Loading...
06/10/1975 - Packet AGENDA Tigard Site Development and Architectural Design Review Board June 10, 1975 - 4:30 p.m. 4 , Twality Junior High School- Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue , Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 27, 1975 4. PROJECT REVIEW 4.1 SDR 13-75 (Willowbrooke Apartments - Tualatin Development Co. ) A request for review of a fifty-seven unit apartment development on SW Summerfield Drive, west of 109th Avenue in the Summerfield Planned Development. A. Staff Report B. Applicant 's Presentation C. Public Testimony D. Board Discussion and Action 4.2 SDR 15-75 (Scott Planned Development) '` "' A request for review of a 14 dwelling unit duplex planned development on the west side of SW 98th, south of Greenburg Rd. A. Staff Report B. Applicant' s Presentation C. Public Testimony D. Board Discussion and Action 4.3 SDR 16-75 (Lincoln Properties Sign) A request for review of the design and location of a free-standing sign at Lincolnwood Office Park, SW 72nd and Hampton Street. A. Staff Report B. Applicant 's Presentation C. Public Testimony D. Board Discussion and Action 3r STAFF REPORT Tigard Site Development & Architectural Design Review Board E June 10, 1975 Agenda Item 4.1 SDR 13-75 (Willow Brooke Apts. - Tualatin Development Corp. ) Applicant' s Request review of a proposed 57 unit apartment project in Summerfield, a Planned Development Staff Findings 1. "Summerfield" conditions of approval per Ordinance No. 73-5 Exhibit "C" state that: "Each phase of development shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. At the time of approval of each phase, the densities and uses shall be approved. " "The apartments in the project shall be developed in accordance with A-2 standards unless otherwise approved on a specific site plan by the Planning Commission. " " "The overall density of the development shall be no greater than 6.25 dwelling units per acre (1250 total units) with a total population not to exceed 2400 persons. " 2. Staff has been unable to establish firmly the density entitled the developer for any particular area or portion of the plan. a. A-2 standards at the time of this approval were 12 units per acre. At that density approximately 37 units are the maximum number that may be allowed on the subject site. Another view would hold that an additional 1.65 acres must be included in the subject site in order to meet the density requirement (57 units require 4.75 acres) . Reducing the number of units to 50 would require development of a 4.1 acre site and so on. b. Inspection of the approved development plan "King City II" shows the density for a 3 acre area, randomly selected, ranging from 13 to 20 units per acre. 3. The proposed street approaches are shown as radiused cor- ners, like street intersections. City standards require that driveway approaches to public right-of-way have stan- dard concrete aprons and curb cuts. 4. Walkway approaches to several units ( "B" Building #2, "B" Building #1 and "B" Building ##6) are shown connecting AMW to a sidewalk area on an adjacent street, encouraging on-street parking and providing a lengthy walk from the tenants ' off-street parking area to his apartment entrance. 5. Parking spaces 66 and 67 are awkwardly arranged, realign- ment tangent to curve radius would be more consistent design. Spaces 1 through 9 must each be a minimum of 24 feet long. 6. Parking required for a 57 unit apartment under Tigard code would be 86 parking places, predicated on 3 parking spaces for each 2 apartments. 7. The service drive parallel to Summerfield Drive, in front of the first row of apartments, appears to be an excessive use of pavement for the utility derived (about 600 sq. ft. / parking space as opposed to an optimum of 300 sq. ft. ) . 8. The scale of the largest trees identified on the landscape plan is quite small with respect to the building size. The alignment of the buildings , in a semi-circle around two rows of similar buildings, contributes to an excessive linearity which could be broken up by major trees (assuming that the rows cannot be re-oriented or visually broken up by re-designing) . 9. Approval apparently has been given by the Planning Com- mission in ZC 5-72 for a maximum site density of 14.3 units per acre. Staff Recommendation Denial and either submission of a project clearly consistent with design standards established in "Summerfield" or referral to the Planning Commission. ,yam SDR Staff Report - 6/10/75 - item 4.1 page 2 (5 03) 639-3101 TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 15300 S. W. 116th Avenue TIGARD, OREGON 97223 June 9, 19 75 Mr. Jerry Powell Associate Planner City of Tigard 12420 SW Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Jerry: Enclosed herewith you will find those analysis figures that you and I discussed this morning, concerning apartment densities in Summer- field. If there is any question please call me at 639-3101. ext. 25. My sincere thanks for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, John Adams Tualatin Development Co. , Inc. JA/slb Encl. Gros Residential Area 196, 20 Acres Density Analysis: Units % Apartment- 421 34% Townhouse 480 38% Single-Family Residences 349 28% 1 250 100. 0 Common Area: Ogen Space and Recreation Facilities - Natural oreserves lakes and parks 5. 73 Golf Course 42. 42 Recreation Center 3. 50 Parkway 7. 80 TOTAL COMMON AREA ACREAGE 59, 45 Apartment Analysis-. Total area for the apartment site orono5ed 25, 00 acres Total common area that is provided for the apartment dwellings (34% x 59, 45) = 20. 21 acres Total acreage aoolicable to the apartments, including common area 45. 21 Total oro-oosed apartments 421 Unit-. per acre 10. 73 STAFF REPORT Site Development Plan and Architectural Design Review Board June 10, 1975 Agenda Item 4.2 SDR 15-75 (SCOTT PD - George Scott) Applicant ' s Request review of a fourteen dwelling unit duplex planned development Staff Findings 1. Applicant' s submission lacks irrigation plan, drainage lines and catchment basins. 2. Zoning is A-2 P. D. The submitted plan appears to meet landscaping and screening requirements for that zone. A requirement for "usable open space and recreation areas" has been waived by approval of the Tigard Planning Com- mission. 3. Additional site screening to provide privacy within the project appears desirable, especially between patios on the same side of the same duplex and where patios are in full view from the street. 4. "Mahonia" and "barberry" are specified in 1 gallon cans. 2 gallon would give better survival for summer planting. (Planting interval not specified, but neither should be more than 2 ft. apart if a massing is desired, nor more than 3 feet apart under any circumstances. Staff notes that applicant may have selected "Japanese Barberry" erroneously, as the place specified seems more appropriate for an ever- green varberry rather than a deciduous variety. 5. Applicant has indicated he intends to plant additional "feature plantings" at entrances and add shrubs around or adjacent to patios. 6. No foundation plantings are shown nor are large shrubs shown that may serve to "break up" the length of some of the elevations. 7. "Berm" shown and front street trees are wholly within future street (98th) . Staff Recommendation Approval with conditions of: „ 1. Large shrub plantings, with a suitable groundcover be pro- vided adjacent the front entrances and patios of rental dwelling units. Placement to be such that the plantings break up the visual length and "duplexy" appearance of the units and provide some privacy screening. 2. Replace "Red Japanese Barberry" with a similar evergreen variety where used adjacent street. 3. Provide sprinkler irrigation system. 4. Driveway cuts and storm drainage to be per public works approval. 5. Move trees at corners on SW 98th back to clear vision clear- ance area and to avoid future removal, move berm 5 to 10 feet toward house straddling the new property line. W SDR Staff Report - 6/10/75 - item 4.2 - page 2 Staff Report Tigard Site Development Plan and Architectural Design Review Board June lOv l975 Tuelity Jr. High School 1.4650 S.W. 97th Ave. Tigard, Oregon Agenda Item SDR l6-75 Applicant Lincolnwood Office Pork sign Lincoln Properties Co, Applicants Request Review of a proposed sign location and design per proposed Zoning ordinance amendment putting design and location of certain signs in the Commercial-Professional zone under the purview of the Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural Design Review Board. Staff Findings l. The ordinance effectuating this review funotbn of the Design Review Board (ZOA 2-75) has been approved and recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council, but will not be heard by the Council until Jung 23, 1975 2° Lincoln Propert"a is asking that review be done at this time in anticipation of the Councils action recognizing that no approval may be given until such time as authorized by Council. 3^ Lincoln Properties contends that this is a 42 square foot sign. 4^ Tigard Code states that a "sign" is the face of the sign as well as its structure--implying they are inseparable and the visual surface would be computed not the "message area". Staff finds the area of the proposed sign to he lOO square feet plus the two 16 square Peet "rider" signs (total as shown then equals 132 square feet) 5° Real Estate signs in the C-P zone may not exceed 12 square feet in area. 6° "Rider" signs are not allowed. 7" The proposed sign is to be located adjacent e freeway off-ramp° in approximately the location a "For Lease" w�^ sign is presently located. The appropriateness of the distance the sign is located back from the traffic nearest the sign is a concern of staff with respect to this project, as the sign, to be effective and not be o nuisance, must have o wide field of view. 8. Staff feels a location adjacent the approach to the office park in most appropriate. 9. The scale (size) of the sign should relate to the scale of the project and to the perspective differential from the street (distance to sign versus distance to buildings) . ctaff Recommendations Approval, if and When Council action approves ZOA 2-75' on condition that: l° Sign be setback at least 10 feet from the off-ramp if that location is still desired. Page 2 - SDR 16-75 0 kms. May 28, 1975 Mr. Ray Bartel The Design Review Board Tigard Planning Commission 12420 S. W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Bartel: Lincoln Property Company has finalized the architectural plans for the project sign at the Lincolnwood Office Park, 72nd and Hampton Street, Tigard, Oregon. You will find enclosed a color rendering and mechanical plan showing the design and location for the proposed sign. It will be 9' high and 16' wide and will be placed between Buildings 7100 and 7150 facing Highway 217 and the 72nd Avenue exit. The vertical support posts will be 2' wide and 9' high; made of masonry rock and will be buff white in color to conform with the architectural scheme established for the Lincolnwood Office Park. The lettering will be designed from redwood material and each letter will be approximately 15" high. The wording "Office Park" will be painted black. The horizontal trim pieces will run 12' between the masonry support posts and will be made from 2" x 4" redwood material. The color scheme, the types of materials used and the location of the sign is such that it will complement the project but will not be offensive to passersby on the freeway or access roads. We feel that the sign lends itself nicely to the aesthetic values of the community, and at the same time is in keeping with the overall design of the project. Very truly yours, LINCOLN] PROPERTY COMPANY John T. Flattery r , Partner Wrrr JTF:b l LmcO,&n PROPERTY cnmPan9 7100 S.W. HAMPTON STREET SUITE 110 TIGARO,OREGON 97223 AREA CODE 503 -620-5050 CIO ,o_ � LU -,� LU CC 7100 cc Alt LU © cc <t 7154 _ � :•:'+S G G ;� ... ? "�,..' :. � F '_ C- �•i iH4. i $ ,r�J.yp,. .7'� rte.•._,i �,.. , :.. .,.. .z.,. � ,. _ .......:...... .�.,. ... -. ,..: -4 :,:...,Y'^, w...;_..A.,..:Z ....':`C^•' ,. e : ..'§6_,.1 � '4f'�i qp � S - .,-. P.F xir}:i NOWL's An OANG �Zu 3Y},: 1� y.M a • , M.w+ay ,.: .� .u'.,�uc�.r: +w•.riwtitMN'f .• '� ,yam��` tii,.a-. � 1 4mp 4 . a A A 7 2 y � .� _ � `• '�ti itis s�� Y*�? �' �� °J°�';� �t�'''Tt .x"�`v ,r' ` ..a r ... '1• �^ �p'.'..s`Y^Yiet' es+ffi°."' Y •",,•a z ..:r;� � '"wit 's x{.. r`f�- .;{5�: ,.x`"4 r'4_,�._ •, °'3'_ fF k' 3 .. .: .., - ... EXCLUSIVE LL 2 AIN OW^o a _� r......,.... .1..__ ._ 'k 'Zi.. ,... •Ics..-. .. .. .. .. .fav,. ...._„ .-, -(:..:_ .:,.. �� •,s ,...,. ,. ,., •. „_ .._ .. .,. ,`„ .. � .-w a,. .w. a .. <,�. Ka .., ts,-r„�}�,,, _. ...: . .. ....,, '��'. a•.= ,.N:'• .,..y :S'TRY. ..1f C'. "�:" Cr�. Y$' .f:a n, ,h.,:_Y* .i:'-::" t. 1..;:.. et„..F. ...�.M,..».,va«.,.., t:TM A”. _ ., <:,..5� .....; .Y`4 •rt.5' P.f l.i L `'t-- `w