Loading...
05/11/1976 - Minutes MINUTES Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural Design Review Board May 11, 1976 - 5:00 p.m. General Telephone Building 12460 SW Main St. , Tigard, Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order by Chairman McMonagle at 5:10 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: McMonagle, Hammes, Olson, Cook, Goldbach; staff: Daniels, Bolen, Laws 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of 4/27/76 were approved as submitted. 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 5. DESIGN REVIEW: 5.1 SDR 14-76 (Ray Martin & Bill Walker) A request for design review of a proposed 4 plex subdivision at 124th & Walnut. A. Site Design Review 1. Staff Report: read by Daniels. 2. Staff Recommendation: Approval with following conditions: 1) Additional landscape screening be provided adjacent the buildings abutting the residential zone. 2) The bank on SW Walnut be sloped to provide a more even transition with the grade level of the project and planted with a suitable groundcover such as ivy and such plan being submitted to staff for approval. 3) The juniper plantings adjacent the entrance drive be wiltonii type. 4) Two street lights be placed on the existing utility poles on Walnut and on both sides of the entrance drive. 5) Parking stalls to be 19 ' by 92' with bumper rails. 6) A concrete sidewalk to be placed adjacent to SW 124th and an asphalt path from its terminus at Walnut to the entrance drive on Walnut. k4w, 7) Backing space be provided at the northern most parking stall adjacent building 4. page 2 DRB Minutes 5/11/76 8) Access drive to be widened to 30 ft. 9) Any sign placed on the site to be utilized for identifying the project be no larger than 16 sq. ft. and subject to site design review. 10) Utility service to buildings shall be underground. 11) Patio enclosures shall extend perpendicular from the building, being of the same length as the fences proposed to partially enclose the patios. Daniels responded to a question from Cook that the sidewalks will be located as to continue the location of the existing sidewalk with a row of street trees between the sidewalk and the curb. 3. Applicant' s Presentation Ray Martin stated that he agreed with the staff recommendations and that more pine trees can be placed adjacent to the houses between his develop- ment and the adjacent subdivision on the north. He asked that the drive be narrowed in order to save 4 trees existing on the site. 4. Board Discussion and Action o Cook moved and Hammes second to approve the site design plan with staff conditions, changing condition 11 to apply only to buildings 2 & 3 and to permit a 28 ft. curb cut in order to pre- serve the large cherry tree at that point. B. Architectural Review 1. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Ray Martin presented the building materials and colors to be used in the project. 2. Commission Discussion and Action o Cook inquired about the grades of the building. o Martin responded that all would be close to existing grade with a berm put up against the foundation of building 4. ,kw o Olson stated that the architectural portion of the presentation is lacking in that it was not well prepared. page 3 DRB Minutes 5/11/76 o Hammes moved and Goldbach second that the architectural design be approved. o Motion passed by majority voice vote with Olson and Cook dissenting. 5.2 LINCOLNWOOD OFFICE PARK A request to place an 18 sq. ft. wall sign at Lincolnwood Office Park (SW 72nd and SW Hampton St. ) A. Staff Report: read by Daniels. B. Staff Recommendation: Approval C. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Dave Douthit, manager of Lincolnwood Office Park, summarized the request. D. Board Discussion and Action: o Cook said he found the graphic presentation to be inadequate for review purposes. o Cook moved and Olson second to approve the request. o Motion approved by unanimous voice vote. 5.3 SDR 10-76 (Great Western Chemical) Review of a proposed dock enclosure at 11440 SW Tiedeman. A. Staff Report: read by Daniels. B. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C. Applicant's Presentation: Applicant was not present. D. Board Discussion and Action o McMonagle asked if the dock was presently covered. o Daniels responded that the request is to enclose the existing open dock area. o Olson moved and Goldbach second to approve the request. o Motion approved by unanimous voice vote. 4„„, o Olson asked that staff notify applicants of meetings. page 4 DRB Minutes 5/11/76 o Daniels responded that the applicant had been notified at the time of submission when this item would appear on the agenda. 5.4 SDR 11-76 (Gerber Legendary Blades) An expansion of an office building at 14200 SW 72nd Ave. A. Staff Report: read by Bolen. B. Staff Recommendation: Approval with following conditions: 1. Plan be revised to include additional landscaping in the following areas: a) on either side of the entrance drive (as a suggestion, evergreen trees such as cedar could be placed along the drive from the pond adjacent the freeway to the west property line) . b) Landscaped islands between the entrance drive and the parking lot can be considerably en- larged with no adverse effect on vehicular circulation. c) A 10 ft. landscaped strip, to include evergreen and deciduous trees, be placed along the west property line. d) Evergreen shrubbery to be included on the north property line. 2. Trees specified on the plan should be a minimum size of 2t1 caliper. 3. Final landscape plan be submitted to planning dept. for approval. 4. Irrigation plan be submitted to staff for approval. o McMonagle stated that compact parking spaces, although inadequate in area according to code requirements, are spaces that are provided in excess of the minimum required and may be needed. o Bolen responded that the recommendation to eliminate these spaces was based on the need to increase the landscaping provided on the site, which appears to have suffered due to placing the maximum number of parking spaces on the site. page 5 DRB Minutes 5/11/76 C. Applicant's Presentation: o Mr. Anderson, contractor for the project, stated that Gerber Blades presently has 23% landscaping on the site and that the need had arisen to provide for expansion of the plant. In order to do this, they needed the maximum number of parking spaces for their employees or they would be required to move in the near future. o Mr. Krause, architect for the applicant, stated that the number of parking spaces provided were the maximum allowed on the site and were needed because of overlapping shift changes which require as many parking spaces as possible to accommodate approxi- mately 100 employees on each shift. o Bolen stated that by using 450 parking spaces, 16' extra would be created, thus providing for the 10' landscape setback between this property and the site to the west. o Bolen stated that the need for the 10 ft. buffer strip was to allow for design flexibility on the parcel to the south and not preclude the develop- ment options of the adjacent parcel. o Mr. Anderson stated that a 6 ft. buffer could be pro- vided on the west side. o Bolen graphically illustrated how the landscape plantings at the south end of the parking rows could be expanded so as to give more direction of the driving aisles. o The contractor stated that they would be willing to plant the area west of where the stream turns south along the south property line with adequate ground- cover and evergreen trees. o Cook moved and Olson second that the site design be approved with staff conditions and the additional requirement of an irrigation plan to be submitted to staff. o Motion approved by unanimous voice vote. B. Architectural Review 1. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Krause stated that page 6 DRB Minutes 5/11/76 the same building materials as used in the parent building would also be used in the addition. 2. Board Discussion and Action o Olson moved and Hammes second to approve the architectural design as submitted. o Motion approved by unanimous voice vote. 5.5 Review of a Proposed Amendment to Approve Plans for a 50 Unit Apartment Building at SW Scholls Ferry Rd. at Spring- wood Dr. in the Englewood Planned Development, deleting Tennis Courts and Reconstructing the Old Water Tower. A. Staff Report: oral report given by Bolen who summarized past or previous approval. B. Applicant 's Presentation: o Mr. J. B. Bishop, architect for the project, stated that since the initial Board approval, his company had been approached by Wash. Co. Historical Society in an attempt to preserve the existing old water tower on the site. Their findings were that structurally the water tower was sound and that it could be used for pool equipment storage, a Laundro- mat or a small meeting room. If both the water tower and the swimming pool were maintained, there would not be enough room for the tennis courts and their request is that the requirement of the tennis courts be eliminated. Also, the swimming pool would need to be relocated. Mr. Bishop submitted a site plan showing the proposed changes. o Staff questioned the provision being made for garden area and, although the idea is to be applauded, if not utilized, the potential for this site to be turned into a children's play area should be investi- gated or should be provided for. If the garden area is not used, it should be planted in sod. C. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the changes and, if the garden area doesn't work out, it be planted in sod. If the garden area is provided, it be so identified. A 10 ft. easement along Scholls Ferry Rd. be provided. D. Board Discussion and Action page 7 DRB Minutes 5/11/76 o Cook moved and Goldbach second to approve the site plan with a final plan being submitted to staff for approval showing the changes of deleting the tennis courts, relocating the pool and delineation of the garden area, plus a 10 ft. easement be provided along Scholls Ferry Rd. o Motion approved by unanimous voice vote. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Bolen stated that since the agenda had been sent out, staff had been approached by Gevurtz Furniture Co. to add this item to the agenda. A. Staff Report: Oral staff report given by Bolen. B. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Bob Pershing of Oregon Sign Co. showed exhibits of locations and types of signs they would like to have on the site. McMonagle stated that he felt the purpose of a sign was to identify the location and not to distract from drivers ' attention along the freeway and that the signing program, as proposed, could be too large. Hammes stated that he didn't feel the sign along the freeway was out of proportion and he would prefer to see option "B" along the freeway with a 2 ' to 3 ' high planted berm to cut down the visual impact of the height of the sign. Goldbach stated that either option "A" or "B" along the freeway could be provided, but that instead it be at the scale shown for option "C". McMonagle concurred with Goldbach's recommendation and asked that a 6 ft. high landscaped berm be provided. Cook concurred. C. Board Discussion and Action o Hammes moved and Cook second that an adequate landscape mound be provided under option "B" ; that the location of the freeway sign be moved to its original location as shown on the site plan; that the landscaping be sub- mitted for final staff approval. o Motion approved by unanimous voice vote. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at about 8:40 p.m.