Loading...
09/14/1976 - Minutes MINUTES Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board September 14, 1976 General Telephone 12460 S.W. Main - Tigard, Oregon 1 . CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5 : 30 P.M. by Chairman McMonagle. 2. ROLL CALL: Present : Hammes, Olson, McMonagle and Cook Excused Absence - Goldbach Staff Present : Daniels, Edwards 3. MINUTES : Cook brought to the attention of the staff and Board that several mistakes existed in the minutes of August 24, 1976 . 4 . COMMUNICATIONS : None 5 . DESIGN REVIEW: 5 . 1 SDR 12-76 A request by J . A. Atwood Corp . for design review of a proposed duplex development on S .W. Hill Street . o Mr. Cook informed the Board that he would abstain from an active role in this review because of a conflict �++ of interest . SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A. Staff Report : Read by Daniels B. Recommendations : Staff recommended approval with the following conditions : 1 . A 50 ' wide greenway easement be provided and a 6 ' pedestrian/bike path to City standards be constructed along Fanno Creek. 2. The floodplain area be cleared and maintained as usable open space for the future tenants. 3. The remainder of the buildable area be planted in turf and maintained until the remaining phase of this develop- ment is initiated. 4 . Lawn be extended to the backyard and patio areas . 5 . Additional shrubs and trees be added between the patios and the property lines . 6 . Hose bibbs be placed 50 ' on center . 7. Adequate amounts of plant material be added to the site. MINUTES Tigard Design Review Board September 14, 1976 Page 2 8. Patio screen of the same material as the building. 9 . Revised landscape plan be subject to staff approval . o Staff asked that an addition to recommendation #1 read, "or suitable financial assurity provided" . o Staff presented and read a letter from Mr . Paul Johnson, protesting the parking plan for the Atwood development . o Board and staff discussed different parking solutions and driveway placements . o Staff explained the need for a bike path in the area and that a definite location was under study. C. Applicant ' s Presentation o J. A. Atwood, applicant , explained the general site, floodplain, and history of the project and protested condition #1 . o McMonagle informed applicant that the 50 ' greenway easement was a standard condition of approval along Fanno Creek and asked if a non-remonstrance agreement i4jww for a bike/pedestrian path would be acceptable . o Staff reinterated the need for a bond or actual con- struction of a bike/pedestrian path. o McMonagle asked staff about the practicality of a clearing the floodplain. o Staff stated that the intention of condition #2 was to keep the grass mowed and area cleaned. o Atwood stated that this would be impractical because of rough terrain and soil . o Cook stated that tall grass would be a possible fire hazard. o McMonagle asked what plans where involved for the re- maining area. o Atwood stated that future use could not be determined at this time. o Victor Seeber, neighbor, protested parking conditions and expressed concern over future development of the site. o Staff presented five possible development patterns and reviewed the relationship of this site to the Neighbor- hood Plan and present zoning. MINUTES Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board September 14, 1976 Page 3 o McMonagle asked to see an entire site plan with phases . o Atwood stated that : o this would impose a financial hardship and no future plans existed at this time, o recommendation #1 be deleted and a non-remonstrance agreement be signed instead and that the greenway be established when the rest of project is developed, o recommendation #2 be deleted, o recommendation #3 was unfair but would not object to mowing grass if it was a fire hazard, o recommendation #4 be deleted that groundcover would be a better solution. o Staff informed the Board that the greenway easement was essential, and that the remaining area should be main- tained in fairness to neighborhood. Hammes moved and Olson seconded to accept the plan with the staff recommendations with #1 adding a non-remonstrance agreement on the pedestrian/bike path instead of construction or bonding, #2 that the floodplain be maintained and cleaned, #3 in one year the fill area be leveled and grass planted, and staff recommendations 4, 5,6, 7, 8 and 9 . The motion was approved 3 to 0 with Cook abstaining. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o Atwood explained o siding - textural plywood with vertical lines o stonework would surround the garage doors o garage doors would be either 2 singles or 1 double o colors - charcoal brown, dark gray trim, black roof - sealskin brown, dark brown trim, tan roof o windows - annodized aluminum with stained glass in the window by the door o Seeber protested the veranda' s being viewed from the street . o Atwood replied that there was a screen 3 - 4 ' high . o Mrs. Paul Johnson, neighbor, protested the lack of parking and colors of units. rar MINUTES Design Review Board September 14 , 1976 Page 4 Hammes moved and Olson seconded to approve the architectural design as specified. The motion was approved 3 to 0 with Cook abstaining. 5 .2 SDR 34-76 A request by Victor Seeber for design review of a pro- posed 11 , 000 square foot industrial warehouse at S .W. Grant Street and S .W. Tigard Avenue. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Staff Report : Read by Daniels . B. Staff Recommendations : Staff recommends approval with the following conditions : 1 . An additional 10 Mahonia should be added along the back parking lot line. 2 . Applicant and staff determine which of the existing oak trees should be removed. New oak trees 1 - 12" 4 caliper 8 ' tall shall be planted in their stead and additional oak trees be added along the west property line. 3 . Large shade trees (preferably oak) and shore pine should be planted along Grant and Tigard St . (shown in red on the plan) . 4 . More deciduous and evergreen shrubs be added to the landscape buffer. 5. A vine maple be added to the center corner planter on the east side. 6 . Gravel or stepping stones be added around the hose bibb at the southeast corner and shrubs be added to the remaining area. Cook moved and Olson seconded to approve the proposal with the staff recommendations . The motion was approved by the unanimous voice vote. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW o George Haerner, Construction Services, presented the architectural plan with the following information : o building would be sheet metal , tan with charcoal brown trim, canopys would be constructed of the same material . MINUTES Design Review Board September 14, 1976 Page 5 o McMonagle stated he would prefer concrete tilt up to metal . Cook moved and Hammes seconded to approve the architectural design as specified. The motion was approved 3 to 1 with McMonagle dissenting. 5 .4 SDR 26-76 A request by Payless Northwest, Inc . for design review of a proposed commercial shopping center at S .W. Main Street and S .W. Scoffins Street . A. Staff Report : Read by Daniels . o Staff informed the Board that revised plans had been received after the staff reports were sent out therefore new recommendations had been written. B. Recommendations : Staff recommends approval with the following conditions : 1 . All landscaped areas surrounding the perimeter of the project should be planted in such a manner so as to screen the parking lot from the public view. This could be accomplished by the addition of more shrubs and/or berms . 2 . Areas designated for future expansion should be land- scaped where they abut public roadways . This is parti- cularly important in order to clearly define the en- trance drives off of Main and Scoffins and to screen the service areas . 3. Wheelblocks should be added on both sides of the center parking strip and perimeter parking. 4 . Additional landscape islands be added in the parking areas to provide landscaping 70 ' on center for both rows of each parking row and planted to correspond with other islands. 5. Dedication of the area between Main and Pacific should be accomplished. In addition, because it is not feasible to landscape this area until the plans for "Liberty Park" are completed by the Park Board, the staff recommends that the developers be asked to provide minimal site improvements for this area in the form of seeding and irrigation . Additional landscaping will be provided by adjoining businesses and the public. The public share will consist partially of federal matching funds already committed. Staff determines the cost of providing the developer 's share to be 25� per square foot . The area MINUTES Design Review Board September 14, 1976 Page 6 in question is 27, 800 sq. ft . and this share results in a $7, 000 contribution for this project . Either a cash contribution or a committment of labor and materials will satisfy this condition . 6. The garden shop area be completely screened from the road and additional plant materials added to the abutting landscape submitted to staff. 7 . Irrigation plan for the corner of Scoffins and Main be submitted for staff approval . 8 . A regular maintenance program be established that would provide litter cleanup. In addition to this trash recepticals should be. provided. 9 . Bike stands be available on the site. 10. A landscape maintenance firm be hired for the development . 11 . No parking be allowed in the area north of the building designated shops. This area be landscaped subject to staff approval . 12 . The area designated for parking in front of Albertsons, Payless, and shops be landscaped and loading zones established (subject to staff approval) . o Olson questioned the fairness of recommendation 5. o Staff explained the Liberty Park concept and Payless ' role . o Applicant stated that Payless was already dedicating the land plus realignment of Main Street - $7,000 was an exorbitant sum. o Board and staff discussed proposed park location and its relation to Payless. o McMonagle suggested that the percentage of participation in the park be determined by the City Council . o Staff explained Main Street realignment , Tri-Met bus zone, and access onto Hall Blvd. from this site. o Staff presented a proposed plan for the front area of the store showing landscape islands and loading zones instead of parking. o Applicant replied that reducing the number of parking spaces would hinder the project . Applicant also stated they agree with recommendations 4, 9 and 10 but 7, 11 , and 12 would be unfair . Also they agree to placing trees around the perimeter and recommendation #3 is not needed since the sidewalk would be raised 6 ' . MINUTES Design Review Board September 14, 1976 Page 7 o Cook stated that the two spaces adjacent to Scoffins would conflict with the traffic pattern. Cook moved and Hammes seconded to approve the proposal with staff recommendations #1 , 2, 3,4 to ask City Council to determine recommendation #5, recommendation 7 - irrigation or a maintenance program for the corner of Scoffins and Main Street subject to staff approval 8 9, 10 and two parking spaces adjacent to Scoffins Street be omitted and landscaping be added. o Staff brought the proposed signing program to attention of the board. o A representative of Oregon Pioneer, a future tenant , objected to the proposed signing program and presented a sketch of what would be suitable for his business . o McMonagle suggested the sign be placed on a berm. o Charles Stiver, Vice President of Oregon Bank, outlined site problems and the need for adequate signing. o Cook amended his motion to include the proposed signing program on sheet SD 1 and to change 3 ' to read 116 ' total height" . The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote . 6 . OTHER BUSINESS : o Staff informed the Board that free-standing signs not part of a project under their review were not under Design Review Board jurisdiction but hopefully would be in the future. 7. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 00 P.M.