Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1978-03-29 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MARCH 29, 1978 41110 The Design Review Board meeting of March 29, 1978 was called to order by Chairman I Kirk Nieland. Board members in attendance, were: Glenn Chilcote, Ken Mueller, Dave Pugh, Gary Rittenhouse and Bob Stark. Staff members present were: Ralph Tahran, Planner II ; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer and Nancy Bryan, Secretary, Chairman Nieland welcomed Ken Mueller back as a member of the Design Review Board. The minutes of the March 8, 1978 meeting were approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS DR 43-77 (Ashram Builders) A re-submitted request by Ashram Builders for a final design review to allow 28 garden apartments units to be constructed in the Mountain Park Development, Phase IV, on property fronting on Eagle Crest Drive directly below the apartments presently under construction at the top of the hill (Block 15, SE4 Sec. 32 'IS 1E) . Ralph Tahran read the staff report and presented exhibits. Staff recommended approv l of the final design review. Alex Arseniev read the memo- from Public Works dated March 29, 1978 into the record. He went over very carefully what they would require of the developer. Alex discussed the letter from the tree and shrub care specialist regarding the site. Alex said he would like to see the suggestions in the report implemented during construction. Ken Mueller asked, about the time frame for the sewers in this area. Alex said this would have to be worked out between the applicant and Halvorson Mason Corp. Alex explained that now the sewer and gravity drainage line goes toward Stevenson Road. Fred Payne, one of the partners in Ashram Builders of 525 First Street, discussed the project. Fred stated Ashram Builders would be willing to meet the requirements. listed in Public Works memo of March 29, 1978. Bob Evenson, architect of Evenson, Lundgren and Larson in Portland, read into the record his letter of March 28, 1978 to the Design Review Board explaining what work they had done on this project at the direction of the Board. Dave Pugh asked what the applicant was using as retaining material surrounding ,the parking area. Craig Monaghan of Evenson, Lundgren and Larson discussed the site--its grading and slopes. Craig said he had worked with Public Works on this problem. There would be no major retaining walls, but would be a 14 : 1 cut slope in some areas which would probably require matting and netting. Dave asked the applicant if he had to cut the number of units on the site due to the application of the fire flow regulations. Bob Evenson replied that was what had occurred. There was a discussion about the materials and colors to be used on this project. IIt was mentioned that there would be 18 greenhouses located near the sides of some 1 A of the buildings. Design Review Board Meeting -2- March 29, 1978 Kirkie and went through LOC 0.8 0 requirements for fi a designreview. All of N i 15 9final the requirements were q een s w r m t met. Bob Stark moved for approval of DR 43-77, final design review approval subject to; 1 . Requirements listed in Public Works memo of March 29, 1978 being met, and 2, That an arborist be retained to work with the applicant on this project. Bill Owen, arborist, spoke. He said they would take all necessary care and could hopefully minimize the loss to 5-6 high risk trees. Should any of the trees die, they could replace them with fairly large sized trees. He stated the! design is very sensitive to the existing tree cover, Dave Pugh seconded Bob Stark' s motion and the motion passed unanimously. Dave Pugh mentioned that the project started out with typical iaximum density and the applicant had worked very cooperatively to reduce the density and come up with a good project; they were to be congratulated. Findings of Fact 1 . The applicant was in conformance with LOC 50.890. 2. The applicant complied with all of the, findings from the previous denial of February 8, 1978. DR 2-78 (Century21 Homes, Inc. ) .. A request byCentury21 Homes, Inc. for a q preliminary design review to allow four four-plexes to be constructed on lots fronting on Cervantes in the Mountain Park POD (lots 8, 9, 10, 11 of Block 42, SEA Sec, 31 , SW4 Sec. 32 IS 1E) , The staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tahran. Staff recommended preliminary approval with the conditions that: 1 , A more specific iandscape plan be submitted for final design review, 2. The applicant study the building design' to avoid repetition, 3. The applicant will confirm that the driveways will be less than 20% on a more detailed grading pian Alex Arseniev stated the applicant would have to extend the roof drains about 20 feet beyond the property down hill to the apartment site, and from that point the buyer of the apartment site would have to take care of the drainage. Alex said he felt uneasy with only two parking spaces per unit, one behind the other. This was not the most efficient manner and would probably block one car at times. The designer, Dave Norton of Studio 5, presented a revised site plan. Glenn Chilcote asked if the latest site plan affected any of the existing trees and was told it probably affected one or two, Design Review Board Meeting -3- March 29, 1978 AiDavid Oringdulph, applicant of Century 21 Homes, Inc. discussed his project. He said they felt they had a fairly unique design for the area. Mr. Oringdulph said he felt they did not have enough guidance on this project and were given no criteria to work with by City Planning staff. Ralph Tehran responded to Mr. Oringdulph' s charges. Ralph stated that never once had the designer of the project been to the Planning Department to ask for direction or guidance. Ralph said he had tried many times to communicate his thoughts and possible suggestions about the project over the phone. Kirk Nieland addressed Mr. Oringdulph. Kirk said when an applicant conies into an area subject to Design Review, he normally reviews the Design Review Ordinance which states the types of things upon which the project will be reviewed. The applicant should have someone from his staff meet with the Planning staff and look at the other projects of a like kind that have been approved, Parking was discussed. Glenn Ch lcote said the project appeared to have one parking space per bedroom with all two-bedroom units. There was a single car garage with a place behind it to park another car. Drive Norton said they had switched the units around so they now have a combination of duplexes. Cedar siding would be used and the roof would be flat bar tile; the entryways would be wood deck. They have decreased the grading to the point where there was only one instance of 17% grade driveway--most of them ,ire 41, lcafir , Rhododendruns and photinia were added to the landscaping, Glenn Chilcote stated he was disturbed by what he saw and couldn' t get that enthused about the project. It was ordinary and Some bask research on the other approved units would give a good idea of the type of interest and excitement the Board was trying to get on the projects. The projects have progressively gotten better so far, but Glenn felt this project had slipped backward. The design development didn' t show a great deal of imagination. Kirk Nieland went through LOC 50.880, requirements for preliminary, design review. 1. Grading--Alex stated that up to 18% was acceptable presuming they intercept the drainage before it enters the garage, Dave Norton said there would be a floor drain 6-8" below the level of the garage floor. It would be situated a couple of feet from the building. Alex said the applicant would need a 6" pipe leading away from the drain. The applicant was told he needed to show on the final plans exactly where the drain would go, because the Board had severe concerns about this, Gary Rittenhouse mentioned that the front and rear elevations looked the same on the plans but actually there was a 10-15 foot drop in the back of the project. Dave Norton said they did not have an actual contour survey of this site. Ralph Tahran said these elevations could' be very critical with the grading of the driveways as now shown. 2. The Board needs peak roof elevations of the buildings relative to the curb for the final , 410 3. Additional information on drainage needed on final. Design Review Board Meeting -4- , March 29, 7978 ill5. Should show curbs on the final . 6. Cedar siding would be used either horizontally or vertically. Dave Pugh moved for approval of DR 2-78 with the following conditions 1 . Take care of drainage system; show us where the system will be. 2. Grading study on the rear elevation,. Rear elevations should reflect what would happen on the site 3. Accurate sketches and elevations for each building; include peak roof elevations. 4. Curb line should be shown on Cervantes---relationship between driveways as curb line parallels the street and what happens with it: Ken Mueller seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, Dave Pugh suggested that the applicant put all the elevations together so the Board could see what the entire street would look like along this project DR 8-78 (B r 0 Lake Grove) - A request by B & R Lake Grove for a final, design review construction of a retail center/restaurant at the northeast corner of Red Cedar Way and Boones Ferry (tax lot 4000 of tax map 2 iC BOB) . • Ralph Tahran read the staff report and presented the exhibits. Staff recommended denial . Alex Arseniev read the Public Works memo of March 29, 1978 on the project. Kirk Nieiand mentioned the letter to the applicant from the Planning Dept. written on March 20, 1978. Ralph Tahran gave his explanation of the reasons for the denial of the project. The project was lacking the types of things that the Comprehensive Plan was looking for in this area; it didn't meet objectives of the community. The applicant is now faced with no access on Boones Ferry Road; traffic studies in this area show the traffic pattern to be a problem. Stewart Butler, 02430 S.W. Military Road in Portland and co-owner of the property being developed, gave the background on this piece of property. Bob Dutcher, partner in this development, of 1300 S.W. 5th Avenue in Portland, spoke, Bob said the prime need for this development is an access on Boones Ferry -Jojo's restaurant won' t locate on this site without it. Obviously, according to the developer, the pivotal point of the entire project is the access on Boones Perry. Kirk Nieland' said that having an access on Boones Ferry was not the solution to the existing traffic problem in this area, Bob Dutcher said the first he knew about no Boones Ferry access was in a letter he received last week, He had assumed access to be granted on Boones Ferry by their donating land on Boones Ferry as required by Public Works for right-of-way. Bob said they would never have come this far if they had known they could not have an access on Boones Ferry, Glenn Chilcote said he felt the safety and proper traffic flow was more important than whether Jojo's located on the corner, Design Review Board Meeting -5 March 29, 1978 Public Works does not Want to allow any access on Boones Ferry from Red Cedar Way ler up to Kruse Way. Alex Arseniev went into great detail on the: traffic problem in this area and what was being looked at by Public Works all alone) Boones Ferry. Public Works felt they could not allow an access on Boones Ferry on this project as it would be almost opposite Collins Way. There are only 120 feet center line from Red Cedar Way to Collins Way; possibly there would be traffic lights on Boones Ferry in this area. Kirk Nieland brought up the rear access project between Reese and Bryant that the merchants are working on. Kirk suggested this as a possibility for the property i owners along Division Street to consider. Kirk Nieland explained to Bob Dutcher that normally projects or this size come before the DRB as, a preliminary the first time. That gives the Board the opportunity to give their direction on the project. However, this tune it appeared that the applicant did not heed the suggestions of the Planning staff from previous discussions, went ahead and had the project designed, found bun ant for the buildings-- all before the project had come before DRB, This was not a satisfactory way to approach the situation, Jim Crew of Coldwell Banker spoke. Marvin McEldowney, 14601 S.E. River Rd. in Miiwaukie, spoke. He is one of the owners of the property across the road, approximately 9 acres, Mr McEldowney explained what type of street access he would like to see developed for the section from A Kruse Way and down Boones Ferry. Mr. McEldowney said he would be glad to work with the applicants from B & D Lake Grove and Public Works to come up with a workable solution for all concerned. it was the feeling of all the Board members that this would be the way to solve the problem. After a solution had been worked out, the applicant could come back to the Design Review Board. Bob Butcher described the proposed office complex. The buildings would be 6000 square feet each, wood frame with cedar siding T 1-11 in front and back of ;stores. There would be landscaping in back of the buildings, plus the applicant was putting in many trees on the site. John Bentley, partner in R.A. Gray Construction Co. , contractors on the project, spoke. John said that Russ Leach, architect in Bellevue, WN had been involved in the preliminary aspects of this project, but was not now. The prints had been stamped be Engineers Northwest out of Seattle. In discussing the building plans. It was pointed out that there were no rear elevations on the rendering.. Something needed to be done with the back sides of the buildings to make them attractive and acceptable to the neighbors. The study on the buildings isn` t there that should be; there is trouble with the design itself and it isn't up to the quality of the building that could be on this site. Bob Dutcher stated they were going to go with this design for a shopping center, because he felt It was acceptable. Glenn Chilcote moved for denial of DR 8-78. Dave Pugh seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, Ii .r ,6 Design Review Board Meeting -6- March 29, 1978 4111 Findings of Fact 1 . Look at the resolution of ingress and egress on t30ones Ferry traffic, etc. 2. Try to refine or develop the project with more excitement, more consideration, more thought of the site, 3. It is an affront to the adjacent residences to back them up with blank walls-- something should be done with the blank walls and also the creek site._ l k. Determine what might be required if a bus stop is put on the site, 5, What might happen with the third lane idea on Boones Ferry in this area? 6. LOC 50.806 (1 , 2, 3) were not met. 'Walter Ross, 15400 Booties Ferry, spoke. He is on adjacent property owner. Dave Pugh said he didn' t foal Jo;}o' s should accept the general t h,'ape and roof line of the office complex. The applicant should l'y to break them up or staggering the face and contour. Dave hoped the applicant could do a better job with this project than a warehouse block effect with a store front tacked on. He did think the idea of going from brick back to wood was good for the site. Dave asked the applicant to check to be sure the' two-foot parapet would hide all the mechanical on the roof. On the final , show whatever will be on the roof. illAlex Arseniev said the paving of Division Street should be shown on the plan. Public Works would be glad to work with their engineer. Public Works would ask the applicant and Fred Payne for improvement of Division Street as if it were going through. OR 28-77 (Shelter Properties) A re-submitted request by Shelter Properties for final design review on an addition to an existing office building on property fronting on Boones Ferry Road approximately 130 feet east of the intersection of Quarry (toad and Boones Ferry Road (tax lot 1400 of tax map 2 IE 8CB) . Glenn Chilcote went on record as abstaining from commenting; on and voting on this project. The staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tehran, Staff recommended approval subject to some form of delineation being shown on the west elevation Ralph put out the approved plans so the Board members could compare them with the new submittal . Alex Arseniev pointed out on Exhibit "C" where 'several improvements could be made. 1'. The parking area could be 58 feet with the <condition that the car overhang abuts the lawn to miniraize the area of asphalt. 2. Move east front parking line another few feet for more room. 411 3. Make larger radius on curve to make driving smoother. Design Review Board Meeting -7- March 29, 1978 tio Rick Peddley of hicks/Chilcote & Assoc. discussed the project, Ralph Tehran showed some sketches of possible ways to break up the west elevation. , Rick Peddley said his client would be agreeable to some form of delineation on the rear elevation. There was a discussion about the mansard In the front where the buildings would connect. Rick explained that his client didn' t want any windows on the we L side of the building. Dave Pugh suggested that the applicant put more trees along the back property line then. Dave Pugh moved for approval of DR 28-77, re-submitted final design , with the conditions that: 1 . More trees be put on the west side of the property. 2. Some delineation be done on the west face of the building--perhaps some form of a shadow line. Ken Mueller seconded the motion and it passed. Voting in favor ward; Ken Mueller, Kirk Nieland, Dave Pugh, Gary Rittenhouse and Bob Stark. Glenn Chiicote abstained from voting. OTHER BUSINESS Kirk Nieland said with a full membership on the Board, the members must start work on revising the present sign code. Things to work on are: 1. Allow wood signs 2. Cut out pylon signs--definition of pylon sign 3. What about existing non-conforming signs 4. Definition section of the various types of signs 5. Allowable area on signs 6. Materials in general for use on signs It was agreed that the Board members would look through the present code and suggest other areas for change, Discussion will be held in the future on this project. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at midnight. Respectfully submitted, i l411414. -44 Nancy Bry , Secr ary Design Review Board •