Correspondence HENRY S. LONBERG JR., P.E.
8575 S.W. Thoroughbred Place
Beaverton, Oregon 97008 -7286
(503) 6461793
August 16, 2000
Gary Lampella
Building Official
City of Tigard Oregon
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Jack Brutcher Ham Radio Tower - Permit #BUP1999 -00444
Dear Mr. Lampella:
The letter is to confirm that I have visited the project site and reviewed the revised guy
bracket connections at the tower. Although they are somewhat different from my
sketches attached to my letter, of March 23, 2000, to you; I have reviewed the
connection system and find that it adequate in load capacity and provides the same
load transfer to the tower center of gravity that I was looking for in my own sketches.
It is my professional opinion that the tower support system now in place conforms to
the intent of the plans and requirements of the local building code (UBC 1997).
If you have any questions or require further information please contact me at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
e on•e .E.
, PROFF
Jack G 1 N F
cc: k Bth
J 7734 'Q y
File
O E 11 1/
9-A. < Y 13 . � Vs
Si'EN LO'
PCP
rnn�lll'''
I''�iulllll'Iii11 . ��.
May 15, 2000
CITY OF TIGAR
Jack L. Brutcher OREGON
13695 SW 118 Court
Tigard, OR 97223 -2873
Re: Ham Radio Tower
13695 SW 118 Court V
Permit # BUP1999 -00444
Dear Mr. Brutcher,
The City is in receipt of your letter Dated May 2, 2000 and we understand your
frustration. It is not the intent of the City to require you to make unnecessary changes to
your radio tower we only want to correct a situation where a permit was issued in error.
The State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code states in Section 106.4.3, "The issuance
of a permit based on plans, specifications and other data shall not prevent the building
official thereafter requiring the correction of errors in such plans, specifications and
other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on thereafter when in
violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction." In Section 106.4.5 it
states, "The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under
the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of
incorrect information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation of any of the
provisions of this code."
The tower, guy wires and support columns are all considered being the structure. Both
the building code and the Tigard Municipal Code have the same definition for a
structure. This reads, "Structure is that which is built or constructed, an edifice or
building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined
together in some definite manner." The guy wires and posts are structural components
of this tower and by definition, are parts of the structure.
Your reference to "Projections not used for human habitation" does not apply in this
case since we have already determined that the tower is exempt from the height
limitation in accordance with Section 18.510.060 Subsection 3. This specific section is
quite beneficial to you in that it allows you to install this tower without the restrictions of
having setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the tower. The issue is that the
posts supporting the tower are encroaching into the required setbacks. The design of
this tower is such that the support posts and guy wires are an integral part of the
structure. Without these components, the design would most likely be inadequate. The
reason we would allow the concrete for the existing posts to remain is they are below
grade and do not constitute a structure. If for any reason, the side or rear yard
easements were required to be utilized for an actual utility easement, the concrete could
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
B. Date of Delivery
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
A. Received by (Please Print Clearly)
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
• Print your name and address on the reverse C. Signature ❑ Agent
so that we can return the card to you. ❑ Addressee
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, X
or on the front if space permits. ❑ Yes
D. Is delivery address different from item 1?
1. Article Addressed to:
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
,79 -c./< 13 e4 TG/# RR
134 J S s,u/• 1/0 GT
TIGf -(zD D/Z R7z
3. Service Type
16 Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
Registered V Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
Number (Cop from service label)
2. Article Nu ( 2. 2- : 2_ 77 ■ _ 102595 - 99 - - 1789
Domestic Return Receipt
PS Form 3811, July 1999 - - -- --
a `U Hl o
Q U a� n
O — m lry p
rs- 2 . r >
ru 0 D CI
.. ° – C vA o i) 0 N
a
= d �7 -6G o a) W
N 0 E r a 23 rnv E 2 a)
d l N a g di a> > _ J
N L > m "- d l i - m
O U C \' �� la d fA d (3.) O c Q
A a d 'e 'm o -4\ 21„ z> v* o m c- G
N (4 +�' r d d _ d A 2
m Q. A 7 Z V `� ` � '- ° zs a ly 0 a ° (0 W r �
15 c i
d 0 ru
202'5 w, d �, A � _ c � c .a <
a
W C E 1 , 6 N g N � _N H y O
D CC Z O �' rn a° U ¢ ¢ S ¢ a OH a° LL IV
��ol u 7 v >� . 566 hh /d h fl
simply be excavated and removed. On the other hand, if the posts were to remain, they
would have to be moved and relocated, possibly compromising the structure.
The plans for the correction of the tower orientation have been reviewed and are
approved. We did not issue them because of the setbacks to the property lines did not
meet the Development Code. They will be issued as soon as this issue has been
resolved so the modifications can take place at one time.
Even though we did approve the plans, perform the inspections, and give you guidance
on the locations of the posts, we did this in error. I have talked with my staff and
informed them of the misinformation they were giving and have instructed them on the
proper application of the code sections. We apologize for any inconvenience or undo
hardship we may have caused you.
I agree with you that this has not had a very expedient resolution, but hopefully we can
all come to an agreement. The minimum setback from the rear and side property lines
for a structure of this nature is five (5) feet. As I related to you during a phone
conversation the City does not intend to require you to shoulder the burden of the
financial cost for the relocation of the posts. Please provide us with an estimate of the
cost of the work and we will forward this to our insurance company for reimbursement.
Also, please summarize the financial impact this has on you so justification to the
insurance company can be submitted.
Please contact out office within ten (10) business days of receipt of this letter so we may
work out the details.
Sincerely,
Gary Lampella
Building Official
c. Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development
Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning Manager
Loreen Mills, Risk Manager
Bob Poskin, Plans Examiner
File
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
LISPS
Permit No. G -10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP +4 in this box •
CITY OF TIGARD ii
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223 + MAY 2 2 2000
J :_
CIDLOLTIGARD
BUILDING DIVISION
., - /1314p 1999 -any{
SENDER: CO ■
• Complete its ivery
item 4 if ResulLLeu VCIIVel lb UebIIeU. f,
• Print your name and address on the reverse C. - •nature
so that we can return the card to you. / ) ❑ Agent
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, X ❑ Addressee
or on the front if space permits.
D. I •t elivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
J7�-K 13 RG1 rcff-e2
i3( S, u/• /10 GT
T /G�rIL 02 472-�3
3. Service Type
it ',Certified Mail ■ xpress Mail
Certified
, "Ieturn Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail v C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number (Cop_y from service label)
j Z 2 2 e3 22 770
PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595 -99 -M -1789
Z 224 832 770
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
w �� No Insurance Coverage Provided.
� Do not use for International Mail (See reverse)
Sent to BRure-HiN
Street & Number
Post Office, Stale, ZIP e , 9 7Z 2 .3
Postage $ • J
Certified Fee ) `
Special Delivery Fee �
Restricted Delivery Fee
rn Return Receipt Showing to . a 5
Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to
..• Date, & Addressee's Addr P •
%6 TOTAL Postage f'??'�1l4
Postmark or D. en d. "`tititi///LLL
ck.u_ r a��' y \y y
S
8 1714si
/3495 5 147 / /r'i LT
Gary Lampella February 28, 2000
City of Tigard Building Department
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: BLTP1999-14444
Dear Mr. Lampella
The above referenced permit for a HAM radio tower should not have been issued
according to Title 18 (the development code for the City of Tigard). The permit was
issued and the tower was subsequently erected and should now be removed because it
violates the development code. Also, the tower was not erected per the approved plan
and may be structurally inadequate.
HAM Radio towers are exempt from the Wireless Communication Facilities code per
section 18.798.030.A.2, therefore section 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) must
apply.
If this tower is considered to be an "Accessory Structure" it is in violation of the
following:
• 18.510.060.4. Lb an accessory structure may not exceed 15 feet in height.
This tower is over 80 feet high.
• 18.510.060.A. Le an accessory structure must maintain a minimum side and rear
yard setback of five feet.
Two of the guy posts are 3 feet from the North property line. These posts are
substantial and of a permanent nature, consisting of a 13 foot long W6x15 I -beam
embedded 6 feet of concrete. Over 29 cubic feet of concrete was required for
each pole.
• Furthermore, freestanding and detached towers must comply with the section
18.510.060.A.3 which states: All freestanding and detached towers, antennas,
wind generating devices and TV receiving dishes, except as otherwise regulated
by Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798), shall have setbacks
equal to or greater than the height of the proposed structure. Suitable protective
anti -climb fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in accordance with Chapter
18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall be provided and maintained around
these structures and accessory attachments.
However, I was told by one City of Tigard employee that since this tower is attached to
the house, it is considered to be part of the house and not an accessory structure. If this is
• the case, then the tower must meet the development standards set forth in table 18.510.2.
The table clearly shows that the maximum height for a structure in zone R -4.5 is 30 feet
and the minimum setback for a side yard is 5 feet.
Td WdbI:SO 000E 8E 'gad ELSE 9bE LOS : 'ON 2N0Hd '9NI `9NI11nSNO0 dN0 : WOZIJ
•
I
In addition to the previous comments, the tower was not built per the engineers design
drawings. The orientation of the triangular tower is twisted 30 degrees counter - clockwise
at the base and where it is attached to the house, but the guy poles are in their designed
locations. Consequently, the guy cables are causing the tower to twist, which will
severely impede the structural integrity of the tower. Please see the attached drawings.
Clearly, this permit was issued in error and should be revoked and the tower should be
made to comply with the City of Tigard Development Code.
Please respond to this letter as soon as possible, if I do not receive a satisfactory response
by March 13, 2000, l will be forced to take legal action.
Sincerely,
Fred C. For .E., P.L.S.
11705 SW Terrace Trails Drive
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 803 -1315
cc: Tim Ramis, City Atty.
Paul Hunt, City Council
Joyce Patton, City Council
Brian Moore, City Council
Ken Scheckla, City Council
Jim Nicoli, Mayor
Henry Sven Lonberg, Jr. RE.
Sue Bums, Atty.
attachment:
Ed WdbI:SO 000E 8E 'gad 6LSE 917E 20S : '0N BNOHd 'JNI AND : WOdJ
FROM : CNF CONSULT I NG , INC. PHONE NO. : 503 246 2579 Feb. 28 2000 05:15PM P3
bpi i7 00 " 66 6/ci vIll rvfr, 1...7 ..5 _jkif r\
0 7 4 i
- 1 ( XA C ( P" .-7 7,
ir AZ CZ. 7 —
1 I
/^/ Tr
N. 1 .' / '
i I
/
i
• o ;
— i i ! /
2 - -.9771 i hi 1-
1 V 0,1 i
1 ! 1
1 , 1
: A
.7 r\Pc7 t
i
&..--_,J .
• 5670 ici - S- <I i\i--
.:,./..<-
10,1 A ( li 2i--) 114 . s..- G'i
kf \ 0- 1
) 1
I P 1
(7k1j-S-1
r-io .1.,
tu.q. . I ,
• _ . . .
- 7, . . 41 • - • • ..,
ilt: I k e : , ._.„:' ''- ' ' ""---, - ' .„ . R - 0. 4 . . . 1 ..
.
. ,
/ - !i L ,
Hai i c. cli- + DoKilar --
( rAi r -, / f .1 - - /.1
., _..
_ .
v . .. .
1 ''• - z- - . ' , .
-'..,*
r,
•
Zlikri\ '",, 7.-- ' i i :V - •-• .. - .
i r
1 1 )cz. x z, . 7 ,
• _
..;:z3_, 1 I ...•
FROM : CNF CONSULTING, INC. PHONE NO. : 503 246 2579 Feb. 28 2000 05:15PM P4
6V b2/6 0 :
rN‘ Q3/{o7lddb' 411- J0 b�F, :7:1.3 Y C)--L ,371 v wo?
.
Q,
\� i J
� ' ` 1 1
J J
� / /
G -- � ; '
• ,
i ' ,
"� l' t
\ 1 ` .
;
0007 /9Z,Z L.✓b7)9I71CI 1 / - S �`
s
f - 666 r d - v I 1
AD '
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM . UP 1 q
132C?S s i✓ /fern CT
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Jim Hendryx
FROM: Gary Lampella
DATE: March 7, 2000
SUBJECT: Ham Radio Tower — 13695 SW 118 Court
Jim, Bob Poskin and I visited the above referenced address on March 2, 2000 to talk with Jack
Brutcher the homeowner. No one was home at the time but we were able to see the tower and we
determined that it was in fact installed in a manner that was inconsistent with the approved
engineered drawings. We have contacted the engineer, Henry Sven Longberg, Jr., and informed
him that the tower was not installed to his specifications. He said it could be remedied but said he
could not address the situation unless the homeowner contacted him. Therefore I have drafted a
letter to the homeowner informing him of our concern and rescinding the final approval. They are
out of town until Wednesday the 8 so I will have Albert Shields deliver the letter to their home
today and attach it to their front door. I will also fax a copy to the engineer.
The other issue regarding this structure will need to be addressed by Dick Bewersdorff. I will work
with him to draft a response addressing the specific complaints.
ellA
CITY OF TIG
OREGON
March 7, 2000
Jack L. Brutcher
13695 SW 118 Court
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Ham Radio Tower
Permit # BUP1999 -00444
Dear Mr. Brutcher,
It has come to our attention that the ham radio tower that was installed at your home
under the above referenced permit was not installed in accordance with the approved
engineered drawings. The tower was turned approximately 30 degrees from what the
approved drawings showed and the tower is not oriented with the guy wires. Due to this
project not being constructed as shown on the approved drawings, the final approval for
this has been rescinded. Please contact us, along with your structural engineer, Henry
Sven Longberg, Jr., as soon as possible so we may work with you to resolve this
situation.
If you have any questions, please call me at (503) 639 -4171.
Sincerely,
Gary Lampella
Building Official
c. Henry Sven Longberg, Jr., P.E.
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
CITY OF OREG
March 10, 2000
Fred C. Ford
11705 SW Terrace Trails Drive
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: Ham Radio Tower
13695 SW 118 Court
B U P 1999 -00444
Dear Mr. Ford,
We are in receipt of your letter dated February 28, 2000 regarding the ham radio tower
installed at the above referenced address. Your specific concerns were that that you
believed it violated the City of Tigard development code and questioned the structural
integrity of the tower. The Building Division has reviewed this project with the approved
plans and Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning Manager has reviewed the development
code application portion.
We have found that you are correct in that the tower was not installed in accordance
with the approved engineered drawings. We have sent a letter to the homeowner, Jack
L. Brutcher, and the structural engineer, Henry Sven Longberg, Jr. informing them of
this improper installation and rescinding the Building Division approval. I've had a phone
conversation with the engineer and appraised him of the situation and he will be working
with the homeowner to correct the installation. They are to contact us with their proposal
so we may review and inspect any modifications to the tower.
You cited section 18.510.060.A.3. This section says that all freestanding and detached
towers, antennas, etc. shall have setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the
proposed structure. The key to the section is that it applies to all freestanding and
detached structures not those attached to a house. Towers and antennas have no
listed height and to our knowledge the City has never limited the height of an antenna
attached to a house. Section 18.730.020.A. excludes projections not used for human
habitation such as spires, aerials, flagpoles and similar objects from the height
limitations of the development code.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
We will keep you updated on the status of this project.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me at (503)
639 -4171.
Sincerely,
Gary Lampella
Building Official
c. Tim Ramis, City Attorney
Paul Hunt, City Council
Joyce Patton, City Council
Brian Moore, City Council
Ken Scheckla, City Council
Jim Nicoli, Mayor
William Monahan, City Manager
James Hendryx, Community Development Director
•
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Gary Lampella
FROM: Bob Posk
DATE: April 5, 2000
Subject: 13695 SW 118 Court — Brutcher - Tower
Fact Sheet:
1. Permit was issued on 10/18/99, based on approval by planning that tower falls under
exemptions for Ham Radio towers Section 18.798.030.
2. Approval was based on plans as submitted for permit showing two (2) 7' 0" high guy post set
back three (3' 0 ") from side yard.
3. 3 separate inspections were completed, (a) miscellaneous, (b) Footing and (c) final.
4. Our utility department lined out the side yard setback for utility location, stating to the applicant
that no construction allowed within the three -foot requirement.
5. On 2/28/200 received complaint letter from Fred Ford that the tower was in violation of zoning,
and was not installed in accordance with approved drawings.
6. 3/7/2000, your memo to Jim Hendryx advised him our site visit established the tower was not
installed in accordance with approved plans.
7. 3/7/2000, Your letter to applicant advising him that the tower was not installed in accordance
with approved drawings, however, there was no notation on the setback violation.
8. 3/10/2000, Your letter to Fred Ford referencing his concerns.
Minutes from R. Poskin conversation with owner on 4/4/200
Mr.Brutcher Maintained that he followed the guidelines told to him by Tigard staff and that he
installed the tower in accordance with those guide lines, with the exception of the placement of
the guy wires. He went on to say that if the set backs were in violation, then he should have been .
made aware of this during the inspection process, not withstanding planning approved them in
principle by stating the tower was exempt under our zoning ordinance.
Page 2
Mr. Brutcher feels the fix should be accomplished by the city, and he will ensure that the change
to make the installation comply will be accomplished by him.
I spoke with the design Engineer on 4/4/2000, Hank Lonberg, asking if the design standards
would be intact if the guy posts were moved two (2) feet back in a straight line, which would
then meet the 5' 0" accessory set back, he stated yes, and he will provide a letter stating same.
A preliminary cost to facilitate the moving of the guy post to include new steel I- Beams, concrete
work, and re- attaching the guy wires are anticipated to be approximately $750.00.
04/05/2000 Activities for Case #: BUP1999 -00444 t
7:36:41 AM
e
Assigned Hold Updated
Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 To Done By Disp. Level By Updated Notes
BUPA005 Application received 10/04/1999 BON RECD No Hold DEB 10/11/1999
BUPA010 Permit created 10/11/1999 DEB DONE No Hold DEB 10/11/1999
BUPA020 Check for parcel restrictions 10/11/1999 DEB DONE No Hold DEB 10/11/1999
BUPA030 Plans routed to PE 10/11/1999 DEB DONE No Hold DEB 10/11/1999
BUPA045 Plans appproved by PE 10/12/1999 RDP DONE No Hold RDP 10/12/1999
• BUPA050 Apprvd plans routed to DSTs 10/12/1999 RDP DONE No Hold RDP 10/12/1999
BUPA800 Misc. Inspection 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 NOTE No Hold RDP 10/12/1999 Inspect tower in accordance
with approved plans and
engineering.
BUPA870 Final Inspection 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 02/02/2000 RB PASS No Hold AKJ 02/02/2000
BUPA055 DST Post- Review Completed 10/18/1999 BON DONE No Hold BON 10/18/1999
BUPA075 Ready to issue 10/18/1999 BON DONE No Hold BON 10/18/1999
BUPA085 (F) Issue building permit 10/18/1999 BON DONE No Hold BON 10/18/1999
BUPA610 Footing lnsp 11/01/1999 11/01/1999 11/01/1999 RB PASS No Hold RB 11/01/1999 As per engineering details.
BUPA950 Case Finaled 02/02/2000 AKJ DONE No Hold AKJ 02/02/2000
Page 1 of 1
f �
May 2, 2000
Mr. Gary Lampella, Building Official
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Or 97223
Re: BUP1999-00444
Dear Mr. Lampella:
This is in regards to your letter of 3 -7 -00 rescinding final approval of our Tower project to support our
Amateur Radio Antenna and also to address further telephone conversations with you regarding moving the guy
posts.
First of all, we submitted a revision for the 30 degree tower change on March 24, 2000 as per your request but
have not received approval that this revision is acceptable by your department. We need to know, in writing, if
this revision is acceptable before we can go any further.
Our engineer, Mr. Lonberg, visited our site and called back with the information that our tower is completely
safe as it now stands. But, we are going to make the small changes submitted so as to carry the maximum
antenna load. The tower now has no twist and is completely straight and upright.
After we submitted the revision request, Bob Poskin telephoned and stated that a new problem had come to
light regarding the tower guy posts, based upon a complaint from our neighbor, Fred Ford. In our original plan,
which YOU APPROVED, the posts for the guy wires were located three (3) feet from our lot line. Now you are
telling us that you gave us wrong information and that we now need to relocate them five (5) feet from our lot
line. How can this be? We have had six (6) inspections and this is the first time that we have been told that the
posts do not meet city code. We placed the posts exactly where your department told us to.
Below are the dates of all actions by the City of Tigard Building Department.
09 -29 -99 We called to get location of utilities. A Tigard Building Department employee came and
marked the sites with spray paint and located all three markings three (3) feet from the
property line and he stated that we needed to locate the posts not closer than three feet
from the property line.
10 -11 -99 Building Plans were approved by Bob Poskin. This included the layout and three (3) feet
set back for the guy posts.
10 -12 -99 A lady called from the Zoning Department wondering why she had received a copy of
Plans as we did not need any approval by the Zoning Department as long as we followed
the plans that we had filed with the City of Tigard Building Department.
12 -01 -99 Rick Bolen approved the First Inspection prior to pouring concrete.
01 -25 -00 Rick Bolen visited our property in regards to a complaint by neighbor, Jerry Swank, that
the set back of the guy posts were wrong. Rick measured and stated that three (3) feet was
the requirement and that we met that requirement. He said that a five (5) feet set back
applied only to a building.
•
Page 2 RE: BUP:1999 -00444
02 -02 -00 Inspector Rick Bolen signed off on Final Inspection of Tower project.
03 -07 -00 A letter was left with our daughter ( we were in AZ )and hand delivered by Albert Shields
regarding the tower being 30 degrees off plan. Nothing in the letter made mention of the
set back changes being needed. Letter was sent by Gary Lampella, Building Official.
03 -31 -00 Mr. Poskin called stating that the poles for the guys must be removed and placed five
(5) feet from the property line. This was based upon a complaint by neighbor Fred Ford,
threatening legal action to the City of Tigard if they did not make us change this.
We followed the plans submitted and approved by your department and located the posts for the guys as we had
been told ( three (3) feet from the property line). Six times an officials from your office visited and 2 times the
inspectors signed off on our project, including the final inspection. We were only following the instructions we
received from the Tigard Building Department. Your employees told us that the guy posts were the same or
similar to fence posts or clothesline posts mounted in six (6) feet of concrete. We were further told that the
posts did not fall under the "accessory structure" definitions and the posts needed to be placed only three (3)
feet from the property line.
Now because another neighbor, Fred Ford ,has sent a letter of complaint and threatened to sue the City of
Tigard if you do not make us move the guy posts, your department wants to back up and reverse their approval.
We followed your instructions and now after we have gone to all the trouble and expense of completing our
project you want to change the rules. This is totally unfair!
Our guy posts are posts, not a structure or accessory structure under your definition 18.120 -133.
Tigard Code # 18.98.010 Projections not used for Human Habitation.
A. Projections such as chimneys, spires, domes, elevator shaft housings, towers, excluding TV
Dishes, Aerials, Flag Poles and other similar objects not used for human occupancy are NOT subject to
the building height limitations of the title.
If a tower were an accessory structure it would not be listed as a projection. The tower is a support structure for
the antenna. Just because the guys are helping to steady the tower in case of severe winds, does not make them
an accessory structure or even a structure. They are only ordinary posts!
In telephone conversations with you, you stated that we could cut the poles off at ground level and leave the six
feet of concrete in the ground. Will you later come back, if someone else complains that the concrete was not
removed, and make us take it all out? When is an inspection final?
Again, these guy poles are NOT accessory structures and should be seen as poles and DO meet the
requirement for a three (3) feet set back as shown in our original plans which were APPROVED by your
department on the Final Inspection. Based upon this alone, we do not feel that the poles should have to be
moved or relocated.
Page 3 RE: BUP1999-00444
We just don't understand the logic behind your request and are requesting a letter in writing with a full
explanation of what you want (we only have a verbal so far) and who is going to assume the cost of this
change? We certainly do not feel that we should have to bear any of the cost.
Also, we want assurance, in writing, that the revision we submitted regarding the 30 degree tower matter will be
approved before we go any further. We are more than willing to work with your department but we need
assurance that you are not going to keep demanding more changes as you change your mind in the future. We
telephoned our attorney and he stated if we had a final approval on our tower that that is all that we needed. We
would like to end these telephone calls and letters but there seems to be no ending from your end. We too
may need to bring our attorney into the picture if we cannot come to a reasonable agreement.
I just made contact with the person who will be working with me on the tower revisions and he is in Texas on a
large job and will contact me in the middle of May when he arrives back into town, to take care of the 30
degree revision, if and when you can assure us that you approve that revision.
And finally, I have just received notification by my Kaiser doctor, Dr. Larry Demas that I have Cancer and will
be undergoing treatment and surgery within the upcoming weeks. I don't know that I will be well enough in the
near future to work on this project full time, as I did before.
Sincerely
l ain
Jack L. Brutcher
13695 SW 118th Court
Tigard, OR 97223 -2873
cc: Tarlow, Jordan & Schrader
cc: Jim Fenstermaker,VP NW Region, Amateur Radio League
v ba a I1 H
.,f � �
9111i'
ja i May 15, 2000
-+
CITY OF TIGARD
Jack L. Brutcher OREGON
13695 SW 118 Court
Tigard, OR 97223 -2873
Re: Ham Radio Tower
13695 SW 118 Court V
Permit # BUP1999 -00444
Dear Mr. Brutcher,
The City is in receipt of your letter Dated May 2, 2000 and we understand your
frustration. It is not the intent of the City to require you to make unnecessary changes to
your radio tower we only want to correct a situation where a permit was issued in error.
The State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code states in Section 106.4.3, "The issuance
of a permit based on plans, specifications and other data shall not prevent the building
official thereafter requiring the correction of errors in such plans, specifications and
other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on thereafter when in
violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction." In Section 106.4.5 it
states, "The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under
the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of
incorrect information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation of any of the
provisions of this code."
The tower, guy wires and support columns are all considered being the structure. Both
the building code and the Tigard Municipal Code have the same definition for a
structure. This reads, "Structure is that which is built or constructed, an edifice or
building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined
together in some definite manner." The guy wires and posts are structural components
of this tower and by definition, are parts of the structure.
Your reference to "Projections not used for human habitation" does not apply in this
case since we have already determined that the tower is exempt from the height
limitation in accordance with Section 18.510.060 Subsection 3. This specific section is
quite beneficial to you in that it allows you to install this tower without the restrictions of
having setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the tower. The issue is that the
posts supporting the tower are encroaching into the required setbacks. The design of
this tower is such that the support posts and guy wires are an integral part of the
structure. Without these components, the design would most likely be inadequate. The
reason we would allow the concrete for the existing posts to remain is they are below
grade and do not constitute a structure. If for any reason, the side or rear yard
easements were required to be utilized for an actual utility easement, the concrete could
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
t'. r '�,a,� - 4 T�y�b al y J- X 3 r r,
V L Ix v s�
be s J a 4
., .T •.. Z < . , i. ��: r ^-y�.y q.,':: w i�^oa, q. ` f k..y j-r:
simply be excavated and removed. On the other hand, if the posts were to remain, they
would have to be moved and relocated, possibly compromising the structure.
The plans for the correction of the tower orientation have been reviewed and are
approved. We did not issue them because of the setbacks to the property lines did not
meet the Development Code. They will be issued as soon as this issue has been
resolved so the modifications can take place at one time. -
Even though we did approve the plans, perform the inspections, and give you guidance
on the locations of the posts, we did this in error. I have talked with my staff and
informed them of the misinformation they were giving and have instructed them on the
proper application of the code sections. We apologize for any inconvenience or undo
hardship we may have caused you.
I agree with you that this has not had a very expedient resolution, but hopefully we can
all come to an agreement. The minimum setback from the rear and side property lines
for a structure of this nature is five (5) feet. As I related to you during a phone
conversation the City does not intend to require you to shoulder the burden of the
financial cost for the relocation of the posts. Please provide us with an estimate of the
cost of the work and we will forward this to our insurance company for reimbursement.
Also, please summarize the financial impact this has on you so justification to the
insurance company can be submitted.
Please contact out office within ten (10) business days of receipt of this letter so we may
work out the details.
Sincerely,
Gary Lampella
Building Official
c. Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development
Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning Manager
Loreen Mills, Risk Manager
Bob Poskin, Plans Examiner
File