07/22/1975 - Minutes MINUTES
Tigard Site Development and Architectural Design Review Board
July 22, 1975
5:00 p.m. - Tigard City Hall
12420 S. W. Main St. , Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McMonagle called the meeting to order
at 5:15 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Members present: Cook, Hammes, McMonagle, Olson,
Wakem; staff: Powell, Bolen and Laws
3. MINUTES: The minutes of the June 10, 1975, June 24, 1975, and
July 8, 1975, meetings were approved as submitted.
4. PROJECT REVIEWS
4.1 SDR 23-75 (Gevurtz Furniture)
A request for site design and architectural review of a
proposed furniture warehouse and showroom at 15 and Bonita
Rd.
A. Site Design Review
1. Staff Report: read by Powell with recommendation
to provide irrigation and landscaping
.WWI on all sides of building and to pro-
vide a hard surfaced access to rear
loading dock.
2 . Applicant Presentation: Gary Michaels of Michaels,
Mann and Lakeman, presented slide
graphics and additional information
concerning the project.
3. Board Discussion and Action
o Discussion of the proposed site design centered
primarily on access drives and need for paved
access to the loading and maneuvering area at
the rear of the building.
o Discussion of sign location by Cook and
McMonagle yielded agreement that the locations
proposed were reasonable.
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to provision
of an irrigation plan and details of landscape
plan for staff's approval.
o Seconded (Hammes)
4ww o Motion approved unanimously.
B. Architectural Design Review
, , o General Discussion of building design centered on
the shielding of rooftop mechanicals and the
surface textures to be applied on two sides of
the building. Some concern was shown by the Board
for the finish of the sides not shown as broomed.
o The Board further discussed the topic of sign design,
concluding that actual design of the signs should be
resubmitted for their approval.
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to submission of
actual graphics of the sign design.
o Seconded (Wakem)
o Approved unanimously.
4.2 SDR 16-75 (Lincoln Properties Sign)
A request for review of the location and design of a project
identification sign at 72nd and Hampton.
A. Staff Report: read by Powell
B. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Ron May (Gilley Co. )
representing Lincoln Properties ,
testified that the design now
presented was a result of pre-
vious comments made by the Board
and that he felt it satisfied
criteria they had applied.
C. Board Discussion and Action
o The Board briefly discussed the sign and its location.
o Motion to approve (Olson) .
o Seconded (Hammes) .
o Motion carried unanimously.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Larry Bissett presented a model of the proposed Oregon Bank
Building and a revised landscape plan to satisfy requirements
of the Board's previous approval (SDR 2-75) . It was also
pointed out that an unforseen problem with the original survey
had resulted in a need to redraw the site plan with the
resultant loss of parking space. Bissett's solution to
the problem had been designation of 4 compact parking
spaces in place of 4 regular spaces.
W
SDR Minutes - July 22, 1975 - page 2
o Staff pointed out that, at the time of the original
A4,W Design Review Board meeting, the applicant had been
unsure of the type of materials he would use.
o The applicant said that at this time they had worked
out the technical difficulties in using "slump block"
and that the building would be as had been originally
shown to the Board.
o Bissett pointed out the addition of street trees on
Pacific Highway.
o The Board notes its approval of the concept of street
tree planting and asked staff to pursue obtaining
approval by the State Highway Division.
o General discussion of other aspects of the plan followed.
o Motion to approve as submitted (Cook) as an amendment to
the earlier Design Review Board approval, requesting
staff to recommend approval of the street tree theme
to the State Highway Dept.
o Seconded (Wakem)
o Motion carried unanimously.
AMW 5.2 Extension of a previously approved parking lot for Assembly
of God Church on SW Gaarde.
A. Staff Report:
Due to the character of this request for review of an
extension of an existing project, no new site design
review was being required and that due to the time
constraints on staff and the limited time available
for review of this project, no staff report had been
provided.
o Staff described its concerns with the proposed
project which were:
1. Scale of the shade trees was unspecified. Staff
feels that shade trees provided in the landscape
islands ought to be of sufficient size to shade
a good portion of the parking lot and break up
the expanse of unshaded asphalt.
21. The screening provided on the Gaarde St. side
of the parking lot appears insufficient.
3. Ground cover in the areas not planted with major
shrubs is specified on the plan by note. Staff
requests that a planting interval sufficient
DRB Minutes - July 22, 1975 page 3
to ensure ground coverage and to ensure
survival of the planting be agreed upon.
4. The site plan does not show this project' s
relationship to the existing access to the
church and the circulation pattern is therefore
unknown.
5. The long row of diagonal spaces nearest Gaarde
St.should be broken up with at least 2 land-
scaped islands such that no more than 6 or 7
spaces would be in any one unbroken row.
B. Mr. Olson, designer of the parking lot, speaking for
the church, said that ground cover in the form of ivy
and Oregon grape would be provided and that he felt
that planting intervals and so forth could be arrived
at with staff. He also said that it was his intent
that large shade trees such as Norway maple be pro-
vided in the parking areas. Mr. Olson indicated that
at the request of the Dept. of Environmental Quality,
they had contacted Tri-Met, who had in turn voiced
interest in the use of the parking area for a park
and ride station during the week.
C. Staff Recommendation
14#AW Staff recommended that:
1. Ground cover be provided in those areas not
covered by shrub plantings , particularly along
banks adjacent fences.
2. That arborvitae or a similar evergreen screening
planting be provided on Gaarde to screen the
parking lot.
3. That an irrigation system be provided.
4. That parking spaces 1 thru 7 be revised to allow
adequate back out.
5. The two landscaped islands, 6 spaces apart, be
shown on the south side on the side of the parking
lot nearest Gaarde St. Those landscape islands
and the central landscape islands to be provided
with 6 or 7 structural shade trees placed in a
random pattern.
D. Board Discussion and Action
o Olson moved to approve per staff recommendations with
the exception of item 5 and adding an item to require
that the 6 or 7 shade trees requested by staff be
DRB Minutes July 22, 1975 - page 4
placed within the parking islands shown.
o Seconded (Hammes)
o Motion carried unanimously
5.3 Staff possed out copies of a memorandum suggestin criteria
for design review of signs in commercial zones. �See
exhibit attached) .
No discussion of this item was requested at this time,
rather the board was asked by staff to look the suggested
criteria over for discussion at the next Board meeting.
6. ADJOURNMENT: 6:30 P.m.
DRB Minutes - July 22, 1975 - page 5
---
C-4, ff
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR DESIGN REVIEW (Ch. 18.59)
1. Buildings and structures on the subject site shall present a
finished appearance to all streets and to areas of public
access or view.
2. Architectural style and scale of structures, signs and landscaping
will be appropriate to the use intended and be compatible with
existing surrounding development and with the intent and standards
set forth in the Tigard Community Plan and any specific plans
promulgated for neighborhood, district or area.
3. Overall design of the project as well as the architectural
design of structural components and landscaping will reflect
and be compatible with the site topography and adjacent terrain.
4. External mechanical and electrical apparatus and other elements
of functional design will be integrated into the design treat-
ment of the site and/or building.
5. Design and placement of luminaires, directional signs, identifi-
cation signs and all signs requiring a sign permit will be
integrated into the design theme of site and building in such
a way as to complement the aesthetic quality as well as the
utility of the site and its situation.
6. No sign 'need be so large, so high or placed in such a way that
it competes with or overpowers other elements of site and
building design.
7. Signs will not be placed in any location where interference
with scenic vistas will result.
8: Signs will not be so placed as to interfere with vision of
or draw attention from traffic signs or signals, or road
hazards.
9. Sign area, letter height and sign placement .will be related
to traffic speed and volume and to the capacity and classification
of the adjacent street. The shape, colors, letter style and
size(s) shall be considered with respect to their appropriateness
to the site and situation, their aesthetic quality, legibility,
and informational value.
of Or A- LAW,tl 1")eceg�" 4/1'Llet 0141"OL'Ice- 0i Slat(1'404
Cf
C h't4c V, 9/ 7 a� 6 a-2 5 ee I c,lo) 0'L S-)
-r' cl� le_. 76