action Motion to approve (McMonagle) , seconded (Edin) , carried by majority. (Wakem abstained, Mann nay) 4.1 SDR 6-75 (McDonald ' s) A request for review of a proposed franchised fast foods restaurant at SW Pacific Hwy. and School St. A. Staff Report Staff report was read by Powell (see attached) SDR Minutes - March 20, 1975 - page 2 Bartel asked when submission was made. Staff responded Tuesday, explaining that due to the continuing character of the case it was felt that it should be brought back as soon as possible to the Design Review Board. Wakem asked why staff accepted the resubmission that did not speak to the issues brought up by the Design Review Board. Staff replied that McDonald' s had sought other remedies to the problems seen rather than accepting Design Review Board' s solutions. Wakem asked that the City Attorney' s opinion, cited in the staff report, be read in full. Staff complied. McMonagle asked what zoning applied in the area. Staff pointed out areas of A-2 and C-3 zoning around the site. McMonagle asked for documentation of the lease on the whole site. Staff indicated its only documentation was the site plan, no lease documents or other documentation was available to the staff at the time. McMonagle asked if any site changes had really been made. Staff pointed out that the site plan showed the School St. easement as part of the McDonald' s site and that the building was shifted somewhat on the site and that the exit to Grant St. was added. McMonagle asked if the applicant had actually vacated the School St. easement. Mr. Robertson, the property owner, responded that he had discussed vacation of the easement with the School District. Mr. Fennell, School Supt. , clarified by remarking that the issue had been brought up to the School District Admini- stration, but it had not been before the School Board yet. Bartel asked staff about the City' s position with respect to vacation of School St. Staff responded that it was the City' s position that it did not want necessarily, but that several land owners on Grant St. wanted it to remain open. Staff also pointed out that an opinion by the previous City engineer had indicated that it was not a desirable public right-of-way. tow Edin moved denial on the basis that: SDR Minutes - March 20, 1975 - page 3 (1) The Board does not have sufficient information of the legal status of the property. (2) The Board does not have adequate information on the proposed use for the remainder of the site. (3) The submission was received too late to adequately review it. (4) It appears to be a partition of land undertaken without proper City approval. Bartel stated that he had intended to conduct this meeting under public hearing rules and that he felt that if the motion was made for denial, then all parties should be heard; however, that if a motion was made not to accept a submission, due to insufficient information or because some statutory requirements were not met, then that would be a different matter. Based upon this, then, the chairman felt that he could not support the motion as stated. Wakem said it seemed more appropriate not to accept the submission and allow the applicant to settle the land partitioning question elsewhere other than in front of the Design Review Board. Edin asked if he could change his motion to be "moved to take no action based on the four findings : (1) The Board does not have sufficient documentation as to the legal status of the property. (2) The Board does not have adequate information on the proposed use of the remainder of the site. (3) The submission was received too late to adequately review it. (4) It appears to be a partition of land undertaken without proper City approval. " Seconded (Mann) . McMonagle said that he felt that part of the purpose of the Board was .to guide whoever comes before the Board to knowing what the Board wants. He felt a recap of the Board' s findings and the Board' s wishes with respect to site design would be in order and that particular site problems identified by the Board should then be specifically addressed by the applicants with City staff and, if necessary, City legal counsel, so that the Board is not put in the position again of reviewing an inadequate submission. Bartel asked if McMonagle could not support or if he felt SDR Minutes - March 20, 1975 - page 4 it needed clarification. McMonagle said he supported the motion but felt that clari- fication was needed. Several questions existed that he wanted answered before the project was again before the Design Review Board. Those questions are: (1) What is the use of the entire property and all parts of it and what is the intended use of the entire property, (2) What is the road from Grant Street? Is it an eavesment, driveway, or what? (3) The site plan should show the entire site. (4) What street improvements will be made to Grant St. and to Park St. and how will pedestrian traffic to the site from the rear be handled? (5) What will Robertson do about School St. and what is the City' s position with respect to School St. ? Powell, staff, asked if McMonagle intended to recommend that egress from the site be to Grant St. McMonagle stated he was not stating a preference either way. Powell stated that staff may not be empowered to speak to the rights enjoyed by the property owners holding interest in the eavesments, but could speak to the City ' s wishes with respect to continued public access through that eaves- ment to a public street. Wakem queried McMonagle if his request applied after the applicant had resolved the land partition issue. McMonagle said that it depended on what the applicant de- cided to do. Bartel said that he felt that if the applicant wanted to use the entire tract, then he would not have to address the land partition issue, but that if the applicant in- tended to partition in the future, he would have to answer the questions brought up by the community then. He pointed out that there may be a risk involved there. McMonagle acknowledged Bartel ' s comment, but said that he didn't think the Board should or could deal with a future possibility. Mann asked if the vacation of the eavesment must be addressed before the applicant could show it as a part of the site plan. Staff said that may be , but is not necessarily true. An applicant for a building permit or for site development approval need not necessarily be the owner of the land at the time the approval is given, but ultimately that issue will have to be resolved. The City would hold the applicant to developing the site plan that had been approved. SDR Minutes - March 20, 1975 - page 5 Bartel asked McMonagle if his request was a motion to amend Edin's motion. McMonagle affirmed that it was. Seconded (Wakem) Ammendment approved (unanimously) . Question called on Edin' s Motion, as amended. Approved (unanimously) . Chairman Bartel instructed staff to advise applicant of the outcome of the meeting. Staff agreed. Mr. Robertson asked if that was all. Bartel said that the hearing was over, but the meeting was not adjourned, and that the applicant could discuss his project with the Board informally after the meeting. 5. OTHER BUSINESS Wakem expressed his concern over the review time available to w..• the Board members. Staff indicated that the problem was that several deadlines were stacked up on the few critical days and that a solution could be to change Design Review Board meeting days. Bartel asked if staff had any suggested day. Staff asked if second and fourth Tuesdays would be acceptable. Bartel asked if there were any objections from the Board. McMonagle asked when the next meeting would be. Staff said the April 3 meeting would be as scheduled. The following meetir3 would be on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month. 6. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bartel adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. An informal session followed the close of the meeting with informal dialogue between McDonald' s, Robertson and the members of the Design Review Board. SDR Minutes - March 20, 1975 - page 6