Report (42) Parks Estimate Interstate Roofing REV4 3/22/2017
15065 SW 74th Ave. AMS
ALL PARKS RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/16
Q Yes
Project is in River Terrace? 0 No
Note:All Neigh-Imp# Units entries=0 if project is in River Terrace;
All Neigh-RT# Units entries=0 if project is elsewhere in the city.
Former Use
Rate Type Use# ITE Code #Units Rate Parks Amount Description
Parks-Imp 1 710 6.50 $376 $2,444 3,885sf genl office
Parks-Reim 1 710 6.50 $68 $442 3,885sf gent office
Neigh-Imp 1 710 6.50 $0 $0 3,885sf gent office
Parks-Imp 2 150 1.90 $376 $714 2,411sf warehouse
Parks-Reim 2 150 1.90 $68 $129 2,411sf warehouse
Neigh-Imp 2 150 1.90 $0 $0 2,411sf warehouse
Total Parks Former Uses $3,730
Proposed Use
Use# ITE Code #Units Rate Parks Amount Description
Parks-Imp 1 150 4.23 $376 $1,590 10,578sf warehouse
Parks-Reim 1 150 4.23 $68 $288 10,578sf warehouse
Neigh-Imp 1 150 4.23 $0 $0 10,578sf warehouse
Neigh-RT 1 $0 0
Parks-Imp 2 710 14.54 $376 $5,467 8,726sf genl office
Parks-Reim 2 710 14.54 $68 $989 8,726sfgen'office
Neigh-Imp 2 710 14.54 $0 $0 8,726sf gent office
Neigh-RT 2 $0
Total Parks Outside RT Proposed Uses $8,334
Less: Total Parks Outside RT Former Uses $3,730
Total All Parks Outside RT Net Increase $4,604
Total Parks RT Proposed Uses $0
Less: Total Parks RT Former Uses $0
Total All Parks RT Net Increase $0
Total Parks-Imp $3,899
Total Parks-Reim $705
Total Neigh-Imp $0 $4,604
Total Neigh-RT
For Non-Residential Calculations:
Office Use:=600sf/EE; 3.885/600=6.5EEs;8,726/600=14.54EEs.
Warehouse Use: =2,500sf/EE; 2,411/2500=0.96EEs; 2.411+8,167=10,578/2,500=4.23EEs.
Parks-Imp=Parks improvement,Citywide including River Terrace
Parks-Reim=Parks Reimbursement,Citywide including River Terrace
Neigh-Imp=Neighborhood Parks Improvement Outside River Terrace
Neigh-RT=Neighborhood Parks Improvement Inside River Terrace
WYAT T
FIRE PROTECTION, INC.
9095 S.W.Burnham
Tigard,OR 97223
Fire Hydrant Fire Flow
PROJECT Carmichael Pub & Grill
ADDRESS
12740 SW Pacific Hwy.
Tigard OR
CROSS STREET SW McKenzie St.
FLOW
HYDRANT SW Pacific Hwy & SW McKenzie St.
LOCATION
STATIC 98
RESIDUAL 83
GPM 1529.0
GPM AT 20 PSI 11,056.0
DATED 11.03.15 8:00AM
MONITOR
HYDRANT 9655 SW McKenzie St.
LOCATION
STATIC 98
RESIDUAL 96
DATED 11.03.15 8:00 AM
WITNESS
WITNESSED BY
TITLE
ORGANIZATION City of Tigard Public Works
SIGNATURE
PERFORMED BY Jack Gardner
s
_S C7 N / 7/ �Co2b S
Dianna Howse
From: Albert Shields
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 6:36 PM
To: Chris Walker; Dianna Howse; Branden Taggart; Dan Nelson
Cc: Trever Schliesleder; smetzler@interstateroofing.com; Debbie Adamski
Subject: RE:Interstate Roofing - fee deferral - BUP2016-00270
Attachments: TDT Parks Estimates Rev4 - 03-22-2017.pdf
Ah,good catch, Chris. The S-1 occupancy would indeed be the warehouse for 8,167 sf, leaving 8,726 for the office. I've
run Revision 4 of my TDT/Parks analysis and our numbers agree!
I've attached the latest analysis.
Dianna, we're ready to go with these re-revised numbers, as per the plans and application: Total new construction =
16,893 sf; warehouse=8,167 sf;office=8,726 sf. Net total TDT=$75,922; Parks Improvement=$3,899; Parks
Reimbursement=$705. I've entered the new figures in BUP2016-00270 along with the required address fee.
There,that's enough for tonight.
Albert Shields
From: Chris Walker [mailto:chrisw@cidainc.com]
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:40 PM
To:Albert Shields<albert@tigard-or.gov>; Dianna Howse<Dianna@tigard-or.gov>; Branden Taggart<brandent@tigard-
or.gov>; Dan Nelson<DanN@tigard-or.gov>
Cc:Trever Schliesleder<TreverS@yorkeandcurtis.com>; smetzler@interstateroofing.com; Debbie Adamski
<DEBBIE@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: RE: Interstate Roofing-fee deferral-BUP2016-00270
Thanks Albert
I understand that the existing areas were pulled out now. Since the numbers used were originally were from the pre-
app that might have confused me as they weren't as close to what I got to this morning. It was one of those things
where it appeared to me that the 12,600 was still including existing office to remain.
Let me attempt below to use information from the attached scan of the cover sheet that Dianna sent me earlier
(attached).
Using the 16,893 on the building code summary(CS1 sheet) and application as the building size.
Warehouse =8,167 for the S-1 occupancy also shown on CS1. Then apply all the remaining to the Office occupancy.
Office=8,726 SF
Existing warehouse =2411 sf
TDT
Former Uses:
Warehouse= 2.41 x$4147= $9998
Office=$3.89 x$8687=$33,749
Total Former=$43,747
1
Proposed Uses:
Existing Warehouse =2.41 x$4147 =$9998
New Warehouse =8.17 x$4147=$33,869
Office= 8.73 x$8,687 =$75,803
Total= $119,670
Net Increase =$75,923
Parks
Former Uses:
Warehouse= 1.90 x$444(376+68)=$843
Office= 6.5 x$444=$2,886
Total Former=$3729
Proposed Uses:
Warehouse =2,411 SF+8167 SF/2500EEs=4.23 x$444=$1,878
Office=8,726/600 EEs= 14.54 x$444=$6,456
Total=$8,334
Net Increase=$4,605
If this makes sense then we would be using the numbers that are in the application and permit materials to correct the
amount of warehouse and office areas.
Please disregard my math from this morning.
Please let me know if this makes sense and can allow us to proceed with processing the fees associated with the permit
for Deferral of the TDT fees and payment of remainder along with issuance of the permit.
Thank you all for working through this last hurdle I threw out there.
Thanks
(`KRIS WALKER, RA
ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT
CIDA I ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING I PLANNING I INTERIORS
15895 SW 72ND AVE,SUITE 200
PORTLAND,OREGON 97224
PHONE:503.226.1285 x308
FAx:503.226.1670
1110S\\'tu( IDAIN( (>M
\\W\\ C'II)AIN( .COM
........ ... ....
CIDA ON IAC 113( )1y &TWITTER u('II)HN1C
HONORED TO BE NAMED ONE OF OREGON BUSINESS 100 BEST COMPANIES-2017
From: Albert Shields [mailto:albertOtigard-or.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:06 PM
2
To: Chris Walker; Dianna Howse; Branden Taggart; Dan Nelson
Cc: Trever Schliesleder; smetzler@interstateroofing.com; Debbie Adamski
Subject: RE: Interstate Roofing - fee deferral - BUP2016-00270
Chris, we have a fundamental problem: there are 3 completely different sets of numbers for the square footage of the
new building. We need to determine which numbers are correct so that we can properly assess the TDT and Parks
charges and, importantly, apply the right square footage figures in calculating the permit fees.
The numbers in my TDT& Parks Revision 2 analysis showed total new construction to be 18,000 sf. New office was
12,600 sf and new warehouse was 5,400 sf. These came from a Pre-Application Meeting so apparently I didn't get the
word that the size of the proposed building came down.
The size of the new building as shown on the plans and the permit application is 16,893 sf. Assuming that 5,400 sf of
that is new warehouse new office would be 11,493 sf.
But your figures of 8,715 for new office and 5,400 new warehouse give a total size of 14, 115 sf. Where did your 8,715 sf
of new office come from?
I think we have to assume that the figures on the application and plans are correct ... unless there has been a revision we
don't know about. I've attached copies of Revision 3 of the TDT and Parks analysis using the figures from the application
and plans.
To tie in with your calculations we have to use the plans and application figure of 11,493 sf of new office rather than
your 8,715 sf. 11.492 x$8,687=$99,840, not the$41,958 you show.
To your concern about making sure that you get credit for the existing structures,that is why both the 3,885 sf office
space to be demo'ed and the 2,411 sf of existing warehouse are shown under Former Use,totaling$43,747,and why
that figure is subtracted from the total of all proposed uses, $132,232,to yield $88,484 as your net TDT charge. The
purpose of doing the calculations this way is to make it abundantly clear just what the applicant is getting credit for and
that is everything that is existing.
Similarly, under Parks,the current Parks charges for each existing use are calculated and added up and that total is
subtracted from the total figure for proposed uses to get a net increase figure. You are right,the figures in the number
of units column use 3 different formats, displaying the figures with zero, one,or two decimal places. I've made the
format consistent for this latest analysis but that won't affect the end results because Excel applies the "true"value to
multiple decimal places in its calculations and does not apply rounded-off numbers. But I have increased the number of
employees for the new warehouse from 3.00 to 3.12: apparently I had done that rounding.
Please let us know whether the intended size of the new building is 16,893 sf as the plans have it or 14,115 sf as your
new figures suggest. If the latter, a revised permit application and revised plans will be needed.
Albert Shields
From:Chris Walker[mailto:chrisw@cidainc.com]
Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:23 AM
To:Albert Shields<albert@tigard-or.gov>; Dianna Howse<Dianna@tigard-or.gov>; Branden Taggart<brandentC@tigard-
o r.gov>
Cc:Trever Schliesleder<TreverS@vorkeandcurtis.com>; smetzler@interstateroofing.com; Debbie Adamski
3
<DEBBIE@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: RE: Interstate Roofing-fee deferral- BUP2016-00270
Good Morning
Thank you for clarifying that it is the TDT the fee that can be deferred. I do have some questions about the square
footages used. I understand that a lot of Square Foot numbers are provided for various calculations so I want to clarify
because I think your number for final square footage is too high. I believe that this might have to do with the existing
office (3,885 sf) and timing of that demo.
By my review we get credits for what is existing. But should square footage that is removed (i.e.the 3885 sf of office)
not even show up? Or when we apply for the demo of that office prior to final occupancy,will we receive the removed
office amount back. ($33,749)
It appears the existing warehouse to remain and the existing office to be removed are treated the same way in the
calculation.
Shouldn't we be looking at this as the increase in square footage for application of fees? The existing warehouse to
remain is a wash so it isn't included.
Warehouse increases by the 5,400 SF($22,394 TDT).
There is 8715 sf of new office—3885 of existing to be removed =4,830 SF increase ($41,958 TDT)
The TDT due would then be $64,352
I just want to make sure that as credits are applied we get them tracked properly.
The same question would apply to the Parks SDC. Should this be looked at the new square footage as what the fee is
assessed against. In addition, I noticed that for the existing uses those rounded to the decimal but the new is rounded
to the whole number. Shouldn't this be consistent?
New warehouse= 5400 SF/2,500 EE =2.16 EEs @ $444(imp+reim)=$959
New office(8715—3885) =4830 SF/600 EE=8.1 EEs @ $444(imp+reim)=$3,596
Total Parks=$4,555
I understand if the existing office credits come off when that building is demolished. We just want to make sure that
when that Square Footage that we are being assessed a tax on is removed that the owner knows where/how that
translates to credit/reimbursement of the fees noted.
Thanks
( IIRIS WU A► K, R\
ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT
CIDA I ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING I PLANNING I INTERIORS
15895 SW 72ND AVE,SUITE 200
PORTLAND,OREGON 97224
PHONE:503.226.1285 x308
FAX:503.226.1670
t't'\r Fv €'t1) S,I •,t" ( t>N1
4
•
•
CIDA ON I ,t 1 1,i i; &TWITTER «•_lir
HONORED TO BE NAMED ONE OF OREGON BUSINESS 100 BEST COMPANIES-2017
From: Albert Shields [mailto:albert@tigard-or.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:48 PM
To: Chris Walker; Dianna Howse; Branden Taggart
Cc: Trever Schliesleder; smetzler@interstateroofing.com; Debbie Adamski
Subject: RE: Interstate Roofing -fee deferral - BUP2016-00270
Chris ...the TDT provides that for all projects whose TDT charge is greater than that for a single family home actual
payment of the TDT can be deferred until occupancy/building final. To do this all that is necessary is for someone to sign
the attached deferral request form and turn it in when you come to pick up your permits. Do confirm with Dianna or
Branden (Debbie will be out tomorrow)that you wish to defer so that they can work up the total charges that will be
due with the building permit.
As you can see from the attached TDT and Parks estimate forms,the total amount of TDT, all of which can be deferred,
is$98,101.00 which should correspond to figures you've seen before. The total Parks SDC charges are$6,926.00 which
will be due at permit issuance. Please note that this is$844.00 less than what may have been quoted to you before; I
reworked the numbers this evening and corrected an error. [Dianna/Branden—I changed the fees in BUP2016-00270.]
I'll be in a series of meetings tomorrow and will be hard to reach until late in the afternoon but leave me an email if you
have questions and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
I don't know whether Debbie was able to give you a figure for what other fees to plan for but either Dianna or Branden
will be able to work up total permit costs for you.
Albert Shields
From:Chris Walker[mailto:chrisw@cidainc.com]
Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:01 PM
To: Debbie Adamski<DEBBIE@tigard-or.gov>;Albert Shields<albert@tigard-or.gov>
Cc:Trever Schliesleder<TreverS@yorkeandcurtis.com>;smetzler@interstateroofing.com
Subject: Interstate Roofing-fee deferral
Debbie and Albert
I understand that after our pre-con meeting today there was a conversation about the fees due and that we can apply
for a fee deferral. We need confirmation on that process and how much of the fees due can/will be deferred. Do we
need to pay a portion?
Please let us know so that we can get the proper paperwork and/or check to the city tomorrow to get our permits
picked up.
Thank you!
ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT
CIDA I ARCHITECTURE I ENGINEERING I PLANNING I INTERIORS
15895 SW 72ND AYE,SUITE 200
5
•
PORTLAND,OREGON 97224
PHONE:503.226.1285 x308
FAX:503.226.1670
c 1ik1SGi ,: c fl) iii .c c1\1
v1I)AI1,4c'.L't i
CIDA ON I A( t.I3&)( &TWITTER;,{'
s2r.s.omEASttes
DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule."
6