SUB2017-00007 VOIDED
SUB2O17 - 00007
RED CEDAR
ESTATES
IN
TIGARD
6/1/2018 City of Tigard
J T Smith Company
5285 Meadows Rd, Suite 171
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Re: Permit No. SUB2017-00007
Dear Applicant:
The City of Tigard has canceled the above referenced permit(s) and encloses a refund for the
following:
Site Address: 1S125DC00600
Project Name: Red Cedar Estates
Job No.: N/A
Refund Method: ® Check#228653 in the amount of$9,068.00.
❑ Credit card "return" receipt in the amount of$
Note: Please allow 2-5 days for this refund transaction to be
credited to your account by the company that issued your card.
❑ Trust account"deposit" receipt in the amount of$
Comment(s): Application withdrawn. Refund 80% of land use application fees.
If you have any questions please contact me at 503.718.2430.
Sincerely,
7(61 - 1
Dianna Howse
Building Division Services Supervisor
Enc.
13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 •
TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov
0 a City of Tigard
TIGARD Accela Refund Request
This form is used for refund requests of land use, development engineering and building permit
application fees. Receipts, documentation and the Request for Permit Action form (if applicable) must
be attached to this request form. Refund requests are due to Accela System Administrator by
each Wednesday at 5:00 PM. Please allow up to 3 weeks for processing of refunds. Accounts
Payable will route refund checks to Accela System Administrator for distribution to applicant.
PAYABLE TO: J T Smith Company DATE: 5/18/2018
5285 Meadows Rd, Suite 171
Lake Oswego, OR 97035 REQUESTED BY: Dianna Howse
TRANSACTION INFORMATION:
Receipt#: 415409 Case #: SUB2017-00007
Date: 2/5/2018 Address/Parcel: IS125DC00600
Pay Method: Check Project Name: Red Cedar Estates
EXPLANATION: Application withdrawn. Refund 80%of land use application fees.
REFUND INFORMATION:
Fee Description From Receipt Revenue Account No. Refund
Example: Building Permit Fee Example: 2300000-43104 $Amount
Comprehensive Plan Legislative 100-0000-43116 $9,068.00
TOTAL REFUND: $9,068.00
APPROVALS: SIGNA,a RES P ATE:
If under$5,000 Professional Staff • A• 'y—'C____—
If under$12,500 Division Manager
If under$25,500 Department Manager
If under$50,000 City Manager
If over$50,000 Local Contract Review Board
FOR TIDEMARK SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY
Case Refund Processed: Date: P-V/,- B '✓
I:\Building\Refunds\RefundRequest.doc x 09/01/2010
CIVIL ENGINEERING | WATER RESOURCES | LAND USE PLANNING
5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005
PH: (503) 946.9365
WWW.3J-CONSULTING.COM
Impact Study for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Tigard Development Code Section 18.390.040.B.2.e requires an impact study as a part of a Type II land
use application, meeting the following standards:
18.390.040.B.e Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on
public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including
bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts
of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall proposed
improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impacts 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 the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that
the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the
development.
Transportation System, including Bikeways:
The proposed development is not located near any arterial or collector level streets. The proposal will take
access from SW Red Cedar Way, a local street. The proposal will fall within the density requirements of the
zoning, which is between 7 and 9 units. The zoning for the site with possible increases in development at
the proposed density was accounted for in the Transportation System plan’s assumption for the immediate
area. The proposal will not exceed the capacity of the street network in the vicinity.
The developer will construct improvements along the frontage of SW Red Cedar Way and SW 74th Avenue,
consistent with the improvements outlined in the pre-application notes. The developer will construct an
extension to SW Red Cedar Way, including a full build out of the cul-de-sac.
No impact mitigation is required because the proposed development effectively implements, but does not
change, the planning policies adopted for the immediate vicinity by the City of Tigard.
Storm Drainage System:
A Preliminary Utility Plan (Sheet C300) has been included within the submitted plan set. Upgrades will be
made to the existing stormwater system at the end of the cul-de-sac on SW Red Cedar Way to
accommodate the added impervious area from the cul-de-sac improvements. The existing system has been
analyzed to ensure it has capacity for the additional storage. The flow control structure will be upgraded to
accommodate the addition of stormwater to the system. Two additional filter cartridges will be added to the
existing water quality manhole. Each lot will have an individual planter to treat runoff before being
discharged to South Ash Creek to the north. The design of all stormwater facilities will follow the Clean
Water Services Design and Construction Standards dated April 2017.
Sanitary Sewer System:
The City of Tigard operates a municipal sewer service. The proposed development density does not exceed
the planned density for the subject property, the proposed development will not result in an unplanned level
of sewer system service demand. A sanitary sewer line will connect into the existing system in SW 74th
Avenue. A new manhole will be placed within the ROW near SW 74th and run a new 8-inch sanitary main
up a 15-ft wide easement to a new manhole in the proposed cul-de-sac. All lots will connect into this new
sanitary main via new 4-inch sanitary sewer laterals. City sewer system lines will be extended in the new
street as needed to serve the proposed development. The proposed development causes no sewer system
impacts that warrant mitigation measures.
Water System:
9777 SW 74th Avenue
December 6, 2016
Page 2 of 2
P:\17383 -SW 74th Street\Land Use\70-Narratives\17383-SW 74th-IMPACT STUDY.docx
The proposed development density does not exceed the planned density for the subject property, therefore
the proposed development will not result in an unplanned level of water system demand. New services will
be extended from the existing water main within SW Red Cedar Way. Each lot will have a new water meter
installed at the back of curb on its lot boundary. City water system lines will be extended as needed to serve
the proposed development. The proposed development causes no water system impacts that warrant
mitigation measures.
Parks System:
The proposal will result in a net addition of seven single-family residences at the subject property. While
utilization of parks and recreation facilities generally rises with population growth, the proposed number of
dwellings at this location will likely be similar to growth in planning projections. The proposed development
will not likely generate a higher or lower demand for such activities than other comparable residential
development in the City. The applicant intends to donate Tract A, as shown on the Site Plan, to the Parks
Department. No specific parks system improvements are warranted by the proposed development.
The City of Tigard collects a Parks System Development Charge fee in conjunction with issuance of
residential building permits. Payment of this fee is satisfactory mitigation for the burden placed on the City’s
parks system attributable to new residences in the Community.
Noise Impacts:
The proposed development consists of seven lots for detached single-family residential development.
These lots and homes will be comparable in size and quality to existing homes surrounding the subject
property. There is no reason to believe families moving into the new homes will be significantly noisier than
other residents in the vicinity. The City does not have a standard requiring protective measures for noise
impacts between single-family residences. There are no noise impacts attributable to the proposed
development that would warrant mitigation actions.
Table of Contents
GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 2
SITE INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3
APPLICANT'S REQUEST ............................................................................................ 3
SITE DESCRIPTION/SURROUNDING LAND USE ........................................................... 3
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 4
CITY OF TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE – APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ............ 4
CHAPTER 18.370 VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................... 4
CHAPTER 18.380 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS . Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES .................................................... 4
CHAPTER 18.430 SUBDIVISIONS .............................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ................................................... 8
CHAPTER 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION .............................................. 9
CHAPTER 18.715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS ............................................................. 11
CHAPTER 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING .................................................... 12
CHAPTER 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS ...................... 18
CHAPTER 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS ........................................................................ 18
CHAPTER 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN ................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS ........................... 33
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 52
Attachments
Appendix A – Land Use Application
Appendix B – Impact Study
Appendix C – Pre-Application Conference Notes
Appendix D – Neighborhood Meeting Materials
Appendix E – Technical Reports
Appendix F – Preliminary Land Use Plans
2 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Property Owner and
Applicant:
JT Smith Companies
5285 Meadows Road, Suite 171
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Contact: Jesse Nemec
Phone: 503-730-8620
Email: jnemec@jtsmithco.com
Applicant's Representative:
3J Consulting, Inc.
5075 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 150
Beaverton, OR 97005
Contact: Andrew Tull
Phone: 503-545-1907
Email: andrew.tull@3j-consulting.com
SITE INFORMATION
Parcel Number:
Address:
1S125DC00600
9777 SW 74th Avenue
Size: 2.79 ACRES
Zoning Designation: R-4.5
Existing Use: Single-Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning: The properties to the north, south and west are zoned R -4.5.
The properties to the east are zoned R-4.5 (PD) and PR.
Surrounding Street
Functional Classification:
SW 74th Avenue is classified as a neighborhood road and SW
Red Cedar Way is classified as a local road.
3 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
INTRODUCTION
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The Applicant seeks approval of an application for a Type II Subdivision, Adjustment and
Sensitive Lands Review to construct a seven-lot subdivision. This narrative has been prepared
to describe the proposed development and to document compliance with the relevant sections
of Tigard’s Community Development Code.
SITE DESCRIPTION/SURROUNDING LAND USE
The subject site is 2.79 gross acres in size and is located on SW 74th Avenue and SW Red
Cedar Way. The existing home on site will be demolished at the time of development. The
site has sloping topography which generally slopes towards the northern end of the property.
The northern portion of the property is traversed by South Ash Creek, as well as sensitive
areas in the form of a drainage way and vegetative corridor. An environmental assessment
has been completed by Mears Design Group for approval by Clean Water Services, and is
included within this application.
The applicant is proposing a seven-lot subdivision of the property. The proposed development
will create seven lots which range in size from 4,292 to 6,192 square feet which will be
developed with single-family detached homes. Access to the proposed homes will be from
SW Red Cedar Way.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The Applicant conducted a Neighborhood Meeting on October 11, 2017 to explain the
proposed development and answer questions form the property’s neighbors. The submitted
materials include the required affidavits, mailing labels, and meeting minutes. No follow -up
comments on the proposal were received.
4 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
The following sections of Tigard’s Community Development Code have been extracted as they
have been deemed to be applicable to the proposal . Following each bold applicable criteria
or design standard, the Applicant has provided a series of draft findings. The intent of
providing code and detailed responses and findings is to document, with absolute certainty,
that the proposed development has satisfied the approval criteria for a Type II Subdivision,
Adjustment and Sensitive Lands Review.
CITY OF TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE – APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CHAPTER 18.370 VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS
18.370.020 Adjustments
9. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means
of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the director shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street
improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is
satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse
impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural
features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes
or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the director
shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of
strict application of the standards.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant is requesting a Type II Adjustment to the street
improvement requirements of Chapter 18.810 for SW 74th Avenue and
Red Cedar Way. The proposed street sections for SW 74th Avenue are
shown on the Typical Sections Plan (Sheet C200), included under
Appendix F.
As shown on the Site Plan (Sheet C210) The development site is
traversed by Ash Creek, which drains into an existing culvert in SW 74 th
Avenue, connecting into a drainage area on the eastern boundary of the
road. Ash Creek and the associated habitat areas would be adversely
impacted should 74th Avenue be widened to accommodate the full street
improvement section, therefore the applicant is proposing a curb-tight
sidewalk along SW 74th with no planter strip in order to accommodate
the potential for car parking within the reduced front yard setback areas
proposed along the cul -de-sac. This will allow for the completion of the
pedestrian network along SW 74th.
CHAPTER 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES
8.390.020 Description of Decision-Making Procedures
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant is requesting a new seven-lot Subdivision and Sensitive
Lands Review in the R-4.5 zoning district, which will not be processed
as a planned development. Table 18.390.1 l ists the proposed
5 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
development actions as Type II procedures. This request has, therefore,
been submitted as a Type II application.
Section 8.390.040 Type II Procedure
A. Preapplication Conference
Applicant's
Finding:
A pre-application conference was held on October 10, 2017 with City of
Tigard staff members Monica Bilodeau and Khoi Le. The pre -application
conference notes are included as part of this application submittal under
Appendix C.
B. Application requirements
Applicant's
Finding:
The required application form has been obtained from the City of Tigard
and is included with this submittal. All information on the application
form has been completed and the required fee has been submitted with
the application materials. This narrative addresses all the relevant
criteria of the Code and demonstrates that approval may be granted
after a complete review of its contents. Two sets of pre-stamped, pre-
addressed envelopes will be submitted once he application has been
deemed “complete” by Staff. The required impact study is attached
under Appendix B.
CHAPTER 18.430 SUBDIVISIONS
18.430.020 General Provisions
A. Approval through two-step process.
Applicant's
Finding:
A Preliminary Plat, identified as Sheet C210 of the submitted plan set,
is included with this subdivision application. It shows the proposed
division of land and includes all of the information required by the
applicable standards of the Code. Once the Preliminary Plat has been
approved through the preliminary approval process, the final plat will
then be prepared and submitted for review.
B. Compliance with ORS Chapter 92. All subdivision proposals shall be in conformity
with all state regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable standards of
OR Chapter 92. The final plat will also be reviewed by the County
Surveyor for compliance with ORS Chapter 92.
C. Future re-division. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the approval authority
shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future re-division
in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed subdivision does not contain any large lots. It has a
vegetated corridor area that is undeveloped and seven new residential
lots ranging from 3,952 to 6,192 square feet in size.
D. Lot averaging. Lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot
size allowed in the underlying zoning district as long as the average lot area for all
lots is not less than allowed by the underlying zoning district. No lot created under
6 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
this provision shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the
underlying zoning district.
Applicant's
Finding:
The subject site is located in the R-4.5 Low Density Residential zoning
district. The minimum lot size for this zoning district is 7,500 square feet
for detached dwellings, however an adjustment has been requested per
Section 18.775.100. Section 18.775.100 allows up to a 50% adjustment
to any dimensional standard, allowing a minimum lot size of 3,750
square feet. The proposed lots range in size from 3,952 to 6,192 square
feet, therefore all lots exceed the minimum lot size with the proposed
adjustment. The adjustment criteria of Section 18.775.100 have been
addressed within this narrative.
E. Temporary sales office. Temporary sales offices in conjunction with any
subdivision may be granted as set forth in Chapter 18.785, Temporary Uses.
Applicant's
Finding:
A temporary sales office is not planned for this development. Should any
on-site temporary sales office become necessary, it will meet the
standards listed in 18.785.
F. Minimize flood damage.
Applicant's
Finding:
The subject site is not within any flood plain areas, however South Ash
Creek traverses the site. Maintenance of Ash Creek will be provided at
first by the Applicant. The Applicant intends to transfer the tract created
specifically for the natural resources on the site to the City of Tigard’s
Parks Department. The proposed site layout and grading has been
designed to allow for adequate drainage of the site to minimize any
potential flood damage.
G. Floodplain dedications.
Applicant's
Finding:
The subject property is not within or adjacent to a 100-year floodplain.
This subsection is not applicable.
H. Need for adequate utilities.
Applicant's
Finding:
As shown on the Utility Plan (Sheet C300), included in Appendix F,
individual water service lines will be installed for each lot, tying into the
existing water main within SW Red Cedar Way. A sanitary sewer line will
connect into the existing system in SW 74th Avenue. A new manhole will
be placed within the right-of-way near SW 74th Avenue and a new 8-
inch sanitary main will run up a 15-foot-wide easement to a new
manhole in the proposed cul -de-sac. All lots will connect into this new
sanitary main. Power is presently available to the site and will be
extended to individual lots for the future development.
I. Need for adequate drainage.
Applicant's
Finding:
As detailed within the Preliminary Drainage Report, submitted under
Appendix E, storm drainage for the newly-created impervious surfaces
within the right-of-way will be provided within the existing detention
system within Red Cedar Way. The existing system has been analyzed
7 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
to ensure it has capacity for the additional storage. The flow control
structure will be upgraded to accommodate the additional stormwater
to the system. Two additional filter cartridges will be added to the
existing water quality manhol e. Each proposed lot will have individual
stormwater planters which will provide detention and treatment. Each
plater will outfall through a new six-inch stormwater lateral to Tract A.
J. Determination of base flood elevation.
Applicant's
Finding:
The subject property is not located in a floodplain area; therefore, the
requirements of this section are not applicable.
18.430.030 Approval Process
A. Review of preliminary plat. Review of a preliminary plat for subdivisi on shall be
processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using
approval criteria contained in Section 18.430.040. An application for subdivision
may also be reviewed concurrently with an application for a planned development,
as governed by Chapter 18.350.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed subdivision will be processed as a Type II application. The
proposed subdivision is not a planned development. Phasing is not
proposed for the project.
18.430.040 Approval Criteria: Preliminary Plat
A. Approval criteria. The approval authority may approve, approve with conditions
or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria:
1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance
and other applicable ordinances and regulations;
2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the
provisions of ORS Chapter 92;
3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions
and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to
width, general direction and in all other respects unless the city determines
it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and
4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with all applicable ordinances
within the Code as addressed throughout this narrative. The Applicant
has received preliminary approval on a plat name from the County. The
proposed development is located at the terminus of SW Red Cedar way.
The future extension of Red Cedar Way is not anticipated; therefore, a
cul-de-sac has been proposed consistent with the City’s standards. All
improvements are shown on the submitted plan set and explained within
this narrative.
18.430.050 Submission Requirements: Preliminary Plat
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an app lication
containing all of the general information required for a Type II procedure, as
governed by Chapter 18.390.
8 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in
subsection A of this section, the preliminary plat shall contain specific information,
the detailed content of which can be obtained from the director.
Applicant's
Finding:
All requirements for a Type II application have been addressed and
submitted as attachments to this application.
CHAPTER 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts
Applicant's
Finding:
The subject parcel is zoned R-4.5. The Code states that the R-4.5 zoning
district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes at a
minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The project proposed to develop
the property with a seven-lot subdivision for detached single-family
homes. The proposal includes a request for an adjustment to the
minimum lot size per subsection 18.775.100. Lots will range in size from
3,952 to 6,192 square feet. The adjustment standards of Section
18.775.100 have been addressed within this narrative. The proposal
meets the general purpose of the R-4.5 zone.
18.510.030 Uses
Applicant's
Finding:
The permitted uses in the R-4.5 zoning district are noted in Table
18.510.1 of the Code. Detached single-family homes are listed as a
permitted use in Table 18.510.1.
18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities
Applicant's
Finding:
The calculation of minimum and maximum densities is governed by the
formulas noted in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. The
calculations for the minimum and maximum densities have been
addressed within this narrative under Chapter 18.715.
18.510.050 Development Standards
Applicant's
Finding:
Table 18.510.2 lists the minimum and maximum l ot dimensions, lot
coverages, setbacks, maximum height requirements and landscape
requirements for the R-4.5 zone.
The minimum lot size listed is 7,500 square feet for detached units,
however the applicant has requested an adjustment per section
18.775.100, which allows up to a 50 percent (3,750 square feet)
adjustment to any dimensional standard. The proposed development will
create seven lots which range in size between 3,952 to 6,192 square
feet. This requirement can be met with the requested adjustment.
The average minimum lot width for detached unit lots is 50 feet. Every
proposed lot is at least an average of 50 feet wide; therefore, this
requirement is met.
The maximum lot coverage is 80%, which includes all buildings and
impervious surfaces. Specific house designs have not yet been chosen
9 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
for the development, but it has been noted on the Preliminary Plat that
there is a maximum lot coverage requirement of 80%. Lot coverage will
be reviewed for compliance at the time of building permit submittal.
The minimum front, street side, side and rear and garage setbacks are
noted on the Preliminary Plat both in note form and visually depicted on
each lot. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to allow for the
reduction of all setbacks for the proposed lots, as addressed under
Section 18.775.100. Specific house designs have not yet been chosen
for the development, but all houses in the development will meet the
required minimum setbacks. Setbacks will be reviewed for compliance
at the time of building permit submittal.
The maximum height requirement is 30 feet. Specific house designs
have not yet been chosen for the development, but it has been noted
on the Preliminary Plat that there is a maximum height requirement of
30 feet. Height of the houses will be reviewed for compliance at the time
of building permit submittal.
The minimum landscape requirement is 20% of each lot. Note No. 1 on
Sheet 4 of the submitted plan set indicates that 20% of each individual
lot will be landscaped, after house construction, by individual lot owners.
This will be reviewed for compliance at the time of building permit
submittal.
Section 18.510.060 Accessory Structures
Applicant's
Finding:
Accessory structures are not proposed as a part of this application.
CHAPTER 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION
18.705.030 General Provisions
A. Continuing obligation of property owner.
Applicant's
Finding:
This development does not propose any access easements or private
streets that would require common maintenance agreements. Access to
the proposed lots will be provided from public streets. Required frontage
improvements along the property boundary on SW 74 th Street and SW
Red Cedar Way will be installed by the developer as public
improvements.
B. Access plan requirements.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant has submitted a Site Plan (Sheet C20 5) and a Circulation
Plan (Sheet C220), under Appendix F. The Site Plan and Circulation Plan
show access to all proposed lots will be from SW Red Cedar Way, a local
road.
The requirements of this section are met.
10 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
C. Joint access.
Applicant's
Finding:
Private streets are not proposed as a part of this development. Each
individual lot will have access to a public street, therefore a joint access
agreement is not necessary.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
D. Public street access.
Applicant's
Finding:
All proposed lots will connect directly with SW Red Cedar Way, a public
street.
The requirements of this section are met.
E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with 18.810.030.N.
Applicant's
Finding:
The street sections for SW Red Cedar Way and SW 74 th Avenue are
shown on the Typical Sections Plan (Sheet C200), included under
Appendix F. The location and dimensions of the curb cuts are shown on
the Site Plan (Sheet C205).
The requirements of this section are met.
F. Required walkway location.
Applicant's
Finding:
This development is not commercial, institutional, industrial or multi -
family/attached housing, therefore the requirement for on -site
pedestrian walkways is not applicable.
H. Access management.
Applicant's
Finding:
All of the proposed driveways will have access from local streets. The
site is not adjacent to any collectors or arterials. Sight distance triangles
are shown on the Site Plan (Sheet 205), included under Appendix F.
The requirements of this section are met.
I. Minimum access requirements for residential use.
Applicant's
Finding:
Each lot will have a driveway with a minimum paved width of at least
ten feet, per the requirements of this section.
The requirements of this section are met.
J. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use.
Applicant's
Finding:
This project is residential, not commercial or industrial, therefore the
requirements of this section are not applicable.
K. One-way vehicular access points.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not include parking facilities;
therefore, the requirements of this section are not applicable.
11 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
CHAPTER 18.715 DENSITY COMPUTATIONS
18.715.020 Density Calculation
A. Definition of net development area. Net development area, in acres, shall be
determined by subtracting the following land area(s) from the total site acres:
1. All sensitive land areas:
a. Land within the 100-year floodplain,
b. Land or slopes exceeding 25%,
c. Drainage ways, and
d. Wetlands,
e. Optional: Significant tree groves or habitat areas, as designated on the
City of Tigard “Significant Tree Grove Map” or “Significant Habitat Areas
Map”;
2. All land dedicated to the public for park purposes;
3. All land dedicated for public rights-of-way. When actual information is not
available, the following formulas may be used:
a. Single-family development: allocate 20% of gross acreage,
b. Multifamily development: allocate 15% of gross acreage or deduct the
actual private drive area;
4. All land proposed for private streets; and
5. A lot of at least the size required by the applicable base zoning district, if an
existing dwelling is to remain on the site.
B. Calculating maximum number of residential units. To calculate the maximum
number of residential units per net acre, divide the number of square feet in the net
acres by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot in the applicable
zoning district.
C. Calculating minimum number of residential units. As required by Section
18.510.040, the minimum number of residential units per net acre shall be
calculated by multiplying the maximum number of units determined in subsection B
of this section by 80% (0.8).
Applicant's
Finding:
Density Calculations are as follows:
Total Site Area: 121,742 sq ft
Land within the 100-year floodplain 0 sq ft
Land or slopes exceeding 25% 16,210 sq ft
Drainage ways or Wetlands 27,596 sq ft
Tree groves or habitat areas (optional) 0 sq ft
Land for public park 0 sq ft
Land for private streets 0 sq ft
Land for existing dwellings to remain 0 sq ft
Land dedicated for public rights-of-way
Net Area removed from Gross Area
8,937 sq ft
52,743 sq ft
121,742 sq ft – 52,743 sq ft = 68,999 sq ft
68,999 net sq ft divided by 7,500 sq ft (minimum lot size for R-4.5) =9
maximum lots
9 maximum lots x 80% = 7 minimum lots
12 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
The site does contain a drainage way, but the applicant chooses not to
utilize density transfers as part of this application. The proposed project
is for seven lots, which is the minimum allowed density.
The density requirements have been met.
CHAPTER 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
18.745.020 Applicability
A. Applicability.
B. When urban forestry plan requirements concurrently apply.
C. Site plan requirements.
Applicant's
Finding:
This application is a Type II land use review application; therefore, the
provisions of Chapter 18.745 are applicable. The plan set submitted with
this application includes a Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Sheet
C110), Tree Removal Notes (Sheet C111), a Landscape Plan (Sheet
L100) and a Site Plan (Sheet C205) to show the requirements of Chapter
18.745 and Chapter 18.790.
18.745.030 General Provisions
A. Maintenance responsibility.
B. Installation requirements.
C. Certificate of occupancy.
E. Ongoing tree-related rules and regulations.
Applicant's
Finding:
Individual lot owners will be responsible for tree and landscape
maintenance.
The proposed plantings are shown on the Landscape Plan (Sheet L100)
and will be installed according to accepted planting procedures and the
provisions of the Code. Planting materials will meet the standards of the
American Standards for Nursery Stock. Applicable notes have been
made on the plan set accordingly.
Existing trees that will remain will be tagged as remaining and are
identified as remaining in the plan set. The remaining trees will have a
construction fence installed around the root protection zone as shown in
the submitted plans. Existing trees and proposed trees will be
maintained subject to the tree-related rules and regulations of the
Tigard Municipal code and Tigard Development Code as noted on the
submitted landscape plan.
18.745.040 Street Tree Standards
A. Street trees shall be required as part of the approval process for conditional use
(Type III), downtown design review (Type II and III), minor land partition (Type
II), planned development (Type III), site development review (Type II) and
subdivision (Type II and III) permits.
13 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
B. The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the
linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet.
When the result is a fraction, the minimum number of required street trees shall be
determined by rounding to the nearest whole number.
C. Street trees required by this section shall be planted according to the street tree
planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual.
D. Street trees required by this section shall be provided adequate s oil volumes
according to the street tree soil volume standards in the Urban Forestry Manual.
E. Street trees required by this section shall be planted within the right -of-way
whenever practicable according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban
Forestry Manual. Street trees may be planted no more than six feet from the right -
of-way according to the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual
when planting within the right-of-way is not practicable.
F. An existing tree may be used to meet the street tree standards provided that:
1. The largest percentage of the tree trunk immediately above the trunk flare or
root buttresses is either within the subject site or within the right-of-way
immediately adjacent to the subject site;
2. The tree would be permitted as a street tree according to the street tree
planting and soil volume standards in the Urban Forestry Manual if it were
newly planted; and
3. The tree is shown as preserved in the tree preservation and removal site plan
(per 18.790.030.A.2), tree canopy cover site plan (per 18.790.030.A.3) and
supplemental report (per 18.790.030.A.4) of a concurrent urban forestry plan
and is eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site.
G. In cases where it is not practicable to provide the minimum number of
required street trees, the director may allow the applicant to remit payment into
the urban forestry fund for tree planting and early establishment in an amount
equivalent to the city’s cost to plant and maintain a street tree for three years
(per the street tree planting standards in the Urban Forestry Manual) for each
tree below the minimum required. (Ord. 12-09 §1; Ord. 09-13)
Applicant's
Finding:
Red Cedar Way has a total frontage of 304.5 feet. Per the requirements
of this code, one street tree is required per 40 feet of linear frontage,
therefore 8 trees are required. The applicant has provided a total of 12
street trees along Red Cedar Way. SW 74th has a total frontage of 399.9
feet. The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the street
improvement standards for SW 74th as well as the cul-de-sac terminus
of Red Cedar Way, as detailed within this narrative. The improvements
to SW 74th will include a curb-tight sidewalk in order to minimize impacts
to the existing sensitive areas on the site.
The Landscape Plan (Sheet L100) shows the proposed placement of the
required street trees.
The requirements of this section are met.
18.745.050 Buffering and Screening
A. General provisions.
14 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and
protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise
pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from
neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses
which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter
(Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is
responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and
screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for
separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required
as specified in the matrix.
3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening
plan may be submitted for the director’s approval as an alternative to the
buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the
same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code.
B. Buffering and screening requirements.
1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property
line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and
screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property
line of the abutting use or uses.
2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and
bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall
be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by
the city.
3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are
located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of paragraph
B.8 and subsection D of this section.
4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of
combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1.
In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications:
a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. Trees shall be chosen from any
of the tree lists in the Urban Forestry Manual (except the nuisance tree
list) unless otherwise approved by the director and have a minimum
caliper of 1-1/2 inches for deciduous trees and a minimum height of six
feet for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be
as follows:
i. Small stature or columnar trees shall be spaced no less than 15 feet
on center and no greater than 20 feet on center.
ii. Medium stature trees shall be spaced no less than 20 feet on center
and no greater than 30 feet on center.
iii. Large stature trees shall be spaced no less than 30 feet on center
and no greater than 40 feet on center.
b. In addition, at least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be
planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area.
c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover.
5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition
to those required for buffering:
15 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which
will form a four foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table
18.745.2 within two years of planting; or
b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided
which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table
18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be
planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or
c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be
constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen.
6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision
clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795.
7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the
prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be
measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences
and walls may exceed the permitted six-foot height at the discretion of the
director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to
make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height
impractical, a detailed landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for
approval.
8. Fences and walls.
a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in
the construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or
otherwise acceptable by the director;
b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other city
regulations;
c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and
d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening; however, chain link
fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen
hedge to be considered screening.
9. Hedges.
a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a
requirement for a sight-obscuring fence where required subject to the
height requirement in subparagraphs C.2.a and C.2.b of this section;
b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and
shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping,
or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and
c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that
permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance
area as set forth in Chapter 18.795.
C. Setbacks for fences or walls.
1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in
paragraph 2 of this subsection C except when the approval authority, as a
condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height
greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse
effects.
2. Fences or walls.
16 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local
streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet
vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795;
b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any
designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in
height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to
administrative review of the location of the fence or wall.
3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter
18.795.
4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building
permit approval.
D. Height restrictions.
1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be
measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where
parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade,
the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or
space shall be measured from the level of such improvements.
2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six-foot
height limitation for screening.
E. Screening: special provisions.
1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas:
a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. In no cases shall
nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas (i.e.,
nonconforming situation) be permitted to become any less conforming.
Nonconforming screening of parking and loading areas shall be brought
into conformance with the provisions of this chapter as part of the
approval process for conditional use (Type III), downtown design review
(Type II and III), planned development (Type III), and site development
review (Type II) permits only. The specifications for this screening are as
follows:
i. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features
which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These
design features may include the use of landscaped berms,
decorative walls and raised planters;
ii. Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance
of off-street parking areas from the public right-of-way;
iii. Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying
and vertical shrubbery and trees;
iv. All parking areas, including parking spaces and aisles, shall be
required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity
directly above the parking area in accordance with the parking lot
tree canopy standards in the Urban Forestry Manual.
2. 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 of a solid wood
17 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse
materials shall be contained within the screened area.
3. Screening of swimming pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed as
required by the state building code.
4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any
refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public
street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such
as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of
a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be
contained within the screened area.
F. Buffer matrix.
1. The buffer matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used
in calculating widths of buffering/screening and required improvements to
be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts.
2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and
18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section
18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010.
Applicant's
Finding:
Table 18.745.1 details when buffering and screening is applicable. The
proposed use is single detached units. The existing uses to the north,
south, east and west are also detached single-family homes, therefore
no buffering or screening is required.
18.745.060 Re-vegetation
A. When re-vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed
through grading in areas not affected by the landscaping and screening
requirements and that are not to be occupied by structures, such areas are to be
replanted as set forth in this section to prevent erosion after construction activities
are completed.
B. Preparation for re-vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation
for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the sites and protected from
erosion while grading operations are underway; and
1. Such storage shall be located consistent with an approved urban forestry plan
per Chapter 18.790 or outside the tree canopy driplines of trees intended to
be preserved in cases when there is no approved urban forestry plan; and
2. After completion of such grading, the topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut
and fill embankments or building pads to provide a suitable base for seeding
and planting.
C. Methods of re-vegetation. Acceptable methods of re-vegetation include hydro-
mulching or the planting of rye grass, barley, or other seed with equivalent
germination rates, and:
1. Where lawn or turf grass is to be established, lawn grass seed or other
appropriate landscape cover is to be sown at not less than four pounds to
each 1,000 square feet of land area;
2. Other re-vegetation methods offering equivalent protection may be approved
by the approval authority;
3. Plant materials are to be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure survival
and growth; and
18 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
4. The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and
maintenance demands.
Applicant's
Finding:
Any natural vegetation that is removed as part of this development will
be removed through grading in areas affected by the landscaping
requirements or in areas to be occupied by structures, driveways,
frontage improvements and sidewalks. Individual lot owners will re -
vegetate their lots once houses and driveways are complete. The
developer will install the required mitigation for the permanent
disturbance of the vegetated corridor as well as planting street trees,
tree canopy and the Type C buffer as part of the development.
CHAPTER 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS
18.765.030 General Provisions
B. Location of Vehicle parking. The location of off-street parking will be as follows:
1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplexes dwellings and single
family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot within the
dwellings.
Applicant’s
Finding
Parking for each single-family dwelling is proposed on the
same lot as the dwelling. This standard is met.
18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards
Applicant’s
Finding
There are not bicycle parking requirements for single-family
detached dwelling units; therefore, the requirements of this
section are not applicable.
18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements
H. Specific requirements. See Table 18.765.2
Applicant’s
Finding
Table 18.765.2 requires one (1) parking space per dwelling
unit. The applicant is proposing more than one parking space
per unit. Two spaces will be located within each attached
garage and at least one space will be provided within each
unit’s driveway. This standard is met.
CHAPTER 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS
18.775.020 Applicability of Uses—Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming
A. CWS stormwater connection permit. All proposed development must obtain a
stormwater connection permit from CWS pursuant to its design and construction
standards.
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed project is for a seven-lot subdivision, which will
include the construction of one new house on each lot. A CWS
stormwater connection permit is therefore required and will be
obtained as a part of the development process.
B. Outright permitted uses with no permit required.
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed project does not qualify as an outright permitted
use and does require a permit as noted above.
19 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
C. Exemptions. When performed under the direction of the city, and in compliance
with the provisions of the City of Tigard Standards and Specifications for Riparian
Area Management, on file in the engineering division, the following shall be exempt
from the provisions of this section:
1. Responses to public emergencies, including emergency repairs to public
facilities;
2. Stream and wetlands restoration and enhancement programs, except in
special flood hazard areas when meeting the definition of development in
paragraph 18.775.040.R.1;
3. Non-native vegetation removal;
4. Planting of native plant species; and
5. Routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facilities projects ,
except in special flood hazard areas when meeting the definition of
development in paragraph 18.775.040.R.1.
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed project does not qualify for any of the listed
exemptions.
D. Jurisdictional wetlands. Landform alterations or developments which are only
within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other
federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands
on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map,” do not require a
sensitive lands permit. The city shall require that all necessary permits from other
agencies are obtained. All other applicable city requirements must be satisfied,
including sensitive land permits for areas within the special flood hazard area,
slopes of 25% or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which
are not under state or federal jurisdiction.
Applicant’s
Finding
The Applicant has not proposed to complete any site
development activities within the wetlands located on site.
E. Administrative sensitive lands review.
1. Administrative sensitive lands permits in the special flood hazard area,
drainageway, slopes that are 25% or greater, and unstable ground shall be
obtained from the appropriate community development division for the
following:
a. The city engineer shall review the installation of public support facilities
by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030
subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter;
b. The city engineer shall review minimal ground disturbance(s) or landform
alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the
floodway area, for land that is within public easements and rights-of-way
by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030
subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter;
c. The director shall review minimal ground disturbance(s) or lan dform
alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the
floodway area by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter;
20 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
d. The director shall review the repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an
existing structure or utility, the cost of which is less than 50% of the
market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage
requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway
by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Sectio n 18.390.030
subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter;
e. The building official shall review building permits for accessory structures
which are 120 to 528 square feet in size, except in the floodway area; and
f. The director shall review applications for paving on private property,
except in the floodway area by means of a Type I procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in
this chapter; and
g. The director shall review applications for maintenance of floodway
excluding re-channeling; within special flood hazard areas, by means of a
Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to
compliance with all of the standards in this chapter; and
h. The director shall review applications for the construction of fences within
special flood hazard areas by means of a Type I procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in
this chapter; and
i. The director shall review applications for the construction of accessory
structures which are less than 120 square feet within special flood hazard
areas by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030
subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter; and
j. The director shall review applications for any land formations involving up
to 10 cubic yards of material within special flood hazard areas by means
of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to
compliance with all of the standards in this chapter.
2. The responsible community development division shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application for a development permit, as described
above, based on the standards set forth in Sections 18.775.050, 18.775.070,
and 18.775.080.
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed project is for a seven-lot subdivision. It does not
fit any of the requirements of the criteria listed for an
administrative sensitive lands review.
F. Sensitive lands permits issued by the director.
1. The director shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the
following areas by means of a Type II procedure, as governed in Section
18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070:
a. Drainageways;
b. Slopes that are 25% or greater or unstable ground; and
c. Wetland areas which are not regulated by other local, stat e, or federal
agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard
“Wetland and Streams Corridors Map.”
2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas in paragr aph 1 of this
subsection F when any of the following circumstances apply:
21 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
a. Ground disturbance(s) or land form alterations involvi ng more than 50
cubic yards of material;
b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility,
the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the
structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring
reconstruction;
c. Residential and nonresidential structures intended for human habitation;
and
d. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size,
outside floodway areas.
Applicant’s
Finding
The development site includes a drainageway, slopes and
wetland areas. The proposed project involves the creation of
lots for single family detached homes. The development will
involve the removal of an existing home and assorted site
improvements within the site’s vegetative corridor. The
Applicant will also propose the regrading and contouring of
lands within the vegetative corridor to return them to a natural
state. All impact areas which are affected by the proposed
demolition will be planted with native vegetation.
G. Sensitive lands permits issued by the hearings officer.
1. The hearings officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit
in the special flood hazard area by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section
18.775.070.
2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the special flood hazard area
when any of the following circumstances apply:
a. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in all floodway areas;
b. Ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations in floodway fringe
locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material;
c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility,
the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the
structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring
reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway;
d. Structures intended for human habitation; and
e. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square fee t in size,
outside of floodway areas.
Applicant’s
Finding
The subject property is not within the 100-year floodplain,
therefore it does not require a sensitive lands permit to be
issued by the hearings officer.
H. Other uses. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this chapter, all
other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas.
I. Nonconforming uses. A use established prior to the adoption of this title, which
would be prohibited by this chapter or which would be subject to the limitations and
controls imposed by this chapter, shall be considered a nonconforming use.
Nonconforming uses shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.760.
22 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed use of the site will be a seven-lot subdivision,
and associated uses. No other uses are proposed as a part of
this application.
18.775.040 General Provisions for Special Flood Hazard Areas
Applicant’s
Finding
The subject property is not within a floodplain or floodplain
area; therefore, these provisions do not apply to this
application.
18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands
A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas
classified as significant on the City of Tigard “Wetland and Streams Corridors Map,”
and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured
horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per “Table 3.1, Vegetated
Corridor Widths,” and “Appendix C, Natural Resource Assessments,” of the CWS
“Design and Construction Standards.” Wetland locations may include but are not
limited to those areas identified as wetlands in “Wetland Inventory and Assessment
for the City of Tigard, Oregon,” Fishman Environmental Services, 1994.
B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary fro m those
shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be
necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the
applicant’s expense. (Ord. 16-20 §3)
Applicant’s
Finding
A wetland/vegetated corridor delineation has been prepared
by a qualified environmental consultant. The delineation
boundary lines are depicted on the submitted plan set and a
copy of the environmental consultant’s report has been
included under Appendix E of this application. No development
has been proposed within the project’s wetland areas. The
Applicant has proposed to remove an existing home which
partially sits within the vegetative corridor. The area where
the home sits will be re-graded and planted to rehabilitate this
portion of the vegetative corridor.
18.775.060 Expiration of Approval—Standards for Extension of Time
A. Voiding of permit. Approval of a sensitive lands permit shall be void if:
1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one-
and-one-half year period; or
2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan.
B. Granting of extension. The director shall, upon written request by th e applicant
and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to
exceed one year, provided that:
1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the approval
authority;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of the site within the
one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable comprehensive plan policies
and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based.
C. Notice of the decision. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant.
The director’s decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by subsections
18.390.040.G and H.
23 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
Applicant’s
Finding
This section states the approval of a sensitive lands permit
shall be void if substantial construction of the approved plan
has not begun within a one-and-one-half year period or if
construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan.
The applicant intends to begin construction of the
infrastructure as soon as the engineering drawings have been
approved, subsequent to the approval of this preliminary plat
application. There is no intention of deviating from any of the
approved plans.
18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits
A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as
defined in Chapter 18.775, must obtain a permit in certain situations. Depending on
the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a
Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in subsections 18.775.020.F
and G. The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas, e.g., special flood
hazard area, are presented in subsections B through E of this section.
B. Within the special flood hazard area. The hearings officer shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application request within the special flood hazard area
based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied:
1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title;
2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the special flood hazard area
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;
3. Land form alterations or developments within the special flood hazard area
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;
4. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the
special flood hazard area it will not result in any increase in the water surface
elevation of the 100-year flood;
5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle
pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicyc le pathway plan,
unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the hearings officer as
untimely;
6. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the special flood hazard area
shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed
alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing
the community’s recreation and environmental educational goals;
7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,
Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained;
and
24 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and
adjacent to the special flood hazard area, the city shall require the
consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent
to the special flood hazard area 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 special flood hazard area in
accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan.
Applicant’s
Finding
The subject property does not contain special flood hazard
areas, therefore the requirements of this section are not
applicable.
C. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes
of 25% or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following
criteria have been satisfied:
1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title;
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant has submitted this land use narrative and
preliminary development plans which demonstrate compliance
with all of the applicable requirements of this title.
2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development
will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for
the use;
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed development within areas of 25% or greater
slopes is limited on site, and will not extend greater than the
area required for the use of the site. The development over
areas with slopes of greater than 25% is primarily located in
areas which are immediately adjacent to the site’s existing
home and out-buildings. These slopes may have been man-
made at one point and the redevelopment of these areas is not
likely to have an impact on any surrounding properties.
3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion,
stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-
site effects or hazards to life or property;
Applicant’s
Finding
A geotechnical analysis prepared by GeoPacific, has been
conducted and has been submitted under Appendix E. The
report concludes that the proposed development is
geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations of
the report are incorporated into the design and constru ction
phases of the project. The applicant will follow the
recommendations outlined in the report.
The requirements of this section can be met.
4. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural
stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for
development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table;
high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-
bedrock; and
25 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
Applicant’s
Finding
All proposed structures will be appropriately sited and
designed to ensure structural stability and drainage of
foundation and crawl spaces areas, per the recommendations
of the Geotechnical Report submitted under Appendix E.
The requirements of this section can be met.
5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or
development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will
be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745,
Landscaping and Screening.
Applicant’s
Finding
Where any natural vegetation is being proposed for removal,
areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be
replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter
18.745, as shown on the attached Landscape Plan (Sheet
L100), submitted under Appendix F.
The requirements of this section have been met.
D. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within
drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been
satisfied:
1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title;
2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development
will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for
the use;
3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion,
stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-
site effects or hazards to life or property;
4. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased;
5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or
development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will
be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745,
Landscaping and Screening;
6. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to
accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master
Drainage Plan;
7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,
Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained;
8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and
adjacent to the special flood hazard area, the city shall require the
consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent
to the special flood hazard area 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 special flood hazard area in
accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan.
Applicant’s
Finding
The existing drainage way will not be removed, altered or
replaced as a part of this land use application. It will remain as
26 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
is in its present location and state, therefore the requirements
of this section are not applicable.
E. 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:
1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title;
2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an
area designated as significant wetland on the comprehensive plan special
flood hazard area and wetland map nor is within the vegetative corridor
established per “Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths” and “Appendix C:
Natural Resources Assessments” of the CWS “Design and Construction
Standards,” for such a wetland;
3. 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;
4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would
adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated;
5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alte ration 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;
6. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met;
7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board,
Division of State Lands, and CWS approvals shall be obtained;
8. The provisions of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal, shall be met;
9. Physical limitations and natural hazards, special flood hazard area and
wetlands, natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the
comprehensive plan have been satisfied.
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant is not proposing any development within the
wetland or associated vegetative corridor. The existing house
will be removed from the vegetative corridor and the area will
be replanting consistent with standards of this code.
18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements
All applications for uses and activities identified in 18.775.020.A through G shall be
made on forms provided by the director and must include the following information
in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The specific information on each of the
following is available from the director:
A. A CWS stormwater connection permit;
B. A site plan;
C. A grading plan;
D. An urban forestry plan per Chapter 18.790 (for subsections 18.775.020.F and G);
and
E. A landscaping plan.
Applicant’s
Finding
The submitted drawing set includes each of the above-
referenced plans. CWS approval has been obtained. A
27 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
stormwater connection permit will be obtained upon approval
of this preliminary subdivision application. A Site Plan (Sheet
C205), a Preliminary Grading Plan (Sheet C230), an Arborist
Report and a Landscape Plan (Sheet L100) have been
submitted under Appendix F of this land use application.
18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands
and Along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash
Creek
A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural
Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR
666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the
City of Tigard “Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map” are protected. No land form
alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant
wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130.
Applicant’s
Finding
The northern portion of the property falls within the Ash Creek
drainage, as shown on the City’s Wetlands and Stream
Corridors Map. The Applicant has prepared a Natural Resource
Assessment for the site which has been submitted with
Appendix E. The Vegetative Corridor currently has several
encroachments which consist of a driveway, a portion of the
site’s existing home, and several paved site improvements
associated with the existing home. The applicant has proposed
to delineate the wetland on site, establish a vegetative corridor
using the standards set forth within the CWS Design and
Construction Standards. No landform alterations within the
vegetative corridor aside from those required to remove the
existing home have been proposed.
B. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural
Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR
660-023-0030) pertaining to riparian corridors, a standard setback distance or
vegetated corridor area, measured horizontally from and parallel to the top of the
bank, is established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South
Fork of Ash Creek.
1. The standard width for “good condition” vegetated corridors along the
Tualatin River is 75 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS “Design and
Construction Standards,” or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130.
If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant
on the City of Tigard “Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map”) is located within
the 75-foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland
edge of the associated wetland.
2. The standard width for “good condition” vegetated corridors along Fanno
Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50 feet, unless wider in
accordance with CWS “Design and Construction Standards”, or modified in
accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant
wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard “Wetlands
and Streams Corridors Map”) is located within the 50-foot setback area, the
vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated
wetland.
28 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
3. The minimum width for “marginal or degraded condition” vegetated corridors
along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash
Creek is 50% of the standard width, unless wider in accordance with CWS
“Design and Construction Standards,” or modified in accordance with Section
18.775.130.
Applicant’s
Finding
The northern portion of the property falls within the Ash Creek
drainage, as shown on the City’s Wetlands and Stream
Corridors Map. The Applicant has prepared a Natural Resource
Assessment for the site which has been submitted with
Appendix E. The applicant is not proposing development within
the vegetative corridor.
4. The determination of corridor condition shall be based on the natural resource
assessment guidelines contained in the CWS “Design and Construction
Standards.”
Applicant’s
Finding
The Applicant has prepared a Natural Resource Assessment for
the site which has been submitted with Appendix E. The
Vegetative Corridor has been established using the guidelines
described within the CWS Design and Construction Standards.
5. The standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area applies to all
development proposed on property located within or partially within the
vegetated corridors, except as allowed below:
a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated corridor from one
side to the other in order to provide access to the sensitive area or across
the sensitive area, as approved by the city per Section 18.775.070 and by
CWS “Design and Construction Standards”;
b. Utility/service provider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm, sanitary
sewer, water, phone, gas, cable, etc.), if approved by the city and CWS ;
c. A pedestrian or bike path, not exceeding 10 feet in width and meeting the
CWS “Design and Construction Standards”;
d. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the vegetated corridor, as approved
by the city and CWS;
e. Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, or fire and life safety
violations, as approved by the regulating jurisdiction;
f. Enhancement of the vegetated corridor for water quality or quantity
benefits, fish, or wildlife habitat, as approved by the city and CWS;
g. Measures to repair, maintain, alter, remove, add to, or replace existing
structures, roadways, driveways, utilities, accessory uses, or other
developments provided they are consistent with city and CWS regulations,
and do not encroach further into the vegetated corridor or sensitive area
than allowed by the CWS “Design and Construction Standards.”
Applicant’s
Finding
The Applicant has proposed to remove several structures and
improvements which are located within the vegetative
corridor. The degraded porti ons of the corridor will be
revegetated consistent with the requirements of this section.
6. Land form alterations or developments located within or partially within the
Goal 5 safe harbor setback or vegetated corridor areas established for the
29 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek that
meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the CWS, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, and/or other federal, state,
or regional agencies, are not subject to the provisions of this subsection B,
except where the:
a. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially
within a good condition vegetated corridor, as defined in paragraphs 1
and 2 of this subsection B;
b. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially
within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded
condition vegetated corridor, as defined in paragraph 3 of this
subsection B.
These exceptions reflect instances of the greater protection of riparian
corridors provided by the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative
rule. (Ord. 16-20 §3)
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant has submitted a Natural Resource Assessment
under Appendix E which identifies and delineates the wetland
located on the northern edge of the property. The wetland is
part of the South Fork of Ash Creek. Development is not
proposed within the wetland or associated vegetative corridor.
18.775.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Standards
Adjustments to dimensional standards of the underlying zone district may be
approved by the Planning Director when necessary to further the purpose of this
section.
A. Adjustment option. The planning director may approve up to 50% adjustment to
any dimensional standard (e.g., setback height or lot area) of the underlying zone
district to allow development consistent with the purposes of this section. The
purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adv erse impacts on wetlands,
stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for slope
of flood hazards.
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant is requesting an adjustment to the minimum lot
size standard of the underlying zone to allow for a minimum
lot size of 3,750 square feet. The proposed lots will range in
size between 3,952 to 6,192 square feet. The applicant is also
requesting an adjustment to the minimum front, rear, side
yard and street side yard setback standards to allow a
reduction of up to 50 percent for each setback. The requested
front yard setback would be 10 feet, the rear yard setback
would be 7.5 feet. The requested street side-yard setback is 8
feet, to allow for a public utility easement. The requested side
yard setback is 2.5 feet. The proposed seven lot subdivision
meets the density requirements of the underlying zone, and
has been located outside of the boundary of the vegetative
corridor and significant habitat area on site. The proposed
project will establish a vegetative corridor, remove the
structures and improvements which are currently located
within the corridor, and revegetate the corridor with plants
which will have positive impacts on the surrounding wetlands,
stream corridor, fish, and wildlife habitat.
30 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
B. Adjustment criteria. A special adjustment to the standards in the underlying
zoning district may be requested under Type II procedure when development is
proposed within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area or within or adjacent to
areas designated as “strictly limit” or “moderately limit” on the City of Tigard
“Significant Habitat Areas Map.” Verification of significant habitat boundaries shall
be done in accordance with the procedures described in Section 18.775.140. In
order for the director to approve a dimensional adjustment to standards in the
underlying zoning district, the applicant shall demonstrate that all the following
criteria are fully satisfied:
1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at
the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback
area or water quality buffer;
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed lots will range in size from 3,952 to 6,192 square
feet. The minimum lot size proposed will be a 43 percent
reduction to the standard, below the 50 percent reduction
allowed by this code section. The adjustment requested is the
minimum necessary to allow the permitted use a within the
permitted density range of the site.
The requested front yard setback would be 10 feet, the rear
yard setback would be 7.5 feet. The requested street side-yard
setback is 8 feet, to allow for a public utility easement. The
requested side yard setback is 2.5 feet. Each requested
adjustment will be a 50 percent reduction to the standard,
which is allowed by this code section.
The requirements of this section have been met.
2. xplicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover,
minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on buildable
land;
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed development will feature minimal site
improvements related to roadways and utilities. The seven
proposed lots have been located in order to minimize
excavation, minimize impervious surfaces and maximize
vegetative cover on the site.
The requirements of this section have been met.
3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development,
including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence
close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native
landscaping materials, minimizing parking areas, minimizing hydrologic
impacts and garage space;
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed development will feature multi -story
construction, maximize of the use of native landscaping
materials and minimize hydrologic impacts on site consistent
with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Report
submitted under Appendix E. Reductions to driveway distance,
parking areas and garage space were not feasible in this case,
as parking along Red Cedar Way is limited.
31 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
The requirements of this section have been met.
4. In no case shall the impervious surface area as a single-family residence
(including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory
structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of a
vegetated corridor area;
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant is not proposing to create any impervious areas
in the vegetative corridor; therefore, the requirements of this
section are not applicable.
5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not
encroach further on land under the same ownership within the vegetated
corridor area;
Applicant’s
Finding
The vegetative corridor and significant habitat areas have been
placed in a non-buildable tract. This guarantees that future
development will not encroach further on land w ithin the
vegetative corridor area.
The requirements of this section have been met.
6. Protected vegetated corridor, significant habitat areas and adjacent buffer
areas must be:
a. Placed in a non-buildable tract or protected with a restrictive easement;
b. Restoration and enhancement of habitat and buffer areas required,
including monitoring for five years.
Applicant’s
Finding
The vegetative corridor and significant habitat areas have been
placed in a non-buildable tract. The Applicant has submitted a
Natural Resource Assessment to Clean Water Services which
details the planned restorative and enhancements to be
completed within the vegetative corridors.
C. Reduction to minimum density requirements for developments that include
inventoried significant habitat areas. The minimum number of units required by
Section 18.510.040 (Density Calculation) may be waived if necessary to ensure that
impacts on habitat areas are minimized.
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant is not requesting a reduction to the mi nimum
density requirements for developments that include
inventories significant habitat areas. The proposed
development meets the minimum density requirements of the
base zone.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
18.775.110 Density Transfer
Density may be transferred from vegetated corridor areas as provided in Sections
18.715.020 through 18.715.030.
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant is not requesting a density transfer from the
vegetated corridor areas.
32 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
CHAPTER 18.790 URBAN FORESTRY PLAN
18.790.020 Applicability
The requirements of this chapter apply to the following situations:
A. The following land use reviews:
1. Conditional use (Type III);
2. Downtown design review (Type II and III);
3. Minor land partition (Type II);
4. Planned development (Type III);
5. Sensitive lands review (Type II and III);
6. Site development review (Type II); and
7. Subdivision (Type II and III).
B. All Type I modifications to the urban forestry plan component of an approved
land use permit as required by Section 18.790.070.
C. For land use projects limited to an existing right-of-way or easement, the
development site shall be considered the existing right-of-way or easement and the
urban forestry plan requirements shall be limited to the existing right-of-way or
easement.
Applicant’s
Finding
The proposed development is a Type II Sensitive Lands Review
and Type II Subdivision, therefore the requi rements of this
chapter are applicable.
18.790.030 Urban Forestry Plan Requirements
A. Urban forestry plan requirements. An urban forestry plan shall:
1. Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape
architect) or a person that is both a certified arborist and tree risk assessor
(the project arborist), except for minor land partitions that can demonstrate
compliance with effective tree canopy cover and soil volume requirements by
planting street trees in open soil volumes only;
2. Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in the Urban
Forestry Manual;
3. Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in the Urban Forestry Manual; and
4. Meet the supplemental report standards in the Urban Forestry Manual.
B. Tree canopy fee. If the supplemental report demonstrates that the applicable
standard percent effective tree canopy cover will not be provided through any
combination of tree planting or preservation for the overall development site
(excluding streets) or that the 15% effective tree canopy cover will not be provided
through any combination of tree planting or preservation for any individual lot or
tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts (when the overall development
site meets or exceeds the standard percent effective tree canopy cover), then the
applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the metho dology
outlined in the tree canopy fee calculation requirements in the Urban Forestry
Manual.
C. Tree canopy fee use. Tree canopy fees provided to the city shall be deposited into
the urban forestry fund and used as approved by council through a resolution.
Applicant’s
Finding
The applicant has submitted an Arborist Report, under
Appendix E which demonstrates compliance with the standards
of the Urban Forestry Manual. Additionally, a Tree Protection
33 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
and Removal Plan (Sheet C1110) and a Landscape Plan (Sheet
L100) have been provided in accordance with this section.
The requirements of this section have been met.
CHAPTER 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
18.810.030 Streets
A. Improvements.
1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved
access to a public street.
Applicant's
Finding:
All proposed lots will connect directly with SW Red Cedar Way, a public
street.
The requirements of this section are met.
2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the
standards of this chapter.
Applicant's
Finding:
As demonstrated within this land use narrative, the development meets
the standards of this chapter.
The requirements of this section are met.
3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development
meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development
may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half-
street improvements meeting the standards of this title are construct ed
adjacent to the development.
Applicant's
Finding:
As discussed with the City Engineer, the applicant is providing a modified
half-street improvement along SW 74th Avenue in order to avoid
additional disturbance to the habitat on site. The full right-of-way
section will be dedicated. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a curb-
tight sidewalk along the cul-de-sac bulb of Red Cedar Way.
The requirements of this section are met.
4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing
street shall meet the standards of this chapter.
Applicant's
Finding:
SW Red Cedar Way will be improved to the full street width along the
frontage of the proposed development. As discussed with the City
Engineer, the applicant is providing a modified half-street improvement
along SW 74th Avenue in order to avoid additional disturbance to the
vegetative corridors on site. The full right-of-way section will be
dedicated. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a curb-tight sidewalk
along the cul-de-sac bulb of Red Cedar Way
The requirements of this section are met.
34 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street
improvements, the city engineer may accept a future improvements
guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following
conditions exist:
a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve
proper design standards;
b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to
motorists or pedestrians;
c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is
unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the
foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project
under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to
street safety or capacity;
d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital
improvement plan;
e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on
property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not
create any new streets; or
f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design
standards for the street and the application is for a project which would
contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the
street.
Applicant's
Finding:
All required street improvements, as proposed, will be constructed by
the Applicant. The requirements of this section do not apply.
6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by
the city engineer pursuant to 18.810.020.B.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development meets the standards of this chapter,
including the standard specifications adopted by the city engineer
pursuant to 18.810.020.B.
7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this
chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact
on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat
areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also
approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the
standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development
or would preclude development on the property where the dev elopment is
proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval
authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the
public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the
public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in
paragraph E.1 of this section. An adjustment to the standards may not be
granted if the adjustment would risk public safety.
Applicant's
Finding:
As discussed with the City Engineer, the applicant is providing a modified
half-street improvement along SW 74th Avenue in order to avoid
35 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
additional disturbance to the habitat on site. The full right -of-way
section will be dedicated. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a curb-
tight sidewalk along the cul-de-sac bulb of Red Cedar Way. These
adjustments support the retention of the full vegetative corridor
associated with the South Fork of Ash Creek while allowing the applicant
to construct homes within the setbacks and lot adjustment provisions
provided elsewhere within this code.
The requirements of this section are met.
B. Creation of rights-of-way for streets and related purposes. Rights-of-way shall
be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition;
however, the council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed,
provided that such street is deemed essential by the council for the purpose of
general traffic circulation.
1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication
without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or
major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are foun d by
the council to be present:
a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be
essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or
subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary
objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or
b. The tract in which the road or street is to be ded icated is an isolated
ownership of one acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the
commission to the council based on a finding that the proposal is not an
attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of
subdivisions or major partitions.
c. The street is located within the downtown mixed use central business
district and has been identified on Figures 5-14A through 5-14I of the City
of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan as a req uired connectivity
improvement.
2. With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full
compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed
dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and major partition
approval.
a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as
may be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine
whether or not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be
made.
b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the
proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title.
c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the
council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the
standards of this title.
3. All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name
“the public” as grantee.
36 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
Applicant's
Finding:
The half-street right-of-way will be dedicated for the frontage along SW
Red Cedar Way and SW 74th Avenue.
The requirements of this section are met.
C. Creation of access easements. The approval authority may approve an access
easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such
an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop
can be created.
1. Access easements shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the
Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.207.
2. Access shall be in accordance with 18.705.030.H and I.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not include access easements.
D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and
grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered
in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public
convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the
land to be served by such streets:
1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in accordance with
subsection N of this section; and
2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the
arrangement of streets in a development shall either:
a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets
in the surrounding areas, or
b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to
conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or
other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the
type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of
adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety.
Applicant's
Finding:
The half-street right-of-way will be dedicated for the frontage along SW
Red Cedar Way and SW 74th Avenue.
E. Minimum rights-of-way and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an
approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within
the downtown district, street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less
than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width
shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon anticipated
average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The city council may adopt
by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public
improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining
improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are presented in
Table 18.810.1.
Applicant's
Finding:
The existing street pattern along the site has been established. The
proposed development will provide for improvements to the frontage
37 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
along the existing streets as well as the full build out of the cul -de-sac
on SW Red Cedar Way.
The requirements of this section are met.
F. Future street plan and extension of streets.
1. A future street plan shall:
a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a
subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and
proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division
and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surroundi ng and adjacent
to the proposed land division. At the applicant’s request, the city may
prepare a future streets proposal. Costs of the city preparing a future
streets proposal shall be reimbursed for the time involved. A street
proposal may be modified when subsequent subdivision proposals are
submitted.
b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit
facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of
the site.
2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisf actory future division of
adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to
be developed, and
a. These extended streets or street stubs to adjoining properties are not
considered to be culs-de-sac since they are intended to continue as
through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed.
b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property
owners which shall not be removed until authorized by the city engineer,
the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost.
c. Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temporary cul-de-sac bulbs shall be
constructed for stub street in excess of 150 feet in length.
G. Street spacing and access management. Refer to 18.705.030.H.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant has submitted a Circulation Plan (Sheet C220) under
appendix E. The proposed development is located on an infill property
with established vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The proposed
development will provide frontage improvements along SW Red Cedar
Way including sidewalks and the full build out of the existing cul -de-sac.
A new sidewalk will be installed along the frontage of SW 74th.
The requirements of this section have been met.
H. Street alignment and connections.
1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between
connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as
topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing developments, lease
provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing p rior to May
1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also
be exempted due to a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit
construction.
38 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development
site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not
precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing
development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A
street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible
to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions.
Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than
15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or
topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient
to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why
the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access
to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other
neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks.
4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets
that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within
the development.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development is located on an infill property with an
established street pattern. The proposed development will provide
frontage improvements along SW Red Cedar Way including the full build
out of the existing cul-de-sac. An extension of SW Red Cedar Way is not
possible due to significant habitat constraints.
The requirements of this section have been met.
I. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near
to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle,
but in no case shall the angle be less than 75o unless there is special intersection
design, and:
1. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way
intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance;
2. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner
radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of the acute angle; and
3. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets shall have a corner
radius of not less than 20 feet.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development is located on an infill property with an
established street pattern, therefore no new intersections will be created
as a part of this land use application.
The requirements of this section have been met.
J. Existing rights-of-way. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a
tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way shall be provided at
the time of subdivision or development.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development will provide h alf-street right-of-way
dedication along SW Red Cedar Way and SW 74th Avenue.
39 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
The requirements of this section have been met.
K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement
width of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where
essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other
requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the
improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development will provide half-street right-of-way
dedication along SW Red Cedar Way and SW 74th Avenue.
The requirements of this section have been met.
L. Culs-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide
access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental
or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to
other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation:
1. All culs-de-sac shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround
configurations other than circular shall be approved by the city engineer; and
2. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline
intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb.
3. If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an
adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the city.
Applicant's
Finding:
The existing cul-de-sac layout on SW Red Cedar Way has been
established by previous development. The proposed development will
provide for the full build out of turnaround on SW Red Cedar Way. An
extension of SW Red Cedar Way is not possible due to the presence of
natural resources on the site.
SW Red Cedar Way will provide access to 16 dwelling units, including
the proposed development.
The requirements of this section have been met.
M. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate o r be confused
with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of
existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern
in the surrounding area and as approved by the city engineer.
N. Grades and curves.
1. Grades shall not exceed 10% on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12%
on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have
segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet);
and
2. Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the city engineer.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development is an infill lot with an established street
system. The development will not provide for the development of any
new streets.
40 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches. Concrete curbs, curb cuts,
wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in
accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080, and:
1. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except:
2. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with
city engineer approval; and
3. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built
to city configuration standards.
Applicant's
Finding:
All curbs, curb cuts, ramps and driveway approaches will be constructed
in accordance with the standards specified in this chapter and Section
15.04.080.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
P. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Wherever the proposed development
contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provision shall be made for a
street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance
suitable for the appropriate use of the land. The distance shall be determined with
due consideration at cross streets or the minimum distance required for approach
grades and to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad
right-of-way in nonindustrial areas.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development is not adjacent to railroad right -of-way,
therefore the standards of this section are not applicable.
Q. Access to arterials and collectors. Where a development abuts or is traversed by
an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the development design shall
provide adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential
access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall m inimize
the traffic conflicts. The design shall include any of the following:
1. A parallel access street along the arterial or collector;
2. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arterial or collector to provide adequate
buffering with frontage along another street;
3. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a
nonaccess reservation along the arterial or collector; or
4. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
5. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access
should be from the lower classification street.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not abut and is not traversed by an
existing or proposed arterial or collector street, therefore the
requirements of this section are not applicable.
R. Alleys, public or private.
1. Alleys shall be no less than 20 feet in width. In commercial and industrial districts,
alleys shall be provided unless other permanent provisions for access to off-street
parking and loading facilities are made.
41 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
2. While alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided, the
corners of necessary alley intersections shall have a r adius of not less than 12 feet.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not include the development of public
or private alleys, therefore the requirements of this section are not
applicable.
S. Survey monuments. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to
acceptance by the city, it shall be the responsibility of the developer’s registered
professional land surveyor to provide certification to the city that all boundary and
interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant acknowledges that it is the responsibility of the
developer’s registered professional land surveyor to provide certification
to the city that all boundary and interior monuments shall be
reestablished and protected.
The requirements of this section can be met.
T. Private streets.
1. Design standards for private streets shall be established by the city engineer;
and
2. The city shall require legal assurances for the continued maintenance of
private streets, such as a recorded maintenance agreement.
3. Private streets serving more than six dwelling units are permitted only within
planned developments, mobile home parks, and multi-family residential
developments.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not include private streets; therefore,
the requirements of this section are not applicable.
U. Railroad crossings. Where an adjacent development results in a need to install or
improve a railroad crossing, the cost for such improvements may be a condition of
development approval, or another equitable means of cost distribution s hall be
determined by the public works director and approved by the commission.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development is not adjacent to a railroad; therefore, the
requirements of this section are not applicable.
V. Street signs. The city shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and
street names, as specified by the city engineer for any development. The cost of
signs shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant acknowledges the city will i nstall any necessary street
signs or traffic control signs at the cost of the developer.
W. Mailboxes. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential
developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling unit s.
1. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs;
42 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
2. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on a copy of the
preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the city
engineer/U.S. post office prior to final plan approval; and
3. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall be submitted for
approval by the city engineer/U.S. post office prior to final approval.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development will utilize joint mailbox facilities placed
adjacent to roadway curbs in accordance with this section. Plans for the
joint mailbox structures will be submitted for approval by the city
engineer/U.S. post office prior to final approval.
The requirements of this section can be met.
X. Traffic signals. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street
plans. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a
traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost
shall be included as a condition of development.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not include traffic signals. The
requirements of this section are not applicable.
Y. Street light standards. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with
regulations adopted by the city’s direction.
Applicant's
Finding:
A new street light will be installed along SW Red Cedar Way, as indicated
on the submitted Photometrics Plan (Sheet C290). The proposed street
light will be installed in accordance with regulations ad opted by the city’s
direction.
The requirements of this section can be met.
Z. Street name signs. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections.
Stop signs and other signs may be required.
Applicant's
Finding:
The development does not include the establishment of new streets. SW
74th Avenue and SW Red Cedar way have existing street name signs and
stop signs.
The requirements of this section can be met.
AA. Street cross-sections. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed
on all new constructed public roadways prior to final city acceptance of the roadway
and within one year of the conditional acceptance of the roadway unless otherwise
approved by the city engineer. The final lift shall also be placed no later th an when
90% of the structures in the new development are completed or three years from
the commencement of initial construction of the development, whichever is less.
1. Sub-base and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock;
2. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete;
3. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to city
final acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90% of the structures
43 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
in the new development are completed unless three years have elapsed since
initiation of construction in the development;
4. The final lift shall be Class C asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A.
standard specifications; and
5. No lift shall be less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant acknowledges that the final lift of asphalt concrete
pavement shall be placed on all new constructed public roadways prior
to the final city acceptance of the roadway or within one year of the
conditional acceptance of the roadway.
The requirements of this section can be met.
BB. Traffic calming. When, in the opinion of the city engineer, the proposed
development will create a negative traffic condition on existing neighborhood
streets, such as excessive speeding, the developer may be required to provide traffic
calming measures. These measures may be required within the development and/or
offsite as deemed appropriate. As an alternative, the developer may be required to
deposit funds with the city to help pay for traffic calming measures that become
necessary once the development is occupied and the city engineer determines that
the additional traffic from the development has triggered the need for traffic
calming measures. The city engineer will determine the amount of funds required,
and will collect said funds from the developer prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy, or in the case of subdivision, prior to the approval of the final plat.
The funds will be held by the city for a period of five years from the date of issuance
of certificate of occupancy, or in the case of a subdivision, the date of final plat
approval. Any funds not used by the city within the five-year time period will be
refunded to the developer.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development will have a minor impact on the traffic
condition on existing neighborhood streets, therefore traffic calming is
not being proposed.
CC. Traffic study.
1. A traffic study shall be required for all new or expanded uses or developments
under any of the following circumstances:
a. When they generate a 10% or greater increase in existing traffic to high
collision intersections identified by Washington County.
b. Trip generations from development onto the city street at the point of
access and the existing ADT fall within the following ranges:
c. If any of the following issues become evident to the city engineer:
i. High traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway that may affect
movement into or out of the site.
ii. Lack of existing left-turn lanes onto the adjacent roadway at the
proposed access drive(s).
iii. Inadequate horizontal or vertical sight distance at access points.
iv. The proximity of the proposed access to other existing drives or
intersections is a potential hazard.
v. The proposal requires a conditional use permit or involves a drive-
through operation.
44 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
vi. The proposed development may result in excessive traffic volumes
on adjacent local streets.
2. In addition, a traffic study may be required for all new or expanded uses or
developments under any of the following circumstances:
a. When the site is within 500 feet of an ODOT facility; and/or
b. Trip generation from a development adds 300 or more vehicle trips per
day to an ODOT facility; and/or
c. Trip generation from a development adds 50 or more peak hour trips to an
ODOT facility.
Applicant's
Finding:
A traffic study has not been provided for the proposed development, as
it is a minor infill development which does not trigger any of the
circumstances listed above.
18.810.40 Blocks
A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due
regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration
of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and
recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography.
B. Sizes.
1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet
measured along the centerline of the streets except:
a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands,
significant habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre-existing development;
or
b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors
or railroads.
c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulat ion provides
equivalent access.
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways
shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by paragraph 1 of
this subsection B. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330
feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints,
existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the
code.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development is located on an infill lot with an established
street pattern. Improvements will be made along the frontage of the
property on SW 74th Avenue and SW Red Cedar Way.
18.810.050 Easements
A. Easements. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other
public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and
where a development is traversed by a watercourse or drainageway, there shall be
provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially
with the lines of the watercourse.
B. Utility easements. A property owner proposing a development shall make
arrangements with the city, the applicable district, and each utility franchise for the
provision and dedication of utility easements necessary to provide full services to
the development. The city’s standard width for public main line utility easements
45 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
shall be 15 feet unless otherwise specified by the utility company, applicable
district, or city engineer.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development will include an eight -foot public utility
easement along the frontage of SW Red Cedar Way and SW 74th Avenue.
The proposed development will include a 15-foot sanitary easement and
a 20-foot proposed storm and sanitary easement. The locations of the
proposed easements have been indicated on the Tentative Plat (Sheet
C210). Arrangements will be made with the City and the utility franchise
for the provision and dedication of the necessary easements in
accordance with the requirements of this section.
18.810.060 Lots
A. Size and shape. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for
the location of the development and for the type of use contemplated, and
1. No lot shall contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way within
its dimensions.
2. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2 -1/2 times the average width, unless
the parcel is less than 1-1/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable
zoning district.
3. Depth and width of properties zoned for commercial and industrial purposes
shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and service facilities
required by the type of use proposed.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed lots do not contain part of an existing or proposed right-
of-way within its dimension. The proposed depths each lot does not
exceed 2-1/2 times the average width.
The requirements of this section have been met.
B. Lot frontage. Each lot shall abut upon a public or private street, other than an
alley, for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a minor land
partition in which case 18.162.050.C applies, or unless the lot is for an attached
single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at le ast 15 feet.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed lots have frontage along SW Red Cedar Way for a width
of at least 25 feet.
The requirements of this section have been met.
C. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where they are essential to
provide separation of residential development from major traffic arterials or to
overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation, and:
1. A planting buffer at least 10 feet wide is required abutting the arterial rights-
of-way; and
2. All through lots shall provide the required front yard setback on each street.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not include through lots.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
46 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
D. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles
to the street upon which the lots front.
Applicant's
Finding:
The side lines of the lots are at right angles to the street, as far as
practicable.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
E. Large lots. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels whic h at some future time
are likely to be redivided, the commission may require that the lots be of such size
and shape, and be so divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions
as will provide for the extension and opening of streets at intervals which will permit
a subsequent division of any tract into lots or parcels of smaller size. The land
division shall be denied if the proposed large development lot does not provide for
the future division of the lots and future extension of public facilities.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development does not include any lots which can be
further divided under the existing zoning.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
18.810.070 Sidewalks
A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting
city standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have
sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may
be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the
development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street.
Applicant's
Finding:
Sidewalks will be installed along the frontage of SW Red Cedar Way and
SW 74th Avenue.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
B. Requirement of developers.
1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an
additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required
to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pede strian routes
within 1/2 mile of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity
centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be
required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system
off-site if justified by the development.
2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the
development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the
sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk,
subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a
neighborhood activity center).
Applicant's
Finding:
Sidewalks will be installed along the frontage of SW Red Cedar Way and
SW 74th Avenue. A Circulation Plan (Sheet C220) has been inclu ded
with this land use application.
47 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet
between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets,
except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-
way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the
street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural
features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that
would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; or where there
are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less) or
where the standards in Table 18.810.1 specify otherwise. Addition al
consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a
case-by-case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed sidewalk along SW Red Cedar Way will include a planter
strip of five feet. The applicant is proposing a curb-tight sidewalk along
the cul-de-sac of Red Cedar Way. The proposed sidewalk along SW 74th
Avenue will include a curb-tight sidewalk along a portion of the frontage
in order to minimize disturbance to the significant natural resource area
located on site. The proposed curb tight-sidewalk will transition to
provide planter strips along the frontage at the north and south end of
the property.
The requirements of this section are met.
D. Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the
continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant acknowledges that the maintenance of sidewalks, curbs
and planer strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property
owner.
The requirements of this section
E. Application for permit and inspection. If the construction of a sidewalk is not
included in a performance bond of an approved subdivision or the performance bond
has lapsed, then every person, firm or corporation desiring to construct sidewalks
as provided by this chapter, shall, before entering upon the work or improvement,
apply for a street opening permit to the Engineering Department to so build or
construct:
1. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development until the
provisions of this section are satisfied.
2. The city engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary
noncompliance with the provisions of this section to the owner, builder or
contractor when, in his or her opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is
impractical for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in
question within a reasonable length of time;
48 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
b. Forthcoming installation of public utilities or street paving would be likely
to cause severe damage to the new sidewalk;
c. Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on one or
both sides of the street; or
d. Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area makes construction of
a sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible.
3. The city engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance
with the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual.
Applicant's
Finding:
The construction of the proposed sidewalks will be included in the
performance bond of the subdivision.
The requirements of this section can be met.
18.810.080 Public Use Areas
A. Dedication requirements.
1. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a
development plan adopted by the city is located in whole or in part in a
subdivision, the commission may require the dedication or reservation of
such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication
is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system.
2. Where considered desirable by the commission in accordance with adopted
comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the city does
not indicate proposed public use areas, the commission may require the
dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a
character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other
public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional
to the impact of the subdivision on the park system.
B. Acquisition by public agency. If the developer is required to reserve land area for
a park, playground, or other public use, such land shall be acquired by the
appropriate public agency within 18 months following plat approval, at a price
agreed upon prior to approval of the plat, or such reservation shall be released to
the subdivider.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant is proposing to dedicate the area contained in Tract A to
the Tigard Parks District, at their request.
The requirements of this section are met.
18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers
A. Sewers required. Sanitary sewers shall 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and
including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the
comprehensive plan.
B. Sewer plan approval. The city engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and
proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits involving sewer service.
C. Over sizing. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional
development within the area as projected by the comprehensive plan.
49 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
D. Permits denied. Development permits may be restricted by the commission or
hearings officer where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion
thereof which cannot be rectified within the development and which if not rectified
will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or
violations of state or federal standards pertaining to operation of the sewage
treatment system.
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant has submitted a Utility Plan (Sheet C300), under A ppendix
E which details the proposed sanitary sewer improvements associated
with the development.
The requirements of this section are met.
18.810.100 Storm Drainage
A. General provisions. The director and city engineer shall issue a development
permit only where adequate provisions for stormwater and floodwater runoff have
been made, and:
1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any
sanitary sewerage system;
2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across
any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and
3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development
proposal plan.
B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway,
channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage
right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such
further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance.
C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. 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, and 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
the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or
amendments).
D. Effect on downstream drainage. 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 the Unified Sewerage
Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments).
Applicant's
Finding:
The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Drainage Plan under Appendix
D as well as a Utility Plan (Sheet C300), under Appendix E which details
the proposed stormwater improvements associated with the
development.
The requirements of this section are met.
50 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways
A. Bikeway extension.
1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector
routes and where identified on the city’s adopted bicycle plan in the
transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors
within the downtown urban renewal district shall be determined by the city
engineer unless specified in Table 18.810.1.
2. 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 rights-of-way,
provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the
impact of the development.
3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required
in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan.
B. Cost of construction. 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 in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the
development.
C. Minimum width.
1. The minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle
travel lane.
2. The minimum width for multi-use paths separated from the road and
classified as regional or community trails in the Greenway Trail System
Master Plan is 10 feet. The width may be reduced to eight feet if there are
environmental or other constraints.
3. The minimum width for off-street paths classified as neighborhood trails,
according to the Greenway Trail System Master Plan, is three feet.
4. Design standards for bike and pedestrian-ways shall be determined by the
city engineer.
Applicant's
Finding:
The proposed development is not located along an arterial or collector
route, the site is not adjacent to proposed bikeways identified on the
city’s adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. The proposed development
does not include any new streets, therefore the proposed development
does not include bikeways or pedestrian paths.
The requirements of this section are not applicable.
18.810.120 Utilities
A. Underground utilities. All utility lines including, 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:
1. The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility
to provide the underground services;
51 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
2. The city reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted
facilities;
3. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed
in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to th e surfacing of the
streets; and
4. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the
street improvements when service connections are made.
B. Information on development plans. The applicant for a development shall show
on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all
underground utility facilities, and:
1. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein
shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and approval; and
2. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does
not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic.
C. Exception to undergrounding requirement.
1. The developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding 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 undergrounding in conjunction with the
development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most
common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for
which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional poles,
rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities.
2. 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 the fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in-lieu of
undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in paragraphs 1 through 3 of this subsection C shall apply only
to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed underground.
D. Fee in-lieu of undergrounding.
1. The city engineer shall establish utility service areas in the city. All
development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay a fee in -lieu
of undergrounding for utilities if the development doe s not provide
underground utilities, unless exempted by this code.
2. The city engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area which shall be
determined based upon the estimated cost to underground utilities within
each service area. The total estimated cost for undergrounding in a service
area shall be allocated on a front-foot basis to each party within the service
area. The fee due from any developer shall be calculated based on a front-
foot basis.
3. A developer shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred in the
undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The city engineer shall
determine the amount of the credit, after review of cost information
submitted by the applicant with the request for credit.
52 RED CEDAR ESTATES | 3J CONSULTING, INC.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for undergrounding
utilities within the city at large. The city engineer shall prepare and maintain
a list of proposed undergrounding projects which may be funded with the fees
collected by the city. The list shall indicate the est imated timing and cost of
each project. The list shall be submitted to the city council for their review
and approval annually.
Applicant's
Finding:
All new utilities installed as a result of the development will be installed
underground in accordance with this section.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Based upon the materials submitted herein, the Applicant respectfully requests approval from
the City’s Planning Department of this application for a Type II Subdivision, Adjustment and
Sensitive Lands Review.
METZGER
99W
SITE
TIGARD
SW 74TH AVENUESW RED CEDAR WAYSW SHADY PLACESW 74TH AVENUE
TAX LOT 600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 8600
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 8800
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 8900
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9000
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT
9100MAP 1S
-1
-25CDTAX LOT
5600MAP 1S
-1
-25DCTAX LOT
5700MAP 1S
-1
-25DCTAX LOT
5800MAP 1S
-1
-25DCTAX LOT
4900MAP 1S
-1
-25DC
TAX LOT 9200
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9700
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 201
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 500
MAP 1S-1-25DC
LOT 7
TRACT A
LOT 2
LOT 1
TRACT C
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 5
TRACT B
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C000RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESCOVER SHEET03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C000-COVER SHEET.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
9777 SW 74TH AVENUE
SUBDIVISION
J.T. SMITH COMPANIES
LAND USE DOCUMENTS
FOR
PREPARED FOR
PROJECT TEAM
3J CONSULTING, INC.
5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150
BEAVERTON, OR 97005
CONTACT: CHASE WELBORN, PE
PHONE: (503) 946-9365
EMAIL: chase.welborn@3j-consulting.com
LAND SURVEYOR
COMPASS LAND SURVEYORS
4107 SE INTERNATIONAL WAY, SUITE 705
MILWAUKIE, OR 97222
CONTACT: DON DEVLAEMINCK, PLS
PHONE: (503) 653-9093
EMAIL: dond@compass-landsurveyors.com
3J CONSULTING, INC
5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150
BEAVERTON, OR 97005
CONTACT: ANDREW TULL
PHONE: (503) 946-9365
EMAIL: andrew.tull@3j-consulting.com
PLANNING CONSULTANTCIVIL ENGINEER
STORM, SEWER
CLEAN WATER SERVICES
UTILITIES & SERVICES
POWER
PGE
GAS
NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS
CABLE
COMCAST
FIRE
TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE
SCHOOLS
TIGARD - TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT
SITE ADDRESS
JURISDICTION
ZONING
TAX LOT(S)
FLOOD HAZARD
SITE INFORMATION
1S125DC 600
MAP NUMBER: 41067C0534E ZONE X (UNSHADED)
CITY OF TIGARD
R-4.5
9777 SW 94TH AVENUE
TIGARD, OR 97223
WATER
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER
POLICE
CITY OF TIGARD
ROADS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
PARKS
CITY OF TIGARD
TAX LOT 300 LOCATED IN THE
SW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 25, T.1S., R.1W., W.M.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SITE MAP
NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
50'
50'100'1" = 50'
JT SMITH COMPANIES
5285 MEADOWS ROAD, SUITE 171
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
CONTACT: JESSE NEMEC
PHONE: (503) 730-8620
EMAIL: jnemec@jtsmithco.com
OWNER/APPLICANT
PHONE
CENTURYLINK
SHEET LIST TABLE
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE
C000 COVER SHEET
C100 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLANS
C105 SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN
C110 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL
C111 TREE REMOVAL NOTES
C200 TYPICAL SECTIONS
C205 SITE PLAN
C210 TENTATIVE PLAT
C220 CIRCULATION PLAN
C230 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C270 WALL PROFILES
C290 PHOTOMETRICS PLAN
C300 UTILITY PLAN
GROSS ACREAGE
2.79 ACRES
BENCHMARK: CITY OF TIGARD BENCHMARK NO. 239,
A BRASS DISK SET IN LANDAU STREET EAST OF THE
INTERSECTION WITH 75TH AVENUE.
ELEVATION DATUM: NGVD 29, ELEVATION = 265.16
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPRELIMINARY
WETLAND
LINE A
2-12"Ø PILINGS
(BOLLARDS FOR
WATER BLOWOFF)
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
SAN MH
RIM 211.86
IE 8" IN N. 205.10
IE 8" IN S. 190.85
IE 12" IN SE. 190.65
IE 12" OUT NW. 190.46
SAN MH
RIM 208.55
IE 8" IN S. 192.00
IE 8" OUT N. 191.71 GMRDFAUCETS6' CHAIN LINK/BARBED WIRE FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE/
BARBED WIRE
GATE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' WIRE FENCE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
TVET
TVTV
TVTVTV
TVTVTVELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
PADTT
TTEE
EPOWERPADGASSTANDPIPEPP #
A117 1992
GAS
SNIFFER
VALVE 6' FIELD FENCE6' FIELD FENCESTANDPIPEELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
BRI
C
K
B3
RET
.
W
A
L
L
S
T
A
I
R
S
OVE
R
H
A
N
G
SS
COSW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE304.67'304.55'399.92'
PLOT
C1
PLOT
B1
PLOT
B2
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FF ELEV.
178.66
OUTBUILDING EMOVE
R
H
A
N
G 45.1'28.2
45.3'28.2
'
FF EL.
219.64FAUCET STEPS
WOODDECKPATIOSAN MH
RIM 222.84
IE 8" IN W. 214.03
IE 8" IN S. 214.08
IE 8" OUT N. 213.89
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYSAN MH
RIM 236.78
IE 8" IN W. 229.60
IE 8" OUT E. 228.99
SAN MH
RIM 236.28
IE 6" IN NW. 231.80
IE 6" IN SW. 231.80
IE 8" OUT E. 231.56
CB
RIM 229.60
IE 10" OUT NW. 226.55
"JACKSON WOODS"
SAN MH
RIM 220.61
IE 8" IN E. 210.33
IE 8" OUT S. 210.31
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
WETLAND
LINE B
PLOT
C2
WETLAND
LINE B
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
WATER MH
RIM 210.44
HOUSE
9777 SW 74TH
AVE
CB
RIM 221.13
IE 10" OUT NW. 219.08
STM MH
RIM 219.32
IE 10" NW. 210.67
BOX CULVERT
12' WIDE
IE 194.69
CB
RIM 207.67
IE 12" OUT E. 202.42
CB
RIM 229.09
IE 12" OUT
NW. 224.24
STM MH/INLET
RIM 224.77
IE 12" OUT NW. 218.88
IE 12" IN SE. 219.18
STM MH
RIM 224.48
IE 60" IN W. 212.18
IE 12" IN SE. 215.98
STM CONTROL MH
RIM 224.37
IE OUT SW. 212.12
CB
RIM 223.42
IE OUT W. 220.12
STM MH
RIM 222.82
IE 12" IN SE. 217.60
IE IN W. 206.79
IE 12" OUT N. 206.74
STM MH
RIM 236.69
IE 12" IN W. 224.83
IE 60" OUT E. 215.53
STM MH
RIM 237.34
IE OUT 12" E. 226.96
STM CB
96" STM FCMH
RIM 222.00
IE 96" IN N. 213.50 (ASBUILT)
IE 12" OUT S. 213.30 (ASBUILT)
STM WQMH
RIM 218.98
IE 12" OUT S. 209.72
8" CCP OUTFALL
IE 170.34
30" CMP
STM MH
RIM 211.85
UNABLE TO OPEN
42LF 96" CMP DETENTION PIPE
S=0.0040 (ASBUILT)23022522
5
220215210210215220220215225
230
235
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3 3
3 3
4
22
2
5
5
6
6
6
8
7
9
9
11
11
12
13
14
1
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
14
13
1 2
2
TAX LOT 600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 8600
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9100
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 5600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5700
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5800
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 4900
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 9200
MAP 1S-1-25CD
15
3
3
4
205200200
210
200205210215225220230220
225
230235200205210215220195200205210
220
22523023519719715
23'15'
25'
16.0'
9.6'
13
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C100RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESEXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLANS03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C100-EXISTING AND DEMO.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
30'
30'60'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GAS LINE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING TELECOM. LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND POWER
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EXISTING CABLE LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING BLOW-OFF VALVE
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING STRIPING: YELLOW
EXISTING STRIPING: WHITE
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM INLET
EXISTING POWER METER
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EM
GM
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
5000
DEMOLITION KEY NOTES
SAWCUT EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE SURFACING AT
LOCATION SHOWN.
REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE SURFACING AND
DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
REMOVE EXISTING FENCING AND ASSOCIATED
APPURTENANCES AND DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN AND ABANDON
ASSOCIATED STORM LINE. DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED. DEBRIS AND
REFUSE TO BE DISPOSED OFF-SITE AT AN APPROVED
LOCATION.
REMOVE EXISTING GAS LINE AND DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
POWER METER TO BE DISCONNECTED AND RETURNED TO
POWER COMPANY.
GAS METER TO BE DISCONNECTED AND RETURNED TO GAS
COMPANY.
EXISTING WATER STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED. DISPOSE
OFF-SITE.
REMOVE EXISTING STORM LINE AND DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
EXISTING POWER STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED
APPURTENANCES TO BE RELOCATED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH PGE PROVIDER PRIOR TO ANY
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
EXISTING GAS STRUCTURE TO BE RELOCATED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH GAS PROVIDER PRIOR TO ANY
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED
APPURTENANCES TO BE RELOCATED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH UTILITY PROVIDER PRIOR TO ANY
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
EXISTING WATER STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
REMOVE EXISTING BLOCK WALL TO EXTENTS SHOWN.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTES
PROTECT EXISTING FENCING TO REMAIN.
PROTECT EXISTING PAVEMENT/SIDEWALK TO REMAIN.
PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.
PROTECT EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE THROUGHOUT
CONSTRUCTION.
1
2
3
4
10
PAVEMENT SAWCUT LIMITS
TAX LOT 9700
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 201
MAP 1S-1-25CD
EXISTING ASPHALT
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALWETLAND TEST PIT LOCATION
EXISTING LIMITS OF POND
CWS VEGETATED CORRIDOR PRELIMINARY
WETLAND
LINE A
2-12"Ø PILINGS
(BOLLARDS FOR
WATER BLOWOFF)
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
SAN MH
RIM 211.86
IE 8" IN N. 205.10
IE 8" IN S. 190.85
IE 12" IN SE. 190.65
IE 12" OUT NW. 190.46
SAN MH
RIM 208.55
IE 8" IN S. 192.00
IE 8" OUT N. 191.71 GMRDFAUCETS6' CHAIN LINK/BARBED WIRE FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE/
BARBED WIRE
GATE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' WIRE FENCE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
TVET
TVTV
TVTVTV
TVTVTVELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
PADTT
TTEE
EPOWERPADGASSTANDPIPEPP #
A117 1992
GAS
SNIFFER
VALVE 6' FIELD FENCE6' FIELD FENCESTANDPIPEELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
BRI
C
K
B3
RET
.
W
A
L
L
S
T
A
I
R
S
OVE
R
H
A
N
G
SS
COSW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE304.67'304.55'399.92'
PLOT
C1
PLOT
B1
PLOT
B2
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FF ELEV.
178.66
OUTBUILDING EMOVE
R
H
A
N
G 45.1'28.2
45.3'28.2
'
FF EL.
219.64FAUCET STEPS
WOODDECKPATIOSAN MH
RIM 222.84
IE 8" IN W. 214.03
IE 8" IN S. 214.08
IE 8" OUT N. 213.89
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYSAN MH
RIM 236.78
IE 8" IN W. 229.60
IE 8" OUT E. 228.99
SAN MH
RIM 236.28
IE 6" IN NW. 231.80
IE 6" IN SW. 231.80
IE 8" OUT E. 231.56
CB
RIM 229.60
IE 10" OUT NW. 226.55
"JACKSON WOODS"
SAN MH
RIM 220.61
IE 8" IN E. 210.33
IE 8" OUT S. 210.31
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
WETLAND
LINE B
PLOT
C2
WETLAND
LINE B
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
WATER MH
RIM 210.44
HOUSE
9777 SW 74TH
AVE
CB
RIM 221.13
IE 10" OUT NW. 219.08
STM MH
RIM 219.32
IE 10" NW. 210.67
BOX CULVERT
12' WIDE
IE 194.69
CB
RIM 207.67
IE 12" OUT E. 202.42
CB
RIM 229.09
IE 12" OUT
NW. 224.24
STM MH/INLET
RIM 224.77
IE 12" OUT NW. 218.88
IE 12" IN SE. 219.18
STM MH
RIM 224.48
IE 60" IN W. 212.18
IE 12" IN SE. 215.98
STM CONTROL MH
RIM 224.37
IE OUT SW. 212.12
CB
RIM 223.42
IE OUT W. 220.12
STM MH
RIM 222.82
IE 12" IN SE. 217.60
IE IN W. 206.79
IE 12" OUT N. 206.74
STM MH
RIM 236.69
IE 12" IN W. 224.83
IE 60" OUT E. 215.53
STM MH
RIM 237.34
IE OUT 12" E. 226.96
STM CB
96" STM FCMH
RIM 222.00
IE 96" IN N. 213.50 (ASBUILT)
IE 12" OUT S. 213.30 (ASBUILT)
STM WQMH
RIM 218.98
IE 12" OUT S. 209.72
8" CCP OUTFALL
IE 170.34
30" CMP
STM MH
RIM 211.85
UNABLE TO OPEN
42LF 96" CMP DETENTION PIPE
S=0.0040 (ASBUILT)14.7%16
.
3
%11.5%21.
2
%
19
.
8
%
1
9
.
0
%
3:1
1:1
1
:
1
3:1
11.0%
11.1
%
4
.
6%
10.7%18.0%4.1%23022522
5
220215210210215220220215225
230
235
210205200
200200205215220225230230 225220
2
30 225220230225215210205200195
TAX LOT 600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 8600
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9100
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 5600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5700
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5800
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 4900
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 9200
MAP 1S-1-25CD
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C105RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESSLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C105-SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
30'
30'60'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GAS LINE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING TELECOM. LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND POWER
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EXISTING CABLE LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING BLOW-OFF VALVE
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING STRIPING: YELLOW
EXISTING STRIPING: WHITE
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM INLET
EXISTING POWER METER
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EM
GM
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
5000
PAVEMENT SAWCUT LIMITS
TAX LOT 9700
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 201
MAP 1S-1-25CD
EXISTING SLOPE (25+%)
EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY
EXISTING LIMITS OF POND
CWS VEGETATED CORRIDOR PRELIMINARY
5144
5152
5145
5146
5147
5150
5151
5153
5154
2843
5156
5157
5160
5161
5162
5167
5171
5283
5284
5501
5504
5583
5576
5581
5580
5579
5582
5586
5585
5593
5594
5601
5595
5596
5598
5656
5657
5600
56605658
5659
5664
5663
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5672
5673
5684
5685
5692
5694
5693
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
57825783
5784
5785
5789
5787
5791
5788
5792
5793
5794
5790
5797
5798
5802
5804
5805
5811
5812
5813
5814
5818
5882
5885
5886
5887
5890
5992
5993
5995
6006
6007
6008
6015
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6081
6084
6091
6094
6095
6096
6105
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6115
6111SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2 LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE304.67'304.55'399.92'
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVE
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWA
Y
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
5148
5149
5282
5286
5285
5502
5503
5570
5573
5572
5571
5574
5575
5584
5587
5588
5589
5591
5590
5592
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708 5709
5710
5711
5602
5786
5799 5800
5801
5803
5806
5807
5808
5810 5815
5816
5817
5819
5820
5809
58955896
5894
5158
5159
5163
5155
5164
5170
5165
5166
5169
5168
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5500
55785577
5655
5597
5599
5662
5661
5665
5671
5681
5682
5683
5686
5687
5688
56895690
5691
57135714
5717
5718
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5883
5884
5888
5889
5891
5892
5893
2842
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
5994
5996
5997
5999
5998
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6016
6017
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6078
60796080
6082
6083
6085
6086
6087
60886089
6090
6092
6093
6097
6098
6099
61006101
6102
6103
6104
6106
6107
6108
6109
6013
6112
6110
6114
6116
6117
5179.2
5179.1
2
2
0230
230
2302202102102202202
1
0
2
1
0
210
200
200200200210210200220
210210
200210
200238
230230210210220210
220230230234LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 7
TRACT A
LOT 2
LOT 1
TRACT C
TRACT B
216218220222224226228230232234232230228226224222220218232230228226 224
222
220
218216214212212214216218220222228226224PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C110RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C110-TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING STRIPING: YELLOW
EXISTING STRIPING: WHITE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
TREE TO BE REMOVED
GENERAL TREE INVENTORY STATISTICS
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
GENERAL NOTES
A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE OWNER,
CONTRACTORS, AND PROJECT ARBORIST IS RECOMMENDED TO
REVIEW TREE PROTECTION MEASURES AND ADDRESS ON-SITE
CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS.
TREE PROTECTION GENERAL NOTES:
THE TREES TO BE RETAINED CAN BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED
AS STATED IN THE ARBORIST REPORT DATED 11-13-2017.
TREE PROTECTION ZONE GENERAL NOTES
NO SOIL COMPACTION, MATERIALS, OR SPOILS STORAGE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PROJECT ARBORIST, NONE
OF THE FOLLOWING SHOULD OCCUR BENEATH THE DRIPLINE OF
ANY PROTECTED TREE:
1.GRADE CHANGE OR CUT AND FILL
2.NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
3.UTILITY OR DRAINAGE FIELD PLACEMENT; OR
4.VEHICLE MANEUVERING
ROOT PROTECTION ZONES MAY BE ENTERED FOR TASKS LIKE
SURVEYING, MEASURING, AND SAMPLING. FENCES MUST BE
CLOSED UPON COMPLETION OF THESE TASKS.
***CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NECESSARY BENEATH PROTECTED
TREE DRIPLINES SHOULD BE PERFORMED UNDER ARBORIST
SUPERVISION***
STUMP REMOVAL GENERAL NOTES:
STUMPS OF TREES PLANNED FOR REMOVAL THAT ARE LOCATED
WITHIN THE PROTECTION ZONE OF RETAINED TREES SHOULD
REMAIN IN THE GROUND WHERE FEASIBLE. OTHERWISE,
STUMPS MAY BE REMOVED BY STUMP GRINDING TO JUST
BELOW THE GROUND SURFACE OR EXTRACTED FROM THE
GROUND UNDER THE ON-SITE SUPERVISION OF THE PROJECT
ARBORIST. SEE ARBORIST REPORT DATED 11-13-2017 FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION.
EXCAVATION GENERAL NOTES:
EXCAVATION BENEATH TREE DRIPLINES SHOULD BE AVOIDED IF
ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE. IF EXCAVATION IS
UNAVOIDABLE, THE DEVELOPER SHOULD COORDINATE WITH
THE PROJECT ARBORIST TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSED
EXCAVATION TO DETERMINE METHODS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO
TREES. THIS CAN INCLUDE TUNNELING. HAND DIGGING, USING A
MODIFIED PROFILE OR OTHER APPROACHES.
QUALITY ASSURANCE GENERAL NOTES:
THE PROJECT ARBORIST WILL BE AVAILABLE ON-CALL DURING
CONSTRUCTION TO SUPERVISE PROPER EXECUTION OF THIS
PLAN. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION
WITH THE PROJECT ARBORIST AS NEEDED.
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALTOTAL TREE INVENTORY
(PROJECTY BOUNDARY)286
TOTAL TREES REMOVED 168
TOTAL TREES PROTECTED 118
EXISTING TREE CANOPY TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE CANOPY
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR208
210
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONCRETE PRELIMINARY
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C111RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTREE REMOVAL NOTES03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C111-TREE REMOVAL NOTES.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION
2842 23” CEDAR 12’DL PROTECT
2843 16” CEDAR 10’DL PROTECT
2844 24” CEDAR 8’DL PROTECT
2845 27” CEDAR 12’DL PROTECT
2846 29” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
2847 30” CEDAR 18’DL PROTECT
2848 27” CEDAR 16’DL PROTECT
2849 16” CEDAR 14’DL PROTECT
2850 19” CEDAR 14’DL PROTECT
5144 ϭϰ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5145 ϭϮ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5146 Ϯϰ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5147 ϲ͟ Z ϳ͛>REMOVE
5148 ϴ͟> Z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5149 ϴ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5150 Ϯϴ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5151 ϭϲ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5152 ϭϵ͟KddKEtKKϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5153 ϵ͟DW> Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5154 ϭϱ͟> Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5155 ϴ͟,K>>z ϳ͛>REMOVE
5156 ϵ͟> Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5157 ϭϬ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5158 ϴ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5159 8” CEDAR 10’DL PROTECT
5160 ϭϴ͟> Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5161 ϭϲ͟> Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5162 ϳ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5163 ϭϰ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5164 ϭϰ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5165 14” FIR 15’DL PROTECT
5166 14” FIR 20’DL PROTECT
5167 6” HAWTHORNE 10’DL PROTECT
5168 9” FIR 10’DL PROTECT
5169 9” FIR (DEAD)___PROTECT
5170 6” FIR STUMP ___PROTECT
5171 ϭϭ͟DW> ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5172 30” CEDAR 20’DL PROTECT
5173 Ϯϰ͟ Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5174 28” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
5175 ϵ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5176 ϲ͟ Z ϴ͛>REMOVE
5177 ϵ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5178 ϭϮ͟ Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5179 28” CEDAR STUMP ___PROTECT
5179.1 14” MAPLE 24'DL PROTECT
5179.2 26” CEDAR 34'DL PROTECT
5282 ϭϰ͟DW> ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5283 Ϯϲ͟ Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5284 ϭϱ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5285 ϳ͟DW> ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5286 ϭϱ͟, ZZz ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5500 17” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
5501 7” DECID 10’DL PROTECT
5502 ϯ͟ /ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5503 ϯ͟ /ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5504 Ϯϴ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5570 ϭϮ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5571 ϭϮ͟> Z SNAG REMOVE
5572 ϭϳ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5573 ϭϴ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5574 ϭϲ͟DW> ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5575 ϭϬ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5576 ϭϵ͟, ZZz ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5577 ϲ͟,K>>z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5578 ϲ͟,K>>z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5579 ϴ͟DW> ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5580 ϭϲ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5581 ϭϴ͟DW> Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5582 ϭϬ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5583 ϴ͟DW> ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5584 ϭϴ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5585 ϴ͟,K>>z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5586 ϲ͟,K>>z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5587 ϭϮ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5588 ϭϴ͟DW> ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5589 ϭϴ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5590 ϭϬ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5591 ϭϮ͟/Z,ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5592 ϭϰ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5593 ϭϮ͟> Z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5594 ϲ͟, ZZz ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5595 ϭϬ͟> Z; Ϳ ___REMOVE
5596 ϭϮ͟> Z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5597 ϳ͟,K>>z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5598 ϵ͟> Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5599 ϭϰ͟ Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5600 ϲ͟ /ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5601 ϭϮ͟> Z; Ϳ ϲ͛>REMOVE
5602 ϭϱ͟> Z SNAG REMOVE
5655 ;ϯͿϲ͟,K>>z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5656 ϭϬ͟> Z ϳ͛>REMOVE
5657 ϭϮ͟> Z ϴ͛>REMOVE
5658 ϭϲ͟> Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5659 ϭϬ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5660 ϭϱ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5661 ϭϬ͟ Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5662 ϲ͟,K>>z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5663 ϭϲ͟, ZZz ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5664 ϲ͟DW> ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5665 ϯϴ͟ Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5666 ϭϭ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5667 ϭϬ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5668 ϭϬ͟ /SNAG REMOVE
5669 ϭϱ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5670 ϭϯ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5671 ϯϯ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5672 ϭϱ͟, ZZz Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5673 ϳ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5681 ϯϲ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5682 ϭϮ͟ Z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5683 ϵ͟ Z ϳ͛>REMOVE
5684 ϭϬ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5685 ϭϯ͟, ZZz ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5686 ϯϲ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5687 ϯϬ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5688 ϭϬ͟ Z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5689 ϴ͟&/Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5690 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5691 Ϯϲ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5692 ϯϵ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5693 ϲ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5694 ϮϮ͟ Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5696 Ϯϯ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5697 ϯϰ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5698 ϭϮ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5699 Ϯϯ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5700 ϲ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5701 ϳ͟,K>>z ϭϱ͛REMOVE
5702 ϳ͟,K>>z ϭϬ͛REMOVE
5703 ϯϮ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5704 ϭϮ͟DW> SNAG REMOVE
5705 ϭϴ͟, ZZz ϭϰ͛>REMOVE
5706 ϲ͟, ZZz ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5707 ϴ͟, ZZz ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5708 ϭϴ͟> Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5709 ϲ͟, ZZz ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5710 ϭϯ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5711 ϭϲ͟> Z SNAG REMOVE
5713 Ϯϳ͟&/Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5714 ϭϲ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5717 ϭϳ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5718 Ϯϴ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5782 ϮϮ͟&/Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5783 ϭϮ͟ Z ϴ͛>REMOVE
5784 ϯϰ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5785 ϮϬ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5786 ϭϯ͟, ZZz ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5787 ϭϬ͟K<ϱ͛>REMOVE
5788 Ϯϲ͟ Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5789 Ϯϴ͟&/Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5790 ϭϯ͟ Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5791 ϯϬ͟ Z ϭϴ͛>REMOVE
5792 Ϯϱ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5793 ϭϱ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5794 ϭϱ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5797 Ϯϴ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5798 ϰϭ͟&/Z ϯϬ͛>REMOVE
5799 ϭϭ͟, ZZz ϴ͛>REMOVE
5800 ϭϰ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5801 ϭϬ͟, ZZz ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5802 ϴ͟,K>>z ϴ͛>REMOVE
5803 ϵ͟> Z ϴ͛>REMOVE
5804 ϴ͟,K>>z ϴ͛>REMOVE
5805 ϴ͟,K>>z ϴ͛>REMOVE
5806 ϭϬ͟DW> ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5807 ϭϬ͟DW> ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5808 ϭϲ͟DW> ϮϮ͛>REMOVE
5809 ϲ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5810 ϭϰ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5811 ϵ͟> Z ϭϮ͛>REMOVE
5812 ϭϯ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5813 ϯϭ͟&/Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5814 ϯϮ͟ Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5815 ϭϭ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5816 ϴ͟> Z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5817 ϭϭ͟> Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5818 ϯϯ͟ Z Ϯϯ͛>REMOVE
5819 ϭϬ͟> Z ϲ͛>REMOVE
5820 ϭϯ͟> Z SNAG REMOVE
5877 ϭϰ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>REMOVE
5878 ϯϳ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5879 Ϯϲ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5880 ϯϬ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5881 ϯϬ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5882 Ϯϲ͟> Z SNAG REMOVE
5883 ϮϬ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5884 Ϯϰ͟ Z SNAG REMOVE
5885 ϮϬ͟DW> Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
5886 10” MAPLE 15’DL PROTECT
5887 12” MAPLE 20’DL PROTECT
5888 15” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
5889 28” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
5890 16” MAPLE 25’DL PROTECT
5891 18” CEDAR 20’DL PROTECT
5892 12” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
5893 14” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
5894 ϭϬ͟> Z ϮϬ͛>REMOVE
5895 ϭϯ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5896 ϭϱ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>REMOVE
5928 STUMP ___PROTECT
5929 STUMP ___PROTECT
5992 6” ALDER 8’DL PROTECT
5993 12” ALDER 15’DL PROTECT
5994 20” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
5995 6” ALDER 8’DL PROTECT
5996 38” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
5997 26” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
5998 12” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
5999 28” CEDAR 20’DL PROTECT
6000 22” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6001 12” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6002 18” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
6003 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6004 38” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6005 24” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6006 12” ALDER SNAG PROTECT
6007 22” MAPLE SNAG PROTECT
6008 16” ALDER SNAG PROTECT
6009 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6010 26” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6011 20” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6012 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6013 20” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6014 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6015 18” MAPLE 25’DL PROTECT
6016 20” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6017 14” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6018 20” MAPLE SNAG PROTECT
6019 16” MAPLE SNAG PROTECT
6020 8” MAPLE SNAG PROTECT
6021 22” MAPLE 25’DL PROTECT
6022 10” MAPLE 25'DL PROTECT
6023 10” MAPLE 25'DL PROTECT
6024 18” CEDAR 25'DL PROTECT
6025 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6026 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6027 12” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6028 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6029 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6078 ϭϱ͟&/Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
6079 ϭϱ͟&/Z Ϯϱ͛>REMOVE
6080 20” FIR 25’DL PROTECT
6081 ϲ͟DW> ϴ͛>REMOVE
6082 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6083 12” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
6084 16” MAPLE 20’DL PROTECT
6085 16” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
6086 26” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6087 10” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6088 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6089 18” CEDAR 10’DL PROTECT
6090 22” CEDAR 20’DL PROTECT
6091 8” ALDER 15’DL PROTECT
6092 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6093 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6094 14” MAPLE 20’DL PROTECT
6095 10” MAPLE SNAG PROTECT
6096 10” MAPLE SNAG PROTECT
6097 26” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6098 10” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6099 22” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6100 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6101 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6102 22” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6103 22” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6104 16” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6105 22” MAPLE SNAG PROTECT
6106 16” FIR 20’DL PROTECT
6107 12” FIR 15’DL PROTECT
6108 12” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6109 22” FIR 22’DL PROTECT
6110 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6111 10” DECID 20’DL PROTECT
6112 18” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6113 16” CEDAR 15’DL PROTECT
6114 22” FIR 25’DL PROTECT
6115 6” DECID 15’DL PROTECT
6116 14” CEDAR SNAG PROTECT
6117 12” CEDAR 8’DL PROTECT
6118 10” ALDER SNAG PROTECT
6119 8” MAPLE 10’DL PROTECT
6120 10” MAPLE 15’DL PROTECT
6121 8” MAPLE 15’DL PROTECT
6122 10” MAPLE 15’DL PROTECT
6217 10"FIR 10'DL PROTECT
TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY
TYPICAL SECTION: SW RED CEDAR WAY
1.5% (TYP)ROADWAY CENTERLINE4.17% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.5.0' EX. PLANTER STRIP
10.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0' EX. SIDEWALK
12.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
0.5'
1.5% (TYP)4.17% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.46' ULTIMATE ROW WIDTH
5.0' EX. PLANTER STRIP
10.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
INSTALL 5.0'
SIDEWALK
12.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
0.5'
8' ROW
DEDICATION38' EXISTING ROW WIDTH
TYPICAL SECTION: SW 74TH AVENUEROADWAY CENTERLINE16.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
1.5% (TYP)3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.54' ULTIMATE ROW WIDTH
5.5' EX. PLANTER STRIP
14.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0' EX.
SIDEWALK
16.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
52' EXISTING ROW
2' ROW DEDICATION
1.5% (TYP)3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.5.0' SIDEWALK
14.5' HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0'
PLANTER
STRIPPROPOSED R.O.W.TYPICAL SECTION: SW 74TH AVENUEROADWAY CENTERLINE19.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
1.5% (TYP)3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.54' ULTIMATE ROW WIDTH
5.5' EX. PLANTER STRIP
14.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0' EX.
SIDEWALK
24.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
52' EXISTING ROW
2' ROW DEDICATION
1.5% (TYP)
3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.4.5' SIDEWALK
PROPOSED R.O.W.8.0' HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
1.0' RETAINING
WALL EXPANSION
1.0' SLOPE TO
MATCH RETAINING
WALL (2H:1V MAX)
1.00' BARRIER
WALL
MIN. HEIGHT: 1FT
MAX. HEIGHT: 14FT
CULVERT CROSSING
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C200RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTYPICAL SECTIONS03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C200-TYPICAL SECTIONS.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPRELIMINARY
5501
5992
5993
5995
6006
6007
6015
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6084
60916094
6095
6096
6105
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6115
6111SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
SIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
5170
5165
5166
5169
5168
5500
5891
5892
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
5994
5996
5997
5999
5998
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6009
6011
6012
6013
6014
6016
6017
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6080
6082
6083
6085
6086
6087
60886089
6090
6092
6093
6097
6098
6099
61006101
6102
6103
6104
6106
6107
6108
6109 6013
6112
6110
6114
6116
6117
16
12
2
17
2
3
4
4
4 4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
10
10
10
9
10
11
12
12
2
1
30' VISUAL
CLEARANCE
24'
PAVEMENT
WIDTH
38'
EXISTING
ROW
R40'
R25'R25'
R15'
32'
PAVEMENT
WIDTH
27' HALF ROW
27' HALF ROW
2' ROW DEDICATION
25'
PAVEMENT
WIDTH
8'
DEDICATION46'
PROPOSED
ROW
13
14 1520' PROPOSED
PUBLIC STORM
AND SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
16
16
1
1
50'
WETLAND
SETBACK
50'
WETLAND
SETBACK
50'
WETLAND
SETBACK
50'
WETLAND
SETBACK
LOT 3
LOT 4
15' PROPOSED
PUBLIC SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
18
2
2
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 7
LOT 2
LOT 1
TRACT C
TRACT B
TRACT A
7
7
7
13
14
14
14
8' PUE
8' PUE
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C205RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESSITE PLAN03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 970053J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO REMAIN
CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTES
CONSTRUCT STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER
CONSTRUCT 5-FT SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CULDESAC SECTION PER SHEET C200.
CONSTRUCT NEW PAVEMENT WITHIN LIMITS OF SAWCUT LINE
AND TYPICAL SECTION ON SHEET C200.
CONSTRUCT ADA COMPLIANT RAMP
CONSTRUCT REPLACEMENT DRIVEWAY APRON. MATCH TO
EXISTING DRIVEWAY GRADE
CONSTRUCT STANDARD DRIVEWAY APRON
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL EXTENSION PER SHEET C200 AND
C270.
CONSTRUCT 2.5-FT CONCRETE CRASH BARRIER WALL
TRANSITION CURB AND GUTTER INTO EXISTING ROAD SECTION
TRANSITION SIDEWALK INTO EXISTING ROAD SECTION
INSTALL 5-FT CHAIN LINK FENCE AT LOCATION SHOWN
CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRON
CONSTRUCT GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
CONSTRUCT NEW RETAINING WALL WITH MAXIMUM EXPOSED
HEIGHT 7.5 FEET
CONSTRUCT MOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTER
TRANSITION SIDEWALK INTO CURB-TIGHT SIDEWALK.
TRANSITION CURB-TIGHT SIDEWALK INTO SETBACK SIDEWALK.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALCWS VEGETATED CORRIDOR
EXISTING ASPHALT
PROPOSED ASPHALT PRELIMINARY
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"
N1°39'10"E
253.47'S88°16'51"E299.67'S1°40'13"W387.91'N88°11'11"W278.09'7
1
.
2
0
'
78.76'S88°11'11"E82.10'79.13'S63°28
'26
"W59.91
'50.00'85.65'99.13'
99.13'50.00'49.04'50.00'95.12'113.04'10.19'S88°11'11"E102.85'S88°11'11"E102.80'23.0'
HALF
ROW
23.0'
HALF
ROW
46.0'
ROW
8.0'
PUE
8.0'
PUE
10.1' ROW
OFFSET
8.0' PUE
8.0' PUE
20.0' PROPOSED
STORM AND
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
EXISTING 15' SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'
46.0'
ROW
N88°11'11"W308.09'N1°40'13"E 714.60'
D89°57'18"
L58.1'
R37.0'
T52.3'
N1°38'03"E 35.46'
D35°52'01"
L51.1'
R81.6'
T50.3'
25.0'
EXISTING
HALF ROW
27.0'
PROPOSED
HALF ROW
27.0'
EXISTING
HALF ROW
54.0'
ROW
L
6
.
2
9
'75.97'2.5'
2.5'
2.5'
7.5' REAR
SETBACK
10.0' FRONT
SETBACK
10.0' FRONT
SETBACK
10.0' FRONT
SETBACK
8.0' ROW
DEDICATION
8.0' ROW
DEDICATION
8.0' STREET
SIDE SETBACK
2.5'
2.5'
10.0' FRONT
SETBACK
10.0' FRONT
SETBACK
2.5'
2.5'5.0'
10.0'
7.5' REAR
SETBACK
7.5' REAR
SETBACK
10.0' FRONT
SETBACK
10.0' FRONT
SETBACK
2.5'
2.5'
VARIABLE WIDTH
ROW DEDICATION
8.0' PUE
2.5'
LOT 3
4292 SQ FT
0.10 ACRES
LOT 4
6192 SQ FT
0.14 ACRES
50.00'17.13'L3.48'52.80'28.38'L38.17'R25.00'19.9
6'N88°11'11"W73.96'53.00'57.50'28.19'
138.69'15.00'L44.49'L25.71'L62.02'
L
3
3
.
5
8
'
L
2
0
.
0
5
'L21.95'79.13'N48°43'48"W 58.62'L17.
6
0'
R50.
0
0'N54°30'03"W24.97'S62°42'38"W
22.13'
15.0' PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
20.00'
LOT 6
4956 SQ FT
0.11 ACRES
LOT 5
3956 SQ FT
0.09 ACRES
LOT 7
5243 SQ FT
0.12 ACRES
TRACT A
75297 SQ FT
1.73 ACRES
LOT 2
4736 SQ FT
0.11 ACRES
LOT 1
3952 SQ FT
0.09 ACRES
L26.11'R50.00'
TRACT C
751 SQ FT
0.02 ACRES
TRACT B
3430 SQ FT
0.08 ACRES
28.44'
7.5' REAR
SETBACK
30' VISUAL CLEARANCE
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C210RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTENTATIVE PLAT03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C210-TENTATIVE PLAT.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
SUBDIVISION STATISTICS
RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.21 ACRES
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE EFFECTIVE LOT
SIZE (50%)
7,500 SF
(3,750 SF)
SETBACKS:
FRONT 20 FEET
(10 FT PROPOSED)
SIDE 5 FEET
(2.5 FT PROPOSED)
REAR 15 FEET
(10 FT PROPOSED)
STREET SIDE 15 FEET
(8 FT PROPOSED)
MAX. HEIGHT 35 FEET
SITE STATISTICS
SITE ADDRESS 9777 SW 74TH AVENUE,
TIGARD, OR 97223
TAXLOT 1S125DC 600
JURISDICTION CITY OF TIGARD
BUILDABLE SITE AREA 2.79 ACRES
PROPERTY ZONING R-4.5
FLOOD HAZARD MAP NUMBER 41067C 0534E
ZONE X
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
2.0' ROW
DEDICATION
8.0' ROW DEDICATION8.0' ROW DEDICATION
PROJECT BOUNDARY TO BE VACATED
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
AL2.0' ROW
DEDICATION PRELIMINARY
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"
STOPSW RED CEDAR WAYLOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 7
TRACT A
LOT 2
LOT 1
TRACT C
TRACT B
LOT 3
LOT 4
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C220RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESCIRCULATION PLAN03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C220-CIRCULATION PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
30'
30'60'
LEGEND
STOP
CIRCULATION CONTINUES TO
EXISTING TRAFFIC SYSTEM
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
AUTOMOTIVE CIRCULATION
BICYCLE CIRCULATION
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
STOP CONTROL
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPRELIMINARY
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
SIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
220230230
2
1
0
210
200
200200200210210200238230224226228232234236210220 202204206208
212214216218
200
210
198
202
204
206
208
212
194
196
210210220220230212212214214216216218218222224226228220214216218210212214216218210220212214216218230
226
228
232
234
236
230
2242262282322342
3
6 228228226224220 218210
212
214
216
220220224228216210220230216218222224226228232234210220212214216218222224200210198202204206208212214216220216218222224226228230216220
230
220 210220LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 7
TRACT A
LOT 2
LOT 1
TRACT C 218220222
224
226228230232234236224222220218PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C230RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESPRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C230-GRADING PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR108
110
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION ARROW
EROSION CONTROL - INLET PROTECTION
PROPOSED GRADE (10-20%)
PROPOSED GRADE (20+%)
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPRELIMINARY
200
210
220
230
200
210
220
230
STA: 0+90.0STA: 1+12.8STA: 2+06.8STA: 2+45.1STA: 3+60.00+901+002+003+003+60BPSTA: 0+90.0FG:EG: 207.49FG: 208.69PISTA: 1+12.8FG:EG: 209.49FG:EG: 214.21FG:PISTA: 2+06.8FG:PISTA: 2+45.1FG: 216.79EG: 216.39FG:216.89EG: 215.98FG: 217.00EG: 212.78FG:EPSTA: 3+60.0FG:EXISTING GRADE AT WALL CENTERLINE
PROPOSED GRADE AT WALL CENTERLINE
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
SW 74TH AVENUE
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
0+90 1+00 2+00
3+00 3+60
CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTES
CONSTRUCT ULTRABLOCK RETAINING WALL WITH
MAXIMUM EXPOSED HEIGHT OF 7.5 FEET.
STRUCTURAL WALL CALCULATIONS AND PERMITTING
TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHERS.
CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS PER
SECTION, SHEET C200. STRUCTURAL WALL
CALCULATIONS AND PERMITTING TO BE COMPLETED
BY OTHERS.
1
2
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C270RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESWALL PROFILES03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C270-WALL PROFILES.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
REVISIONS
RETAINING WALL PLAN
(STA: 0+90 - STA: 3+60)
RETAINING WALL PROFILE
(STA: 0+90 - STA: 3+60)
SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ.; 1"=10' VERT.
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20 40
1
1
SCALE: 1"=20'
2
2
1
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPRELIMINARY
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"
1.2
3.1
2.9
3.4
1.5
1.5
3.1
3.6
5.3
1.9
1.6
2.9
3.4
3.7
1.3
0.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.9
1.7
3.3
3.9
5.0
2.0
0.7
1.1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.5
3.6
3.4
3.6
1.9
0.7
0.9
1.6
2.1
2.6
1.9
1.9
1.5
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.4
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.6
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.3
2.3
2.6
2.6
1.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.5
1.9
2.4
2.0
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.6
2.2
2.0
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.6
2.4
2.4
2.0
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.5
2.9
2.8
2.9
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
1.5
3.6
3.6
3.4
0.5
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
1.5
4.8
4.1
3.5
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.6
0.6
0.4
1.0
3.0
3.5
3.1
0.9
1.7
2.1
1.9
0.5
0.4
1.4
4.1
3.7
3.0
1.5
1.9
1.7
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.2
2.8
2.9
2.8
1.5
1.8
1.8
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.2
1.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.9
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.4
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.1
1.7
1.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.1
1.9
1.7
0.6
1.4
3.0
2.9
0.5
1.5
4.5
3.6
0.4
1.0
3.1
3.2
0.4
1.3
4.5
3.9
0.5
1.2
3.1
3.1
0.6
1.1
2.2
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.6
1.2
0.5
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.8
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.7
1.5
1.8
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.9
3.2
2.6
0.3
0.7
2.1
4.2
3.3
0.2
0.5
1.6
3.9
3.2
0.2
0.5
2.1
5.2
3.3
0.3
0.7
1.7
3.5
2.9
0.4
0.7
1.5
2.5
2.1
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.6
1.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.7
EXISTING 100W
HPS 'SHOEBOX'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 100W
HPS 'SHOEBOX'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 100W
HPS 'SHOEBOX'
STREET LIGHT
PROPOSED 100W STREET LIGHT
MANUFACTURED BY CREE LEDway
SILVER/GREY LUMINAIRE, TYPE II DISTRIBUTION
"STR-LWY-2M-HT-06-E-UL-SV-525-40K-R-UTL"
25' HIGH, SIDE MOUNTED, NO ARM.
ILLUMINATION ANALYSIS AREA FOR CUL DE SAC
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 7
TRACT A
LOT 2
LOT 1
TRACT C
TRACT B
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C290RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESPHOTOMETRICS PLAN03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C290-PHOTOMETRICS PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
REVISIONS
NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
- SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINE
- EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
- EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
- PROPOSED LOT LINE
0.7 - ILLUMINATION ANALYSIS POINT (FC)
FC - FOOT CANDLE UNIT
LEGEND
3.0
1.0
0.5
R
below.Know what's
before you dig.Call
SW RED CEDAR WAY CUL-DE-SAC (LOCAL)
LOW PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREA CALCULATED
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.88
MINIMUM ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.12
AVERAGE / MINIMUM UNIFORMITY 7.33:1
SW RED CEDAR WAY STREET (LOCAL)
LOW PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREA CALCULATED
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.91
MINIMUM ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.04
AVERAGE / MINIMUM UNIFORMITY 22.75:1
SW 74TH AVENUE (ARTERIAL)
LOW PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREA CALCULATED
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (fc)1.97
MINIMUM ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.17
AVERAGE / MINIMUM UNIFORMITY 11.59:1 PRELIMINARY
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20' PROPOSED PUBLIC
STORM AND SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
15' PROPOSED
PUBLIC SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
1
1
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 7
3
2
2
TRACT A
LOT 2
LOT 1
TRACT C
1
1
1 1 1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
7
8
TRACT B
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C300RED CEDAR ESTATESSUBDIVISION9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESUTILITY PLAN03.30.2018
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C300-UTILITY PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
WATER SYSTEM KEY NOTES
INSTALL WATER METER AND SERVICE CONNECTION STUB FOR
EACH LOT.1
STORM DRAIN KEY NOTES
CONSTRUCT PRIVATE LIDA STORMWATER PLANTER AT
LOCATION SHOWN.
CONSTRUCT 4" PRIVATE STORM DRAIN LATERAL.
CONSTRUCT 6" PUBLIC STORM MAIN.
CONSTRUCT 48" STORM MANHOLE.
PROVIDE RIPRAP OUTFALL PAD AT LOCATION SHOWN.
ADJUST CATCH BASIN TO MATCH FINISHED GRADE. CONNECT
TO EXISTING DETENTION PIPE.
MODIFY EXISTING FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE.
INSTALL ADDITIONAL CARTRIDGES IN EXISTING MANHOLE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SANITARY SEWER KEY NOTES
CONSTRUCT 48" SANITARY MANHOLE IN LINE WITH EXISTING
SANITARY MAIN.
CONSTRUCT 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN.
CONSTRUCT 48" SANITARY MANHOLE.
CONSTRUCT 4" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL.
1
2
3
4
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING BLOW-OFF VALVE
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM INLET
PROPOSED STORM MAIN
PROPOSED STORM LATERAL / LEAD
PROPOSED SANITARY MAIN
PROPOSED SANITARY LATERAL
PROPOSED WATER DOMESTIC SERVICE
PROPOSED WATER METER
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALCWS VEGETATED CORRIDOR PRELIMINARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 4
Site ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Flood Map ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Site Geology ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Geotechnical Report ............................................................................................................................. 5
Existing Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 5
Existing Basin Areas .............................................................................................................................. 5
POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 5
Site ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Post-Developed Basin Areas ................................................................................................................ 6
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS DESIGN GUIDELINES ....................................................................... 6
Design Guidelines .................................................................................................................................. 6
Hydrograph Method .............................................................................................................................. 6
Design Storm .......................................................................................................................................... 7
RUNOFF PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................. 7
Basin Runoff ........................................................................................................................................... 8
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................... 8
System Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 8
WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 8
Water Quality Guidelines & Calculations – Onsite Development .................................................. 8
Planters ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Water Quality Guidelines & Calculations – SW 74th Ave .................................................................. 8
Water Quality Guidelines & Calculations – SW Red Cedar Way ...................................................... 9
WATER QUANTITY .................................................................................................................. 10
Detention Guidelines .......................................................................................................................... 10
Detention Facilities – Onsite Development ..................................................................................... 10
Detention Facilities – SW 74th Ave ..................................................................................................... 10
Detention Facilities – SW Red Cedar Way ........................................................................................ 10
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 11
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 12
TECHNICAL APPENDIX ............................................................................................................ A
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. A
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 - Site Location .............................................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Soil Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 – Existing Onsite Basin Area ....................................................................................................... 5
Table 3 – Existing Public Right-of-Way Basin Area ............................................................................... 5
Table 4 – Post-Developed Basin Area ..................................................................................................... 6
Table 5 – Proposed Public Right-of-Way Basin Area ............................................................................. 6
Table 6 - Design Storms ............................................................................................................................. 7
Table 7 - Basin Runoff Rates .................................................................................................................... 8
Table 8 - Basin Runoff Rates and Release Rates for SW 74th Ave ..................................................... 10
Table 9 - Flow Rates at 72-inch Culvert ................................................................................................ 12
Table 10 – Peak Storm Stage for 25-Year Storm ................................................................................. 12
Table 11 – Peak Storm Stage for 100-Year Storm ............................................................................... 12
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 1 of 12
I hereby certify that this stormwater management report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue has been prepared by
me or under my supervision and meets minimum standards of the City of Tigard and normal standards of
engineering practice. I hereby acknowledge and agree that the jurisdiction does not and will not assume
liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities designed by me.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 2 of 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project is located at 9777 SW 74th Avenue in Tigard, OR (Tax Lot 1S125DC 600). The total
site area is 2.80 acres and contains a house, outbuilding and driveway. All existing structures and the
driveway will be demolished for the proposed subdivision.
The proposed project will consist of subdividing the property into seven lots, creating a cul-de-sac,
and completing side walk improvements along SW 74th Avenue. Each lot will have an individual planter
to treat runoff before being discharged to South Ash Creek to the north. Upgrades will be made to the
existing stormwater system at the end of the cul-de-sac on SW Red Cedar to accommodate the added
impervious area from the cul-de-sac improvements. The design of all stormwater facilities will follow
the Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards dated April 2017.
A downstream analysis was conducted for the stream that flows through the north half of the site to
determine that there will be no downstream deficiencies. The increase in flow from the proposed
development will have negligible effect on the flow rate in the stream and the water surface elevation.
The will be no adverse effects on the downstream system due to the proposed subdivision.
The purpose of this report is to describe the treatment facility being proposed, to show the
downstream system has sufficient capacity to receive the un-detained flows and to show that the
design follows Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 3 of 12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will consist of subdividing property into seven lots, creating a cul-de-sac, and
completing side walk improvements along SW 74th Avenue. Each lot will have an individual planter to
treat runoff before discharging to South Ash Creek to the north. Upgrades will be made to the existing
stormwater system to capture and convey runoff from the new impervious area in the right-of-way.
The design of all stormwater facilities will follow the Clean Water Services Design and Construction
Standards dated April 2017.
The purpose of this report is to describe the treatment facility being proposed, to show the
downstream system has sufficient capacity to receive the un-detained flows and to show that the
design follows City of Tigard and Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
SITE LOCATION
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 4 of 12
Figure 2 - Site Location
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Site
The proposed project is located at 9777 SW 74th Avenue in Tigard, OR (Tax Lot 1S125DC 600). The total
site area is 2.80 acres and contains a house, outbuilding and driveway.
Flood Map
The site is located within Zone X (un-shaded) per flood insurance rate map (FIRM) panel number 534
of 650 (See Technical Appendix: Exhibits – FIRM: 41067C0534E). FEMA's definition of Zone X (un-
shaded) is an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
Site Geology
The soil types as classified by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Washington
County are identified in Table 1 (See Technical Appendix: Exhibits – Hydrologic Soil Group-Washington
County, Oregon).
Soil Type Hydrologic Group
Helvetia Silt Loam C
Table 1 - Soil Characteristics
PROJECT SITE
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 5 of 12
The entire site is assumed to be Group C type soils. Group C soils are defined as soils having a slow
infiltration rate when thoroughly wet.
Geotechnical Report
A geotechnical investigation by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc was completed on October 23, 2017 (See
Technical Appendix: Geotechnical Report). A total of 4 exploratory test pits were excavated to depths
of 9.5 to 11 ft deep. At the time of the investigation, soil onsite was damp to wet. Ground water
seepage was encountered between depths of 7 to 10 ft. Regional geologic mapping indicates that
static groundwater is present at depths less than 20 ft below the existing ground surface.
Existing Hydrology
Runoff from the site generally sheet flows towards the north into South Ash Creek. Elevations on the
site vary between 236 in the south to 197 in the north.
Existing Basin Areas
Tables 2 shows the current impervious and pervious areas for the property (See Technical Appendix:
Exhibits – Existing Site Conditions).
Existing Onsite Basin
Area ft2 Acres
Impervious Area 9,620 0.23
Pervious Area 112,122 2.57
Total Area 121,742 2.80
Table 2 – Existing Onsite Basin Area
Existing Onsite Basin
Area ft2 Acres
Impervious Area 3,539 0.08
Pervious Area 2,174 0.05
Total Area 5,713 0.13
Table 3 – Existing Public Right-of-Way Basin Area
POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
Site
The proposed project will consist of subdividing property into 7 lots, creating a cul-de-sac, and
constructing side walk improvements along SW 74th Avenue. Each lot will have its own planter and
underground detention to treat and detain runoff and discharge directly to the existing stream to the
north. Runoff from the proposed sidewalk improvements and cul-de-sac will be conveyed to the
existing water quality and detention system in SW Red Cedar Way with modifications to the existing
flow control structure.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 6 of 12
The sidewalk improvements along SW 74th Ave will discharge to the existing storm system in SW 74th
Ave. Runoff draining to SW 74th Ave is treated via a StormFilter manhole with one cartridge and
detained with a 36” pipe (See Technical Appendix: Other Studies and As-Builts – Ash Creek). No
improvement will be made to this storm system.
Post-Developed Basin Areas
Table 3 shows the proposed impervious and pervious areas. The proposed cul-de-sac and sidewalks
will drain to the existing storm system in SW Red Cedar Way. An impervious area of 2,640 ft2 per lot
was assumed. Table 4 shows the improvements and existing impervious area from the public right-
of-way on SW 74th Ave. Table 5 shows the existing area in Red Cedar Way that will be disturbed (See
Technical Appendix: Exhibits – Post-Developed Site Conditions).
Post-Developed Onsite
Basin Area ft2 Acres
Proposed Cul-De-Sac 3,694 0.09
Proposed Sidewalk 2,551 0.07
Proposed Roof 18,480 0.42
Pervious Area 97,018 0.48
Pervious Area Inside the
Vegetated Buffer 75,668 1.74
Total Area 121,743 2.80
Table 4 – Post-Developed Basin Area
Post-Developed Basin
Area ft2 Acres
Impervious Area 5,713 0.13
Pervious Area 0 0.00
Total Area 5,713 0.13
Table 5 – Proposed Public Right-of-Way Basin Area
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design Guidelines
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services. The guidelines
used for the design of this project reflect current Clean Water Services Design and Construction
Standards, issued in April of 2017.
Hydrograph Method
Naturally occurring rainstorms dissipate over long periods of time. An effective way of estimating
storm rainfall is by using the hydrograph method. The Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH)
method was used to develop runoff rates. The computer software XPSTORM was used in modeling
the hydrology during the existing and post-developed storm events to determine the increase in
runoff after the development. The increase in runoff was used in the downstream analysis discussed
later in this report.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 7 of 12
Design Storm
The rainfall distribution to be used for this area is the design storm of 24-hour duration based on the
standard Type 1A rainfall distribution. Table 5 shows total precipitation depths for the design storm
events used in the analysis, which were used as multipliers for the Type 1A 24-hour rainfall
distribution.
Recurrence Interval
(Years)
Total
Precipitation
Depth (inches)
2 2.50
10 3.45
25 3.90
100 4.50
Table 6 - Design Storms
RUNOFF PARAMETERS
Curve Number
The major factors for determining the CN values are hydrologic soil group, cover type, treatment,
hydrologic condition, and antecedent runoff condition. The curve number represents runoff potential
from the ground. Table 2-2a from the TR55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds was used to
determine the appropriate curve numbers (See Technical Appendix: Exhibits – Table 2-2a Runoff Curve
Numbers).
The existing site was given a curve number of 70 for pervious area, which corresponds to woods in
good condition. The post-developed CN for the pervious area onsite is 79 and for the area inside and
around the vegetated buffer that will not be disturbed is 70. A curve number of 98 was used for all
impervious area.
For the existing storm system for SW 74th Ave, a curve number of 81 was used for predeveloped
developed condition, per the Ash Creek Storm Report. This CN was used for the detention calculations
for the area draining to SW 74th Ave.
Time of Concentration
The time of concentration was calculated for the existing site using the TR-55 Method, the existing
contours and assuming the site was Woods with light underbrush. The time of concentration of 8
minutes was calculated for the existing site (See Technical Appendix: Calculations – Time of
Concentration). A time of concentration for the post-developed conditions, as well as the existing
conditions for the offsite basin (SW Red Cedar Way) was assumed to be 5 minutes. The time of
concentration for the predeveloped basin draining to SW 74th Ave is 12 minutes, per the Ash Creek
Storm Report.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 8 of 12
Basin Runoff
The existing and post-developed runoff rates for the project are shown in Table 6 (See Technical
Appendix: Hydrographs).
Recurrence
Interval (Years)
Existing
Runoff Rate
(cfs)
Post-Developed
Runoff Rate (cfs)
Increase in
Runoff Rates
(cfs)
Allowable
Release Rate (cfs)
2 0.21 0.58 0.37 0.21
10 0.58 1.06 0.48 0.58
25 0.78 1.32 0.54 0.78
100 1.08 1.67 0.59 -
Table 7 - Basin Runoff Rates
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
CHARACTERISTICS
System Characteristics
The stormwater conveyance system will be sized in the final design phase of the project to convey all
storm events up to and including the 100-year storm event without any out of system flooding.
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Guidelines & Calculations – Onsite Development
Planters were designed using the Clean Water Services LIDA Handbook. Each lot is assumed to have
a total of 2,640 sf of impervious area (CWS Design & Construction Standards Section 4.05.5). A sizing
factor of 0.06 (CWS LIDA Handbook) was used to size each planter. Each lot includes a 160 sf planter
to treat runoff.
Planters
Each planter will be design following the minimum requirements below.
· Max Length = 64’
· Minimum Bottom Width = 2.5’
· Max Channel Slope = 0.5%
Water Quality Guidelines & Calculations – SW 74th Ave
Per Clean Water Services guidelines, water quality treatment facilities are required to be designed to
treat the rainfall of 0.36” over a 4-hour period with a return period of 96-hours. The following shows
the calculated treatment flow rate for the design the water quality treatment facilities.
Water Quality Volume (WQV) = Impervious Area (ft2) X 0.36 (in)
12(in/ft)
= 15,562 (ft2) X 0.36 (in) = 470 ft3
12 (in/ft)
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 9 of 12
Water Quality Flow (WQF) = WQV = 470 (ft3) = 0.033 cfs
14,400 seconds 14,400 sec
The sidewalk improvements along SW 74th Ave will discharge to the existing system in SW 74th Ave.
The existing StormFilter manhole contains 1 stormwater filter with the capacity to treat up to 15 gpm.
No improvements are required for the StormFilter manhole to treat the increase in impervious area
draining to it. See Calculations below.
Existing Impervious Area 0.31 acres (From the Ash Creek Storm Report)
New Impervious Area 0.05 acres
Water Quality Volume 470 cf
Water Quality Flow 0.033 cfs
Flow per Filter 15 gpm (0.033 cfs)
Number of Filters 1
Water Quality Guidelines & Calculations – SW Red Cedar Way
An existing detention and water quality system is located in the northwestern portion of the SW Red
Cedar Way cul-de-sac. According to the Jackson Woods Storm Drainage Calculations, the system was
sized to detain the 2, 10 and 25 year storm events to existing runoff rates. Additionally, a Contech
StormFilter manhole was installed to treat the new impervious area from the Jackson Woods
development including impervious area from SW Red Cedar Way constructed for the Jackson Woods
development. The existing system was modeled in XPSTORM to determine if the proposed
improvements to SW Red Cedar Way can be detained and treated as well without making large
revisions.
The existing detention system consists of a 96” diameter, 42’ long underground pipe. A flow control
manhole follows the detention pipe conveying detained stormwater to a 48” StormFilter manhole. The
calculations show one cartridge is required but the as-builts show two were installed. The following
calculations shows that if two (2) cartridges are in the manhole, it will have sufficient capacity to treat
the added impervious area.
Per the Jackson Woods Storm Drainage Calculations, there is 17,800 sf of impervious area draining to
the system. As Table 3 shows, the new impervious area from the proposed cul-de-sac and sidewalks
is 6,245 sf. Following the CWS guidelines for calculating the water quality treatment flow rate, the new
treatment flow rate is 0.050 cfs:
Water Quality Volume (WQV) = 24,045 (ft2) X 0.36 (in) = 8,656 ft3
12 (in/ft)
Water Quality Flow (WQF) = 8,656 (ft3) = 0.050 cfs
14,400 sec
A two cartridge system has the capacity treat 0.067 cfs; therefore, the existing water quality treatment
facility will have the capacity to treat the added impervious area.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 10 of 12
Water quantity
Detention Guidelines
Per section 4.03 of Clean Water Service’s Design and Construction Manual, the 2, 10 and 25-year post-
construction release rate will not exceed their respective 2, 10 and 25-year pre-developed runoff rates.
Detention Facilities – Onsite Development
Allowable release rates from the post-developed site are shown in Table 6. Runoff from the lots
draining to the planters will be detained in an underground detention system that will be installed
below the planters. Each underground detention system will discharge directly to the stream to the
north with the necessary rip-rap protection to prevent scouring.
Detention Facilities – SW 74th Ave
The sidewalk improvements along SW 74th Ave will be detained with the existing system in SW 74th
Ave. The sidewalk improvements are the only increased impervious area that will be draining to the
storm system in 74th Ave. A model was made using the software XPSTORM to show the existing system
can accommodate the increased impervious area. Per the Ash Creek Storm Report, the existing basin
draining to SW 74th Ave is 0.31 acres of impervious area.
No changes to the existing detention pipe and flow control manhole are necessary to meet CWS
standards. See Table 7 below for predeveloped runoff rates, post-developed runoff rates and post-
developed release rates for the 2, 10 and 25-year storms (See Technical Appendix: XPSTORM Output
– XPSTORM Runoff Data and Conveyance Data for SW 74th Ave).
Recurrence Interval
(Years)
Predeveloped
Runoff Rate (cfs)
Post-Developed
Runoff Rate (cfs)
Post-Developed
Release Rate (cfs)
2 0.06 0.21 0.06
10 0.13 0.29 0.10
25 0.16 0.33 0.16
Table 8 - Basin Runoff Rates and Release Rates for SW 74th Ave
Detention Facilities – SW Red Cedar Way
The existing 96” detention pipe was modeled in XPSTORM to determine the extent of modification
required to detain the added runoff from the SW Red Cedar Way improvements. According to the as-
builts the flow control manhole contains two orifices and a 12” overflow riser. The first orifice is a 7/8”
diameter hole on the bottom of the riser. This orifice controls the 2-year release rate. The second
orifice is 1.09 inches and is set 5.95 feet above the first. The top of the riser is 0.60 feet above the
second orifice.
The existing standpipe will need to be replaced with a 7/8” orifice for the 2-year storm event, a new 2-
3/16” diameter orifice set at 9.25 feet above the first orifice and the top of the 12” standpipe set 6”
above the second orifice. This is subject to change based on the final design plans.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 11 of 12
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
Clean Water Services (CWS) requires a downstream analysis when new impervious area greater than
5,000 square feet is created. According to CWS’ Design And Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer
and Surface Water Management, the analysis must show capacity in the downstream system for the
additional volume of water. The analysis shall extend downstream to a point where the drainage from
the proposed development constitutes less than 10% of total flow. When the flow drops below the
10% threshold the analysis must continue for ¼ of a mile or until the additional flow is less than 5% of
total drainage flow.
The proposed site conveys runoff to the existing storm system in the cul-de-sac and discharges to Ash
Creek that flow through the north side of the site. The following assumptions were used for the
downstream analysis;
· The 25-Year and 100-Year undetained runoff rate from Ash Creek Estates is 3.36 cfs and 4.05
cfs, respectively as shown in the Ash Creek Estates Storm Report. See Technical Appendix:
Other Studies and As-Builts – Ash Creek Estates Storm Report.
· The 25-Year and 100-Year undetained runoff rate from SW 74th Ave is 0.28 cfs and 0.33 cfs,
respectively as shown in the Ash Creek Estates Storm Report. See Technical Appendix: Other
Studies and As-Builts – Ash Creek Estates Storm Report.
· The 25-Year and 100-Year undetained runoff rate from Weigela Terrace and Red Cedar Way is
2.01 cfs and 2.45 cfs, respectively, as shown in the Weigela Terrace Storm Report. See
Technical Appendix: Other Studies and As-Builts – Weigela Terrace Storm Report.
· Per the Jackson Woods Storm Drainage Calculations, the development has 0.40 acres of
impervious area and 0.20 acres of pervious area. CN for all pervious area is 70 and the site
has a time of concentration of 20 min. See Technical Appendix: Other Studies and As-Builts –
Jackson Woods Storm Report.
· All other basin areas were calculated using the latest GIS data and Clean Water Services’
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Map.
· Cross-sections for creek were taken from GIS Contours.
· A time of concentration for all upstream basin delineated from GIS contours was assumed to
be 5 minutes since they are all fully developed.
· All upstream basins are residential with an average lot size of approximately 0.25 acres.
Following Table 2-2a Runoff curve numbers for urban area, residential districts with an
average lot size is approximately 38% impervious and has a composite CN of 83.
· All upstream basin soils are hydrologic group C.
· The stream was given a Manning’s n value of 0.10, corresponding to a minor stream with very
weedy reaches, deep pools, or floodways with heavy stand of timber and underbrush.
· GIS contours can vary up to 10’. Due to this variation, cross sections used in the model for the
stream are conservative and may have more capacity than what the model shows (See
Technical Appendix: Downstream Analysis – Cross Sections).
A total of 9 upstream basins and 5 downstream basins were delineated for the downstream analysis
using GIS contours and Clean Water Services’ Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Map (See Technical
Appendix – Downstream Analysis – Exhibit 3). The downstream analysis extends down to the 72”
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report Page 12 of 12
culvert under SW 80th Ave (approximately ¼ mile downstream of the outfall). XPSTORM was used to
model the runoff and conveyance through the creek.
The proposed conditions for the site were added to the model to check how much the runoff from
the proposed site will contribute to the drainage flow in the creek. See Table 8 below for the amount
of runoff from the proposed site that enters the creek, the overall flow in the creek and the percentage
of flow in the creek from the proposed subdivision.
Storm Event
Peak Runoff from
the Proposed Site
(cfs)
Total Flow in the
Creek (cfs) % Flow in Stream
25-Year 1.32 33.71 3.9%
100-Year 1.67 43.19 3.9%
Table 9 - Flow Rates at 72-inch Culvert
The peak runoff from the proposed site is 3.9% of the total flow in the creek at the 72-inch culvert at
SW 80th Ave. The proposed site will have negligible effect on the downstream system (See Technical
Appendix: Downstream Analysis – XPSTORM Conveyance Data). Table 9 below shows the existing and
post-construction water surface elevation at the 72-inch culvert.
Node Existing Stage (ft) Post-Construction
Stage (ft)
Freeboard (ft)
Culvert Out 195.07 195.07 14.11
OUTFALL2 193.50 193.51 15.67
OUTFALL3 189.86 189.87 13.01
OUTFALL4 188.04 188.04 9.96
72-IN CULVERT 183.49 183.50 8.50
Table 10 – Peak Storm Stage for 25-Year Storm
Node Existing Stage (ft) Post-Construction
Stage (ft)
Post-Construction
Freeboard (ft)
Culvert Out 195.13 195.13 14.05
OUTFALL2 193.57 193.57 15.61
OUTFALL3 189.95 189.95 12.92
OUTFALL4 188.14 188.15 9.85
72-IN CULVERT 183.54 183.55 8.45
Table 11 – Peak Storm Stage for 100-Year Storm
SUMMARY
The proposed stormwater management system for the SW 74th Ave development will meet and
exceed the requirements of the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services. The post-developed increase
in runoff will have a negligible effect on the downstream system.
9777 SW 74th Ave
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Exhibits
- FIRM: 410238 0368C
- Hydrologic Soil Group-Washington County
- Tables 2-2a and 2-2c Runoff Curve Numbers
- Table 7: Hydraulic Roughness (Manning’s n)
- Existing Site Conditions
- Post-Developed Site Conditions
Drawings
- Sheet C100 – Existing Conditions and Demolition Plans
- Sheet C205 – Site Plan
- Sheet C230 – Preliminary Grading Plan
- Sheet C300 – Utility Plan
Calculations
- Time of Concentration
Hydrographs
- Existing Runoff Hydrograph
- Post-Developed Runoff Hydrograph
XPSTORM Output
- XPSTORM Runoff Data – SW 74th Ave
- XPSTORM Conveyance Data – SW 74th Ave
Downstream Analysis
- Hydrologic Soil Group – Washington County, OR
- Exhibit 3 – Downstream Basins
- XPSTORM Layout
- Stream Cross Sections
- XPSTORM Conveyance Data (25 & 100-Year Design Storm)
- XPSTORM Runoff Data (25 & 100-Year Design Storm)
Other Studies & As-Builts
- Ash Creek Estates As-Built and Storm Report
- Weigela Terrace As-Built and Storm Report
- Jackson Woods As-Built and Storm Report
Geotechnical Report
- Geotechnical Investigation by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. dated October 23, 2017
R EFERENCES
1. Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water
Management Issued June 2007 – Clean Water Services
EXHIBITS
WETLANDLINE AFAUCETSB3POND15'EXISTING 15'SANITARY SEWEREASEMENT PERBOOK 554, PAGE 67715'PLOTC1PLOTB1PLOTB2ROLLED ASPHALT CURBFAUCETWETLANDLINE BPLOTC2WETLANDLINE BEDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017236
235
234
23
3
23
2
231
230
229
228 227226225224223222
220
2
1
8
2
1
5
2
1
3
2
1
0
2
0
5
2
06
2
0
0
1
9
9
2
0
1
197
197
CIVIL ENGINEERING | WATER RESOURCES | LAND USE PLANNING
J.T. SMITH COMPANIES
9777 SW 74TH AVENUE 11/8/2017
EXHIBIT 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
N
EW
S
SCALE: 1" =
0 60
60'
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
LEGEND
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA
TOTAL SITE AREA - 2.80 ACRES
IMPERVIOUS AREA - 0.23 ACRES
PERVIOUS AREA - 2.57 ACRES
WETLANDLINE AB3PONDPLOTC1PLOTB1PLOTB2ROLLED ASPHALT CURBWETLANDLINE BPLOTC2WETLANDLINE BEDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017CIVIL ENGINEERING | WATER RESOURCES | LAND USE PLANNING
J.T. SMITH COMPANIES
9777 SW 74TH AVENUE 11/8/2017
EXHIBIT 2 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS
N
EW
S
SCALE: 1" =
0 60
60'
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
LEGEND
TOTAL SITE AREA - 2.80 ACRES
*PROPOSED ROOF AREA - 0.42 ACRES
PROPOSED CUL-D-SAC - 0.09 ACRES
PROPOSED SIDEWALK - 0.07 ACRES
PERVIOUS AREA - 0.48 ACRES
PERVIOUS AREA INSIDE THE VEGETATED BUFFER - 1.74 ACRES
IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC ROW - 0.13 ACRES
PROPOSED SIDEWALK - 0.05 ACRES
EXISTING ROAD - 0.08 ACRES
*ASSUMED 2,640 SF OF IMPERVIOUS AREA PER LOT
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA
DRAWINGS
CALCULATIONS
9777 SW 74th Ave
BY JBC DATE
Type 9 Type 4 Type 5
50 ft 0 ft 0 ft
2.5 in 2.5 in 2.5 in
0.1183 ft/ft 0.005 ft/ft 0.0025 ft/ft
0.11 hr 0.00 hr 0.00 hr
298 ft 0 ft 0 ft
0.113 ft/ft 0.01 ft/ft 0.027 ft/ft
5.42 ft/s 1.61 ft/s 2.65 ft/s
0.015 hr 0.000 hr 0.000 hr
7.5 ft2 7.5 ft2 15.05 ft2
11.28 ft 11.28 ft 7.69 ft
0.003 ft/ft 0.003 ft/ft 0.00 ft/ft
0 ft 0 ft 0 ft
0.26 ft/s 0.26 ft/s 0.53 ft/s
0.66 ft 0.66 ft 1.96 ft
0.00 hr 0.00 hr 0.00 hr
0.13 hr 0.00 hr 0.00 hr
8 minutes 0 minutes 0 minutes
Channel Slope, s
Surface Description
Flow Length, L
Watercourse Slope*, s
Average Velocity, V
CHANNEL FLOW
INPUT
Unpaved Unpaved
Travel Time
VALUE VALUE VALUE
Unpaved
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW
OUTPUT
Cultivated (residue
> 20%)
Surface Description
0.4 0.17
Land Slope, s
Grass (short
prairie)
PROJECT NO.
VALUE
Woods
(light_underbrush)
VALUEINPUT VALUE
Watershed or Subarea Tc =
Watershed or Subarea Tc =
VALUE
Wetted Perimeter, Pw
Manning's "n"
Cross Sectional Flow Area, a
Flow Length, L
VALUE
0.24 0.24
INPUT VALUE
0.24
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
9/7/2017
Travel Time
Hydraulic Radius, r = a / Pw
Average Velocity
OUTPUT
0.15
Flow Length, L
2-Yr 24 Hour Rainfall, P2
Travel Time
OUTPUT
Manning's "n"
17383
SHEET FLOW
HYDROGRAPHS
00.20.40.60.811.212:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PMEXISTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHFlow (cfs)Time (hrs)25 Year Runoff = 0.78 cfs10 Year Runoff = 0.58 cfs2 Year Runoff = 0.21 cfs100-Year Runoff = 1.08 cfs
00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.812:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PMPOST-DEVELOPED RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH Flow (cfs)Time (hrs)25 Year Runoff = 1.67 cfs10 Year Runoff = 1.32 cfs2 Year Runoff = 1.06 cfsWQ Runoff = 0.58 cfs
XPSTORM OUTPUT
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
Post Developed Basin 0.05 100 98 5 2.5 0 2.27 0.207
0.31 100 98 5
Predeveloped 0.31 0 81 12 2.5 1.558 0.942 0.062
0.05 0 81 12
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
Post Developed Basin 0.05 100 98 5 3.45 0 3.216 0.29
0.31 100 98 5
Predeveloped 0.31 0 81 12 3.45 1.782 1.668 0.126
0.05 0 81 12
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
Post Developed Basin 0.05 100 98 5 3.9 0 3.664 0.33
0.31 100 98 5
Predeveloped 0.31 0 81 12 3.9 1.863 2.037 0.159
0.05 0 81 12
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
Post Developed Basin 0.05 100 98 5 4.5 0 4.263 0.382
0.31 100 98 5
Predeveloped 0.31 0 81 12 4.5 1.953 2.547 0.205
0.05 0 81 12
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DATA FOR SW 74TH AVE - 100 YR - STORM EVENT
SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DATA FOR SW 74TH AVE - 25 YR - STORM EVENT
SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DATA FOR SW 74TH AVE - 10 YR - STORM EVENT
SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DATA FOR SW 74TH AVE - 2 YR - STORM EVENT
SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA -PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR SW 74TH AVE (2-YEAR STORM EVENT )SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftDetention Post Developed Basin Dummy 3.00 126.23 0.00 2.11 0.07 0.14 0.30 1.77 0.59 208.70 214.50 200.57 198.55 6.36 12.16 202.34 202.34Link4 Flow Control Outfall 1.00 55.75 0.20 3.54 0.02 0.06 1.65 0.09 0.09 214.50 202.00 198.55 200.00 13.86 1.91 200.64 200.09XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA -PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR SW 74TH AVE (10-YEAR STORM EVENT )SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftDetentionPost Developed Basin Dummy 3.00 126.23 0.00 2.11 0.11 0.230.33 2.47 0.83 208.70 214.50 200.57 198.55 5.66 11.46 203.04203.04Link4 Flow Control Outfall 1.00 55.75 0.20 3.54 0.03 0.10 1.98 0.12 0.12 214.50 202.00 198.55 200.00 13.83 1.88 200.67 200.12XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA -PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR SW 74TH AVE (25-YEAR STORM EVENT )SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftDetentionPost Developed Basin Dummy 3.00 126.23 0.00 2.11 0.12 0.260.35 2.85 0.95 208.70 214.50 200.57 198.55 5.28 11.08 203.42203.42Link4 Flow Control Outfall 1.00 55.75 0.20 3.54 0.05 0.16 2.27 0.15 0.15 214.50 202.00 198.55 200.00 13.81 1.86 200.70 200.14XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA -PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR SW 74TH AVE (100-YEAR STORM EVENT )SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftDetentionPost Developed Basin Dummy 3.00 126.23 0.00 2.11 0.17 0.360.37 2.97 0.99 208.70 214.50 200.57 198.55 5.16 10.96 203.54203.54Link4 Flow Control Outfall 1.00 55.75 0.20 3.54 0.10 0.36 2.88 0.22 0.22 214.50 202.00 198.55 200.00 13.74 1.79 200.77 200.21LocationConduit PropertiesConduit ResultsConduit ProfileLinkStationFrom ToLocationConduit PropertiesConduit ResultsConduit ProfileLinkStationFrom ToLocationConduit PropertiesConduit ResultsConduit ProfileLinkStationFrom ToToFromStationLinkConduit ProfileConduit ResultsConduit PropertiesLocation
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
WETLANDLINE AFAUCETSB3PONDPLOTC1PLOTB1PLOTB2ROLLED ASPHALT CURBFAUCETWETLANDLINE BPLOTC2WETLANDLINE BEDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017EDGE OF PONDWATER 04/25/2017CIVIL ENGINEERING | WATER RESOURCES | LAND USE PLANNING
J.T. SMITH COMPANIES
9777 SW 74TH AVENUE 11/8/2017
EXHIBIT 3 - DOWNSTREAM BASINS
N
EW
S
SCALE: 1" =
0 200
200'74TH AVEJACKSON WOODSWEIGELA
TERRACE
UPSTREAM
BASIN #2
UPSTREAM
BASIN #3
ASH CREEK
UPSTREAM BASIN #1
UPSTREAM
BASIN #5
UPSTREAM
BASIN #4
UPSTREAM
BASIN #6
UPSTREAM BASIN #7
PROPOSED
SITE
SW VENTURA AVE
SW BARBARA LN
SW LOCUST ST
SW SHADY PL
SW ASH CREE
K
C
T
SW VENTURA CT
SW 72ND AVEUPSTREAM
BASIN #8
UPSTREAM
BASIN #9
DOWNSTREAM
BASIN #1
DOWNSTREAM
BASIN #2
DOWNSTREAM
BASIN #3
DOWNSTREAM
BASIN #4
DOWNSTREAM
BASIN #5
188.00190.00192.00194.00196.00198.00200.00202.00204.000.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00Stage (Feet)X (Feet)Downstream Cross Section 1
186.00187.00188.00189.00190.00191.00192.00193.00194.00195.00196.000.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00Stage (Feet)X (Feet)Downstream Cross Section 2
182.50183.00183.50184.00184.50185.00185.50186.00186.50187.00187.500.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00Stage (Feet)X (Feet)Downstrean Cross Section 3
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
OUTFALL1 5.31 0 70 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 1.267
Culvert Out 2.11 0 70 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 2.425
3.61 0 83 5
Proposed Site 0.228 100 98 8 3.9 2.644 1.256 0.782
2.567 0 70 8
Jackson Woods 0.4 100 98 20 3.9 2.653 1.247 0.339
0.2 0 70 20
OUTFALL3 11.58 0 83 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 6.645
2.02 0 70 5
Upstream Basin #2 6.83 0 83 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 3.635
Upstream Basin #3 2.9 0 83 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 1.543
Upstream Basin #4 & 5 12.97 0 83 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 6.903
Upstream Basin #6 12.2 0 83 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 6.595
0.43 0 70 5
OUTFALL4 0.6 100 98 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 2.772
1.92 0 83 5
5.11 0 70 5
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DOWNSTREAM DATA - 25 YR - STORM EVENT
EXISTING-SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
OUTFALL1 5.31 0 70 5 4.50 2.83 1.67 1.83
Culvert Out 2.11 0 70 5 4.50 1.78 2.72 3.15
3.61 0 83 5
Proposed Site 0.228 100 98 8 4.50 2.84 1.67 1.08
2.567 0 70 8
Jackson Woods 0.4 100 98 20 4.50 2.85 1.65 0.41
0.2 0 70 20
OUTFALL3 11.58 0 83 5 4.50 2.83 1.67 8.47
2.02 0 70 5
Upstream Basin #2 6.83 0 83 5 4.50 1.78 2.72 4.60
Upstream Basin #3 2.9 0 83 5 4.5 1.782 2.718 1.953
Upstream Basin #4 & 5 12.97 0 83 5 4.5 1.782 2.718 8.735
Upstream Basin #6 12.2 0 83 5 4.5 2.832 1.668 8.359
0.43 0 70 5
OUTFALL4 0.6 100 98 5 4.5 2.832 1.668 3.66
1.92 0 83 5
5.11 0 70 5
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DOWNSTREAM DATA - 100 YR - STORM EVENT
EXISTING-SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
OUTFALL1 5.31 0 70 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 1.267
Culvert Out 2.11 0 70 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 2.425
3.61 0 83 5
Proposed Site 0.78 100 98 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 1.317
0.49 0 79 5
1.737 0 70 5
Jackson Woods 0.4 100 98 20 3.9 2.653 1.247 0.339
0.2 0 70 20
OUTFALL3 11.58 0 83 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 6.645
2.02 0 70 5
Upstream Basin #2 6.83 0 83 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 3.635
Upstream Basin #3 2.9 0 83 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 1.543
Upstream Basin #4 & 5 12.97 0 83 5 3.9 1.706 2.194 6.903
Upstream Basin #6 12.2 0 83 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 6.595
0.43 0 70 5
OUTFALL4 0.6 100 98 5 3.9 2.641 1.259 2.772
1.92 0 83 5
5.11 0 70 5
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DOWNSTREAM DATA - 25 YR - STORM EVENT
POST-DEVELOPED-SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
Area Impervious Tc Rainfall Infiltration
acre %min.in in in cfs
OUTFALL1 5.31 0 70 5 4.50 2.83 1.67 1.83
Culvert Out 2.11 0 70 5 4.50 1.78 2.72 3.15
3.61 0 83 5
Proposed Site 0.78 100 98 5 4.50 2.83 1.67 1.67
0.49 0 79 5
1.737 0 70 5
Jackson Woods 0.4 100 98 20 4.50 2.85 1.65 0.41
0.2 0 70 20
OUTFALL3 11.58 0 83 5 4.50 2.83 1.67 8.47
2.02 0 70 5
Upstream Basin #2 6.83 0 83 5 4.5 1.782 2.718 4.6
Upstream Basin #3 2.9 0 83 5 4.5 1.782 2.718 1.953
Upstream Basin #4 & 5 12.97 0 83 5 4.5 1.782 2.718 8.735
Upstream Basin #6 12.2 0 83 5 4.5 2.832 1.668 8.359
0.43 0 70 5
OUTFALL4 0.6 100 98 5 4.5 2.832 1.668 3.66
1.92 0 83 5
5.11 0 70 5
XPSTORM-RUNOFF DOWNSTREAM DATA - 100 YR - STORM EVENT
POST-DEVELOPED-SW 74TH AVE
Node Information Runoff Information
Node Name Curve
Number
Surface Runoff
XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA -EXISTING DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS (25-YEAR STORM EVENT )SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftOUTFALL RED CEDAR Weigela Terrace OUTFALL1 1.00 116.00 16.0114.26 0.14 2.01 12.80 0.25 0.25 224.67 210.00 218.57 194.78 5.85 14.25 218.82 195.7512-IN Culvert OUTFALL1 Culvert Out 12.00 68.75 0.13 972.960.03 24.94 6.30 0.97 0.08 210.00 209.18 194.78 194.69 14.25 14.11 195.75 195.07OUTFALL ASH CREEK ESTATES Ash Creek Estates OUTFALL1 1.00 15.14 0.20 2.59 1.39 3.54 4.95 0.93 0.93 203.50 210.00 0.00 194.78 6.49 14.25 197.01 195.75OUTFALL 74TH AVE 74th Ave OUTFALL1 1.00 55.75 0.50 3.54 0.08 0.28 2.68 0.19 0.19 214.10 210.00 198.55 194.78 13.36 14.25 200.74 195.75Stream Culvert Out OUTFALL2 NA 322.77 0.50 18686.21 0.00 27.01 0.53 0.43 0.03 209.18 209.18 194.69 193.08 14.11 15.68 195.07 193.50DOWNSTREAM XS 1 OUTFALL2 OUTFALL3 NA 373.74 1.07 22357.70 0.00 27.63 0.68 0.79 0.06 209.18 202.88 193.08 189.08 15.68 13.01 193.50 189.86PROPOSED OUTFALL Proposed Site OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.07 0.78 7.99 0.18 0.18 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.3015.68 209.78 193.50OUTFALL JACKSON WOODS Jackson Woods OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.03 0.34 6.25 0.12 0.12 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.36 15.68 209.72 193.50DOWNSTREAM XS 2 OUTFALL3 OUTFALL4 NA 376.19 0.53 6501.02 0.0132.41 0.62 0.96 0.12 202.88 198.00 189.08 187.08 13.01 9.96 189.86 188.04XS1Upstream Basin #2OUTFALL1 NA 373.76 1.07 4555.09 0.00 18.11 1.13 0.97 0.12 212.00 210.00 198.78 194.78 12.39 14.25 199.61 195.75XS2Upstream Basin #3Upstream Basin #2 NA 377.00 1.06 1761.75 0.01 14.84 0.72 0.83 0.17 212.00 212.00 202.78 198.78 8.65 12.39 203.35 199.61XS3Upstream Basin #4 & 5Upstream Basin #3 NA 506.33 3.16 2478.67 0.01 13.45 1.68 0.86 0.13 225.46 212.00 218.78 202.78 5.83 8.65 219.63 203.35XS4Upstream Basin #6Upstream Basin #4 & 5 NA 308.53 4.54 980.32 0.01 6.58 1.290.86 0.14 238.94 225.46 232.78 218.78 5.75 5.83 233.19 219.63DOWNSTREAM XS 3 OUTFALL4 72-IN CULVERT NA 510.78 0.78 1519.67 0.02 33.24 0.73 0.96 0.23 198.00 192.00 187.08 183.08 9.968.51 188.04 183.49XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA - EXISTING DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS (100-YEAR STORM EVENT)SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftOUTFALL RED CEDARWeigela Terrace OUTFALL1 1.00 116.00 16.01 14.26 0.17 2.45 13.57 0.28 0.28 224.67 210.00 218.57 194.78 5.82 14.16 218.85 195.8412-IN Culvert OUTFALL1 Culvert Out 12.00 68.75 0.13 972.960.03 31.53 6.87 1.06 0.09 210.00 209.18 194.78 194.69 14.16 14.05 195.84 195.13OUTFALL ASH CREEK ESTATES Ash Creek Estates OUTFALL1 1.00 15.14 0.20 2.59 1.68 4.24 5.51 1.08 1.08 203.50 210.00 0.00 194.78 6.34 14.16 197.16 195.84OUTFALL 74TH AVE 74th Ave OUTFALL1 1.00 55.75 0.50 3.54 0.09 0.33 2.82 0.21 0.21 214.10 210.00 198.55 194.78 13.34 14.16 200.76 195.84Stream Culvert Out OUTFALL2 NA 322.77 0.50 18686.21 0.00 34.24 0.58 0.49 0.03 209.18 209.18 194.69 193.08 14.05 15.61 195.13 193.57DOWNSTREAM XS 1 OUTFALL2 OUTFALL3 NA 373.74 1.07 22357.70 0.00 35.08 0.76 0.87 0.06 209.18 202.88 193.08 189.08 15.61 12.93 193.57 189.95PROPOSED OUTFALL Proposed Site OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.10 1.08 8.80 0.21 0.21 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.2715.61 209.81 193.57OUTFALL JACKSON WOODS Jackson Woods OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.04 0.40 6.55 0.13 0.13 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.35 15.61 209.73 193.57DOWNSTREAM XS 2 OUTFALL3 OUTFALL4 NA 376.19 0.53 6501.02 0.0141.29 0.67 1.07 0.13 202.88 198.00 189.08 187.08 12.93 9.86 189.95 188.14XS1Upstream Basin #2OUTFALL1 NA 373.76 1.07 4555.09 0.01 22.98 1.22 1.06 0.13 212.00 210.00 198.78 194.78 12.27 14.16 199.73 195.84XS2Upstream Basin #3Upstream Basin #2 NA 377.00 1.06 1761.75 0.01 18.84 0.77 0.95 0.19 212.00 212.00 202.78 198.78 8.59 12.27 203.41 199.73XS3Upstream Basin #4 & 5Upstream Basin #3 NA 506.33 3.16 2478.67 0.01 17.02 1.79 0.98 0.15 225.46 212.00 218.78 202.78 5.70 8.59 219.76 203.41XS4Upstream Basin #6Upstream Basin #4 & 5 NA 308.53 4.54 980.32 0.01 8.33 1.410.98 0.16 238.94 225.46 232.78 218.78 5.70 5.70 233.24 219.76DOWNSTREAM XS 3 OUTFALL4 72-IN CULVERT NA 510.78 0.78 1519.67 0.03 42.65 0.79 1.07 0.25 198.00 192.00 187.08 183.08 9.868.46 188.14 183.54LocationConduit PropertiesConduit ResultsConduit ProfileLinkStationFrom ToLocationConduit PropertiesConduit ResultsConduit ProfileLinkStationFrom To
XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA -PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS (25-YEAR STORM EVENT )SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftOUTFALL RED CEDAR Weigela Terrace OUTFALL1 1.00 116.00 16.0114.26 0.14 2.01 12.80 0.25 0.25 224.67 210.00 218.57 194.78 5.85 14.25 218.82 195.7512-IN Culvert OUTFALL1 Culvert Out 12.00 68.75 0.13 972.960.03 24.94 6.30 0.97 0.08 210.00 209.18 194.78 194.69 14.25 14.11 195.75 195.07OUTFALL ASH CREEK ESTATES Ash Creek Estates OUTFALL1 1.00 15.14 0.20 2.59 1.39 3.54 4.95 0.93 0.93 203.50 210.00 0.00 194.78 6.49 14.25 197.01 195.75OUTFALL 74TH AVE 74th Ave OUTFALL1 1.00 55.75 0.50 3.54 0.08 0.28 2.68 0.19 0.19 214.10 210.00 198.55 194.78 13.36 14.25 200.74 195.75Stream Culvert Out OUTFALL2 NA 322.77 0.50 18686.21 0.00 27.01 0.53 0.43 0.03 209.18 209.18 194.69 193.08 14.11 15.67 195.07 193.51DOWNSTREAM XS 1 OUTFALL2 OUTFALL3 NA 373.74 1.07 22357.70 0.00 28.07 0.69 0.79 0.06 209.18 202.88 193.08 189.08 15.67 13.01 193.51 189.87PROPOSED OUTFALL Proposed Site OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.12 1.32 9.34 0.24 0.24 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.2415.67 209.84 193.51OUTFALL JACKSON WOODS Jackson Woods OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.03 0.34 6.25 0.12 0.12 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.36 15.67 209.72 193.51DOWNSTREAM XS 2 OUTFALL3 OUTFALL4 NA 376.19 0.53 6501.02 0.0132.89 0.62 0.97 0.12 202.88 198.00 189.08 187.08 13.01 9.96 189.87 188.04XS1Upstream Basin #2OUTFALL1 NA 373.76 1.07 4555.09 0.00 18.11 1.13 0.97 0.12 212.00 210.00 198.78 194.78 12.39 14.25 199.61 195.75XS2Upstream Basin #3Upstream Basin #2 NA 377.00 1.06 1761.75 0.01 14.84 0.72 0.83 0.17 212.00 212.00 202.78 198.78 8.65 12.39 203.35 199.61XS3Upstream Basin #4 & 5Upstream Basin #3 NA 506.33 3.16 2478.67 0.01 13.45 1.68 0.86 0.13 225.46 212.00 218.78 202.78 5.83 8.65 219.63 203.35XS4Upstream Basin #6Upstream Basin #4 & 5 NA 308.53 4.54 980.32 0.01 6.58 1.290.86 0.14 238.94 225.46 232.78 218.78 5.75 5.83 233.19 219.63DOWNSTREAM XS 3 OUTFALL4 72-IN CULVERT NA 510.78 0.78 1519.67 0.02 33.71 0.73 0.97 0.23 198.00 192.00 187.08 183.08 9.968.50 188.04 183.50XPSTORM CONVEYANCE DATA - PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS (100-YEAR STORM EVENT)SW 74TH AVEDiameter Length SlopeDesign CapacityQmax/ QdesignMax FlowMax VelocityMax Flow Depth y/d0US Ground Elev.DS Ground Elev.US IE DS IEUS FreeboardDS FreeboardUS HGL DS HGLft ft % cfs cfs ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftOUTFALL RED CEDARWeigela Terrace OUTFALL1 1.00 116.00 16.01 14.26 0.17 2.45 13.57 0.28 0.28 224.67 210.00 218.57 194.78 5.82 14.16 218.85 195.8412-IN Culvert OUTFALL1 Culvert Out 12.00 68.75 0.13 972.960.03 31.53 6.87 1.06 0.09 210.00 209.18 194.78 194.69 14.16 14.05 195.84 195.13OUTFALL ASH CREEK ESTATES Ash Creek Estates OUTFALL1 1.00 15.14 0.20 2.59 1.68 4.24 5.51 1.08 1.08 203.50 210.00 0.00 194.78 6.34 14.16 197.16 195.84OUTFALL 74TH AVE 74th Ave OUTFALL1 1.00 55.75 0.50 3.54 0.09 0.33 2.82 0.21 0.21 214.10 210.00 198.55 194.78 13.34 14.16 200.76 195.84Stream Culvert Out OUTFALL2 NA 322.77 0.50 18686.21 0.00 34.24 0.58 0.50 0.03 209.18 209.18 194.69 193.08 14.05 15.61 195.13 193.57DOWNSTREAM XS 1 OUTFALL2 OUTFALL3 NA 373.74 1.07 22357.70 0.00 35.57 0.76 0.88 0.06 209.18 202.88 193.08 189.08 15.61 12.92 193.57 189.95PROPOSED OUTFALL Proposed Site OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.15 1.67 10.01 0.27 0.27 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.21 15.61 209.87 193.57OUTFALL JACKSON WOODS Jackson Woods OUTFALL2 1.00 141.00 9.29 10.86 0.04 0.40 6.55 0.13 0.13 216.08 209.18 209.60 193.08 6.35 15.61 209.73 193.57DOWNSTREAM XS 2 OUTFALL3 OUTFALL4 NA 376.19 0.53 6501.02 0.0141.83 0.67 1.07 0.13 202.88 198.00 189.08 187.08 12.92 9.85 189.95 188.15XS1Upstream Basin #2OUTFALL1 NA 373.76 1.07 4555.09 0.01 22.98 1.22 1.06 0.13 212.00 210.00 198.78 194.78 12.27 14.16 199.73 195.84XS2Upstream Basin #3Upstream Basin #2 NA 377.00 1.06 1761.75 0.01 18.84 0.77 0.95 0.19 212.00 212.00 202.78 198.78 8.59 12.27 203.41 199.73XS3Upstream Basin #4 & 5Upstream Basin #3 NA 506.33 3.16 2478.67 0.01 17.02 1.79 0.98 0.15 225.46 212.00 218.78 202.78 5.70 8.59 219.76 203.41XS4Upstream Basin #6Upstream Basin #4 & 5 NA 308.53 4.54 980.32 0.01 8.33 1.410.98 0.16 238.94 225.46 232.78 218.78 5.70 5.70 233.24 219.76DOWNSTREAM XS 3 OUTFALL4 72-IN CULVERT NA 510.78 0.78 1519.67 0.03 43.19 0.79 1.07 0.26 198.00 192.00 187.08 183.08 9.858.45 188.15 183.55LocationConduit PropertiesConduit ResultsConduit ProfileLinkStationFrom ToLocationConduit PropertiesConduit ResultsConduit ProfileLinkStationFrom To
Other studies & as -
builts
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 13, 2017
TO: Jesse Nemec (J.T. Smith Companies)
FROM: Todd Prager, AICP, RCA #597, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist
RE: Supplemental Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue Subdivision
Summary
This is the Supplemental Arborist Report for the 9777 SW 74th Avenue Subdivision
as required by Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code and Section 10.3 of
the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual. Seventy-seven (77) percent effective canopy will
be provided for the overall development site and at least 15 percent effective canopy
will be provided per lot or tract through the preservation of existing trees and
planting new trees. The required minimum effective canopy for the R-4.5 zoning
district is 40 percent for the overall site and 15 percent per lot. Therefore, the
proposal exceeds the minimum requirements.
Background
J.T. Smith Companies is proposing to construct a seven lot subdivision in the R-4.5
zoning district at 9777 SW 74th Avenue. The subject property contains a dense
grove of existing trees both on and near the property.
The assignment requested of our firm for this project was to:
Prepare a Supplemental Arborist Report for the proposed development as
required by Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard Development Code and Urban
Forestry Manual Section 10.3; and
Coordinate, provide recommendations, and a signature of approval for the
Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan prepared
by 3J Consulting as required by Chapter 18.790 and Urban Forestry Manual
Sections 10.1 and 10.2.
Supplemental Arborist Report
The Supplemental Arborist Report requirements in Section 10.3 of the Urban
Forestry Manual consist of three main parts: 1) an inventory of existing trees and tree
removal/protection recommendations; 2) an inventory of trees to be planted and
planting recommendations; and 3) a determination of whether the canopy
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
requirements for the development have been met and/or recommendations for
meeting the canopy requirements. This section of the report addresses these three
components.
Inventory of Existing Trees and Tree Protection/Removal Recommendations
This subsection of the report includes a description of the tree inventory as well as
tree removal and protection recommendations.
Inventory: On September 12 and 13, 2017 I completed the inventory of existing trees
at the project site.
The complete inventory data for each tree is provided in Attachment 1 and includes
the tree number, lot number (for retained trees), common name, scientific name,
trunk diameter (DBH), crown radius, crown area (canopy), whether the tree is open
or stand grown, whether the tree is a heritage tree, condition rating, suitability for
preservation rating, pertinent comments, and treatment recommendations (remove or
retain).
The tree numbers in the inventory in Attachment 1 correspond to the tree numbers in
the land use plan set in Attachment 2.
Note that the trees were inventoried individually and not as a stand of trees.
Tree Removal and Retention: A typical minimum recommended root protection zone
encompasses a radius around a tree to be retained of .5 feet per inch of DBH. For
example, a tree with a 24-inch DBH would have a minimum root protection zone
radius of 12 feet. This standard may need to be adjusted on a case by case basis due
to tree health, species, root distribution, whether the tree will be impacted on
multiple sides, and other factors.
Using the criteria described above and the locations of the trees relative to grading,
paving, construction, and other site improvements, 184 of the 274 trees at the site are
proposed for removal. The remaining 90 trees at the site will be retained and
protected according to the tree protection recommendations in the next subsection of
this report.
Tree Protection: The trees to be retained can be adequately protected as follows:
Tree Protection Fencing: Place 6-foot metal tree protection fencing in the
locations shown in Attachment 2. Note that a couple areas of increased tree
protection fencing is shown in red on sheet C110 in Attachment 2.
Directional Felling: The trees to be removed shall be felled away from the
trees to be retained so as to avoid damage to the crowns or trunks of retained
trees. No heavy equipment is permitted in the critical root zones of the trees
to be retained during tree removal operations.
Stump Removal: If the trees to be removed are within the critical root zones
of the trees to be retained, their stumps shall be retained in place to protect
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 2 of 36
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
the root systems of the trees to be removed. Alternatively, the stumps may be
carefully surface ground while avoiding compaction and damage to the trees
to be retained. If complete stump removal is required, they may be carefully
excavated and have their structural roots cut before pulling with an excavator.
Periodic Tree Risk Assessments: Periodic tree risk assessments are
recommended following tree removal operations to identify additional trees
that may pose unacceptable windthrow risks due to wind exposure. If
additional tree removal is required, a tree risk assessment shall be submitted
to the City of Tigard for review and approval.
Wildlife Snag Creation: Several of the trees to be retained are dead or dying,
but may be retained as potential wildlife habitat. If retained, consideration
should be given to reducing the height of snags to a height that is less than
the closest high value target such as roads, buildings, sidewalks, or other
targets.
Pruning: The height of the retaining wall along SW 74th Avenue will be
increased slightly adjacent to trees 6080, 6085, 6090, and 6091. No heavy
equipment will be required on the west side of the wall, but pruning for
crown clearance may be required. If pruning is needed, it shall be in
accordance with ANSI A300 pruning standards and the minimum necessary
to achieve the required clearance.
Additional detailed tree protection recommendations for the trees to be retained are
provided in Attachment 3.
Inventory of Trees to be Planted and Tree Planting Recommendations
This subsection of the report includes an inventory of the trees to be planted and tree
planting recommendations.
Inventory: The complete inventory data for each tree to be planted is provided in
Attachment 4 and includes the tree number, lot number, common name, scientific
name, caliper or height, mature crown (canopy) spread, mature crown (canopy) area,
available open soil volume within a 50 foot radius of the tree, and pertinent
comments. The tree numbers in Attachment 4 correspond to the tree numbers on
sheets C205 and C300 in Attachment 2.
Note that no stands of trees are proposed to be planted.
Tree Planting Recommendations: New trees that are planted to meet the effective
canopy requirements shall conform to the applicable standards in the City of Tigard
Urban Forestry Manual. They shall be planted in accordance with the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree planting (A300, Part 6) and
additional standards adopted by the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board (OLCB).
Nursery stock shall meet the requirements of the American Association of
Nurserymen (AAN) for nursery stock (ANSI Z60.1) for Grade No.1 or better.
Double stake trees only if needed for stability.
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 3 of 36
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
The site soils consist of native and disturbed urban soils that support existing trees.
The trees identified for preservation appear to be healthy and sustainable, and no soil
amendments appear to be necessary at this time.
If soil compaction occurs in planting locations during site development, backhoe
turning should be used to loosen soil. Remove any layers of good topsoil and
temporarily stockpile. Spread 3- 4-inches of organics (high-lignin) compost or ESCS
(Expanded shale/Calcine Clay) amendment over the area prior to turning the
soil. Maintaining a safe distance (angle of repose) from paving, sidewalks, structures,
and utilities, use a backhoe to turn soil to 36-inch depth. Break soil into large peds
and loosely incorporate the soil amendment. Maintain a slope of compacted soil at
the edge of the paving (angle of repose) so as not to undermine the paving sub-base.
Hand turning may be necessary along the edges of paving and at walls. Do not till to
a depth greater than the bottom of footing. After turning, re-spread topsoil and add 3-
5-inches of yard waste organic amendment over the surface and lightly till to break
the soil into texture suitable to fine grade.
Canopy Requirements
The proposed development is within the R-4.5 zoning district which requires at least
40 percent effective canopy for the overall site and 15 percent effective canopy per
lot. The net site area is 112,804 square feet. The existing canopy retained (29,106
square feet) is eligible for 200 percent credit, the mature canopy of planted native
trees (6,280 square feet) is eligible for 125 percent credit, and the mature canopy of
planted non-native trees (21,352 square feet) is eligible for 100 percent credit.
The total effective canopy provided through planting and preservation for the overall
development site is 87,414 square feet which represents 77 percent of the site area.
Therefore, the minimum effective canopy requirement for the R-4.5 zoning district
(40 percent) is met.
Each lot and tract provided at least 23 percent effective canopy. Therefore, the
minimum effective canopy requirement for the R-4.5 zoning district for each lot or
tract (15 percent) is met.
A summary of the effective canopy provided by the proposed development is
provided in Attachment 5.
Street Tree Requirements
This section of the report provides recommendations for meeting the street tree
requirements in Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Development Code and Urban Forestry
Manual Section 12.
Street Tree Requirements
Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Development Code requires one street tree for each 40
feet of street frontage. When the result is a fraction, the required number of street
trees is rounded to the nearest whole number. Section 12 of the Urban Forestry
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 4 of 36
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
Manual requires street trees to be provided minimum soil volumes based on the
width of the right of way.
The street frontage at the subject site (including tract A) is approximately 890 feet.
Therefore, 22 street trees are required. Twenty-two (22) street trees (trees 1 through
22) will be planted within the planting strip where possible or within six feet of the
right of way when planting within the right of way is not possible. All 22 street trees
will be provided between of 675 and 1,000+ cubic feet of open soil, so the soil
volume requirements in Section 12 of the Urban Forestry Manual are met.
Tree Plan Recommendations
This section of the report includes a review and recommendations for the Tree
Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site Plan prepared by 3J
Consulting.
Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan
Sheets C110, 230, and C300 in Attachment 2 together include most of the required
information for a Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan listed in Section 10.1 of
the Urban Forestry Manual and substantially comply with the site plan requirements.
However, I recommend updating the tree protection notes on sheet C110 with the
notes in the tree protection section of this report.
Tree Canopy Site Plan
Sheet C205 in Attachment 2 includes most of the required information for a Tree
Canopy Site Plan listed in Section 10.2 of the Urban Forestry Manual and
substantially complies with the site plan requirements. However, I recommend
including the tag numbers for the trees to be retained on sheet C205.
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 5 of 36
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
Conclusion
Seventy-seven (77) percent effective canopy will be provided for the overall
development site and at least 23 percent effective canopy will be provided per lot
through the preservation of existing trees and planting new trees. The required
minimum effective canopy for the R-4.5 zoning district is 40 percent for the overall
site and 15 percent per lot. Therefore, the proposal exceeds the minimum
requirements.
Please contact me if you have questions, concerns, or need any additional
information.
Sincerely,
Todd Prager
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #597
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, WE-6723B
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
AICP, American Planning Association
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Inventory of Existing Individual Trees
Attachment 2 - Land Use Plan Set
Attachment 3 - Tree Protection Recommendations
Attachment 4 - Inventory of Planted Trees
Attachment 5 - Summary of Effective Canopy
Attachment 6 - Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 6 of 36
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
2842 western red cedar Thuja plicata 24 20 1257 S N 2 2 multiple leaders in upper crown, large
scar with decay along trunk Remove
2843 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 17 25 1963 S N 2 2 multiple leaders, one sided Remove
2844 western red cedar Thuja plicata 25 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
2845 western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 15 707 S N 2 2 one sided, multiple leaders in upper
crown Remove
2846 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 27 15 707 S N 2 2 ~35% live crown ratio (lcr)Retain
2847 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 29 18 1018 S N 2 2 moderately one sided Retain
2848 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 25 20 1257 S N 2 2 multiple leaders in upper crown Retain
2849 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 19 1134 S N 3 3 Retain
2850 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 19 1134 S N 3 3 Retain
5144 western red cedar Thuja plicata 14 15 707 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown Remove
5145 western red cedar Thuja plicata 14 12 452 S N 2 2 codominant, moderately one sided Remove
5146 western red cedar Thuja plicata 20 17 908 S N 1 1 top dieback Remove
5147 western red cedar Thuja plicata 6 6 113 S N 2 2 codominant, overtopped by adjacent
trees Remove
5148 sweet cherry Prunus avium 7,2 5 79 S N 1 1 dying, nuisance species Remove
5149 sweet cherry Prunus avium 8 10 314 S N 1 1 thin crown, nuisance species Remove
5150 western red cedar Thuja plicata 35 9 254 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown Remove
5151 western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided, wound on lower trunk Remove
5152 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 23 30 2827 S N 3 3 Remove
5153 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8 19 1134 S N 2 2 one sided, multiple leaders Remove
5154 black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 15 18 1018 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5155 English holly Ilex aquifolium 9 11 380 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5156 sweet cherry Prunus avium 8 9 254 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5157 sweet cherry Prunus avium 10 11 380 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5158 western red cedar Thuja plicata 8,7 14 616 S N 2 2 codominant at top of crown,
overtopped by adjacent trees Remove
5159 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 5158 n/a
5160 sweet cherry Prunus avium 22 20 1257 S N 1 1 dying, nuisance species Remove
5161 red alder Alnus rubra 15 23 1662 S N 2 2 one sided, dieback Remove
5162 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8 15 707 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5163 western red cedar Thuja plicata 15 15 707 S N 3 3 Remove
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 7 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
5164 western red cedar Thuja plicata 15 13 531 S N 3 3 Remove
5165 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 15 707 S N 3 3 Retain
5166 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 16 804 S N 3 3 Retain
5167 tract A English hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 7 11 380 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5168 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 8 7 154 S N 1 1 top dieback Retain
5169 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~25' tall Retain
5170 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a stump n/a
5171 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 13 21 1385 S N 2 2 one sided, multiple leaders Remove
5172 western red cedar Thuja plicata 33 18 1018 S N 2 2 codominant at top, wound seam in
lower trunk Remove
5173 western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 16 804 S N 2 2 one sided, large wound to upper trunk,
moderately suppressed Remove
5174 western red cedar Thuja plicata 32 16 804 S N 2 2 wound seam on lower trunk Remove
5175 western red cedar Thuja plicata 9 13 531 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5176 western red cedar Thuja plicata 7 12 452 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5177 western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 12 452 S N 2 2 growing on stump Remove
5178 western red cedar Thuja plicata 13 13 531 S N 2 2 growing on stump Remove
5179 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a stump n/a
5179.1 western red cedar Thuja plicata 8 12 452 S N 2 2
pressed against stair case, added to site
map in approximate location by
arborist
Remove
5179.2 sweet cherry Prunus avium 6 17 908 S N 2 2 nuisance species, added to site map in
approximate location by arborist Remove
5282 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 13 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided, marginal trunk taper Remove
5283 western red cedar Thuja plicata 33 18 1018 S N 1 1 dying Remove
5284 western red cedar Thuja plicata 15 5 79 S N 1 1 dying Remove
5285 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 7 7 154 S N 1 1 partially failed, dying Remove
5286 sweet cherry Prunus avium 12 12 452 S N 1 1 dying, nuisance species Remove
5500 offsite western red cedar Thuja plicata 17 15 707 S N 2 2 lost top at 20'Retain
5501 offsite horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 7,5 10 314 S N 2 2 codominant at ground Retain
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 8 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
5502 red maple Alnus rubra 3 8 201 O N 3 3 street tree Remove
5503 red maple Alnus rubra 4 10 314 O N 3 3 street tree Remove
5504 western red cedar Thuja plicata 28 15 707 S N 2 2 thin crown, dead branches throughout
crown Remove
5570 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 11 380 S N 1 1 large wound seam with decay on trunk Remove
5571 red alder Alnus rubra 12 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~10' tall Remove
5572 red alder Alnus rubra 17 14 616 S N 1 1 dying Remove
5573 red alder Alnus rubra 18 13 531 S N 1 1 dying Remove
5574 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 15 17 908 S N 1 1 suppressed Remove
5575 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 13 531 S N 2 2 one sided, overtopped by adjacent tree Remove
5576 sweet cherry Prunus avium 20 20 1257 S N 1 1 dying, nuisance species Remove
5577 English holly Ilex aquifolium 5 9 254 S N 3 3 nuisance species Remove
5578 English holly Ilex aquifolium 5 11 380 S N 3 3 nuisance species Remove
5579 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 7 18 1018 S N 2 2 one sided, marginal trunk taper Remove
5580 red alder Alnus rubra 16 14 616 S N 1 1 decay and slouging bark in mid trunk Remove
5581 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 18 20 1257 S N 2 2 multiple leaders at 20'Remove
5582 western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 11 380 S N 3 3 Remove
5583 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8 17 908 S N 2 2 one sided, marginal trunk taper Remove
5584 red alder Alnus rubra 16 13 531 S N 1 1 dying Remove
5585 English holly Ilex aquifolium 8 8 201 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5586 English holly Ilex aquifolium 6 6 113 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5587 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 26 20 1257 S N 2 2 multiple leaders Remove
5588 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 5587 n/a
5589 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 16 16 804 S N 2 2 one sided, significant lean to south Remove
5590 western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5591 European white birch Betula pendula 12 0 0 S N 0 0 dead, nuisance species Remove
5592 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 15 18 1018 S N 2 2 moderately one sided Remove
5593 red alder Alnus rubra 12 8 201 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper and lcr Remove
5594 sweet cherry Prunus avium 6 4 50 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 9 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
5595 red alder Alnus rubra 8 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~50' tall Remove
5596 red alder Alnus rubra 11 3 28 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper and lcr Remove
5597 English holly Ilex aquifolium 7,5 7 154 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5598 European mountain
ash Sorbus aucuparia 9 9 254 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5599 western red cedar Thuja plicata 14 12 452 S N 3 3 Remove
5600 sweet cherry Prunus avium 6 12 452 S N 2 2 marginal trunk taper and lcr, nuisance
species Remove
5601 red alder Alnus rubra 13 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~50' tall Remove
5602 red alder Alnus rubra 14 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~20' tall Remove
5655 English holly Ilex aquifolium 14 14 616 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5656 red alder Alnus rubra 10 7 154 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper and lcr, covered with
ivy (Hedera helix )Remove
5657 red alder Alnus rubra 12 9 254 S N 1 1 dying Remove
5658 red alder Alnus rubra 17 12 452 S N 1 1 poor lcr, covered with ivy Remove
5659 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 20 1257 S N 2 2 lower trunk covered with ivy Remove
5660 red alder Alnus rubra 16 13 531 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper and lcr Remove
5661 western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 9 254 S N 3 3 Remove
5662 English holly Ilex aquifolium 7 6 113 S N 3 3 nuisance species Remove
5663 sweet cherry Prunus avium 17 15 707 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5664 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 6 7 154 S N 2 2 moderately suppressed, marginal trunk
taper Remove
5665 western red cedar Thuja plicata 40 17 908 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown Remove
5666 red alder Alnus rubra 11 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, covered with ivy Remove
5667 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 16 804 S N 2 2 marginal trunk taper, one sided, kinked
lower trunk Remove
5668 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 9 19 1134 S N 1 1 lost top, covered with ivy, one sided Remove
5669 red alder Alnus rubra 16 15 707 S N 1 1
marginal trunk taper and lcr, lower
trunk covered with ivy, moderately one
sided
Remove
5670 red alder Alnus rubra 13 22 1520 S N 2 2 marginal trunk taper, one sided Remove
5671 western red cedar Thuja plicata 34 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~20' tall Remove
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 10 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
5672 sweet cherry Prunus avium 16 30 2827 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5673 red alder Alnus rubra 7 15 707 S N 1 1 suppressed Remove
5681 western red cedar Thuja plicata 37 24 1810 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown Remove
5682 western red cedar Thuja plicata 11 7 154 S N 1 1 covered with ivy, poor trunk taper and
lcr Remove
5683 western red cedar Thuja plicata 9 8 201 S N 1 1 covered with ivy, poor trunk taper and
lcr Remove
5684 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 11 380 S N 1 1 covered with ivy, poor trunk taper and
lcr Remove
5685 sweet cherry Prunus avium 14 5 79 S N 1 1 covered with ivy, nuisance species Remove
5686 western red cedar Thuja plicata 37 17 908 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5687 western red cedar Thuja plicata 35 17 908 S N 2 2 codominant at 15' with included bark,
one sided Remove
5688 western red cedar Thuja plicata 9 14 616 S N 1 1 suppressed, covered with ivy Remove
5689 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 7 5 79 S N 1 1 suppressed, covered with ivy Remove
5690 western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 18 1018 S N 1 1 lost top at ~35'Remove
5691 western red cedar Thuja plicata 33 15 707 S N 1 1 lost top at ~35'Remove
5692 western red cedar Thuja plicata 40 15 707 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown, one sided Remove
5693 western red cedar Thuja plicata 7 9 254 S N 1 1 lost top at ~18'Remove
5694 western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 10 314 S N 1 1 significant crown dieback Remove
5696 western red cedar Thuja plicata 23 14 616 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown, one sided,
extensive ivy on lower trunk Remove
5697 western red cedar Thuja plicata 40 20 1257 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown, one sided,
extensive ivy on lower trunk Remove
5698 western red cedar Thuja plicata 12 10 314 S N 1 1
one sided, suppressed, overtopped by
adjacent trees, covered with ivy and
traveler's joy (Clematis vitalba )
Remove
5699 western red cedar Thuja plicata 23 19 1134 S N 2 2 one sided, moderately thin crown,
covered with ivy on lower trunk Remove
5700 western red cedar Thuja plicata 6 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~15' tall Remove
5701 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 7 7 154 S N 1 1 suppressed, partially uprooted Remove
5702 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~30' tall Remove
5703 western red cedar Thuja plicata 32 18 1018 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown, covered with
ivy on lower trunk Remove
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 11 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
5704 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12 20 1257 S N 1 1 one sided, significant lean, partially
uprooted Remove
5705 sweet cherry Prunus avium 18 18 1018 S N 1 1 poor lcr, lower trunk covered with ivy,
nuisance species Remove
5706 sweet cherry Prunus avium 7 7 154 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5707 sweet cherry Prunus avium 8 8 201 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5708 red alder Alnus rubra 19 15 707 S N 0 0 99% dead, leaning over street Remove
5709 sweet cherry Prunus avium 6 7 154 S N 1 1 nuisance species Remove
5710 red alder Alnus rubra 13 10 314 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper and lcr Remove
5711 red alder Alnus rubra 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~6' tall Remove
5713 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 18 1018 S N 2 2 crown growth suppressed by adjacent
trees, ~40% lcr Remove
5714 western red cedar Thuja plicata 15 13 531 S N 1 1 suppressed by ivy and adjacent trees Remove
5717 western red cedar Thuja plicata 44 23 1662 S N 2 2 codominant at 2', extensive ivy on
lower trunk, moderately one sided Remove
5718 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 5717 n/a
5782 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 22 18 1018 S N 2 2 40% lcr, one sided Remove
5783 western red cedar Thuja plicata 11 11 380 S N 2 2 marginal trunk taper Remove
5784 western red cedar Thuja plicata 36 23 1662 S N 2 2 multiple leaders at 40'Remove
5785 western red cedar Thuja plicata 20 18 1018 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5786 sweet cherry Prunus avium 12 12 452 S N 2 2 nuisance species Remove
5787 Oregon white oak Quercus garryana 10 5 79 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper, suppressed Remove
5788 western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 14 616 S N 1 1 lost top with new leader at 20'Remove
5789 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 28 18 1018 S N 2 2 crown growth suppressed by adjacent
trees Remove
5790 western red cedar Thuja plicata 13 16 804 S N 2 2 one sided, 50% lcr Remove
5791 western red cedar Thuja plicata 31 20 1257 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5792 western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 12 452 S N 1 1 significant crown dieback Remove
5793 western red cedar Thuja plicata 15 10 314 S N 1 1 dying Remove
5794 western red cedar Thuja plicata 14 14 616 S N 2 2 one sided Remove
5797 western red cedar Thuja plicata 28 15 707 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown Remove
5798 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 44 25 1963 S N 3 3 50% lcr Remove
5799 sweet cherry Prunus avium 10 7 154 S N 1 1 suppressed, nuisance species Remove
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 12 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
5800 sweet cherry Prunus avium 14 10 314 S N 1 1 suppressed, nuisance species Remove
5801 sweet cherry Prunus avium 9 11 380 S N 2 2 moderately suppressed, nuisance
species Remove
5802 English holly Ilex aquifolium 5 5 79 S N 1 1 suppressed, nuisance species Remove
5803 red alder Alnus rubra 9 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~30' tall Remove
5804 English holly Ilex aquifolium 12 8 201 S N 1 1 suppressed, nuisance species Remove
5805 English holly Ilex aquifolium 13 8 201 S N 1 1 suppressed, nuisance species Remove
5806 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 26 20 1257 S N 1 1 significant dead and broken branches,
thin upper crown Remove
5807 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 5806 n/a
5808 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 5806 n/a
5809 red alder Alnus rubra 7 7 154 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper Remove
5810 red alder Alnus rubra 14 13 531 S N 2 2 40% lcr Remove
5811 red alder Alnus rubra 9 15 707 S N 2 2 50% lcr, marginal trunk taper Remove
5812 red alder Alnus rubra 12 19 1134 S N 2 2 55% lcr, thin crown Remove
5813 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 31 19 1134 S N 2 2 40% lcr, multiple leaders at 60'Remove
5814 western red cedar Thuja plicata 33 22 1520 S N 2 2 decay pocket at lower trunk Remove
5815 red alder Alnus rubra 11 13 531 S N 2 1 poor trunk taper, one sided Remove
5816 red alder Alnus rubra 8 13 531 S N 2 1 poor trunk taper, one sided Remove
5817 red alder Alnus rubra 11 26 2124 S N 2 1 poor trunk taper, one sided Remove
5818 western red cedar Thuja plicata 37 24 1810 S N 3 3 Remove
5819 red alder Alnus rubra 10 10 314 S N 1 1 failed at 15'Remove
5820 red alder Alnus rubra 13 0 0 S N 1 1 failed at 10'Remove
5877 western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 12 452 S N 2 2 one sided, significant ivy throughout
crown Remove
5878 western red cedar Thuja plicata 39 19 1134 S N 2 2 significant wound on lower trunk Remove
5879 western red cedar Thuja plicata 28 22 1520 S N 2 2 moderately one sided, ivy on lower
trunk Remove
5880 western red cedar Thuja plicata 30 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~90' tall Remove
5881 western red cedar Thuja plicata 36 18 1018 S N 2 2 one sided, significant ivy on lower trunk Remove
5882 red alder Alnus rubra 26 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~20' tall Remove
5883 red alder Alnus rubra 20 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~80' tall Remove
5884 red alder Alnus rubra 24 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~80' tall Remove
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 13 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
5885 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 25 16 804 S N 2 2 multiple leaders, extensive ivy on lower
trunk Remove
5886 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 9 24 1810 S N 2 2 one sided, overtopped by adjacent
trees, multiple leaders, covered with ivy Remove
5887 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12,6 20 1257 S N 2 2 one sided, overtopped by adjacent
trees, multiple leaders, covered with ivy Remove
5888 western red cedar Thuja plicata 44 13 531 S N 1 1 50% dead Remove
5889 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 5888 n/a
5890 Oregon ash 16 24 1810 S N 2 2 multiple leaders, extensive ivy
througout crown, Remove
5891 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 24,16 17 908 S N 2 2 growing on stump Retain
5892 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 5891 n/a
5893 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 14 0 0 S N 1 2 dead, ~30' tall Remove
5894 red alder Alnus rubra 10 17 908 S N 2 2 one sided, base of trunk pushed against
asphalt Remove
5895 red alder Alnus rubra 12 13 531 S N 2 1 one sided, marginal trunk taper Remove
5896 willow Salix sp.11 12 452 S N 2 2 one sided, multiple leaders Remove
5928 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a point not used n/a
5929 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a point not used n/a
5992 tract A red alder Alnus rubra 6 9 254 S N 2 2 one sided Retain
5993 tract A red alder Alnus rubra 11 22 1520 S N 2 2 one sided Retain
5994 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 20 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
5995 tract A red alder Alnus rubra 7 5 79 S N 2 2 one sided Retain
5996 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 38 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
5997 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
5998 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 12 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~60' tall Retain
5999 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 28 20 1257 S N 2 2 thin crown, branch dieback, one sided Retain
6000 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6001 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 12 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~25' tall Retain
6002 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 15 707 S N 1 1 90% dead, ~70' tall Retain
6003 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 14 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
6004 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 38 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6005 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 24 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6006 tract A red alder Alnus rubra 14 10 314 S N 1 1 85% dead, ~25' dead Retain
6007 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 22 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~60' tall Retain
6008 tract A red alder Alnus rubra 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~15' tall Remove
6009 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~50' tall Retain
6010 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~75' tall Remove
6011 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 20 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6012 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6013 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 20 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6014 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6015 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 18 25 1963 S N 2 2 multiple leaders Retain
6016 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 20 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~75' tall Retain
6017 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 14 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~70' tall Retain
6018 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 20 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6019 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~30' tall Retain
6020 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~30' tall Retain
6021 tract A Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 20 25 1963 S N 1 1 dying, beaver girdled lower trunk Retain
6022 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~25' tall Retain
6023 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~20' tall Retain
6024 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~30' tall Retain
6025 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6026 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~20' tall Retain
6027 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 12 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~25' tall Retain
6028 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~40' tall Retain
6029 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~40' tall Retain
6078 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 15 25 1963 S N 3 3 Remove
6079 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 15 25 1963 S N 3 3 Remove
6080 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 25 1963 S N 3 3 Retain
6081 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 7 8 201 S N 2 2 lost top at 15' with multiple new
leaders Remove
6082 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16,12 15 707 S N 2 2 codominant at ground, 12" stem failed
at 15'Retain
6083 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a same as tree 6082 n/a
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 15 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
6084 tract A bigleaf maple 16 20 1257 S N 2 2 multiple leaders, beaver damage on
lower trunk Retain
6085 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 15 707 S N 2 2 lost top at ~25'Retain
6086 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 6 113 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6087 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~10' tall Retain
6088 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 10 314 S N 1 1 85% dead, ~40' tall Retain
6089 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 10 314 S N 1 1 85% dead, ~40' tall Retain
6090 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 20 1257 S N 2 2 lost top at ~45', thin crown Retain
6091 tract A red alder Alnus rubra 8 15 707 S N 1 1 leaning toward street Retain
6092 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6093 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6094 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 14 20 1257 S N 2 2 minor dieback in upper crown, multiple
leaders in upper crown Retain
6095 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10,10 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~40' tall, partially failed Retain
6096 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 14 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6097 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~40' tall Retain
6098 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~30' tall Retain
6099 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~40' tall Retain
6100 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~40' tall Retain
6101 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~40' tall Retain
6102 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~50' tall Retain
6103 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~50' tall Retain
6104 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~50' tall Retain
6105 tract A bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 22 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~30' tall Retain
6106 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 16 20 1257 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown Retain
6107 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 12 15 707 S N 2 2 moderately thin crown Retain
6108 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 12 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~25' tall Retain
6109 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 22 22 1520 S N 2 2 extensive ivy on lower trunk Retain
6110 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6111 tract A Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 10 10 314 S N 2 2 one sided, marginal trunk taper Retain
6112 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 18 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6113 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 16 15 707 S N 3 3 Retain
6114 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 23 25 1963 S N 2 2 moderately one sided Retain
6115 tract A black locust Robinia pseudoacacia 7 13 531 S N 1 1 poor trunk taper, nuisance species Retain
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 16 of 36
Attachment 1
Existing Tree Inventory
No.Lot No.Common Name Scientific Name DBH1 C-Rad2 Canopy3 O/S4 HT5 Cond6 Pres7 Comments Treatment
6116 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 14 0 0 S N 1 1 dead, ~35' tall Retain
6117 tract A western red cedar Thuja plicata 12 8 201 S N 1 1 dying, ~35' tall Retain
6118 tract A red alder Alnus rubra 10 0 0 S N 1 1 dying, ~35' tall Retain
6119 tract A Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 8 10 314 S N 2 2 multiple leaders Retain
6120 tract A Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 10 15 707 S N 2 2 multiple leaders Retain
6121 tract A Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 8 15 707 S N 2 2 multiple leaders Retain
6122 tract A Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 10 15 707 S N 2 2 multiple leaders Retain
6217 tract A Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 10 314 S N 3 3 Retain
RATING VIGOR CANOPY DENSITY PESTS
0 dead to severe decline <30%Infested
1 declining 30-60%Infested
2 average 60-90%Minor
3 good to excellent 90-100%None
7Pres is the numerical suitability for preservation rating (0-3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:
RATING
0
1
2
3
DECAY
major conks and cavities
DEADWOOD FAILURE HISTORY
major scaffold branches >1 scaffold
The tree is dead, in severe decline, or declining but may still be retained if desirable for wildlife or other benefits because it is not considered a "hazard tree" or "hazard tree abatement" could be performed.
The tree has average health and/or structural stability that could be alleviated with treatment; the tree will be less resilient to development impacts and will require more frequent management and monitoring
after development than a tree rated as a "3".
The tree has good to excellent health and structural stability; the tree will be more resilient to development impacts, and will require less frequent management and monitoring after development than a tree rated
as a "2".
twig and branch dieback scaffold branches
small twigs small branches
little or none none
one to a few conks; small cavities
present only at pruning wounds
absent to present only at pruning wounds
CONSIDERATIONS
The tree is a "hazard tree" as defined in chapter 18.120 of the Tigard Development Code and "hazard tree abatement" as defined in Chapter 18.120 in the Tigard Development Code cannot be completed in a
manner that results in tree retention consistent with tree care industry standards.
6Cond is the numerical condition rating (0-3) as defined in the Tigard Urban Forestry Manual:
1DBH is tree diameter measured at 4.5-feet above ground level, in inches. Trees with multiple stems at or near ground level are converted to a single DBH shown in parenthesis according to the
requirements in the City of Tigard code.
2C-Rad is the average crown radius measured in feet.
3Canopy is the average tree canopy area (in square feet) calculated as follows: Canopy = (Average Tree Canopy Spread / 2)2 x p.
4O/SG identifies the trees as either Open Grown or Stand Grown the average crown radius measured in feet.
5HT identifies whether or not the tree is a Heritage Tree (either Y for yes or N for no).
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 17 of 36
Attachment 1
METZGER
99W
SITE
TIGARD
SW 74TH AVENUESW RED CEDAR WAYSW SHADY PLACESW 74TH AVENUE
TAX LOT 600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 8600
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 8800
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 8900
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9000
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT
9100MAP 1S
-1
-25CDTAX LOT
5600MAP 1S
-1
-25DCTAX LOT
5700MAP 1S
-1
-25DCTAX LOT
5800MAP 1S
-1
-25DCTAX LOT
4900MAP 1S
-1
-25DC
TAX LOT 9200
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9700
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 201
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 500
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TRACT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C0009777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESCOVER SHEET11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C000-COVER SHEET.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
9777 SW 74TH AVENUE
SUBDIVISION
J.T. SMITH COMPANIES
LAND USE DOCUMENTS
FOR
PREPARED FOR
PROJECT TEAM
3J CONSULTING, INC.
5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150
BEAVERTON, OR 97005
CONTACT: CHASE WELBORN, PE
PHONE: (503) 946-9365
EMAIL: chase.welborn@3j-consulting.com
LAND SURVEYOR
COMPASS LAND SURVEYORS
4107 SE INTERNATIONAL WAY, SUITE 705
MILWAUKIE, OR 97222
CONTACT: DON DEVLAEMINCK, PLS
PHONE: (503) 653-9093
EMAIL: dond@compass-landsurveyors.com
3J CONSULTING, INC
5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150
BEAVERTON, OR 97005
CONTACT: ANDREW TULL
PHONE: (503) 946-9365
EMAIL: andrew.tull@3j-consulting.com
PLANNING CONSULTANTCIVIL ENGINEER
STORM, SEWER
CLEAN WATER SERVICES
UTILITIES & SERVICES
POWER
PGE
GAS
NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS
CABLE
COMCAST
FIRE
TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE
SCHOOLS
TIGARD - TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT
SITE ADDRESS
JURISDICTION
ZONING
TAX LOT(S)
FLOOD HAZARD
SITE INFORMATION
1S125DC 600
MAP NUMBER: 41067C0534E ZONE X (UNSHADED)
CITY OF TIGARD
R-4.5
9777 SW 94TH AVENUE
TIGARD, OR 97223
WATER
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER
POLICE
CITY OF TIGARD
ROADS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
PARKS
CITY OF TIGARD
TAX LOT 300 LOCATED IN THE
SW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 25, T.1S., R.1W., W.M.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SITE MAP
NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
50'
50'100'1" = 50'
JT SMITH COMPANIES
5285 MEADOWS ROAD, SUITE 171
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
CONTACT: JESSE NEMEC
PHONE: (503) 730-8620
EMAIL: jnemec@jtsmithco.com
OWNER/APPLICANT
PHONE
CENTURYLINK
SHEET LIST TABLE
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE
C000 COVER SHEET
C100 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLANS
C105 SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN
C110 TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL
C111 TREE REMOVAL NOTES
C200 TYPICAL SECTIONS
C205 SITE PLAN
C210 TENTATIVE PLAT
C220 CIRCULATION PLAN
C230 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C270 WALL PROFILES
C290 PHOTOMETRICS PLAN
C300 UTILITY PLAN
GROSS ACREAGE
2.79 ACRES
BENCHMARK: CITY OF TIGARD BENCHMARK NO. 239,
A BRASS DISK SET IN LANDAU STREET EAST OF THE
INTERSECTION WITH 75TH AVENUE.
ELEVATION DATUM: NGVD 29, ELEVATION = 265.16
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:33 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 18 of 36
Attachment 2
WETLAND
LINE A
2-12"Ø PILINGS
(BOLLARDS FOR
WATER BLOWOFF)
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
SAN MH
RIM 211.86
IE 8" IN N. 205.10
IE 8" IN S. 190.85
IE 12" IN SE. 190.65
IE 12" OUT NW. 190.46
SAN MH
RIM 208.55
IE 8" IN S. 192.00
IE 8" OUT N. 191.71 GMRDFAUCETS6' CHAIN LINK/BARBED WIRE FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE/
BARBED WIRE
GATE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' WIRE FENCE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
TVET
TVTV
TVTVTV
TVTVTVELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
PADTT
TTEE
EPOWERPADGASSTANDPIPEPP #
A117 1992
GAS
SNIFFER
VALVE 6' FIELD FENCE6' FIELD FENCESTANDPIPEELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
BRI
C
K
B3
RET
.
W
A
L
L
S
T
A
I
R
S
OVE
R
H
A
N
G
SS
COSW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE304.67'304.55'399.92'
PLOT
C1
PLOT
B1
PLOT
B2
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FF ELEV.
178.66
OUTBUILDING EMOVE
R
H
A
N
G 45.1'28.2
45.3'28.2
'
FF EL.
219.64FAUCET STEPS
WOODDECKPATIOSAN MH
RIM 222.84
IE 8" IN W. 214.03
IE 8" IN S. 214.08
IE 8" OUT N. 213.89
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYSAN MH
RIM 236.78
IE 8" IN W. 229.60
IE 8" OUT E. 228.99
SAN MH
RIM 236.28
IE 6" IN NW. 231.80
IE 6" IN SW. 231.80
IE 8" OUT E. 231.56
CB
RIM 229.60
IE 10" OUT NW. 226.55
"JACKSON WOODS"
SAN MH
RIM 220.61
IE 8" IN E. 210.33
IE 8" OUT S. 210.31
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
WETLAND
LINE B
PLOT
C2
WETLAND
LINE B
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
WATER MH
RIM 210.44
HOUSE
9777 SW 74TH
AVE
CB
RIM 221.13
IE 10" OUT NW. 219.08
STM MH
RIM 219.32
IE 10" NW. 210.67
BOX CULVERT
12' WIDE
IE 194.69
CB
RIM 207.67
IE 12" OUT E. 202.42
CB
RIM 229.09
IE 12" OUT
NW. 224.24
STM MH/INLET
RIM 224.77
IE 12" OUT NW. 218.88
IE 12" IN SE. 219.18
STM MH
RIM 224.48
IE 60" IN W. 212.18
IE 12" IN SE. 215.98
STM CONTROL MH
RIM 224.37
IE OUT SW. 212.12
CB
RIM 223.42
IE OUT W. 220.12
STM MH
RIM 222.82
IE 12" IN SE. 217.60
IE IN W. 206.79
IE 12" OUT N. 206.74
STM MH
RIM 236.69
IE 12" IN W. 224.83
IE 60" OUT E. 215.53
STM MH
RIM 237.34
IE OUT 12" E. 226.96
STM CB
96" STM FCMH
RIM 222.00
IE 96" IN N. 213.50 (ASBUILT)
IE 12" OUT S. 213.30 (ASBUILT)
STM WQMH
RIM 218.98
IE 12" OUT S. 209.72
8" CCP OUTFALL
IE 170.34
30" CMP
STM MH
RIM 211.85
UNABLE TO OPEN
42LF 96" CMP DETENTION PIPE
S=0.0040 (ASBUILT)23022522
5
220215210210215220220215225
230
235
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3 3
3 3
4
22
2
5
5
6
6
6
8
7
9
9
11
11
12
13
14
1
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
14
13
1 2
2
TAX LOT 600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 8600
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9100
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 5600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5700
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5800
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 4900
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 9200
MAP 1S-1-25CD
15
3
3
4
205200200
210
200205210215225220230220
225
230235200205210215220195200205210
220
22523023519719715
23'15'
25'
16.0'
9.6'
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C1009777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESEXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLANS11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C100-EXISTING AND DEMO.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
30'
30'60'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GAS LINE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING TELECOM. LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND POWER
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EXISTING CABLE LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING BLOW-OFF VALVE
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING STRIPING: YELLOW
EXISTING STRIPING: WHITE
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM INLET
EXISTING POWER METER
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EM
GM
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
5000
DEMOLITION KEY NOTES
SAWCUT EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE SURFACING AT
LOCATION SHOWN.
REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE SURFACING AND
DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
REMOVE EXISTING FENCING AND ASSOCIATED
APPURTENANCES AND DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN AND ABANDON
ASSOCIATED STORM LINE. DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED. DEBRIS AND
REFUSE TO BE DISPOSED OFF-SITE AT AN APPROVED
LOCATION.
REMOVE EXISTING GAS LINE AND DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
POWER METER TO BE DISCONNECTED AND RETURNED TO
POWER COMPANY.
GAS METER TO BE DISCONNECTED AND RETURNED TO GAS
COMPANY.
EXISTING WATER STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED. DISPOSE
OFF-SITE.
REMOVE EXISTING STORM LINE AND DISPOSE OFF-SITE.
EXISTING POWER STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED
APPURTENANCES TO BE RELOCATED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH PGE PROVIDER PRIOR TO ANY
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
EXISTING GAS STRUCTURE TO BE RELOCATED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH GAS PROVIDER PRIOR TO ANY
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED
APPURTENANCES TO BE RELOCATED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH UTILITY PROVIDER PRIOR TO ANY
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
EXISTING WATER STRUCTURE TO BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
REMOVE EXISTING BLOCK WALL TO EXTENTS SHOWN.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTES
PROTECT EXISTING FENCING TO REMAIN.
PROTECT EXISTING PAVEMENT/SIDEWALK TO REMAIN.
PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.
PROTECT EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE THROUGHOUT
CONSTRUCTION.
1
2
3
4
10
PAVEMENT SAWCUT LIMITS
TAX LOT 9700
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 201
MAP 1S-1-25CD
EXISTING ASPHALT
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALWETLAND TEST PIT LOCATION
EXISTING LIMITS OF POND
CWS VEGETATED CORRIDOR
Preliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:45 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 19 of 36
Attachment 2
WETLAND
LINE A
2-12"Ø PILINGS
(BOLLARDS FOR
WATER BLOWOFF)
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
SAN MH
RIM 211.86
IE 8" IN N. 205.10
IE 8" IN S. 190.85
IE 12" IN SE. 190.65
IE 12" OUT NW. 190.46
SAN MH
RIM 208.55
IE 8" IN S. 192.00
IE 8" OUT N. 191.71 GMRDFAUCETS6' CHAIN LINK/BARBED WIRE FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE/
BARBED WIRE
GATE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' WIRE FENCE
4' CHAINLINK FENCE6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
TVET
TVTV
TVTVTV
TVTVTVELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
PADTT
TTEE
EPOWERPADGASSTANDPIPEPP #
A117 1992
GAS
SNIFFER
VALVE 6' FIELD FENCE6' FIELD FENCESTANDPIPEELEC.
TRANS-
FORMER
BRI
C
K
B3
RET
.
W
A
L
L
S
T
A
I
R
S
OVE
R
H
A
N
G
SS
COSW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE304.67'304.55'399.92'
PLOT
C1
PLOT
B1
PLOT
B2
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
ROLLED ASPHALT CURB
DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
FF ELEV.
178.66
OUTBUILDING EMOVE
R
H
A
N
G 45.1'28.2
45.3'28.2
'
FF EL.
219.64FAUCET STEPS
WOODDECKPATIOSAN MH
RIM 222.84
IE 8" IN W. 214.03
IE 8" IN S. 214.08
IE 8" OUT N. 213.89
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYSAN MH
RIM 236.78
IE 8" IN W. 229.60
IE 8" OUT E. 228.99
SAN MH
RIM 236.28
IE 6" IN NW. 231.80
IE 6" IN SW. 231.80
IE 8" OUT E. 231.56
CB
RIM 229.60
IE 10" OUT NW. 226.55
"JACKSON WOODS"
SAN MH
RIM 220.61
IE 8" IN E. 210.33
IE 8" OUT S. 210.31
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
WETLAND
LINE B
PLOT
C2
WETLAND
LINE B
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
WATER MH
RIM 210.44
HOUSE
9777 SW 74TH
AVE
CB
RIM 221.13
IE 10" OUT NW. 219.08
STM MH
RIM 219.32
IE 10" NW. 210.67
BOX CULVERT
12' WIDE
IE 194.69
CB
RIM 207.67
IE 12" OUT E. 202.42
CB
RIM 229.09
IE 12" OUT
NW. 224.24
STM MH/INLET
RIM 224.77
IE 12" OUT NW. 218.88
IE 12" IN SE. 219.18
STM MH
RIM 224.48
IE 60" IN W. 212.18
IE 12" IN SE. 215.98
STM CONTROL MH
RIM 224.37
IE OUT SW. 212.12
CB
RIM 223.42
IE OUT W. 220.12
STM MH
RIM 222.82
IE 12" IN SE. 217.60
IE IN W. 206.79
IE 12" OUT N. 206.74
STM MH
RIM 236.69
IE 12" IN W. 224.83
IE 60" OUT E. 215.53
STM MH
RIM 237.34
IE OUT 12" E. 226.96
STM CB
96" STM FCMH
RIM 222.00
IE 96" IN N. 213.50 (ASBUILT)
IE 12" OUT S. 213.30 (ASBUILT)
STM WQMH
RIM 218.98
IE 12" OUT S. 209.72
8" CCP OUTFALL
IE 170.34
30" CMP
STM MH
RIM 211.85
UNABLE TO OPEN
42LF 96" CMP DETENTION PIPE
S=0.0040 (ASBUILT)14.7%16
.
3
%11.5%21.
2
%
19
.
8
%
1
9
.
0
%
3:1
1:1
1
:
1
3:1
11.0%
11.1
%
4
.
6%
10.7%18.0%4.1%23022522
5
220215210210215220220215225
230
235
210205200
200200205215220225230230 225220
2
30 225220230225215210205200195
TAX LOT 600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 8600
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 9100
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 5600
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5700
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 5800
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 4900
MAP 1S-1-25DC
TAX LOT 9200
MAP 1S-1-25CD
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C1059777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESSLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C105-SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
30'
30'60'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GAS LINE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING TELECOM. LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND POWER
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EXISTING CABLE LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING BLOW-OFF VALVE
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING STRIPING: YELLOW
EXISTING STRIPING: WHITE
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM INLET
EXISTING POWER METER
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EM
GM
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
5000
PAVEMENT SAWCUT LIMITS
TAX LOT 9700
MAP 1S-1-25CD
TAX LOT 201
MAP 1S-1-25CD
EXISTING SLOPE (25+%)
EXISTING ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY
EXISTING LIMITS OF POND
CWS VEGETATED CORRIDOR
Preliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:45 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 20 of 36
Attachment 2
5144
5152
5145
5146
5147
5150
5151
5153
5154
2843
5156
5157
5160
5161
5162
5167
5171
5283
5284
5501
5504
5583
5576
5581
5580
5579
5582
5586
5585
5593
5594
5601
5595
5596
5598
5656
5657
5600
56605658
5659
5664
5663
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5672
5673
5684
5685
5692
5694
5693
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
57825783
5784
5785
5789
5787
5791
5788
5792
5793
5794
5790
5797
5798
5802
5804
5805
5811
5812
5813
5814
5818
5882
5885
5886
5887
5890
5992
5993
5995
6006
6007
6008
6015
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6081
6084
6091
6094
6095
6096
6105
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6115
6111SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2 LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE304.67'304.55'399.92'
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDEWALK
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVE
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWA
Y
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
5148
5149
5282
5286
5285
5502
5503
5570
5573
5572
5571
5574
5575
5584
5587
5588
5589
5591
5590
5592
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708 5709
5710
5711
5602
5786
5799 5800
5801
5803
5806
5807
5808
5810 5815
5816
5817
5819
5820
5809
58955896
5894
5158
5159
5163
5155
5164
5170
5165
5166
5169
5168
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5500
55785577
5655
5597
5599
5662
5661
5665
5671
5681
5682
5683
5686
5687
5688
56895690
5691
57135714
5717
5718
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5883
5884
5888
5889
5891
5892
5893
2842
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
5994
5996
5997
5999
5998
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6016
6017
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6078
60796080
6082
6083
6085
6086
6087
60886089
6090
6092
6093
6097
6098
6099
61006101
6102
6103
6104
6106
6107
6108
6109
6013
6112
6110
6114
6116
6117
5179.2
5179.1
TRACT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C1109777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C110-TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING CURB
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EXISTING STRIPING: YELLOW
EXISTING STRIPING: WHITE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
TREE TO BE REMOVED
GENERAL TREE INVENTORY STATISTICS
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
GENERAL NOTES
A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE OWNER,
CONTRACTORS, AND PROJECT ARBORIST IS RECOMMENDED TO
REVIEW TREE PROTECTION MEASURES AND ADDRESS ON-SITE
CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS.
TREE PROTECTION GENERAL NOTES:
TREES TO BE PRESERVED SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY
INSTALLATION OF TREE PROTECTION FENCING TO PREVENT
INJURY TO TREE TRUNKS OR ROOTS, OR SOIL COMPACTION
WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE, WHICH IS DEFINED BY THE
CITY AS THE DRIPLINE PLUS 5-FEET. PROTECTION FENCING
SHOULD BE CHAIN LINK CONSTRUCTION FENCING ON METAL
STAKES.
TREE PROTECTION ZONE GENERAL NOTES
NO SOIL COMPACTION, MATERIALS, OR SPOILS STORAGE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PROJECT ARBORIST, NONE
OF THE FOLLOWING SHOULD OCCUR BENEATH THE DRIPLINE OF
ANY PROTECTED TREE:
1.GRADE CHANGE OR CUT AND FILL
2.NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
3.UTILITY OR DRAINAGE FIELD PLACEMENT; OR
4.VEHICLE MANEUVERING
ROOT PROTECTION ZONES MAY BE ENTERED FOR TASKS LIKE
SURVEYING, MEASURING, AND SAMPLING. FENCES MUST BE
CLOSED UPON COMPLETION OF THESE TASKS.
***CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NECESSARY BENEATH PROTECTED
TREE DRIPLINES SHOULD BE PERFORMED UNDER ARBORIST
SUPERVISION***
STUMP REMOVAL GENERAL NOTES:
STUMPS OF TREES PLANNED FOR REMOVAL THAT ARE LOCATED
WITHIN THE PROTECTION ZONE OF RETAINED TREES SHOULD
REMAIN IN THE GROUND WHERE FEASIBLE. OTHERWISE,
STUMPS MAY BE REMOVED BY STUMP GRINDING TO JUST
BELOW THE GROUND SURFACE OR EXTRACTED FROM THE
GROUND UNDER THE ON-SITE SUPERVISION OF THE PROJECT
ARBORIST.
EXCAVATION GENERAL NOTES:
EXCAVATION BENEATH TREE DRIPLINES SHOULD BE AVOIDED IF
ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE. IF EXCAVATION IS
UNAVOIDABLE, THE DEVELOPER SHOULD COORDINATE WITH
THE PROJECT ARBORIST TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSED
EXCAVATION TO DETERMINE METHODS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO
TREES. THIS CAN INCLUDE TUNNELING. HAND DIGGING, USING A
MODIFIED PROFILE OR OTHER APPROACHES. A MODIFIED
FOUNDATION DESIGN MAY BE NECESSARY FOR LOT 26.
QUALITY ASSURANCE GENERAL NOTES:
THE PROJECT ARBORIST WILL BE AVAILABLE ON-CALL DURING
CONSTRUCTION TO SUPERVISE PROPER EXECUTION OF THIS
PLAN. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION
WITH THE PROJECT ARBORIST AS NEEDED.
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALTOTAL TREE INVENTORY
(PROJECTY BOUNDARY)286
TOTAL TREES REMOVED 186
TOTAL TREES PROTECTED 100
Preliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:45 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 21 of 36
Additional trees recommended for removal
Additional tree protection fencing
recommended by project arborist
Critical root zone radii of .5 feet per inch of DBH
Recommend periodic level 1 tree risk assessments following tree
removal to identify additional trees that may pose unacceptable
windthrow risk following exposure from adjacent tree removal
Several of the trees to be retained are dead or dying, but may be retained
as potential wildlife habitat. If retained, consideration should be given to
reducing the height of snags to a height that is less than the closest high
value target such as roads, buildings, sidewalks, or other targets.
Attachment 2
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C1119777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTREE REMOVAL NOTES11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C111-TREE REMOVAL NOTES.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION
2842 23” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
2843 16” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
2844 24” CEDAR 8’DL REMOVE
2845 27” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
2846 Ϯϵ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
2847 ϯϬ͟ Z ϭϴ͛>PROTECT
2848 Ϯϳ͟ Z ϭϲ͛>PROTECT
2849 ϭϲ͟ Z ϭϰ͛>PROTECT
2850 ϭϵ͟ Z ϭϰ͛>PROTECT
5144 14” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5145 12” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5146 24” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5147 6” CEDAR 7’DL REMOVE
5148 8” ALDER 6’DL REMOVE
5149 8” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5150 28” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5151 16” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5152 19” COTTONWOOD 15’DL REMOVE
5153 9” MAPLE 25’DL REMOVE
5154 15” ALDER 25’DL REMOVE
5155 8” HOLLY 7’DL REMOVE
5156 9” ALDER 20’DL REMOVE
5157 10” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5158 8” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5159 ϴ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>PROTECT
5160 18” ALDER 25’DL REMOVE
5161 16” ALDER 25’DL REMOVE
5162 7” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5163 14” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5164 14” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5165 ϭϰ͟&/Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
5166 ϭϰ͟&/Z ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
5167 ϲ͟,td,KZE ϭϬ͛>PROTECT
5168 ϵ͟&/Z ϭϬ͛>PROTECT
5169 ϵ͟&/Z; Ϳ ___PROTECT
5170 ϲ͟&/Z^dhDW ___PROTECT
5171 11” MAPLE 20’DL REMOVE
5172 30” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5173 24” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
5174 28” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5175 9” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5176 6” CEDAR 8’DL REMOVE
5177 9” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5178 12” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
5179 28” CEDAR STUMP ___REMOVE
5179.1 14” MAPLE 24'DL REMOVE
5179.2 26” CEDAR 34'DL REMOVE
5282 14” MAPLE 20’DL REMOVE
5283 26” CEDAR 25’DL REMOVE
5284 15” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5285 7” MAPLE 20’DL REMOVE
5286 15” CHERRY 15’DL REMOVE
5500 ϭϳ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
5501 ϳ͟ /ϭϬ͛>PROTECT
5502 3” DECID 10’DL REMOVE
5503 3” DECID 15’DL REMOVE
5504 28” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5570 12” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5571 12” ALDER SNAG REMOVE
5572 17” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5573 18” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5574 16” MAPLE 20’DL REMOVE
5575 10” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5576 19” CHERRY 15’DL REMOVE
5577 6” HOLLY 10’DL REMOVE
5578 6” HOLLY 10’DL REMOVE
5579 8” MAPLE 12’DL REMOVE
5580 16” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5581 18” MAPLE 25’DL REMOVE
5582 10” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5583 8” MAPLE 10’DL REMOVE
5584 18” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5585 8” HOLLY 6’DL REMOVE
5586 6” HOLLY 6’DL REMOVE
5587 12” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5588 18” MAPLE 20’DL REMOVE
5589 18” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5590 10” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5591 12” BIRCH 12’DL REMOVE
5592 14” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5593 12” ALDER 6’DL REMOVE
5594 6” CHERRY 10’DL REMOVE
5595 10” ALDER (DEAD)___REMOVE
5596 12” ALDER 6’DL REMOVE
5597 7” HOLLY 10’DL REMOVE
5598 9” ALDER 12’DL REMOVE
5599 14” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
5600 6” DECID 12’DL REMOVE
5601 12” ALDER (DEAD)6’DL REMOVE
5602 15” ALDER SNAG REMOVE
5655 (3)6” HOLLY 10’DL REMOVE
5656 10” ALDER 7’DL REMOVE
5657 12” ALDER 8’DL REMOVE
5658 16” ALDER 12’DL REMOVE
5659 10” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5660 15” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5661 10” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
5662 6” HOLLY 6’DL REMOVE
5663 16” CHERRY 20’DL REMOVE
5664 6” MAPLE 12’DL REMOVE
5665 38” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
5666 11” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5667 10” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5668 10” DECID SNAG REMOVE
5669 15” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5670 13” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5671 33” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5672 15” CHERRY 25’DL REMOVE
5673 7” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5681 36” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5682 12” CEDAR 6’DL REMOVE
5683 9” CEDAR 7’DL REMOVE
5684 10” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5685 13” CHERRY 10’DL REMOVE
5686 36” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5687 30” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5688 10” CEDAR 6’DL REMOVE
5689 8” FIR 10’DL REMOVE
5690 18” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5691 26” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5692 39” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5693 6” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5694 22” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
5696 23” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5697 34” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5698 12” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5699 23” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5700 6” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5701 7” HOLLY 15’D REMOVE
5702 7” HOLLY 10’D REMOVE
5703 32” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5704 12” MAPLE SNAG REMOVE
5705 18” CHERRY 14’DL REMOVE
5706 6” CHERRY 12’DL REMOVE
5707 8” CHERRY 15’DL REMOVE
5708 18” ALDER 20’DL REMOVE
5709 6” CHERRY 10’DL REMOVE
5710 13” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5711 16” ALDER SNAG REMOVE
5713 27” FIR 15’DL REMOVE
5714 16” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5717 17” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5718 28” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5782 22” FIR 15’DL REMOVE
5783 12” CEDAR 8’DL REMOVE
5784 34” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5785 20” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5786 13” CHERRY 15’DL REMOVE
5787 10” OAK 5’DL REMOVE
5788 26” CEDAR 25’DL REMOVE
5789 28” FIR 20’DL REMOVE
5790 13” CEDAR 12’DL REMOVE
5791 30” CEDAR 18’DL REMOVE
5792 25” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5793 15” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5794 15” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5797 28” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5798 41” FIR 30’DL REMOVE
5799 11” CHERRY 8’DL REMOVE
5800 14” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5801 10” CHERRY 20’DL REMOVE
5802 8” HOLLY 8’DL REMOVE
5803 9” ALDER 8’DL REMOVE
5804 8” HOLLY 8’DL REMOVE
5805 8” HOLLY 8’DL REMOVE
5806 10” MAPLE 12’DL REMOVE
5807 10” MAPLE 12’DL REMOVE
5808 16” MAPLE 22’DL REMOVE
5809 6” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5810 14” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5811 9” ALDER 12’DL REMOVE
5812 13” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5813 31” FIR 25’DL REMOVE
5814 32” CEDAR 25’DL REMOVE
5815 11” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5816 8” ALDER 6’DL REMOVE
5817 11” ALDER 10’DL REMOVE
5818 33” CEDAR 23’DL REMOVE
5819 10” ALDER 6’DL REMOVE
5820 13” ALDER SNAG REMOVE
5877 14” CEDAR 10’DL REMOVE
5878 37” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5879 26” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5880 30” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5881 30” CEDAR 20’DL REMOVE
5882 26” ALDER SNAG REMOVE
5883 20” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5884 24” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5885 20” MAPLE 25’DL REMOVE
5886 10” MAPLE 15’DL REMOVE
5887 12” MAPLE 20’DL REMOVE
5888 15” CEDAR 15’DL REMOVE
5889 28” CEDAR SNAG REMOVE
5890 16” MAPLE 25’DL REMOVE
5891 ϭϴ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
5892 ϭϮ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
5893 ϭϰ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
5894 10” ALDER 20’DL REMOVE
5895 13” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5896 15” ALDER 15’DL REMOVE
5928 STUMP ___PROTECT
5929 STUMP ___PROTECT
5992 ϲ͟> Z ϴ͛>PROTECT
5993 ϭϮ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
5994 ϮϬ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
5995 ϲ͟> Z ϴ͛>PROTECT
5996 ϯϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
5997 Ϯϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
5998 ϭϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
5999 Ϯϴ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
6000 ϮϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6001 ϭϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6002 ϭϴ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6003 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6004 ϯϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6005 Ϯϰ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6006 ϭϮ͟> Z SNAG PROTECT
6007 ϮϮ͟DW> SNAG PROTECT
6008 ϭϲ͟> Z SNAG PROTECT
6009 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6010 Ϯϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6011 ϮϬ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6012 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6013 ϮϬ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6014 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6015 ϭϴ͟DW> Ϯϱ͛>PROTECT
6016 ϮϬ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6017 ϭϰ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6018 ϮϬ͟DW> SNAG PROTECT
6019 ϭϲ͟DW> SNAG PROTECT
6020 ϴ͟DW> SNAG PROTECT
6021 ϮϮ͟DW> Ϯϱ͛>PROTECT
6022 ϭϬ͟DW> 25'DL PROTECT
6023 ϭϬ͟DW> 25'DL PROTECT
6024 ϭϴ͟ Z 25'DL PROTECT
6025 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6026 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6027 ϭϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6028 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6029 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6078 15” FIR 25’DL REMOVE
6079 15” FIR 25’DL REMOVE
6080 ϮϬ͟&/Z Ϯϱ͛>PROTECT
6081 6” MAPLE 8’DL REMOVE
6082 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6083 ϭϮ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6084 ϭϲ͟DW> ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
6085 ϭϲ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6086 Ϯϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6087 ϭϬ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6088 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6089 ϭϴ͟ Z ϭϬ͛>PROTECT
6090 ϮϮ͟ Z ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
6091 ϴ͟> Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6092 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6093 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6094 ϭϰ͟DW> ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
6095 ϭϬ͟DW> SNAG PROTECT
6096 ϭϬ͟DW> SNAG PROTECT
6097 Ϯϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6098 ϭϬ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6099 ϮϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6100 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6101 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6102 ϮϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6103 ϮϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6104 ϭϲ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6105 ϮϮ͟DW> SNAG PROTECT
6106 ϭϲ͟&/Z ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
6107 ϭϮ͟&/Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6108 ϭϮ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6109 ϮϮ͟&/Z ϮϮ͛>PROTECT
6110 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6111 ϭϬ͟ /ϮϬ͛>PROTECT
6112 ϭϴ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6113 ϭϲ͟ Z ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6114 ϮϮ͟&/Z Ϯϱ͛>PROTECT
6115 ϲ͟ /ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6116 ϭϰ͟ Z SNAG PROTECT
6117 ϭϮ͟ Z ϴ͛>PROTECT
6118 ϭϬ͟> Z SNAG PROTECT
6119 ϴ͟DW> ϭϬ͛>PROTECT
6120 ϭϬ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6121 ϴ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6122 ϭϬ͟DW> ϭϱ͛>PROTECT
6217 10"FIR 10'DL PROTECT
TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION TREE #COMMON TREE NAME DRIPLINE RECOMMENDATION
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 22 of 36
Attachment 2
TYPICAL SECTION: SW RED CEDAR WAY
1.5% (TYP)ROADWAY CENTERLINE4.17% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.5.0' EX. PLANTER STRIP
10.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0' EX. SIDEWALK
12.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
0.5'
1.5% (TYP)4.17% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.46' ULTIMATE ROW WIDTH
5.0' EX. PLANTER STRIP
10.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
INSTALL 5.0'
SIDEWALK
12.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
0.5'
8' ROW
DEDICATION38' EXISTING ROW WIDTH
TYPICAL SECTION: SW 74TH AVENUEROADWAY CENTERLINE16.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
1.5% (TYP)3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.54' ULTIMATE ROW WIDTH
5.5' EX. PLANTER STRIP
14.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0' EX.
SIDEWALK
16.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
52' EXISTING ROW
2' ROW DEDICATION
1.5% (TYP)3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.5.0' SIDEWALK
14.5' HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0'
PLANTER
STRIPPROPOSED R.O.W.TYPICAL SECTION: SW 74TH AVENUEROADWAY CENTERLINE19.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
1.5% (TYP)3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.54' ULTIMATE ROW WIDTH
5.5' EX. PLANTER STRIP
14.5' EX. HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
24" EX. STD. CURB
& GUTTER
5.0' EX.
SIDEWALK
24.0' PAVED WIDTH
(TO CURB FACE)11.0' ROADSIDE WIDTH
52' EXISTING ROW
2' ROW DEDICATION
1.5% (TYP)
3.13% (TYP)EXISTING R.O.W.4.5' SIDEWALK
PROPOSED R.O.W.8.0' HALF STREET
PAVED WIDTH
1.0' RETAINING
WALL EXPANSION
1.0' SLOPE TO
MATCH RETAINING
WALL (2H:1V MAX)
1.00' BARRIER
WALL
MIN. HEIGHT: 1FT
MAX. HEIGHT: 14FT
CULVERT CROSSING
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C2009777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTYPICAL SECTIONS11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C200-TYPICAL SECTIONS.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:45 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 23 of 36
Attachment 2
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
SIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
16
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4 4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
10
10
10
9
10
11
12
12
2
1
24'
PAVEMENT
WIDTH
38'
EXISTING
ROW
R40'
R25'
R25'
R15'
32'
PAVEMENT
WIDTH
27' HALF ROW
27' HALF ROW
2' ROW DEDICATION
25'
PAVEMENT
WIDTH
8'
DEDICATION
46'
PROPOSED
ROW
13
14 15
15' PROPOSED
PUBLIC SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT
10' PROPOSED
PRIVATE STORM
SEWER EASEMENT
16
16
1
1
TRACT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
50'
WETLAND
SETBACK
40'
WETLAND
SETBACK
40'
WETLAND
SETBACK
50'
WETLAND
SETBACK
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C2059777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESSITE PLAN11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 970053J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO REMAIN
CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTES
CONSTRUCT STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER
CONSTRUCT 5-FT SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CULDESAC SECTION PER SHEET C200.
CONSTRUCT NEW PAVEMENT WITHIN LIMITS OF SAWCUT LINE
AND TYPICAL SECTION ON SHEET C200.
CONSTRUCT ADA COMPLIANT RAMP
CONSTRUCT REPLACEMENT DRIVEWAY APRON. MATCH TO
EXISTING DRIVEWAY GRADE
CONSTRUCT STANDARD DRIVEWAY APRON
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL EXTENSION PER SHEET C200 AND
C270.
CONSTRUCT 2.5-FT CONCRETE CRASH BARRIER WALL
TRANSITION CURB AND GUTTER INTO EXISTING ROAD SECTION
TRANSITION SIDEWALK INTO EXISTING ROAD SECTION
INSTALL 5-FT CHAIN LINK FENCE AT LOCATION SHOWN
CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRON
CONSTRUCT GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
CONSTRUCT NEW RETAINING WALL WITH MAXIMUM EXPOSED
HEIGHT 7.5 FEET
CONSTRUCT MOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
35' VISUAL
CLEARANCE
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:45 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 24 of 36
2.5 ft
2.0 ft
20.0 ft
5.0 ft5.0 ft5.0 ft22.0 ft
30.0 ft
20.0
f
t20.0 ft1
23
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 15
16 17
18 19 20
21
22
5 (trees 18-22), 6-foot tall Douglas-firs
(Pseudotusga menziesii)
17 (trees 1-17), 1.5-inch caliper
Katsura (Cercidiphyllum japonicum)
Attachment 2
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"
N1°39'10"E
253.47'S88°16'51"E299.67'S1°40'13"W
387.91'N88°11'11"W278.09'7
1
.
2
0
'
78.76'110.79'71.31'
60.00'11.31'92.97'100.59'
96.56'50.00'51.04'50.00'100.99'126.04'10.19'L44.49'L26.26'L52.44'
L
4
2
.
6
1
'
L
2
0
.
0
5
'L21.95'D89°49'14"
L21.9'
R14.0'
T19.8'
D82°04'34"
L20.1'
R14.0'
T18.4'
D47°52'17"
L42.6'
R51.0'
T41.4'
D58°54'45"
L52.4'
R51.0'
T50.2'
D29°30'11"
L26.3'
R51.0'
T26.0'
D49°58'41"
L44.5'
R51.0'
T43.1'S88°11'11"E249.85'S88°11'11"E241.75'23.0'
HALF
ROW
23.0'
HALF
ROW
46.0'
ROW
8.0'
PUE
8.0'
PUE
10.1' ROW
OFFSET
8.0' PUE
8.0' PUE
15.0' PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
EXISTING 15' SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'
46.0'
ROW
N88°11'11"W308.09'N1°40'13"E 714.60'
D89°57'18"
L58.1'
R37.0'
T52.3'
N1°38'03"E 35.46'
D35°52'01"
L51.1'
R81.6'
T50.3'
25.0'
EXISTING
HALF ROW
27.0'
PROPOSED
HALF ROW
27.0'
EXISTING
HALF ROW
54.0'
ROW
L
6
.
2
9
'110.79'10.0' REAR
SETBACK
10.0' REAR
SETBACK
5.0'
5.0'
5.0'
10.0' REAR
SETBACK
5.0'
10.0' PRIVATE
STORM SEWER
EASEMENT
10.0' REAR
SETBACK
20.0' FRONT
SETBACK
20.0' FRONT
SETBACK
20.0' FRONT
SETBACK
8.0' ROW
DEDICATION
8.0' ROW
DEDICATION
15.0' STREET
SIDE SETBACK
5.0'
5.0'
20.0' FRONT
SETBACK
20.0' FRONT
SETBACK
5.0'
5.0'5.0'
10.0'
10.0' REAR
SETBACK
10.0' REAR
SETBACK
20.0' FRONT
SETBACK
20.0' FRONT
SETBACK
5.0'
5.0'
VARIABLE WIDTH
ROW DEDICATION
10.0'
N1°48'49"E 65.01'
N1°48'49"E 73.05'
43.
0
4
'
5.0'S88°11'11"E10.00'TRACT A
74209 SQ FT
1.70 ACRES
1
5335 SQ FT
0.12 ACRES
2
5428 SQ FT
0.12 ACRES
3
4690 SQ FT
0.11 ACRES
4
7550 SQ FT
0.17 ACRES
5
4904 SQ FT
0.11 ACRES
6
4960 SQ FT
0.11 ACRES
7
5728 SQ FT
0.13 ACRES
41.95'L13.73
'L12.79'37.30'L33.60'34.38'L23.
1
1'
24.34'35.59'30.27'11.99'L47.11'15.63'286.92'
159.62'
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C2109777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESTENTATIVE PLAT11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C210-TENTATIVE PLAT.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
SUBDIVISION STATISTICS
RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.21 ACRES
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE EFFECTIVE LOT
SIZE (50%)
7,500 SF
(3,750 SF)
SETBACKS:
FRONT 20 FEET
SIDE 5 FEET
REAR 15 FEET
(10 FT PROPOSED)
STREET SIDE 15 FEET
MAX. HEIGHT 35 FEET
SITE STATISTICS
SITE ADDRESS 9777 SW 74TH AVENUE,
TIGARD, OR 97223
TAXLOT 1S125DC 600
JURISDICTION CITY OF TIGARD
BUILDABLE SITE AREA 2.79 ACRES
PROPERTY ZONING R-4.5
FLOOD HAZARD MAP NUMBER 41067C 0534E
ZONE X
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
2.0' ROW
DEDICATION
8.0' ROW DEDICATION8.0' ROW DEDICATION
PROJECT BOUNDARY TO BE VACATED
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:46 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 25 of 36
Attachment 2
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"STOPSW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C2209777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESCIRCULATION PLAN11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C220-CIRCULATION PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
30'
30'60'
LEGEND
STOP
CIRCULATION CONTINUES TO
EXISTING TRAFFIC SYSTEM
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
AUTOMOTIVE CIRCULATION
BICYCLE CIRCULATION
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
STOP CONTROL
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:46 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 26 of 36
Attachment 2
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
SIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIV
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
2
2
0230
230
2
1
0
210
200
200200200210210200220
210210200238
230200210220202204206208212214216218220230218222224226228230224226228232234236210220
202204206208
212214216218
200
210
198
202
204
206
208
212
194
196
210210220220230212212214214216216218218222224226228220214216218210215211212213214216217218210215220211212213214216217218219221225
230
235
224
226
227
228
229
231
232
233
234
236 225230235
2242262272282292312322332342
3
6 228228226224222220220 218210
215
211
212
213
214
216
215
220215215220
215220225230235225
TRACT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C2309777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESPRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C230-GRADING PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR108
110
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION ARROW
EROSION CONTROL - INLET PROTECTION
PROPOSED GRADE (10-20%)
PROPOSED GRADE (20+%)
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:46 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 27 of 36
Attachment 2
200
210
220
230
200
210
220
230
STA: 0+90.0STA: 1+12.8STA: 2+06.8STA: 2+45.1STA: 3+60.00+901+002+003+003+60BPSTA: 0+90.0FG:EG: 207.49FG: 208.69PISTA: 1+12.8FG:EG: 209.49FG:EG: 214.21FG:PISTA: 2+06.8FG:PISTA: 2+45.1FG: 216.79EG: 216.39FG:216.89EG: 215.98FG: 217.00EG: 212.78FG:EPSTA: 3+60.0FG:EXISTING GRADE AT WALL CENTERLINE
PROPOSED GRADE AT WALL CENTERLINE
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
SW 74TH AVENUE
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
0+90 1+00 2+00
3+00 3+60
CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTES
CONSTRUCT ULTRABLOCK RETAINING WALL WITH
MAXIMUM EXPOSED HEIGHT OF 7.5 FEET.
STRUCTURAL WALL CALCULATIONS AND PERMITTING
TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHERS.
CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS PER
SECTION, SHEET C200. STRUCTURAL WALL
CALCULATIONS AND PERMITTING TO BE COMPLETED
BY OTHERS.
1
2
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C2709777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESWALL PROFILES11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C270-WALL PROFILES.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
REVISIONS
RETAINING WALL PLAN
(STA: 0+90 - STA: 3+60)
RETAINING WALL PROFILE
(STA: 0+90 - STA: 3+60)
SCALE: 1"=20' HORIZ.; 1"=10' VERT.
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20 40
1
1
SCALE: 1"=20'
2
2
1
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:46 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 28 of 36
Attachment 2
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"
1.2
3.1
2.9
3.4
1.5
1.5
3.1
3.6
5.3
1.9
1.6
2.9
3.4
3.7
1.3
0.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.9
1.7
3.3
3.9
5.0
2.0
0.7
1.1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.5
3.6
3.4
3.6
1.9
0.7
0.9
1.6
2.1
2.6
1.9
1.9
1.5
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.4
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.6
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.3
2.3
2.6
2.6
1.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.5
1.9
2.4
2.0
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.6
2.2
2.0
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.6
2.4
2.4
2.0
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.5
2.9
2.8
2.9
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
1.5
3.6
3.6
3.4
0.5
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
1.5
4.8
4.1
3.5
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.6
0.6
0.4
1.0
3.0
3.5
3.1
0.9
1.7
2.1
1.9
0.5
0.4
1.4
4.1
3.7
3.0
1.5
1.9
1.7
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.2
2.8
2.9
2.8
1.5
1.8
1.8
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.5
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.2
1.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.9
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.4
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.1
1.7
1.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.6
1.1
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.1
1.9
1.7
0.6
1.4
3.0
2.9
0.5
1.5
4.5
3.6
0.4
1.0
3.1
3.2
0.4
1.3
4.5
3.9
0.5
1.2
3.1
3.1
0.6
1.1
2.2
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.6
1.2
0.5
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.8
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.7
1.5
1.8
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.9
3.2
2.6
0.3
0.7
2.1
4.2
3.3
0.2
0.5
1.6
3.9
3.2
0.2
0.5
2.1
5.2
3.3
0.3
0.7
1.7
3.5
2.9
0.4
0.7
1.5
2.5
2.1
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.6
1.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.7
EXISTING 100W
HPS 'SHOEBOX'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 100W
HPS 'SHOEBOX'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 200W
HPS 'COBRAHEAD'
STREET LIGHT
EXISTING 100W
HPS 'SHOEBOX'
STREET LIGHT
PROPOSED 100W STREET LIGHT
MANUFACTURED BY CREE LEDway
SILVER/GREY LUMINAIRE, TYPE II DISTRIBUTION
"STR-LWY-2M-HT-06-E-UL-SV-525-40K-R-UTL"
25' HIGH, SIDE MOUNTED, NO ARM.
ILLUMINATION ANALYSIS AREA FOR CUL DE SAC
TRACT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C2909777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESPHOTOMETRICS PLAN11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C290-PHOTOMETRICS PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)
REVISIONS
NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
- SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINE
- EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
- EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
- PROPOSED LOT LINE
0.7 - ILLUMINATION ANALYSIS POINT (FC)
FC - FOOT CANDLE UNIT
LEGEND
3.0
1.0
0.5
R
below.Know what's
before you dig.Call
SW RED CEDAR WAY CUL-DE-SAC (LOCAL)
LOW PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREA CALCULATED
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.88
MINIMUM ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.12
AVERAGE / MINIMUM UNIFORMITY 7.33:1
SW RED CEDAR WAY STREET (LOCAL)
LOW PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREA CALCULATED
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.91
MINIMUM ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.04
AVERAGE / MINIMUM UNIFORMITY 22.75:1
SW 74TH AVENUE (ARTERIAL)
LOW PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT AREA CALCULATED
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (fc)1.97
MINIMUM ILLUMINANCE (fc)0.17
AVERAGE / MINIMUM UNIFORMITY 11.59:1
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 29 of 36
Attachment 2
SW RED CEDAR WAYTRACT "A"
SW 74TH AVENUE
LOT 5
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 6
LOT 4
LOT 8
LOT 10
LOT 9
POND
LOT 1
"JACKSON WOODS"
15'
EXISTING 15'
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT PER
BOOK 554, PAGE 677
15'TAX LOT MAP 1S-1-25DCSW 74TH AVENUE
"WEIGELA
TERRACE"
"JACKSON WOODS"
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
EDGE OF POND
WATER
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
15' PROPOSED PUBLIC
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
15' PROPOSED PUBLIC
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
4
1
3
3
2
2
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
10' PROPOSED
PRIVATE STORM
SEWER EASEMENT
2 3
3
2
1
1
TRACT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PUBLISH DATE
ISSUED FOR
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION
C3009777 SW 74TH AVENUESUBDIVISION PLANS9777 SW 74TH AVENUE, TIGARD, OR 97223J.T. SMITH COMPANIESUTILITY PLAN11.13.2017
LAND USE SUBMITTAL
17383
N/A
JKG
CKW
1S125DC 600CIVIL ENGINEERINGWATER RESOURCESLAND USE PLANNING5075 SW GRIFFITH DRIVE, SUITE 150; BEAVERTON, OR 97005P:\17383 -SW 74TH STREET\CAD\DD\17383-C300-UTILITY PLAN.DWG3J PROJECT #
LAND USE #
DESIGNED BY
CHECKED BY
TAX LOT(S)NEWSSCALE: 1" =
0
20'
20'40'
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
PROJECT BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE
EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED SETBACK LINE
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
WATER SYSTEM KEY NOTES
INSTALL WATER METER AND SERVICE CONNECTION STUB FOR
EACH HOUSE LOT.1
STORM DRAIN KEY NOTES
CONSTRUCT PRIVATE LIDA STORMWATER PLANTER AT
LOCATION SHOWN.
CONSTRUCT 4" PRIVATE STORM DRAIN LATERAL.
PROVIDE RIPRAP OUTFALL PAD AT LOCATION SHOWN.
ADJUST CATCH BASIN TO MATCH FINISHED GRADE. CONNECT
TO EXISTING DETENTION PIPE.
MODIFY EXISTING FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE.
INSTALL ADDITIONAL CARTRIDGES IN EXISTING MANHOLE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
SANITARY SEWER KEY NOTES
CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
CONSTRUCT NEW 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
CONSTRUCT 48" SANITARY MANHOLE
CONSTRUCT 4" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL
1
2
3
4
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EXISTING WATER MAIN
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING BLOW-OFF VALVE
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE
EXISTING SANITARY CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM MANHOLE
EXISTING STORM CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM INLET
PROPOSED STORM MAIN
PROPOSED STORM LATERAL / LEAD
PROPOSED SANITARY MAIN
PROPOSED SANITARY LATERAL
PROPOSED WATER MAIN
PROPOSED WATER DOMESTIC SERVICE
PROPOSED WATER FIRE SERVICE
PROPOSED WATER METER
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT
M
AR. 1 1 , 2 0 14C
HASE K . W E L BORN80069PE
EXPIRES: 06/30/18
OREGONENGINEERREGISTERED PROFESSIO
N
ALPreliminary
11/10/2017 4:15:46 PM
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 30 of 36
2.5 ft
2.0 ft
20.0 ft
5.0 ft5.0 ft5.0 ft22.0 ft
30.0 ft
20.0
f
t20.0 ft1
23
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 15
16 17
18 19 20
21
22
5 (trees 18-22), 6-foot tall Douglas-firs
(Pseudotusga menziesii)
17 (trees 1-17), 1.5-inch caliper
Katsura (Cercidiphyllum japonicum)
Attachment 2
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
Attachment 3
Tree Protection Recommendations
The following recommendations will help to ensure that the trees to be retaine d are
adequately protected:
Before Construction Begins
1. Notify all contractors of the trees protection procedures. For successful tree
protection on a construction site, all contractors must know and understand the
goals of tree protection.
a. Hold a tree protection meeting with all contractors to explain goals of
tree protection.
b. Have all contractors sign memoranda of understanding regarding the
goals of tree protection. The memoranda should include a penalty for
violating the tree protection plan. The penalty should equal the
appraised value of the tree(s) within the violated tree protection zone per
the current Trunk Formula Method as outlined in the current edition of
the Guide for Plant Appraisal plus any resulting fines by government
agencies.
c. The penalty should be paid to the owner of the property.
2. Fencing
a. Establish fencing around each tree or group of trees to be retained.
b. The fencing should be put in place before the ground is cleared in order
to protect the trees and the soil around the trees from disturbances.
c. Fencing should be established by the project arborist based on the needs
of the trees to be protected and to facilitate construction.
d. Fencing should consist of 6-foot high steel fencing on concrete blocks or
6-foot metal fencing secured to the ground with 8-foot metal posts to
prevent it from being moved by contractors, sagging, or falling down.
e. Fencing should remain in the position that is established by the project
arborist and not be moved without approval from the project arborist
until final project approval.
3. Signage
a. All tree protection fencing should provide the following signage so that
all contractors understand the purpose of the fencing:
TREE PROTECTION ZONE
DO NOT REMOVE OR ADJUST THE APPROVED
LOCATION OF THIS TREE PROTECTION FENCING.
Please contact the project arborist if alterations to the approved
location of the tree protection fencing are necessary.
Todd Prager, Project Arborist - 971-295-4835
b. Signage should be placed on every other fence panel.
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 31 of 36
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
During Construction
1. Protection Guidelines Within the Tree Protection Zones
a. No traffic should be allowed within the tree protection zones. This
includes but is not limited to vehicle, heavy equipment, or even repeated
foot traffic.
b. No storage of materials including but not limiting to soil, construction
material, or waste from the site should be permitted within the tree
protection zones. Waste includes but is not limited to concrete wash out,
gasoline, diesel, paint, cleaner, thinners, etc.
c. Construction trailers should not to be parked/placed within the tree
protection zones.
d. No vehicles should be allowed to park within the tree protection zones.
e. No activity should be allowed that will cause soil compaction within the
tree protection zones.
2. The trees should be protected from any cutting, skinning or breaking of
branches, trunks or woody roots.
3. The project arborist should be notified prior to the cutting of woody roots from
trees that are to be retained to evaluate and oversee the proper cutting of roots
with sharp cutting tools. Cut roots should be immediately covered with soil or
mulch to prevent them from drying out.
4. No grade changes should be allowed within the tree protection zones.
5. Trees that have woody roots cut should be provided supplemental water during
the summer months.
6. Any necessary passage of utilities through the tree protection zones should be by
means of tunneling under woody roots by hand digging or boring with oversight
by the project arborist.
7. Any deviation from the recommendations in this section should receive prior
approval from the project arborist.
After Construction
1. Carefully landscape the areas within the tree protection zones. Do not allow
trenching for irrigation or other utilities within the tree protection zones.
2. Carefully plant new plants within the tree protection zones. Avoid cutting the
woody roots of trees that are retained.
3. Do not install permanent irrigation within the tree protection zones unless it is
drip irrigation to support a specific planting or the irrigation is approved by the
project arborist.
4. Provide adequate drainage within the tree protection zones and do not alter soil
hydrology significantly from existing conditions for the trees to be retained.
5. Pruning of retained trees may be necessary prior to construction or prior to final
placement of trees, shrubs, ground covers, mulch, or turf.
6. Provide for the ongoing inspection and treatment of insect and disease
populations that are capable of damaging the retained trees and plants.
7. The retained trees may need to be fertilized if recommended by the project
arborist.
8. Any deviation from the recommendations in this section should receive prior
approval from the project arborist.
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 32 of 36
Planted Tree Inventory
Tree
No.
Lot
No.
Scientific Name /
Common Name
Caliper or
Height
Mature Canopy
Spread (ft)
Mature Canopy
Area (sq. ft.)
Available Soil Volume
(cu. ft. of open soil)Comments
1 1 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
2 2 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
3 3 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
4 4 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
5 4 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )
1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
6 4 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )
1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
7 4 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )
1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
8 4 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )
1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
9 5 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
10 6 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
11 7 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
12 7 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 1000+street tree
13 7 Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 675 street tree
14 tract A Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 975 street tree
15 tract A Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 975 street tree
16 tract A Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 714 street tree
17 tract A Katsura / (Cercidiphyllum
japonicum )1.5-inch 40 1256 714 street tree
18 7 Douglas-fir / (Pseudotsuga
menziesii )6-feet tall 40 1256 1000+street tree
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 33 of 36
Attachment 4
Planted Tree Inventory
Tree
No.
Lot
No.
Scientific Name /
Common Name
Caliper or
Height
Mature Canopy
Spread (ft)
Mature Canopy
Area (sq. ft.)
Available Soil Volume
(cu. ft. of open soil)Comments
19 tract A Douglas-fir / (Pseudotsuga
menziesii )6-feet tall 40 1256 1000+street tree
20 tract A Douglas-fir / (Pseudotsuga
menziesii )6-feet tall 40 1256 1000+street tree
21 tract A Douglas-fir / (Pseudotsuga
menziesii )6-feet tall 40 1256 1000+street tree
22 tract A Douglas-fir / (Pseudotsuga
menziesii )6-feet tall 40 1256 1000+street tree
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 34 of 36
Attachment 4
Effective Canopy Summary
Lot No.
Area
(sq. ft.)
2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)
of Preserved Trees
(w/ condition and
preservation rating > 2)
2x Canopy Area (sq. ft.)
of Preserved Stands
(w/ condition and
preservation rating > 2)
1.25 x Mature
Canopy Area
(sq. ft.) of Native
Planted Trees
Mature Canopy
Area (sq. ft.) of
Non-Native
Planted Trees
1.25x Mature
Canopy Area
(sq. ft.) of
Planted Stands
Tree Canopy
Area (sq. ft.) per
Project Area
Effective %
Canopy (Canopy
Area / Project
Area)
1 5,335 0 0 0 1256 0 1,256 24%
2 5,428 0 0 0 1256 0 1,256 23%
3 4,690 0 0 0 1256 0 1,256 27%
4 7,550 0 0 0 6280 0 6,280 83%
5 4,904 0 0 0 1256 0 1,256 26%
6 4,960 0 0 0 1256 0 1,256 25%
7 5,728 0 0 1570 3768 0 5,338 93%
Tract A 74,209 58,212 0 6280 5024 0 69,516 94%
Overall Site 112,804 58,212 0 7850 21352 0 87,414 77%
Notes: Effective tree canopy cover is required to be calculated on a lot/tract by lot/tract basis only in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts.
The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for each lot or tract in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts shall be at least 15 percent.
The standard percentage of effective tree canopy cover for the overall development site shall be at least:
i. 40% for R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7districts, except for schools (18.130.050(J));
ii. 33% for R-12, R-25, R-40, C-N, C-C, C-G, C-P, MUE, MUE-1, MUE-2, MUC, MUR and I-P districts, except for schools (18.130.050(J)); and
iii. 25% for MU-CBD, MUC-1, I-L and I-H districts, and for schools (18.130.050(J)) in all districts.
Teragan Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle • Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 • Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com • Website: teragan.com
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 35 of 36
Attachment 5
Teragan & Associates, Inc.
3145 Westview Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: 971.295.4835 Fax: 503.697.1976
Email: todd@teragan.com Website: teragan.com
Attachment 6
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct.
The site plans and other information provided by J.T. Smith Companies and
their consultants was the basis of the information provided in this report.
2. It is assumed that this property is not in violation of any codes, statutes,
ordinances, or other governmental regulations.
3. The consultant is not responsible for information gathered from others
involved in various activities pertaining to this project. Care has been taken to
obtain information from reliable sources.
4. Loss or alteration of any part of this delivered report invalidates the entire
report.
5. Drawings and information contained in this report may not be to scale and are
intended to be used as display points of reference only.
6. The consultant's role is only to make recommendations. Inaction on the part
of those receiving the report is not the responsibility of the consultant.
7. The purpose of this report is to:
Prepare a Supplemental Arborist Report for the proposed
development as required by Chapter 18.790 of the Tigard
Development Code and Urban Forestry Manual Section 10.3; and
Coordinate, provide recommendations, and a signature of approval for
the Tree Preservation and Removal Site Plan and Tree Canopy Site
Plan prepared by 3J Consulting as required by Chapter 18.790 and
Urban Forestry Manual Sections 10.1 and 10.2.
Arborist Report for 9777 SW 74th Avenue
Jesse Nemec, J.T. Smith Companies
November 13, 2017
Page 36 of 36