07/08/1975 - Minutes MINUTES
Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board
July 8, 1975
Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room
14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McMonagle called the meeting to order
at 5:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Board members present were: Cook, Hammes, McMonagle,
Olson and Wakem; staff, Powell
3. MINUTES: Minutes of the previous meeting were not available.
4. COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Current status of McDonald 's project was outlined briefly
by staff.
b. Staff reported on status of Tigard Water District ' s appeal
of the Design Review Board 's architectural review denial.
5. PROJECT REVIEWS
5.1 SDR 18-75 (Marine Wholesale/Sabre Construction Co. )
A request for review of a proposed warehouse and offices to
be constructed in an M-2 zone on SW Landmark Lane off SW
72nd (north side of Landmark Lane, near west end of street) .
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff Report: Read by Powell
2. Public Testimony
o Applicant ' s Presentation:
Mike McGee, representing Sabre Construction
Co. , said that he felt that they could live
with the reduced maneuvering area and that
the reduction in the number of parking spaces
wouldn 't be a hardship. He also addressed
the staff questions concerning final grading
of the site , the location of loading docks
and landscaping of areas not shown land-
scaped.
3. Staff Recommendation
Approval, with sprinkler irrigation to be pro-
vided on south (front) and east sides - hardy,
drought resistant plantings (ground cover) on
the north (rear of building) and west sides,
and front landscaping to conform to code.
4. Board Discussion and Action
low o Discussion generally of set back requirements
in an "M" zone, landscape requirements for the
front yard and use of the street right-of-way
in fr nt of the site followed.
o McMonagle said he couldn 't see why the land-
scaped area adjacent the street couldn 't be
used to fulfill the code requirement.
o Staff indicated the code prevented this.
o Motion to approve (Cook) subject to staff
conditions - staff to review for conformance.
o Seconded (Olson)
o Motion approved (unanimous)
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation:
Mr. McGee presented color chips and discussed
building style and materials. He specified
that only the ventilator hoods would pro-
VAW trude from the roof and that the A.C. con-
densers would be pad mounted behind the office
portion of the building.
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Cook)
o Seconded (Wakem)
o Motion carried (unanimously)
5.2 SDR 19-75 (First State Bank/Norman & Stanich)
A request for review of a proposed addition to an existing
parking lot adjacent the Associated Computer Services
Building in the First State Bank Administrative Services
Center on SW Sandburg St. off SW 72nd Ave.
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff Report
Staff report was read by Powell, with
additional background information furnished
from file of the original review (SDR 38-73) .
SDR Minutes - July 8, 1975 - page 2
2. Public Testimony
o Mr. Nelson, representing the applicant,
AW responded to the staff 's concerns about
pedestrian access and landscape maintenance.
o Mr. Takasumi, First State Bank, testified
that the bank would do whatever the Board
asked.
3. Staff Recommendation: Approval
4. Commission Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Olson)
o Seconded (Hammes)
o Motion carried (unanimously)
B. Architectural Design Review
(Not required)
5.3 SDR 20-75 (Columbia Hardwood & Moulding Co. )
A request to review a proposed sawdust bunker replacement
at 12700 SW Hall Blvd.
WOO A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff Report: Read by Powell. Appropriate
pictures were presented.
2. Public Testimony
o Bob Ballinger, Columbia Hardwood, outlined
the history of the application and in-
dicated the time frame they had to work
with.
3. Staff Recommendation: Approval
4. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Olson)
o Seconded (Hammes)
o Motion carried (unanimous)
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Ballinger showed elevations of the pro-
posed structure and indicated the color.
DRB Minutes - July 8, 1975 - page 3
2. Board Discussion and Action
o Motion to approve (Olson)
o Seconded (Hammes)
o Motion carried (unanimous)
5.5 SDR 22-75 (Colonial Texaco and Car Wash/Charles Dunn)
A request by the Tigard Planning Commission to review the
site design of a service station incorporating a car wash
with respect to the internal traffic flows caused by the
addition of the car wash. Colonial Texaco is now located
at 11465 SW Pacific Hwy.
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff Report: Read by Powell, with additional
pertinent information.
2. Public Testimony
o Mr. Dunn appeared and showed the Board the
traffic flow he had wanted and pointed out
difficulties he had had in the past with
wrong way use of his easterly driveway
approach.
3. Board Discussion and Action
o Board discussed the particular problems
with wrong way use of the approaches to
the station with the applicant and suggested
alternative ways to guide the motorist to
the proper exit.
o Motion to approve a circular traffic flow
(Hammes) with the provision of a painted
strip to guide motorist after leaving the
car wash.
o Seconded (McMonagle)
o Motion carried (unanimously)
B. Architectural Design Review
(Not applicable)
5.4 SDR 21-75 (TCT Auto Supply/Ed Mote)
A request by the Tigard Planning Commission to review the
landscaping and site design of a commercial building to be
AW used as a retail auto parts store at 12200 SW Main St.
SDR Minutes - July 8, 1975 - page 4
a
A. Site Development Plan Review
VAW o Chairman McMonagle stated that in the absence
of the applicant he felt the submission was
inadequate and that it could not be reviewd
adequately.
o Motion for denial (Wakem) on findings above.
o Seconded (Cook)
o Carried (unanimously)
o McMonagle asked staff to contact applicant and
to encourage a rapid return of the project with
proposed landscaping specified.
B. Architectural Design Review
Not applicable.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Board discussed McDonald' s application for a City Council
review of their approved site plan and attained consensus
that the Council should consult the Design Review Board
before making any changes in their approval. McMonagle
pointed out that any change on the site plan would make
it a new submission and that he thought it must reappear
before the Design Review Board.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 7:05 p.m.
AW
DRB Minutes - July 8, 1975 - page 5