03/22/1977 - Minutes MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22, 1977 - 5 : 30 P .M.
Tigard City Hall
12420 S .W. Main Street
`'wr✓' Tigard, Oregon
1 . CALL TO ORDER : The meeting was called to order by Chairman
McMonagle at 5 : 30 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Present : Goldbach, Cook, McMonagle , Hammes, Olson
Staff Present : Edwards, Daniels
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : The minutes of 2/8/77 will be reviewed at
the next meeting.
4 . COMMUNICATIONS : None
5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS :
5 . 1 SAFEWAY SIGN
A. Staff Report and Recommendation : Presented by Edwards
B. Applicant ' s Presentation :
Mr . Bill Foran, Security Sign Company , stated that the
Econo-Wash sign has been removed and discussed differences
in existing and proposed sign .
C. Discussion :
Cook suggested a sign denoting the Tigard Plaza, the major
tenants and the address of the center and the minor tenants
on a secondary sign inside the parking lot .
Jim Dryden, Country Closet , stated a need for the sign and
although the lettering is small for the minor tenant , , h.e .
felt that they would be readable when traffic was stopped
at the signal .
D . Board Action :
Hammes moved and Goldbach seconded to approve the proposal
with the condition that the vision clearance requirements
of the sign code be satisfied .
The motion was approved by a 4 to 1 voice vote with Cook
dissenting.
5 . 2 ALDERBROOK APARTMENTS
I . Site Development Plan
McMonagle announced a possible conflict of interest and
stated his intent to abstain from participating in the
discussion of this item but would chair the meeting.
The Board agreed that this was proper . Two members in the
audience objected.
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22, 1977
Page 2
A. Staff Report and Recommendation : Presented by Edwards .
Olson objected to considering the project when so many
modifications are necessary.
Goldbach concurred.
o Staff stated that the major concern was the land-
scape plan which could be developed after the general
site plan is approved.
B . Applicant ' s Presentation :
John Adams , Tualatin Development Corp . , agreed to staff
recommendations 1 - 9 except #8 (garbage containers) .
He stated that the location shown on the site plan were
the most convenient for both the garbage collectors and
the tenants and they could be widened to accomodate
additional landscape plantings .
o The project will be done in three phases beginning
immediately and taking one - 121 years to complete .
o Olson stated a need for a noise barrier for the
vww
two-story units along S .W. Durham Road.
o Art Matcheck, project landscaper , stated that the
drainage way would be grassed with flood resistant
plant materials.
o Bob Luton, Tualatin Development Corp . , stated their
intent to minimize adverse impacts on the adjacent
homes by heavier than normal landscaping between the
apartments and the single family units.
C. Discussion :
o Howard Finney , 15755 S .W. Highland Court , objected to
the lack of a 50 ' greenway between the single family
and apartments .
o The following people stated that when they purchased
their homes they had been told that a 50 ' wide green-
way area would be between them and the apartments and
that they objected to the location of patios or park-
ing areas in that area:
Mr . Robert McCue, 15785 S .W. Highland Court
Ms . Betty Forest , 15845 S .W . Highland Court
Ms . Barbara Smith, 15725 S .W . Highland Court
Ms. Mary McCue, 15785 S .W. Highland Court
Mr . Bill Frank, 15735 S .W. Highland Court
Ms . Marge Woodell , 15755 S .W. Highland Court
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22, 1977
Page 3
o Adams explained that the buffer zone would be the
backyard of the apartments .
o Luton explained the sales agreements utilized when
the adjacent lots were sold on S .W. Highland Court .
o Dick Bennet , project architect , stated that rotat-
ing any building would reduce the density unless
the single story buildings were made two-story .
o Ralph Bertrund, S .W. Highland Court , noted the
drainage problems in the northeast corner of the
lot .
o Doris Knauss, S .W. Highland Court , complained about
the drainage problem.
o Luton explained the need for proposed density.
D . Board Action :
Cook moved and Goldbach seconded to approve the plan
as submitted with staff conditions :
1 . No building permit shall be issued until an agree-
ment on the pedestrian/bike path has been reached.
2 . All building be a minimum of 20 ' from the property
line.
3. Emergency access be provided off of S .W. Highland
Drive (subject to staff approval ) .
4 . Water district be provided with the necessary
easements for the location of water lines and
hydrants .
5 . The turning radius for the entry drives be 45 ' .
6 . A drainage plan be submitted for Design Review
Board approval .
7. A revised landscape plan implementing the items
outlined in finding #7 be submitted for Design
Review Board approval .
8 . Garbage facilities be relocated on the site where
necessary according to finding #8 .
9 . Details for the signs , mailboxes , pathway and bridge
,4W be subject to Design Review.
10. A berm be placed along S .W . Durham Road.
11 . A mosquito control program be initiated.
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22 , 1977
Page 4
c
12 . Either rotate the buildings adjacent the single
family residences along property line or the
patio and parking areas be physically screened
with a fence .
13 . All buildings adjacent the single family residences
be single story .
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote with
McMonagle abstaining.
II . Architectural Design
A. Applicant ' s Presentation :
John Adams , Tualatin Development Corp . , explained
architectural design and submitted color and material
samples .
Adams explained
- horizontal aluminum siding
- fiberglass base composition shingle roof
- anodized bronze , insulated aluminum windows
- carports will be of the same design and material
as main buildings .
B . Board Action
Cook moved and Hammes seconded to approve the architec-
tural design as submitted.
The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with
McMonagle abstaining.
5. 3 SDR 6-77 (Corbett Development )
I . Site Development Plan
A. Staff Report and Recommendation : Presented by Edwards .
Discussion on access , movements required to replace
the model and landscaping .
B. Applicant ' s Presentation:
Nelson Corbett , Corbett Development Company explained
the proposal .
C . Board Action :
Cook moved and Olson seconded to approve the site
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22, 1977
Page 5
development plan as submitted with staff recommendations
and that any sign be submitted for design review.
The motion was approved ay a unanimous voice vote .
II . Architectural Design
A . Applicant ' s Presentation :
Nelson Corbett explained the architectural design and
submitted photos of an existing unit .
o Horizontal cedar siding with transparent stain and
hand split shake roof .
B . Board Action
Cook moved and Olson seconded to approve the architectural
design as submitted.
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote .
5.4 SDR 5-77 (Georgia Pacific)
" I . Site Development Plan
A. Staff Report and Recommendation : Read by Edwards .
Discussion about fence, landscaping, outside storage .
B. Applicant ' s Presentation :
Tom Miller , Georgia Pacific , summarized the proposal .
C. Board Action :
Olson moved and Cook seconded for approval with staff
recommendations 1 , 3-5 with a spinkler system.
The motion failed 2 to 3 with Goldbach , Hammes and
McMonagle dissenting.
Cook moved and Goldbach seconded for approval with
staff conditions 1 , 3-5 .
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote .
II . Architectural Design
A. Applicant ' s Presentation:
Tom Miller presented the architectural design
- steel siding (American Steel Company)
- avacodo siding with a white roof .
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22, 1977
Page 6
B . Commission Action
Goldbach moved and Hammes seconded to approvelthe
architectural design as submitted.
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote .
6. OTHER BUSINESS :
6 . 1 Discussion about proposed Design Review Ordinance .
The Board suggested the addition of notification to surround-
ing properties, Board review of staff approvals , and appeals
allowable by neighbors not just the applicant .
7 . ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 00 P .M.
IWAW
waw