MMD1999-00024 MMD1999 00024
PIERCE MINOR
MODIFICATION
IA i4 P qqq-o00,914
May 12, 1999 joya __j
CITY OF TIGARD
Steve Pierce
12525.SW68t Avenue OREGON
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Pierce:
This letter is in response to your request for Minor Modification approval to modify the site plan (SDR 87-21)
for the existing building located at 12525 SW 68th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AA tax lot 8600.
This property is zoned Mixed Use Employment (MUE) within the Tigard Triangle Overlay. The present use
of the site is listed as a permitted use for this zoning district. The requested modification is to re-locate the
existing building on the same site so that the length of the building is running east/west instead of
north/south. The Tigard Triangle has specific design standards. While this modification may not meet all of
the standards, the proposal will bring the site more into conformity by bringing_the building up to within 10
feet of the property line and eliminating parking in front of the building. The Tigard Community Development
Code, Site Development Review Section, states: "if the requested modification meets any of the major
modification criteria, the request shall be reviewed as a new Site Development Review application."
Section 18.360.050(B)states that the Director shall determine that a major modification(s)will result if one
(1) or more of the following changes are proposed:
1. An increase in dwelling unit density, or lot coverage for residential development. The
proposal does not involve a residential development, therefore, this standard does not apply.
2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. This criterion is not
applicable, as this request does not involve a residential development.
3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765. The
change is to the location of a building only, and will not increase the size of the building itself,
therefore no additional parking is required. The applicant is proposing to add one additional
parking space to the site, however because this space is not required as a result of this
modification, this still meets the standards.
4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform
Building Code. No change in the structure of the building is proposed.
5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. No change in the height
of the building is proposed.
6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off-site traffic
would be affected. The change in the location of the building will not require a change in
accessways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected.
7. An increase in vehicular traffic to, and from the site, and the increase can be expected to
exceed 100 vehicles per day. The request does not involve an increase in building size or
change in use, therefore no additional traffic will be generated.
8. An Ii�n�crease in the floor darea5�prooposed fore a non-residential use by more than 10 percent
13125 SV�Hall uvcr, i�ard FOR 97223e(50r30j 639-41/1 [DU (503jncroas n floor area is proposed.
684-2772 Page 1 of 2
L
9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space which
reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open
space area by more than 10 percent. There is no area reserved for common open space,
therefore, this standard does not apply.
10. A reduction of project amenities (Recreational facilities, Screening; and/or, Landscaping
provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10 percent where
specified in the site plan: a. recreational facilities; b. Screening; and/or c. Landscaping
provisions. There are no specific project amenities required or proposed on the original site plan,
however, there are several trees which will need to be removed to accommodate the relocated
building. Because trees would normally be required to be mitigated as part of a Site Development
Review, any trees removed over 12 inches caliper must be mitigated in accordance with Section
18.790.030 and 18.790.060.D. The applicant must also provide calculations confirming that the
revised site will continue to provide 15% landscaping.
11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of Site Development Review approval
which are not the subject of B. 1 through 10 above. There were no conditions specified in the
original Site Development Review that are being violated as part of this modification.
This request is determined to be a minor modification to an existing site. The Director's designee has
determined that the proposed minor modification of this existing site will continue to promote the general
welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental, nor injurious to surrounding properties provided
that, development which occurs after this decision complies with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.
THIS REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION APPROVAL HAS BEEN APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Submit a tree removal plan showing the location and size of all trees on the site.
2. Provide mitigation for any trees over 12 inches caliper removed as a result of this modification.
Mitigation shall be in accordance with Section 18.790.030 and 18.790.060.D of the Tigard
Development Code.
3. Submit calculations confirming that the landscaping will continue to be 15% of the site.
Upon meeting the above conditions, staff will indicate that the modification is approved and building permits
may be obtained. In accordance with Section 18.360.030.C, the approval period for this modification is 1-1/2
years. If the conditions have not been met and substantial construction begun, this modification approval
will be void. If you need additional information or have any questions, please call me at (503) 639-4171.
Sincerely,
7//-"
Julia Powell Hajduk
Associate Planner
is\cu rpl n\J u l i a\m i n mod\S teve P i e rce.doc
c: 1999 Planning correspondence file
'SDR 87-21 Land use file (microfilm)
Gus Duenas, City Engineer
Page 2 of 2
CRAIG JULINSUN
R C U I T EC T
■ ■ slims IEM ■ O ■ ■
1 6 5 2 1 S E G O R D O N S T R E E T
M I L W A U K I E , O R E G O N 9 7 2 6 7
T E L / F A X 5 0 3 - 6 5 2 - 2 1 5 6
Attn. Julia Hajduk May,4 1999
City of Tigard, Oregon
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Julia,
This letter is being submitted request your approval for a minor modification to
the use of an existing commercial property, as allowed under section 1.360.060
of the current Title 18 Development Code for the City of Tigard. The owner has
been in operation at this location for 19 years.
Owner: Steve Pierce Phone: 639-9523
12525 S.W. 68TH Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA08600
Map: 2S 1 1AA
Attached are copies of the existing and proposed site plans. The site is almost
level with a mean elevation of 260'.
As indicated on the plans, we are proposing to relocate the existing office
building to a new location at the northeast corner of the same property. Current
code setbacks have been observed. By doing so, we will be able to develop a
new parking lot which will provide, proper ADA access, more parking spaces and
better circulation.
The owner would appreciate your prompt attention in this matter. Please call
me if you have any questions.
Thank you:
un .
Cr, g Johnson
RECEIVED
MAY 0 7 1999 c—RAIC JOHNSON
R C LI I T E C T
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT II II 11 III IM IN II NI II II II
1 6 5 2 1 S E G O R D O N S T R E E T
M I L W A U K I E O R E G O N 9 7 2 6 7
T E L / F A X 5 0 3 - 6 5 2 - 2 1 5 6
Attn. Julia Hajduk May,7 1999
City of Tigard, Oregon
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Julia,
Attached are (3) copies of a revised PS-1 drawing. Please replace the ones
dated 5/4/99 with these new ones dated 5/7/99. Upon review of the cities new
ordinance, I noticed a few minor changes. I hope this has not presented a
problem.
The owner would appreciate your prompt attention in this matter. Please call
me if you have any questions.
Thank you:
Craig Johnson
` -
CITY OF TIG#RD - RECEIPT OF PAYMENT RECEIPT NO. x99-315197
CHECK AMOUNT : 100. 00
CREDIT CARD : 0. 00
CHANGE : 0. 00
NAME : PACIFIC CHRISTIAN CASH AMOUNT : 0. 00
ADDRESS' : COUNSELING CENTER INC PAYMENT DATE : 05/07/99
12525 SW 68TH AVE SUBDIVISION :
T1GARD, OR 97223-
PURPOSE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT PAID PURPOSE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT PAID
/
__ ____-_ -_____--_'___'
LAND USE APPL 100. 00
4IN[}R MODIFICATION S!}/e. Z��- � CHECK #4384
'QTAL AMOUNT PAID - - - -> 100. 00
U L v /
19'-6' '-®� fe gMM
Yy
SDR 5. c,,< 5
o
V� o
16,515 SF. .3a Ac.
25,290 SF. • 9B Ac.
v —
1105'
1405'
• SCHEME - 1
3V-0' P3i1'E-'
t�S-
1
CRAIG J O T i N S O N PORTLAND C -�R STOA�1 SZ
• • ■ ■ • • • • • • •, • • i
.00T-26-99 11 : 19 AM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 01
C::R/\IC JOI INSON
A R C H I T E C T
■
• • • • • • • • • . . . .
1 6 5 2 1 S E G O R D O N S T R E E T
M I L W A U K I E , O R E G O N 9 7 2 6 7
TEL.503-652.2156 / FAX 503-786-0913
Fax
To: Julia Hajduk From: Craig Johnson
Fax: 684-7297 Pages: 2
Phone: 639-4171 Date: 10/26/99
Rio: New Site Scheme-8 CC:
For Review 21 Please Comment D Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
• Comments. OK. Scheme-8, I think this will fit the triangle standards. Let me know what you think.
Thank you
- .00T-26-99 11 :20 AM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 02
BEVELAND St.
1\ 2
/ / / ii. . ,
,/ %,/ / limo /f/
b * 24'-0' �, % /' ' / / / .,.{. ,/ /
in 1
im
,// f ,j: / 74'-10' / ' ®'
/` / /
� — ,
/ U"'. /
4
6 RJLL 61ZE sPAcES---_-. II
-1-.
• . ....
POSSIBLE SWALE
LOCATION
-- - --..
1405'
1 SCHEME - 8
P-8 1' = 30'-0' PSITE-8
CRAIG J O u N S O N PACfr9C CHRISTIAN 62P6-s
. 6 . • . . • • . . • . . . COUNSELING CENTER P - 8
t • • f R I. I. • O o D O r ®����� �®
Oil ,- .a A u r I ■, o h • • o r 2 2 2 2 2 10/26/99
T ■ L. / r • r • ■ • - • • a - a 1 • •
OC:T-29-99 03 :08 PM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 01
JOIINSON
A R C H I T E C T
■ • • • • • rs • • • • • • •
1 6 5 2 1 SE G O R D O N S T R E E T
M I L W A U K I E , OREGON 9 7 2 6 7
1EL.503-652-2156 / FAX 503-786-0913
Fax
To: Julia Hajduk From Craig Johnson
Fax: 684-7297 Pages: 2
PhOee: 639-4171 cote: 10/29/99
•
Re: New Site Scheme-8 CC:
For Review Cd Please Comment ❑ Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
• Comments. Julia please give me a call. I really cannot proceed until I resolve the basic layout.
Thank you
OCT-29-99 03 :08 PM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 02
BEVELAND St.
/, '� RELOCATED;
/`f. ''�, m.DPIQ i'` /
/ ! ✓ / •/ .' 'f,./ _
•1
N
/ / f Z�'T®1 tr-Ar 1
ur
;.�,..�.
1\,..........},..L.. /
\\\N„.......___
,........)
i HILL 6IZF SPACES-----,• I
r
F 5&ISLE SWALE
1 LOCATION
140.5'
n 1 SCHEME - 8
P-8 / I' = 30'-0' P5ITE-8
CRAIG J O U N S O N PACIFIC CHRISTIAN 162 '8
i■ i
a. NOV-08-99 02 :33 PM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 01
C ::RAKC ; JC l INS()N
A R C H I T E C T
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1 6 5 2 1 S E G O R D O N S T R E E T
N I L W A U X I E . O R E G O N 9 7 2 6 7
TEL.503-652-2156 / fAX 503-786-0913
Fax
To: Julia Hajduk From: Craig Johnson
Fax 684-7297 Pages: 414
Phone: 639-4171 Date: 11/08/99
Re: Meeting Notes CC: Dr. Peirce& Brian Rager
For Review CD Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
• Comments. Let me know if you disagree with anything.
Thank you
• NOV-08-99 02 :34 PM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 02
c ,Rn�c , J( )IINSON
A R C I I I T E C T
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ! t« ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
1 6 5 2 1 S E G O R D O N S T R E E T
M I L W A U K 1 E , O R E G O N 9 7 2 6 7
TE1.503-652-2156 / FAX 503-786-0913
Meeting Notes
11:00 a m, November 3, 1999
Meeting to discuss site issues for the Pacific Christian Counseling Center
SDR submittal
Persons present: Julia Hajduk — City of Tigard Associate Planner, Brian Rager,
P.E — City of Tigard Development Review Engineer, and Craig Johnson -
Architect
By: Craig Johnson
The following items were discussed:
1. The issue of storm drainage was brought up. I noted that the nearest catch
basin was on the S.E corner of Beveland and 70TH. According to sheet P5 of
"69w Avenue L.I.D. Street & Utility Improvements" prepared by DeHaas &
Assoc. the invert elevation of that storm line is 456.00'. Our site slopes away
from this catch basin, with the low point being around 248'. This is approx.
150" from the catch basin which will result in inadequate fall.
I brought up the possibility of going south in the existing ditch in the 70Th
Street ROW, to the outlet at Hampton St.. Brian noted that this exist. Ditch is
inadequate to add our drainage to. It also stops short of our site by about 75'.
I discussed the possibility of laying a new storm line to Hampton , designed
to City standards.
Brian suggested that we might look at improving the "ditch" from Hampton to
our property to accommodate the existing water being drained into it as well
as our own. We must prove that it will drain in order for him to find it
acceptable. He further noted that if we can make it work, we will need to
direct our proposed design to him as part of the SDR submittal.
2. The sanitary line will still need to be taken down Beveland St. to the existing
line near 72nd.
3. Building and parking lot location.
A. While reviewing "Scheme-8" Julia noted that Tigard Triangle standards
require that new buildings be located along the street, We discussed
moving the "relocated building." back along Beveland.
B. Since re-dedication of the "70TH Avenue vacated land" is a requirement for
Design Review approval, Brian felt that we shouldn't build an access drive
within the new ROW. We discussed two possible scenarios.
NOV-08-99 02 :35 PM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 03
1. Build a half-street improvement on the 30' of re-dedicated 70TH street,
to standards, from Beveland to our South property line. This would
include 18' of roadway, a sidewalk and planter strip. The parking lot
could then be located on the southern portion of the property, with
access from the new half street. Julia noted that any trees removed
within the ROW would need to be accounted for and mitigated.
2. Site access could occur from Beveland on the east side of our
frontage. A drive would run to a parking lot to the south end of the
property again. No work would occur within the ROW of 70Th with this
scheme.
3. In both cases, the parking must occur on the southern portion of the
property, which is also the lowest area, where a water quality swale
was proposed. Brian and Julia agreed that this creates a hardship, and
will allow the owner to pay a fee in lieu of building a water quality
swale.
C. Julia noticed that Scheme-8 had a spread of parking spaces of one HC, 5
full size and 6 compact spaces. She informed me that the HC space does
not count as a full sized space in that spread. Compact total cannot
exceed 50% of the full sized count.
D. Julia noted also that no more than 40% of the site may be covered with
buildings.
E. Julia indicated that an Arborist should inventory trees at this time. Any
trees found to be hazardous to the existing building can be removed as
part of the development and not be included in the mitigation calculations.
F. I am including a copy of Scheme-9 with these notes. It reflects the above
mentioned items.
If you find anything in this report that is in error, please notify me and I will make
corrections.
End of meeting notes
Cc:Dr. Steven Peirce
Julia hajduk
Brian Rager,P.E.
1 •NQV-08-99 02 :35 PM CRAIG JOHNSON ARCHITECT 5037860913 P. 04
BEVELAND St.
______ __ .c__,...7,
`f` ,�;, ` / ; f
/
,/ ,./. /// �' fj f, //,' ;' !/./ '
• ./ ' 'l
Ny
.0 f/ /'�/ L
f ., ;/
f;; ,
/
2 '//.
jirr.�wrr'. �� rrrrrr
N--�
1 FULL SIZE SPACES
1 lCO, 1FACT SPACES 13 F 1FA_AARfaC
Ir�
1405'
0 SCHEME - 9
I. = 30'-0' PSITE-9
CRAIG J 01I N S U N PACIFIC CHRISTIAN 82PS
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •s i
JOHNSON
A R C L I I T L C T RECEIVED PLANNING
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
16521 SE GORDON STREET NOV 241999
M I L W A U K I E , O R E G O N 9 7 2 6 7
TEL.503-652-2156 / FAX 503-786-0913
CITY OF TIGARD
Julia Hajduk —Associate Planner
City of Tigard, Oregon
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
November 22, 1999
Re: Dr. Steve Peirce Design Review Submittal
Dear Julia,
Dr. Peirce is in the process of retaining William Owen, an arborist, for the
purpose of preparing a tree plan for his property located at 12560 S.W. 170TH
Ave. This is required to generate a tree mitigation plan for his proposed
development. Mr. Owen spoke to you last week and contacted me afterwards
with some questions regarding trees within the presently vacated Right of Way
(ROW) for 70TH Ave. He had the impression that the trees within the 70TH Ave
ROW would need to be accounted for and perhaps mitigated, resulting in
increased costs for the owner.
I had told him that, we plan to use this ROW to route storm water from the
South West corner of the property, to the main storm line in Hampton St. He was
looking for clarification, as to the extent of his tree inventory, so that he could
estimate a fee for his services.
Dr. Peirce purchased this property earlier this year (TL No. 2S101AA0901) with
the intent to develop it into a commercial office facility. A 30' strip of the land he
purchased, is a vacated portion of 70TH Ave. (88-25357).
At his pre-application meeting for design review, one of the conditions required
for approval was that he re-dedicate this vacated portion of 70TH Ave , back to
the city. This was land, which he had just purchased. There are no plans at this
time for any improvements to 70TH Ave. in this area. But the city feels that it is
inevitable in the not too distant future.
This "vacated" piece of land also contains a 15' "Public Utility Easement"
running the length of Dr. Peirce's property and 30' beyond into the property to the
South.
In one of my discussions with you, it was noted that, if any trees within the
public ROW, was to be removed as a result of his development, they would need
to be included in the mitigation formula for his property. When I asked you about
the "Public Utility Easement" you indicated that this would require further
research on your part, as there is not a written policy on trees within these areas.
I find the situation confusing. You have indicated to me that, if the City proceeds
with improvements of 70TH Ave., they will not be mitigating any trees, which they
remove within the ROW. My client however, not only must forfeit his land to the
City for a future road, but he must also be held accountable for any trees which
i.
he may damage in the process of installing utilities deemed necessary for serving
his development within this new ROW. What about the Public Utility Easement, I
am told that he may be required to mitigate trees there as well? It has always
been my understanding that utility easements were to provide reasonable access
for utility distribution. I fail to see how the City can put trees before utilities in a
dedicated easement.
As a final note, the city requirement for re-dedication of this property is a clear
indication of their intent to improve 70TH Ave., therefor the fate of the trees within
this ROW is already a foregone conclusion.
I request that you reconsider this matter, and allow my client to install utilities
within this right of way, without being held responsible to account for and mitigate
existing trees along the route.
Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated.
Sincq ely,
Zi., /._—_______
C aig Johnson
Architect