Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1978-07-19 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING JULY 19, 1978 The Design Review Board meeting of July 19, 1978 was called to order by Chairman Kirk Nieland. Board members present were: Ken Mueller, Bob Perron, Gary Rittenhouse and Bob Stark. Staff members present were: Patrick Barnum, Planning Director; Ralph Tehran, Planner iI ; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer (arrived at 9 P.M.) and Nancy Bryan, Secretary. Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting of July 5, 1978 were approved as .presented. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Nieland read into the record a letter the Board had sent to the mayor regarding,a moratorium on hearing any new projects between Kruse Way and Bryant on Boones Ferry until a definite plan for widening Boones Ferry Road could be presented to the Board. The Board has great difficulty trying to deal with individual projects without any plan before them. The letter has been piaced in the agenda notebook. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VAR 10-78 (P. C. Hannum) Kirk Nieland explained that when this item, was heard on July 5, 1978, there were four A Board members present and one of the members abstained from voting. When the vote was taken, it was 3-0 in favor of granting the variance. The balance of the Board members needed to listen to the tape of the meeting and review the exhibits and cast a vote. Glenn Chilcote did review the materials and listen to the tape and had advised the Chairman that he was casting his vote in favor of the application. A written statement from Glenn would follow to this effect. This meant the vote was 4-O in favor of the variance, so it was approved as stated by Ken .Mueller--Ken had moved for approval of VAR 10-78 with the suggestion that the Board not act upon the issue of the chain link fence. DR 8-78 (B & D Lake Grove) This project was last heard at the June 21 , 1978 meeting. The applicants have filed an appeal on the vote rendered at that hearing. The Findings of Fact were presented tonight for the Board to discuss. The Board agreed that the Findings met with their intent and approval . Ken Mueller moved for acceptance of the Findings of Fact as presented. Gary Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Voting in favor were: Ken Mueller, Gary Rittenhouse, Bob Perron, Bob Stark and Kirk Nieland. PUD 5-78 (Woodscreek) Patrick Barnum, Planning Director, presented this item to the Design Review Board. i Pat explained that all PUDs must come before the Design Review Board for their comments. Pat presented the preliminary development plan, which would no doubt be modified later. The proposed PUD was 8 acres in size with 38 single-family detached units. There would be a higher density on some parts of the site to allow for some Design Review Board Meeting -2- July 19, 1978 Alph amenities and the preservation of the area surrounding Ball Creek and the stand of fir trees. The applicant would provide storm water retention areas to handle any increased storm water runoff on the site. Most of the homes would be oriented for passive solar hearing potential . Pat explained the Planning Commission had some concerns whether or not there was adequate buffering and separation between the homes in Mountain Park and this PUD. The Commission felt with a 30 foot buffer and a 25 foot rear yard setback, the separation was adequate. Bob Perron mentioned it would be a good idea for the Board to maintain a review capacity over this project through to the final approval stage, particularly as it is near Mt. Park. Bob suggested a gradation of density on the site--higher density on the lower portion and lower density on the upper slopes. Ralph Tahran mentioned the cul-de-sac showed 28 feet of paving width. The cui-de-sac could come down to 24 feet and still handle the traffic adequately. After some discussion the Board decided they would like to look at all PUDs. They would like to view the conceptual level and then each phase as the PUD is completed. Gary Rittenhouse brought up the idea that the Board should also be reviewing all subdivisions over a certain size. Pat Barnum asked if the Board would like to look at the PUDs at the beginning stage before the Planning Commission hearings. If so, it could possibily eliminate some of the Planning Commission public hearings and substitute Design Review hearings. lip Bob Perron moved: 1 . For the Board to continue in a review capacity with the Woodscreek PUD, 2. That the applicant be asked to reconsider the width, specifically the design of the cul-de-sac, 3. That the density gradation in terms of lot size and building coverage down slope as it adjoins Mt. Park. from less dense to more dense proceeding westerly. Bob Stark seconded the motion. Voting in favor were Bob Perron, Bob Stark, Kirk Nieland, Gary Rittenhouse and Ken Mueller. Bob Perron moved that. the Design Review Board be empowered to review all PUDs of 4 or more acres in size and also review all subdivisions over 4 acres. Ken Mueller seconded the motion. Voting in favor were: Bob Perron, Ken Mueller, Gary Rittenhouse, Bob Stark and Kirk Nieland. Kirk Nieland suggested that once the zoning was determined for a PUD, the preliminary review of the PUD come to Design Review Board. 410 Design Review Board Meeting -3- July 19, 1978 • PUBLIC HEARINGS VAR 23-78 (Werner and Sandra Geriing) - A request by Werner and Sandra Gerling for a variance to allow a portion of a remodeling project to extend 17 feet into the required 25-foot rear yard setback on a lot fronting on Cardinal Place cul-de-sac (tax lot 1800 of tax map 2 1E 17CA) . Ralph Tahran read the staff report and presented the exhibits. Stiff recommended approval of the request. Jack Benson, representing the applicant, discussed the project. Kirk Nieland mentioned the letter of approval from the Gerling's neighbors for the remodeling project, Exhibit""C" After a brief discussion, Bob Perron moved for approval of VAR 23-78. Bob;Stark seconded the motion. Voting in favor were: Bob Perron, Bob Stark, Ken Mueller, Gary Rittenhouse and Kirk Nieland. Findings of Fact 1 . Under LOC 50.510, sections (1) and (3) apply to this variance request, 2. All the neighbors directly affected by this project have stated their approval . doh VAR 24-78 (The Holtman Company) - A request by The Hollman Company for a variance to IInr allow a corner of a house to extend 1 .2 feet into a required 20-foot rear yard l setback on a lot fronting on Walking Woods Drive in the Mountain Park PUD (lot 16 Block 37, Mountain Park Blocks 35-41) . The staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tahran. Staff recommended aPProval . Robert Ebert, representing The Hollman Company of Beaverton, discussed the project. The Board asked about the CDE easement of 25 feet on the side of lot 16. Bob Perron asked about the grading of the, driveway. Mr. Ebert said he did not know what the grade would be. Ralph Tahran explained that what is defined the rear yard according to the zoning code is really the side yard on site, in relation to surrounding properties. Bob Perron moved for approval of VAR 24-78 as submitted. Ken Mueller seconded the I motion. Voting in favor were: Bob Perron, Ken Mueller, Kirk Nieland, Bob Stark and Gary Rittenhouse. VAR 25-78 (William Dale Erwin) - A request by William Dale Erwin for a variance to allow a corner of a remodeling project to extend 2'6" into the required 5 foot side yard setback on a lot fronting on Upper Drive approximately 500 feet east of the io intersection with Reese Road (tax lot 1100 of tax map 2 IE 8CD) . Design Review Board Meeting -4- July 19, 1978 Ilk Ralph Tahran read the staff report and presented the exhibits. Staff recommended approval since the remodeling did not affect any neighbors' living spaces. Dale Erwin, applicant of 3750 Upper Drive, explained his project. After a brief discussion by the Board, Bob Perron moved for approval of VAR 25-78. Ken Mueller seconded the motion. Voting in favor were: Gary Rittenhouse, Bob Stark Bob Perron, Kirk Nieland and Ken Mueller. DR 9-78 (William C. DeBauw) ' - A request by William C. DeBauw for a final design review of an industrial park complex on property located, on Boones Ferry Road across the street to the east from 0rowheat (tax lot 700 and 800 of tax map 2 lE 18BD) . Ken Mueller went on record as disqualifying 'hims&alf from discussing or voting on this item. Staff report and exhibits were presented by Ralph Tehran. Staff recommended approval conditioned on final adjustments being made to the landscape plan, Bill DeBauw, applicant of 820 Woodway Court discussed his project. Kurt Bali , engineer on the project also spoke. They addressed the points listed at the previous review. 1 . Building #1 has been set back 10 feet from the property line according to Ralph; it must be shown on the landscape plan. 1110 2. The applicant will have to take out the large tree on the property line. He would restore the land around the disturbed area. 3. Public Works was satisfied with the storn drainage plan. Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer arrived at 9 o'clock. Alex explained the storm drainage plan. Public Works is confident that the storm drain will take care of the runoff. Alex said he had worked with Kurt Ball on this plan. 4. More information needed to be added to the present landscape plan. 5. The fascia signs would just be individual ietters for the tenants. Pat Barnum mentioned that the signs cannot be installed without sign permits for each individual sign subject to the approval of the DRB. 6. Kurt Ball explained the treatment on the back side of the building. 7. There would be a 5-foot fence to enclose the trash bins. Ralph suggested it would be more appropriate to carry through with the same type of material that will be used on the project for the fence materiai, 8. Andy Paris did the survey and topo on the. project, Bob Perry, owner of IL 1200, spoke. His main concern was where the drain field ends near his property. His property is the lowest site and it should not be the holding 411/ pond for everyone else's water. Mr. Perry did not like the proposed location of the storm drain through the applicant's property and felt it should be put in Boones Ferry. Design Review BoardMeeting -5- July 19, 1978 110 Kirk Nieland said the applicant was wiliing to foot the bill to install the storm drain the width of his property. The other property owners in the area could possibly get together and form an LID in the future. However, this had to be done by the property owners. The Board members mentioned that this seemed like a very similar situation to the ones further up on Boones Ferry. They had not seen a storm drainage plan for this area prepared by Public Works. Why hadn' t all the neighbors concerned gotten together and had the city's proposal for a storm drain explained to them. Kirk Nieland went through the recommendations on page 3 of the staff report. The applicant was agreeable to meeting them. The Willow Lane loading access was discussed. The applicant indicated he did not intend to put it in at this time, but would wait until it was determined what would happen in the future with Willow Lane. Ralph mentioned that if the applicant decided to put in the loading access in Willow Lane in the future, he must come back to the Design Review Board. Bob Perron said it seemed to him there was a complex legal problem here. If the applicant installed the storm drain without an approved City plan for Boones Ferry, what were the legal ramifications for the neighbors. They would be forced to follow, the storm drain from where Mr. DeBauw had ended his portion of it. The Board decided they would like a legal opinion from the City Attorney on this matter. Kirk Nieland went through the requirements of LOC 50.890, final design review. • 2. Show on a plan the unresolved nature of the ground treatment before applying for a permit. Bob Perron said the applicant might consider running Japanese black pine along the entire property line adjacent to TL 1100. 4. There was a discussion about the type of giant brick or concrete block the applicant wished to use. The applicant wanted to use painted concrete block on the back of the building with equally spaced giant brick columns for accent. The applicant also wished to use the same treatment for the other sides of the building because of the vandalism to giant brick that he had experienced on another project in N.E. Portland, it was expressed that the giant brick would have a much nicer appearance than the concrete block; especially with the pro- posed wood accents, so the Board supported the original giant brick proposal. The Board supported the staff comments. they wanted to see the horizontal bevel siding used above and below the windows continued on the fascia. 5. The monument sign would be wood face with a block base. 6. From the time of issuance of building permit, construction would take about 120 days. Bob Perron moved for approval of DR 9-78, final design review with the following conditions 1 . The applicant must coordinate with the City to determine the final placement of Building #1 . • 2. Resolve the key issue of the storm drain placement after receiving an opinion from the City Attorney. Bob Stark seconded the motion. Voting in favor were: Bob Perron, Bob Stark, Kirk Nieland and Gary Rittenhouse. Ken Mueller abstained from voting. Design Review Board Meeting -6 July 19, 1978 Amk Findings of Fact 1. The Board conditions its approval upon clarification by the City Attorney's opinion regarding the proposed storm drainage system and the legality of the implementation of the drain system to the neighbors. DR 27-78 (James J. Praggastis) A request by James J. Praggastis for a preliminary design review to allow the construction of a 52-unit condominium project on a parcel' of land located on the west side of Eagle Crest Drive, the northwest corner of the intersection of Eagle Crest Drive and McNary Parkway (tax lot 227 of the SEi. Sec 32 1S 1E) . Ralph Tahren presented the staff report and exhibits. Staff recommended approval 1 of preliminary design review. Ralph said the applicant had reduced the number of units from 52 to 49. Ralph entered Exhibit "J", perspective sketch, Exhibit "K", tree survey. Tom Vadnais of 2041 S.W. 58th in Portland, architect for the project spoke. He asked about the extra parking being required. Ralph explained that some of the driveways were too short for parking purposes, so guest parking must be provided elsewhere. Ralph pointed out places on the site plan where the extra parking tou1U be squeezed in. Alex Arseniev mentioned for a final the applicant would need to provide key elevations of all important points on the plan, tops of all buildings, bottom elevations, 4111) preliminary layout of utilities, connection of buildings, etc. Bob Perron asked how the applicant would propose to control erosion on the site during construction. Tom Vadnais said they would probably use mesh netting. Exhibit "L", photos of the site were entered by Tom Vadnais. Kirk Nieland read a letter from William Rouzie, owner of TL 189, into the record. it was Exhibit "M". Tom McDowell , owner of TL 201 and 202, expressed his concerns. He wanted to have some clarification of the strip of land on the north side of this project that is actually in the City of Portland, but apparently part of this project. Tom is concerned about his view and whether it would be blocked by any of the buildings. It was explained that the project in question was down grade from his lots so should not block his view. Tom also had some concerns about the contours shown for this project. Kirk Nieland suggested that Tom Vadnais and Tom McDowell get together and resolve some of the unanswered questions. Kirk went through the requirements for LOC 50.580 for preliminary design review. 3. Exterior lighting would probably'only be at the front of the buildings. Alit 5. There would be individual trash disposals for each unit.41, 6. it was suggested that the applicant might incorporate the identification sign on the retaining wall facing McNary Parkway at the entrance to the project. Design Review Board Meeting -7- July 19, 1978 dill Bob Stark moved for preliminary design review approval of DR 27-78 with the I following conditions: 1 . Some assurance on the control of the 30-foot strip of land at the north end of the property- check out what legally must be done to incorporate the land into the city. 2. The perimeter of the project must be secured to remain free of buildings forever and to be always kept as a buffer of common property. Bob Perron seconded the motion. Voting in favor were: Bob Stark, Gary Rittenhouse, Ken Mueller, Kirk Nieland and Bob Perron. There being no further business. to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Br an, Secretary Design Review Board