Correspondence (26) map ?7-
J `
MEMORANDUM
I IrIINN ��
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON s .. %.
g (A D E Le
TO : Jim Hendryx
)5717 sly 74 - \
FROM: Jill Aldrich, David Scott, Dick Bewersdorff
DATE: September 14, 1998
SUBJECT: Castile: 74th Avenue Industrial Park
1. The project was held up at occupancy - why?
The applicant had not completed all conditions of the land use case in their entirety
as is required prior to the performance of final building inspection and issuance of a C of 0, nor
did the applicant complete the required work approved with the issuance of the Site Work Permit
(SIT97- 0030). The Site Work Permit encompasses such items as parking, lighting, fire hydrants,
turn arounds, etc. Occupancy should not be granted until the work described therein is fully
completed. When requesting final inspections, the applicant indicated that he would like to phase
occupancy and completion of the site work. This was a new request and required some review by
staff Specific detail on the outstanding conditions is available upon request.
2. What were the issues with the fire hydrants and why?
As noted above, the applicant requested final inspection and occupancy of one of
the buildings (building A) prior to completion of all project requirements. To grant such a request,
certain minimum standards must be in place. In addition to building code issues, the fire code has
minimum standards that apply to fire hydrant distance from access roads, distance to a fire
department connection, etc. as outlined in TVF &R's brochure, "Fire & Life Safety Requirements
for Fire Department Access and Water Supplies." Because all hydrants required for the project are
not installed, staff needed to review whether the one hydrant would suffice for the one building.
Review determined that the one hydrant would suffice, but that the other hydrants would be
necessary prior to occupancy of the other buildings.
3. What was the issue with the undergrounding fee?
COT requires undergrounding utilities, or if not feasible, then, the applicant pays an
in lieu of fee. The land use conditions are the responsibility of the applicant to complete.
Exceptions to a condition requires documentation of said exception from the appropriate authority
if a waiver of fees is to granted. It appears that at the time of C of 0 request by the applicant, this
information had not been submitted to the city. In case lognotes, BDR indicates that ... "[I]
confirmed with Brian Moore (PGE) that existing OH lines on 74th are main transmission lines
(50,000+ volts). Therefore, as per 18.164.120.A.1 the applicant is exempt from the undergrounding
rule ". The condition status was updated to N/A (Not Applicable) on 1/2/98.
4. Do we have a fee to look up uses? Castile said we charge $25.00 per use.
No. We issue a building permit and C of 0 for each tenant. The minimum permit
fee is $25.00. We do not issue a C of 0 for an empty building or tenant space(s). The shell building
is submitted and reviewed for a particular use and occupancy. The code requires that a C of 0
contain information on the occupancy. We issue a C of 0 based upon the use and occupancy of
individual tenants. Until we are informed by the applicant as who is going to occupy individual
spaces and what their use is, staff cannot determine occupancy and verify code compliance. Part of
the review is to determine that the shell as constructed will allow the particular use and occupancy
of the tenant. Certain uses may necessitate building adaptation (firewall, sprinklers, etc.) and
therefore, additional permits, plan review and inspection/approval. This project is unique in that the
tenants do not do any real "work." Usually tenants do substantial work. This is why the fee is only
$25.00. If needed by an applicant for financing, etc, we will issue a letter of completion of the shell.
The necessity of this is also required by planning to verify tenant business type as permitted with
the zone and that the project parking requirement is not compromised by the new tenants. No fee is
charged for this planning review, although we could potentially charge the development code
review fee.
5. What was the deal with the temp turnaround?
As described above, the applicant's request for a C of 0 for one building (phased
occupancy) prior to completion of the SIT97 -0030 necessitated a review of applicable
requirements. Staff reviewed a "not to scale" plan provided by the applicant and the applicant was
given a "heads up" regarding possible hindrances to his request. In SDR97 -0002 lognotes an entry
by Bob Poskins and Hap Watkins indicates that "paving at building A has created a dead -end
road...TVF & R requirement [ #1 is] that an approved standard fire dept. turnaround be provided...."
When a full review of scaled drawings was done, it was found that building A is within the
specified distance and the turnaround for building A would not be required (interesting to note that
the maximum distance is 150 feet, and the actual distance is 149' - 11 ").
6. Does he have occupancy now?
A C of 0 for building #1 was authorized by WRD on 1/6/98 with the stipulation
that Planning will need to check parking tenant by tenant as they come in. A 30 -day Temporary C
of 0 was authorized by BDR on 1/13/98, to allow street improvements to be completed. Building
has also allowed a 30 -day temp pending the installation of knox boxes, which the applicant is
pursuing with TVFR. At least one tenant is in. We have not finished processing the paperwork, but
the temp is in place. Once the knox box and street improvement issues are resolved, the temp will
extend until August, to allow the applicant to complete final detailing of the water quality pond in
dry weather, pursuant to the engineer's recommendation.