Loading...
SDR5-76 r r .,•,J.«..• ,u.....wr,�L�,.x.,,. .,,•.dd ,,. a.,...t.l 1. •,.-„•,-,•,•,•.:,.,..-,,, r t'..•. i'�.. ••I. ',j.,�Ir. �;:...,,... .r, ..r,,,.., ,.,,..� w „,.uA vxu,� nho.a{u 5y'7'',• ,,,,,: k 4d •;-..••' •' ,—k;< i.. ^x -(k I 1.a .,1x11 lY.1Wx' .,A.,- aV y.� �F+r,.f�.r„�+v.�J.h..tilAr+e.µr..,./,..l.K.a.+....u...n4nVkN,a:r.v..ermkNMx4n>-4 ,..,, ''''l . ' ''. .... 1 40040°':''' p °I C RPE, ggIII r .i4 it I ..',,,',i,,',,, ::1','''`1 ,V • ISi a DeVe1opm0r t 'Rehriewt •(•$D1 ,:.,.P. 761:,•'',•,- f S 98th, sttee ^ n 1, I •� ,,7 ~, ',''-',..',•-•••,••-•,';'•-,;,''':,','''','•'.',..'.',.•'.•r ' r I I �hti II II r 1 ,I 4.yj r. 'wawl l,l' WI�O�, r...1�.•.•..V x._ 5. ...In M1 ,,,,....,.M: ..r....r�+i ti.w rY.w,..,.4AIYLLnd I II „ t •Y•' A , HV , • • t'. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ''' , J . / ,' ' 1 ' ' • ' ' •: - , I p I , `i Ir R' n t 1 • Q✓ h o . , 1 aF . I n I . ...tt i t "F 0 0 s } ,- - __ - } 1 ...- ,,',, ,,j..._''. _ i 1: ,":1 _ , _ f - 'Pi—'... vtt r '. 0 - - it,./9? _ 1--- .; ,,_ _ ,,, .,,- --- .., - -"rig,' „4, - - - i t --. - _ -t . _ --, - - ,i II --//qq I - ' ' ' 7_-9 -, - - _ ../ . ----__ - V t 1 ,� //6-0/ I f - U ! f _ - y ' Y x f i H / - I\ r I 1-' -- - - -'--,. .__j I A 4bn I ' '--- r .i .. - vRDON , A F } � - } 1 /! i — //5q9 _ - _ _ _o_ September 15, 1976 Gordon carpenter 6900 „ `. Oleson Road; Portland, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr'. Carpenter: R s 8DR5-76 CARPENTER ARPE ER P D4 II.ANDSC ?E BoND As per our conversation of September 13, 1976 the following 0 it;ems must be completed satigeactorily before the landscape bond can be released. I 1. Arborvitaeor holt na Id4kA.k.. Ube 1anted at 3-4' i terva1s so as to screen ..n is 4 5, and from neighboririg dovro opment r• o 2rSeveral �a� areas � a 4to b reseeded d weeded. This 'weeding should be done by hand or by th,,e use of a weed killer formulated for new lawns. 3. Units 13.4670 11469, 114710 1147, and 11483 are without plant materials in the front Yard. area. These units need the addition of ornamental shrubs y especially 1 by t .e front doors and along the foundation. Arborvitae on the • lot liteare tie presently choked by weeds, this area should be weeded and Arborvitae checked to see that they .re ' 0.c. and .�a, healthy 'condition« . 5. A large number of plants are in Poore condition and should receive 4 low nitrogen root stimulant. 6H., Two dying in unit 11479 be replaced 7. to a trees be staked 8. Dead pine by unit 11485 be re •laced / u I I I ' ti 1 ' , I. 1 ` . i _. .. , •. w AM«. .., .!.v' 7 ,— s A.....,H w . 1 ;n...,m _. .,4....www:..»tHt.Mi..ua:....*N1.Wj3n57.:• • Page 2 September '50 1976 I , • Gordon Carpenter • • 9. The recreation area must be landscaped as per pion or anew plan be submitted for approval, (lighting • :dor open area must be shown) • . • In addition the seven Arborvitae tae between units, 11505 and 11 50 would be o± better use placed parallel to' the property line. • X ' °o . have any lauestion co c ernin the above 'items please .s sy,T do not hesitate to call, Sincerely 9 N Assistant Planner NE/pr 1 I cc r l • • ;t Building • • I � ' I d • 1I n 0 ^ is � 1 .. „t. :�G.µ:.., ....t.... ..,., a,r«I..„„_ , ,a.,. ... : v.„.,.„l...a.i.;l.•.wJlt.h,, .F.", ,:.,..L• ........ndiHl».»,.....,,.,.,.a.. ,...n+i.S., ,.,—i,. i .. v w , �..�1 OP'..D4,.1"N D. CARPEN BUILDER—RENTALS :"�' `, `? 69009. W,OL O.ON ROAD ,"''') '� . � ,. PO '1`1,LAND, OR ;(:ON 9'1223; , . PHOt�. 244.3";r94it) .,,,,,,'I'''' , " 1', • ' _ z ' I ` I'I' CARPET • -.,... APPLIANCE COLORS PINE C011 12 ; 11461 '' : FP "549 GREEN i?C�Li 1.1L, 3 CxREEN 1 .463 'x' i►515 L 111b5 Bi7 3 114, ,3 R 14,6,1 L 1.11-1.(7...)('' }� 11465 y ! 11547 1.1:46 R 3_1.11.x7 1 .14 81 ! 1146 7 11 • 1'1517 .. 1.,69 �»�.- 1 I� 11485 19 11469 11)473 R 111475 R 11L�g1 147 M 1 _ 5 , 11511 1i1�7n R 1.��� 7 L' �.1 � ,',• , • . 117 2 IIbl5' �' I "-'., • 11...1.81 T .:1.11.83pt 3 ' • 11a 03 ��,. . • ' 11475 i � t: 11477 FP 111 85 L 1j_.�87 R 11505 11479 FP �3 .".•...,` .1- 11 .01 H 114 89 L` 11507 11481 'P urµ'ne - : `` 115-1, °flhI5Q5 ' 4: 1 3 L la�L S R 11 191n s1 1 11501 R' 11497 R 1151.9 i 11483 I - �, 11603JI463 b J �9��"""�." �-1�('j5 L 11�,U� R �.�.�+��� 11l�Ia�J '1 - , 11487 FP .L i ,( L .,1 1.L L ' 11489 Lti rndrN ` -±:i.)495 '•. 11513 8 115- 5 , „ w 491 465 ' c; ‘"I''').1 Z11 L5 57 P �Cw �.. .. . 11493 ,r1.1.:1- 5 � .,RICA, ��1't�T�E �. •f. 12 115/49 H. 11511.7, L ,� JrRA GE -�'��•�� 11495 � •'� . 7 111489, 11 X97, "s�.fr 'b' 114999 11471� 93 ✓c 17. 'z _�.i . i!` >. , :. 7�i, 95 BR©WN 0 I '1`AI;:01T .EM,;�-EI r U .y. �r 11501 I .....:•.1 .x ;113 14 . .. . ;• � 11475 i � -r-w-... ....^- ..».._...._. 11503 I'_ r1�97 ' ' 6 11)73 i �.P 1 r 11505 FP: 1L65 1.75 11481 G *7 • X150 ' 11477f 11).4.69 11 ( 1 1150 j m 11468 11491 11509'. 10 � 1111.7+9 1141 83 11507 �1 • 11511 f1d�s .11485 .' 111.97 " 11513 11513 .1 11 i 9 11515 r ,. 11515 :..1 11487' 111.93 111-11 , 11517 . ' n3 a 11503 r ' • 11519 FP 11455 11511.9 Ili l' �»-.r, .114 81 x..15 17 t iro ' � +11547F"P 1154 �p � � 11413311511 1 � y,� " (( I 1 ID GnT %, OL` I + 0 I VAR PE l S • ,,,;.,,. ..L,,..,, 7t1r� ,. 1 0 nA.�S AF AREpt� ; '11/-,1,;/ ,t 111. ' x95 1150 '� ` • • I 1:15 lb , 4 1„ 1-1.'-i''?0 ;11't ' 7 7 d igq,-, , i 1 . i , ,, 1 . . \.; . - . , ( ... . .. wh,.u«,.n*4.tn-r......:r✓ .a,ar,. .w»..a..-;-w+,.,...Y.a4.,:G r . , ,,,,,_,,i,:-1;‘,,, ,,,I pC ,,t7 - OF TIGARD M "gin►►a ��t. ,<wr t P. 0. Box 23557 12420 S. W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 May 6, 1976 Mr• Gordon carpenter 6900 S. W. Oleson Rd. Portland, Oregon 97223 • Reference: File No. SDR 5-76 ' . n Dear Mr. Carpenter: Please be advised that the Tigard Site Development gPlan.. & Archi- tectural Design Review Board, at their regular meeting of April �e�tu�a1 9 considered your request for site development and archi- , plan review of a 32 unit apartment complex on SW 98th • 1 r St. Your su`bmissions were approved, subject to the condition reg that ,w'•. yourise your site development ,,plan: per the staff report and resubmit the plan to staff for approval. Sincerely, '' t , 2--,,,,,c-'_'-'') , ,......4 ,,,,,,2„ /2 ,,,,/ Richard Bolen A r 1 c �,eThe i'ollo ixa �� N e w acknowledgment q y, r of Ti and within fourteene(14)udaysof our receipteof t is g letter. Failure to return this ' acknowledgment mayy' result in action the City° of' Tigard. , by 1 hereby acknowledge this letter documenting the action of the Tigard Design Review Board. 1 have receiv and read this letter and l . to the decision. docum � agree here en e and to abide by terms and/or conditions attached. . /2.,� , si.gna .LJi 1.re , date . DB:pt cc: . Bailding Ofi`icial , Y • I a • a 0 , h 1 � .•, .,.��.,, a..._ ...,...e 1. I, „an, .. ,.. ....,„,A,,... r,....1:. ..._.,......Sb...au..r .,F.. ..,,„..,..♦,.:v. . ,.. . MINUTES TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD April 27, 1976 - 5:00 p.m. . , l General Telephone Building 12460 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McMonagle called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. C. ROLL CALL: Prese .t McMonagle, Hammes, Lakeman, Goldbach staff: , Daniels, 'Bolen Unex Lsed Absence: Olson yl 3. APPROVAL OF MINT 2S: Minutes of 4/13/76 were appxoved as submitted. 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None. �_' � a 1 • s 5. DESIGN REVIEW . . 5 -- 6 (Gordon Carpenter Apartments - SW 98th �,,�, SDR 5 7 �. � • , (resubmissioncordon Carpenter- construct a 32 unit by aipen-ter to apartment complex on a 2.83 acre parcel on SW 98th St. , c�uth of Gre enbur g Rd. and directly north of SSW Scott Ct. ) � A. Site Development Plan McMonagle abstained from taking action on this item, but remained at the table to maintain a quorum. ,. 1. Staff Presentation: Staff report read by Bolen, • 2. Applicant's Presentation : Mr. stating en�µ,atC:.) don Carpenter responded to `the staff Pre-r -:;.on bythat near buildings 4, 5 and ^ 6, arborvitae would be planted at an interval of about 2 -3 �t , the apen areas would b e lighted heed and Perhaps vine maple might be substituted for g some of the rhododendrons on the landscaping plan. , In response to staff comment aboute.r:� ng problemsassociated with building 1, Mr Carpenter proposed, to turn building 1 around so as that the access is provided from the cul-de-sac off of 98th, not the main driveway as initially,depicted. on, the site plant a o. Lakeman recommended that the wooden fence beboard- _ on-board typ e a �'' •1 0 Lakexnan moved and Hammes seconded to approve the request with the condition ,;that applicant revise , the plan as per the staff report and resubmit .it for staff approval. 1 . p I, , ll' I: - }•X11, i .., x,.., r...... ter,. ♦,uG. .—A, wt.,+. v.....1., ,1....,...,nrW m•♦w P IMO ' 11M • page '0 TJRB minutes 4/27/76 o Motion approved by unanimous voice vote with i McMonagle abstaining. B. Architectural Design Review 1. Applicant's Presentation: 1 , Carpenter displayed 3 color schemes he intended to use in the development and exhibited the exterior building materials.to be used. o Lakeman moved and aoldbach seconded that the building materials and color scheme proposed by the appli- cant be approved. • c Motion approved by unanimous voice vote, McMonagle abstaining. r 5'.2 A proposed signing program 'or Farmers Insurance Planned Development on SW 68th Parkway. 1 A. Staff Repo t• Bolen notified theBoard thatthisitem had been removed from the agenda at the request of Farmers Insurance to provide time for the architectural team to get clearancefrom the company. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 1 6.1 SCA 4-76 (Trinity Evangelical Church::- 10900 SW l lst) I Architectural review of a sign code variance granted by the Planning Commission to erect a sign on church premises. A b Staff Report. Bolen notified the Board that when the Planning Commission granted the sign code variance on 4/20/76, they asked that the Board review this matter, paying special attention to the size and design of the signs B. Ap licant t s Pre sentat on. . Rev: Roger Swaren explained the church's request . The members' spent considerable time discussing the size and' design of the sign and recommended that it be to have full support on' both ends of the redesigned pp sign. Hammes moved and Lakeman seconded that the sign be • mounted on posts no higherthan 6 ft, 0 that the sign r 1 • w " page DRB Minutes , I ' 4/27/76 itself be no more than 9 ft. long and that the distance from the topof a max znum 1 ft. berg! be no more than 4 ft. I � Motion approved by unanimous moues voice � ote 7sDJOURNMENT: 6 30 p.m. • • • • • „ , I I alr 1 JJ l s TArF RFP OR.T Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural Design n.eview Board April 27, 1976f Pro ect Review SDR 5-76 (Carpenter Apartments SW 98th) • APPLICANT t S REQUEST Request by Gordon Carpenter to construct a 32 unit apartment of Gree • complexl on a 2�. r rySt. , southnburg �. 83 acre,., : cx e parcel on SW 98th Rd. and directly north of SW Scott Ct. STAFF FINDINGS 1. This project was originally submitted to the Design Review hoard on 4/13/76 wherein the submitted plan was denied. The, denial was primarily in order to allow the applicant to redesign ,Ar. the project in ,a fashion which would save as 0:411Y of the exist- ing large trees on the site as possible. In addition, it was stated that the substantial amenity provided by these trees should be utilized by the site design. 2. On the original planthe access drive was deficient, bein g 24 ft. wide where 32 ft. is required by the zoning ordinance. The re- submitted plan shows a 32 f t. drive, narrowing to 24 f t. in the , rear of the project where 19 units are being served, the reduced , standard being adequate to fulfill thestandards. access 3. The resubmitted plan shows 4 less parking spaces than the original and meets the code parking requirement of l* spaces per dwelling unit. 4. Along the access drive there are areas where garages or parking stalls do not abut. Staff is concerned that these locations' will be used for informal parallel parking. If this type of • es the will reduce the effective' parking occurs along the drives, . is�� str` - therefore necessary. For width and some means of restriction instance the owner could be required signthesereas for o r "no parking„ Such signing can bepurchased fromtheCity of , Tigard. 5. Pedestrian scale lighting is shown along the access drive, but is not shown adjacent the recreatio'n. areas. For security - reasons, lighting should be specified in -Lhe recreationcreat�on areas. 6. The primary plant type used in the landscaping is rhododendron. These are appropriate adjacent the units and recreation areas as specified, however, some locations directly ''adjacent the pavement and parking garages are not suitable habitats for this type of plant and a more suitable t t e table ��.a'�1 ` Y-.o � be should selected. Staff would recommend that hardy evergreens be used p, in these areas (such as Mu ,o �,ne) 3 some of the , Inaddition)�,�n M N1 ' R page 2 PC Staff Report V r � rt �" 4/27/76 landscaped areas adjacent the ga• rage areas could be suitably planted with taller growing plants such as vine maple, which 1a would often the effects of garage units with a taller growing plant of this variety. In that a large area can be substantially retained in existing vegetation, representing a cost saving, ,' some additional landscaping could be provided around the units, especially adjacent the garage units which sit in front of the , , ( units and present plain building surface~ 7. The applicant shows a 5 ft. Wood screen fence on the rear property line and for adistance) on both the north and south property lines. This is required as a condition of the A--2 Zone change. In addition, the -zoning, ordinance requires a sight obscuring fence between a multi-family and single family- zone. The appli- cant is proposing to plant an arborvitae screen between the two '. " properties in lieu of a fence. A fence will be constructed for the first 140 ft. from the rear property line on the north prop- `,' erty line and the remaining length (to 98th St. ) would be in an° arborvitae s-creen. Staff finds this an acceptable alternative 'w to a fence and from a long term maintenance standpoint is probably superior' rowever, the planting of the arborvitae must be close • enough.to ensure an infilling of the plants as they mature. These arborvitae should be planted a maximum of 3 ft. on center , in order to eventually infill and provide a privacy screen.. . Where the screening approaches 98th St. , it should stop 20 ft. Rot ., from the right-of-way line in order not to b _,ock visibility for traffic entering or leaving at that point. ,,1 , _ F8 Buildings 4, 5, 6 and 7 could use some evergreen planting adjacent the point where they abut the property �a , provide privacy_ screer� ng�. in this area. line to some �, STAFF RECOMMENDA.TION 1'',' To 'be advised after applicant Presentation, 4' T ' M 1 1, 1 I . e y R h �rte" • ... .. n._v.l. r— ,.++hr+.._ „'.. ...,_...:. ;... .n .. a-'.., 1, ,•Iw J ...-.., • • , • • • • April 21, 1976 r mt. GordonDo Carpenter • 6900 S. W. Oleson Rd. , , Portland, Ciro .on 972e Reference: File No. SDR 5-76 I I Dear Mr0 Carpenter • ae Tigard DesignReview Board at " her Please be advised regular meeting of April 130 19760 considered Your request planaa.chitectural plans for a approval of site development a��.c�. 1,.„ 1 ' 32 unit apartment complex' on a 2683 acre parcel on' SW ' th St. , south of Greenburg nd. and your submission was denied. Tio.e reason for denial was the finding that your recognition of the'I staff oo . ()erns andthenecessity of redesign piaoed the project at a point • where the Board Was unable to respondq Wb have placed your request on the agenda for April 270 1976, This feet .11.g win. be held at 5100 p6ITI,6 at the General Telephone Offices on Main Street, Tigard, Oregon y., ' " , • needadditional assistance tor your project, please do not ., hesitate to call this af' ice at 639-4171. • Sincerely, Dick Bolen Planning Director V.lJJdT y�,� . w "fi ial � 4+J 0 N ._. .1. .to .. .. - .Cr .. ,.I.1L.. .1.. ,. i.J>, ..6.,.._.„list.iar.r..,:ti.+,1u..1 ..,.-•....... ..14 ..+dxv'ww...•r y(.._,, MINUTES a Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural Design Review Board April 13, 1976 5:00 p.m. . General Telephone Building 12460 SW Main St' ' Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called t order by Chairman McMonagle at 5:10 P.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: McMonagle, Olson, Hammes, Cook; staff: Bolen • ' INU'TES: The minutes of thewere 3. APPROVAL OF M 3/23/76meeting g approved as submitted 4. CODiDr ICATIONS: None 5. DESIGN REVIEW: 5.1 SDR 7-76 (Jerry's architectural _ y's Barber Shop - appealof a previous arciectural approval by the Board on 5/23/76) A. Architectural Design Review I' ' �' r . A loan-1,1 s P.� esGnt t�a �.on 1 �•� pp f ' o Charlotte Olson abstained from taking action on , this item and presented the design, materials and colors to the Board. o Cook moved to approve the architectural plan and materials and colors as submitted. e o Hammes seconded'. .• ' o Motion passed by majoritY vote, Olson abstaining. ^• 5.2 SDR 8-76 (Bishop Main St. Office Building) - A proposed commercial building which will stand in the place of two dilapidated wooden structures on the south side of Main St. at the railroad tracks A. Architeotural Design Review 1. Staff t and Recommendation 1 o Bolen Presented the staff findings L:nd a rec- ominendation for denial of the parking area plan, 2. Applicant's Presentation • Tom• ain Whitaker; project architect/ presented the r� site plan and performed a demonstration with ti^ m n page 2 • DRB Minutes 4/13/76 scale model cars of how the parking lot would ' function, He stated that, making 4 :maneuvers, a car could turn around in the parking lot and exit in a forward motion. 3» Board Discussion and Action . o The members spent considerable s ble time discussing , how the parking arrangement could function better. . Everyone concurredthat the best arrangement would be a drive-through into the Savings and Loan. parking lot,, at the rear. o Cook moved that the site plan be approved with the condition that onearkin stall be removed p g to facilitate maneuvering in the parking lot andthat the landscaping for the lot across Main St. be submitted for staff approval. o Seconded by Hammes. o Motion passed by unanimous vote of all members /" present. B. Architectural Design Review 1. Applicant's Presentation o Whitaker presented the building design. 2. Board Discussion and Action o o Hammes moved that the buildingdesign ign be 'aPproved ' as submitted. o Seconded (Olson) . • v Motion passed by .nanimous vote of all members • present. 5.3 SDR 5-76 (Carpenter Apartments) A req.ue+st by Gordon Carpenter to construct a 32 unit`, apartment complex on a 2.83 acre parcel on SW 98th St. , south of 'Greenburg Rd. and directly north of SW Scott Ct. A. ' Site Development Plan Review 1. Staff Repos t and Recommendation Ir o' Bolen resented the staff ren ort with a e- „ commendation for denial I , • i 1 .ri.....r u. r,. u. .. .o.n ...n.,..i ...:..a.... ,.ir ,. i.W... n...o✓. v. .iv. .ev u.. a ,.. .. r L,. -.... h.rlwn ♦ xrv.0 a.uu.en.r s uvi n. . .or ai r • n ..r ., i I . ._ .....,.. ...m.. ,. ...w a .., .,-..» :« . ,;1,..,..wV.1.M,..,., 1,.:aL., a.,...a uW. v u«;j«:.w,wr. _ ,;,r 1;�4,-.7i,+wU ,+.1„ .,..i.'... .....•. .»b t.l...a.. 4 • page 3 1, DRB 1 DR33 Minutes 4/13/76 7 2. ApplII Presentation O Mr. Carpenter presented his proposal to build 32 apartment units and stated that he planned to take into account the existing trees on the site as staff had requested. 3. Board Discussion and Action o McMonagle said that his partner r had had some business dealings with Mr. Carpenter and he there- fore, would abstain from taking part in this item. p o Cook. said that,. in that Mr. Carpenter recognizes the staff concern that as many trees as possible be saved on this site and that the plan presented must be redesigned in order to do that, the pro- ject was not to the point of completion where Board able to respond to the submission. the �3oa1 d was o Cookmoved` that the submitted plan be; denied. o Olson seconded and the motionpassed byunanimous vote of the members present and voting. 5.4 SDR 9-76 (Van Lom-Craxberger/Englewood Apartments A re. uest `the Van Lom- b � Partnership Kray er ger to con- struct 50 apartment units on a 4.96 acreparcel on SW Scholls FerryRd. at SW Springwood :Dr. inpthe Englewood Planned Development. 1 , A. Site Development Plan Review 1. Staff Report and Recommendation o Bolen presented the staff findings and recommended denial of the t']ubmitted plan. 2. Applicant's Presentation o Mr. Van Lom presented the project. He stated i? that the staff's concern over the two story apartments violating the privacy of the back yards of the adjoining single family dwellings was not an issue because of the setback distance, . . of the apartments from the property lire. Rel.. garding the staff concern for the pool and recreation building and area adjacent the single family homes, he said that this area could he moved further to the north and east and near the v. apartment structures. II i 1 ; t: 1 • Page 4 DRB Minutes 4/13/76 • 3. BoardDiscussion ssion andAction o Olson asked if the plan could be approved with the submitted preliminary landscape plan. o Bolen said that it could with the condition hat staff approve the final submitted land- scape plan, for • approval 0a_tte Cook moved of the submitted ylan, with the condition that the pool be 'kept 0 ft.' from the fence adjacent the single family area; th. ' that the area' between � epool and the single family area be adequately screened; that ag6 ft. fence be provided adjacent the single family easement Domes and that a 10 ftr� be provided along the Scholls Ferry right--of-way t to accommo-- date the bicycle path. Hammes seconded the motion and it 1 ' o T - passedby , unanimous vote. B. Architectural Design Review 1. .Applicant's Presentation • o Mr. Van Lam presented the design of the buildings. o McMonagle asked what the siding material would be. o Mr. Van Tom -ep lied rough sawn plywood would withkerf edging on all sides. he used 2. Board Discussion and Action o Cook moved that the building architecture be accepted as submitted. • o Olson seconded and the motion passed by majority vote of all members present. 6. OTHER BUSI Ess: None 7. ADJQURN ENT: 8710 p.m • 5 • k M ly. STAFF REPORT I Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural Design Review Board r April 13, 1976 ProProject Review SW SDR 5--76 (Carpenter Apt. SW 98th) A request by Gordon Carpenter to construct a 32 unit apart-art-- : ment complex on a 2.83 acre parcel un SW 98th St. , south of Gree lburg Rd. and direcctl'y north of SW Scott Ct. . ,� FINDINGS it • S T.A. �P 1. On March 2, 1976, the Planning Commission approved a zone change reqest from R-7, single family residential, to A-2, multi-family development, for the property in question. On March 29, the Council ratified the Planning Commission fiction. . . , 2. The zone change approval included the following conditions: 1) That a 10 ft. right-of-way be dedicated to the City of Tigard for future street widening. waive his' right,iht • ) 2 That the applicant �, � for the next 1 years, to remonstrate against nsL t heformation of a local , improvement district to provide public improvements in , the right-of-way of SW 98th St, 3) The applicant shat 1 submit a detailed plotting of the ; stand of trees for use by the Design Review Board when reviewing the site development plan. 4) That a safety fence be constructed on the property line adjoining the railroad right-of-way. 3. The submitted site plan and landscape plan do not make reference to the substantial number of largetrees currently growing on th'e property. However, since the enclosed plans . were submitted for Board review, a survey yof the existing trees has been submitted tostaff. This disregard for the existing on- site vegetation when developing the site plan i�,� of concern to staff in that the substantial amenity which these trees represent shrould he incorporated into the pro- jest design. The survey of existing trees submitted by the applicant , , • shows only those trees in the middle section of the property. A substantial stand of trees also exists near the front of the property behind the existing house. Buildings 9, 10 and part of S will be in the middle of the predominantMr. Carpenter has submitted `I : astand of trees plan showing where chanes could be made to preserve some tres. However staff finds this planrn.ing itafter` the fact,' y to of site treesmethod save some to be an unadvisable planning. , • ..,. ,. ,„ ,,._ .>_ . r „ern .,«, ... .>. •,orrr. .., ,...,rte. ,. . .,I „,.,,.>ulre'r,w Mme..r.w.r .c M, .r», rt' r I r q I ae ?_ • � g DRB staff Report April 13, 1976 Y SDR 5--76 4. Theaccess drive 24 ft wide, is w th a perfectly circular 45' , radius cul-de-sac at the terminus. The Tigard access requirements for a 32 unit multi-family development t are 32 ft. • 5. The number of parking spaces shown exceeds the requirements by four. . , 6The front yard setback is shown a s 20 ft � however) the 2 story building (#1) requires an additional 10 ft. of setback (total of 30 ft. ) . 7. A fence is required between the applicant r and the �. s property R-7 zoned property to the north. This fence should be 6 ft. high for privacy and of a substantial construction. Plans should be submitted for Board review. 8. The Site Development Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance requires 7,100 sq. ft. of recreation area for a 32 unit apartment complex. The landscape plan shows a lawn play area of approximately 2400 sq. ft. Otherwise, no recreation area or equipment is specified. 9 No drawings have been submitted depleting cting the design of the �. garages. • 10. Mr. Carpenter has stated that sewer service may be pro- vided through the Scott duplex development to the south, • rather than connecting the' line in 98th tIf this with _ S . 9 alternate connection were made) a revision of, the site development would be necessary. At this time; no iter- nate development plan has been submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON Staff recommends that the _site plan be denied and that the 4, applicant resubmit esubmit a Plan dealingwith the issues raised in ,. the staff findings. A revised site Plan should take into consideration the existing trees on the site and capitalize upon them. eglif ( Il: . .,r r. r .:, ..o..,,.r .,,...• . . u.,.,...r,...,r:, r, :.. ....,,,. . . , . ,. . .. r ..... . .M. . . ..w,.0 •,....,W,r .. ,r,r . . ...... ,r .. , ,.. . � I . - .. . K w.. -., ...I i., _...-.,... ♦A. ,..N. .1. ul.,„,.,,,,..,..,,,,.1,,,..4,...;.......-4...-,...,,-rr�:ktn .I,,,,,...','L.'„,...,...,..".,,,,,..,.....Ihu,. 1♦yr. r 1....,.n.-7.'l r1J....... b f... ..t.rr • i , i • p w i SITE DELiELOOPriEN+Lr PLAN AND I GSICNI f1Em\FIC.IrJ t 1 D 3i,te PlI3f Rr v.a r • iht��aI �c�� 4 �V�� !!l � C / YINM W .i I I • 1; AI CPLICIITI ON ' Fat.' (,'!w . . , ,. .................,.,, , , ,, ,, , , . , 1 r e(;:i• ri ca c.,�.i.. .M �.,IP:.t, ' M{Ia gW C�' MMMMitIN116+IptYMYwY�+''�UIMw.AWF.wIrYM�Y u y�r.,.lY �' pM,K'wM1/1EA1M11 .�7� W 1'1( M IPLANNING I"Ll�'I�a ��'l�i'd ` �iw�� �i'}, t�„ ����L�� �tr� 4�1 -12420 /,yy f ��yry��o�')1 Yry V,µ,'1 It �}'r�S/�I�� w1+� J�h' A'^1I {/+y�1 �y �''p N"� 9722'3 I['��`VI • • �yyy��A�� {l�'4 $U V. 11 fro" N4(1 W•4 IA.+t r�:1 Ga M', G ,L..gw e r d, O SMT s o n V NI1�d+uwYMwW+r«'R.art Mwlwn+*r17ru.wWlvolw!*wiY1 M 1' .. .A.,. t" I,.--r, . wi w',7---zr..rel.zt,- '''' ""x.t..:4+�cr.:H,uwf'"'*•l t .�••ialw,� ,r ""�w1."�"^... »^"T:"" +«S9""�.QST+ "'Si lr«J f47C� �.CG1�7"tia i alt; ES&t" " r` «w.♦ =ft„kj Y7:5�w`JC:it�. 7 N F«'CT t ' ca pit© i t 1, 3 •• «� 1/t/il,e-itiJ7'f 1s • L1 a t ria r"Iii rc ri d '�c / 7 r'"." �7 wnYle+kigblA�wiMwlrWMNgXIMVMWw.m+mrrrlwNURgoYntuwlldN.MmMawntlwwtiwgirlw111h�W.*YMw1+MYwa!'ggdaM N..n.tf�.,e.nwlNw.l.w1NAN1wt L , • • t, . � W n e a: ..vx�.,tVrn",..rt�Wtmeur,.twt,n.HrnalM..wtN.. rwne�mtmttfi.4Mn�+.mu,.,.+.�rrwlt•.,.M.M {.�•� . ? ) hone .`. ,� ' . r d S�.—! .:w' rNu�wnG� R o \,,,.i . V .matt. Matrwaw.l ,. qq 4.•••••.01.01..heWY.w�rw+WNMtomu I .w.trro otittn tromme+M}:r.1,+Rw+N „; 1 1 41 Yu1/1tv.t[t+aMl u�V+Ma,+MIW/IwitlMltttiw/l'W,R+i+wPMiMA r. Ddcigner .UI d CN 'OA' - 31()DIV Tc eprio•nnp , ( , f per. .'.. • - ,...w ..4.:.aMwr.twaa... ,r..u.nn.i.nwv.w.NM,.. 1 .w ~ G ,mu,.7o�,a......il'A` .. b ti r wY.....w..i.inn M+.'.�.twab�MWtYY'M�N�gIM1+rY11r T4HIrw .q. DE sr, IP 'IoISI• OF P.f CJPE'R''tY 1 , .�Y wW.......--_✓uwwwww...,.......„—....n.Yu......r........w...... i Med U ie ,cr. �.k. «� idi C.1 r) I, , f ./trlr E3r�Li.. Iry r' 1, i •1,,lY .n... + • • ..i.nYY..'Mt101.t•tMWNt.i.1.rwrotr I,K.mtn.o.4Ww.M.ritM..1.t. vo 1.M•MMY!�A....sowArtmt4rottax i1M1tK�l� A l",'.: Mr Y� (�Y4/lmt ra1N IW1FlMKtW41..../.{I U..kLR...0,1wt114.fY.tNl1.WMWIWNNMI)IWM.NiM�YP,�, t • ^ P�c� ,c� t w. �.�.�� , W. 1lwn..NtYw.... 9 4\ �`•''�` N '' ..°..-... a...,u.wJwwtl..----- „,' .tHt tr......ci.w...i+u:..�......' �, w..wwr. � ..�•�• -'" ir.w.wwANw.iwwl.ww. ....,N+4....W.a.....r..I.WIH.NeWinW..M.IMMwY,.,.rM.a.t11Wm.b,wtw.w+.+r•+..t ,rww..Iw.wmoewrWY.YY.twurmu Il.,...wtwv.Mw..IWHw.o.M....r.m..wwlwwWmsUlMfiNwrtwlMWY+.4NK.1 M.c.r..w..lNn/rA+'h„MMmu/uu.WmHwW4.4.4111..„N1W.rrlotliNl.k.Y.WW4wYWJzi WRwWwu M,WCa0.4U,1i..... MMpolio/ Att .. U.....N..0,utA4rwugiani. ytiwoims.rltw • :� n.lyrpW ,3 (5-1,—. NwM . 0ow... ytYY...MW141f1bWN.M4Jr1Wt..AYa1NJwM�w.YWkiYtIMNN�1.'i>rWHO41WMW • ' t.IHY..wU..M.H..„ ,Nw..ll.vwJUY..H0i4wNVNw1•M.{H.w.WHhiri+.WWu.M.1..1s...IMg9W`AM......*A..O.r.m...HNW.I+Y.CWJ...rniNt:I..t4Yt..WrStOtlW40...N..../. YNiHM.WP...tio YT]LW..Mp.:Ahri..1.1MNw it.........00.3.0,4+.n) .....M1SAiM.M�.41Mtl,.1..I•M.......:......./.MW.1..YNwhry.....,.•Ft C' I 1�.✓/CI.?. /,): 4, �y �/y Sri i S b e ti i z.0 .e+t..w.tlw.i..�..wl,.wlynww.ti:...w..W�i 3.w.if.w,.uwl.wr ,.,S M.i.,*..uN.mrowri.w A r'�..w, B q.+ ' .„N �„ , Fn y.. 4.�N. 1 w fin.. 'nw+lYetm+wnt,Y H.w.+:,...�u+ti+.Nw.wlu+.nr I • lu 4. �'' N ”. w " ' w. M.1 ,'�'" IIS i •h 1 ' r......0tri uwglwY«.[ mow . W lit w......,.a.„.., .., : LTJ�0 C'�:.{p �1 1"'���'1,rig� "'! N.�.�..,,.4 w...N,.�.+.N,�� `''�1 rt, �.� � b'�.x � , .�ia , r.�� � + / �' rIArititp . ae . u� ,...„,.N..U,tw.,...,...'A,w . .+9 .a1a s.7%wa0.0 Y.ua.wtay+a+NWi11a,ie.Wr+Ma.la.Nawwwm...l..n.rw.N......Nk . Aritici�pated D8ve).o . anent Phases • 1 .•.4.Karm.r.tM....1...C.A.gwH..NYr.... +1,.....H.i........4.N..twwulgWwcM wrm.....n.WtwttwwwN.tr.Nmw.na.,01 trwtroiair.,..M%+.nu.wi.+....10mnftMK..iNtwoomorto I: fry�j t/fJ"�j^}/1' f '� G : Q a.1.:u�y l! o:t 7 �!..i�// W1 9,.u,• /.(f. PMM6lw..i1t�.WN L attrim+rWr. .M 11r ' . w+.riiNw..nw.w..+at..+w.Wrv..r.M..N.tu.wn+rm,r+.uw�+.Wiw..c���t�HH#bM�4n.ttM .M twUa.rwre/� iY..a�niW.l+"M»srdLLw.+rju..Yo.Ynw.M.Itwi1W » , 00 NOT LJ_NTE DtL,O THIS LINE w ; • . • Ir_........,gwtW w.,„,.+afa...,„„.......pP..t,a....„twMnwMiN.U.....WMB1—.V+w14W:wNa.wd....w.U. L.tWO......M11..anr..nia..w.rM..+.a.rMnwhdnertMYn.ea.�uvo...o.m4mfl.iiYem I . Special C©licli >ons ..1 Dedicattir.�hl . r Irr.),........ult..0,04'.tt..'00..T.tbMNrls.w...4k .0.6.I lli.MII,fwunN tm.ratlb.fMt'Ir„r4biwkrone.'v..ai..A abis+.. ... • 8 C ri d', n vg. N1.�.r.UYfY[k11M1WNbt1I�.. I , 1� I , ,..MQai1....i.Yd.I.W..,,,............t...„.YtQIP'i7i1...t1f�,,,,... /L I.M.U.ltl♦rM1. .,......„.„,e.,........„,,..YW."1.w.MaA...M..9Y ,... W�I,YMO d -i e 0th8. ` K+f . . n •bw i ..i YH1aw'�.p1Y+MW..iWMW.,xaia.MAyN..,—..Hwu..„... .N,.....+.,...,....nel+wwY..M . MM.YIN✓. a ,,,..ww..... ..mrwrw�o..wa.,.A...Iva • Final Inspec•bia 1 ByDate ,; 1 y, ?.•.....+..W'wa.w.....,...,.+Yww1IW...... yo.iwW....a....1..„,..rlatnw.n.etl�ro.f•mH>rr.ana� sw.ptuWltl'imnr..rl,,,....a..la,,.„,.+•isaaw.KY•^�'i�dmr.aCar�:.wi�,. . r i, h 1 i Ik. 1 1 I , . % 1 ' "11///1/4111111111111/ l'i , a LA,' ,'.1 i CITY OF TIGARD t tj ' f . November 18, 1998 OREGON Cahn Po ernes Limited Partnershiprtnershi p1 4 Attention: Marvin S. Cahn, General Partner 5795 SW Cranberry Court i;` F3eaverton, OR 97007-3501 • Re: Minor Modification Review Glacier Lily r_�rtments 11461-11549 SW 98th Avenue Dear Mr. Cahn: This letter is in response to your request for a Minor Modification to the Glacier Lily Apartments to add a 350 square foot bedroom to an existing apartment unit. ;} bfindings and site plan provided by you in; your The Director concurs with the '' November 13; hereby approvesyourrequest for this addition with .1993 letter and one (1) Condition of Approval: • 1. A minimurri of a 10-foot sideyard setback shall be maintained to the northerly property line. (From the site plan it appearssetback ,,,4A :that a 9-foot , is proposed,) To avoid any unnecessary delays, please provide 'a copy of this approval letter . with your Building Permit application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at � (503).°. 639-4171 x317 �' Sincerely, '1 ' '' '64 rcj - d ?tif(41 .ve,(iti--4---" Mark'Roberts, AlCP Associate Planner i:lcurpinlmarkrVPttdrs\giad'rer,dod { c: SDR 5-76 Microfilmed land use file A 13125 Sw Hall Blvd., T{�ord, OR 9723(503)039=1171 TDD (503)684-2772 I II 9 U 41 • CA.HN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5795 SW Cranberry Court • Beaverton, Oregon 97007-3501 a Telephone (503) 627-0153 Facsimile (503).520-5057 • November 13', 1998 , City of Tigard Planning Division o 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 Attn: Mark Roberts, Associate Planner ° It.e Minor. Modification Review, Glacier Lily Apartments, 11461-11549 SW 98'11-Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 , Owner: Cahn Properties Limited Partnership, Marvin S, Cahn, General Partner Applicant: Calm Properties Limited Partnership, Marvin S, Calm, General Partner ' Dear Mr, Roberts, Submitted herewith is a check to the City of'figaxd in the amount of$100.00 and two sets of architectural and site plans for minor modification review, No landscape plan is submitted as the site is fully landscaped with mature, completely maintained plantings and h� the modification requires neither a change to norwill have any impact on the existing landscape, Section 18.120.070(B) Criteria Findings, An increase in dwelling I 1. un if density or lot coverage for residential development. a,• The modification does not change the dwelling unit density. The lot coverage change is de minimus, e", 2. types change in the ratio or number of dift`e�ent of dwelling units. The g number of different types of dwelling units in modification does not chap e the 'at�o or this couplex of duplex and triplex units. •. . 3, A change that requires additional on siteparking in accordance with Chapter .18.106The modification will change neither the requirement nor the number of spaces Provided,, S: �. A change in the type of commercial or industrialStdefined b g �uctux es as the '. �, UBC. Nochange in the structural occupancy type of the building is proposed. The F S truC ure sarere residential,iall T hts-c if eria is not applicable, 1 . 1 IM I o 5. An increase in the height of the building by more than 20p ercent. No increase in the height of the existing building is proposed as the modification will match the height of the existing building. This criteria is not applicable. 6. A change in type and location of accesswaysand parking areas where off-site traffic would be a 'fectecL The modification requires no change whatsoever in parking. This criteria is not applicable, 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the incre ase can be expected`to exceed 20 vehicles per day. The modification has no impact whatsoever on vehicular traffic, This criteria eriais not applicable, 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non-residential use by more than ten perexcludingexpansions > squareThe modification is residential. cent p �s under)� OQQ feet. This criteria is not applicable 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open • space• that reducesthe open p space area below the minimum required by this code or ' • reduces the open space ar ea bymore than , , percent. of the development site is approximatelyp 123,275 square are feet of which approximately '� pp ly 50,000 square feet is covered by buildings and impervious suif,a ces, Approximately y 73 275 square feet is usable • landscaped open space, The modification is approximately 350 square feet. The open , • space area is not t below the minimum required by the code (18,54,050 A.5,), The open space area is not decreased by more than ten percent, 10.A reduction of project amenities below the minimum established by this code or by more than ten percent where specified rn the site plan. No project amenities were established for the project or by the code. This criteria is not applicable. 11..A.modIification of the conditions imposed at the time of the Site Development Review approval that are not the subject of the criteria above. The site was developed prior t o the establishment of the Site Development Review procedure and there were no known conditions of approval, This criteria is not applicable, An early review of this request and notification by facsimile or telephone of the Director's decision will be appreciated. Cordially, • a I � ' Marvin S, Cahn General Partner • of, .. ,,.,,.•.. ., ....... ..... .M. ,,. ,.,, .., .,.,,., .,..,,... ...,.,.,.,, ,.-,. ..,. ..,.. .. . . ,,.,_.... .., w .. ,,l: , C • fr.':"..' "++p.'^. 7«waw wusw,v a i ,. .d1 .+ av�'iu u0 1r, „ i. t t„tiff N ''.n4 , ., HI.4jI x 4 # t,,.3yv� '1$w." $`',1f,,��ll 4;',1,j,}' »p a'p iR"',I Y.:': i''''' 4 1.k1d i ,i��'"fit �A r';,.';.,;( I gyIp , `:',: 1 C ,. ''.2' t'i':ii i1;n;, n 'u' i'',11'7'q',,g:: i,,,6l.1 Yt,rp 1 f.N i� S �A„i•;c t, 'ip'i .'� r,,,,, ,;»f E,,,1 �.,'Y.,. ar .1. 1�rt.� $L,:,. t,,,�«,,,� ,), ..�? ,r4,,, 24.1.+1 I t�lr 4.>.,,:f; ;'1( ;1,It-fl:I''" 'a 'E:'t"..iaG1", $`'''1 '`''t't%', 1 t. ;9,. I',,,t: n r. ,, ✓ { , p g a.9, ,, ',V L' 4 Y�Jt j i ] g . M1 , ;�� ;. {6.x+.M ,,' t,l.v. t.1`i,,a" kk`�1 ,t t, t ,,,',,,',,t 'at i. t 1 a' G it NY Al (J'..,:::'-',1,', � �, ,. W'1Y 1".II YY♦ a t 11 I '01 1. 1,.« 4v911 ,i',i.l t„'!ib 144, Yp4'.a'•1',',i 1;A1Y•"1,i 1,t f,t4 ,MY 4u kii'IP,V Tt 1,...,•.!!,'„t:4(.,',.,{,y' } y i-A Y fu a 1, ,. ` , It 1iii 1:,.11,A. •••, "1 ,i1a,i ' w:)eJ '•,,: i';'':,.rit 11:1'.}'1�,s. c,.,cih,....,w°11.W k'd°,,tkrt!.atl"" i ,}I c/4.1,:#t r r I t rl L.,...,ywW.,r. .fw+.:.wa. 0 ,+u .ronw ,....,yw.r..+w +u_ .Lw -,w wwcw.wNa.... www»,a.v.w»w . www..w.v. ..«r+u... n"w. W uw'•:« Mii +.•.++nJ• r wF + w. w , F;11 t_,t. 4.1i: Ni I ' a I:' . '1 fiy ........... ,. .... ,. .„..