SDR4-77 r
':I I! r :':ai '� it :r `'1" I r r .I.t.. t$ 1.'r 1y.:.. .{
•
W 1L
..0 .r r ...4n' 1 J.(.LY «..«... .. 1 -., ... .' x u.171'.
.:r.., ......y�-.ty.u.-..1.;,��it.N.,,:....,,.,.,,.a«....:•.,r,,._..,M�_��,Jk><.. '..:rY��.a�;�'.I,.rl..t. u e c r .�.a-�r�,r.aat• ...,�a ,�e..>,.0 e r..l ...i.,n»,at.I,:♦re k�s,i w w..,.N�t» r�r ry..la�,�,r.r... r.Jl,
• r -:"� :y v,�r r~'„_... .�..:._ ..-—.r•\ ��. tit'.f "—°c'" Y P- r«•.;;,vi, w�..t-•, ..,.ylLa*nn.lta„+'f..r�+,�;1-�..ml„-».•k 1..1.+4M, .r,.,ter.t,X..m.,.w..,.Y anti,/�1 I +
4.
'' •,' I
•
q P�L`DFRR(7f ,PA��" S �."�% xC ► �1 y
ii.e ,
- ..a+�.+��.�L.w.w'�a-..r,v+J �}MM�M �.'�,�* Jir..L:1.Yr..T:�,.w.Uas;'w.WwW.wi+vw”:w1WULt�4+Wt�M1� �M++aVwu+ylr•,,ta.�..:-rr 1. ........ >L._..IA.._.u.A.�...� .-.h, w,.. ;,Y '
•
•
•
•
•
. . rw
1t J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t. 9
4Y
r ,
;•
f
•
•
•
i. •
••
•
••
•
•
1111111 ,
•
r 1
I ,
I f
•
,. _., ,.... -.h�..., ..,,'.'1 ,. ... .,.,. .:f 1. ,_J. .,i.,... .. ..4. ..,.,.d...«.:-u w.I,.J.I ,.,4-n.�.,� .,,ww...d.:..1 ,�,,•T ..ix....�n.•.,:y r.. .ra ' C ",�°'' •
•
11/
I 11 Yi'".. 1. i'.: l.!{ii 5 tin
t
•
I7
,,. y S 1� j. f
. .
, , ' 'a
1 ,
� 4• 1r.,,• 1 ;1'd 5, t} r� it ,011,
r„ ��,' '°,l. c. ,
,,f:�-- .01'” 1) ,. I, I� f `• ,"` : 4 A1' , 4. le'$;.. Te• 11` 4,'; 'r • u 'd.. ,,,r r K r" • Fp 1 ,
.
I + _it B1J LD1$G DE ARTMEN z '
1 p:'e'rimit 92 d,f4 a� 1
.
c''
T�;oz�,,Contractor:: ���J"E ,l,�ryr Phe�/��1C c� n�e�}rte: ;,
n' �0..�tl�'n i.� �(y�.��V c�/1'��i,� ml�'7^'�i � 4
od><arcs iii v><al�clio�� o tl>e f�llo ink'. , . ' 'r ,,,!`�. ".J" �
And are lierei3y notitlecl Liis..,/,,.�� clay o a.L.."',.. .,...,.... .t
• . ))1N, AM
that n4y.wxctor arW,.r.o,..tlt shall be. done,,..()IA
theSC j)rL 11
aa
ll
ntil'the above
violation has been corrected and 'verified b1,iie sC toF'
--NOT TO BE 1U VJ — ' {
\ s
,.✓ I,y: ^ 3)4h HA 4 X56,'A�''o..It.
"�l��t�2d i
�` h�r.� 1A.-,ito,,�t'IiryywU �
`fv
'''..,!1,:t 1,,,.M:d' ,�i t�{G.IN i.1,anti., �'"y •, 1, , i, 1 "
,y.�A1 :,,,„-1,;._�., A ill r,,
r/.11'.144 n'w'" , ,i.. p I 7 w 1.- AiXs�� yy��1
r 1'
n
. 4, i'
m,
.� ,4 .d -
•
I'
, ,L
,,
•
9 .•
,
r9�L
/ •
•
et
r
✓ W ,
y ,
n
P
..1 - ....w...wMr..._... .:•:n r4.r.r..;.....H « JJ..,r4.YYI Inn of • •1 .•, 1 _
•i.-Irn._ is+v. r ' ...".1,•.. +nt.': :i._v .•...c..'., I,...«4......k.k.J,•w.rr.tl'.:,
°If
0 ` I i
'', ,x ,e June June 7, 1979
Summerfield Civic Association4
� {h7 !
'
` . Board of Directors
,
As residents of Highland Court, we recently received a letter from Aldie
ar r Howard, Planning Director, City of Tigard, in.regard to the removal of the '1'
model homes. The lest paragraph of the letter is of special interest to
! us--hence this letter to you. Quote: "Just one last comment. I have never 1
' , heard from the Summerfield Civic Association concerning this matter. You r,
` have seemingly avoided your strongest advocate and your strop est voice toI, •
TDC and Prestige Properties. You might consider using this association in
.
the future." ,h ..
r Therefore we are addressingthis complaintconcerningAlder �,n •:
• TDC and the new °� ^"
brook apartments which have been built directly behind our home. We on thel ' ,°
1 a t ��
west side of Highland Court paid a lot premium at the time of purchase on .
the premise that there would be greenway behind us (or so we were told).
Thus far the greenway has turned out to be a small patch of grass, some
trees, a much less than adequate fence and 'a very large parking lot with w
a good deal of traffic in as much as the manager's apartment was put
right behind us.
At a meeting with the Planning Commission at Tigard City Halt a, year or so
ago, certain requirements were set forth--that heavy screening of perking
Itie lots, patios, etc. would be done to insure privacy of the homes. As it is,
our privacy has bean completely destroyed. '
F
According to Hilary McKenzie of the Planning staff who c ne out to our
home to inspect the situation, the fer e does not meet Tigard city code
' foot a five to six
which stated that parking lots Aust be screened by
fence and, or heavy plantings. This fence is only three feet high and I .
does not extend far enough to screen the cars, headlights, or the row of
incredibly ugly mailboxes in the background. She also stated that the
' trees should be at least 8 feet tall--the pines are about foul;, Also TDC
4 I:
was hhomeowners as to how they plan to
carryuout4 thetrequiredclandscaping.theWhencalled The about their plans
• g
I
got no reply whatsoever. ,
They have planted grass along a drainage area directly behind us which will
almost impossible to mow since it is alwa sp •
' make it p y wet from; their sprink- , •�
lingstep will sink six inches. Also the sprinklers are set at too r
lire and one
. high a pressure so that they fog and the wind blows the water on our rhodo
dend� water in the suns
coxa which we neveY;
' We request that the fence be extended J raised two feet ora row of Arbor- i
vitae be planted along the fence and that something be dote about the ,
sprinklers running at various times of the day on our plants. ' ° ,
After buying a home in Summerfield most of us have found that We have an
• exceptionally fine relationship with our neighbors, hut many of us have an
tivery poor one with our developers. Such is the case on Highland Court, and
, it doesn t appear that it will be resolved soon. It seems a shame that we
have to spend the next few years continuing to hire lawyers to fight
it outt ;
�( ./ ,.ls• CG ied tom.„•GL�," ,e,..
& U -o .
w
715 84W. 8it;hland trot.,,, 1
la l
I I
416,I ;
1 r
1 ,. . .,. »_. ,. .. .0«Vw. a-W..W,4,�:... n +..rtael..,,.r.s..�:-w w,.r ..aWu..,h4,S M1•. o.ta.M..w, w�u. .k..1L.. W ..x .^/.,!n:•��i3•tF,.-..,, « .....,a.«, .,r+l. r... .».,...«+.+wLLW..t•1•.•••,,Ae�f.n
r .... ++m*+r .<. +_-u .. .. <.e...s,,.., r..�.a- an.a,,....wa sx..• w r..a�.t x ..a..n .amu.-•. u.r.
• � � ._' _'tea.
I .
•
'
•
•
•
•
•
•
I ,
i (
1
. Q 4" .,r• _ wSA. ...h+. s.+.,.M1. t. :.x Aret v.'eux..,r.
, Tualatin q
15300 .W 116th`
'.1!igaredo Ore or 9722
Attn: John Adams
a .; Please be advised that the Tigard Design Review Board aty
he
reguar meeting of April 260 1977 approved your request tor
review o the landscape plan for a 180 unit apartment comPlex
Durham Road and east of S.W. Summerfield Drive T
approval is aub je t to the following conditions'',
1. Tree wells or planters be installed when grade changes are 6 , .
made around the cot system of the existing
That the landscape and site plans be mod tied to show
acceptable garbage can storage area and the relocates
r . patios for Unit 4
x d
That all evergreen treeses located
toscreen
lights from the single family residences be a minim m
0 eight to ten feet tally
•" 4u That an irrigation
prior to issuance 0'.e building Permits. °
a Vencingbe a mini Of five feet from the
minimumo tire feet igh0
6 The landscape `architect w*o staff to amend the land-.
atope ,�pq�, along dry yy�� 4 �+ .!�k� area.
ry If 1 we con 'be o further orb s i, +t en�`>a please qct{�'y[ nothesitate `wK. cot,.
tact me at this office.
$ince "
NancY Edwards
Assistant
planner ,
I r
rr•,•wl, r., .., n..,o.. „., •r.r. ,,.,r...:... ......�r ,...i,,. r! o i, r i , r ^
Irk
•
I�f i I I
•v I
,, - ... . ,_i..., .,..,.un.. +..,...w,.::,sa,w... .c ..,..,, x nxr..r.,.,..w,,.. . ,.��, w, ,.,�.,,.'«.,n..x...a..Gi.w...,a,.«r..,,.,..a..m_,:ai ....,. , ,..,...�w:-. 4..s.. ..w .,.�.4,...r.....,..«- ,�t•,,:.�
- AGENDA 5 .
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
April 26, 1977 - 5: 30 P.M.
Tigard. City Hall
12420 S .W. Main Street - Tigard, Oregon
DOCKET: SDR 4-77
REQUEST: For review of the landscape plan for a 180 unit apartment '
complex
LOCATION: North of S .W. Durham Road, east of S.W. Summerfield Drive
APPLICANT: Tualatin Development Corp .
•
I . BASIC FACTS :
1. On March 22, 1977 the Design Review Board approved a general
site Plan f�:r the
p � apartment complete and requested that the
landscape plan be returned for Board review.
•
2 . In relation tolandscape the lands p Plan the following conditions
were attached:
a. A revised landscape plan implementing
the items outlinedin
I'
indin #7 '
g be submitted ,fog. Design Review Review approva1 .
Finding #7 reads as follows :
' A revised landscape plan should 'be submitted and
should address the following staff concerns :
o Protection from traffic noise along S .W. Durham
o Maintain ra
racy for the single family homes (John ..
Adams, Tualatin Development Corp., has stated that
the single fami
�, ly` residents were promised a 25 ft
landscape strip between the apartment units and
theirro..:e
x
p Pt y lines)
o Present a detailed plan for the pond areas utiliz-
ing it as a major landscape feature
o Section I3 should be
heavilylandscaped
In order to
minimize the asphalt island effect
o A street t
dee plan should be shown for 8 ,w.
auri
�
merfield and SW Durham
Road ,
o EUistin trees ho
shown
g on the Satean
�.
� should be ,
incorporated in the `landscape plan
r . ,
:AGENDA
5 , 1
T IGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
April 26, 19775: 30 P.M. - ..
page 2
.v
o p do areas. Ishouid be screenedpreferably by
. I
' as
plant material
b . "Garbage facilities be relocated on thel site where neces-
sar accordingto Findin #8, „ I
j • Finding .#3-' rea'4s as follows
Garbage facilities are specified on the landscape is-- r , , .
lands in the parking lots. Since the intent of the
'.,` . island is to break up the visual impact of the park-- '
ing areasgage containers should be allowed o
nl
y ; „ ,
in those islands lar e enough to containadequate
' ' landscaping.
c
A berm be p7acealong S .W.. Durham Road.
I
,
d, "Either rotate the buildings adjacent to the single-family. ,
� , ' residences along the property' line or the patio and park-
r , ing•areas be .physically screened ':with a fence.
' f
II. FINDINGS :
i
1, The landscape .Plan has addsessed the majority of the concerns
outlined �n Basic Fact #2 satisfactorily. Those items which
need further clarification are as follows:
a.. Existing trees shown. ..an the si'ue plan should be inc
porated in the landscape plan. ' '
o Staff and the project ' s landscape architect' spentconl,
siderable time going over the property ,and determining '%
which trees should be-,saved. These trees have been it:- ; .
corporated in the landscape plan,' However, since the
. tree locations are only approximations, it is staff ' s
g .g gnecessary around theme ',aye
concerns that rad�.n mi ht be n
� .
' Therefore, tree wells or planters should be implemented
1 when the grade is changed so as to substantially effect a ,
y m�
the root system,. , '�,
b. ''Garbage facilities he relocated on the side where neces - ' `.
° , sary. .
This condition has been fulfilled.: ; .
4
I I
o I ,
I i !
: . a .. ,._,_�,_. ...... ... ....:1. „,:.,.., .lar.. au ,At can...,air„.,,,„ „ �n .,,",.. ur .,,nrr• i,...nr .:,",,,,:.„,,,,,•,„,,,...,
, , .
a
o
1
• , .Ing IJK
•
AGENDA 5 . 1 d
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
April, 26, 1977 - 5 : 30 P.M.
Page 3
c "A berm be placed a,longl'S.W Durham Road. "
, The intent of this condition was to provide screening for
the apartments from Durham Road. Instead of a berm, the
• amount of plant material was increased to create a natural
buffer, which is more desirable since a berm might have
created a drainage problem.
. m
2 . After discussion with the surrounding property owners, the
applicant has requested thatthe landscape Plan be changed as
follows :
p, a. That the greenway' be expanded to 30 ft . , rather than 25
•
{ ft
b. That Unit G--4's patios be relocated to the sides of the .
building
c. That the screen fences bep laced within three to four ft .
of the patio, rather than the ten ft , as shown on the
plan and that a screen fence be placed between the •k-�
ng areas and the" single family home. pax
o Items a and b are accep "table ' Item Ic however,
would not
be advantageous to the apartment residents, as it would
visually decrease the open area around the units. As far
as screening the parking areas, this could be done by in-
creasing the size of the evergreen trees to eight to ten '
ti ft .
III . STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Tree wells or planters be installed when grade changes are
made around the root System of the existing trees .
•
2 . That the landscape and site plans be modified, to show an ac�
1 ceptable garbage can storage area and the relocated patios
for Unit G-4
_ I
I _
3. That all evergreen trees located so as to screen car lights
from the single family residences be a l minirum of eight to
ten ft , tall ,
4 . That an irrigation plan acceptable to staff be received prior
building p
to issuance of ' Permits ,
•
l d I f
1 ,
►
• t
Tualatin DeveloPment Corporation
16300 SW 116th Ave*
` gvdoOregon 92
Ossr
please be advised that the Tigard Design Review Board at
their regular meeting of March s h 1977 approved your site plan
' of a 100 unit aPartment complex on $4W0 Durham and SumMetfield
Drive0 This approval is subject
0 No building e it s 11 be issued Until
4
our the pedestrian/bike path hes been reached
0 All building be minimum or Q from the property it
• a ��'"9rwy linqti
emargenoy access be p 'p r d d off" of 80W0 Highland Drive
(subject to staff ppro l)
40 Water district be provided 4th the n ee sry easements
for
the location o Ua a nes ��y yh dr n
Ong•�U' �Y1/� . M6'� water 4� w�e�A i W7 4'J end A M1 4wA J!� 1�t w dQ
Se The turning radius''for the entry drives be 5°
8* A drainaqe plan be submitted for Design Review a 1
a pDo .► .
74, A revised landscape plan implementing the items outlintid
in finding ; be submitted for Obsign Review Board
• approval
Sd Garbage facilities be relocated on the site where 0ease ,
eery according tO fining #80
96. Details fcir the •
be subject to Design Levis
104 A berm be placed along ,W11„ Durham 80040
114 A mosquito controt program be ni ►
•
E,i.lther rotate the buildings adjacent the single family
tes dem *s alen0 property line or the pr,tio and parking
areas be physically ao OOned with a fenoe0
. • 136 All buildings adja nti ' the s n � Desi sh s be
single to g
,•. . , , ., .. .... . ..•••m a ., .,:
p
• �
I ,
�! �4.• 1 _ :1't I,�� `du,„;41r.� �f uA. d 1 rI.J_, ,4,..-1. I.; ,
TtIs Dosig4 Aw Eloavd aZ o pr. t ad`'q Ar archltootural.,
de$4911 outizmittedo
yl,
If uo can t$0 of any fUll4thot assistance Please do not heeltata I;
o oo tact me st this office, ..
tlanoY Edwards
Aa,,latent Plannat
Note t Tho fo 4Uow ng aoknomiledgmont most be received by t .' ,
of Tigard utthin to t e (1 ctaye of your receipt of this
latter: railuPe to return this . knouX g nen may
in action by tha City of Tiga d
hereby ackhowledoe this letter documenting the oction of the:
'd sc)rqs to the ,Woision here documented and 1(1 abide by anY
germs aridfor cofld Ofoti.,41;ophed.
•
.IW�+'+M. �nN�M`+i�IWW��trRia�'GMb�u�+i!bnlMoihi' �,
Si
1 I
lD II,,
A I
~ �I I I •
. r
' I
,e t
,. t' r .c.-.. ,1,...,..._....,.,,.....C..:.:...•,.»w....,w.....,...Ju„r.,...r..i-...,_::R-ti'. ..r.........._ .. f;:.i:7.t e.„ ,
•
•
STAFF"REPORT (4
• AGEi�7DA
5 . 2
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22 1977 5: 30 P.M. /
•
Tigard City Hall e;
12420 S .141 . .Main Street
• . Tigard, Oregon r `
•
: A.lberbrook Apar. ment s
.. DOCKET: SDR 4-77 C
site plan
architectural review of a, 180 unit apart
REQUEST: For and
merit complex.
LOCATION: North of S .W. Durham Road, east of S.W. Summerf field Drive
a, ai:,in Development Corp .
' APPLICANT: Tu 1
I BASIC FACTS :
1. The. Site is zoned R=7 Planned Development 'and was" approved for 1,
• ;? low rise apartment units by the Planning Commission in 1972 �t.'
Attached to this was, the condition that ''the apartments in. the ,
project. shall be developed in accordance with A-2 standards. '-'
, y
•n 2. 18 . 24 . 040(S) states "on corner lots the setback shall be twenty
•
• feet . . ti
,
LL .
FINDINGS :
is requesting review of a 180 apartment units' on z
1 . The applicantq g '
site is part 'of' the' Summerfield
•
approximately 12 . 2 acres. This
pPlanning Commission
..'Planned Development and was approved by the
e
: for low-rise apartment units.
2 . Approved density for the site is unclear. In general the 4'
applicant ' s proposal for 14. 7 units/acre; is 'compatible with i4.
the Planned Development . Staff has asked that the Tualatin • ,
• Development Corp . propose specific densities for the remaining
portions Planning Commission
of the Planned Developmentf ].
or � a,
approval .
ofcity isthe process of negotiating with
' t ,.� 3 . As this date the in process og � g'
' Tualatin Development Corp , onthe pedestr,ian/bile path for the
Summerfield Planned Development . Therefore the final bike
location and implementation should be subject to thisagreement .
•
Thea y for a corner lot is 20 ' . Two of the units
required. setback
along S .W. Durham come within 18 ' of the property line. This
discrepancy should be corrected.
5 . The Tualatin Fire Department has reviewed the plan and made the •
n f •
ollow �ng recommenrd,ation 1
a. That emergency access he provided off of S.W. Highland Drive.
b. Thai, the waterprovided e ,
. district be with easements on the ,.
- n .
property -for the location of water lines and hydrants, e
!, m
•
•
it
,wa ,
h p 4
•
'STAFF REPORT 1
a.. AGENDA' S.2 � 4. '.
T I,GARD LIES I Gi` REVIEW BOARD . ;`
March 22, 1977
o, • Page 2
c. 41 a •
That the turning radius of the entrance drives be 450.
a
4 6. A drainage swale runs through the center of the site and is ,• •
g g .
proposed to be developed into a pond area to retain runoff.
This drainage plan should ,be subject to Engineer Division re- ;
view to see that it is capable of handling the projected "runoff.
7. The applicant has submitted a detailed landscape plan. However
subsequent site plan revisions have necessitated major changes .
A revised landscape plan should Ibe submitted and should address
•
the following staff concerns:
1 ,
o protection from traffic noise along S .W. Durham s,s;
y o maintain privacy for the single family homes , (John 1
Adams, Tualatin Development corp . , has stated that
the single family residents were promised a 25 '
landscape strip between the 'apartment units and 1
their property lines) 1
o present a detailed planfor the pond areas utilizing
it as a major- landscape feature
a section H should be heavily landscaped in order to ,'°:
minimize the asphaJ c island effect
•
o a street tree rl2n should be shown for S .W. Summer-
filed and S.W.' D'arham Road
o existing trees shown on the site plan should be
incorporated in the landscape plan.
o patio areas should he screened preferably by plant i'
material .
8 . Garbage facilities are specified on the landscape islands in i
the parking lots. Since the intent of the islands is to break
up the visual impact of the parking areas, garbage containers
nb
! 'f
,
should be allowed only in those islaric large enough to con. hf.
M tain adequate landscaping.
a 1
No . specif ication have submittedfollowing. signs
9: been for the
mailboxes, pathway, and bridge.
III . STAFF R,E+COMME DATIONS
Staff recommends approval' pj with the following conditions 1
.
' l No issued
' •'6 buildingp be ' `
"�.� pedestrian/bike{ �r�n��.permitshall
� �ju+�.ed^y� �71 }y�y{..ari agreement on , .
the psrian kp. ath has. been .4 eached i
° 2 . All blinding' be a minimum of 20 ' from the property line.
•
I ,
• a ,
c :
/
•
' b ��971 • _ _ r.. ' ,
• is {t ,
irt. .....,.f r.w.�......�;R.u,.U..it...�a.M is r n,tr,g .,.r1..'Iw nc x.acxw.N.H.1.Y.r:4w:Y1'aaa'SM:.utWmLr.{
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5 . 2
• T]GAED DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 22, 1977 •
Page 3
"' 3 Emergency access be, provided off of S .W. Highland Drive
(subject to staff approval)
e y
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 ' .
w 6. , A drainage pla'a be submitted for engineering division n
approval .
7. A revised landscape plan implementing the items outlined
in finding #7 be submitted for staff approval .
8 . Garbage facilities be relocated on .the. siteawhere
necessary according to finding #8 .
9 . Details for the signs, mailboxes, pathway, and bridge be
" ' ` "° subject to Design Review.
»
• y d
e—A.a«..r.0 V..+-. 4,mw.w.r»1...I.m..........+.M....+a'..,...... YAxa•.w..n ....«...«...........,+.-J..,...a.L.....w,..(..f...r...(.ry La:%FRJ...(.....�
' ' e'�.
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIL ,BBOARD , : 1 1,
March 22, 1977 5 : 30 P.M F .
Tigard City Hall
'12420 S .W S .W. Main Street 1 �,
� g l
. Tigard, Oregon
1 . CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called, to order by Chairman ,.. . ' 1
McMonagle at 5: 30 P.M .
2. ROLL CALL: Present : Goldbach, Cook, McMonagle, Hammes, Olson
'
Staff Present : Edwards Daniels 'x' '
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : The minutes of 2/8/77 will be reviewed at i
the next meeting.
, i
y - 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None t
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 L
N
-" 5 1 SAFEWAY SIGN
f
,
Staff Report and
Recommendation : Presented by Edwards
B. Applicant ' s Presentation:
Mr. Bill Foran, Security Sign Company, stated that the
,p. g removedE�.cano-l�as11 sign has been and discussed differences I
in ,existing a`nd proposed sign:
. . C. Discussion:on+
- . Cook suggested a sign denoting� tne
Ti
gdrd Plaza, the major
_
tenants and the address of the center and the minor tenants
4: 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 he.".,
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
: pp p
with the condition that the vision clearance requirements
h^
of the code
sign satisfied .
The motion was approvedvwith Cook :
1 � dissenting. by a 4 to 1 voice vote : ,'
kf
5:2 ALDERBROOK APARTMENTS
li
I . Sate bevelo ' rent Plan z �
n
fi
' McMonagle announced a possible conflict of interest and i I
stated his intent 'to abstainf
om
participating in the L .
' discussion of` this item but would chair the meeting:
,
The Board agreed tbat this was proper, Two Members
rs
in the Iaudienceobjected:
€ ;
1\ • " ( l \
n\-- .�•.,
..1.. ,.I: »_ .. ..Y.......I. «., ..., .,.i—......- ,. ...,,i..., ..,h.. i:Al.An". x +..ru.. r-. ., ., n, •n rH,i. .1,,.Wd...w .,I. .A,.r a:.:.1
°' MINUTES
TIGARD
DESIGNvr
. REV7
�
� BOAD
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. Appli
ca
nt 's
a Presentation:
esentation:
JohnAdams Tualatin Development Corp agreed to staff
recommendations 1 - 9 except #8 (garbage containers) ,
that the location shownplan were w
He stated on the
site
the most convenient for both. the garbage l 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 - l years to complete.
o Olson stated a need for a noise barrier for the
two-story units along S .W. Durham Road.
•
a 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
4
apartments sand the single family units
C. Discussion:
o Howard Finney, 15755 S . V. Highland Court, objected to
the 'lack of a '50 ' greenway between' the single family
and a artment s�
p
o The following people stated that when they purchased
their 'homes they had been told that a 50' wide 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 81 W Highland Court
�
MS. Betty Forest) 15845 S,W,, Highland Court
M8, Barbara Smith,), 15725 S+W. , Highland Court '
MS. Mary McCue, 15,785 S.W. Highland Court
Mr . Bill Frank) 15755 S.W. Highland Court
Ms, Marge Woodell 15755 S;W. Highland Court
• ( .. • • ti
•
r k
n I... ..w I,.._ :1 ..a,. .-1 ,.. . .n.l,.x ;.,U.,rrJ i.Ai:., :.., ..l., ,. ../r-...._.. •.4,n.,.l . I..µr .t!-A.: r.4:.,a.l..I..r'1:'.'.. iP,....K:;'„. l._ ..,),..
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVI I.,.,BOARD
March 22, 1977
Ppage 3
o Adams explained that the buffer zone would be the
backyard of the apartments.
o Lutonexplained 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. H,,ghland Court, noted the
problems e in the northeast corner of the
lot .
Doris Knauss; S.W. Highland Court, �ompl'�
"ned 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 Zlding per.,mit shall
�I
beissued 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 45t .
1 • ►. 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 :
S ' Garbage fao111hies be relocated on the site where
necessary according to finding #E
9 Details for the signs, mailboxes, pathway and bridge
be subject to Design Review,
10. A berm be placed along' �S W. Durham Road
I
11 . A inosquto control program be initiated,
1 �
1
,..u«, ..uM...,In. .. .,,... ....'-a,,.L.;. ..A ........+,,«..- —niu..;n 4•r .. ,..l.r ,Fa'..Jn. ..rl•Yx:....a.rJl..nYF6..N.a .-J.:i:«'•t ...lari 4,..4..,.1y • •
MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIET 3OARD iis'..
1977 a t .
March 22, •
• Page 4 „ 1,
i'
12. Either rotate the buildings, adjacent the single'
• family residenc4s along property line or 'the !''`
patio and parking areas be physically screened r ,
with a fence. •
t
d.�
a "acent the single family residences ' ,
' 13
. � . All buildings
' be single story.
The motion was .appx"owed by a unanimous voice vote with
McMonagle abstaining. ,.
/I . 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 -
insulated aluminum windows
• - anodized, bronze ,
carports will be of the same design and material
as main buildings.
•
B.•
�a
13r 'd Action ,
�
• Cook moved and I-larntner seconded to approve
the �r c�it
c
tural design as submitted.
I R
I The motion was approvedunanimous voice vote with
; •,by
•
McMonagle abstaining.
5 . 3 SDR e-77 (Corbett Develupment
,
I Site Development Plan
A. Staff Report arid Recommendation': Presented by 'Edwards.
• Disc.ussion on access, movements re ,uired to replace
' u the model and landscaping
B, Applicant ' s Presentation' t
Nelson Corbett Corbett Development� y Comp any explained
the proposal ,
.
C. Board Action,ction. ,
o a- .. `
Cook'' moved and; Olson seconded •t 7rove the site
e -
M
•
.
•
n MINUTES
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD y ° .
March 22, 1977
.. Page 5
'
ns
development. plan as submitted with staff recommendatxo
and that any sign be submx.tted for design review.
The roti,on was approved ay a, unanimous voice vote.
II . Architectural Design
4 A. Applicant ' s Presentation: r•
• Nelson Corbett explained the archtectural design and
a • submitted photos of an existing unit .
Horizontal cedar sidingwith transparent" r �i stain and.
o> Iio�.
hand split shake roof.•
B Board Action
Cook moved and, Olson seconded to approve the architectural
• „' design as submitted
p ,
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote.
5.4 S1)R 5-77 (Georgia Pacific)
I . Site Development Plan ,
A Staff Report and Recommendation: Rea.c� by Edwards
, I
Discussion about fence, landscaping, outside storage,
B. Applicant ' s Presentation:
• .Cr Pacific, st mmariz proposal .
Tom Miller, Georgia ed the osa'p' p 1 .
C Board Action •
" r
Olson moved and Cook seconded for approval with staff
r
recommendations j ns 1, 3-5 with a spinkler system.
a
ed 2 to 3 Goldbach, Hammes and
The motion Iai1 with Gol
I
McMonagle dissenting
Cook moved and Goldbach seconded for approval with
staff conditions 1 , 3--51,
The motion was approved by a, unanimous voice vote .
II Architectural Design ,
n
A, Applicant Presentation:s
Pom Miller presented the architectural itectural de
si n
-
rlrr,i i I I II �
,n steel siding (American steel Company)
avacedo siding with a white roof.
,:. .i.: a... .,.,. .:. .., , .. ,...✓.. .. n ,..,.:..i,r.....i,.,vx ...... .,. u...,.. I„ ,.,,,..v, e......r»,.o ...... ,,, , ....,.,, .Ww< ao . e,nr:u I.lo a.0 wr r,.w y xr v v r.t 1 AC ! I built 1 i e4m
•
n r.w
, , rl r,..,W..:....I M„P.uv=r•.m nup I r .., ,,..,,.., ..
n,: w r,n m. .0 rv,•...y•r
e a
•
,
,.
,. MINUTES I :.
TIGARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
r
March 22, 1977
Page
B. Commission Action r .
Goldbach moved and Hammes seconded to approve'lthe
architectural design as submitted.
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote.
6. OTHER BUSINESS :a,e
, 6.1 Discussion about proposed Design Review Ordinance.
TheBoardsuggested the additionof
notification to surround- 1 a
ging properties, Board review of staff approvals, and appeals '
allowable by neighbors not just the applicant .
r Ir
7 ADJOURNMENT i
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9 :00 P.M. r,
• fii
r•
r I.
. . I
. a'
, I
, I
• 1
T'ebru,ary 220 1977
John Adams
i. I.
Tualatin Deveio•prnont Coni an
' 1500SW lie`t; i
Tigard,, Oregon 97223 Re: I SDR 4-77 Alderbrook Apts
• Dear Mr. Adams,
This is to inform You that your submission for Design Review
is incomplete and therefore cannot be heard on February 22, 1977. '
Section 18.55,030 of the ,Tigard Municipal Cede states that
"A l,,ands ape plan, drawn toy scale, showing, the location of exist-
ing trees proposed to be removed and to be retained on the site"
a shall be submitted.d. My observation are that the site contains
Several groups of trees that should be retained and which 'will
• be a `v•valuable asset to your ro.. eft.
prove toa �• `�
In addition our records show that the approved density for
the site is 14.5 or 177 units, and that a water feature.tune involvi
roughly 45,000 sq, ft, was set aside as open space. IP, contrast
• n
1
your plan pro elcps 188 units and 22,000 eqdFMN open sP,�'ae area, t,
If 1
~ e untilI
:����,✓.iY.tir.ld �or' the above items have beW+"f..A resolved between `{ ,
staff and yourself the Design Review Process cannot be initiated.
I a o1og .ze for the delay in your construction timetable but
hopefully the result will be a better development fore City
and for Summerf ieid
Q ,
c sincerely, ?,
I ,
,
sandy wward
Assistant Pl as .er
1 '
r I
IC
I ,
e..vwr.r. .r.m„u .w,p.... .. ....... ,. ,,,,. ... r,,,I ,. .a,. ..,•. .. .. ,.,, r. ,.. „•,, r 1 1., ,.„r ,,.:y.., ,•,• . , •.., .,, .,,,,..,,, - ,., ,
'MAS
•
A • :i.,..w.r•x '"...ri.r+h .Jl.k.a-4k i i..,.. �A.1 i..� I. S +r.. i ..1.
•
..1 p1. �..a-[� .ul r• .n A.-.•..•� J.A»r..L
•
SITE •DEVELoP1,E,N PLAN DESIGN
Site P1 a.n Review •
File No. -- 7
o ' i tec-hux�al ReviewFee Received
w.
T1 Receipt # d 7
apP1It N --_
Date Received 7 7 7.
• Tigard Planning Commissiony � �
12420 SW' Main t. ', Tigard, Or. 97223 •
'039-4171
Project Title _ A�.,DDBRO4 APT 05_ Date Filed
ed _O 77 , f .
Project Address ,".W. 3urnnnerfield Dri=ve
251 lOD 19004901
Tax MPID 2 i 101)D Tax Lot No. ioo Soo-6oO
II .
A v el'o erl Tia7.at, _n Devela rent Co
• . .adress 1 3( . we 116th Telephone 63.9.�.SL
one 09oi
S.
o•na-L,ure
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
prro•or sed Use 7 Urn us • -Sa . ' .�
lex _ -._. 3(1
A•
Site'77 '1�e �� j6.Size i ? , .es Tot. Sq. Ft. o Buildings
�"
S�� . Ft. of Paving x 61.1),500 Sq. � . of Landscaping • 279,463
•
. I
•
Antic ipatr d; .;iDevelopxne�n Date April, 1977 -Phase
Junea II
c
i►aated. Development Phases Au d 1977 -?hasp II r°
Valuation $2 50C) 000,00 •
DO NOT OT WRITE DEtw,o�'J' THIS LINE _... 4..,.
Special Corl.d3.t ohs -• Ded:ioa�cti on. s _
Bonding I
r6MryrY' .4' .rte.+.
o� ,w
•y 'i. rr+n+•4.r'rr.r:rMr•�V�.�r�s""�•rw4++nr'�u.�rr�nu�ee...rrr•rwr.Mra',�+�.• "- � f
Find Inspection by
Da-Le
' I
•1 I
, I
n h
•
•
. e
• 1•
:,
•
•
r �•
f pp
.fi
1 J rQ ,
• r ( D !r vryr:
888 mow' r # h� y'
#I �i >r . , +
J ,
•
# 1 D
f A
r 11
1 a,rs 1 a ,
•
• .
•
r M k y
Np
A. w ,
•
•
i
1, rc•r n1 •
� r
r r 1�1,��q ChM D�' 49 5 d y # P
.;.ku skM wrrk.�.,� �t'4u 9.,y�t nyM �jgyNw.FM��4.F'MMu+{wW.wM
(y�1
., �„4� r✓Ck qh� W..+H1W+SWN�E.rfiGWW:4>+kW�nWaln
r ,
•