The URL can be used to link to this page

Hearings Officer Packet - 01/14/2002CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development Shaping A Better Community C TY OF T GARD HEAR NGS OFF CER MONDAY -JANUARY 14,2002 - 7:00 PM AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00012 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2001-00008 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2001-00027 REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a Daycare Center within the Light- Industrial zoning district. The 100-year floodplain and floodway encompasses a portion of the site that is proposed to be developed. The applicant has also requested a Lot Line Adjustment between two lots to accommodate the use. LOCATION: The project is located at the corner of SW Bonita Road and SW Milton Court. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map No. 2S112AB, Tax Lots 1900 and 1901. ZONING DESIGNATION: I-L: Light Industrial District. The I-L zoning district provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses including industrial service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.530, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA • CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER JANUARY 14, 2002 - 7:00 PM TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 • Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item must sign-in on the appropriate sign-in sheets. PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange. for the following services: ➢ Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ➢ Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 2 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 0 • AGENDA ITEM NO. / Depending 'on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: JANUARY 14, 2002 FILE NAME: LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001.00012 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2001-00008 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2001.00027 APPLICANT: Jim Waddle OWNER: Tri-County Industrial Park, Inc. Waddle Design/Planning/Architecture 301 NW Murray Blvd. 1927 NW Kearney Street Portland, OR 97229 Portland, OR 97209 REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a Daycare Center within the Light- Industrial zoning district. The 100-year floodplain and floodway encompasses a portion of the site that is proposed to be developed. The applicant has also requested a Lot Line Adjustment between two lots to accommodate the use. LOCATION: The project is located at the corner of SW Bonita Road and SW Milton Court. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map No. 2S112AB, Tax Lots 1900 and 1901. ZONING DESIGNATION: I-L: Light Industrial District. The I-L zoning district provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses including industrial service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.530, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATED DIRECTLY ABOVE. 0' ASENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 (PEE ~ OF ! 1 AE: JANUARY 74, 2002 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ITOII1 - S-fz j olel/ I q -Lo ( tMa P I . Lcaw D Sw~,-j G -17034 - 74k' so3 - 633 107-6 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ~jVVL &CQCA~~~l( Z83Ts Sw (9 ra -~c~i L~ i Lc~ ®swey~, y.7O3S 'ZVY-3Fi-1j Name Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 7~gco~ ~ C1-,s.,~ IIl?Ic' S:w. S-/SP4"-e- -rlGR2Y3 . 0,zee,*h. 17 22 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. r Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. F Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. r Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 Legal NOtIC@R_'T 9 9 8 0 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising Zity of Tigard ' ❑ Tearsheet Notice 131.25 Sid I-mall Blvd. ~Iigard , Or. egon 97223 ' ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) r 1, Kni_.hV SnUi9p being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the 'T' irfa rd -'T„ n 1 at i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at IPi anrrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the Piihl i e- TTaari nrT/S,T)R2001 -00012 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 011E successive and consecutive in the following issues: December 27,2001 . t J<al-Q I- Al y%-C j Q111- Subscribed and sworn to eforee me this 2 7th- J A y n f n-~c-ember , 2 0 0 1 OFFICIAL SEAL W otary Public for Oregon ROBIN A BURGESS NOTARY ''UBLIOREGON 0 COMMISSION N4O. 344589 My Commission Expires: My COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2005 AFFIDAVIT - _ ' - • The f6l owing will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday, January 14, 2002 at 7:00 p.m at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.- Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing' on this matter will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and the rules of procedures adopted- by the Hearings Officer. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the' close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue and failure to specify the criterion from the Community' Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is: directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be 'obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Brad Kilby) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. A copy, of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing and copies for all: items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00012/ SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 2001-00008 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2001-00027 > LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL < REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a Daycare Center within the Light-Industrial zoning district. The 100-year floodplain and floodway encompasses a portion of the site that is proposed to be developed. The applicant has also requested a Lot Line Adjustment between two lots to accommodate the use. LOCATION: The project is located at the corner of,SW Bonita Road and SW Milton Court. Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S 112AB, Tax Lots 1900 and 1901. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light-Industrial ZONE: I-L: Light Industrial District. The I-L zoning district provides- appropriate locations for general industrial uses including industrial service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.530, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. _ ~ ~ SD12001.00012 - _ - - ~ • 5112001.00011 tIlS20f I-1102 LIMING REE DAY SCHOOL I - - T_ . TT9980 - Publish December 27, 2001. • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Tri-County Industrial Park for ) F I N A L O R D E R Site Development and Sensitive Lands reviews and a lot line ) SDR 2001-00012 adjustment for a Learning Tree day care center at the corner ) SLR 2001-00008 of SW Bonita Rd. and SW Milton Ct. in the City of Tigard ) MIS 2001-00027 A. SUMMARY 1. This final order concerns an application by Tri-County Industrial Park (the "applicant") for Site Development and Sensitive Lands reviews and a lot line adjustment for a Learning Tree day care center on a roughly 2.5-acre parcel north and east of the Bonita Community Church in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Bonita Road and Milton Court; also known as tax lots 01900, 01901 and 0200, WCTM 2S 112AB (the "site"). a. The applicant proposes to adjust the between the two legal lots that constitute the site to create lots containing roughly 80,130 square feet and 29,600 (MIS 2001-00027). Both proposed adjusted lots will comply with dimensional requirements of the I-L (Light Industrial) zone and with the other applicable standards of the CDC. The applicant does not propose to develop the larger of the adjusted lots at this time. b. The applicant proposes to develop the smaller of the two adjusted lots for the day care center (SDR 2001-00012). The proposed structure and associated development will or can comply with applicable standards of the Tigard Community Development Code ("CDC"). c. A portion of the access for the day care center will cross a portion of the 100-year flood plain; therefore a sensitive lands review is required for that crossing (SLR 2001-00008). Although the applicant did not introduce substantial evidence that the proposed development of the flood plain will comply with applicable standards, the applicant argued that it is feasible to do so before development occurs. 2. At the public hearing in this matter, City staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. See the Staff Report dated January 3, 2002 (the Staff Report). The applicant accepted the staff recommendations as amended at the hearing and waived its right to have the record held open for final argument. Other than relevant service providers and public agency staff, no one testified orally or in writing with objections or concerns. The hearings officer closed the record at the conclusion of the hearing. 3. For the reasons provided and referenced in this final order, the hearings officer approves the applications, subject to the conditions recommended by City staff with certain changes described more herein. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") held a duly noticed public hearing on January 14, 2002 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The record includes a witness list, materials in the casefile as of the close of the hearing, and an audio record of the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected relevant testimony offered at the hearing. a. City planner Brad Kilby summarized the proposed development, the applicable approval standards, the Staff Report and recommended conditions of approval. b. City engineer Brian Rager testified that the applicant did not agree to grant an easement to the church adjoining the site to allow the church to use the driveway on the site for access to the church, and the CDC does not authorize the City to require the applicant grant such an easement. Therefore he recommended the hearings officer delete recommended condition of approval 16, which required the applicant to grant such an easement. c. Jack Steiger testified for the applicant. He introduced a letter in which he responded to concerns by the City Property Manager that the proposed outdoor play area for the day care center is too close to the railroad tracks that adjoin the east edge of the site. Summarizing the letter, he testified there is a very small chance that a train would leave the tracks at the site frontage, because the speed limit for trains in that section of track is 25 miles per hour, the track is relatively straight, the track is a constructed of continuously welded rails and the rail crossing at Bonita Road is a recently improved, state-of-the-art crossing. If a train did leave the track, based on the history of such incidents, train cars are likely to remain within 20 feet of the track. The closest point of the proposed playground is 38 feet from the track and extends to 60 feet from the track. Therefore even if a train accident occurs abutting the site, there is a "very, very slim chance" that it would endanger children playing in the outdoor play area of the day care center. He testified the applicant accepts the Staff Report and the recommended conditions with the amendment proposed by Mr. Rager and that there is ample room to meet parking, pedestrian and landscaping, requirements as provided in those conditions. He also waived the applicant's right to submit a closing written argument after the public hearing. Proposed day care center operator Jim Blackwell also appeared but did not offer any testimony. d. (Pastor) George Crisman of the adjoining church appeared and testified about concerns, including a concern about odors he believes emanate from the nearby CleanWaterServices ("CWS") sanitary sewer trunk line, a concern about increased storm water drainage toward the church building, and the relatively high volume of vehicular traffic on Bonita Road. He testified that traffic poses a safety hazard for the two to three dozen children who walk to the church for Wednesday and Saturday activities, and that the traffic will pose an obstacle for day care patrons, too. He discussed parking and access at the church, describing how access is provided to the church by means of a (nonconforming) driveway to Bonita Road, and that two or three vehicles can park on the concrete driveway behind the church. Other church-bound vehicles park on surrounding streets. Mr. Rager responded to the issue of the odor from the sewer trunk line to the effect that CWS can do little about the odor. 2. The hearings officer expressed concern about the lack of substantial evidence in the record to show that development of the proposed access across a portion of the flood plain would comply with the applicable provisions of CDC 18.775.070.B(1) or (3). Given that the application was subject to hearings officer review only because of development in the flood plain, the applicant should have been required to provide such evidence for the application to be complete. However, in this case, because only a small section of the flood plain is involved and the applicant does not propose any structures or fill in or adjoining the flood plain, the hearings officer concluded it was sufficient to delegate to the Director the responsibility for determining that the applicant will comply with CDC 18.775.070.B(1) or (3) before any site work. See proposed condition of approval 21. The hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing and announced his intention to approve the applications subject to the conditions recommended by City staff with the amendment offered at the hearing. SDR 2001-00012, SLR 2001-00008 Hearings Officer Final Order and MIS 2001-00027 (Learning Tree day care) Page 2 C. DISCUSSION City staff recommended approval of the application based on findings and conclusions and subject to conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report with one amendment. The applicant accepted those conditions as amended. No one disputed the findings in the Staff Report. The hearings officer agrees with those findings, conclusions and conditions as amended by the discussion of testimony above, and adopts the affirmative findings in the Staff Report as support for this Final Order. D. CONCLUSION The hearings officer concludes that the Site Development Review, Sensitive Lands Review and Lot Line Adjustment applications do or can comply with the relevant standards and criteria of the Tigard CDC as provided in this Final Order, provided the application is subject to conditions of approval that ensure finals plans and certain other information are provided and found sufficient by the Director in a timely manner and that subsequent development will comply with applicable CDC standards and criteria. Therefore those applications should be approved subject to such conditions. E. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions provided or referenced in this Final Order, the hearings officer hereby approves SDR 2001-00012, SLR 2001-00008 and MIS 2001- 00027 subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report with the following amendments: 1. Recommended condition of approval no. 16 is hereby deleted, although the hearings officer encourages the applicant to grant easement described therein. 2. Recommended condition of approval no. 21 is hereby amended to read as follows (added text is underlined): 21. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide certification from a registered professional engineer that the proposed encroachment of the access into the 100-year floodplain will preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and will not result in any increase in flood levels or water surface elevation during the base (100-year) flood. 3. Recommended condition of approval no. 22 is hereby amended to read as follows (added text is underlined): 22. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide evidence in writing from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) that indicates the proposal does not need their approval or that such approval has been granted. _ ATEI;~this 21st dg~yofXnuary, 2002. Q Larry- Epstein, City of Tigar eai ngs Officer SDR 2001-00012, SLR 2001-00008 Hearings Ogicer Final Order and MIS 2001-00027 (Learning Tree day care) Page 3 0 • "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) JAN.14.2002 2:30PM January 11, 2002 TRI COUNTY IND. PK. • • TRI-COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK2 INC. 301 NW MURRAY BLVD. PORTLAND, OREGON 97229 503-643-5756 FAX 503- 626-0621 City Of Tigard Community Development 13125 SW Hall Bllvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 ATTN: Brad Kilby RE: Comments of City Of Tigard Property Manager Dear Mr. Kilby: NO. 627 P.2/5 We have already addressed and complied with the issues raised by the Tigard Property Manager except as to the location of the playground in relation to the railroad track. Staff has assured us that there are no statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations that would require this to be addressed. Nonetheless, we researched the issue of a possible derailment which might effect the distance of the playground from the railroad track, We have done considerable research pertaining to this question and have concluded that a derailment at this specific location is almost impossible. We have spoken with Chuck Gilbert, head of the Engineering Department for the Portland & Western Railroad which owns the track adjacent to our property, HDR Oregon, a railroad engineering firm, and the Federal Railroad Administration office in Vancouver, Washington. The result of our due diligence is the following: 1. The recently completed crossing is "state of the art" according to Mr, Gilbert as far as safety is concerned. 2. The track at that location is a continuous welded track with no switches anywhere in the vicinity (many derailments are a result of a malfunction of a switch). Page 1 of 2 JAN.14.2002 2:30PM TRI COUNTY IND. PK. NO.627 P.3i5 • • Tigard Letter January 11, 2002 Page 2 of 2 3. A derailment almost never causes a component of the train leave the track more than a distance of 25 feet. 4. The speed limit for trains adjacent to the subject property is 25 miles per hour or less. If a derailment were to occur at that speed, the component of the train leaving the track would travel less than 25 feet from the track. However if there were such a derailment, it is highly doubtful that it would effect the play area on our property since the shortest distance from the play area to the track is 3 S feet and the greatest distance from the track is 60 feet. The Federal Railroad Administration web, site (enclosed) confirms that in the last 26 years there have been only 10 derailments, no personal injuries and no fatalities as a result of a derailment in Washington County. There was no information available as to any derailments prior to that time causing fatalities. Our present layout for the playground was designed to be in a location most desirable and efficient for construction and use by the Tenant. The location and design meet all the requirezuents of the City of Tigard as well. Yours truly, Tri-County Industrial Park, Inc. ,a- Jac Steiger Property Administrator enc JSTEIaER WINWORD\EONITAMOARD 1-11-02.LTR JAN.14.2002 2:30PM TRI COUNTY IND. PK. Federal Railroad Administratio • TRAIN ACCIDENTS BY CAUSE FROM FORM FRA F 6180.54 Selections: Railroad - ALL State - OREGON, County - WASHINGTON Derailment / MAIN / ALL CAUSES Time Frame: Oct 1975 To Oct 2001 MAJOR CAUSE= Equipment pecific causes: E24C- Ctr plate disengaged from truck I E46C- Truck_ bolster stiff II E64C- Worn Flange Total NO. 627 P.4/5 Page 1 of 2 Type of Acci- Total dent Reportable Damage Casualty a.: nt~ /o I-- Amount % Kld Nonf 1 , II. ~ 1 10.OI 1 _ 47,2751 4.31[ Oil 0 11~10'0~ 1 6,OO1I_0,6j O]I 0 1110,01 1 18,3431_~,T7 01 0 31130,011 31 71,618 ]L6.611'. OIL MAJOR CAUSE= Human Specific causes: Type of Acci-, Total dent Reportable Damage Casualty _IS Der Amount I % ]IKIdjNonfl H017- Failure to secure engine- rr empl~_1II10.OI 11 700,00011_ 64.311 Oil 01 --Total 1 L- 700,000 64.3II_01 OI MAJOR CAUSE= Miscellaneous _ Specific causes: J Type of Ace!- Total dent Reportable Damage Casualty Cn ( % 1I Der I Amount % Kld~Nonf M201- Load shifted 1 110.011 1ij 3,50011 0.31LOII 0~ off, etc. 1110.011 ~ 13,895 1.31 ~ 0 M405- Harmonic rock _ Total ~1 2~20,0217,395 1.611 0jl 0 .../brolcer,exe? debug=0&_program-cary.inecaus,sas& service=safety&root=%2Fcary&.rrl=&rr=il/7/02 JAN.14.2002 2:31PM TRI COUNTY IND. PK. NO.627 P.5i5 Federal Railroad Administratio • Page 2 of 2 MAJOR CAUSE= Track Specific causes: ! Type' of Acci- Total dent Reportable Damage Casualty . Cntj % 11 Der_IF-Amount _-F % jjKId1jNon 00011 2.811 Oil~ T001 - Roadbed settled or soft _ -~11 11[ Ill - 30, T102, Cross level track irre_ g.(not at joints)) 1 0.01 11 202,0001 18,611 011 1 T202- Broken base of rail 1[, 0.01 11 37,800 3,5 0ll _i T208- Engine burn fracture I 11110,01F Ill_ 29,5001_ 2-.711 40.Op 4u 299,300 27~r 0~L i Total - IL 4 .../broker.exe? debug-0$_program=cary.inccaus.sas8t_service=safety&mor%2Fcary&rrl=&rr=1/7/02 "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) 0 Agenda Item: Hearing Date: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 2.1 January 14. CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Shaping A (Better Community 120 DAYS = 03/27/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL CASE NOS: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2001-00012 Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) SLR2001-00008 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) MIS2001-00027 APPLICANT/ OWNER: Tri-County Industrial Park, Inc. ARCHITECT: Jim Waddle Attn: Jack Steiger 1927 NW Kearney St. 301 NW Murray Blvd. Portland, OR 97209 P l d OR 97229 an , ort PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed a Daycare Center within the Light Industrial zoning district. The 100-year floodplain and floodway encompass a portion of the site. The applicant has also requested a lot line adjustment between two lots to accommodate the use. LOCATION: The project is located at the corner of SW Bonita Road and Milton Court, and is described as: WCTM 2S112AB, Tax Lots 01900 01901, and 02000. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and ZONING DESIGNATION: Light Industrial: I-L Light Industrial District. The I-L zoning district provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses Including industrial service, manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement, and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics such as noise, glare, odor, and vibration. Daycares are allowed in this zone sub* ect to an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with TDC Section 18.530.050(C)(1). The design of the daycare must fully comply with the f i f S tate o Oregon requ rements or outdoor open space. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Site Development Review, Lot Line Adjustment, and Sensitive Lands Review will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 1 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department (gr-a-61 My, 639-4Tn, ext. 388)--for review and approval: 1. Prior to recording, a Lot Line Adjustment survey map and legal descriptions showing the existing and proposed lot lines shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. The survey map shall include all access and utility easements. 2. A copy of the recorded survey shall be submitted to the City of Tigard for record keeping. 3. Prior to recording the Lot Line Adjustment, the applicant shall clear title between tax lots 1900 and 1901 through the lot line consolidation process or by providing reciprocal access easements between all three lots. 4. The applicant shall provide a revised access plan that provides a safe pedestrian walkway extending from the entrance of the building to SW Milton Court. The walkway shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and signposts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. The walkway shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation. Pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36'feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used 5. The revised access plan shall show the access to Milton Court to be 30-feet in width with 24-feet of pavement, and shall be constructed to this standard. 6. Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to show compliance with Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.745.040 size and spacing. 7. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan illustrating the placement of trees within the interior of the parking lot at a ratio of one tree for every seven parking spaces and located within islands that are three feet wide and protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb along the east side of the parking lot. 8. The applicant shall provide a narrative addressing the criteria of one of the 4-methods of compliance for Mixed Sold Waste and Recyclable Storage as established in TDC Chapter 18.755, and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. 9. Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the site plan to reflect the dimensions of the parking areas in accordance with Table 18.765.1 and indicate bumper overhang areas on the plan. If the applicant proposes to split the spaces between compact and standard, the new plan must reflect the compact spaces and they must be marked as such prior to final occupancy. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 10. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the installation of the new concrete driveway on SW Milton Court, and any other work in the public ROW. The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 2 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 11. As apart of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $30.00. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 13. The applicant's construction plans shall show that they will plant street trees along the frontages of SW Milton Court and SW Bonita Road. The trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2 Inches and the species and the City Engineer and City Forester shall approve location. 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall demonstrate how they will provide sanitary sewer service to the new building. Staffs preference would be for the applicant to utilize the existing 4-inch service line that serves the existing home, provided the line size will meet Uniform Plumbing Code standards. 15. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have ranted an ingress/egress easement to the Bonita Community Church parcel (2S1 2AB, #1600), for access to SW Milton Court. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: -Submit to the Planning Department ( ruby, 6394M, ext. 388) for review ancf approval: 17. The applicant shall install vertical slats into the chain link fence to screen the enclosure that is shown on the site plan. 18. Prior to final occupancy, the parking lot shall be striped in accordance with the TDC Chapter 18.765. 19. Prior to final occupancy, wheel stops shall be provided for all parking areas as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. 20. Pursuant to TDC Chapter 18.765, the applicant shall provide 8 bicycle parking spaces for the site prior to final occupancy. 21. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide certification from a registered professional engineer that the proposed encroachment of the access into the 100-year floodplain will not result in any increase in flood levels or water surface elevation during the base flood discharge. 22. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide evidence in writing from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the Oregon Division of Stale Lands (DSL) that indicates thaf the proposal does not need their approval. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 3 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 23. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the CWS service provider letter and submit verification of compliance from both CWS and the projects qualified consultant from Schott & Associates. 24. Prior to site work, the applicant shall supply the City arborist with a tree protection plan to protect those trees on site that will remain on the site, and insure that said measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. 25. Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan, that shows no projection off site and complies with crime prevention requirements of the TDC Section 18.360.090(10). Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 26. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 27. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 28. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment units. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Historv: A single-family home and pole building currently occupy the site. Lot 01901 was platted over in the plat of Bonita Industrial Park, and will be referred to in this report as lot 1 in conjunction with lot 1 of the aforementioned subdivision. A search of city records shows that aside from the Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision, no major alterations have been made to the site. There is very little history on the property within city records. Vicinitv Information: There is a wide range of uses adjacent to this site. Directly to the north, south, and east of the site, there are a number of heavy and light industrial uses. Directly to the west of the site there are a lot of multi-family developments and the Fanno Creek greenway. There is a railroad track that runs along the western edge of the property. The most unique characteristic of the site is its proximity to the Fanno Creek drainageway including some wetland areas that exist on site. Site Information and ProDosal Description: The site is currently developed with a single-family home and pole building. The proposal involves demolishing the home and constructing a daycare center in its place. The applicant has proposed a Lot Line Adjustment to adjust the property lines such that the pole building will reside on a separate lot. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 4 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to construct a daycare center in the Light- Industrial Zoning district. Summarv Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed daycare facility is typically subject to a Type II staff review pprovided an Environmental Impact Assessment is submitted in accordance with Section 18.530.050.C.1. However, because a portion of the site is located within the 100-year floodplain and the associated floodway, all approvals for this request are subject to review before the City of Tigard Hearings Officer as a Type III-HO review. The request will require site develo ment review approval, sensitive lands review approval, and a ministerial review approval for the proposed lot line adjustment. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The Tigard Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal and be given the opportunity to provide written comments prior to a decision being made. Staff received no correspondence from citizens regarding this application. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. ADDlicable Develoument Code Standards 18.360 Site Development Review) 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments) 18.530 -Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 1 Landscaping and Screening) Mi R l l li -W 8.755 xed So aste and e Storage) d ecyc ab 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780 18.790 Signs) Tree Removal) 18.795 kVisual Clearance) B. Additional Site Development Review ADDroval Standards (18.3601 C. Street and Utilitv Improvement Standards (18.8101 D. Impact Study _(18.3901 The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.600, Community Plan Area Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standard; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.780, Temporary Uses; 18.797, Water Resources Overlay District; and 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 5 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Site Development Review (18.3601 The Site Development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. Lot Line Adiustments (18.4101 Section 18.410.040 - Approval Criteria states that the Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; The application states that the proposed lot line adjustment includes three different tax parcels. However, in review of the sites history, tax lot 1901 was platted over in the Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision in 1992. According to the Washington County Cartographer's office, the area is no longer a separate parcel, rather, it is an area of Lot 1 of the named subdivision that still has a tax number assigned. Therefore, no new lots will be created as part of this adjustment; two (2) lots exist and two (2) lots will remain after the proposed adjustment. The I-L zone has no minimum lot size requirement, however, the lots will be approximately 80,130 square feet and 29,600 square feet respectively. This standard is satisfied. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; As previously indicated, both lots as configured by the Lot Line Adjustment will still have the ability to accommodate development that complies with the requirements of the underlying zoning district. This criteria has been satisfied. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation; Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15-foot wide access easement; and t JCIUQcna .111Q11 be as le%+u11CU uy LIIC QpN11GdIJIC Lollllly u13LllVl. Both lots will still meet the minimum standards of the respective zone as they apply to width, frontage, and setbacks and are discussed later in this report. This criteria is satisfied. With regard to flag lots: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an access way is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Section 18.745.040. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 6 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 The flag lot associated with this application will be addressed later in this report. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an access way would have a detrimental effect on fire-fighting capabilities. Access is discussed later in this report and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has had the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Their comments have been included as a part of this report. This criterion has been satisfied. Any access way shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705: Access, Egress, and Circulation. Compliance with Chapter 18.705 is discussed later in this report. This standard can be satisfied. Exemptions from dedications: A lot line adJustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right-of-way dedication is required. Variances to development standards: An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The applicant has not requested a variance or an adjustment with this application. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment criteria have been met, however, staff is concerned that there may be future confusion with reference to tax lot 1901, and would recommend that the Hearings Officer impose the following conditions. CONDITIONS: Prior to recording, a Lot Line Adjustment survey map and legal descriptions showing the existing and proposed lot lines shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. The survey map shall include all access and utility easements. A copy of the recorded survey shall be submitted to the City of Tigard for record keeping. Prior to recording the Lot Line Adjustment, the applicant shall clear title between tax lots 1900 and 1901 through the lot line consolidation process or by providing reciprocal access easements between all three lots. Industrial Zonina Districts (18.530)The subject property is zoned I-L (Light Industrial). Daycare uses with over 5 children are permitted subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with Section 18.530.050.0.1. Additionally, the design of the daycare must fully comply with State of Oregon requirements for outdoor open space setbacks. The applicant should note that schools are not a permitted use in the I-L zone. Although the proposal has the word "school" in its title, the applicant has stated in telephone conversations that the building is only a daycare. It is the applicant's burden to insure that the use falls within the use classifications for the Light Industrial zone. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 7 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Development standards in Industrial Zones are provided in the following table: TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I I-L I Proposed Lott/Lot2 Minimum Lot Size I None I None Minimum Lot Width I 50 ft. I 130/145+ft. Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 30 ft. 80/150 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots [1] 20 ft. 40+/N/A ft. - Side yard 0/50 ft. [3] Met - Rear yard 0/50 ft. [3] Met - Distance between front of garage & property line abutting a public or private street Maximum Height I 45 ft. I 19/existing ft. Maximum Site Coverage r2l I 85% I 56% Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 26% [1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied. [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [4] Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80% if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6] Except that a reduction to 20% of the site may be approved through the site development review process. The proposed building is approximately 19 feet in height and is well below the 45 foot maximum allowed heig t. As noted above, approximately 56% of the site will be covered with impervious surface area, including the building and. parking area. This is well below the 85% maximum allowed in I-L zones. The remaining 44% of the site will be landscaped or utilized as playground area. The building will be setback approximately 80 feet from SW Milton Court, which exceeds the 30-foot front yard setback requirement. There is no applicable rear or side yard setbacks since the properties to the north and south are also zoned for industrial development. FINDING: The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable development standards in industrial zones. Access. Earess and Circulation (18.705) Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The applicant is proposing a new sidewalk to SW Bonita Road from the building entrance, but no sidewalk to SW Milton Court. Because the pro* ai is access is from SW Wilton Court, and in accordance with the above standard, the applicant should be required to extend a walkway to SW Milton Court. The applicant can still extend a walkway to SW Bonita Road, but it is not required. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The proposal does not provide a walkway from the ground floor entrance to the street, which provides the required access and egress as required in TDC Section 18.705.030(F)(1). LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 8 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access drivewa s or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Requred walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; and There is no proposed crossings of vehicle access driveways or parking lots associated with the current proposal, however, in the conditioned revision of the previous standard, the applicant should be. cognizant of pedestrian safety in the design of the walkway that is extended to SW Milton Court. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant indicates that the new curb, gutter, and sidewalks will be constructed with concrete. This criterion has been met. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with less than 99 parking spaces is one 30-foot-wide access with a 24- foot pavement width. The applicant has proposed one access point of 25-feet in width with 24-feet of pavement. This criterion has not been met. FINDING: The proposal does not show a 30-foot-wide access with 24-feet of pavement as required in TDC Table 18.705.3. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall provide a revised access plan that provides a safe pedestrian walkway extending from the entrance of the building to SW Milton Court. The walkway shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and signposts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. The walkway shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation. Pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. The revised access plan shall show the access to Milton Court to be 30- feet in width with 24-feet of pavement, and shall be constructed to this standard. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725) Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 9 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • An environmental noise impact assessment was required as part of the application in accordance with the Tigard Development Code as it relates to permitting daycare facilities within industrially zoned properties. The assessment must show that noise from industrial sources does not negatively impact the proposed daycare site. The applicant has provided such a report from Daly-Standlee & Associates, an engineering firm that conducted sound measurements on January 5, 2001. According to the report, 'he amount of noise at the proposed daycare center site caused by industrial sources is less than that allowed by the Oregon DEQ...and much less than that allowed at a noise sensitive land use...of the Tigard Municipal Code. The report also stated that traffic from 1-5, Bonita Road, and air traffic contributed a lot of noise to the study that was not considered industrial. The noises that could potentially affect the operation of the daycare are not primarily generated from the industrial uses, but rather from the traffic. It should also be noted that the City of Tigard's Property Manager expressed concerns in regards to the proximity and noise associated with the train traffic that occurs adjacent to this parcel in his comments. Specifically, the concerns were with the location of the play area, and the failure of the report from Daly-Standlee & Associates to address the noise generated from passing trains. In reviewing these concerns, staff has brought this to the attention of the applicant. The applicant is performing research that will presumably be addressed during the public hearing. It is questionable as to whether train traffic will negatively impact the operations of the daycare facility. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park (I-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam which is visible from a pro a line. Department f Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-217015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028.090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. FINDING: As this is not a typical industrial use, there is not the typical machine , emission stacks, or sound creating devices that would potentially creae problem environmental conditions that have been listed above. The above performance standards are met. These standards would be subject to code enforcement investigation if for some reason, the above standards were in question. Landscaoina and Screenina (18.745) Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C required that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 10 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that provides for 'flowering cherry' trees along SW Bonita Road that would meet this standard, however, the TDC requires that the trees be spaced according to their size at maturity. For this species, the recommended spacing is no greater than 30-feet on center and 2 inch caliper trees. The submitted landscape plan shows forty-foot on center spacing and 1 inch caliper trees. FINDING: The proposal fails to meet the street tree size and spacing requirements of TDC Section 18.745.040(C)(2)(b). CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to show compliance with TDC Section 18.745.040 size and spacing. Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. The proposed daycare center is a permitted use within a Light Industrial zone and abutting industrial zones on three sides and open space on the fourth. As such, it is not subject to any required screening standards of the TDC or the buffering requirements of Table 18.745.1. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that shows landscaping abutting the three industrial zones. This criterion has been satisfied. Screening - Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The applicant has proposed a landscape design that would achieve the required result of the above standards. However, the applicant has not fully complied with the need for trees within the interior of the parking area along the. east side of the parking lot. FINDING: The proposal does not meet the criteria set forth in - TDC Section 18.745.050(E)(1)(a.)(4). CONDITION: The applicant shall revise the landscape plan illustrating the placement of trees within the interior of the parking lot at a ratio of one tree for every seven parking spaces and located within islands that are three feet wide and protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb along the east side of the parking lot. Screening Of Service Facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement o? a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Screening of Service Facilities is addressed under Chapter 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). Mixed Solid Waste and Recvclables Storaae (18.7551 Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 11 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has not indicated which of the 4 methods will be used to demonstrate compliance with this chapter. but has shown an enclosure on the site plan. FINDING: The proposal does not specifically detail which option of the four options available within TDC Section 18.755.040. CONDITION: The applicant shall provide a narrative addressing the criteria of one of the 4-methods of compliance for Mixed Sold Waste and Recyclable Storage as established in TDC Chapter 18.755, and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards• The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the s{orage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The site plan shows a trash enclosure with a wall and fence surrounding it within an interior side yard. The applicant has also indicated in the accompanying narrative that the recycling storage area meeting the minimum requirement criteria for industrial uses has been proposed. The site plan indicates a 100 square-foot enclosure dedicated to this purpose. According to the TDC the applicant is required to provide 48 square feet. This standard has been me? Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate.openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The applicant has not indicated on the site plan what type of screening will be utilized for the refuse container. They have indicated that there will be a 5-foot high chain link fence surrounding the enclosure. The gate opening is 10 feet wide, and the applicant has indicated that a hasp and padlock will be used to secure the gate. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of complete compliance with the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage design standards, this standard has not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met: LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 12 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • CONDITION: The applicant shall install vertical slats into the chain link fence to screen the enclosure that is shown on the site plan. Off-Street Parking and Loadina (18.7651 Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. The parking area has accommodations for two ADA accessible parking spaces that will meet the requirements for a 21-space parking facility. This criteria has been met. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The applicant is required to provide a 30-foot access with 24-feet of pavement and has identified the visual clearance areas as required by the TDC. Access was discussed previously in this report, and visual clearance will be addressed later in this report. This standard can be met. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The applicant has not indicated that the parking lot will be striped, but has illustrated striping on the plans. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The applicant has not indicated that the parking lot will be striped as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, the parking lot shall be striped in accordance with the TDC Chapter 18.765. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant has proposed 6-inch concrete curbs at the edges of paving adjacent to planting areas, but has not indicated within the narrative or site plan that wheel stops will be provided. This criterion has not been met. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 13 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 FINDING: The proposal does not address the requirements for wheel stops as required by the 4D? Chapter 18.765. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, wheel stops shall be provided for all parking areas as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Table 18.765.1. outlines the minimum dimensions for angled parking. The proposal identifies 18 spaces with the following dimensions: Minimums Compact Standard Compact/Standard Spaces Spaces (in Feet) (Proposed) (Proposed) Parking Angle 90 degrees 90 degrees 90 degrees Stall Width 7.5-8.0/8.5-10.0 8.5' typical 8.5' typical Stall Depth 1 16.5/18.5 I 15.6' I 15.6' Aisle Width 1 24-28/24-28 1 28' 1 28' Stall Width araflel to A'is~le 7r5-8.0/8.5-10 ±8.5' ±8.5' Module i t I 58-6176T-65 1 59' 1 59' FINDING: As illustrated in the table, the proposed parking lot fails to meet the minimum standards of Table 18.765.1. If the proposal that the parking angle remain at 90 degrees and a stall width of 8.5 feet stands, then the stall depth, aisle width, stall width parallel to the aisle, and module width should reflect the minimum dimensions for the standards as they apply within Table 18.765.1 for compact spaces and standard spaces independently. The Table must be read directly across and not interchanged to ensure function of the parking areas. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall revise the site plan to reflect the dimensions of the parking areas in accordance with Table 18.765.1 and indicate bumper overhang areas on the plan. If the applicant proposes to split the spaces between compact and standard, the new plan must reflect the compact spaces and they must be marked as such prior to final occupancy. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. The minimum bicycle parking requirement for daycare facilities is 1.5 per classroom, and the applicant has proposed 6 ribbon type bicycle parking spaces. This criterion has not been met. FINDING: The applicant has proposed 5 classrooms which, according to Table 18.765.2 requires 7.5 bicycle parking spaces. CONDITION: Pursuant to TDC Chapter 18.765, the applicant shall provide 8 bicycle parking spaces for the site prior to final occupancy. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. The minimum off-street parking requirement for daycare facilities is 2.0 per classroom. Therefore, this use would require 10 parking spaces. The proposal shows 21 spaces including ADA accessible spaces. This criterion has been met. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 14 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • Sensitive Lands (18.775) The Hearings Officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the 1001 ear floodplain by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070 B-E A majority of the wetland areas and the floodplain associated with this site will be on lot 2 of the Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision upon completion of the Lot Line Adjustment. However, both a wetland and the 100-year floodplain encumber a portion of Lot 1 of the same subdivision, and the lot on which the daycare facility is proposed. Within the 100-vear floodplain. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; A natural resources assessment was prepared and submitted to Clean Water Services for the wetland and presumably the development of the access within the 100-year floodplain, however, staff never received the assessment and cannot be certain that it addressed this criterion. Therefore, this criterion has not been satisfied. FINDING: The applicant has not provided any certification from a registered professional engineer that the encroachment of the access into the 100- ear floodplain will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flooldischarge. CONDITION: Prior to any site work, the applicant shall provide certification from a registered professional engineer that the proposed encroachment of the access into the 100-year floodplain will not result in any increase in flood levels or water surface elevation during the base flood discharge. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; A portion of the access will encroach into the 100-year floodplain, and the area is designated as industrial on the Comprehensive Plan land use map. This criterion is satisfied. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100- year flood; The condition that was recommended previously in this report should provide the information needed to analyze the impact of the proposed land form alteration on the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bic cle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearings Officer as untimely; The greenway in which the Fanno Creek Trail system would possibly follow is located to the west of Milton Court. This parcel is outside of the location of any potential pathway. This criterion is met LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 15 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained; and It has not been ascertained as to whether or not the applicant would need any approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Oregon DSL for work within the 100-year floodplain, nor has the applicant provided evidence that would indicate that they are not necessary. The applicant has obtained a concurrence letter from the Oregon DSL relative to the wetland delineation that was performed by Schott & Associates that will be addressed later in this report. This criterion has not been satisfied. FINDING: The applicant has not provided any evidence that would indicate that no approval from the USACOE and the Oregon DSL is necessary for the work that is proposed within the 100-year floodplain. CONDITION: Prior. to site work, the applicant shall provide evidence in writing from the USACOE and the Oregon DSL that indicates that the proposal does not need their approval. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. There is no need for additional open land area within and adjacent to this floodplain as the majority of the floodplain belongs to the City of Tigard already. This criterion is satisfied. Within wetlands. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland; The proposed land form alteration is not within an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor within 25-feet of such a wetland. The wetland that is located on this site is defined as an isolated wetland that has been degraded in earlier developments. Clean Water Services, and the Oregon Division of State Lands have reviewed and concurred with a delineation that was provided by Shott & Associates as part of this application. This criterion is satisfied. The extent. and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; The applicant has provided a wetland delineation prepared by Schott & Associates that has been affirmed by the Oregon Division of State Lands and Clean Water Services (CWS). There is no proposed disturbance of the wetland, but there is disturbance of the CWS vegetated corridor that has been characterized as degraded by Heidi Berg, Site Assessment Coordinator for CWS. The proposed alteration is for access purposes. The City Engineer's review official, Brian Rager, has stated that access for this site was allowed only off of Milton Court to mitigate possible traffic impacts, and the proposed access is the minimum disturbance necessary for the use. This criterion is met. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; As stated above, the applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland, and has gained approval of a mitigation plan from CWS. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 16 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • i FINDING: The applicant has been provided with several conditions from CWS to mitigate impacts from this development on the nearby wetland. CONDITION:The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the CWS service provider letter and submit verification of compliance from both CWS and the projects qualified consultant from Schott & Associates. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; The applicant has provided an erosion control plan that addresses such measures that will be approved by CWS and the City of Tigard Engineering Department prior to site work. This criterion has been satisfied. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; All sensitive lands requirements of the Sensitive Lands chapter can be achieved with compliance of the Conditions of Approval for this project. This criterion has been satisfied. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, shall be met; These provisions are addressed later in this report. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. As indicated previously, this proposal can be conditioned such that it satisfies the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is satisfied. Signs (18.7801 No sign or sign structure shall hereafter be erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered or relocated within the City limits except as provided by this title, and a permit for the same sign or sign structure has been issued by the Director. The applicant has stated in the narrative that they will apply for sign permits separate from this application. This criterion is satisfied. Tree Removal (18.7901 Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identifcation of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has indicated that the requirement for an arborist's report was waived, and has indicated that only one tree is to be removed in the development of the property. Staff visited the site on December 12, 2001 to ensure that no other trees would be impacted by the development of this site. The tree will essentially be mitigated for in the landscape desi n. This criterion has been met. However, the applicant is A responsible for protecting existing trees during construction. FINDING: The applicant does not indicate how the existing trees that are to remain on site will be protected during construction as required by the TDC. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 17 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall supply the City arborist with a tree protection plan to protect those trees on site that will remain on the site, and insure that said measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795) Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.B. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all braches below eight feet are removed. There are no proposed structures inside of the vision clearance area, therefore, this standard is satisfied. B. ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations);); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain) and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.13 Parking); 18.:360.090.14 (Landscaping ; 18.360.090.15 Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 Provision for the Disabled); 18.360.09.15 (Provisions of the underlying zone). Relationship to the Natural and Phvsical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to -ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for -adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The applicant's plans have considered the natural environment on the site by. locating the lot in a location that will incorporate a majority of the trees into buffering and screening. No buildings or structures are proposed that will hinder air circulation, natural lighting or prevent fire fighting apparatus from performing their jobs. This criteria has been met. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 18 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 0 Crime Prevention and Safetv: Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this pro)ect and has not indicated concern or objection with the proposal. To ensure that the plan addresses crime prevention concerns, the applicant would need to provide a detailed lighting plan to the Tigard Police Department and the Tigard Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant has proposed vegetation that would allow easy observation of activities that are on-going on the site. The crime prevention standards have not been fully met. FINDING: The proposal fails to address lighting as required by the TDC Section 18.360.090(10). CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan, that shows no projection off site and complies with crime prevention requirements of the TDC Section 18.360.090(10). Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW Bonita Road. The closest stops are located on, SW Hall Blvd. and SW 72"d Ave. Both stops are greater than '/4 mile from the subject site, therefore, this standard does not apply. C. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS - CHAPTER 18.810: Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030E requires a local commercial industrial street to have a 50 right-of-way width and a 34-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 19 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • This site lies adjacent to SW Milton Court, which is classified as a local commercial industrial street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 60 feet of ROW along this roadway, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. No further ROW dedications are necessary. SW Milton Court is improved adjacent to this site, except for street trees. The applicant's plan shows they will plant street trees as a part of their project. The site also lies adjacent to SW Bonita Road, a major collector that was fully improved by the City in recent years. Street trees should also be added to the site frontage. The applicant's plan shows they will provide these trees as a part of their project. Access to this site will be provided via SW Milton Court, as direct access to SW Bonita Road is not permitted. Staff discussed with the applicant the need to provide access rights to the Bonita Community Church site so that eventually the existing driveway on SW Bonita Road could be eliminated. The applicant agreed that they should provide an ingress/egress easement to the church. Prior to construction, the applicant shall demonstrate that the ingress/egress easement is recorded. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Sidewalks are present on both SW Milton Court and SW Bonita Road. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public main line in SW Bonita Road with an existing 4-inch lateral provided to the existing house on this parcel. The applicant's plan is not clear as to how they plan to serve the new day school building. Prior to construction, the applicant shall resolve how sewer service will be provided. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states reauires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage issues for this site to address. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 20 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plan shows that they will treat the new stormwater onsite and provide 25-year storm detention in a large pipe, before discharging to the existing public stormwater system in SW Milton Court. The overall plan concept is acceptable to Staff, and the detention pipe appears to be adequately sized to accommodate the needs of this site. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. The proposal has frontage on SW Bonita Road, which has existing bike lanes on both sides. There is no need to require any additional right-of-way from this project. This criterion has been satisfied. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.6 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. As the bike lanes are already existing, there is no need to construct additional right-of-way. This criterion is satisfied. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. This criterion does not apply to this proposal. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication; lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 21 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in con unction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. We most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in- lieu of under-grounding. There are no existing overhead utility lines adjacent to this site. Therefore, this section does not apply. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: There is an existing 12-inch public water line in SW Milton Court that has plenty of capacity to serve this development. The applicant proposes to tap the main line to provide a domestic service line to the site. No additional public water main extensions are necessary. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created 'impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to use two Stormwater Management catch basin units to treat the impervious area runoff from this site. The concept is acceptable, but the applicant will need to submit specific calculations to the Engineering 'Department to verify that two of these units will adequately serve this site. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design an specifications. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 22 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The proposed units from Stormwater Management is acceptable, provided the property owner agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the unit. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. A gradin and erosion control plan will be reviewed and approved by the Building division as a part of1he site permit review. Address Assianments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assi ningg addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. For this project, the addressing fee will be $30.00. D. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The use will be subject to a Traffic Impact Fee to mitigate impacts to the transportation system. There is no need to require further dedication or improvements of right-of-way nrni rnri tha city ac thav nra niraariv imnrnvarl to tha riacinnatP-H ctanriarri All nthPr improvements are necessary for services to the site. All other impacts have been addressed elsewhere in this report. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division was sent this proposal for review but offered no comments at this time. The City of Tigard Engineering Department was sent this proposal for review and the comments have been incorporated into this report. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 23 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager/V1later Martment has reviewed this application and has indicated that a back flow device shainstalled behind the water meter. The project is required to connect to the storm water collection system. All utility work should be shown in drawings and coordinated with the City prior to site work. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this application and has provided the following comments: • The minimum required fire flow is 2173 gpm @ 20 psi . Prior to the issuance of building permits, documentation shall be provided that indicates the minimum fire flow is available at the required hydrants. (UFC Appendix III-A) • A minimum of 2 fire hydrants shall be provided for this development. Fire hydrants shall be installed so that no part of the structure is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. The two existing fire hydrants shown on the plans are acceptable to satisfy this requirement. (UFC 903.4) Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) • Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 8704) • A Knox brand key box shall be provided on the building. Contact the Fire Marshal's Office for installation details and an application. (UFC Chapter 9) • A building survey and plans, in accordance with TVF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F, shall be submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions are available on the Fire District web site. City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed this application and has requested that the applicant consider substituting some White Oak trees into the landscape plan in place of some of the Red Maples that have been proposed. City of Tigard Property Manager has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: The site noise assessment does not address noise from passing trains on the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. It would seem prudent to require testing to know how often or the number of trains that are passing the site and the average duration of the noise from there engines, and horns. He also expressed concerns with the location of the play area with regard to the proximity of the tracks. He suggested that the parking lot be placed between the track and the building to act as a buffer. City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this application and requested that an exterior lighting plan be submitted to the Police Department for review. Long Range Planning Division has reviewed this application, but offered no comments. LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 24 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 • SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and offered comments and conditions which have been incorporated into the body of this report as part of their preliminary review, and have been required as part of their approval. AT&T has reviewed the proposal and has no objections. Washington County has reviewed the proposal and has no objections. Tualatin Valley Water District, Portland General Electric, Tri-Met, Southern Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Railroad, Santa Fe Railroad, and Verizon were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. January 3,2002 PREPARED BY: - Brad K'ilby DATE Associate Planner 1r ti January 32002 APPROVED BY-- Richard BewersA~rff DATE Planning Manager LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL PAGE 25 OF 25 1/14/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Q:wo grso ~G WE /ER WY -]CMyfl I MA LL u CI u I I I I I I 1 Community Development L GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP SDR2001-00012 CITY of I - r SLR2001-00008 MIS2001-00021 LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL rcru r`PrdTl= i ARK L Z SUBJECT $0 TAX LOTS BONITA RD c \ \ F 0 v m \ \ CARDINAL LN N OG I r N M O c O N 0 400 900 Feet 1•n 505 feet City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 httpJAvww.ci.0gard.or.us Plot date: Nov 28, 2001; C:\magicWIAGIC03.APR BONITA_a[L_ \ I 1 1 0 1 Z L 11 05 0 z 9 \ \ Z n -s»+~• TILT \ AY LMC nfd \ A NfA OCLO•iJ~ MAY S' can ~nT LAraa ~ 1 \ O R \ Q \ (1) .W' CCW ►nw \1 - ion ecr.•ice.ow not Lilt • - l t' TILL 04M /Ok:t \ /lIT AIQA QY.IO.u! TILL vMR kA n RLL LeoTT o rpc! ~v uiLa ewr~ ~A \ T \ i ~ D[TY6D1 pfl.ib TR rID .40 M!W 011M LNC 141Gt It 10.0• ,-.n L _ RY! .raw l LOT 1 A" MTIVX n LW A"0 PMM L TILWI D. DLCtl.! vm nm+.s• w AD/p oe~sLi Dirt viT Tw wo PAaaaL 1 \ . F- 1 1 ~b R • Tlp TO ~ SW BONITA ROAD (COUNTY ROAD f 736) -m?1 ® CITY OF TIGARD T cm or nOAQD SROMPMRMSMUN N (Map is not to scale) SDR2001-000121SLR2001-000081MIS2001-00027 LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL 7 0 • 4 I I I I n I I I I 0 11! I / Parcel Size: IS I 19 I / y+ Deed: 3 i Q II ~d ° . dG G Restrictions: nun Y I t .I LOTPD NEW AREA, I \ i Rt O i WJ39 60L Ft. O ~O LEGEND L j \ Z oonYO, .°Y1 : I \ 9 uw -'.6L Y[1[11µ / / ®f Mot _ I \ " u - !K YY Mf / e I ea - ulq vKlc / ~ I ~ ~ ' T _ YIOY IML ! Lot ?`s':irr!. j: I ` FROPOSM NEW AREA. i;...... Yni . xaouaue 79,6M 6Q FT. \ BONITA ROAD ' 1 1 d' 1 C Lk RD 1 o i CITY OF T16ARD T L0TUNEAWU5NEffSfNPLM N (Map is not to scale) Existing Lot 1 - 43,546 S.F. Lot 2 - 66,184 S.F. Proposed Lot I - 29,600 S.F. Lot 2 - 80,139 S.F. None nl SDR2001-000121SLR2001-000081MIS2001-00027 LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL 0 'V \ 7 0 T 0 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM FLOODWAY MAF Zero-Rise Floodway Flood Fringe Floodway. Y NO_ fEP~ ~ 3 / _ QG k \r... t' • QP ~i NON~Ir. RJ BE BEND RD_ i' D;_. HAM_ i RD Tigard Area Map , 50 100 150 Feet 1"= 100 feet City of Tigard Community Development Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639.4171 http:/Awwv.ci.tiga rd. or. us Plot date: Jan 2, 2002; C:\magicWIAGIC03.APR • • Applicant's Statement The Learning Tree Day School Tigard, Oregon Summary of Proposal Applicant proposes to re-develop this existing site from a residence and barn to a Children's day school. The purpose of this application is to obtain approvals of the proposed site modifications and to proceed with construction of the new building. This submittal includes a request for a lot line adjustment. Narrative The proposed development complies with all applicable approval standards and criteria of the City of Tigard zoning code as follows: Chapter 18.360 (Site Development Review) 1. All applicable street and utility standards are met. 2a. The building is located to provide for logical vehicular circulation on or close to existing grade. The building is located as far as possible from the existing church building, guaranteeing plenty of light and air between them. 2b. Only one existing large tree requires removal, due to it's location within the only permitted access to the site. 3a. Does not apply 4a. Does not apply 4b. Trash enclosure will consist of a site obscuring fencing enclosure completely screening trash handling and recycling equipment. There is no Rooftop HVAC unit. Ground mounted condenser units are located behind site obscuring fence out of view. Required landscape buffer of on-site parking is provided. 5. Does not apply 6. Does not apply 7. Does not apply 8. Does not apply 9a. The design demonstrates a clear demarcation of public/private spaces relative to crime prevention, safety and maintenance responsibility. 10. The location of windows and doors provide for maximum security and crime prevention. Lighting of parking areas will meet established standards for this purpose. 11. Does not apply 12a. Landscape materials are in-accordance with 18.745. The development will have no less than 15% of the gross site area landscaped. 13. Drainage has been designed to appropriate standards by licensed Civil Engineer. 14. Accessibility requirements and facilities for the disabled will be in accordance with ORS chapter 447. 15. Provisions of the underlying zone are met. Chapter 18.390 (Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) A pre-application conference was conducted on November 9, 2000. Notes resulting from the conference have been complied with. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 7, 2000. Documents pertinent to the meeting are submitted as part of this submittal. The impact study required by this chapter is a part of this submittal. The required application form. and fees accompany this submittal. Chapter 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments) The required application and documentation is part of this submittal. Chapter 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) The current zoning is I-L (Light Industrial). Proposed development is in compliance with the Development Standards Table 18.530.2. Chapter 18.705 (Access/Egress/Circulation) The proposed design meets all requirements for vehicular access and maneuvering, fire department access and maneuvering, and public walkways. Chapter 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) The proposed development creates no environmental impacts addressed by the provisions of this chapter. Refer to comments in the Impact Study, below. Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) Landscape buffering to adjacent properties is not required. Street trees are provided along SW Bonita Road. Internal landscape trees and buffering of the parking areas is provided. Chapter 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) Enclosure for trash and mixed solid waste and recycling storage meeting the minimum requirement criteria for industrial uses are provided as depicted on the site development plan. Chapter 18.765 (Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) Required on-site parking is provided. Loading zone is not required. Access drive is designed in accordance with Chapter 18.705. Clear vision requirements of Chapter 18.795 are met. Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) A Natural Resources Assessment has been performed and submitted to Clean Water Services, which has resulted in their issuance of the required Service Provider Letter, attached to this submittal. Schott & Associates has completed a wetland delineation which is shown on the site plan. They have also made recommendations for mitigating the identified wetland area. The Division of State Lands has reviewed the delineation report and issued a letter of concurrence, attached. Chapter 18.780 (Signs) Required signage permits will be applied for separately, and are not a part of this submittal. Chapter 18.790 (Tree Removal) Only one existing large tree requires removal, due to it's location within the only permitted access to the site. The requirement of an Arborist's report was waived by the Planner at the Pre-Application Conference. A significant number of new trees are provided along SW Bonita Road and within the proposed parking area. Chapter 18.795 (Visual Clearance Areas) Visual clearances are maintained at the access driveway intersection, and all on-site private vehicular circulation intersections. Brian Reger has observed the existing transformer located just South of the site access drive and has stated that it is not a problem for the vision triangle requirement. Chapter 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) The requirements of this chapter are met and documented on the Site Dimension Plan, the Grading Plan and.the Utility Plans. Impact Study The proposed re-development of this site will result in a number of significant benefits and improvements to the environment and existing infrastructure: Traffic: The transportation system impact is improved by this project insofar as the access to the property is now proposed to be located off SW Milton Court, removing previous access off SW Bonita Road. Utilities: Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems have been evaluated. Refer to the Civil Engineering drawings which are part of this submittal. Water Resources and Sensitive Lands:. A wetland delineation has been completed for the affected portion of the property to the North of this site, and a mitigation plan developed. Clean Water Services and the Division of State Lands have both reviewed the proposed course of action and issued their concurrence requirements. Solar Access: The building height is less than 20 feet in a zone that permits up to 45 feet, measured to the ridge of a low-slop roof. Site Pollution: The site will be re-developed as a children's day school and this proposed use poses no risks of pollution. Noise and Odor: The re-development of the site will result in reduction in odors characteristic of the original farm use. Off-site sources have been evaluated for impact on the site by Burton Engineering & Survey Co. and none found. A site noise assessment has been conducted by Daly/Standlee & Associates, Inc. and found off-site noise to be at an acceptable level. These reports are submitted as attachments to this submittal. Attached Materials: Lot Line Adjustment application. and Wetland Report: Offsite Landscape /Mitigation Plan: DSL Concurrence Letter Site Noise Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Clean Water Services Provider Letter documentation Schott and Associates Schott and Associates Daly, Standlee & Associates, Inc. Burton Engineering & Survey Co. TRI-COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. 301 'NW MURRAY BLVD. PORTLAND, OREGON 97229 503-643-5756 FAX 503- 626-0621 December 8, 2000 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Applicant is the owner of Lots 1 & 2, Bonita Industrial Park. Lot 1 is a 66,184 square foot parcel and.Lot 2 is a 43,546 square foot parcel.. Lot 1. has an older dwelling unit and barn and Lot 2 is undeveloped. To the north of Lot 2 on Lots 3, 4, and 5 there. is, a concrete tiltup office and distribution building which is approximately 4 years old. Under a separate application, Applicant is proposing to demolish the house and barn on Lot 1 and build a Learning Tree Day School. The day school will only utilize 29,600 square feet of Lot 1, which will leave 35,584 square feet of Lot 1 available for further development. In order to better utilize the remainder of Lot 1. for industrial development, Applicant proposes to adjust the lot line between Lots 1• and 2 so that the remainder of Lot 1 is. added to Lot 2 which will result. in Lot .2 being 80,130 square feet. :Therefore. Lot 1 will have one building rather than two. This will be beneficial to Tigard because it will allow a larger building on Lot 2 which will enhance Lot 2's potential for development, which will in turn increase the potential for, getting a new building on the'tax rolls and creating new jobs. RECEIVEID PLANNING NOV 0 2 2001 CITY O `FIGARD ~ • 0 CleanWaterCServices File Number 184516 1 Our comminnent is clear. Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter Jurisdiction Tigard Date October 15, 2001 Map & Tax Lot 2S112AB 1900, 1901 Owner Tri-County Industrial Park Contact Martin Schott Site Address SW Bonita and Milton Ct Schott and Associates Tigard, OR Address 11977 S. Tolliver Rd Proposed Activity Day School Molalla, OR 97038 - Phone 503-829-6318 This form and the attached conditions will serve as your Service Provider Letter in accordance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (R&O 007). YES NO YES NO Natural Resources Assessment (NRA) ® F1 Alternatives Analysis Required ® ❑ Submitted (Section 3.02.5) s District Site Visit Date: F-] ® I I Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis ❑ ! ❑ , Concur with NRA/or ® ❑ submitted information Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis ❑ i ❑ i Sensitive Area Present ® ❑ Concur with Alternatives ® ❑ On-Site . Analysis Sensitive Area Present ❑ ® Vegetated Corridor ® ❑ Off-Site Mitigation Required Vegetated Corridor Present On-Site ® ❑ On-Site Mitigation ❑ i Width of Vegetated 25 Feet f Off-Site Mitigation ® ❑ Corridor ( eet) (16,000sf) Condition of Vegetated Degraded Corridor Planting Plan Attached ® ❑ Enhancement Required ❑ f7l V\j Encroachment into Vegetated Corridor ® ❑ i RSAT, or Equivalent ❑ (Section 3.02.4(3)) f i Required , ; t ~ Type and Square Footage 13 875sf f E h Concur with RSAT, or ❑ ❑ ncroac o ment Equivalent Allowed Use (Section 3.02.4(b)) F] ® Conditions Attached ® El This Service Provider Letter does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. Page 1 of 3 • . File Number In order to comply with Clean Water Services (the District) water quality protection requirements the project must comply with the following conditions: No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the sensitive area which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed by Section 3.02.3 (1), (2), or (3). Applicant intends to apply for fee-in-lieu wetland fill permit for future development (see Attachment 3). 2. No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, pet wastes, dumping of materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted within the vegetated corridor which may negatively impact water quality, except those allowed by Section 3.02.4 (a through h). Applicant shall mitigate for proposed vegetated corridor impacts at an off-site location (see attachments 4-6). Prior to any site clearing, grading or construction the vegetated corridor and water quality sensitive areas shall be surveyed, staked, and temporarily fenced per approved plan. During construction the vegetated corridor shall remain fenced and undisturbed except as allowed by Section 3.0.4.a and per approved plans. 4. The applicant shall provide the District with concurrence of wetland boundaries from DSL and/or USACE prior to conducting any land disturbance. (Rec'd 7/31/01; indicated fill has already occurred in Wetland 1, fill shall be addressed in Removal/Fill permit application) 5. Prior to any activity within the sensitive area, the applicant shall gain authorization for the project from the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The applicant shall provide the District with copies of all DSL and USACE project authorization permits. 6. Enhancement/restoration of the off-site vegetated corridor shall be conducted either concurrent with or prior to development of the site. Enhancement/restoration activities shall comply with the guidelines provided in Appendix E: Landscape Requirements (R&0 007: Appendix E). No enhancement is required for on-site vegetated corridors, enhancement requirement fulfilled through off-site mitigation, due to pending application for wetland fill with fee-in-lieu mitigation. Prior to installation of plant materials, all invasive vegetation within the vegetated corridor shall be removed. During removal of invasive vegetation care shall be taken to minimize impacts to existing native trees and shrub species. O E-nhanw....wentf'rest.. -../U :U..1 ..L LLe ..ey-~IdaL~J da.-c- wi wit I ♦L_ 0. OIIIg111.G111GINCJlVIt711 UI UIC VCtj.CldlCU GUfIWUI SI1G11 UC IJIUVWCU In accor GGUf UclflGC IU IIIC attached planting plan (Attachments 5-6). 9. Maintenance and monitoring requirements shall comply with Section 2.11.2 of R&O 007. 10. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Erosion Control, in accordance with USA's Erosion Control Technical Guidance Manual shall be used prior to, during, and following earth disturbing activities. 11. Prior to construction, a Stormwater Connection Permit from the District or its designee is required pursuant Ordinance 27, Section 4.B. Page 2 of 3 • File Number 12. The applicant shall notify the District within 72 hours following completion of the vegetated corridor enhancement/restoration activities. 13. Activities located within the 100-year floodplain shall comply with Section 3.13 of R&O 00-7. 14. Final construction plans shall clearly depict the location and dimensions of the wetland and the vegetated corridor (indicating good, marginal, or degraded condition - see attachment 1). Wetland boundaries shall be marked in the field. 15. Final construction plans shall include.off-site landscape/mitigation plans. Plans shall include in the details a description of the methods for removal and control of exotic species, location, distribution, condition and size of plantings, existing plants and trees to be preserved, and installation methods for plant materials. A Maintenance Plan shall be included on final plans including methods, dates (at least twice yearly) and responsible party contact information. 16. Should final development plans differ significantly from those submitted for review by the District, the applicant shall provide updated drawings, and if necessary, obtain a revised Service Provider Letter. Please call (503) 846-3613 with any questions. Heidi K. Berg Site Assessment Coordinator Page 3 of 3 P,p„.i Wetland 2: 0.02 acres Water Quality Sensitive Area Boundaries KGT6 ~ zz R 0. 5 rD / PLO18 K Y J 1 / 1 KOT,O ROT,00 KO,9 ROTC, zI OKOT,. \ 0.0T,2j~ • PLOT 7~ \ De&aded •o r -T Wetland 3: 0.004 acres Vegetated Corridor Boundaries \ Wetland 1: 0.21 acres Schott 6 Associates Figure 2: Water Quality Sensitive Areas and 11977 5 Toliver Rd. Vegetated Corridor Conditions Molalla, Oregon 97038 503-829-6318 Prte , V M= -K)OR 8 A 33M ONPU31 O ~~~rooiol , I I ~1 <t slog E pm gj,.r+cy rryr j t+G+i +5..,5.5+•eiiRRe...,[•Y ~i•S f bEr. j - a * i O, , r r4i ►i,~~ fsf}, ii [ fl t fl R•~• t .iw ~ ~ ~ ai• I ..F. - pp~ f _~t~~ ~f1' i , 3iii ;i ~ aa. s3• 5 '31 82 !bl • i { - I i aH i i y ~ t n 3 3i _a4lA l c~ . sat i r r ij , 2 re 01,71 w M5 E/E a6e,l`Raafr Xr-naf (Czn•n: :nrcn/- i J 1 \ \ ,t1 n © v t O \ 1\ 11 caAP,llc xluz . .rwr ~lw .VS(W5: I i i I 1 I PROJECT TEAM a.R~ 1+-earn ranwu •rlr. •K. TptM•Y et{ta Intl tl/-°eYtlbl 01[LI lK f{1-IU-t1tt Wa ru ' 16LH1-Mt1 'I.s :aaT.P; .11(1) tMaal .•el I: w001t tOOr=RMrrq-.WSRCrIlR Tfs/ l{ ttMl{r ta1Qi IO\Ar°. O{CA Af0 t{FIT- ~ 1Y edT.Cfi N r.p{t O64.?[M 11An.. .6 y 510 w CAN'". 1- tart 1. s{.1cm. a n1a 1.! IN-It>-ffN caller: ran 1.wt. PR(3j CT DATA ' It 0 li t101r lratrw.t eL1Yr1a sarMltt' p0r• .WO t 1Nm.6Wmatln~. T w rn r., tar nat.t wW..r1 n.°.. hroi rra ,r{nrnu IUt01fe •rrrro M b.ttt . t -W. ".Me fIK K. 111N . tt%jum .R. 111!1 n aml.,l H.910 4 rnola.t .1e. evtc. {.u O ftttvr r. tfG - tIMMM VWLIM lraR Mt. Ili. 91 T I T-Tj u t. 1.v1. ro•n 1.".p1MIY opn1• I T I I ~ ~1 1 1 I 1 ~ I PRELIMINARY BONITA INDUSTRIAL PARK SITE PLAN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 947-M al me w teem n.e aK r tmrellrtm recemla°aw ,Qna„yn„ PREPARED iOR;ri1^r' TIGARD OREGON • ar•c,... •r{.n .I 1 f b i s a[c[IVlD 774 ;3 \11 E 6S5 IF / G V H 08b u IVIOV ri .eli F 1 ~ . _ - ~ ~ - - ` ~ fix. I ( I I.I. •'i' (r lr.,.(; '1".'i ~ - A><i.:~' _ `f,l, n••• .~Altiy' .)vtt 'It ar V f1W11 a SN SlsaCrCR I ' 'f Q_ ' - _ I •~~I _ ~!~'n+. u.~~. 'p ~~.e ~ •s I 'M ` rb ~ Us r 1, q'•t a r'.'~';. + Z k1~ 41 104Ei, r c i Si • I Ay, AD vw- _ _ . _ (E I_ t cs _ 7 Ti ''-;"i'~t_•s: 1 -F~rr ta ~ I • 1. f.UO YI.t,' sl' l i(I Cl ; 1 -Jflt11.' ' Il4k ~'y`` ~1~ _ /JA w t. CO s C[!)•Js; r AD1 ..:IIf:: J, 'i RAAI ~iri ;1' s ' Y (N QD .J ~y ' 4 "U -IE ,o_ VF I•.A a e :rr~., ~[~r.. rn' . 's + C~~' c e d~ :F ,\C It S'. rt S p,,., Sion :a \i\ 'r• 1:i~:;.:: nw Ir •tFC~4~ r Nn i . r•_ r - - ;~-x;, °„1rr[I, ; I•.. - I ' { SW,- .per'" a i . At' ~d rl!0W ' I'.c.,.- [ I i , V!ar rn[a ,w A. rl~ + ;.i 's;:,: T ~r• °a 2 _ `••l[ . i4 __lltr:ilr.:: il 'L ` a S T _ r.rJll'. _ _ ' I'. 1 ` 'Yi rsrr, - 5 iin:,. ,J'••O i=i.c: u:--i'. i - _ .j!., ti' • f:Fr ; rvaurln ~ rc. (I -:r:: [ ~ .i' 'AD I, I°/J _ 11r Il1A,LAI IN ' RO •g J ~ .'3~.~Q, a ! . - <r I e'r'r.., rw•lrt.+ ' / ~'r, 1. -~,y ..I,, ~ ~ _ - c r I COr •In `V'- 'b' -S .~,~c 2r. xf aiw~ vi `ChIry•11 --a, u -1 I ` - - ( i 'tr CC' rt sw[Ea a SW S.. CHILDS j 3 fE +++rrrrrr/// i j ~i a o.,wlal:, ! d NES to CH 24 "r ; I ~I.u..u:r ti ~S CV r 1~ i S L11 1 • ' ' - V j: n,- 1 I , • .,Ina..,. r_r !1 f P5 0 SW NYBERG Sl' alp, y ' 11 iAFR i I ~2' ns i;Acy • ( si r. f r, -1 w6,lru!Jr ',F Q MCRfD1AN I :i_ _gti _•'F I ' I °•N f'1 I. ..1 ' = Aa+Rr - RARA utn Rr T {[Dt6 _ y ]r,✓'~~` `,•1 f Mp5C1 taL ' a I - t J = URIC ,1/ 11 st s_~/ of r l i~t _SN._. I VI- ~ r `-N {'i iwrf,.Ci • iI : t , i.. _ a.``-r :f a11G5 S[ = ipaN f. ICU( -,•1~ 5: rr:o~,~' iln rgl'< iD ti11. a:• ~~I': OR • 41?Kj 5\ sv A too i ( sv 54 SAGER 1! Si Rt sr U(2lA-_,' a SlJ ~E4 ND - _ I - ~AQRT ?r L SNI IIAI SI 'y~.'ili( {•T .>i e~ 1( r'4t u^"ionel u•,•f 3 -1 oc vtst y 1OR LAND A i , ' V )~lr ~t/Vl~ N aoI NI ..1 ;-'IC..j~ ..,o !e: a =1 °fol.ol AFCA All - FRWY- rrCl z[R[[ fr •I „II • cw!wnvr D~~3!' L IRK' % .N AVERY Si P 'Q it SW a AVERT ST !t 'A 4.lV I A Project Area ::a. : i ~i'..iF•,I. suATl H I' 1 _ S _ s ~ - ~ ~_l, '"'<i'"•'_ y ii.T~'•.': it r t.c z~~f ^~1;9V • ,s I.1'Y°' S 3 _ I , ( 1 ,r''{i.>., •.'t?. ,y',R~ !kj.•lnl^:' 25 SW DRGSPFRl1 I, 6WA RD - _ ! ` 1Jf.' ✓,1Ai a <N G1iP rll u+ _ i. <y J x-611 IARNEr_ _ 1h,^:r .s._~i~l'• _ _ __-_r. _ r IOC,s[OC._!pP.i.` R-~& Lit 41, .1, fi: .1, :t•~: :i w c 1 ..I .S (eta'\+: •,i _ _ - J :y;,:.: -x.,".'.y ~;:s..q,`5'':( ''du• u!y r :6 r sr I' ~ rc ' / ~ I r'z--~=s._t.+- _ - Sl F ~ ~ • ..i =yu.fl ~'~1 _ 9 j ~ L , I OARS •R• 4 % F11 a_ •~~Irtl\• 'ir'..i~ ; It. ~I s „s~iu•~ ~'e,~•_ L7 ,,o z. ..,.:''.°'-•`.f:; -`4V I , 4 .:1 - - _ I f_ J >..auslE! .'i J,'' i gI - I ( 1 'IP+`N tt .LI.:1--a"R~jl i~`-. ~.e •NTH'~:v~l i;i ~N _.i:.:F t:.-n~-_ _ ..r. 1 s--- frcor.6.; r Cr. _ :.v r- c `sru2,u fM 7ks 'pA • _ 006 - _ I I' ql P r IL'.l1 SN E • , •,7: t<a- ?'a.'t\" 1•S _ ,l _ rr~i eQry '~,SIA I. .Rb ''I -MAID f1 _ -2 _..I iN aRI LTn P.DI Jt`. •i _l~ = . _~~'*'~-y '~J ` 5N rl,coi! IA_ 36 _ c S(r;:,L? j A U, ' :i ~ .i' ;r 1•ur I I~ cN ;YR,RK:D ~I~ D I ~ 3-1 I ` I I wr; eia: ..I _ V W sb r~7'OC~/.~. r~ 'ill j { 1 ~ t, i~it t j 1~ 1 ,ON ()U N q KE LAN 60•°'. ASTER P S M CHEM AT~C 120 60' r--- r r 1 Zl! E cT J i~ r t` ~,L~N~CLNG` TR~N jr" p SCjTO 1'Cj[. R r1,L1 \1t LCfv~rttN_ `t., INI)A- 15. ~ V ~ jt1-COZ ,1 f?t Schott 'ooate.s. 1. Sevtollber 1.2001 ~ ~ fr WHOTT.& ASSOCIATED Ecologists & Wetland Specialists 11977 S. Toliver Rd. - Walla, OR 97038 - (503) 829-6318 - FAX (503) 829-3874 S &A 1520 September 7, 2001 Y PLANTING LEGEND Common Name Scientific Name Size Ouantity O Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga mensiesii bare root, 24" 4 10-15' 0. c. ® Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa bare root, 24" 5 10-15' o. c. O Th Pl i 5 Western Red Cedar uja icata cutt ngs, 12-18' o. c. ® Red Alder Alnus rubra bare root, 36" 15 6-10' o.c. Pacific Willow Saliz sp. cuttings, 13 3-5' o.c. Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 1 gal. 15 9' o.c. O Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 36" 27 5' o.c. 0 Tall Oregon Grape Mahonia aquifolium 36" 24 4-6' o.c. Plate .LJS r- ~ Q~~K+►'+~., t7L1- c,L, r -~fi ~o J LEARNING TREE DAY SCHOOL TRI-COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK Schott & Associates, proj. # 1520 September 7, 2001 1. oF O • • o -Oregon' N' 'Z John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor 9 185 July 25, 2001 Jack Steiger Tri-County Industrial.Park 301 Murray Blvd. Portland, OR 97229 Re: Wetland Delineation for Learning Tree Day School located in T2S R1W Section 12, Tax Lot 1900, 2000 in City; WD #2001-0231 Dear Mr. Steiger: State Land Board John A. Kitzhaber Governor Bill Bradbury Secretary of State Randall Edwards State Treasurer I have reviewed the wetland delineation report prepared by Schott and Associates, Inc. for the project referenced above. Based on the information presented in the report and my July 23, 2001 site visit, I concur with the wetland and waterway boundaries as mapped in Figure 3 of the report. These wetlands are subject to the permit requirements of the state Removal-Fill Law. A state permit is required for fill or excavation of 50 cubic yards or more in a wetland area or below the top of bank of a waterway. Ground alteration has already occurred within Wetland 1; therefore, this volume should be included in the calculations of wetland impacts for this site. This concurrence is for purposes of the state Removal-Fill Law only. Federal or local permit requirements may apply as well. The Army Corps of Engineers will review the report and make a determination of jurisdiction for purposes of the Clean Water Act at the time that a permit application is submitted. We recommend that you attach a copy of this concurrence letter to both copies of any subsequent joint permit application to speed application review. In evaluating a permit application, our agency will first consider whether there is an analysis of alternatives that avoid or minimize wetland or waterway impacts. State law establishes a preference for avoidance of wetland impacts. Because measures to avoid and minimize wetland impacts may include reconfiguring parcel layout and size or development design, we recommend that you work with Division staff on appropriate site design before completing the city or county land use approval process. Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 http://statelands.dsl.state-or.us Uwetlands\ennifer\wd letters\wd01-0231leamingtree.doc 0 • This concurrence is based on information provided to the agency. Should additional information be brought to our attention or should site conditions change, we would consider the new information and re-evaluate the site and our jurisdictional determination, as needed. Thank you for your report. The Tigard Local Wetland Inventory should now be revised to document the location of these wetlands. Sincerely, Jennifer Goodridge Wetland Specialist cc: Martin Schott, Schott and Associates Duane Roberts, City of Tigard Planning Dept. Rich Gebhart, Corps of Engineers kAwetlands\jennifer\wd letters\wd01-02311eamingtree.doc ~ ~tJ 1J O I O z 3 j 10 AVA PIm,A~ Wetland 2: 0.02 acres nme PLOT, Wetland 3: igDm]A6 PLOTTA Wetland Boundaries ` PlO7S PlmaSj nmI~ J 1 /OPLOT7 PLOT,00. 0 PLOT, / Plop, (5/ i g{ 0xmu / DPlon. PLo'ly Wetland 1: 0.21 acres acres lot 1100 Schott d, Associates Figure 3: Wetland Boundaries and Sample Plot Locations 11977 S Toliver Rd. Molalla, Oregon 97038 503-829-6318 jl( to - 10 S&---I'::: 1520 . _ x r • • BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEY CO. 10121 NE GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97220 PH. (503)251-2947 FAX (503)251-3714 February 27, 2001 Tri County Industrial Park 301 NW Murray Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97229 RE: Environmental Impact Assessment Proposed Learning Tree Daycare Center Lot 1, Bonita Industrial Park City of Tigard Washington County, Oregon Introduction Pursuant to City of Tigard Municipal Code, Section 18.350.050 C.1., Burton Engineering & Survey Co. has completed an Environmental Impact Assessment documenting, visible emissions, vibration, odor glare and heat from uses within on quarter mile of the proposed daycare center. Assessment Procedure Burton Engineering & Survey Co. conducted inspections of the thirty two (32) uses, which consisted of residential, office, sales, warehouse, auto repair shops, and light manufacturing, that were located within one quarter mile of the subject site. Each location is numbered on the enclosed map and a detailed description and impact rating is shown on the enclosed assessment sheets. Findings and Recommendations There were no on-site impacts from visible emissions, vibration, odor, glare and heat generated by any off-site uses within one quarter mile of the proposed daycare center site and thus there are npacts to be mitigated. . no on-site u gated. 313 ~~AS~$s Ck~~~ey°~1~~~a~ INEERING & SUR*Y Co' BURT 1 ENG 10121 NE GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97220 PH. (503)251-2947 FAX (503)251-3714 LOT 1, BONITA PARK PROPOSED DAY CARE CENTER SITE PROPOSED DAY CARE CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL E OF SM,ET AREA WITHINY, 2/5/01 ' IL Sw SJ TECH CENTER DR ~ SW-[ANN Rl~ D Q N I TA `r(1 r.v.v rv, a...::... nrn , .nv: - vrn.H.,, v. .:„vnu ..r,,n.v T 8000Y MM NT sw :ARO[.[_ s N vo[.A S:.... r 4 ST SW G1. N 71 FE CD J o r.. ) rw. +v • v r-t N DR J. • t 12 NN ~~,~...._~,~.,•~w..~ S A N D B U RG CHERRY DR f 11 QCATION 10 1. .t3 14 .i 1 17 1:18 6ci r cL swc:) sw ' REDW SW KAB L L 1~~1 /l77 v,~ 1>n - Febnm y 5, 2001 BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEY CO. 10121 NE GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OR 97220 f PH. (503)251-2947 PAGE I OF 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR FACILITES WITHIN'/. MILE OF PROPOSED DAY CARE FACILITY ON LOT 1, BONITA PARK, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON NAME ADDRESS VISIBLE EMISSIONS VIBRATION ODOR GLARE HEAT 1, WEST TECH 14058 SW MILTON COURT NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE ELECRONICS SUPPLY 2. ESCHELON NEC 14NONE5NONE SW MILTON. COURT NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE AMERICA ELECTRONICS 3. AMERICAN IDENTY 14150 SW MILTON COURT NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE • WAREHOUSE - OFFICE 4. CHURCH (OLD) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE 5. RESIDENTIAL NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE SINGLE & MULTI FAMILY 6, RESIDENTIAL NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE SINGLE & MULTI FAMILY 7. HUNTAIR NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE LIGHT MANUFACURING AND WAREHOUSE 8, LAKESIDE MOTORS 7390 SW BONITA RD. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE AUTO REPAIR 9. HARRINGTON PLASTICS 7380 SW BONITA RD. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE DISTRIBUTOR & WAREHOUSE 10. NELSON BUSINESS CENTER NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE OFFICE COMPLEX February 5, 2001 BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEY CO. 10121 NE GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OR 97220 PH. (503)251-2947 PAGE 2 OF 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR FACILITES WMIIN 1/. MILE OF PROPOSED DAY CARE FACILITY ON LOT 1, BONITA PARK, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON NAME ADDRESS 11. FOUGHT STEEL WAREHOUSE & FABRICATION 12. NORTHWEST STAPLE SUPPLIES, SALES, WAREHOUSE. 13. SELECTRON OFFICE 14. PGE TRUCK PARKING, SUPPLIES, OFFICE 15. ROGERS MACHINERY CO. EQUIPMENT SALES 16. RYDER TRANSPORTATION 14795 SW 72ND. AVE. 17. DELTA FIRE, INC. 14795 SW 72ND. AVE. SALES & WAREHOUSE 18. NORTHWEST ENGINEER 14835 SW 72ND. AVE. OFFICE 19. UNITED PIPE, INC. SALES, WAREHOUSE, STORAGE YARD 20. HADCO SUPPLIES HEATING AND COOLING SALES - WAREHOUSE VISIBLE EMISSIONS VIBRATION ODOR GLARE HEAT NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE • February 5, 2001 BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEY CO. 10121 NE GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OR 97220 PH. (503)251-2947 PAGE 3OF4 t ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR FACILITES WITHIN MILE OF PROPOSED DAY CARE FACILITY ON LOT 1, BONITA PARK, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON NAME ADDRESS VISIBLE EMISSIONS VIBRATION ODOR GLARE HEAT 21. IMAGE MAX 14915 SW 72ND. AVE. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE OFFICE 22. H & A CONSTRUCTION 14945 SW 72ND. AVE. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE OFFICE - WAREHOUSE EQUIPMNET PARKING 23. LARGE OFFICE COMPLEX 7N07 SEQUOIA PARKWAY NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE • 24. HUNT AIR 14280 SW 72ND. AVE. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE OFFICE-WAREHOUSE 25. FISKARS-GERBER 142NO SW 72ND. AVE. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE OFFICE -WAREHOUSE 26. HUNTAIR NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE OFFICE-WAREHOUSE 27. MAYFLOWER NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE LARGE COMPLEX TRUCK PARKING & WAREHOUSE 28, SABRE CONSTRUCTION 7235 SW BONITA RD. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE EQUIPMENT PARKING-OFFICE 29. LEIFS AUTO BODY 7325 SW BONITA RD. 'NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE OFFICE-BODY SHOP 30. ROSE CITY BLDG. 7220 SW BONITA RD. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE MATERIALS • WAREHOUSE-SALES 'DOWNDRAFT PAINT BOOTH FILTERED AIR DISCHARGE COMPLIES WITH OAR 340-208-0670 February 5, 2001 BURTON ENGINEERING & SURVEY CO. 101121 NE GLISAN ST. PORTLAND, OR 97220 PH. (503)251-2947 PAGE 4 OF 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR FACILITES WITHIN 1/. MILE OF PROPOSED DAY CARE FACILITY ON LOT 1, BONITA PARK, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON NAME ADDRESS VISIBLE EMISSIONS VIBRATION ODOR GLARE HEAT 31. EMPIRE BATTERIES NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE SALES & INSTALLATION 32. 90NITA PIONEER 7333 SW BONITA RD. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE WAREHOUSE • 0 • January 16, 2000 Tri-County Industrial Park, Inc. 301 N.W. Murray Boulevard Portland, Oregon 97229 Attn: Mr. Jack Stieger From: Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc. Kerrie G. Standlee, P.E. • - ENGINEERS Daly Standlee & Associates, Inc. 4900 S.W. Griffith Drive Suite 216 Beaverton, Oregon 97005 (503) 646-4420 Fax (503) 646-3385 A~0 PH 4~GINg S, 11,962 OREGON q;b 3,1 Z4~ G gT ~ KRRES: 016/0 .3, Re: Bonita Industrial Park Daycare Center Site Noise Assessment DSA File: 194001 Introduction Tri-County Industrial Park, Inc. is proposing to construct a daycare center in Lot 1 of the Bonita Industrial Park located in Tigard, Oregon. The proposed site for the daycare center is located in an industrial zone of the City and according to Section 18.530.050, "Additional Development Standards", of the Tigard Municipal Code, an environmental noise impact assessment must be made for a daycare facility site proposed within an industrial zone of the City. According to City staff reviewing the site application, before the site can be approved, the noise impact assessment must show that noise from industrial sources in the area does not negatively impact the proposed daycare site. At the request of Tri-County Industrial Park, Inc., Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc. conducted sound measurements at the proposed daycare center site to determine if the amount of industrially generated noise reaching that location would be considered acceptable for a daycare facility. This report presents the results of the measurements and the conclusions drawn from those results. Measurement Procedures Sound measurements were made at the site on January 5, 2001 for one hour between 10:12 a.m. and 11:12 a.m. It was known prior to the measurements that the environmental noise at the site was a result of noise from industrial sources in the area and the result of noise from traffic on Bonita and other roads in the area. The measurement time was selected because the noise assessment was supposed to only include industrial noise and because traffic noise was expected to be lowest at the site during the mid morning hours. 194001-1.rep January 16, 2001 Tri-County Industrial Park Daycare Center Site Noise Assessment The sound measurements were made with a Larson Davis Model 700 Sound Level Meter. The Larson Davis meter is a Type 2 meter which has the ability to continuously monitor the sound at a location and determine and store specific data about the sound for later review. The meter was programmed to monitor the sound at a rate of 32 times per second and then determine and store the maximum level present during the one hour measurement, the minimum level present during the one hour measurement and the hourly 1,01i 1,10i L'50 and 1,90 sound levels (the sound levels exceeded 1% of the hour (36 seconds), 10% of the hour (6 minutes), 50% of the hour (30 minutes) and 90% of the hour (54 minutes) respectively). The meter was field calibrated before and after the measurement with a Larson Davis Model CA250 Calibrator to insure the data was as accurate as possible. Observations were made during the one hour measurement to help identify how much of the measured sound was a result of industrial noise and how much was a result of other noise sources. Notes were made about the different noise sources that influenced the measured noise levels during the measurement period. Measurement Results and Discussion of Results The following noise level data was obtained from a one hour measurement at the daycare center site: Table 1 Results of One Hour Measurement Made on January 5, 2001 at Proposed Bonita Industrial Park Daycare Center Site Ln,i„ Lmax Hourly Lo, Hourly L10 Hourly L50 Hourly L90 52 dBA 72 dBA 65 dBA 59 dBA 57 dBA 55 dBA To help understand the meaning of the data, 10 percent of the hour (6 minutes) the noise level at the site was below 55 dBA but at no time did it ever drop below 52 dBA; 40 percent of the hour (24 minutes) the noise level was between 55 dBA and 57 dBA; 40 percent of the hour (24 minutes) the noise level was between 57 dBA and 59 dBA; and only 10% of the hour (6 minutes of the hour) the noise level was above 59 dBA. Of the 6 minutes of total time in the hour when the noise level was above 59 dBA, the level was between 59 dBA and 65 dBA for a total of 5.4 minutes and it was between 65 dBA and 72 dBA for only 36 seconds. Even though the measurement period was selected in an effort to minimize the influence of traffic noise on the measured level, traffic was the main source of the noise at the site during the measurement period. In general, traffic on SW Bonita Road, SW 72 Street and even I-5 caused the noise level during the measurement site to be around 56 dBA. Noise from industrial sources during the measurement period was generally below the minimum 52 dBA level and did not contribute much to the overall noise level during a majority of the time. However, at times, industrial noise from the Fought & Company shop influenced the measured noise level at the daycare center site. 194001-1. rep 2 • • January 16, 2001 Tri-County Industrial Park Daycare Center Site Noise Assessment During the measurement period, an overhead crane at the Fought & Company shop was being used to lift steel material and move it around the outside yard. When the crane was in the western end of the yard, noise from an electric winch could be heard at times when traffic noise was lower. The noise from the electric winch on the crane was determined to be around 54 dBA when during one instance; the noise level at the daycare center site dropped from level of 57 dBA to a level of 54 dBA after the winch was turned off in the west end of the yard. A reduction of 3 dB in the overall noise level when the winch was turned off can only occur when the contribution from the winch was equal to the contribution from the noise left without the winch; 54 dBA. Therefore, when the crane was in the west end of the yard, and when the winch was in use, the over all noise level at the daycare center site was influenced a little by the electric winch but the contribution ranged between I and 3 dB, depending on the amount of noise from traffic at the time. Because the crane was working in the west end of Fought's yard for approximately 10 minutes total time during the one hour period, there was very little contribution by the winch to the overall noise at the daycare center. In addition to the crane winch noise from the Fought & Company facility, air was released from pneumatic valves located on the south side of the shop and the release of air was audible. The noise caused by air release from pneumatic valves at the Fought Company was noted to range between 60 dBA and 68 dBA when it occurred. However, the air release noise was present for such short period of time when it occurred that it alone could not have been the cause of the measured hourly L,o noise level of 59 dBA. The hourly L,o noise level was mainly a result of noise generated by trucks on Bonita Road, commercial jet aircraft and two military aircraft flying over the site. When the crane was in use in the east end of the yard, when the crane was in the west end of the yard without the use of the electric winch, and when the crane was not in use at all, the noise at the daycare center was totally a result of traffic noise and any noise from other sources such as commercial jet aircraft flying overhead. Other than noise from the Fought & Company shop, noise from other industrial operations in the area was not even audible during the measurement. If no outdoor activities had been occurring at the Fought & Company site during the measurement period, we believe the noise levels measured at the daycare center site would have been the same as those presented in Table 1. That is because it appeared that the noise radiating to the site from the industrial sources was generally less than that reaching the site from roadway traffic. Assessment of the Industrial Noise Found at Proposed Daycare Center Site The amount of noise at the proposed daycare center site caused by industrial sources is much less than that allowed by the Oregon DEQ noise regulation at a noise sensitive receiver (hourly Lo, of 75 dBA, L,o of 60 dBA and L_,o of 55 dBA) and much less than that allowed at a noise sensitive land use by section 7.40.170 of the Tigard Municipal Code (maximum level of 75 dBA). A noise sensitive receiver is defined in the DEQ noise regulation as property where sleeping normally occurs or as property used as a church, school, library or hospital. The Tigard Code defines noise sensitive land use as any portion of a church, children's daycare, hospital, residential group care, school, single or multifamily dwelling unit and mobile home that is intended for living, sleeping or eating. Since the amount of industrial noise reaching the proposed daycare center site is below both state and city noise codes, it is concluded that the amount of industrially generated noise reaching the daycare center site would be considered acceptable under the City of Tigard Development Code. 194001-1.rep 3 LOT 3 ~ 9~ s~ ~ Z~yS p~ FOR TRI COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK INC ti IN LOTS i & 2, "BONITA INDUSTRIAL PARK" y0 ~ g~y0 IN THE HICKLiN 0 L C NO 43 ~g , IN THE NE 1/4, SECTION 12, T2S, R1W, WM CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ~ i PL011A SCALE 1" = 30' APRIL 9, 2001 30 24 1812 6 0 15 30 60 Z ~ a~ ~ poi ~ / PL0T3A'P ~ ~ ~ ~ n~, TP y ~ ~ S' ® ~ a LOT 2 ~ ~ P(.Or2A 1 ~ WA = 972 S F i - ailed ~ 1 - ' ~ Degraded ' I • ~ 7P 1 ' ~ PL0T7 WA = 215 S.F PLOr4A I r PLOT6 ~ - ~ ~ ~ i ~ • X26 Q ti v • ~ 2 59 v ~ . a~9`~a ~ a ~ ~ o PL015 i ' PLOT8 ~ PLOT3 r ~ , - ` 7 ~j0 j - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ WA = 9292 S,F i ~ • ~ G ~a ~ ~ ~ rP i = ASPHALT 1 PLOr1 ~ a"~" 2 ~ TP ~ = CONCRETE 1/ ~ (~D'PL1012 t ~ O ~ =IRON R00 PLOT10 T Q ~ Z ~ PLOT9 ~ ' = GRAVEL ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ o =IRON PIPE WETLANDS )P ` =TEST PITS ~ ~ P10111 ~ ~ 'L ~ ~ ~o v WA = WETLAND AREA IN SQUARE FEET ~ ~ / LaT 1 ` r = 25 FT VEGETATED CORRIDOR 0 ~ r~ (~PlOr13 ~ q A 0 /r PLOrta ' ~ ri F10T12® ~ ~ ma i ~ ~ 1 - p~ ~ i • t ` 30 ~ 30 - " i ` S 89'11'03" W 56, 0 PU4P r+WSE HWSE f • ~ CHURCH L_ { CURVE DELTA RADIUS ARC CHORD CHORD BEARING O w 0 O . 1 C1 00'20'09" 1736,73 1018 1018 S 11'35'27" E C2 18'55'59" 505 00 166.87 166 12 N 10'37'54" W I C3 10'39'59" i 736 73 323 32 322 85 S 17'05'31" E ~ C4 08'15'17" 505.00 72,76 72 69 N 24'13'32" W a ~ ~ C5 01'20'50" 2257 36 53 08 53.08 S 28'35'53" E o ~ C6 05'29'50" 505 00 166 67 166 6t S 25'10'28" E 0 • z 229 20 SOUINERN PAf,1FIC RAILROAD l 4 ~ • a • • ~ ~ , ~ J C) MI O '~(1 M rn r~ ~ . ~ S 89'?703' u+ 44 _ ~,1_-- ~ ~ S 89'17'03"W S.W. DONITA ROAD (COUNTY ROAD # 736) ~ N ~i inc. 0 C q Y i cC N; 339 VV MAIN STREET OREGON HILLSBORO. OREGON 97123 (503) 648-4959 JULY 13, 1979 JONN M, PETERSON 1856 RENEWAL 12/31/02 108 # 0008016 ~0'u _ _ CA 61-1-Y OFTMAHU - - - - - l~ 1, (timer; Tri•County Industrial Park, Inc, 301 NW Murray Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97229 Contact: Jack Steiger 503-643.5757 ' , TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY ~ 503-5756 (voice mail) - C_ _ - _ S03-b26-Ob21(fax) 2, Land Surve or: Develo meat & Construction Services c Y F , In . ~ 339 W. Main St, ' IWlsboro Ore on 97123. 947 g 3 r~ ~ - _ Contact: John Peterson 503.648.4 59 9 NOTE TABLE S43•b40-9385 fax ( ) r~ A 3, arcel Size: Existing I,ot 1- 43,546 S.l'. Lot 2 66184 S.F. P - l > 'K7 MM _ Proposed Lot 1- 29,600 S.F, l,ot 2.80,] 39 S.F. 4, Deed; L-A c~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - ~ _ - = Q - _ .a., Restrictions: None -__C:, - z y, ~ ~,1. CONTROL POINT TABLE ~ ~ - - = _ - \ ~ " C_ _ ~ _ ~T r~,i - - _ Q = - ~ _ - ~ J ~i ~.5-- ~ y0 ~ 1~~ - ~ - - - _ C = - _ _ ~ _ _ ^ ~X - 1 N - - _ -~I _ . _ - ~ - ~ - - - - a~ ~a~ ~a- i~~~,'~, - - - = Z ~ - - - - _ - ~ ~ _ ~ _ - ~ N ~ q ~ _ - _ - - _ _ _ IA ~ ~ ~ r~.J _ _~~a ~I'~~_~ _ - - ~ r _ ~ 1 r - ~ , - b~._ ~ _ < ~ ~ ~ - i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 1 I _ __l,C _ -r _ - 0 ~ r= ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i l ~ ~'IG-- ~ ~ _ - . ' - - V 1 i ~ 1 - ~ ~ _ _ rC~ -k- _ _ - ~ i ~ Q _ -~,r' ~ - - ^ 1 - _ ~ - _ - ~ 7 ~ ~ - ~ =t= ~ . _ - ~ ~ - I ~ ~ } X - --,~r _ ~ - - ~ f- ~ ~ - ~ o 1 ~ y - 7~ q ,.T nn, ~ _ ~r ~ 2 ~ _ - ~ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ v ~ = - _ to ~ ~~o ~ - ~ _ . _ ~ ~ 0 ° 8Q 39 Q. ~ , _ _ ~ ~ C r' ~ _ _ _ - - _ ' Q ~ Z o ~ ,i x ~ ~ ~tl = ~ ~ ~ I,I O ~ ~ ~ ~ i _ ~GNTROL F~~IhdT ~ ~ U = STORM MANHOLE ~ 1 ~ 1_ i n ~ i ~ I ~ i ~ _ „ :~T o ~ ~ N ` ~ ~ (S - _ANT~~AR NA,~H--- I ~ X n = ~,~P~",r~L~ i _ ~ _ r' _ . _ d ~ ~ Y~ r 0 ~~i - pp Trp t)C I-~' t Y~r~ _ ~ _ ~i _ ~ n , ~ , ~ PROP05~D N~IU I.OT I.INt: _ `1 I ~ i - ~ ~ r ~ ~ r r .r aw4 + ~ ~ ..ate. ~ r ~ _ _ r_^ ny~ ~ • e ~ ® _ I r~ _ ~ I ~ 1 ❑ 3 i ~ r ~ ~ti1 = PJ1A ~ 3'~_ ~ X = ~~~~,r ~ ~ ~ i c~ ~ = SAS v'A_~, E ~ ~ ~ = p~,E _ - _ ~ 3 _ ~ a 'i 1` - _ ~~~r~L~~ _IIJL ~ ~ ~ CURVE DATA ~ - i TAI ~ ~ ~ r- - - - 3 I, _L_--~_ ~Z _ ~;RAV~ _ ' ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ r~ 1 - - - - _ :HERr2~ ~ ! i r- i rC)~ ~F C' _ _ I / F~ ~ Q~ _r~f I c.,. ~ A ~ ~ = HAV~T-~~K~:,~J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( x ~ GATE CHuRC~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 1' ~ ~ P i'" ~ / ~ ~ r-----~ i I I - ~JAT~- - I - FIRE HYCrC~~d, ~r ~ ,~o I ~ i ~ _ 'MATER ~.'aLVE ~ ~ i ~ x s' ` CYO I ~ ~ ~ ~ sE _ E ~ ~ ~ I F G y~ 0 = IROf~ ~~E ~ 3 = B~ll_~_ARD ~ i-T i _ 0 ~G SAS ~ _ .k ~ I nlC~n ~J1 ~ ' , ~ i G = rt_C"C _ V~ I~ ~ - w r I -=1- ~ - 0 O O , , Q _ J = UAI~ FEE - I ~ ~ 1 I i ~y - X ~ ~L~jPF EASt~~~r' ~?E_C=':E~ CO~.'J'~=~1T r~,~~ 9&~8~~~~-1 ~~i ,g 2~~ ~ _ - , .i ~ - Y ~ ~ a a ~ r~ - ~ -r~- ~ , ~ ~ it ,P---- C V ~ ~ _~.u~v ~ r ~ ~lr~T , / v ~ _1a-,_ , ul ~ ~ v ~RS~ ~A-. % ~ ~ ~ / i; i I , ~ f+!. c. ~ ~ Z Y W s U ~J S.W. COUNTY ROAD 736 W 90NITA ROAD ( # ) J fry{~yyy `r91//~`.Iy,-~+,]y{ ~('~~V( ~pp cl L'IL~V LcI~~~l ~m~IQV CII@ a~ ,c Z~ Alml FILE; I 11 _ i ~ ~ l~vv r rsici~~o - ur - p~OV~V~ ~1~/~ll I ~ ~ f 1 q ~ - - 2" WIDE PAINTED EDGE NOTES. . i~a~. ~_S L 7 - I. PAINT AT HANDICAP STALLS WHERE SHOWN. n~ ~;.1 n 2. WHITE 5YMBOL ON UN -Honda BLUE BAGKGRO D ~ ~ , C . 3~ l ~ on Y L~ ~ 3, SYMBOL TO BE li ti WHITE TRAFFIC ~ PAINT, i G7 ~ CS Q . r_~~ ~ _ ~ ~ _.iC`.._'. a~I i~y1 `ti' s~ - ~7 ~ - ~~f - ~'1[~11 iv 2 2 - VIA 3'-0" 1 J r. I~,ZO~•0~ 11 r. U~ s s~ ' ~ r i• _u~~= i G L - ~ ~ LYE ~ ~ C O BARN Y ryl1Sl 1.~~E~ ~"Y ~~-T VJ ltl~tLAND 2 BOUNpRY t r - 0 r~ _ LOT 1 2 l Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 25'x15'x5' NICsH 5 GONG. 10 x10 x5 HffsH PAVING CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK F~NG~ PLAY AREA ENGL08URE APPROX. CRASH ENGL08URE ' ~ ~ PROYIpE 3' CsAtE WItH LAtGH 12.9 x15.6 UJItH Ii xil x4 coNGRlaE PAD PROYIpE p0U8LE CsAtE IUItH (N6tALL VINYL SLAtB ALL 4 61pES i HASP AND PAgLOCK __._..._~_~..r.~-..- _---.....~r ~OP081:D PROPER?Y L IINE _ ~ ~ _ r r _ " r w~r~~rr~r~rr~~r~~rr.. r~rr - i 5 frr-yr-r-prr r,, . I I I PLAY AAA I CHAMFER :r.~l~ ro ~ ~ 25'x15' I EXI6tING , ~ • ~ • I i tREE t0 BE ~ REMOYED ~ ~ ~ ~ • s i i i ~ : , ~ ~ . ~ r _ _ INSTALL RI ON ~ ~ ~ S ~31KE RAG i R ~ ~ 6 BI 3 ~ ~ ~ i •t r 0 0 L BEL BPAGE - p p ~ 'R~SERYEp FOR ' ' o 0 ~ i VAN' • ~ ~ ~ t' i ~ o 5 ' • ~ I 1 1~ ' , 5. I I o- ~ CHURCH i 4a i Y, r •4' p . '~5 I 1 ~ ~ . , I { I ,r ' 3e'-o tr F o 1ly',,,A2,~1`L. f~yff~'~yM1~r~11,~ •lr I ~1I III C • .'v, IJ.AFI(r(r~5tKf1\~ •J I J WIpF. I QUIRED tR1:1=8 PLAY AREA ':~,,•.Y ~.1,.,L;;,~:;.,T};.r~~~,~' I . I' I ~ J I , - ~ ' 1$'•6' ~1,• 8' 108 MARIE 15 6 28 I I 6' UJIpE • tE ~ G I ~ _ ~ ~ I 1 -j- ~ ~ iD .I .ter ..~r.~ .r ~ s ~r.~ ~ I PROYIp~ ! PROYIpE 5'-(0' ci.tai~anc. O Q I U BEtWEI:N EXISTING TRANSFORMER 1 A AND 1 401 40 PAP AND NEW CHAIN LINK FENCE NEW STREE NEW STREET TREES - At 40'-0' At 40'-0' OC, SEE RECEIVED P9.All-ZINC LANDSCAF LANPSCAPE PLANS FOR PETAILB NOY 2 ? 2001 51TE PLAN S.W. BONITA ROAD (COUNTY ROAD # 736) FOR qErA ITY ay A100 FILE, OD603A1 _O.DWG I _9___~_ ~'Q" 1 r~.~,S' 1 " LL1~ ~..7^-'r~J ~ LW ° C.7 C.1 ~ C t C] ~ T„~ FLOOR NORtN WALL EASt WALL SOUTH WALL WESt WALL C1=ICING ~ ~ ¢ C,"~ No. ROOM NAME REMARKS MAt'L BASE MAt'L FINISH MAt'L FINISH MAt'L FINISH MAt'L ~INISN MAt'L FINISH 100 cLASSR00M cPT R$ GW$ Pt GWB Pt GW$ Pt GWB PT GUJ$ FACt SY ~ ti 101 CLASSROOM cPt R$ GWB pt GWB Pt GIllB p7 GWB Pt GW$ FACT Sv 102 cLASSR00M cPt R$ GWB Pt GW$ pT GWB Pt GIUB pT GWB FACT Sv 13 c ASS OOM GPT G PT GWB t T G pt GW$ FACt 0 L R gy RB W$ P GW$ P WB C~ 104 c ASS OOM GPT R$ CsW$ Pt CsUJ$ Pt GWB PT GWB PT GW$ FACt L R gy U W ~ 105 c AS8 OOM GPT Cs T G t G T CsWB pT GW$ FACt L R gy R$ ~ P W$ P W$ P 106 c ASS OOM GPT GW$ Pt GW$ Pt GWB PT GW$ PT fsWB FACt L R gy R$ U ~v 101 orr~ICE GPT R$ GWB PT GW8 PT GW$ Pt GWB Pt GWB FACT d L~; 108 VESTI$ULE A7K ~ R$ CsWB Pt GW$ Pt GWB Pt GWB PT CsW$ Pt ' ^ .t.+ V ~ Z N 109 REGEPtIDN cPt R$ Gll~ PT GWB Pt GW$ Pt CsU18 PT CsUJB Pt 110 HALL cPt R$ GW$ P7 GW$ PT GW$ Pt GW$ Pt GWB Pt z ~ N J ~F~ d. Ill HALL cpt R$ GWF3 PT GW$ Pt GW$ PT CsWB PT GW$ P`f M 112 c ASS OOM GPT Cs t Cs 7 T Cs PT Gllli3 FACt L R gy R$ lU$ P W$ P GW$ P WB Z ;Z d~ F 113 ~c Sra~ Sv R$ GW$ Pt GlU$ Pt GlU$ Pt GWB pt GW$ FAcT r LLB 0 114A KITCI~I=N 5v R$ GW$ Pt CsW$ Pt CCCdU$ Pt CsW$ PT fsW$ Pt 114$ $REAK GPT R$ GWB PT Cslll$ Pt GW$ PT GW$ Pt GWB Pt 115 UtILITY SV R$ Cslu$ Pt GWB Pt GW$ Pt GWB Pt CxW$ pt o iib BOYS t01LEt ROOM Sv R$ CCC~IU$ Pt CsIU$ Pt GW$ PT GlU$ Pt GUJ$ P1 111 GIRLS t01LEt ROOM S1/ R$ GW$ Pt CsIU$ PT GW$ Pt GWi$ PT GW$ Pt 5 6 , ~ O 1~. ~ '0 ~ ~ 0 118 "'I~LTI PURPOSE GPT R$ CC~IUB PT GW$ P7 GW$ Pt GW$ Pt GW$ Pt ~U ,IDS'-ID' ~ O I U ~ z 16'-9' 11'•5' 28'-6' 1'-1ID' 37'-6' O s 1'-1' 9'-2' S'-2' ~I 13'.6 ~~_6~ ~ ~ ~ a` N I~ Yy. ~ 0 8rIDx4-~ 6-IDx4•ID 6.0x4-ID~ ~ 0 FRAME REMARKS 6-0x4.0 4-0x4-0 ~ BOOR SY 'r ~ t H RAT t I ~ SY No. SIRE M M TFd{C TYPE FIN18N TYPE FINISH DETAI r i N 115A 11 100A 3-0 X 1-0 1314' A 6TAIN NM. PAIN1 ~ CLASSROOM ' i 'r ~ .i ~ ~ ~ ~ BRE U 100$ 3-0 X 1-0 13/4' A STAIN NM. PAINT '`t' i ~9 282 SQ. Pt. ~ i ~ ~t 101A 3-0 X '1-0 13/4' S PAINT NM. PAINt ' r i i i- ;q L J i 9 4'-0 1018 3-0 X 1.0 13/4 B PAINT NM. PAINT ' - ~ ~ cLR n 14'-0' ' ' ~ i .0 I02A 3-0 X '1-0 1 3/4' A STAIN NM. PAINT I 102$ 3-0 X 1-0 1314' S PAINT NM. PAINT ~1 ( r _ Q Q~ N ~ i OL 0 0 y 104A 3-0 X 1-0 13/4 A STAIN NM. PAINT D ~ S .~a 4' INT HM. AMt ~ - - YESt ~ KITCH N 104$ 3-0 x 1-0 I3/ 9 PA P ~ 08 i E ~ r~ 0 ®I 105A 3-0 X 1-0 13/4 A STAIN NM. PAMT ~ RECEPt. 105 3-0 X 1-0 13/4' B PAINT NM. PAINT ~ ~ 09 c 8 108 101 3-0 X 1-0 13/4' A STAIN NM. PAINT I T A ~ BOYS ~a~ 108A 3-0 X 1-0 13/4' C - ALUM PAINT ~ 4- X4-0 ~ i ~ ~ c 13/4' C - ALUM PAINT I ~ ~ I 108$ 3-0 x 1-0 Q 0~ 0 I $ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ i ~ , 110 3.0 X 1-0 13!4' B PAINT HM. PAINT O 0 1-9 ~ fi 4 -4 - ~ iX a D ~ -r ' _a 112A 3-0 X 1-0 13/4' A STAIN NM. PAINT 0 ~F ~ 101 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s'-~ , , 4,- ~ GPt 6.0 5 -9 1128 3-0 x 1-0 13/4 0 PAINT HM. PAINT Q • ~ 5'-0' 4'•6' CLR 12'-8' cLR 113A 3-0 X 7-0 13/4' D 6TAIN HM. PAINT L StEEL G R C R '-6 ~ ~E E Sv I 1138 3-0 X 1.0 13/4 D STAIN NM. PAINT - - - - - " - - - J ~ ~ - - - ~ 114A 3.0 X 1-0 13/4' A 6TAIN NM. PAINT A A in A 114$ 3-0 X 1-0 13/4 B PAINT HM. PAINt O ~ i bA 6E l in in cLA88R00M ~ cLASSR00M ~ 115A 3-0 X 1-0 13/4 D STAIN NM. PAINT - _ _ © tYP j0 'I 115$ 3.0 X 1.0 13/4' D STAIN HM. PAIN? 8'-0' 33'-3' 16' ~ , 118A 3-0 X 1.0 13/4' A 6TAIN NM. PAINT i I ~ 4! 118$ 3-0 x 1-0 13/a a PAINT NM. PAINT Q 1018a r=t. R P~ a u u ~ > ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ REMARKSLEGE q ~ "r 4 cLA88RC 1 PROYIgE g00R SENSORS ~ OUtSIgE ~ tYP 350 SQ. i I 8-0x4.0 8.0x4.0 ~ 8.0~ I I~ I ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r I I 10 -7 6.1 6.1 IS -10 j~, \ \ i a 5 tYPE 'A' tYPE tYPE 'C' tYPE 'D' Sc WOOD MtL. CLAD ALUM. StORE~RONT SC WOOp Wl I H Ht--,AU UI' UUum I-KA mm. DOOR TYPES SIDELITE AND RELITE HEIGHTS o a MATCHES DOOR HEIGHT. a ~ FLOOR PLAN ■ f e 1~ :.a ~ ~ < ABPRALt CO RF. BHINGLEB, a o TYP. x ~ (~"~'r~~w ID N "4-! '6a! PROVIDE CO ` W H- BCREENED RIDGE • vENT, TYP. S ~ '1. ENTRY FACADE ASSEMBLY ~ CEDAR LAP SIDING- 0 OUYER MTL. CAP PRE-PRIMED EA. SIDE ' - Y . SHEATHING m - PL WD ~xb sruDB ~ 16' o.c. PLIUD. SHEATHING W C A A 81 1NG- ~ rn EDRLP D ~ ° 2x6 WD. PRE-PRIMED EA. SIDE ~ F- N Ix tRIM AS SHOIt~I U r TRIM W ~ _ LAP U BIDING LAP - - - - :o" L S L B / L B B - B PTD. MTL. ~ FENCE SIDING `s ~ SL cL ~ F-- 1x8lUD. C~ ~ IUAiNSCOt _ Z TRIM, TYP. Z Z 2x8 WD. PtD. MEtAL Q c N WAINBCOt F NG ~ ~ E E a~.m TRIM, TYP. :z,-, Z 118':1'-0" ~ ~r u- W $ 1 6 ~ ~ LOUVER MATCH DIMS s UJESt ELEV. I I a~ LAP SIDING ~ ~ L B / L 8 L L 8 L B I , L 8 L S \ U i 2x8 Wp. ~ Q waINSGOr TRIM, TYP. ~ rn 1 c ~ v n. c v~ .N a~ 118"=1'-0" a~ v ENtRY FACADE ASSEMBLY o CEDAR LAP SIDING- 3 ROOF ASSEMBL ROOF A88EMBLY - ABPRALt COMP. BHINGLEB ABPRALT COMP. BHINGLEB PRE-PRIMED EA. SID): o PLYWD. BREATHING PLYII~. BREATHING PLYWD. SHEATHING ° N 15" ROOFING FELT PROVIDE ATTIC DRAFT 15" ROOFING FELT ATTIC TStO S ~ 2x6 STUDS a 16' O.C. 0 DRAF P PLIUD. SHEATHING y WOOD TRUSBEB ~ 24' O.C. BTOPB ~ 2 LOCATIONB WOOD TRU88ES ~ 24' O.C. GATT INBUL. (R-38) GYP. BD. GATT INBUL,1R-38) 2 LOGAtIONS: GYP. BD. CEDAR LAP SIDING- Z GYP. BD. GYP. BD. SUCH CHAT NO ATTIC SPACE PRE•PRfMED EA. SfDE g EXCEEDS 300 SQ. Ft. ix TRIM AS SHOU~N _ _ _ Rf DC~is 8?~ EXt. WALL ABBEMB r- CEDAR LAP BIDING I ~ ~ ~ PRE-PRIMED EA. BIDE I I ~ vAPOR BARRIER 8 C 12 ►2 I I PL'r'UJOOD BREATHING 417 ~ 4 8114 , 2x6 8TUp8 g 16' O.C. ~ I ~ ~ GATT INBUL. (R-19) I I GYP. WALL BOARD ~Of' OF I- I - ~ PLATE .t z 1'-0' 0 FLOOR A88EMB ~ CONC. BLAB UtILiTY BOMB HALL CLAB°~ROOM , NALL fC k'NTRY ATtlG YENTILAtION RIGIp. INBUL. g PERIMETER ~ ® ® ® CANOPY ~ ® ® LOUVER SEE 1/A4.0 V EXTEND 2'-0' lU 4' BAND ON r _ N VAPOR BARRIER OVER 4' COMPACTED CRUBHED ROCK I z 4 I 841d 84.0 TYP 8?,m ~ W ~ ~ Z L ~ . ~ flr' ~ - 1~ ss ROOFABBEMSLY r = ABPRALT COMP. BHINGLEB PLYWD. BREATHING b 15" ROOFING FELT R-i9 BATt INBULATION. IS' TJI ~ 24' O.C. _ 81ID 3 81DE~8 OF VAULTED CLG. GATT INBUL. l R-38) ATTIC IDRAFt8TOP8 g GYP. BD. 1 I 2 LOCATIONS: ' GY . BD. P ATTIC INBUL. MIN. 'r EXT. WALL ASSEMBLY R-38 CEDAR LAP BIDING - L PRE-PRIMED EA. SIDE 7 12 ~ I I 12 VAPOR BARRIER 82m 4 7 I a 4 PLYWOOD BREATHING PAINT LAP BIDING 2x6 BTUDB ~ 16' O.C. I t IUD. TRIM TO MATCH r GATT INBUL. (R-19) TOP OF BUILDING I i 1 - GYP. WALL BoARO PLATE 4 Ill' PAINTED LETTERS ~ MULTIPURP08E BALL CLA88ROOM 9 ® ® ® ~ P.t. WD. 4' PERIMETER Fpt~-- AT COND. , 7 -0 DRAIN TILE WRAPPED BABE - . IN FILTER FABRIC, 8ET E FRONT t BACK IN CRUSHED ROCK BED, - ~ ~ _ i TYPICAL. o a _ az.~ 6ECTION 5 MON UMENT SIGN SIGN AT 51TE ENTf;R**7-" ■ FILE, 00603A1.DWG l - - - - ifs iih f..~} ~ ~ ;~~+C" •1 t t `t~; CURVE DELTA RADIUS ARC CHORD CHORD BEARING ~ ' C1 0020'09" 1736,73 1018 10.18 S 1135'27" E 'tiS C2 18'55'59" 505 00 166.87 166.12 N 10'37'54" W i ~ . ~ C3 1039'59" 1736 73 323.32 322.85 S 17'05'31" E Icy ~ l ` VAT N5 BA E ON WASHINGTON COUNTY BENCH MARK N0. 464 ~a~ ~ ` ELE f0 S D ELEV = 198 84 s. DESCRIPTION n.~ ~y,, , t OSHD BRASS DISK [N CONCRETE SIDEWALK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER 'i ` ~ - 1 FO T AST OF THE WEST ;i OF THE BRIDGE ON BONITA ROAD OVER 15 0 E ~,1^ `a END OF THE BRIDGE, 1 1/2 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH CURB. ~ J ~ I's~F~S l ~ a ty t S ~ , ~ ~ ~ ^ t ~ ~ ' CNl ^w. ~ ' ~ f qg ~ Mh+r ~ i1's'i ~ ' . `4 '~`l t, 3~~ ~i J A, P / \ iNk ~ ✓ y,~ t i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k e ~ ~ ,u ~ ~ ~ irk r'.,f tit 1 r 't ~ ~ ~ ' ` }i I s, • / I a~, ~ t i ` ! 3 1 't I i ` t ~1 > ~ ~ } i t ~ its ~ w_,. , , s r ~ € y X f ~ ew t f ; ~j..'' ~ ~ } f , ~ } ~ 4 € s~ s ~ 1 3, 1 , I ■~U / £ ? t k .Sa t } E p 1 t a ~ f <~u t 1 it t , ! s l t r ~ ` ~ r~ 1 tf s ~ u, .n 3~ ii i € I ~ ~ 1 P 3` ' Yi~~,~ ~ 1 jai ~ ~ f w t ~ ~ € ~ « i~ s; bw 3 ~ I'~ ~ g1 ~ € t } } s a ~ . g~q t t~ I ~ , s~g., P } ! E 8~~9 ~i ~ . ~ ~ ~ L1 1 } ; _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ a tai f ~ } ~rMti z t~ 1 ,s s ~ ~ } +a t ~ I i~a a t } si E f 1 ~~d Va> t a , ,ia ~ a { J ~a 4 t :-,H~. I,l r ,.a } , c ~i, } t~ } } WETLANDS BOUNDARY € 1} ~ { ~ `ice t } g S ~ € } ~ 1 l } 6t ~ 9• d f i{ ..+e N a t ' l 4 ~ 3 j 1 S} } ~ t r C , a ~ 4='~ ^ I l CB FOR OQF pRAIN) ,M >~°^~a~.a ,a~(.,~^~€ ~ 140.88 RIM=141.Q0 ^ ~ E t ° <:a',.If"~„ 'R%'Y"I£~ ~ } F} f PROPf~SED PROPERTY LIFE ' r r,a..T o ! f i t~A ~,a ,g~ lf.rt ~ ~ 1 0.66 d I _ , TR Sk PLAY AREA ; ~ ~ .141.26 rf I~~ ' t:A"": ~3;~"~:'', t ~ to C6 c9 ~ ea t ~ ~ « F'~;;%a ,k R1M 138.0 ~ € } « ` t / ~ } j ~ ~s•Wx 140.35 Y ^s-- p ri.~ a ;Y; ix Is 3% k~` !J T "x s 141.4 I aI~ ~ 3. ~ 138 , 141.16 F a M<, ~ . ~ 141.46 L v w 1° I € .5:,« , ~ 139' 00 ~ 141 46 w "~;U~~ 35 ~ ~ } I ..m,.,. .m '(.~i~tq~ . ' f s fy k ~ i 5.y;%'~ ~ .C,4 sa } ti..a, 140.35 1 ~ , ~a ~ } { .«....n.... « ~]M+a..W~a M~4~~ I ~ ..q ~ f E f G~ i r ^>f' ~ 140.66 ~ <:~}wok;: } 1q 1 r 3 ~,1 wF~~Y 1 t 'A E a. I i' r - w,~ 141.46 . a~, >l~~v ~ € ~ ~ 141.46 i I ~ € 0.57 ~ ~ ~Yf' 1 ~R~. ",Yv :~s 1 ' 't a { ' BI 1 I Q ~ i ra ~ f i„~ I vh}~ ``>a i° l w. t ~ , ,a,, > , i , .2w f \ 1 ~ s € `fit ~ ".~,r.z.; i I f ` S j E }PLAY AREA 3 't 4 3 ~,yg~ w?'~! , } 139,50 140.35 ~,3 1A~ y , `~e w~t ~i~fVtl~ } 1;~, ;t, ~ ~ 1. ~ `1.5y« w.,, x"« ~ / ""w " I. ~,~t, I c~ ~ 9 a •a~ ~"1 a a a l , a ¢ `s A,~ as ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ o „>&~~~.t':.':. "~;;7"~, ' a ~ . ~ ~ ,y w 4.,. ..J7.. .,.r :;fir ^ x.~.'.:x;~ .m,. , .„M1 ~ .,w y.. r. , ~ , ..„w. i 1 140.25 MATCH EXISTING ; ~.w, i"' i SIDEWALK F ,F ~ , I ; : ~ - X71 / f 3 5^~, ~ ~ ~ s ~ L - - y a r, L :lcoo Li.l 1 ~ D U 0 O cloo 5-1 d 010016 s PR J. NO. I , } t € ~ ;a ~ s' ~ i I ~ a' ~ . t a € E ',a E ~ s . ~I ' • . ~...-e. • • r`s~.... ~.t-.~ • 't 1 S ' _ ~ PROPdSED PROPERT,~( LIFE ' G ' ~c~ to ~ { f ~ a ~ r d ~ t ~a 20 0 10 2~ 40 ~ tR ~sf► PLAY AREA ; , ~C ~ V' 1 t ~ t i~ ~ ~ a 'y ~ a k r k a KA ~t f I i 7~. g~ 3 ~ 't sy ! I f a a ' wsZ" ~ ' r:» jzg ~ y. , ~ i inn = zo tt. .w o B- I ~A ~ ~ r a` W t ,h ~ 'i~i 1 a ~ S t? „a i s ' ~ ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 138 ~ ~ "m' ; ~ .'"`mi i ` i ~ ~ ~ ,,.~...".,„..wow " ~ „~i~~ 4 ~~•,n~ ~ • - I ~ ' Cs" ; s€ ,.,y ~ ~ i y AND ~ r ~ INLET ROTECTION ~ ; ~~:r•, t ~ "f STANC i ~ : ~ ~ , ~ ~ F a ~"g I SEE DETAIL"'7/C2.~ c,«~,r ,lf, C,~ <;~1 ~ ,I• f i µ ~p E ~"~<< 2. APPR( ~ Q r' ~ ~ a' STRUT N ~ LOCAT 0 C 10 ~a,~,,.~.. ti, 1a ~ EN RANCE SEE 'x ~ _ , ~ 3. THE II DE AIL 1/C2.0 ~ , € ~w~:r , ~ r << 'I a a ~ ~ f o k.w a :k ,,,y. THE D s ~ I 'I € E .yBM ~ ,w r { i,.»...µ,.~. i t f,W ~i ~~~re ~ ~ ~ , ~ . 4. THE B abkzx i µw~ ~ { _ i ;s~ .1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ CONSI ~ p ~ r APPLI~ a0 € ~ ~ ~ 4 ' ~q ,x o ~ ~ ~ 5. THE E ~ ~ ,a. E ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.gin. TO EN IF ~ E , ~ ~ ~ ~ E € ~ a ~ 6. THE E i a ~A...ler,. ,~..."~o ) k ~ . ter! i ga ( I i' E \ f n t\x f 0 # 1~ et ",a . ~ ~ a .7 ,t~€ ~ ~ - 7. ~ i f _ 3 ~ PLAY AREA ~ ~ r ~ ~ F,1 , , ~ ~ " Y 8, THE E ~ ' Lei ~ €I 141 w~ a 6 w <s ._w,.m _ Cox m..~; , E i y E€ R ~ /i E cJu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.Ea ~ 9. AT NC %\y .a 4 ~ ~ ~ „7 ~j0 {att"ov'~~' r,w:kaa;„. „n. ...,,w N M,i ~ E ~ a LINES '~E,^, I f M1 f a. s r m s'E A7 Y~ n, .~l~~t n w N q i,' x 1t 'F 0 s ,.ia~p („~.7,~,~ ;~h1 ,ie .~r ~e•~•. ~.:a✓.u~,~ a,'2~~ s ~Q'2~. n., ~,r"~" '%iA, w"us"µ' • i i .i~,i' f~' a ` „n~<~r:~ w ~ h 1D. STABII q ,;.,,r,,,,,,.. µsv J ~ F'E'D. ~ ,.m'..,.. a"h ,,.w ,?A .,t a t 'a ~3 t ~ 11. STORN , _ .;gib. .w_,,.,..~."_ ~ N'' :wa•z ~ ~ "L,^' v x , v ,„.~yh,^5' C ~'1 ,.y S C .".@ ~ a a ~ a S A ~~~5~ 4 { g" ,a..~ ':3`"'• ..,sw.-,~ m ,Y4',;J.'a~xm,. rf,". ~~.w.,w .~yw, S~;r a~i~ a ~ /a' .,,.'%4 7 ~ w„;;,t;,r,^;::^,•°ar;., ................«,.wM r,, ~%:~;K ~H m,w t „~w ~ , ' ~ ~.F':."?' .....,,,..::;a„t"", w.,,",. .",....,".w «~~'rix~..a. .nv,.awo,.n s , "2 r. v ,e' s r ~ , , FILTER FABRIC FENCE ~ ~ 13, SEED[P ~ ~ i , ' ~ SEE DETAIL 3 C2.0 ,i 2 ' ~ ~ 14. IF THE Y.._._ I s f t p~£.~a ~ f `a i ~ $ EFFEC J y w,.~ t ; i r - / _ - k;'r ~ _ - - - - - - - _ _ r _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ - - ~ M 15. THE E Y ` ~ ~ ~ , ~ E 1 .N TF ~ 6 01 , a 17. IF GRI 1~ - - J L s 18. CONTR OF ME FILTER FABRIC FENCE a o 0 0 0 GRAVEL PURPC GRAWEL INLET SEDIMENT BARRIER ~ Y?; ~ TO ST ~ CONDI ~ AT AF DESIGP SEE DI p~,~ ~ MA / ~ e~ ~ 5 / TH J~ 5 P ~ AR ~ P ~G Yr P `L~ p~ ,~ti:< , F. Q~ 'l`~~..i'~ 1 • 50 MIN. 6 ~"'9 ~t.a' ~ Y.:,~J'a~u', 'NS ~~Y' ~ / CC f ~'^n x ~n db S~f`q~ QUARRY ~ ~ OF t SPACES ~ 9.~..;~m~,Kr•^ .4 Y~x, c SUBGRADE REINFORCEMENT PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF GEOTEXTILE REQUIRED. - INGRESS/EGRESS AREA STORM 8" MIN. DEPTH PURP( t ~ TC • 1 N.T.S. E-ENrRr C~ONOI Cj2,0 DET(NSET= * Ifif f « AC DESIGN SEE D i NOTE: + BE CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL POSTS ON UPSLOPE SIDE ~ Al OF FENCE SE - TEMPOF r 2X2 wooo PosT AT o c n STANDARD OR BETTER ~ 6 PURPC j 0 ~ TC EQUAL. ALTERNATIVE: VE STEEL FENCE POSTS, PLACE ONDI q.~,~;~ CONCRETE BLOCKS POSTS AT 6 0 C MAXIMUM. ~-y r~ f,wlf ~~1 / ~r WIRE SCREEN ~p~~~ . DC ~ f ~b'n.:.~; ° ~,n-~~' z T R FILTER FABRIC FENCE , .r~;~~ GRAVEL F!L E ~ ~ y 36 WIDE ROLLS ~.;~a' 2 * Al ~ ~ , `,~'`~.,~i'~.,;a~..~ ~sN. ~ ,~s~r~~~;~Sdh~~C".~,.~7% ~ P,:.k, * SE ,,~H ~ ~ ~;.,.r~ ~ ~,.~..g.~ Y' d 1 ~z ~a`'~~ ~s%.;✓~tf"5.~,.g"'~~R i'S.f~"~;b.~~.!"~~,.a' ~ i~.~~.,,f.,, ~ f....~ t..~ ~~:~4x.;~..~,~.~~~~,,.55,~`~",~5 wl,lw,~,i..a ~ SEE D .d~..,,. r-WIRE SCREEN € ~ ~ ~ ~ , OVERFLOW < K:,... ~t NATIVE BACKFILL * JtLtG 1LVN Ur r1L 1 tK rAUK1U I tNZ~1Lt ANU UUKWlNU I KtNU I ri UHAKAU I tKl I lUJ Utf tNUS UN Ht 5UF'FUK I FENCE. FABRIC ATTACHED TO CHAIN-LINK Z - FE FENCE NEED NOT POSSESS THE SAME STRENGTH AS ONE ATTACHED TO A FENCE OF 6 BY 6 INCH REINFORCING WIRE. SELECTION IS THUS BASED ON zttz 3 N S1 RUNOFF WATER S Y.; 12 -24 BURY BOTTOM OF ST STANDARD ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES. SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHALL CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM co ~ UJ Q _c OF SIX MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF OF TO 1207. o o M 4\,(" W /SEDIMENT FILTER MATERIAL 4 OF .~N. MIN. MMI W" IN . W IN 4x6 TRENCH. * AL GRAVEL lE *ALL MATERIALS TO BE IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION TO PROVIDE PROPER SEDIMENT RETENTION. ® N DROP INLET O *AT NO TIME SHALL MORE THAN A ONE-FOOT DEPTH OF SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE BEHIND A SEDIMENT FENCE. SEDIMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FILTERED WATER / GRATE Al Ot; OR REGRADED INTO SLOPES, AND THE SEDIMENT FENCES REPAIRED AND REESTABLISHED AS NEEDED. FILTER FABRIC SEDIMENT FENCE INLET SEDIMENT CONTROL 3 2 n E- INLET N.T.S. E-FENCE $ BA * BARRIERS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE MAINTAINED BY CONTRACTOR UNTIL GROUND COVER HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED TO PREVENT EROSION ° AND UNTIL OWNER ACCEPTS WORK. CG O N.T.S. DETINSET= ^~,0 DETINSET= AID C280 J s PROD. NO. goo s 1 ''fit ~ rjz s°. ~ ~ i ~ ; ~y i ~ tE1 1 t x i s t 1 no ~"3 i ~t \ E ~ i Y` i 1 E' .'a.. , '~,n,..• , "°~a ~ ~ r;, z i. ~ ~ - = - ~ ~z ~ g5 ~ ~ g - - - ' ~ i, ~ O ~E, ~ a~ ~ ~ ' ~ 7 »r.aso ~ i ~ "ti,. ~'cw. de'w' % , . " F: ~ f f ,,,~"F 0 1 1 ~i k , , 1; ~ ,..ti ~ ...u i:~ ~~@@ r t w,~ ti ~ ~ w., x (~'i \ ~t ~ ~ 2 ;.fro ~ E n"o ,prv'yH 1 eT~ ~Y S ~ M,yd `t w.~~zti t `i i~ j , i s;~ ~ti ,d I 1' V~ yS a°j € ''E ~ ~ i ~j x. . i `y ~ ~ p E "E F ~ • E ~ E ~ , t 1 E t ° i ~ S y, . ; .H " t t ~ r R~ ~ t t y{~.,a Ya ft ~ ~ ~ ~ ,r` ~ ,l r~ C. F ~ f ~ ^ 1 s ~ ` { t E t { t ` Ei. t { ~ t:i ig ~ ~ 3 ~~i ~ ~ } ~ ~ "i, ~ ~ ' ~ t t ~ E i' £ i ~ , „ n . s t ~ ~ . aw I oli E r S , t ~ t t,1~,;~' ~ , i ~ E i~ f f,' I ~ ~ (Z wx 1 ; " t. ~ f , , f :i tl, I € I - .~~..z.~-._ t b, ~ ~ I _ `i4 a; ~ a'~f'sL ~ ?~E 1 ~ ~i ~ ~ I i (A 0~~ I o.tr 1 k' hi ; Y ~J ~ E I s E ~ ; ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ k~ ~ ~ `t ~~E ~ J ~ # ~ , R~ -x^z- E n~"" t E ;t ~ W~ I E E 1 f ~~a5~ { z t 1 ~ ~ , WEfiLANDS BOUNDARY „E S' N(ki f f ~ n i F ~~Y + a{ f 1 , { ; , O nj f INSTALL 1 E'• I ' E WATER METER , CONNECT;, TO EXI T. 'z, - 12" D.I. WATERL[N ~ 1 ° w = ' ~ { I `i ' s s fi ~ F `3 ~ E ~E f N~ r , ~ : ~F CATCH f~A61N BY ~ >y E ~ f , CATCH BASIN Y t 1 f~ ~ . mm ~e k" ° STORMWAT R MANAGEMENT ' ~ f , ~ a f, STORMWATER MANAGEME T _ ~ ~ f i %z~ I ~ f ~ i ~ f INC. SEE DETAIL X C4.4' STORM MH INC. SEE;,DETAIL X/C4.0 , ~ , / _ •C, f; RIM=138.0 j R =14 ~ RIM-141.00E ~ ~ ` ~,,,.~J,. ~ ~ ;t T= " ~ IE IN=136.07(8) lE IN=137;~0(6 r.Y,, ^ f E lE OU 5.77(6) , ~ _ ' ~ ~ 1 ~a~ ~ ~„n:~ ,>r.t.~ Est"~ - IE OUt-1~~. `r ' t IE OUT-132.00($) 50( ) I f ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ;i PROPp5E0 PROPERTY LfI~E ~ , ? r e ..~..r.,~..+..a 0 ; ..r1_b _ r w h ar I x ~ r ~ ~ , l w w ~ ~ ~ PLAY A E ~ , ~ ~ E f3 f ~ I t E Q , t _r _ mw~ yy 0M~ ~ i ; ° ~8 l!C 4 STORM ®1.0~ M1N.° Y " ~r,.:;;° CONNECj T EXITING 0 61 '=rN ~ , ~ ~ , E~ w~Y STUB [E~1 (4) s ~~'r~ r..1 ~ t~C:~ r<;~ ' 88 LF':48 ALUMINIZED ~ WELL TO ~BE ABAND N 1~ 3 0 I s ~ f E ~ ~ <s;~µ I : f ~F„ , , _ IE-137.63(6) PER OREGON STATE ~,tu, w~ T t,k~ .M r.~.~~ f, ~ ~ ~ v HEALTH D~PARfiMENT' q~~ ~ STEEL DETENTION P[PE (~0.3~w ~ " ~ m~t' ~.a RE U1R E ~x .f~r~ Y . x,~~ t I , EM NTS ~ I ~i ' ~ „ , s I ~ ~ f t, . , ,i Y E CONTROL MH I ~ u . }.~S ~.w,. ~ ~ E„~ : Ea ,~f~ ~ IE IN-13s.o7 s ~ FF-141.50 ~ f~ ~ . h ~ y~•, ~ , IE IN,..1,~1,.$1 48 ~ i , f,~ ;I ~ ~ IE OU'T=t31. 1 8 " . K ~ I r Y<:~~~ - f SUMP=129.50 r ,E ~ ~ ~ a- I ~w I A I :a I, ~ y i i ,.,."......w.,.,, hs ',"y 1~ ~ ~q IE=1 9.50 4 r~~;"t, „.Eb.,, ~ ~ ~ J~" nx ~ g ,~~aNY~ r ,n. , ~ , E; m,.w., ~ ~~~'r ,i ~E;~~~~ TYP:~,, ~s`,%"," ice'"~sC,rf'$~V sl `.1 <,JL~`' 1 s '.C~~ a r z3 ~ ~ 1 ~r't~ y „2 :,M ~ I 'j , ~ ~ ~ f ~i f f t Y`\.i ~;Y;R^ S ;..SS Y °f., Y : ' , s ~ ~ ~ E F } O ~ J y ~ , 4 1~TORM ~ 1.0~ J `a~ i~~ i ,,,w, ~ ~ I ~~3f I s c ; ~ T~. t x .Yw ~ ~ ~ f IE=138.45 4 , Yi Y , ~ C + f ~ ~ \ ~ f r , ,1 ~ ~ PLAY E S3.<~. E _Y r f to ..''~t;f,~fl`: I ; FIRE HYDRAN , 4- . _ u ~ TO REMAIN ~~y~~ ~ js f E:~~.. £ „~`r,k,~ ,~'a 1 'a R~` :"zt~. . ;f:~'~~<A ~,,,r a S~ t'?~ ~ 42 f ~ 44 ~ 'E r' ~ i s :E 3j i i~ w r ..M ,3 '~.,i °.6 +.'~,w, P ms's l r w"„,. ;£r~~`~r ~f,"~. m. ~,(irv r; , ~,'n" .zL, y,'; r~R df 1 A k e o • ` E. ~ r,w y' Nip " ` ° °%L '"iw, ~ fF 4 k ,'.,`9'," ~5;...v , a.. :,,;g5,. . C..,~~. g,~'M' ,n .va vw,eo,,,, axvvv.,,, ."r, w."kF'M. Ste, w"E'ii nwnR ,YMY~„n. ,/.<nJ,nj, w° '~SN.ro <..x..,'b~ro AV"ip•'%..w.u.n.x.w. «x.>.w.. !~M1 v, .vr. ,n~rr. "r vr~ ' ~ yy , f ~ g fi ju f' " f~,° ,1 CONTRACTOR SHALL; VERIFY ~ . r' f-;%'""" ~ IF E (STING SERVICES IS VIABLE ~ tm'~'~,,:,.• ,,,~sZCA~,,.. $h :q3;i:".v, =~j"~";,;:~,y;.n':,,~a.. '~rk* f ~ 'zx ~ Y. 't .x "e ! ' ' i,';:~,".:~ _ ~°;;3'` AS PO[NT OF CONNECTION FO~.~ y-~l I ~ r WAS R. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION` ~ f ' r its j ~ f ~ J - - - - - - i - - - - -r~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - t~,~' $ n "<a. ,key '~~S ~ ~ ~'b a~ ~v . y ~~g a .~~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i i W U Q ~ .C EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT T. s HYDRANT ~ N TO REMAIN 0 IEMAIN 3 0 d i U C300 J s PROJ. NO. 010016 ~~~4 PflOF~C~ v~'~~ X19178 ~ ~i~ OREGO)~ VARIES -SEE SITE PLAN _ 6a 7a ~o~~qy~ y 15, ~g9~ ~5' T00 EO EDGE 6" " " " TOOLED JOINT 1 RADIUS 6 6 N RETE WALK 1/4 RADIUS " CO C , j~ FREN~R~ t RADIUS 2~ CROSS SLOPE 5 (OR AS NOTED ON PLANS) - - - - o TOOLED EDGE EXPIRES: 12/31 /O1 _ = a OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS ~ I=I =III=III- PAVING SECTION o a ~ _ - - o " BROOM FIN. BROOM FINISH 7a a i 2q CROSS ~ =I I = c° I ° v 1 MIN. ~ TOOLED TOOLED EDGE EACH SIDE -i = a p ~ ~ .G. ~ ~ ~ ~ SLOPE If-III o T : t~ ~ W - v NOTE: ~T_I_III_~(T1TI" III . , n i-~ n i-i i i , . . ~ . y _ _ , a o N " " " ~ ~ . ° N 3" WIDE PAINT "g $ o0 - - CONCRETE SHALL BE 3000 2 SAND OR 3/4 -0 CR. AGG. _ ' t0 - it ii ~ u n ~ u-ii a i~ ~ n u--1u ii II ~ -I - 6SAK _ _ - PSI AT 28 DAYS. C „ o ~ _ ~ _ =I I , ~ MIX, SLUMP: 1 1/2 TO 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ fi~ I I- o „ CAST 1N PLACE CURB & SIDEWALK. p v 9 -II ~ COMPACTED p ROCK BASE COURSE „ SEE PAVING SECTION NOTE: NOTE: 4 CONCRETE WITH ~ a ~ " „ CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THAT A MINIMUM OF JOINTS AT 5 O.C. I-i I = - - - - * CONCRETE TO HAVE STRENGTH OF 3,000 PSI fN 28 DAYS, 2 TO 4 SLUMP. 30" CLEARANCE BE MAINTAINED AT 0$STACLES. EXPANSION JOINTS I„ ~ ~ ~ III=I ~=III=~ I ~ Y T S[TE PLANS FOR JOINT PATTERN. CAST IN PLACE ~ ~ , i-I , SEE SIDE WALK LA OU ( ) OR AS SHOWN ON i CONCRETE CURB 9 + CONTRACTOR HAS OPTION TO POUR SIDEWALK AND CURB SEPERATE. 2 3 1 vcuRe C4.Q N.T.S. sloEwA~ ~ C4.0 N.T.S. Q~,Q N.T.S. L. " DISABLED SIGNAGE PER 3/g" - R MENT 18" STATE REQU1 E ~,.r_ SEE DETAIL XXXX TOP OF CURB TO „ MATCH BACK OF 3/g" 6 ~ ~ SIDEWALK ELEVATION - 6 TYP. 5 MIN. n ~ I z .063 ALUMINUM SIGN PLATE - _ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - w~ BLUE BACKGROUND 1 HIGH w _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~Q' AND BORDER PARKWCP RTMH OMN Y I G_ WHITE LETTERS olsAeLEO E I o ~ Q 0 0 VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO >W ~ N BAKED ENAMEL rowiNC uNOER E' N ORS 811 620 ANO F[NE PLAN H UP TO =300 UNDER oW oRS en 6,s PAVING SECTION, CRUSHED 3W ROCK BASE OR LANDSCAPIN 4 n,L PRO DE TACTILE . ya WARNING PER A.D.A. ~ CONCRETE FRAME CAS TAPERED CURB SEE DETAIL XXXX 1~. w CLEANOUT FRAME AI VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGN = f CONCRETE TO BE (WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS) I- . FLUSH W[TH AC ~ / / / / " o 4 STRIPS ~ 1` 1 DISABLED SYMBOL, AT 2 -0 OC TYP. //~//~/i~/ ~ PAINTED PER ~ OVA/VA/VA V~ z 2 DIA. SCH. 40 GALVANIZED 1" co r~~//\ / J OREGON LAW ~ PIPE PAINTED GLEDDEN I kii SEE DETAIL XXXX 30 TYP. ~ ~i\ , o. 50YY47/053 45 ELBOW W v w NOTES ' '~~S N 1. ALL DISABLED STRIPING ° • APPROVED AND SIGNAGE TO COMPLY - , WITH ORDINANCE CONCRETE MOUNTING FOOTING - c° 45' RS 447.233. , ' 0 NOTE• , ' 2. DISABLED S[GN TO BE T NA ° TO SIDE FOR VERIFY THA SIG GE . MOUNTED PROVIDED COIMPLIES \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ P~ VAN ACCESS LOCATION5 ; ° _ / PAINT STRIPE WITH RDA, STATE AND _ AND MAY BE CENTERED \~\~j\\j\\j\\j\\~`~ " ABLED LOCAL HANDICAP CODES „ i% i - 9 -0 TYPICAL SEE PLANS FOR STANDARD DIS 10 DIA. EL ATTON SPACES. 6 ~ 5 HSTALU C4.0 N.T,S. Hslc", C4.0 N.T.S. C4.O N.T.S. '4~ ~ T_ I 1( ~ f~« L GENERAL NOTES; REINFORCING BARS WITH F MINIMUM 6 OVERLAP RADV,I FLOW 8' OUTLET STORMFILTER eY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INC., PORiIAIJD, OREGON (800/548-4687). yr- FOR PERIMETER SLAB CARTPoOGE PIPE 5N8 (STD) W STD. MH FRAME AND COVER (Bi CONTRACTOR) 2.) CATCH BASIN MUST BE SET LEVEL. ~ 3.) EXTEfBJJV. PIPING AND COVPUNGS TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. W FLAT TOP SLAB RIM = 138.25 4.) fLE)(18LE COUPLING TO 8E USED AT INLET do OUTLET. FERNCO OR ENGINEER APPROVED. ~ c 5.) PERIMETER SLAB TO BE PRONDED 8Y CONTRACTOR. 3 a j d d a 8.) SfORMfM.TER REQUIRES REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ~ k _ _ d Ally. ~ I- I I = FIN CATCH BA~~ T ORMFlLTER sTRUCTURAI SPECIFICATIONS: _ _ - _ _ _ j _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~Ll~ LOBO RAnNG: 20,000 Ls. ~ d coNSrRUCnoN: ~/a' srEEL PLATE z 48" Al COATING: CORROSION RESISTAM, All SURFACES N r- J~, d UNR WEIGHT: 650 LB. 8" OVERFLOW ~ INLET GRATE: DucTILE IRON - - WELD PERIMETER sus: REQUIRED ELEV. = 134.80 - L 2 T "DIA. BOLTS 28' MIN Oh CLEAR~I a WELD ALL JOINTS I LIFTING EYE (TYP) 1 I E a ~ ~ INIEF PIPE 1. SOLID UD INLEF GRATE STUB (OPTIONAL) W Z r ~ \ ~J„J, x, s R -PLAN VIEW W B ~ <x~~~,y~~ CATCH BASIN STORMfILTE i /arc ~ s J;~~j(y~~°°° ~r<~~ c5.o o FLEXIBLE COUPLING 3 r 6 "a - 1 1.81 8" - ~,~:R "~~~~~4„..~'~~a ? e IE OUT - 3 ( ) - - - ~ Z ~ 3 , s a. Q f ' .NF z „ I 9-. E ~ F DIA. = 2.1 I OR1 ICE C( PERIMETER sus ? ELEV=131.31 M~ ~.r - ~ u-~, 3000 PSI CONCRETE ~ o ~ TTOM OF ORIFICE (BO ) (8Y CONTRACTOR) 2-j4 REINFORCING BARS a'-, o' _ a' Y-s' - (Br CONTRACTOR) 9 I Q~,Q N.T.S ~i . d 6• FILTER ' ~OILFT 1' - 2~-2 3/4' F OVERFLOW Y WEIR CREST ghFt~tt =r 3'-8 3/4' 0 8' OUTLET PIPE STUB (STD) vAfiES OVERFLOW s` WEIR WITH FILTER CLFNrDUT ( 11'-6' FILTER CwU6ER M.ET/OUrtFT piAA~R CLEM10U1 OPENING ~ ~~---2-+~-2-5'-►~ in vru%r%.vn nun + ZQ Q , a 0 ~ N CATCH BASIN STORYFILTER - SECTION VIEW t CATCH BASIN STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW 1 sum, XM C5.0 C5.0 O T6t MRMTATER XMGMGM O I U.S. PATENT Na 5,3x2,629, Na 5,707.627. Na 61027.639, V C4wO No. 6.624.676, AND OTHER U.& AND PO&DGN PATENTS PENDING J J V cz, PROJ. NO. 010016 I - - - TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY FOR TRI COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK LNG. !i IN LOT 1, "BONITA INDUSTRIAL PARK" IN THE HICKLIN D.L.C. N0. 43 i IN THE N.E. 1/4, SECTION 12, TWS, R1W, W.M. % / ~ ,4 f CITY OF TIGARD / - WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON / , ~ ~ SCALE 1" = 20' SEPT. 27, 2000 NOTE TABLE ; ~ w NOTE DESCRIPTION RIM ELEV I.E. ELEV SIZE FLOW m P" a. ~fV mZ 0 ~ ~ O'N o~ 'i ~ ® { I LOT 2 20 is i2 a a o to 20 40 ~ STORM MANHOLE 152.64 N. = 140.74 24" OUT ~ o" Zr E. = 140.94 24" IN , wa° w~ J 1 o % ~ ~ ~3a S.E. = 140.94 12" IN s ~~v ~ I I la , ~ SANITARY MANHOLE 152.41 E. = 137.61 12" IN ~ t37 ~ 291 W. = 137.41 12" OUT ° ~ vLL ~ Z~ r I I " N. = 138.81 8" IN o' ~ ~ w_ ~ 34 ~ o+ / ~ 3 CATCH BASIN 137.83 W. = 136.28 12" OUT ~ ~ ~ ° 16 / /y ~ 1 1 CONTROL POINT TAPLE V SANITARY MANHOLE 143.99 E. = 135.59 15" IN ' ~'~u ~ ~ ~ ~ E v W. = 133.29 15" OUT 5 ' a ° / Zx6 ~ 20 ,y9 E NUMBER DESCRIPTION ELEVATION S. = 133.44 12" IN ~ x~ o oZ ® STORM MANHOLE 144.75 W. = 140.15 10" OUT c m o,~ , I 3~p2 E. = 140.25 12" IN ~ ~ o~ r' N ~ 1 ~ 1 PK NAIL 148.52 " ; a.~ ~ ~ ~ 2 PK NAIL 136.67 Q CATCH BASIN 145.28 N.W. = 143.08 12 OUT z J SANITARY MANHOLE 137.68 E. = 131.18 12" IN ~ d " N ON o w~ ~ . o / ~ I 1 ! 220 NAIL 141.48 W. = 130.98 12 OUT ~ a~ 291 MAG. NAIL 145.78 ~ ` ' / ,~a 400 RED CONTROL CAP 135.81 ~ SANITARY MANHOLE 136.56 N.E. = 122.86 12" IN ~ °=o N° I I % I 442 RED CONTROL CAP 139.99 S.W. = 122.56 12~ OUT ~ ~ 3 c ~ a Y r'~ R ~ , I 1 ~ SANITARY MANHOLE 136.37 N.E. = 123.07 12 IN a~Ho o° j~,, r,, s i I W S.W. = 122.87 12" OUT °G ° m w~ NOTES: W. = 123.57 8" IN tD i3 0~' - ~ ,.~~'r VAULT ~ , ,r ; ~ r ~ / ~ Q / % ~ a I 1 -WOODEN CHICKEN COOP COVERED WITH 10 STORM MANHOLE 137.04 E. = 134.34 12" IN / ~ ~ 50 BLACKBERRIES. NO FOUNDATION N. = 134.14 12" OUT ~l SANITARY MANHOLE 136.45 E. = 117.45 12" IN J I I / / / 3} 1 / ~ Q I 2 -SANITARY MANHOLE li I.E.~S ARE N.E. = 118.05 12" IN APPROXIMATE DUE TO LARGE VOLUME OF N. = 111.85 36" IN O / / % a i4 SANITARY MATERIAL FLOWING THROUGH S.W. = 111.65 36" OUT / ~'E I ~ ~ n ~ rn f. 12 STORM MANHOLE 136.14 E. = 132.39 12" IN PIPES. N. = 132.29 12" OUT t ~ / N ^ M I I 1 G / oYo ~i G W. = 132.39 12" IN ~ / ~ O 3 -BOUNDARY PER PLAT OF "BONITA S. = 133.74 12" IN ~ C ; m ~ 1 /,f ~ /r I ~ ~ BARN INDUSTRIAL PARK" 13 CATCH BASIN 135.66 E. = 132.36 12" OUT / / ; W ~ 441 ~ N I SEE ~ Z yQ la CATCH BASIN 135.87 W. = 132.82 12" OUT I r ~ NOTE 1 w 1~ 15 STORM MANHOLE 136.31 N. = 131.16 12" OUT ~ i! / W ~ W / / 1 ~ d~ x N E.=131.21 12" IN / W W / i N I Q OI N S.=131.11 12" IN ~Z ~6 STORM MANHOLE 136.23 N. = 130.03 12~ OUT ~ 0 TRACT "B" ' ~ I w ~ Z ' ' o I E. 130.13 12" I N ~ o x ~ ~ ~ S. = 130.33 12 I N I / / ~A W. = 130.13 12" IN ®W ~ ! r ~ x ~ ~ STORM MANHOLE 136.25 N. = 130.05 12" IN ~ ! ~ ~ E. = 130.05 12" IN Q o ~ ~ I ' / x S. = 129.95 12" IN W ''t/ W. = 129.70 12" OUT to CATCH BASIN 135.78 E. = 129.68 12" IN 0 / ,G ; I LOT i ! _ w. = 12s.as 12" our ~ ~ o ;'r / r / i I / E l I ' l/ i / ' : / rr' / ~ x - E, i 1 ~ - CONTROL POINT / 0 =STORM MANHOLE ' % - r r, r 1 I 1 Qs - SANTIARY MANHOLE / x ~r 1 - ~ I 1 ~ - ASPHALT ~ I Y 7 ~ = CONCRETE ! ~ / x I =WATER METER i ~ ~ ' , r" / , ~ © I I I ~ ®-CATCH BASIN , ; , r ~ x , • =IRON ROD ! r / , ; a/r I x` x I 1 ; ~ / X ~ = VERIZON MANHOLE r , I ~ ! ~ ~ / i D =MAIL BOX i / , x - x - = FENCE , / a I cv - ~ / x , ~ -GAS VALVE ~ / ' I I -PGE-PGE-= PGE LINE !r',/~;'',% / " , -GAS-GAS-= GAS LINE ~ % ~ I 30 / / 3,! , uwi c =GAS FINK ' ~ / % 0 / - ~ I ~ =POWER POLE / ' , ~20~ , ! / Q ~ _ - ~ x - = POWER LINE % > I , 4~ r E- - - - DEADMAN / s 89703 w 50.00 r / i~//B 4-8" I CATV PEDISTAL / ! _ ~ ' / / PUMP - GRAVEL / / u I i D / ~ , i HOUSE ~ = P.G.E. METER ! " I / ~ x 6-8 =CHERRY / ti HOUSE a u x a APPLE ~ f ! / ; r \ x- t~ ~a _ / ~ r CHURCH ! ' HAWTNRONE ! ` ~ / % ~ r - ~ ~~N- vzN- - VERIZON LINE / ! , / --a x t -w -u WATER LINE / / I ! / % o 5 -FIRE HYDRANT ' % ~ ~ a o ' ; u I p , r WY r / ' ~ =WATER VALVE s " \ I 3-6 3 ~ ~ ! / =SIGN /y a ~ t I o =IRON PIPE ~ x x i \ e - LARD ' / c, '>t / ~ I c =GAS METER ~f 9 / O x x ' \ .J R =RISER o o N ' y. _Jl- I f ~ ® =WELL ~6 / / N r ! \ L~ =DECIDUOUS / ~ / ~ i \ a / i \ TRANS = OAK ____PGE P~ ' P ~7`- P, x . ~ ON PAD - - - - - ~;~=r`' - - - - / Q - / / O' ~ - / / ; / ! / 10 SLOPE EASEMENT RECORDED IN DOCUMENT N0. 98080214 / , / ` ' i / / x 229.20 ! . ' f / , / ! 2 c r ~ y , - O ' ~ / ! G e e / ~ a a p E P(i -PGE -dPGE -a-y- PGE -a--- PGE a PGE -PGE = P PGE q d a O l0' j t 'PGE ° < e a-aPGEd PC'iE G < a ed e e a e i / t~ e E _a- PPiE a e a i / / / ti~.~,~~ e a r i ,1 ~ ; i de PGE-"'"'PGE i / ~ ' / / / ! ` / / ! ! r / / / / i' P~ r r/ / r i / i / - ~y 'i / / 3 r /i,' / / /r W' / - - v N-'wYN"'s-~[`"1~'~ v~N ~ / / , / / ~ , / / r / / r ~ / ~ r/- / / / / / / , / r i r / / / , ~ ~ r ~ ' r f ~S '176 Yl~ _ r / ` ~ S,W. BONITA ROAD (!'AUNTY ROAD ~ 736) $ $9-1 / UI) W N I N LL, O M Qj U ~v 1 O M O M M 0 d V V C5mO ~ a M ~ Q Lr T ^3 j J 5 ~O PROD. NO. 010016