Loading...
08/22/1974 - Minutes MINUTES TIGARD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting August 22, 1974 Twality Junior High School - Lecture Room 14650 S. W. 97th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 4:15 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL A. All regular members were present. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. The minutes of the August 8, 1974, regular meeting were approved as submitted. 4. SITE DESIGN REVIEW SDR 17-74 (Butler Tire & Battery) A request by Butler Tire & Battery for review of a new tire retreading warehouse and office facility located westerly of S. W. 72nd Avenue, 400 ft. south of S. W. Cherry Street and north of Circle A-W Products Co. Site comprises approx- imately 5 acres and is located in an M-4, Industrial Park zone. (Tax Map 2S1 1DC, Tax Lots 800, 1200 and 3301) . A. Site Development Plan Review 1. The staff presented the staff findings as stated in the staff report of August 22, 1974. 2. Mr. Lou Gilham, architect, represented the applicant, Butler Tire & Battery. Mr. Gilham explained that when designing the project they tried very hard to meet the 50 foot setback required adjacent a resi- dential zone. He explained the landscaping as shown on the submitted site plan stating the landscaping would be similar to a highway interchange, unirrigated and indicated shrubs against the property line con- tiguous with the residential properties to the north and east. 3. Bartel asked Mr. Gilham to explain the shrubs against the property lines and to describe the caliper and sizes of the trees proposed. Mr. Gilham responded. 4. Bartel asked about the topography of the site. Mr. Gilham explained the topography and the building' s relation to the topography stating that the intent was to keep the building as low to the ground as possible so as to conflict as little as possible with the adjacent residential area. 5. McMonagle asked how high adjacent homes were above the site. General discussion ensued about the top- ographical relationship of the homes above the site . 6. Brooks asked about irrigation of grass areas. Mr. Gilham answered the front areas would be irrigated adjacent the office and between the office and 72nd Avenue and that the rear portion of the site would not be irrigated. 7. Mr. Gilham stated that Fought-Anderson have no in- terest in a city street on the southerly property boundary. 8. Mr. Gilham stated that he could provide parking for 24 cars with bumpers and curbs as required by the code. Said location of additional spaces would be in approximately the same area as the exisitng spaces. y 9. Mickelson asked where parking would be for delivery rigs. Mr. Gilham stated that delivery vehicles would not be kept on the site, that the salesmen would take these delivery vehicles home. 10. Mr. Mickelson asked where on the site plan the back yards of the adjacent homes were. Mr. Gilham ex- plained the relationship. 11. Bartel and Gilham had general discussion and the Design Review Board held a general discussion of landscaping adjacent the single family area. 12. Mr. Frank Morris, owner of Butler Tire & Battery, said that he would construct a 12 foot fence adjacent the single family residential portion of the site. Mr. Stewart, residing on lot 41, abutting S. W. Cherry Street, asked the height of trees to be planted as a landscape buffer between his property and the subject project. He stated he wanted trees high enough so that they might obscure view of the building at full growth. 13. Cook asked where the fence would be. Mr. Morris stated that the fence would be located only along that area adjacent the single family residential portion of the site. SDR Minutes - August 22, 1974 - page 2 14. Mr. Gilham asked about the 50 foot setback. Brooks explained the zoning situation related to where 14W the actual boundary between the M-4, Industrial Park, and R-7, Single Family Residential, zones occurred, stating that there may have been a misunderstanding on the part of the applicant. 15. The Design Review Board and Gilham discussed options of moving boiler and compressor rooms out of the 50 foot setback, including such solutions as burying the boiler and compressor rooms or moving them to a different location on the site. 16. Gilham stated a street built to standard along the southern property line would cause the building to be resituated inasmuch as truck maneuvering could not occur within the street right-of-way. Mr. Gilham asked for a recommendation from the Design Review Board to the Planning Commission concerning this matter. 17. Edin asked how much traffic would be generated along the easement. Representatives of the applicant could not answer this question because it would be difficult to predict the type of use and the number of employees for future development on the subject site to be served by the street. 18. McMonagle asked Brooks to discuss the street situation. Brooks summarized the need for Minor Land Partitioning in this particular case as required by the Code, stating that a street may not be required if the Planning Commission would deem it appropriate to approve an easement. Brooks stated he did not know whether maneuvering of vehicles could occur in an easement area. 19. There were then questions from the audience. One member of the audience, a resident of the area, asked Mr. Morris what his plant would do . Mr. Morris briefly described his operation noting that there would be night production work at some periods dur- ing the year. Tony Maksym, also a resident of the area, told the Design Review Board that the Design Review Board had his sympathy, but that they would not be able to resolve the problem via the site development solution. 20. Cook then made a motion to table the proposed develop- ment so that the applicant might review his options in terms of proposed street and minor land partitioning actions. McMonagle seconded the motion. Bartel then told the applicant to clarify with the staff and the SDR Minutes - August 22, 1974 - page 3 city's attorney the problems connected with par- titioning of the site . Mr. Gilham then asked for recommendation concerning the street along the southerly site boundary. Cook then approved an amendment to his motion to recommend to the Planning Commission that they take action that would not re- sult in the moving of the proposed building closer to the single family residential area. The vote was unanimous for the motion as amended. 21. Bartel then briefly described the process through which the applicant had to go to meet requirements of the code so that the Design Review Board might review the project of the future. 22. McMonagle felt that the applicant was being asked to do the impossible and that the problem of maneuver- ing and access easements needed to be thoroughly explored. 5. OTHER BUSINESS A. There was no other business. 6. ADJOURNMENT A. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. SDR Minutes - August 22, 1974 - page 4