01/27/1976 - Minutes MINUTES
Tigard Site Development Plan & Architectural Design Review Board
January 2;!, 1976
General Telephone Building
Main St. , Tigard, Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:15 p.m.
2. ROLL: Members present: Cook, Olson, Hammes, McMonagle, Wakem;
staff: Powell
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 13, 1976, approved as read.
4. COMMUNICATIONS: none
5. DESIGN REVIEW
5.1 SDR 1-76 (R. A. Gray/Tigard Clinic)
A. Site Development Plan Review
1. Staff Report: read by Powell with recommendations
therein.
2. Applicant Presentation
o Bob Gray brought in an amended plan and pointed
+ out how it dealt with various points of the staff
report.
o Staff agreed that it improved substantially on
the previous plan, but that the Garrett St.
landscape setback required by code was still
not adequate to meet city standards and that
the direction in which the parking is angled
on this plan will cause a less desirable traffic
pattern.
3. Staff Recommendation
o Staff requested.. _ that, in view of the additional
submission, staff be permitted to amend its
recommendation to APPROVAL of the "new" site
plan subject to conditions 3 and 4, as stated in
the staff report and that standard curbs and side-
walks were needed on Pacific Hwy.
4. Board Discussion and Action
o Wakem provided the Board with additional back-
ground information on the bike path and suggested
that it should be re-evaluated as to need, origin,
and feasibility before it is committed to con-
struction.
page 2
DRB Minutes
1/22/76
o McMonagle said he thought the probability
of a bike path along the existing drainage
gully was very remote. He also pointed out
that he thought the southeasterly property
corner was not located correctly -- that he was
aware that the centerline of Garrett St. was
located very nearly in the center of the right-
of-way.
ight-
of-way.
o MOTION FOR APPROVAL (Cook) on condition that
applicant grade the proposed bike trail before
landscaping the site and that need for and
feasibility of the bike trail should be re-
evaluated with phase II of this project.
o SECONDED (Wakem) .
o Staff pointed out that some additional site
obscuring greenery may be necessary adjacent
the apartmennts and that there was some
possibility that the 10 ft. 10landscape setback"
from Garrett St. could be averaged, but that it
probably could not be ignored or varied by the
Design Review Board.
. o McMonagle said he thought the setback provision
was just like the one previously approved for
Girod's Market.
0 QUESTION
o MOTION APPROVED (Unanimously) .
B. Architectural Design Review
1. Applicant Presentation
o Bob Gray described the building and pointed out
the surface materials that would be used on the
building elevations.
2. Board Discussion with Applicant
o Cook asked about the location and height of
roof top mechanical equipment.
o Gray responded that the mechanical equipment
was mostly inside the building and that all that
would be on top were ' the condensors.
o MOTION TO ADOPT (Cook)
page 3
DRB Minutes
1/22/76
o SECONDED (Olson)
o APPROVED (Unanimously)
6. OTHER BUSINESS: none
7. ADJOURNMENT: 6:15 p.m.