Approved Minutes - 1977-12-07 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING December 7, 1977
4 The Design Review Board meeting of December 7, 1977 was called to order by Chairman
Kirk Nieland. Board members in attendance were: Glenn Chilcote, Gary Rittenhouse,
and Bob Stark. Staff members present were: Ralph Tahran, Planner II , Alex Arseniev,
Assistant City Engineer and Nancy Bryan, Secretary.
Minutes of the November 23, 1977 meeting were approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DR 28-76 (International Dunes Company) - A request by Champion Land Co. for a
review of the elevation plans on this project.
Dan Smith, representative of Champion Land Co. at 8400 S.W. Beaverton Hwy. In
Portland, brought a set of drawings to show the Board.
Ralph Tehran discussed the changes in elevations and siding. Dan Smith showed
what points were in question on the site. He pointed out the di' ferences that
were on the original plans and why these things can' t be accomplI hcd. Ralph
mentioned that when the construction drawings were made up, the elevations didn' t
it
follow the building sections.
Glenn Chilcote stated he didn' t feel comfortable with the plan set up by iDan Smith.
One item bothering Glenn was the roof plans shown on Dan Smith's drawing--the roof
was shown straight across on the building instead of fractured as in the original
Igo drawings. Glenn stated the Board was trying to come up with a viable interesting
design which would be to the benefit of the surrounding neighbors. A less than
desirable set of buildings wouldn' t meet this requirement. Glenn said that if
the original proposal approved couldn' t be built because of basic problems, then
the buildings should be studied and correlated with what was approved---the overall
composition of the exteriors and the way the buildings arc sited on the site because
of the extra high retaining walls that resulted.
Dan Smith tried to determine what the applicant could do based on what they have
on the site. Gary Rittenhouse pointed out that the plans didn't reflect the front
and rear elevations. Dan said on the longest span of buildings on site, the roof
could have a break, None of the buildings would have eight straight units because
of the topography, but would have to be fractured.
There was a discussion on the siding and the retaining walls on the project by
the Board and the applicant.
pan Smith asked the Board if he, could wait until all of the retaining walls were
in, take a picture on site and then decide what type of plantings were needed.
He felt this would be a better way to put in a landscape plan rather than put It
in piecemeal as each retaining wall was finished.
Kirk Nieland stated there was a definite inadequacy of details in view of the
questions raised at the last meeting.
Allk Gary Rittenhouse mentioned that this project will be an "asbuilt" project, Gary
lir said the Board was at the point at the last meeting, because the project was not
being built according to final approval , of asking that the work be stopped until
the problems were resolved.
Design Review Board Meeting -2- December 7, 1977
AI Glenn Chi lcote-"1 think that the project is in your hands now, Dan." The i toms
IMF listed at the last meeting have not been addressed. (1) No evidence of that
being done. (2) No survey of the retaining walls or elevations of the retaining
walls so that we could see relationship of each of the walls as they go along.
(3) Dan Smith stated the hillside had already been planted with small trees.
(4) Take studies and try to make something presentable out of them, not necessarily
trying to change the problems from what was bad. Take a fresh look at the design
qualities of the buildings themselves based on what is happening out there. Show
something representative of what is going to happen.
Dan Smith stated he felt there was a Problem of communication with the planning
staff and the Design Review Board,
Ralph Tahran pointed out to the Board that he and Dan Smith had spent considerably:
time today looking at the plans and walking the site. They saw the major problems
as the elevations and the, vertical element. They tried to make changes to the
elevation design and still salvage the framing plan since foundations were in.
Kirk Nieland inquired why the drawings weren' t done over to obtain a better project.
The problem of the existing retaining walls was particularly upsetting.
u i enn Ch i l cote moved to rescind the previous motion of approval on DR 28-76 on the
final design approval and that the City put a Stop-Work Order on the project
until these problems were resolved. This would allow for non-structural work to
go on, but work on buildings, foundations or retaining walls could not go forward.
Bob Stark seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Glenn Chicote stated this would mean a new hearing on the final approval of this
project.
Kirk Wieland mentioned he thought the Board must devote some time to help solve this
project. This should be made the matter of a special hearing.
Findings of Fact
I . The five areas in the previous request from November 23, 1977 were not met in
this Unfinished Business hearing.
2. The building is not being constructed as originally approved,
3. Survey to locate where the retaining Walls were--elevations on the top and
bottom and elevations on the footings.
4. That a study be made as to the originally approved character to try to meet
with what the Design Review Board approved.
5. Planning plans should be studied ahead of time so that location of the elevations
on top of walls and footings will indicate what can be done.
6. Under LOC, 50.806 (2) (in its entirety) , the requirements have not been met.
1
Design Review Board Meeting -3- December
Design 7, 1977
DR 10-77 (B & B Development) - A request by B & B Development for a change in
11) roofing materials.
Dennis Baunach representing B & B Development, 2720 N.E. Flanders in Portland, spoke
Dennis explained he had gone to Mt. Park Homeowners Assoc. witty a request for a
change in roofing materials. The Association had indicated to Dennis that they
preferred tile over composition shingles.
Dennis Baunach presented a list of homeowners that he had sent registered letters
concerning the changing of roof materials. Fifteen letters were sent and eight
people responded. Five of eight people said they would like to have shake roof,
three of five referred back to the litigation settlement. Dennis stated that the
attorney for B & B Development felt the litigation referred only to the type of roof
for the duplexes which would remain fire treated wood shakes.
Dennis Baunach showed the two tile samples, either of which he would use if approved.
The Board discussed the tile and decided they would like to have the applicant use
the smaller, flat ridged tile in brown earth tone.
Bob Stark moved for approval of the use of the smaller, fiat, ridged the for the
roof material on the project. Kirk Nieland seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
Kirk Nieland reminded the applicant that the motion would have to be contingent
upon the Mountain Park Homeowners Association final approval .
410
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VAR 27-77 (Kenneth S. Brady) - A request by Kenneth S. Brady for consideration of
a variance from the 20-foot front yard setback requirement, 5-foot side yard
requirement, 25-foot rear yard setback and the 35% lot area coverage requirement
to allow a residence to be constructed with a 2-foot front 'yard, on the side lot
line, 21 .5 foot rear yard and a lot coverage of 39% Pr) property fronting on
Lakeview Blvd. (tax lot 4800 of tax map 2 1E 8DA) .
Ralph Tahran presented staff report and exhibits. Staff recommmended denial of
the variance requests. Ralph explained that the breezeway', which connected the
existing structure and the proposed new structure, classifies the buildings as
being connected and one structure. There is a 39% area coverage on this project.
Ken Brady, applicant of 2796 Lakeview Blvd. spoke, He stated that if he took off
the deck, there would be less than 39%: coverage. Ralph Tahran said Mr. Brady would
have to check with the Building Official about this. Mr. Brady claimed the
Building Department didn' t tell him he would have to have any variances. He said
there was no way the neighbor who was complaining could see the extra 3 feet of
his deck corner.
Kirk Nieland stated it appeared that if the breezeway were, taken off, then the
II
structures would be considered as two,separate structures,
Larry Kelly, 2738 Summit, 'spoke in opposition to the variance. He stressed the
lib traffic hazard as it now exists from his property, because of the structure on
the Brady property; it presented a sight obstruction.
Design Review Board Meeting -4- December 7, 1977
There was much discussion by the Board regarding the variance requests and it was
decided that there was no hardship created by unusual problems with the property;
411, therefore, the variance approval should not be granted.
Glenn Chilcote suggested the Board deny the variance request because it appeared
the structure could be constructed without variances; that the applicant go back
to the Building Official and indicate that he could take care of the problems
involved, If the breezeway were taken off, 3* feet would be taken off,
Ralph Tehran reminded the applicant that he would have to satisfy the Building
Official with his plans.
Bob Stark moved for denial of the variance requests VAR 27-77. Glenn Chilcote
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
VAR 25-77 (Harvey & Carol Gilbert) - A request by Harvey and Carol Gilbert for a
variance from the 5-foot side yard setback to allow an addition to be built 3 feet
from the side lot line on property fronting on Lake View Blvd. approximately
250 feet east of its intersection with Bryant Road, 4434 S.W. Lake View Blvd.
(tax lot 4700 of tax map 2 lE 8CC) .
Staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tehran. Staff recommended approval .
Harvey Gilbert, applicant of 4434 Lakeview, spoke. lie explained they would like
to enclose the existing patio for use as a dining area. The house meets the setbacks
Ask on three sides of the property now. He indicated on the plans what would be done.
11,
After some discussion by the Board, Glenn Chilcote moved for approval of VAR z5-77.
Bob Stark seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
VAR 25-77 (Walter & Velma Peterson) A request by Walter & Velma Peterson for a
variance from the 3' 3" front-yard setback, 25-foot height requirement and two
story and one attic requirements to allow construction of a residence on the front
property line, 48' 6" high, containing 4 living levels on property fronting on
Diamond Head Road (tax lot 1400, tax map 2 1E 9AC)
Ralph Tahran presented the staff report and exhibits. Staff recommended approval .
James Cox of 8 North State Street, attorney representing the applicants, spoke at
great length on this client's proposal . He asked that the staff identify, for
the record, the signers on the opposition petitition who later sent in letters in
favor of the variance.
James Cox explained they felt much of the opposition was about the design of the
project, but he was going to address the hardship issue. Because of the value of
the property, proper handling of the, house was required to add to the quality of
the. neighborhood. He reviewed the variance request 8nd what the applicant was
asking for. James Cox presented Exhibit "M", approved minor petitic; map; Exhibit "N",
topographic map showing proposed location of structure, Exhibit,"0", slides and
identification sheet from a slide presentation.
Design Review Board Meeting .5 December 7, 1977
Mr. Cox went through the four points in LOC 50.510-50.560. (1) Other properties
Ask on Diamond Head were developed in the same manner. (2) The variance was necessary
for the applicant's right to use his property in a reasonable and practical manner.
(3) There would be nothing injurious done to the neighborhood. (4) This situation
was created by land, not by personal desire--it was a topographic problem,
Walter Peterson, applicant of Diamond Head, spoke. Mr. Peterson discussed the
petition of opposition and his contact with the neighbors. Most of the people he
had contacted, approved the plans after they had seen them.
Velma Peterson, applicant spoke, expressing her desire to have: the house built.
Linda Eales, designer on the project, presented Exhibit "P", perspective sketch
of the proposed residence. The siding on the residence would be smooth finished
stucco with a redwood fascia, The garage door would have redwood applied to it.
She explained that the rhododendrensin the street right-of-way would be removed
during the construction of the project and put back in to a maximum degree to
provide as much coverage as possible.
Randy Livingston, attorney representing Norm Chew, spoke. A letter from Mr. Chew,
Exhibit "Q", was entered into the record. Mr. Livingston said they felt the
Petersons were asking to maximize the view available and use the land in the optimum
way.
•
Ed Welsh of 311 "g" Avenue, attorney for W. E. Griffee, spoke, He presented
Exhibit "R" which included many numerous exhibits. Mr. Welsh requested that if
the Board granted the variance request, the same structure be moved 25 feet down
on the property. Mr. Welsh's client felt the trees and rhododendrons should not
be taken out. Mr, Welsh stated his client was willing to do anything reasonable
and felt the Griffees were entitled to have the Peterson home moved down on the
lot in order to save the beautiful plantings. Mr. Welsh stated Mr. Griffee was
willing to,contribute up to $2000 for re-siting of structure 25 feet further down,
Walt tlalling, Diamond Head, living on tax lot 300 spoke, He objected to the contention
that the house would be built In conformity to the neighborhood. Mr. Walling felt
the Petersons created an illogical building site when they subdivided their lot.
Mr. Walling stated there was misrepresentation of the efforts by Petersons to
contact the Wallings. Mr. Walling stated he felt the Petersons should have to go
by the code requirements, and not be granted any variances.
W. E. Griffee, Diamond Head, spoke. He stated that if the Petersons were allowed
to put their garage 8 feet from his property line, it would cut down on the value
of the Griffee house. Mr. Griffee indicated how the Petersons could change the
position of their house on the site plan. He again mentioned his offer of $2000
to defray the cost of moving the house 25 feet down the property.
Ralph Tehran asked Mr. Griffee what would happen to the Chew's view if the Peterson's
house was moved 25 feet down on the lot. The Board looked at Exhibit "I", view
line drawing exhibit from the Norm Chew variance. Moving the house would block
part of the view from Chew house,
Linda Eales pointed out that there were several rock outcroppings which prohibited
iomoving the house further down the lot
Design Review Board Meeting -6- December 7, 1977
Glenn Chilcote suggested that the final item, rR 41-77, be moved to the next meeting.
• It was agreeable to the applicant and opponents in the audience to do this.
Rebuttal
Jim Cox spoke again, mentioning the problems with the rock outcroppings if the house
were to be moved. His client was prepared to have a sails report before the project
was started.
Ed Welsh again expressed the opponents views.
Randy Livingston used Exhibit ►'I' from Norm Chew's variance to point out where the
view would be destroyed for the Chews if the house were moved,
Walt Walling expressed his objections again.
Public hearing portion of the testimony was closed.
Kirk Nieland mentioned that the opponents had not brought objections to any of the
three variances applied (or,
Bob Stark moved to approve VAR 25-77. Glenn Chilcote seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
Findings of Fact
410 1 . All tests of the variance requirements had been met.
2. These requirements have been met for the variances based on front yard setback,
building height variance and number of floors. Most of this meeting addressed
additional side yard setback; however, the side yard setback was already met.
3. By nature of the request, as a requirement of the variance, the plants will be
replanted and tended by the applicant.
4, Location of building would take into account surrounding pr✓perty owners views
5. Leaving trees further down the line will permit some Sort of screening.
DR 40-77 (Horst Magers Specialty Restaurants, Inc. , A request by Horst Mayers
Specialty Restaurants, Inc. for a preliminary design review to allow remodeling
of the existing structure to become a restaurant and parking lot on property
fronting on State Street, on the north side of the theatre (tax lots 2900, 3000 of
tax map 2 1E l0AA) ,
The staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tehran. Staff recommended
approval , if a planting strip was added to the north property line to bring the
landscape requirement up to the 10% code minimum.
Alex Arseniev stated that he could find no measurements for the parking area. No
drainage would be allowed over the sidewalk. The applicant would need to furnish
specific information about the pilings along the lake front to Public Works. There
was room on the property for a 3-4 foot planting strip to help increase the
landscaping on site.
Design Review Board Meeting -7- December 7 1977
Horst Magers, Portland, spoke. He presented a letter, Exhibit "F", from the Lake
• Corporation giving their approval of the plans for the lake front construction.
Mr. Magers then explained the. mediterranean theme of his project in all its aspects.
Russell Leach, architect on the project of Bel 'evue, WN, spoke. He went over the
plans for the Project in great detail--the fascade, using of arches, keeping planter
boxes as they are. As far as parking spaces were concerned, they do have 35 parking
spaces. Exhibit 1G" revised elevation was presented.
Kirk Nieland pointed out that the applicant should change the moorage on the lake.
Russ Leach stated they were going to do that.
Gary McMurry, attorney representing Horst Magers, spoke. He mentioned he would
like to talk to the neighbors to the north about a possible common driveway. The
applicant would like to open the parking area up. They didn ' t want to have the
barricade of a planter in case the joint driveway were possible. A$ the lake is
lowered Jan. 1 and filled back up Jan. 31 , the applicant needed approval on the
preliminary design so work could be conducted on the pilings and any other sub-
structures necessary on the lake side.
John Rosenfeld, representing his interest and hi } parents' interest in the Village
Shopping Center, spoke. He stressed the parking problem--the lack of adequate
parking places on State Street and the surrounding area of the restaurant. John
mentioned that all the overflow parking goes to the parking lot in the shopping
center. The parking lot is private property and those who park there are trespassing
unless doing business in the shopping center.
John Rosenfeld stated he knew the patrons from the restaurant would be using the
parking area in the shopping center. He posed the following questions:
I . How many employees will the restaurant have and where will they park?
2. What is the maximum number of customers and where will they park?
3. What will the operating hours be?
Mr. Rosenfeld stated they would not authorize restaurant patrons to use their
parking lot.
Horst Magers stated he felt the 35 parking spaces would take care of the customers.
There will be attendant parking, so it is possible to park even more cars on the
lot. The restaurant will try not to infringe on anyone's property. The employees
will park off the premises.
Gary McMurry stated the problem of using the shopping center was a problem for the
appiicant to deal with along with Mr. Rosenfeld. it was not the problem of the
ORB, as the applicant had met the parking requirements.
Kirk Nieland went through the requirements for LOC 50.880, preliminary design
review application. (1) Check into the drainage and show on the next submittal ,
along with the elevations of parking lot. (3) Exterior lighting--incandescent
fixtures on lake side of building, also on the corners of portico.. , Lighting in
glib parking lot would be wood standards 12-14 feet high with four arms with incandescent
mPF lights. Show on final application. (6) Siding would be cedar siding finished with
Olympic stain, and a stucco cover coat on the existing concrete block building.
Design Review Board Meeting -8- December 7, 1977
Glenn Chilcote moved for approval of DR 40-77, preliminary design review. To be
• included in the approval are the following points:
1 . A go-ahead for the sub-structure work on the pilings on the lake. If it
is necessary for any changes to be made, the plan must come back to the Board.
2. The application meets the preliminary criteria. On the final submittal show
the following:
a. Show the grading situation in the parking lot.
b. Parking lot lighting.
c. Irrigation system for landscaping.
d. Additional landscaping, however you might work it out.
e. Drawing and indication of what the sign would look like.
Bob Stark seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 1 : 15 A.M. Thursday.
Respectfully submitted,
411 / G�iMG�/ �i,
Nancy Bryan , Secretary
Design Review Board