Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 09/19/2006
TIGARDCITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MSeptember 19, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED I:10fslDonna'slccpkt2 F CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL TRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING EMBER 19, 2006 6:30 p.m. TIGARD CITY HALL 3125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (IDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling. 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - Tigard City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. DISCUSS PROPOSED LOCAL GAS TAX - INPUT FROM GAS STATION DEALERS AND DRAFT ORDINANCE (REPORT FROM TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE) ➢ Staff Report: Community Development Department 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (DRAB) ➢ Staff Report: Public Works Department 4. RECEIVE BRIEFING AND DISCUSS ISSUE OF HOMELESSNESS IN TIGARD AND SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE HOMELESS POPULATION ➢ Staff Report: Police Department 5. DISCUSS PROPOSED CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION (CCAC) BYLAWS ➢ Staff Report: Community Development Department 6. REVIEW DOWNTOWN LAND USE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES - PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK ➢ Staff Report: Community Development Department 7. REVIEW TIGARD DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN ➢ Community Development Department 8. RECEIVE STATUS REPORT ON METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) ➢ Staff Report: Community Development Department 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 page 2 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT i Aadm\cathy\cca\2006\060919p.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 page 3 Agenda Item No. 4, I For Agenda of I D - UP Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Date: September 19, 2006 Time: 6:30 p.m. Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Nick Wilson Councilor Tom Woodruff Absent: Councilor Sally Harding Agenda Item _ Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Workshop 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council to Order Meeting at 6:33 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports There were none. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items The Council Report Card will be discussed under Agenda Item 10 - Non Agenda Items. 2. Discuss Members of the Transportation Financing Strategies Proposed Local Task Force present were: Gretchen Buehner, Bev Gas Tax - Froude, and Joe Schweitz. Input from Gas Station Dealers The Task Force recommended establishing a 3-cent and Draft local gas tax as a source of funds to design and Ordinance construct improvements to the Greenburg Road/ Highway 99/Main Street intersection. City Engineer Duenas noted that on August 8, 2006, the Council directed the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to meet with local gas station dealers regarding this proposed tax. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 1 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Task Force Member Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place, discussed their meeting with Tigard gas station owners and the Oregon Petroleum Association lobbyist on August 28, 2006. The group expressed concerns about the gas tax, saying it was unfair and could potentially drive them out of business. The Task Force asked for an impact estimate. The industry representatives refused, saying that information was proprietary. The proposal being discussed would raise approximately $900,000 to $1,000,000 annually, or $300,000 for each cent of gas tax, based on estimated sales of 30 million gallons a year. One comment made by an industry representative was that we should be looking at this county-wide. Engineer Duenas estimated that Tigard would get approximately $160,000 from the County for a 1% tax. Even if the $300,000 for each cent of gas tax estimate is high, it is more efficient to raise the revenue for Tigard through a city rather than a county gas tax. Task Force Member Buehner said the gas station owners asked if other businesses would be sharing in this fee structure and the Committee agreed to look into it. She said that Tigard receives nearly $300,000 annually from business taxes. Ms. Buehner also noted that the fee structure for business taxes has not been raised since 1988 and it is the only fee that has not been increased. The Task Force did not see this as being a large source of revenue. Ms. Buehner said they thought the cost of additional paperwork for a business tax surcharge may not make it financially feasible. The Task Force recommended that the Council go forward with the gas tax proposal with the caveat that the City look at business license revenue as a source to assist in this effort. The gas station lobbyist told the Task Force that a state tax would be the best solution. However, no legislation has been submitted and the likelihood of that happening soon is small, Ms. Buehner said. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 2 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Councilor Sherwood said she does not want to do this without holding Town Hall Discussions for citizen input. Ms. Buchner said educating voters about the facts is crucial. She said they need to know that this tax would be short term, only for particular road projects, and contains a sunset clause. She suggested putting in a provision that if the state were to increase their gas tax, Tigard's gas tax revenues would be offset. Councilor Wilson referred to the request to raise business fees and said the point behind this was to have drivers pay for the road improvements because they are the ones who would benefit. He said the intent is not to hurt the gas station owners and to the extent that they can, he hoped they would pass it on. Ms. Buchner said they don't have that choice if they are a franchise. Councilor Wilson noted that this levels the playing field as Multnomah County has a three-cent tax in place. Board Member Joe Schweitz asked how to make it fair. He said everyone uses these roads and probably everyone uses this intersection at one point. He suggested the easiest way to do this is with the gas tax. He noted that the City has been struggling with how to pay for transportation projects for years. He said Tigard has a small window of opportunity now as gas prices are going down. Councilor Woodruff said he appreciated this group of knowledgeable volunteers coming together to work on this. He said he likes the fact that the money will go to very specific projects that offer solutions to difficult traffic problems. But he said the information he has received from constituents is that they think this would be a terrible tax because gas prices are so high already. He said he would feel more comfortable if there was more opportunity for public comment and consensus. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 3 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Task Force Chair Buehner said there was misinformation about this tax in newspaper articles and she felt the public has been misinformed by the press. She spoke about this subject on a local radio show and felt that once constituents hear all the facts they would be more supportive. Councilor Sherwood suggested Town Hall Meeting notices be put in the Cityscape and advertised well in advance. She said Council and staff need to do a lot of homework to describe to the public why this solution is proposed and then be open to additional suggestions from them. Councilor Sherwood asked City Manager Prosser if this could go into the next Cityscape. He said the October deadline had passed but there were other ways to advertise a Town Hall Meeting, such as water bill stuffers. Mayor Dirksen asked about adding wording to the ordinance saying there would be an offset if the county or state gas taxes were increased, so we would not be double-taxing. He said we would need to come up with a formula. City Manager Prosser suggested not putting formula language into the ordinance because we don't know how it would be structured or who would do it. He suggested we indicate that if the county or state increases their gas tax, staff will be directed to return to Council with an offsetting reduction in the City gas tax. Task Force Member Schweitz said this would help with some of the arguments put forth by the gas station owners as it shows the City is trying to incorporate their ideas. Councilor Sherwood said she wanted to get this started now, not wait until next year. Task Force Chair Buehnet asked if Town Hall meetings could be held as soon as November. City Manager Prosser said they could. Ms. Buehner stressed the importance of funding the design and construction of the Greenburg/99W/Main Street soon. Task Force Chair Buehner said she also felt it important Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 4 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u For citizens to know this was a citizen-driven process; it did not come from the City Council. Mayor Dirksen thanked the Task Force members for their hard work and said he wants to go forward, but the next step needs to be educating the public and getting their input. 3. Joint Parks Manager Dan Plaza said four of the seven Meeting with members of the Park and Recreation Advisory the Park and Board were in attendance: Mike Freudenthal, Jason Recreation Ashley, Trisha Swanson and Kelly Johnson. He said Advisory Board Board Chair Mike Freudenthal and Vice Chair Brian (DRAB) Davies met with Mayor Dirksen and Public Works Director Koellermeier in late July. The Mayor suggested the Board meet jointly with the Council. Chair Freudenthal reviewed the 2006-2007 Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) Goals. He said their focus changed from acquisition of parks and green spaces (Goal #1), now that it is well underway, to the issue of a pilot recreation program provided by the City (Goal #2). He distributed a handout showing Oregon cities with recreation programs, noting that several cities with fewer citizens than Tigard have active recreation programs. Chair Freudenthal said the Board evaluated opportunities Tigard has to begin a recreational program, being aware that a fully funded and comprehensive program would not be realistic, given current budget constraints. The Board came up with a secondary pilot program proposal designed to get it going and allow them to prove that this is a viable program that citizens want. He referred to the 2004 Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey indicating 57% of respondents favored creating a recreation program. He also noted that 60% of those polled support recreation programs in order to enhance Tigard's livability. Board Member Trisha Swanson said she felt this would be an exciting program. She has lived in Tigard for three years and has taken her children to Conestoga, Multnomah Art Center, and the Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 5 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Sherwood YMCA for programs not available in Tigard. Board Member Jason Ashley spoke about having to go out of Tigard to the Tualatin Hills Parks District for activities. He said this program would increase Tigard's livability. Board Member Kelly Johnson pointed out that a Park and Recreation Program would add to Tigard's family-friendliness as well as take advantage of the great schools and parks located here. She said it would also help keep money within our community and is a great opportunity for businesses to provide sponsorships and be connected to citizens. She said it would also encourage participants to do business with sponsors. Council Concerns/ Suggestions: ➢ Contact the YMCA to see if they are interested in coming to Tigard ➢ Partner with the School District in order to leverage dollars and use existing facilities ➢ PCC provides some of these activities ➢ Seek grants ➢ Talk to local non-profits already providing these classes and activities as many are struggling and may be interested in coming together ➢ The City struggles to afford even basic park maintenance; should General Fund dollars be used to fund programs that the private sector can do just as efficiently? ➢ Inequity of taxing everyone, for example, seniors. on fixed incomes subsidizing dance classes for citizens who can well afford to pay more for their classes. Councilor Woodruff said he appreciated the Board's scaling back on their initial approach. He noted the report stated 69% of the program cost would be funded by fees and asked if this was a reasonable estimate. He also asked if one coordinator could provide enough activities to generate that amount in fees. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 6 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Parks Manager Plaza said the model used for this program proposal was modest as was the fee proposal. They would consider charging $10 per class, for example. Councilor Woodruff asked about using SDC's to help fund this program. Parks Manager Plaza said SDC money can only be used for capital projects. He said General Fund money is needed for hiring a coordinator or skilled recreation supervisor to develop programs ➢ develop budgets ➢ select materials for activities select locations ➢ coordinate transportation, such as school buses ➢ other logistics The City would also hire an aide who would assist the coordinator with these tasks. The program leaders and instructors would likely be local adults and youth, paid from class and activity fees. Councilor Sherwood encouraged the Park and Recreation Advisory Board to contact the School Board. City Manager Prosser said a joint meeting with the Tigard-Tualatin School District Board is being arranged. Councilor Sherwood encouraged the PRAB to attend and share some of this information. City Manager Prosser will let the PRAB know of the meeting date and time. Mayor Dirksen said he would be opposed to supporting a recreation program with General Fund dollars. But he said the suggested pilot recreation program, with activities being supported by fees and the coordinator supported by the City seems to be an opportunity to see whether there is support in the community for this. Chair Freudenthal noted that the Board hopes to find a creative way to fund a larger program in the future that would not require General Fund dollars. He said their Goal #3 is to consider recommending a local tax levy election to be conducted in November, 2008. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 7 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Mayor Dirksen suggested that $70,000 for FY 07-08 be put in the proposed budget where it can be discussed by the Budget Committee and considered along with all other needs. He said if it survives that process then the City can go ahead with a one-year pilot program and see if it leads to citizen interest. 4. Receive Councilor Sherwood said she requested that this item Briefing and be put on the agenda as the City is getting more Discuss Issue of reports from the downtown area regarding homeless Homelessness in people. She acknowledged Howard Spanbock, Tigard and Executive Director of Luke-Dorf, Inc., who was in Services attendance to discuss the issue of homelessness in Provided to the Tigard and services provided to this population. Homeless Population Mr. Spanbock said Luke-Dorf is a local community mental health and substance abuse provider and is one of the lead agencies dealing with homeless adults in Washington County. He said Luke-Dorf received a federal PATH grant for an outreach worker who canvassed the downtown Tigard homeless population. Mr. Spanbock distributed a report titled, A Portrait of Homelessness in Tigard. A copy of this report is on file in the City Recorder's office. Highlights of the report follow: • Contact was made with 47 individuals. • 5 of the 47 are women. • Some are passing through the area; some have been in Tigard for many years. • 20-30% display signs of mental illness. • Approximately 98% are engaged in drugs or alcohol, or both. • The average length of homelessness is 5 years. • All campsites lack basic water and toilet facilities. • They rarely have the opportunity to shower. • They can be found sleeping and living in the following areas: ➢ Along railroad tracks ➢ In parks ➢ Behind businesses ➢ In abandoned houses ➢ In the bushes ➢ Under freeway bridges ➢ Under freight trucks ➢ Behind churches ➢ In industrial arks Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 8 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u ➢ In bus shelters ➢ In cars and vans Mr. Spanbock also reported that 17 of the 47 homeless people became PATH clients and 4 were placed into housing. Mr. Spanbock said homelessness is a problem in many cities and it is a function of the population; as a city grows, so does its homeless population. He said there are two ways of dealing with the problems - the criminal justice system and the human services system. He said it is unfair and expensive to turn the entire problem over to the criminal justice system. He described it as a revolving door system that ties up police resources and in the end doesn't really get them off the streets. He was complimentary towards Tigard's Police Department saying it was progressive and noted the good communication between the police liaison and Luke-Dorf regarding troublesome individuals. Mr. Spanbock said there needs to be a safe haven in Tigard, a house - not located on Main Street - that is staffed with trained people who can help them move out the cycle of homelessness. Mr. Spanbock said the group of people being discussed here tonight is not made up of families. He said those in the downtown area are single adults. Chief Dickinson asked how the City can engage those that are not families seeking help at the Good Neighbor Center. Mr. Spanbock said the way to engage them is to have a facility where something they need is offered, such as a place to get out of the rain, a cup of hot coffee, or a shower. He said if these basic needs are provided, they'll come. And once there, trained staff can help motivate individuals into an action phase where treatment is sought. He said that would begin to stop the homelessness cycle. Mr. Spanbock said this is part of the HUD model which has had good results. He noted that HUD's goal is to end homelessness in ten ears. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 9 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Councilor Wilson asked what treatment costs and if there is way to compel people to accept treatment. He said 47 struck him as a high number of homeless in the downtown area of Tigard. Mr. Spanbock and Councilor Sherwood disagreed, saying it probably was not even close. Councilor Sherwood noted that a staff member from the Good Neighbor Center once counted 200 individuals. Mr. Spanbock said those with mental illnesses can be covered by Washington County general fund dollars if they are moved into treatment. He didn't think that treatment should be the priority in Tigard; instead would be a "front door." Intoxicated people would not be allowed to enter this facility. He said that sooner or later they'll avoid drinking in order to avail themselves of basic services. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson about violent crime, Chief Dickinson said the Police Department sees violent crime among the homeless population in Tigard. He said homeless people sometimes prey on each other, as well as on other people in the downtown area. He noted frequent fights among them and said women are preyed upon in other ways. He said they are also victims of diseases and once a year on average, someone gets hit by a train. Mr. Spanbock said that as plans are made for the City, especially for downtown, the least fortunate need to be included. Councilor Wilson asked if there were models where communities of Tigard's size saw a reduction in the number of homeless people. Mr. Spanbock said, "Yes, absolutely." Councilor Sherwood said the plan to end homelessness in ten years is being written for Washington County now and there are federal dollars coming available. She said statistics back up the effectiveness of these programs. She said putting people into these programs and eventually into housing is very inexpensive. Mr. S anbock said it Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 10 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u could cost $3,00044,000 a year per person for these programs which contrasts with thousands and thousands more for jail, emergency room visits and hospital charges. Mayor Dirksen said he was heartened to hear of the potential but said it will take coordination with others as Tigard cannot solve the problem alone. Councilor Sherwood said Tigard has been on the forefront with affordable housing and she felt this was one way to get in the lead and try to find a solution for this area of Washington County. Councilor Woodruff asked if a representative from Washington County could come to a Council meeting and discuss County services for the homeless. City Manager Prosser agreed to contact Rod Branyon and invite him to the October 24 business meeting. 5. Discuss Community Development Director Coffee Proposed City introduced this item. At the August 15 workshop Center meeting Council began discussions with the CCAC Advisory about key sections of the by-laws. Due to the Commission complexity of the subject, Council decided to (CCAC) Bylaws continue its review of the by-laws at the September workshop meeting. Councilor Wilson said there needs to be uniform by- laws for all City boards and committees that include behavior standards, such as meeting attendance requirements. He said members represent the City and expectations need to be clear from the outset. He suggested there be a general template that can be customized for different boards and commissions. Staff obtained an opinion from legal counsel on two items in the by-laws; the use of a Proxy Vote, and the use of a No Confidence Vote to remove the Chair if necessary. With regard to proxy voting, the City Attorney does not recommend it because of conflicts with Public Meeting Law. The City Attorney found the use of a No Confidence Vote for removal of a Chair/Vice Chair acceptable and useful for the by-laws. The attorney said that if the by-laws have stated annual elections Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 11 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u for the Chair, and it does not state elsewhere that there may be other times in which a vote may occur, then it is appropriate to include a separate section for removal of a Chair. Leaving it in would provide for replacement of the Chair or Vice Chair as necessary. Council went through a marked-up copy of the CCAC By-laws section by section. Highlights of the changes are listed below: • Section 1.d - Change to read "Development" not "Advisory" Agency *Section 1.e -Change the word, "it" to "its" *Section 2.a - add the words, "Appointed by the City Council" after the word members *Section 2.a - add "of Tigard" after the word residents *Section 2.a - add the words, "if possible" after the word representation *Section 3.a Take everything out. Replace with, "Council shall fill vacancies with individuals which will lead toward meeting the above compositional requirements." *Section 3. b Change staggered appointments to "three (3) three-year terms, three (3) two-year terms, and three (3) one-year terms. *Section 3.c - Take out the words "and Commission" *Section 4.a- Change term of office to "three (3) years" *Section 4.c-Take out the words, "and Commission" *Section 4.d-Change it to say they can be reappointed after serving two consecutive terms if they have had a one-year break. *Section 5.a -Take out date reference and say, "At its first meeting each year" Section 5.b-Take out entire new section. *Section 5.b-Keep old Section 5.b and change it to say at least quarterly. Change last sentence to say, "All meetings shall follow public meeting law." *Section 6-Remove references to voting by proxy and minority reports in the title. *Section 6.d-Remove entire section *Section 6-e-Remove entire section *Section 7.b- Remove entire section Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 12 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u *Section 7.c- Add the word, "specific" after the word discuss. Replace the word, "Council" with "CCDA" *Section 7.d-Add the words, "or CCDA" after the word, "Tigard." *Section 71--Take out the words, "Council and." *Section 7.g-Remove entirely *Section 8-Take out "and recommendation for replacement." •Section 10.a-Replace "City Council" with "Commission." *Section 10.b-Add at the end of the sentence, "or other conduct unbecoming of a representative of the City." *Section 11-Use original wording of "Annual Report" rather than "Annual Recommendations" in title and in 11.a and 11.b. •Section 12 - Delete entire section *Section 13 - Delete entire section City Manager Prosser said this would be used as a template which can be customized for all the City's Boards. Community Development Director Coffee said changes would be incorporated and a revised version will be placed on a future consent agenda. 8. Receive (Note: With Mayor Dirksen's approval, this Agenda Status Report Item was heard out of order.) on Metropolitan Engineer Duenas discussed the two downtown Transportation projects submitted to Metro for MTIP funding. Improvement Metro staff has completed technical evaluations of Program (MTIP) all 64 MTIP applications and has compiled a First Cut project list. The Main Street Green Streets Retrofit has been listed as first tier and the Tigard Transit Center Redesign is listed as second tier. Engineer Duenas distributed an Application Summary and Draft Calendar of Activities. A copy of each is on file in the City Recorders office. The TPAC meeting will be held Friday, September 22, 2006. Engineer Duenas will attend to offer additional information if needed. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 13 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u The TPAC will take action on the first-cut list on September 29, 2006. The next step is a three-month public hearing process. Listening Posts are scheduled throughout the region. The closest one to Tigard will be at the Beaverton Community Center (12350 SW Fifth Street, Beaverton) on November 13 from 5 to 8 p.m. The JPACT Qoint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) representative for the cities is Mayor Rob Drake and for the Counties it is Commissioner Roy Rogers. JPACT will take action in January. City Manager Prosser asked if it would be appropriate for citizens to contact Commissioner Rogers. Community Development Director Coffee said he thought they could. Engineer Duenas said the more people that offer comments and support during the public process, the better. Community Development Director recommended doing a formal Council Resolution in support of these projects that could go into the record at FACT and at Metro. It was also suggested that the CCAC go on record as supporting this. Mayor Dirksen and Councilor Sherwood suggested writing personal letters in support of these projects, or having a letter signed by all the Council members. City Manager Prosser suggested that if Councilors have an opportunity to contact these leaders, they might reiterate our interests and the importance of these projects to us. 6. Review Community Development Director Coffee Downtown introduced this agenda item. He said the Land Use and Downtown Land Use and Design Guidelines Design Guide- document is the product of the City Center lines - Advisory Commission. He said it is a summary of Preliminary changes to downtown land use and zoning necessary Framework to achieve the objectives of the Downtown Improvement Plan and the Urban Renewal Plan. He said the point of the presentation was to show Council what is going to the Planning Commission. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 14 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Community Development Director said Long Range Planning Staff will be taking this information and developing draft ordinances to go to the Planning Commission. There will be feedback loops from both the CCAC and CCDA. Before draft ordinances are sent out to the public, they will bring them to Council. He suggested this would be a six to nine month process. Senior Planner Nachbar gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Tigard Downtown Land Use and Design Guidelines. He said their goal is to discuss the physical development of downtown with property owners, business owners and citizens over the next year. He discussed the proposed six Land Use Designations and the density, building height and design guidelines of each. He said there was no specific architectural theme, but quality design is one of the key objectives. Sustainable design will be encouraged, perhaps by incentives. A copy of the presentation is on file in the City Recorder's office. Senior Planner Nachbar said two projects important to land use planning are the urban creek corridor feasibility study and the refined downtown circulation plan. Staff will start working on these together in mid-October. He said before the City can say what the land use is going to be, we need to be fairly confident that we can move forward with the urban creek corridor, both financially and technically. Mayor Dirksen asked if the Mixed Use designation mandates that any development be mixed use or means that it would just be allowed. Senior Planner Nachbar said it meant it would be allowed, but all building in Mixed Use Residential must have some residential included. Senior Planner Nachbar noted that some committee members suggested the City preserve some of the original character of Main Street. He said there may be an opportunity to preserve some of the buildings and that everything doesn't have to look the same. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 15 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Task Force Member Gretchen Buehner said the group is very concerned about maintaining the feeling of Main Street. She said they added language to restrict building heights so Main Street can be seen from the 99W viaduct. They recommend a maximum building height of 30 feet on the west side of Main Street (99W side). She said the height will be subject to view corridors to ensure consistency with the original intent of the Downtown Task Force and the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP). Senior Planner Nachbar noted that the three objectives of the Design Guidelines are: 1) Ensure quality of building and site design; 2) Address orientation and sensitivity to open spaces; and 3) Address "traditional" Main Street architectural character. Councilor Wilson expressed concern about the lack of parking lot connectivity and suggested taking on more responsibility for parking at the City level. Senior Planner Nachbar said a circulation plan needs to be figured out prior to thinking strategically about parking. Mayor Dirksen said parking lot connectivity could also be considered in the comprehensive plan update. Mayor Dirksen asked how to ensure quality design. Community Development Director Coffee said that can be addressed by a Design Review Board. Councilor Wilson asked if certain types of construction would be prohibited. Senior Planner Nachbar said they tried to develop the guidelines to address architectural character. He said it was hard to say, from a material basis alone, that something shouldn't be allowed. He said a wide variety of materials could be used as long as the design guidelines were met. Councilor Sherwood said something that had been left out is affordable housing. She said the City needs to figure out ways to build in incentives for developers to put in a certain amount for affordable housing. Senior Planner said that issue was made Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 16 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u part of their strategic plan. 7. Review Community Development Director Coffee said Tigard the Tigard Downtown Design Streetscape Plan Downtown establishes the design theme and functional Streetscape improvement plans for the streetscape and design Design Plan concepts for gateways, public spaces, and streets. Design concepts were established for Main Street, Burnham Street and Commercial Street (west of Main Street). He said the Downtown Streetscape Plan has been before the Council before and the general reaction was positive. Associate Planner Igarta introduced Streetscape Working Group members in the audience: Committee Chair Lisa Olson, Marland Henderson, Carolyn Barkley, Sue Wirick and Jim Andrews. It was noted that Mike Marr was present at the meeting earlier. Associate Planner Igarta thanked the Streetscape Working Group for their contributions and hard work. Associate Planner Igarta noted that Council approved the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan in September, 2005 and the first project was to develop a downtown Streetscape Enhancement Program. OTAK Consultant Tom Litster gave a quick overview of the Streetscape Plan. He said Burnham Street will become the first "Green Street" outside of the City of Portland. Commercial Street is under final design and will be constructed with gateways giving a sense of passage into the downtown. He highlighted the Fanno Creek gateway, saying it was an important next place for Tigard to turn attention to since there are few towns that have a resource like it running right through their downtown. Mr. Litster wished Tigard success in putting together the various components of the "Green Heart" - the Demonstration Garden, Fanno Creek Open Spaces, Green Corridor Urban Creek and the Green Streets. Mayor Dirksen said he liked the vision resented by I Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 17 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u the group - nice, wide sidewalks, lots of trees and pedestrian access at curb-outs and intersections. He said he was hopeful that as the area on the other side of 99W becomes ripe for redevelopment, these guidelines become something that private development follows. Community Development Director Coffee said the 99W Corridor Study will point out redevelopment opportunities. Streetscape Working Group Member Lisa Olson said it had been a wonderful experience participating on the project and being part of a community process. She advised that the Council keep citizen working groups in mind when other downtown projects are planned. City Manager Sherwood said the Oregon League of Cities will be touring in Tigard on Thursday, September 28 and will hear about our streetscape process. Councilor Wilson complimented the group not only on their product but also on the information booklet too. He mentioned he was pleased with the choice of consulting firm and appreciated their work. Mayor Dirksen said he was excited by this project and looked forward to seeing it completed. 10. Non Community Development Director Coffee Agenda announced that Ron Bunch has been selected as the Items new Long Range Planning Manager and will begin working on October 2, 2006. He has 30 years of local government planning experience. He has a BLA degree in landscape architecture, a BS degree in Parks, and a Masters degree in Public Administration. He has also been involved in writing comprehensive plans. City Manager Prosser asked if Council was satisfied with the form for the Council Report Card and the cover memo he drafted. Suggestions received were: • Allow more space for responses • Take out Action Step II on the second page Responders will have two weeks to return their forms. Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 18 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u 11. Executive Not held Session 12. The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m. Motion by Councilor Adjournment Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Carol A. Krager, Deputy City R rder Attest: 6 , Mayor, ity of Tigard Date: 011 z hadm\cathy\ccm\2000\000919.doc Tigard City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2006 19 DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: City of Tigard Boards and Commissions City of Tigard Executive Staff FROM: Craig Dirksen, Mayor Tigard City Councilors RE: Council Report Card DATE: DRAFT The Tigard City Council is interested in learning from you your assessment of our effectiveness. We have developed the attached City Council Report Card to gather your input. The Tigard City Council and the Tigard City staff are working hard to provide services to our citizens in an effective and efficient manner. We are trying to do a good job, and we receive feedback from those we work with on a periodic, ad hoc basis. Up to now, however, the Council has not asked for your feedback in an organized manner. We have developed the attached Council Report card to gather your input. We would appreciate it if you would take the time to complete this report card and return it to Assistant City Manager Liz Newton no later than . Liz will compile the responses to obtain summary information, and will distribute those summaries plus copies of each returned report card to all City Council members. The Report Card was designed to allow you to complete it quickly and to allow us to compile all responses. Please do not let this hinder your creativity, however! We welcome additional comments, and each Council member will review each and every response. Thank you for helping us to do our jobs better. DRAFT Advisory Boards & Commissions r-.- Department Directors CITY COUNCIL REPORT CARD The Mayor and Czwd nrff m are iyvnsted in your pen*twn of howeffeake you think the Cwxil is. The questions on this surrey an? daig mi to proude foxtha& to the Carnal to serze as a starting point for disazrssions m zeuzys they ran uTroze their effbiwx ss. Please take a nvrrent to mnpkte this suneyt 1. ACCOMPLISHMENTS: List a couple of things that our City Council has done that you can point to with pride. Howvm1d you rate the city C.ourttd in tears of what it has a&iezed for T gw& 2. PUBLIC IMAGE: How does the public regard the City Council? Poor Excellent Is it held in high esteem? 1 2 3 4 5 3. TEAMWORK: How well does the City Council work together? Poor Excellent Is the atmosphere at meetings conducive to sharing views frankly, 1 2 3 4 5 and accepting differences? Do decisions get made - or are thing left hanging? 4. POLICY MAKING. Does the City Council spend enough time and Poor Excellent energy on the big policy questions facing our community or does it 1 2 3 4 5 tend to get bogged down in the little details? 5. RELATIONS WITH STAFF: How would you rate the working Poor Excellent relationships between the City Council and City staff from your 1 2 3 4 5 perspective? Is there a feeling of teamwork, or of pulling in different directions? 6. INFORMATION FLOW TO BOARDS & COMMITTEES Poor Excellent Does staff provide you with enough information to make decisions on 1 2 3 4 5 the issues coming up on the agenda? Do you get too much information to digest? 7. INFORMATION FLOW (EXTERNAL): Does City Council Poor Excellent share relevant information with Board & Commissions? Is there an 1 2 3 4 5 effective means of communication outside formal meetings? Are Boards & Commissions kept informed of relevant Council actions and concerns? 8. ADVISORY COMMITTEES: How effective are our citizen Poor Excellent i advisory committees? Does the City Council give them clear direction 1 2 3 4 5 on what they should be doing? Are they helping or hurting the decision making process? i 9. ATMOSPHERE: How do you feel about the atmosphere at Board Poor Excellent & Committee meetings? Is it interesting, productive? 1 2 3 4 5 10. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: Are the citizens well informed Poor Excellent about what the City Council is doing? Is information provided on a 1 2 3 4 5 regular basis? Council Report Card Page 2 I 11. COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT: How involved is the City Council Poor 1 2 3 4 Excellent e with the business community, community organizations or community social programs? 12. CONFIDENCE IN STAFF: Does staff clearly define options? Are Poor Excellent they open and direct and do they provide all relevant information for 1 2 3 4 5 making decisions? 13. CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS: Do Council meetings Poor Excellent that you've attended run smoothly and on time? Are there lots of last 1 2 3 4 5 minute changes in material that needs to be acted on? Is the agenda conducive to expediting the conduct of the meeting? Do things tend to drag on when they don't need to? Are decisions sometimes made at a late hour when you are too tired to think) 14. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS (COUNCIL) Poor Excellent Is Council an active player in the Metro, Regional and State decision 1 2 3 4 5 making process? Does the Council have a good handle on the regional Tigard issues that have an impact on the activities of your department, Board or Committee? I To compute an average score, add up all the ratings and divide by 14. Write down the average in this box: Action Step I: If it were possible for you to put into effect one idea or one change to help improve the effectiveness of your City Council, what would you pick as that ONE THING? I Action Step II: If it were possible for you to put into effect one idea or one change to help improve the effectiveness of staff, what would you pick as that ONE THING? Thanks for your time! Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope. ~ I L ' Agenda Item # Cz Meeting Date September 19, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Proposed Local Gas Tax - Input From Gas Station Dealers and Draft Ordinance Prepared By: A.P. Duenas Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force met with the gas station dealers and with a representative from the Oregon Petroleum Association. The Task Force will discuss the input from these representatives together with the feasibility of combining other potential funding sources with a local fuel tax to lessen the burden on the dealers in the City. In addition, a draft fuel tax ordinance modeled after State law is included for review and comment STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council discuss input from the gas station dealers with the Task Force and provide direction on whether or not other funding sources can be considered to better distribute the burden among the businesses in Tigard. Council is also requested to provide some initial comments on the draft ordinance so that revisions can be made to their satisfaction. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force recommended establishment of a 3-cent local gas tax as a new funding source to design and construct improvements to the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street Intersection. At the meeting on August 8, 2006, Council directed the Task Force to meet with the gas station dealers and obtain their input on the proposed new tax. In addition, Council directed the preparation of a draft ordinance for review and comment. The Task Force met with representatives from some of the gas dealers on Monday, August 28, 2006. The feedback from the gas station dealers and the Oregon Petroleum Association is that the new tax would place the gas stations in Tigard at a competitive disadvantage with stations in adjacent jurisdictions. They claim they cannot pass on the new tax to customers but would have to absorb the increase to remain in business. Suggestions were made at the meeting on other ways to spread the burden among businesses in the City, including the possibility of a surcharge on the business tax as a funding source. The Task Force further discussed the issue at its meeting on August 30, 2006 (attended by two . gas station owners and the representative from the Oregon Petroleum Association) and decided that this issue needed to be brought to City Council for discussion and direction. Therefore, the focus of the meeting will be on the input from the dealers and on the best way to move ahead with development of funding sources for the Greenburg Road intersection project. The feasibility of lessening the burden on the gas stations by reducing the level of tax and spreading the cost of the project among a larger pool of businesses will be brought up by the Task Force members at this meeting. In addition, a draft fuel tax ordinance modeled after the State law has been prepared for review and comment by Council. The draft ordinance includes a 5-year sunset clause (Section 3.65.030) and dedicates the funding to the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection improvements as the initial project (Section 3.65.270). Council is requested to review and comment on the draft ordinance. Any proposed changes will be incorporated into the draft for further review by Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Traffic circulation improvements at the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection address the Council Goal to "Improve 99W Corridor." These improvements also support the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic goals of "Improve Traffic Flow" and "Improve Traffic Safety." The establishment of the local gas tax would meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic goal of "Identify and Develop Funding Resources." ATTACHMENT LIST Draft Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Ordinance Business Tax Fee Comparison FISCAL NOTES A 3-cent local fuel tax is expected to produce revenue of approximately $900,000 to $1,000,000 annually. The improvements to the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection are estimated at $3,500,000. Revenues of up to $5,000,000 over a 5-year period would be sufficient to fund the initial project, plus one or more smaller-scale projects during the 5-year period. Depending upon the timing of the various phases of the project, the funding could be made available as needed through revenue bonds with repayment of that debt from the fuel tax revenues each year. The Task Force recommendation is for a sunset clause to be included in the ordinance, with option to renew contingent upon selection of other high priority projects for implementation. On any given year, the number of businesses in Tigard ranges from 3,000 to 3,400 as businesses come and go throughout the year. In the past, the business tax has generated revenue of $245,000 to $300,000 annually depending upon the number of businesses in any particular year. In FY 2005-06, the City received almost $312,000 in revenues from 3,351 businesses. The business tax has not been increased since 1988. The City is way below other cities in business tax charges. A doubling of the tax with the additional revenue dedicated to the project would provide $250,000 to $300,000 annually for the project and can reduce the proposed tax to 2 cents per gallon. A combination of the two funding sources plus others that may be considered could lessen the proposed gas tax even fattier and better spread the burden among the businesses in Tigard. iAeng\gus\council agenda summaries\nm agenda summary fonnat\9-79-06 proposed local gas tax - input from gas station dealers and draft ordinance.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 06- AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND IMPOSING A TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL DEALERS; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT, ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF THE TAX; AND AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 3.65. WHEREAS, Tigard is an Oregon home-rule municipal corporation having the authority and power under the terms of its Charter to exercise all the powers and authority that the constitution, statutes and common law of the United States and this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow as though each such powers were specifically enumerated therein; WHEREAS, said authority and power includes the authority to impose a tax on the sale of motor vehicle fuel sold within the City; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to exercise that power and to limit the use of any revenues generated by said tax to purposes associated with the administration, construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads and streets within the city; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Chapter 3.65 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax, to read as follows: Chapter 3.65 MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX 3.65.010 Short Title 3.65.015 Purpose 3.65.020 Definitions 3.65.030 Tax Imposed 3.65.040 Amount and Payment 3.65.050 Permit Requirements 3.65.060 Permit Applications and Issuance 3.65.070 Failure to Secure Permit 3.65.080 Revocation of Permit 3.65.090 Cancellation of Permit 3.65.100 Remedies Cumulative 3.65.110 Payment of tax and Delinquency 3.65.120 Monthly Statement of Dealer Ordinance No. 06- Page 1 3.65.130 Failure to File Monthly Statements 3.65.140 Billing Purchasers 3.65.150 Failure to Provide Invoice or Delivery Tag 3.65.160 Transporting Motor Vehicle Fuel in Bulk 3.65.170 Exemption of Export Fuel 3.65.190 Fuel in Vehicle Coming into City Not Taxed 3.65.200 Fuel sold or Delivered to Dealers 3.65.210 Refunds 3.65.220 Examination and Investigations 3.65.230 Limitation on Credit for Refund or Overpayment and on Assessment of Additional Tax 3.65.240 Examining Books and accounts of Carrier of Motor Vehicle Fuel 3.65.250 Records to be Kept by Dealers 3.65.260 Records to be Kept Three Years 3.65.270 Use of Tax Revenues 3.65.010 Short Title The provisions of this Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "City of Tigard Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Ordinance". 3.65.015 Purpose The purpose of the motor vehicle fuel tax is to raise revenues necessary for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of the public street system in the city. 3.65.020 Definitions. As used in this ordinance, unless the context requires otherwise: 1. "City" means City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon. 2. "Dealer" means any person who: a. Imports or causes to be imported motor vehicle fuel for sale, use or distribution in, and after the same reaches the city, but "Dealer" does not include any person who imports into the city motor vehicle fuel in quantities of 500 gallons or less purchased from a supplier who is licensed as a dealer hereunder and who assumes liability for the payment of the applicable motor vehicle fuel tax to the city; or b. Produces, refines, manufactures or compounds motor vehicle fuels in the city for use, distribution or sale in the city; or Ordinance No. 06- Page 2 C. Acquires in the city for sale, use or distribution in the city motor vehicle fuel with respect to which there has been no motor vehicle fuel tax previously incurred. 3. "Distribution" means, in addition to its ordinary meaning, the delivery of motor vehicle fuel by a dealer to any service station or into any tank, storage facility or series of tanks or storage facilities connected by pipelines, from which motor vehicle fuel is withdrawn directly for sale or for delivery into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles whether or not the service station, tank or storage facility is owned, operated or controlled by the dealer. 4. "Highway" means every way, thoroughfare and place of whatever nature, open for use of the public for the purpose of vehicular travel. 5. "Motor Vehicle" means all vehicles, engines or machines, movable or immovable, operated or propelled by the use of motor vehicle fuel. 6. "Motor Vehicle Fuel" means and includes diesel and gasoline and any other flammable or combustible gas or liquid, by whatever name such as diesel and gasoline, gas or liquid is known or sold, usable as fuel for the operation of motor vehicles, except gas or liquid, the chief use of which, as determined by the tax administrator, is for purposes other than the propulsion of motor vehicles upon the highways. 7. "Person" includes every natural person, association, firm, partnership, corporation, joint venture or other business entity. 8. "Service Station" means and includes any place operated for the purpose of retailing and delivering motor vehicle fuel into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles. 9. "Tax Administrator" means the city manager, the city manager's designee, or any person or entity with whom the city manager contracts to perform those duties. 3.65.030 Tax Imposed. A motor vehicle fuel tax is hereby imposed on every dealer. The tax imposed shall be paid monthly to the tax administrator. The tax administrator is authorized to exercise all supervisory and administrative powers with regard to the enforcement, collection and administration of the motor vehicle fuel tax, including all powers specified in ORS 319.010 to 319.430. The motor vehicle fuel tax shall remain in effect through December 31, 2011, but shall not remain in effect after that date unless renewed by ordinance of the City Council. Renewal of the tax shall be set for council consideration in the first half of calendar year 2011. Ordinance No. 06- Page 3 3.65.040 Amount and Payment. In addition to any fees or taxes otherwise provided for by law, every dealer engaging in his own name, or in the name of others, or in the name of his representatives or agents in the city, in the sale, use or distribution of motor vehicle fuel, shall: a. Not later than the 25th day of each calendar month, render a statement to the tax administrator or duly authorized agent of all motor vehicle fuel sold, used or distributed by him/her in the city as well as all such fuel sold, used or distributed in the city by a purchaser thereof upon which sale, use or distribution the dealer has assumed liability for the applicable motor vehicle fuel tax during the preceding calendar month. b. Pay a motor vehicle fuel tax computed on the basis of cent per gallon of such motor vehicle fuel so sold, used or distributed as shown by such statement in the manner and within the time provided in this ordinance. 2. In lieu of claiming refund of the tax as provided in Section 3.65.210, or of any prior erroneous payment of motor vehicle fuel tax made to the city by the dealer, the dealer may show such motor vehicle fuel as a credit or deduction on the monthly statement and payment of tax. 3. The motor vehicle fuel tax shall not be imposed wherever it is prohibited by the Constitution of laws of the United States or of the State of Oregon. 3.65.050 Permit Requirements. No dealer shall sell, use or distribute any motor vehicle fuel until he/she has secured a dealer's permit as required herein. 3.65.060 Permit Applications and Issuance. 1. Every person, before becoming a dealer in motor vehicle fuel in this city, shall make an application to the tax administrator for a permit authorizing such person to engage in business as a dealer. 2. Applications for the permit must be made on forms prescribed, prepared and furnished by the tax administrator. 3. The applications shall be accompanied by a duly acknowledged certificate containing: a. The business name under which the dealer is transacting business. Ordinance No. 06- Page 4 b. The address of the applicant's principal place of business and location of distributing stations in the city. C. The name and address of the managing agent, the names and addresses of the several persons constituting the firm or partnership and, if a corporation, the corporate name under which it is authorized to transact business and the names and addresses of its principal officers and registered agent. 4. If an application for a motor vehicle fuel dealer's permit is complete and has been accepted for filing, the tax administrator shall issue to the dealer a permit in such form as the tax administrator may prescribe to transact business in the city. The permit so issued is not assignable, and is valid only for the dealer in whose name it is issued. 5. The tax administrator shall keep and file all applications with an alphabetical index thereof, together with a record of all permitted dealers. 3.65.070 Failure to Secure Permit. 1. If any dealer sells, distributes or uses any motor vehicle fuel without first filing the certificate and securing the permit required by Section 3.65.060, the motor vehicle fuel tax shall immediately be due and payable on account of all motor vehicle fuel so sold, distributed or used. 2. The tax administrator shall proceed forthwith to determine, from as many available sources as the tax administrator determines reasonable, the amount of tax due, and shall assess the tax in the amount found due, together with a penalty of 100% of the tax, and shall make a certificate of such assessment and penalty. In any suit or proceeding to collect such tax or penalty or both, the certificate shall be prima facie evidence that the dealer therein named is indebted to the city in the amount of the tax and penalty stated. 3. Any tax or penalty so assessed may be collected in the manner prescribed in section 3.65. 110 with reference to delinquency in payment of the tax or by action at law. 4. In the event any suit or action is instituted to enforce this section, if the city is the prevailing party, the city shall be entitled to recover from the person sued reasonable attorney's fees at trial or upon appeal of such suit or action, in addition to other sums provided by law. 3.65.080 Revocation of Permit. The tax administrator may revoke the permit of any dealer who fails to comply with any provision of sections 3.65.020 to 3.65.279. The tax administrator shall mail by certified mail addressed to such dealer at his last known address appearing on the files of the tax administrator, a notice of intention to cancel. The notice shall give the reason for the cancellation. The Ordinance No. 06- Page 5 cancellation shall become effective without further notice if within 10 days from the mailing of the notice the dealer has not made good its default or delinquency. 3.65.090 Cancellation of Permit. 1. The tax administrator may, upon written request of a dealer, cancel a permit issued to the dealer. The tax administrator shall, upon approving the dealer's request for cancellation, set a date not later than 30 days after receipt of the written request, after which the permit shall no longer be effective. 2. The tax administrator may, after 30 days' notice has been mailed to the last known address of the dealer, cancel the permit of the dealer upon finding that the dealer is no longer engaged in the business of a dealer. 3.65.100 Remedies Cumulative. Except as otherwise provided in Sections 3.65.110 and 3.65.130, the remedies provided in Sections 3.65.070, 3.65.080 and 3.65.090 are cumulative. No action taken pursuant to those sections shall relieve any person from the penalty provisions of this code. 3.65.110 Payment of Tax and Delinquency. 1. The motor vehicle fuel tax imposed by sections 3.65.030 and 3.65.040 shall be paid to the tax administrator on or before the 25th day of each month. 2. Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, if payment of the motor vehicle fuel tax is not paid as required by subsection (1) of this section, a penalty of one percent of such motor vehicle fuel tax shall be assessed and be immediately due and payable. 3. Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, if payment of the tax and penalty, if any, is not made on or before the 1st day of the next month following that month in which payment is due, a further penalty of 10 percent of the tax shall be assessed. Said penalty shall be in addition to the penalty provided for in subsection (2) of this section, and shall be immediately due and payable. 4. Penalties imposed by this section shall not apply if a penalty has been assessed and paid pursuant to section 3.65.070. The tax administrator may for good cause shown waive any penalties assessed under this section. 5. If any person fails to pay the motor vehicle fuel tax or any penalty provided for by this section, the tax and/or penalty shall be collected from that person for the use of the city. The tax administrator shall commence and prosecute to final determination in any court of competent jurisdiction an action to collect the same. Ordinance No. 06- Page 6 6. In the event any suit or action is instituted to collect the motor vehicle fuel tax or any penalty provided for by this section, if the city is the prevailing party, the city shall be entitled to recover from the person sued reasonable attorney's fees at trial or upon appeal of such suit or action, in addition to other sums provided by law. 7. No dealer who collects from any person the tax provided for herein shall knowingly and willfully fail to report and pay the same to the City as required herein. 3.65.120 Monthly Statement of Dealer. Every dealer in motor vehicle fuel shall provide to the tax administrator on or before the 25th day of each month, on forms prescribed, prepared and furnished by the tax administrator, a statement of the number of gallons of motor vehicle fuel sold, distributed or used by him during the preceding calendar month. The statement shall be signed by the dealer or the dealer's agent. All statements filed with the City, as required in this section, are public records. 3.65.130 Failure to File Monthly Statements. If a dealer fails to file any statement required by Section 3.65.120, the tax administrator shall proceed forthwith to determine from as many available sources as the tax administrator determines to be reasonable the amount of motor vehicle fuel sold, distributed or used by such dealer for the period unreported, and such determination shall in any proceeding be prima facie evidence of the amount of such fuel sold, distributed or used. The tax administrator shall immediately assess the dealer for the motor vehicle fuel tax upon the amount determined, adding thereto a penalty of ten percent of the tax. The penalty shall be cumulative to other penalties provided in this code. 3.65.140 Billing Purchasers. Dealers in motor vehicle fuels shall render bills to all purchasers of motor vehicle fuel. The bills shall separately state and describe the different products sold or shipped thereunder and shall be serially numbered except where other sales invoice controls acceptable to the tax administrator are maintained. 3.65.150 Failure to Provide Invoice or Delivery Tag. No person shall receive and accept motor vehicle fuel from any dealer, or pay for the same, or sell or offer the motor vehicle fuel for sale, unless the motor vehicle fuel is accompanied by an invoice or delivery tag showing the date upon which motor vehicle fuel was delivered, purchased or sold, and the name of the dealer in motor vehicle fuel. Ordinance No. 06- Page 7 3.65.160 Transporting Motor Vehicle Fuel in Bulk. Every person operating any conveyance for the purpose of hauling, transporting or delivering motor vehicle fuel in bulk shall, before entering upon the public highways of the city with such conveyance, have and possess during the entire time of the hauling or transporting of such motor vehicle fuel, an invoice, bill of sale or other written statement showing the number of gallons, the true name and address of the seller or consignor, and the true name and address of the buyer or consignee, if any, of the same. The person hauling such motor vehicle fuel shall at the request of any officer authorized by law to inquire into or investigate such matters, produce and offer for inspection the invoice, bill of sale or other statement. 3.65.170 Exemption of Export Fuel. 1. The motor vehicle fuel tax imposed by sections 3.65.030 and 3.65.040 shall not be imposed on motor vehicle fuel: a. Exported from the city by a dealer; or b. Sold by a dealer in individual quantities of 500 gallons or less for export by the purchaser to an area or areas outside the city in containers other than the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, but every dealer shall be required to report such exports and sales to the city in such detail as may be required. 2. In support of any exemption from motor vehicle fuel taxes claimed under this section other than in the case of stock transfers or deliveries in his own equipment, every dealer must execute and file with the tax administrator an export certificate in such form as shall be prescribed, prepared and furnished by the tax administrator, containing a statement, made by some person having actual knowledge of the fact of such exportation, that the motor vehicle fuel has been exported from the city, and giving such details with reference to such shipment as the tax administrator may require. The tax administrator may demand of any dealer such additional data as is deemed necessary in support of any such certificate, and failure to supply such data will constitute a waiver of all right to exemption claimed by virtue of such certificate. The tax administrator may, in a case where tax administrator believes no useful purpose would be served by filing of an export certificate, waive the filing of the certificate. 3. Any motor vehicle fuel carried from the city in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle shall not be considered as exported from the city. 4. No person shall, through false statement, trick or device, or otherwise, obtain motor vehicle fuel for export as to which the city tax has not been paid and fail to export the same, or any portion thereof, or cause the motor vehicle fuel or any portion thereof not to be Ordinance No. 06- Page 8 exported, or divert or cause to be diverted the motor vehicle fuel or any portion thereof to be used, distributed or sold in the city and fail to notify the tax administrator and the dealer from whom the motor vehicle fuel was originally purchased of his/her act. 5. No dealer or other person shall conspire with any person to withhold from export, or divert from export or to return motor vehicle fuel to the city for sale or use so as to avoid any of the fees imposed herein. 6. In support of any exemption from taxes on account of sales of motor vehicle fuel in individual quantities of 500 gallons or less for export by the purchaser, the dealer shall retain in his/her files for at least three years an export certificate executed by the purchaser in such form and containing such information as is prescribed by the tax administrator. This certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the exportation of the motor vehicle fuel to which it applies only if accepted by the dealer in good faith. 3.65.175 Sales to Armed Forces Exempted. The license tax imposed by sections 3.65.030 and 3.65.040 shall not be imposed on any motor vehicle fuel sold to the Armed Forces of the United States for use in ships, aircraft or for export from the city; but every dealer shall be required to report such sales to the tax administrator in such detail as may be required. A certificate by an authorized officer of such Armed Forces shall be accepted by the dealer as sufficient proof that the sale is for the purpose specified in the certificate. 3.65.190 Fuel in Vehicle Coming into City Not Taxed. Any person coming into the city in a motor vehicle may transport in the fuel tank of such vehicle, motor vehicle fuel for his/her own use only and for the purpose of operating such motor vehicle without securing a permit or paying the tax provided in Sections 3.65.030 and 3.65.040, or complying with any of the provisions imposed upon dealers herein, but if the motor vehicle fuel so brought into the city is removed from the fuel tank of the vehicle or used for any purpose other than the propulsion of the vehicle, the person so importing fuel into the city shall be subject to all the provisions herein applying to dealers. 3.65.200 Fuel Sold or Delivered to Dealers. 1. A dealer selling or delivering motor vehicle fuel to dealers is not required to pay a motor vehicle fuel tax thereon. 2. The dealer in rendering monthly statements to the city as required by Sections 3.65.040 and 3.65.120 shall show separately the number of gallons of motor vehicle fuel sold or delivered to dealers. Ordinance No. 06- Page 9 3.65.210 Refunds. Refunds will be made pursuant to ORS 319.280 to 319.320. Claim forms for refunds may be obtained from the tax administrator's office. 3.65.220 Examination and Investigations. The tax administrator, or duly authorized agents, may make any examination of accounts, records, stocks, facilities and equipment of dealers, service stations and other persons engaged in storing, selling or distributing motor vehicle fuel or other petroleum product or products within this city, and such other investigations as it considers necessary in carrying out the provisions of sections 3.65.020 through 3.65.279. If the examinations or investigations disclose that any reports of dealers or other persons theretofore filed with the tax administrator pursuant to the requirements herein, have shown incorrectly the amount of gallonage or motor vehicle fuel distributed or the tax accruing thereon, the tax administrator may make such changes in subsequent reports and payments of such dealers or other persons, or may make such refunds, as may be necessary to correct the errors disclosed by its examinations or investigations. The dealer shall reimburse the city for reasonable costs of the examination or investigation if the action disclosed that the dealer paid 95 percent or less of the tax owing for the period of the examination or investigation. In the event that such examination or investigation results in an assessment by and an additional payment due to the city, such additional payment shall be subject to interest at the rate of 18 percent per year from the date the original tax payment was due. 3.65.230 Limitation on Credit for or Refund of Overpayment and on Assessment of Additional Tax. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, any credit for erroneous overpayment of tax made by a dealer taken on a subsequent return or any claim for refund of tax erroneously overpaid filed by a dealer must be so taken or filed within three years after the date on which the overpayment was made to the city. 2. Except in the case of a fraudulent report or neglect to make a report, every notice of additional tax proposed to be assessed under this code shall be served on dealers within three years from the date upon which such additional taxes become due, and shall be subject to penalty as provided in section 3.65.110. 3.65.240 Examining Books and Accounts of Carrier of Motor Vehicle Fuel. The tax administrator or duly authorized agents may at any time during normal business hours examine the books and accounts of any carrier of motor vehicle fuel operating within the City for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this ordinance. Ordinance No. 06- Page 10 3.65.250 Records to be Kept by Dealers. Every dealer in motor vehicle fuel shall keep a record in such form as may be prescribed by the tax administrator of all purchases, receipts, sales and distribution of motor vehicle fuel. The records shall include copies of all invoices or bills of all such sales and shall at all times during the business hours of the day be subject to inspection by the tax administrator or authorized officers or agents of the tax administrator. 3.65.260 Records to be Kept Three Years. Every dealer shall maintain and keep, for a period of three years, all records of motor vehicle fuel used, sold and distributed within the city by such dealer, together with stock records, invoices, bills of lading and other pertinent papers as may be required by the tax administrator. In the event such records are not kept within the state of Oregon, the dealer shall reimburse the tax administrator for all travel, lodging, and related expenses incurred by the tax administrator in examining such records. The amount of such expenses shall be an additional tax imposed by section 3.65.030. 3.65.270 Use of Tax Revenues. 1. For the purposes of this section, net revenue shall mean the revenue from the tax imposed by sections 3.65.020 through 3.65.279 remaining after providing for the cost of administration and any refunds and credits authorized herein. 2. The net revenue shall be used only for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads and streets within the city. The net revenue shall initially and exclusively be used for improvements to the Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street intersection. If net revenue exceeds the City's costs for those improvements, the net revenue may be used for other street projects. SECTION 2: The tax imposed pursuant to section 3.65.030 shall take effect only after the tax administrator has developed the necessary forms and documents to administer the tax. The tax administrator shall declare when the tax shall take effect, and give not less than 15 days notice of the date before the tax may take effect. The tax administrator's decision as to the effective date of the tax and the type of notice to provided shall be final and not subject to review. SECTION 3: If any portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Ordinance No. 06- Page 11 SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2006. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2006. Craig E. Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date i:tenliVusVransportation financing strategies task forcelocal gas taAdraft fuel tax ordinance 9-5-M.doc Ordinance No. 06- Page 12 Business Tax Fee Comparison Jurisdiction Base Fee Per Employee Net Income Prorate Renewal Wilsonville Annual Net <$12,000 $50 $3 6 months Fiscal year Annual Net >$12,000 $100 $3 6 months Fiscal year Lake Oswego 1-3 employees $75 no Calendar year 4-10 employees $105 no Calendar year 11 or more $145 no Calendar year Beaverton 0-4 employees $50 $9 6 months Calendar year Gresham 1-2 employees $75 $3 no Anniversary date Troutdale Fee $65 Canby Fee $50 Anniversary date Tigard 0-10 employees $55 Every two Calendary Year 11-50 employees $110 weeks after 51+ employees $220 January Tualatin 1-2 employees $55 6 months Calendar year 3-10 employees $60 6 months Calendar year 11-50 employees $120 6 months Calendar year Over 50 $240 6 months Calendar year Hillsboro Initial fee $80 Anniversary date license per year $25 $5 Anniversary date Sherwood Base fee $65 $5 Anniversary date for partnerships requring state licensing, the fee is $130 Milwaukie Base fee $100 6 months Calendar year Per employee $3 (business registration) Portland Minimum $100 2.20% Calendar year plus 2.2% of net income Agenda Item # 3 Meeting Date September 19, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Is,;ue/Agenda Title Joint Meeting with Park and Recreation Advisory Board RAB) Prepared By: Dan Plaza Dept Head Approval: hx~ City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Participate in a joint meeting with the PRAB to discuss the Board's goals and activities, including efforts to develop a pilot recreation program for the City of Tigard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct and participate in the joint meeting. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Goals ■ Review current PRAB goals. Pilot Recreation Program ■ In 2004, the City conducted a Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey. ■ Survey results indicated there was community support to establish a City-sponsored recreation program. ■ In early 2006, the PRAB requested a report be developed to determine the feasibility of starting a pilot recreation program in FY '07-'08. ■ The recreation report was developed and presented to the PRAB in May and June, 2006. ■ On July 31, 2006, the PRAB Chair and Vice-Chair met with Mayor Dirksen to discuss the recreation report. Mayor Dirksen suggested the PRAB and City Council meet to discuss the scope and feasibility of funding a small-scale, pilot recreation program in FY '07-'08. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not Applicable. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Tigard Beyond Tomorrow, Urban & Public Services Recreation Goal #1 - "Partnerships will provide a wide range of leisure and recreation opportunities that are coordinated and available for the Tigard community." ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Goals 2. Memo from Dan Plaza on a Pilot Recreation Program FISCAL NOTES The PRAB has suggested a small-scale, pilot recreation program could be started in the summer of 2007. The recreation report estimates the annual cost of such a program would be $218,707. Of this amount, it is expected $151,596, or 69% of the total cost, would be fee supported. The remaining balance, approximately $70,000 to $80,000, would be financed through the General Fund. Attachment 1 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD GOALS "The purpose of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board is to advise and advocate for park and recreation opportunities for a growing Tigard" Park and Recreation Advisory Board 2006-2007 Annual Goals Goal #1. Continue Park and Greenway Land Acquisition Process: consider recommending a general obligation bond measure election to be conducted in November, 2008 to purchase and develop parks and greenways. Goal #2. In the short-term, advise on the establishment and initiation of a small Pilot Recreation Program for the City of Tigard in FY 2007-2008. Goal #3. In the long-term, consider recommending a local tax levy election be conducted in November, 2008 to provide funds to begin a comprehensive Recreation Program in Tigard. Park and Recreation Advisory Board 5-Year Goals Adopted on February 25, 2004 Goal #1 - Identify and become informed of community interests and needs pertaining to Parks and Recreation. Objectives 1. Conduct a citywide park and recreation assessment. 2. Communicate with the public and other park and recreation groups. Goal #2 - Create and enhance existing partnerships that provide community recreation opportunities. Objectives 1. Partner with the Tigard-Tualatin School District to maximize the joint use of facilities. 2. Support the use of community/school pools. 3. Partner with the Balloon Festival Committee to support it as an annual event. 4. Collaborate with recreation focused groups and community special events. 5. Identify areas of volunteer activities. 6. Encourage community involvement in the City's volunteer program. Goal #3 - Evaluate and make recommendations in support of community recreation programs for Tigard. Obiectives 1. Recommend long-term strategies for citywide recreation facilities and programs. 2. Recommend recreation activities and programs for all interests and age levels. 3. Provide input to, and support of, the City Council's annual park and recreation related Council Goal. Goal #4 - Support park and recreation policy and make recommendations to the Tigard City Council. Objectives 1. Provide input to, and support of, the City's Visioning process entitled "Tigard and Beyond". 2. Recommend updates to the Tigard Municipal Code as it pertains to park rules and regulations. 3. Prioritize recommendations by being informed and advised of guidelines, resources and community interests. Goal #5 - Recommend long-term strategies for citywide facilities. Objectives 1. Recommend funding strategies for park acquisitions, development, maintenance, operations and other Capital Improvement Projects. 2. Consider establishing Bull Mountain parks and open spaces if annexed. 3. Recommend funding strategies for park maintenance operations and Capital Improvement Projects. Attachment 2 MEMORANDUM A TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Dan Plaza, Parks and Facilities Manager RE: Pilot Recreation Program DATE: September 1, 2006 BACKGROUND At the present time, the City of Tigard does not offer a comprehensive recreation program. However, the following is a list of some of the events and activities in which the City participates: - Family Festival - Tigard Blast - Senior Citizen program - Arbor Day - Fourth of July Fireworks event - Mayor's Youth Forum - Holiday Tree Lighting event - Atfalati Recreation District - Balloon Festival - Various City programs supported with community grant funds In 2004, the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) recommended a park and recreation assessment survey be conducted to gage citizen interest in a City-sponsored recreation program for Tigard residents. The City Council agreed and a scientifically valid survey was conducted, which revealed strong citizen support for such a program. Highlights of the survey results are as follows: ■ 57% favored the City of Tigard creating a recreation division to provide city residents with recreational opportunities such as: children's classes, day camps, summer recreation programs, special events, programs for teens and middle- schoolers, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. ■ 60% felt additional recreational activities would improve the livability in Tigard. ■ 61% favored either the creation of: - a City recreation division at a cost of $860,000 per year (489/6) - a special purpose recreation district at a cost of $1,000,000 per year (13%) ■ 41% favored the passage of a $6.75 million bond measure to construct a community recreation center. With regard to recreational programs, the comment most often heard by staff is Tigard residents want a recreation program similar to that offered by the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD). City residents complain vociferously about having to pay "out-of-district" fees for programs offered through THPRD. PRESENT SITUATION The PRAB recognizes a large-scale, comprehensive recreation program similar to THPRD's would be a costly proposition. Tigard would need a budget of approximately $1,000,000 to operate such a program; this does not include a capital budget to construct buildings and/or facilities like recreation centers, swimming pools, etc. To determine the feasibility of initiating a small-scale program in FY '07-'08, a recreation program professional was hired to develop a pilot program. This recreation program was presented at the PRAB's monthly meetings on May 8 and June 12, 2006. The program would utilize existing facilities such as the Water District Building auditorium, library, Senior Center, Town Hall, churches, school district buildings, and perhaps leased and/or donated buildings. A sampling of activities and events in the start-up recreation program is as follows: - school holiday/closure activities - classes for all ages of children and - summer playground program adults - spring break camps - special events (ice cream social in - summer camps the park, holiday bazaar, art in - middle-school dances the park, etc.) The PRAB believes that a recreation program could greatly enhance Tigard's reputation as a "family friendly" community. INITIAL BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS The recreation program, in addition to materials, supplies, and capital outlay, would include a recreation coordinator, clerical staff, and part-time staff such as instructors and activity leaders. The estimated cost to offer a small-scale, pilot recreation program is $218,707. The report estimates the annual cost of such a program would be $218,707. Of this amount, it is expected $151,596, or 69% of the total cost, would be fee supported. The remaining balance, approximately $70,000 to $80,000, would be financed through the General Fund. Extensive background information was generated while researching the feasibility of a recreation program. If any Council member wishes to have a copy of this information please let me know; it's available in hardcopy or electronically. WHAT'S NEXT On July 31, 2006, the PRAB Chair and Vice-Chair met with Mayor Dirksen to discuss the recreation report. Mayor Dirksen suggested the PRAB and City Council meet to discuss the scope and feasibility of funding a small-scale, pilot recreation program in FY '07-'08. The PRAB is seeking the Council's views on establishing such a program and Council's interest in a local tax levy in November, 2008, to fund a more comprehensive recreation program in Tigard, assuming initial program efforts prove successful. The meeting is scheduled for September 19, 2006. M Recreation Programs A Community Recreation Center & 3 Park Land' Acquisitions for F Tigard Oregon Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Tigard, Oregon 2005 OL Today's Presentation... • Introduction of the Park & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) • Results of Tigard's 2004 Phone Survey - Recreation Program - Community Recreation Center - Land Acquisitions • Public Participation AMEM WHO is the PRAB? • PRAB - Park & Recreation Advisory Board - Re-established in 2003 - Board consists of seven (7) Tigard citizens - Additional representatives from the • Planning Commission • Youth Advisory Council • Tigard-Tualatin School District • Alternates OL PRAB"s Purpose? • To be an Advisory Board for Tigard's: - Public Works Director - City Council Members • To work as, and advocate for and/or against, topics concerning Parks & Recreation in Tigard 2004 Phone Survey • Phone Survey - Conducted in the summer of 2004 - Scientifically valid - Consisted of 383 randomly chosen Tigard residents • Overall results were favorable on many issues • Results have assisted the PRAB in focusing its efforts Results for Recreation Programs Such as children classes, day camps, summer playground program, special events, trips, outdoor programs - hiking/rock climbing/water activities, after school care programs, adult programs such as sports leagues and classes • 60% support recreation programs in order to enhance Tigard's livability • 57% support the creation of a recreation. division • 48 % willing to pay for a City recreation division - At a cost of $0.22 per $1,000 of assessed property value Ideas for a Recreation Program • Feasibility of a City Recreation Division - Estimated cost of $860;000 per year ($0.22 per $1,000 assessed property value) - Potential program offerings include: children classes, day camps, summer playground program, special events, trips, outdoor programs - hiking/rock climbing/ water activities, after school care programs, adult programs such as sports leagues and classes • Centralized Community Recreation Center 52% support a $6.75M bond measure to fund a Community Recreation Center ($0.13 per $1,000 of assessed property value) - House programs offered by a City Recreation Division - 30,000 sq. ft. building with: • Indoor Gym • Classrooms • Mulit-Purpose Rooms for classes/meetings/events - 4. 4 Survey Results for Land Acquisition • Respondents favored a bond measure to purchase: - Wetlands & Green Space (49 % favored to 38 % opposed) - $5 million ($0.09 annually per $1,000 of assessed property value) • 69% of respondents supported the following statement, 25% opposed the statement: - "I like the idea that the city is considering the protection of natural wetland & greenways. I favor the idea that would preserve our natural resources." J f. Current Park Land in Tigard • Park land acreage in Tigard - Goal is 11 acres per 1,000 residents - Currently just under 8 acres per 1,000 residents - Of 351 acres of park land, 179 acres are developed • As Compared to other communities: - Portland @ 44 acres per 1,000 residents - Lake Oswego @ 16 acres per 1,000 residents - Tualatin @ 8 acres per 1,000 All Land Acquisition Funding Sources (not meant to be all inclusive) • Park System Development Charges Grants - Metro - Oregon Park & Recreation Department - Federal Grants • Non-Profit Organizations - Three Rivers Land Conservancy - Trust for Public Land • Land Acquisition Bond Levy • General Fund We Want To Know What You Think • Should Tigard pursue the: - Creation of a City Recreation Division? - Building of a Community Recreation Center? Should Tigard purchase additional land? - And if so, what types of acquisitions should be made? • Open Spaces • Active Park Land The PRAB Encourages Public Participation • We're Asking Residents - For feedback on Park & Recreation issues - For assistance with fund raising efforts - To volunteer - To voice your opinions - To share information with neighbors .and community Encouraging Public Participation • Participate at PRAB meetings: Held on: 2"d Monday of each month Held at: Tigard Water Building @ 7:00 pm • Send comments to PRAB at: parkrecboard@ci.-tigard.or.us OL How does Tigard compare with other community recreation programs? • There are no organized recreation programs offered by the City of Tigard. - Many Independent Efforts by Local Organizations/Groups (soccer, little league, July 4th, Holiday Tree Lighting, Balloon Festival) -City does not have a recreation division. to provide recreation programs How does Tigard compare to nearby community recreation program offerings Full Time Recreation City Population Recreation Staff Programs Tigard 47,000 0 NO Lake 35,500 9 YES Oswego Tualatin 24,000 1 YES Newburg 18,200 14 YES Sherwood 14,000 1 YES T. Hill P & R 2007000 50 YES How does Tigard compare? People have their homes here but often recreate outside the City of Tigard; paying higher out of district fees. • Lack of community, there is little central feel and/or gathering places for Tigard residents outside of Cook Park. Need for a central draw or civic focal point. Tigard residents want more parks The 1999 Parks Master Plan calls for 11 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Reality • Actual acreage: - less than 8 acres (7.6) per 1,000 residents. • Compared to other communities: - Portland has 44 acres per 1,000 - Lake Oswego has 16 acres per 1,000 - Tualatin and THP&RD have 8 acres per 1,000 • Of the 351 acres of park land, 179 acres are developed. 0 There are NO parks in Northeast or Southwest Tigard Land Acquisition Funding Sources • Park System Develop Charges • Grants - METRO - Oregon Park & Recreation Department • Non-Profit Organizations - Three Rivers Land Conservancy - Trust for Public Land • City's General Fund • City Bond Measure Levies X11..... CITY OF TIGARD - 2004 SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 f. ~ The following survey research report provides some valuable information regarding voter's attitudes and opinions concerning a variety of proposals to enhance recreational opportunities for Tigard residents. This report should assist the city in determining what if, any, recreational projects would be supported by residents. a Below, The Nelson Report has highlighted the key results of the survey research report. The final report is over 200 pages in length, with multiple tables designed to assist the client in i understanding and analyzing the respondents' views. Throughout this executive summary, The Nelson Report identifies "key" demographics for many of the questions. Key demographics are those subgroups that respond at a higher ; percentage rate than the total sample for any given response. The key demographic groups for any given opinion are not necessarily the only subgroups in the survey who share that opinion. They are, however, the ones that hold that opinion most strongly. A total of 383 respondents were interviewed between August 23 and August 27, 2004. p 0 0 ~k The margin of error for this survey is +/-4.99% at the 95% level of confidence. r krepared By The Nelson Report . 1 h. FINAL RESULTS (n=383) CITY OF TIGARD 2004 FINAL DRAFT Hello, my name is I'm with The Nelson Report, a public opinion research firm. We are conducting a brief survey today in your area and would like to include your household's opinions. May I please take a few minutes of your time? Let me assure you I am not selling anything. First of all, are you registered to vote in the state of Oregon? (INTERVIEWER: IF NO, POLITELY TERMINATE) The City of Tigard currently provides park services only. Park services do not include recreation programs. Many individuals and groups have come up with a variety of ideas to enhance recreational opportunities for city residents such as children's classes, day camps, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. We are going to be presenting you several of these ideas. These ideas are not to be viewed as city proposals, but merely a way to gauge public support of the following options. The city would like your opinion on whether recreational programs should be offered to city residents. Currently park services are paid for out of the City of Tigard budget. The city has two other options they would like your opinion on. One option is for the city to create a separate Recreation Division with its own budget. This Division would be funded by the city's general fund revenues. 1. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division of the city? 1. Favor 57 2. Oppose 31 3. Not Sure/Refused 12 Another option is for Tigard to present to voters for approval, a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority. 2. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority? 1. Favor 34 2. Oppose 53 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 Page 1 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report The creation of a Recreation Division within the city would cost $860 thousand per year. The operation of the Recreation Division would be paid for through an operating levy and would increase the property tax rate by 22-cents per thousand. The other option is for Tigard residents to vote for the creation of a Recreation District. A Recreation District would cost $1 million per year and increase the property tax rate by 26-cents per thousand. 3. If you had to choose, would you prefer the creation of a CITY RECREATION DIVISION at a cost of 22-cents per thousand, or the creation of a SPECIAL RECREATION DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand? 1. City Recreation Division (GO TO "A") 48 2. Special Recreation District (GO TO"A") 13 3. Neither (SHIP TO #4) 28 4. Other 1 5. Not Sure/Refused (SKIP TO #4) 10 A. (RECREATION DIVISION/RECREATION DISTRICT ONLY FROM #3) Why would you prefer the (RECREATION DIVISION) (RECREATION DISTRICT)? (PROBE) 4. If you knew the Special Recreation District would be similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, would you prefer the creation of a CITY RECREATION DIVISION at a cost of 22-cents per thousand, or the creation of a SPECIAL RECREATION DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand? 1. City Recreation Division 36 2. Special Recreation District 23 3. Neither 26 4. Other 1 5. Not Sure/Refused 14 Another concept is a 20-year $6.75 million bond measure that would be used to construct a 30,000 square foot Community Recreation Center. The Community Recreation Center would include an indoor gym, classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, and meeting rooms. The construction of a Community Recreation Center would increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand of assessed value. 5. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $6.75 million bond measure for a Community Recreation Center for the City of Tigard that would increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "B") 41 2. Oppose (GO TO"B") 52 3. Not Sure/Refused 7 B. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the $6.75 million bond measure? Page 2 r August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report In addition, the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center would cost $400,000 per year. This concept would increase the property tax rate by an additional 11- cents per thousand. 6. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept that would increase property tax rate by 11-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "C") 34 2. Oppose (GO TO "C") 55 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 C. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the concept? (PROBE) Another idea is a 10-year, $400,000 bond measure that would be used to construct a skate park for youth. This concept would cost property taxpayers approximately 1-cent per thousand or $2.60 per year for the owner of a $200,000 home. 7. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $400,000 bond measure to construct a skate park that would increase property tax rate by 1-cent per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "D") 43 2. Oppose (GO TO "D") 49 3. Not Sure/Refused 8 D. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the proposed skate park? (PROBE) Now I am going to ask you a variety of questions concerning the idea of a $6.75 million bond measure to construct a Community Recreation Center. For each one, I will give you some information and ask, whether with that information, you would FAVOR or OPPOSE the idea. 8. If you knew the bond payments would be structured so that new residents who move into the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the $6.75 million concept? 1. Favor 49 2. Oppose 40 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 Page 3 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report 9. If you knew the Community Recreation Center would enable the city to provide additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a bond measure? . 1. Favor 52 2. Oppose 38 3. Not Sure/Refused 10 10. If you knew that a bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or $26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond measure? 1. Favor 48 2. Oppose 43 3. Not Sure/Refused 9 11. If you knew operation and maintenance costs for the Community Recreation Center would increase property taxes by an additional 11-cents per thousand or $22 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond measure? 1. Favor 42 2. Oppose 47 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 Another idea includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land to construct additional parks and athletic fields throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand. 12. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond measure to construct additional parks and athletic fields that would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "E") 44 2. Oppose (GO TO "E") 45 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 E. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for parks and athletic fields? (PROBE) Page 4 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report 13. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to construct additional parks and athletic fields? 1. Favor 44 2. Oppose 43 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 In addition, there is another idea which includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land in order to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand. 14. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond measure to purchase land for wetlands and green spaces that would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "F") 49 2. Oppose (GO TO "F") 41 3. Not Sure/Refused 10 F. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for wetlands and green spaces? (PROBE) 15. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city? 1. Favor 49 2. Oppose 38 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 16. Thinking about four of the concepts - CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION CENTER, CONSTRUCTION OF A SKATE PARK, the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PARKS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS, and the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR WETLANDS AND GREEN SPACES, which of these concepts would you be willing to vote for in one bond measure? (INTERVIEWER: COMBINATION RESPONSES WILL GO UNDER THE "OTHER" CATEGORY) 1. Recreation Center Only 24 2. Skate Park Only 8 3. Land For Parks Only 13 4. Land For Wetlands/Open Spaces Only 21 5. None 16 6. Other 16 7. Not Sure/Refused 2 Page 5 August 27, 2004 f, Prepared By The Nelson Report 17. How much more would you be willing to pay each year in property taxes in order to enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces throughout the City Of Tigard? 1. Nothing 23 2. $1-$18 21 3. $19-$36 17 4. $37-$52 10 5. $53-$90 5 6. Over $90 8 7. Not Sure/Refused 16 Now I am going to read you several statements some people have made concerning the various recreation projects the City of Tigard is currently seeking your opinion on. For each statement, I would like you to tell me if you AGREE or DISAGREE with the statement. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Not Sure/Refused AGREE - DISAGREE - NOT SURE/REFUSED 18. My taxes are already too high. I can't afford any of the recreation concepts being discussed in this survey. 38-56-6 19. I like the idea that the city is considering the protection of natural wetlands and greenways in the city. I favor the idea that would preserve our natural resources. 69-25-6 20. It's about time the City of Tigard began providing additional recreational opportunities for citizens. I favor the concept of a Community Recreation Center. 49-43-8 21. Our city already has plenty of parks and athletic fields. I oppose the $5 million bond measure for parks and fields. 42-46-12 22. I like the community just the way it is. We don't need additional recreational activities to improve livability in our area. 30-60-10 Page 6 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report AGREE - DISAGREE - NOT SURE/REFUSED 23. I would prefer to create a Recreation District similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District to enhance recreational opportunities for residents rather than create a Recreation Division within the city. 38-34-28 DEMOGRAPHICS 24. SEX: 1. Male 2. Female 25. AGE: Are you between the ages of.....? 1. 18-34 2. 35-44 3. 45-54 4. 55-64 5. 65+ 6. Not Sure/Ref ised 26. OWN/RENT: Do you own or rent your home? 1. Own 2. Rent 3. Not Sure/Refused INTERVIEWER: POLITELY END SURVEY WITH RESPONDENT, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 27. VOTER HISTORY: (INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE NUMBER OF TIMES RESPONDENT HAS VOTED IN THE LAST FOUR ELECTIONS FROM THE PHONE LIST - SEE INSTRUCTION SHEET) 1. 1 Out Of 4 Elections 2. 2 Out Of 4 Elections 3. 3 Out Of 4 Elections 4. 4 Out Of 4 Elections Page 7 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report Agenda Item # Meeting Date September 19, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Services to the Homeless Population in Tigard //ss c Prepared By: Bill Dickinson , 1 1 M Y Dept Head Approval: W ~ ~ \ City Mgr Approval: V~' Y l t CW ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discussion/briefing regarding the issue of homelessness in Tigard and services provided to this population by Luke Dorf Inc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required. Discussion/briefing only. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard has a noticeable homeless population. Some of this population accounts for numerous citizen and business complaints, creates fear of crime as well as concern for the welfare of the homeless individuals themselves. Mr. Howard Spanbock of Luke Dorf Inc. will brief the Council on mental health and substance abuse services available in Tigard, Washington County and the metro area. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT • Tigard is a safe, dynamic community supported by coordinated and efficient public services. Funding for services is stable and recipients pay their share. • Citizens are educated about how to access public services and understand their responsibility to participate as members of the community. ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES N/A lAadmtpacket'OOt000919tais 9-19-06 - homeless ais.doc /fP y Luke ~orf tnch, o ~ a he4ng COMMUnoy A Portrait of Homelessness in Tigard In February of 2005 I started my position as the PATH outreach worker. To date I have discovered the following facts regarding the homeless in the Tigard area. • I have made face to face contact with 47 homeless individuals • Out of this number 5 represent women • Some were passing through town, while others have lived in the area for many years. • Approximately 20-30 % display symptoms of a mental illness • Approximately 98% are engaged in either drugs or alcohol, or both • The average length of homelessness is 5 years • All campsites lack basic living conditions such as water and toilet facilities • They rarely have the opportunity to shower • They can be found sleeping in the following areas in the Tigard vicinity: o Along the railroad track o In the parks o Behind businesses o In abandoned houses o In the bushes o Under freeway bridges o Under freight trucks o Behind churches o In industrial parks o In bus shelters o In cars & vans These are facts and figures. But behind each number is a person, whom I've connected with in some manner. I have listened to many stories, heard their fears and disappointments in life, as they tell about lost families, jobs, homes, and sadly hope. I have encountered only one incident where I felt a possible confrontation; however I realized that alcohol was influencing this particular person's behavior. The general behavior directed toward me as an outreach worker has been one of respect and kindness. In our conversations I hear people speak of their current life situation with little hope of moving forward as poverty, addictions, unemployment, and mental illness become some of the factors that keep their lives in a downward spiral. The positive news is that out of the 47 homeless people encountered in Tigard, 17 became PATH clients and 4 were placed into housing. While this number may appear insignificant it is important to remember that for many people on the streets, change and regaining desire for a better life can be difficult to obtain, especially with the lack of resources available. In my experience I have realized that the number one myth of homelessness that prevails off the streets is that homeless people want to be homeless. This is not true. Shelter is the most important priority on the streets, which does not mean under a tent or bridge. We have the challenge of providing adequate housing for the homeless as a stepping stone toward permanent homes. Lisa Davila, MSW Luke-Dorf, Inc. PATH Outreach Worker www.luke-dorf.org 10313 SW 69th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Phone (503) 624-0866 Fax (503) 620-0399 Agenda Item # Meeting Date September 19, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) By-laws Prepared By: Phil Nachbar Dept Head Okay ~ City Mgr Okaygi ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND KEY FACTS Adoption of a set of By-laws to govern the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff with regard to finalizing a set of By-laws for the CCAC. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On its August 15 workshop, Council was presented a draft set of By-laws produced by staff and a staff report, and a corresponding set of By-laws reviewed and amended by the CCAC. At the workshop, Council had a discussion with members of the CCAC about key sections of the By-laws, and the concerns of the group. Due to the complexity of the subject, it was decided that Council would continue its review of the By-laws on September 19. The range of items addressed in the draft set of By-laws include: Charge and responsibilities, composition and appointments, term of office, organization of the Commission, member responsibilities, attendance, quorum, removal of members, annual report, and cessation of the Commission. Since the August 15 workshop, staff obtained an opinion from legal counsel on two items in the By-laws; the use of a Proxy Vote, and the use of a No Confidence Vote to remove the Chair if necessary. With regard to Proxy Voting, the City Attorney does not recommend it because it conflicts with Public Meeting Law. Public Meeting Law requires that decisions be made on the record, and if a member is not present, he or she may not hear the entire record prior to voting. The City Attorney finds the use of a No Confidence Vote for removal of a Chair / Vice Chair acceptable and useful in our By-laws. If the By-laws have stated annual elections for the Chair, and it does not state elsewhere that there may be other times in which a vote may occur, then it is appropriate to include a separate section for removal of a Chair. So, leaving it in would provide for replacement of the Chair or Vice Chair as necessary. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2006\9-19-06 AIS CCAC Roles and Responsibilities.doc 1 COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Page 5 1) City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. 2) Reevaluate and broaden volunteer selection process for City committees and task forces. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. CCAC Modified By-laws Aug 15 2. Summary of suggested changes from Aug 15 workshop. FISCAL NOTES No direct cost impact. I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2006\9-19-06 AIS CCAC Roles and Responsibilities.doc 2 ATTACHMENT 1 . ~tJXlllbli H BY-LAWS OF THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION (CCAC) SECTION 1. CHARGE AND DUTIES RESPONSIBILIL-TIES (a) The City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) hereafter referred to as the "Commission" shall have no powers except as conferred by this resolution, City Charter, or the Tigard Municipal Code. (b) It shall be the function of the Commission to act as an advisory body to the City Center Development Agency (CCDA), the Urban Renewal Agency for the City of Tigard} or the City Council as appropriate. (c) The City Center Advisory Commission i~ is charged with advising the City Center Development Agency {~_4}, the Urban Renewal Agency for the City of Tigard, on matters pertaining to Urban Renewal Plan implementation and tax increment fund allocations for the City Center Urban Renewal District. Recommendations pertaining to policy, budget, and implementation of urban renewal projects identified within the Urban Renewal Plan and / or the annually adopted Downtown Implementation Strategy and Work Program will be made to the City Center Development Agency or City Council as appropriate for consideration, deliberation and action. (d) The City Center Advisory Commission shall perform other duties as assigned by the City Center Advisory Agency. (e) The Commission may form subcommittees to investigate areas relevant to it charge or duties pursuant to this section. SECTION 2. COMPOSITION (a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) appointed members who are residents or own businesses or property within the City Center Urban Renewal District 4 Tigard with the following representation: (1) Three (3)_ per-sans interests of At least two (21 business owners; or property owners, and other- AA~ ~~e°es~s __~a whose business or property is located within the City Center Urban Renewal District; CCAC By-Laws Page 1 Exhibit A (2) Five (5) per-sons r-epreseft Five 51-persons who are residents of Tigard and represent a cross-section of interests in the community at lie; ; (3) One (1) person residing within or adjacent to the boundaries of the City Center Urban Renewal District; (4) One (1) member of the Planning Commission (5) Two (2) alternates (non-voting including one (1 at large resident of Tigard, and one (1) business or property owner from within the City Center Urban Renewal District SECTION 3. APPOINTMENTS (a) At the second business meeting of January 2007, Council will perform one of the following options to achieve the compositional requirements in Section 2 above: 1) if there are suffieient vaeaneies an the fie (1) Council shall fill vacancies with individuals necessary to meet the compositional requirements of above. (2) If , after filling vacancies, there are not sufficient vacancies on the Commission to appoint new members to meet the compositional requirements in Section 2 above, the Commission shall recommend the removal of members by a method chosen by the Commission, but approved by Council, in order to provide such vacancies. The Council, with recommendations from the Mayor and the Commission, shall then appoint members as necessary to meet the composition requirements. of the Go i14 have pr-iaiity for- r-eftppain"ent r-avided (b) In addition, Council shall determine a means of staggering appointments of all current members using five (5) three-year terms, and four (4) two-year terms. one (4) of two (2) year- (c) Appointments shall be made by the City Council with recommendations from the Mayor. and Commission. CCAC By-Laws Page 2 Exhibit A SECTION 4. TERM OF OFFICE (a) After the initial staggering of terms for current members as defined in Section 43~U2 above, the term of office of all future, appointed members shall be three (3) years , or until their successors are qualified and appointed. bbl All terms shall begin _j anuary 1 and end December 31st. (cb) Any vacancy in said Commission shall be filled by appointment by the Council upon recommendation by the Mayor and Commission for the unexpired portion of the term. The unexpired portion of a term does not count towards the fulfillment of the three (3) year appoiT ntment. (de) Members may be reappointed, except that a member who has served two 2 full three-year terms may not be reappointed until after the expiration of one full year from the date of expiration of that member's immediate previous term of office. (pd) Members of the Commission beard shall receive no compensation for their services. SECTION 5. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION (a) At its first meeting in February 2007, and thereafter annually. the eke Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from its members who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Commission. ~b At the discretion and vote of No Confidence by the Commission, the Chair or Vice Chair may be replaced by other member(s) at times other then the annual election. Replacement does not constitute removal from the Commission. Any Vote of No Confidence must be placed on the agenda prior to the meeting. (c) If the Chair or Vice Chair should resign, the Commission shall, at it next meeting, conduct an election and provide a replacement. (b) The Commission shall meet at least monthly during a calendar year at a time and place that is specified at least 5 days in advance. The Commission may meet at other times in accordance with its rules, and public reporting law. All meetings shall be open to the public. (c) A record of the Commission's proceedings shall be filed with the city recorder. CCAC By-Laws Page 3 Exhibit A SECTION 6. VOTING, VOTING BY PROXY AND MINORITY REPORTS Ua) General procedures of the Commissions including voting shall follow Robert's Rules of Order. (h) A maiorit~ of votes shall determine the official position of the Commission on a g ven issue. (c) Chair and Vice Chair shall vote on all matters before the Commission. (d) Proxy voting is permitted with following provisions-, (1) The absent person must assign his/her vote in writing ( acceptable) on a specific issue prior to voting, j2, Proxy votes are only valid for the specific issue for which it was assigned. (3) A proxy vote does not constituted attendance at a meeting. (e) A minority report made available to the City Council or City Center Development Agency represents the vote and position of the minority of the Commission on a particular issue, and may be invoked at the request of any member if at least one-third of the members or three (3) votes make up the minority vote. If invoked, a report of the minority shall be forwarded to the appropriate body. SECTION 76. COMMISSION MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES (a) Members of the Commission shall: (1) regularly attend CCAC meetings and contribute constructively to discussions, (2) consider and discuss issues from a Citywide perspective, as well as that of particular stakeholders or interests, (3) understand and be able to articulate the CCAC's charge, responsibilities and adopted, annual work program, (4) strive to reach consensus on matters under consideration (5) act with respect and consideration for the viewpoint of others, CCAC By-Laws Page 4 Exhibit A (6) review and provide comment on reports, presentations, and recommended policies or strategies related to Downtown redevelopment before the Commission, and (7) vote on motions in front of the Commission, except where reasonable abstention is necessary. (b1 Chair and / or Vice Chair shall, in addition to the above responsibilities: (1) manage the meeting in order to complete agenda items or facilitate a decision in order to make adjustments as necessary, (2) facilitate the Commission and work to achieve consensus on all issues, (3) seek to elicit varying points of view on an issue in order to achieve a balanced perspective, whether or not such points of view are consistent with those of the Chair / Vice Chair, (4) foster an atmosphere of honesty and "transparency" by openly expressing his / her position on an issue (5) allow for healthy debate but address interpersonal issues among members at the time they occur in a meeting, and seek to resolve such issues as necessary in a timely manner (cb) Commission members may engage in general discussions regarding its charge, responsibilities or projects within the Urban Renewal Plan or Downtown Implementation Strategy, but shall not discuss real estate projects or proposals with potential developers or property owners without the authorization of Council. (de) In addition, members shall not make representations on behalf of the City of Tigard without the authorization of Council. (f? Members shall not make representations on behalf of the CCAC whether intentional or not, without the authorization of the Council and Commission. (g) Members shall not, in accordance with Public Meeting Law, meet outside of its scheduled meetings in a quorum or greater to discuss anything related to its Charge or Duties as defined under Section 1. SECTION 8-7. ATTENDANCE CCAC By-Laws Page 5 Exhibit A If a member of the Commission is unable to attend a meeting, he or she is expected to notify the Chair or Vice Chair. If any member is absent from an six 6 re arl scheduled meetings within one year or three_3~ consecutive meetings without reasonable cause, the issue shall be placed on the upcoming agenda , and upon majority vote of the Commission; that position shall be declared vacant. The Commission shall forward its l tear action and recommendation for replacement to the Mayor and Council, who shall fill the vacant position. SECTION 98. QUORUM At any meeting of the Commission, a quorum shall be a majority of the current members of the Commission. No action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum except that the meeting may continue with discussion on agenda items. For the purposes of forming a quorum, members who have disqualified or excused themselves from participation in any matter shall be counted as present. In the event a quorum will not be present at any meeting, the Chair or Vice Chair shall notify the Commission members in advance of that fact so that a decision may be made whether to meet and take no action on agenda items or to reschedule to a different time. SECTION 10-3. REMOVAL OF MEMBERS (a) The City Council may remove members of the Commission in accordance with Section $-7 Attendance. (b) The Council may also remove members, when, in its judgment, the conduct of a member does not conform to Section 76 Member Responsibilities. ~c) The Commission may make a recommendation to Council for the removal of a member in accordance with Section 7 Member Responsibilities. The Commission shall forward a recommendation for replacement to the Mayor and Council in a timely manner. SECTION 114-9. MEMORANDUM OF ANNUAL RECOMMENDATIONS ANNUAL 0117 (a) Each year, at its discretion, but not Not later than December 1 of each year, the Commission may i h" prepare and file a Memorandum of Annual Reommendations its Annual Reper to the City Center Development Agency (CCDA). (b) The Annual Memorandum of Recommendations Repe~r+ shall include ineludeFt surainary of key aetMties and pt-aeeedings and any specific suggestions or CCAC By-Laws Page 6 Exhibit A recommendations which the Commission believes f er-s-h would assist is them-mission or the overall goals for the Downtown. (c) The Annual Report shall not be submitted unless appror ved by the Commission. SECTION 1244. CESSATION OF COMMISSION Upon completion and closing out of the City Center Urban Renewal District, the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) shall cease its activities and shall be abolished without further action by the Council. SECTION 13 AMENDMENTS TO BY LAWS (a) The Commission may, at its discretion and vote of approval, make recommendations to Council for amendment to these By Laws. (b) The City Council, at its discretion, and upon vote of approval, may amend these these By Laws at such time it deems appropriate. CCAC By-Laws Page 7 ATTACHMENT 2 Summary of suggested changes from the Aug 15cn Workshop (Note: these are tentative, and will be evaluated by Council for inclusion in the By Laws. • Section 1 Charge and Responsibilities 1. Add "Plan Amendments" as part of their responsibilities under (c) 2. Under (d), correction "...by the City Center Development Agency". 3. Under (e), correction "...relevant to it's charge or duties..." • Section 3 Appointments 1. remove any reference to a method or timeframe for achieving the new composition of the Commission. Council seemed in favor of allowing the Commission to evolve towards the new composition as vacancies open up over time. • Section 7 Commission Member Responsibilities 1. under (c ) "...property owners without authorization of the City Center Development Agency. 2. under (d) "...City of Tigard without the authorization of the City Center Development Agency. • Section 10 Removal of Members 1. provide a "catch-all" phrase allowing removal of members. Reference might be for `conduct unbecoming a member'; staff to ask City attorney for phrasing. Agenda Item # Meeting Date September 19, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Downtown Land Use and Design Guidelines--Preliminary framework Prepared By: Phil Nachbar Dept Head Okay 7_c City Mgr Okay C cw ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND KEY FACTS Should City Council direct staff to begin the development of Land Use / Design Guidelines for Downtown? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review Framework Report and direct staff to begin process of developing new land use regulations for Downtown. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The adopted FY 06-07 Work Program for Downtown calls for the development and adoption of Land Use and Design Guidelines within the Urban Renewal District. While the current Central Business District (CBD) zone allows the mix of uses necessary for a successful downtown, the regulations lack the language to guide new development to be consistent with the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The goal of the "framework" is to provide the initial basis for the regulations to be written, reviewed and adopted over the next year. In developing the framework for new regulations, three (3) key goals were made priorities; 1) Future development in Downtown should correspond to the key objectives of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, 2) Land uses for Downtown should be flexible to provide options to developers, and 3) No specific architectural theme should be required in Downtown, but the design guidelines should ensure the quality of architectural design and construction materials. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No other alternatives were considered. In order for Downtown to develop consistent with the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, it is important that new land use regulations be developed and approved. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT Land Use / Design Guidelines are a top Council goal for 2006 under the "Implement Downtown Plan": Identify and make changes to the Tigard Development Code needed to implement the Downtown Plan (e.g., zoning overlays, design standards.) It is also part of the Vision Statement under the "CBD"; 2) Upgrade City's regulations for the Central Business District in cooperation with consultant's recommendations. C:\DOCUME-1\Cathy.000\LOCALS-1\Temp\9-19-06 AIS Downtown Land Use-Design Guidelines Framework Rpt.doc 1 ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Revised Schedule.3 2. Memo To Council Re: Framework Report--Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines 3. UR Future Land Uses Aug 23 2006 4. Downtown Land Use Density Height #1 5. Downtown Design Guidelines--Site Design #2 6. Downtown Design Guidelines--Building Design #3 7. Downtown Parking Guidelines--Commercial Size Restrictions #4 8. Height Comparisons Sept 1 FISCAL NOTES The development of new Land Use regulations for Downtown will be performed in-house. No additional cost impact is anticipated at this time. C:\DOCUME-1\carolk\LOCALS-1\Temp\9-19-06 AIS Downtown Land Use-Design Guidelines Framework Rpt.doc 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Downtown Tigard Land Use and Design Guidelines Project Work Program'06-'07 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June Interdepartmental Team Meetings CCAC Develop Framework recommendations Review updates and provide input Planning Commission Presentations Initial Framework Land Use Alternatives Design Guidelines Alternatives Overlay Zone Alternatives Initiate Code Amendment Public Hearings City Council Framework recommendations Updates Public Outreach Activities CC/ Public involvement plan Property/ Business Owner Outreach CCAC outreach-Property Bus. Owners Stakeholder focus groups Open House Other outreach Cityscape articles Press releases Other Related Projects Refine Circulation Plan for Downtown Urban Creek Corridor Feasibility Stud Fanno Creek Park Master Plan Public Area Use / Feasibility Stud ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Phil Nachbar, Senior Planner / Downtown Development RE: Framework Report-Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines DATE: September 1, 2006 Phase L Framework for Downtown Land Use/ Design Guidelines Background: With the approval of Urban Renewal in the Downtown, the City's redevelopment efforts become focused on the implementation of projects within the Urban Renewal Plan. The adopted FY 06-07 Work Program for Downtown calls for the development and adoption of Land Use and Design Guidelines within the Urban Renewal District. The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) envisions a vibrant, compact, mixed use, "Urban Village" with new, housing, retail and employment opportunities. The future Downtown will support a multi-modal transportation system and use land more efficiently. This will help fulfill the Downtown's status as a Metro-designated Town Center. The Need for New Regulations in Downtown The original Downtown Plan area is currently zoned CBD (Central Business District.) The regulations allow a mix of uses, including commercial and residential. While the current CBD zone allows the mix of uses necessary for a successful downtown, the regulations lack the language to guide new development to be consistent with the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. As a result, the area has developed without many of the pedestrian-oriented qualities specified in the Plan. For example, recently constructed buildings have parking or blank walls fronting the sidewalk rather than pedestrian-oriented main entrances. New development would probably still occur in the Downtown area, even without code changes. However, new buildings could lack the qualities preferred by the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The resulting development might not support, or even actively preclude, the identified catalyst projects. For example, office or retail uses could be developed in areas of the TDIP intended primarily for housing. Or single use housing might be developed in the Hall and 99W intersection area that was intended for regional retail in the TDIP. For this reason, changes should be made to the current Development Code. Land Use and Design Guidelines will ensure that land uses become what is envisioned in the Plan, and that there is a complementary quality of development. Design Guidelines specifically address the design quality of buildings, and sites including the pedestrian environment. Most cities Report to Council Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines Framework Report Page 1 undergoing Downtown redevelopment use Land Use and Design Guidelines to ensure building quality, encourage investment, strengthen property values, and provide guidance to developers. New Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines. Pmgram Overview The program includes five (5) main areas including: land use, design guidelines, overlay zones, non- conforming uses, and comprehensive plan changes. The program will also address the format for the regulations and means of enforcement. The program schedule began June 21, 2006 with the initial "framework" analysis, and will continue through June of 2007, or until final adoption of new regulations. The TDIP recommends the use of "overlay zones" to protect important public opens spaces including the Urban Creek Corridor and the Fanno Public Area. Before any recommendation for the use of an overlay zone can be made, a feasibility study of the Urban Creek Corridor will have to be done. This will be coordinated with a new circulation plan for Downtown that will address block size, and circulation in the area of the proposed Urban Creek Corridor. This is to ensure that any new regulations will be based on projects which will, in fact, occur. A key aspect of the program is to work closely with Downtown property owners to both educate and obtain input regarding the regulations. The first step in the process is to conduct introductory meetings to provide an overview of the Downtown, and get property owners familiar with current improvement projects such as Burnham Street and the Commuter Rail Station. Phase I.• Framework-for Land Use / Design Guidelines-Description The first phase of the program, establishing a framework for the land use regulations / design guidelines has been completed. Staff has met twice per month with the CCAC since June 21 to develop a basic map of land uses, and a list of potential guidelines to address building design, construction quality, density, height, and parking (see attached draft Land Use Map and Design Guidelines matrices). The goal of the "framework" is to provide the initial basis for the regulations to be written, reviewed and adopted over the next year. In developing the framework for new regulations, three (3) key goals were made priorities; 1) Future development in Downtown should correspond to the key objectives of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, 2) Land uses for Downtown should be flexible to provide options to developers, and 3) No specific architectural theme should be required in Downtown, but the design guidelines should ensure the quality of design and materials. Phase I.• Land Use / Design Guidelines-Summary of Framework Recommendations The attached Land Use Map and Matrix make up the initial framework and recommendations for the development of new regulations. For a comparison of height limits among the proposed regulations vs. TDIP / consultant recommendations, and current CBD Zone, see the attached matrix "Height Comparisons-Sept 1". The Land Use Map contains six (6) zones: Fanno Residential, Main Street Mixed Use, Mixed Use Commercial (99W & Hall Blvd.), Urban Creek Corridor Mixed Use, Mixed Use Residential, and Mixed Use Employment (see proposed Downtown Land Use Zone designations). These five zones Report to Council Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines Framework Report Page 2 address the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan's districts, allow flexibility for future uses, but provide for specific areas for housing, a major component of the Plan. Overall, the initial framework encourages housing by designating two (2) zones where it is required, and four (4) others where it is made optional as part of mixed use development. The Design Guidelines Matrix addresses site and building design, density, height, and parking. Medium density housing is required in all zones that permit it, with the option for high density as a bonus. Providing a density bonus will be evaluated as a way to obtain additional site design goals such as "sustainable" design, or the provision of open space. The City Center Advisory Commission has shown an interest in emphasizing "sustainable" design practices as applied to site or building design in the Downtown. "Sustainable" refers to the use of natural methods of addressing environmental concerns such as storm water runoff, habitat restoration, or building materials. Parking is an important aspect of a changing downtown, and the initial framework provides specific guidelines for parking. The matrix addresses location, screening, and size of parking in the Downtown. The land use framework limits the size of any single commercial use to 20,000 SF on Main Street and in the Mixed Use Employment Zone, and up to 60,000 SF in the Mixed Use Commercial Zone (99W & Hall Blvd.). This is to prevent the development of "big box" retail which would overburden the Downtown's transportation system and be out of scale with the district. On Main Street, it does, however, provide for larger than typical retail stores to allow a flexibility of potential businesses, but requires that larger retail be appropriately scaled within a mixed use development. CCAC Recommendations The CCAC passed a motion endorsing this report and recommending the Phase I framework report as a starting basis for land use / design guidelines for Downtown with the following additional recommendations: that staff 1) evaluate the use of a "form-based code" where appropriate, 2) include height restrictions and a "view corridor" from 99W into Downtown, 3) develop design guidelines that address the "architectural character" of a traditional Main Street. The Commission is very much in favor of developing a traditional Main Street. A "form-based code" is a new regulatory means of defusing the architectural criteria in graphic format to convey key concepts to be applied by architects in designing buildings. It usefulness is in clearly conveying key design elements that are desireable in unique situations such as a Main Street area. Report to Council Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines Framework Report Page 3 Proposed Doumtown Land Use Designations The following are proposed land use zones for Downtown. They represent the starting point for discussion with the Planning Commission. Fanno Residential The Fanno Residential Zone is situated between Burnham St. and Fanno Creek Park. With views and access to Fanno Creek Park, the area is a primary residential site. It is the sole single use zone in Downtown, allowing only residential development. By creating a single use zone for residential, it provides developers the opportunity to create a self-contained, unique environment free of other competing uses. Densities range from 30 to 43 units per acre and allow for townhome, rowhouse, courtyard, condominium or apartment style homes. Density bonuses may permit up to 65 units per acre. Main Street Mixed Use ■ The Main Street Mixed Use Zone reinforces the traditional Main Street atmosphere with either single use retail or mixed use with retail required on the ground floor. Maximum height is four (4) story; design guidelines for Main Street require that the sidewalk level be differentiated from middle and top by using such architectural features as awning, transom windows, larger windows, and varied building materials. On site parking is not required for Main Street uses to provide for a continuous "street wall" and pedestrian focus without interruptions for vehicular access. All buildings will be required to meet basic architectural design requirements. Mixed Use Commercial (99W & Hall Blvd. ❑ The Mixed Use Commercial zone at 99W & Hall Blvd. provides for regional scale allowing up to a 60,000 SF of retail, with office or mixed use including residential. Located at the juncture of 99W and Hall Blvd, the area provides added high traffic, and visibility to draw potential retail customers from the "region". The zone will include design guidelines to accommodate higher levels of vehicular circulation, maintain a pedestrian scale at the ground- floor level of buildings, and potentially include a central plaza with entry to the Urban Creek Corridor. Urban Creek Corridor Mixed Use Residential The Urban Creek Corridor Mixed Use Residential Zone is designed to provide mixed use with ground-floor retail and residential above bordering the Urban Creek Open Space Corridor. Maintaining retail uses on the ground floor along the proposed open space serves to activate the area and provides community wide appeal. Residential is required within this zone to ensure adequate housing in the Downtown. Providing for housing through land use requirements supports the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan's goal to create a daytime through evening active neighborhood, increase support for local businesses, address security with "eyes on the street" and capitalize on the commuter rail system. Report to Council Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines Framework Report Page 4 Mixed Use Residential The Mixed Residential Zone, like the Urban Creek Corridor Zone, requires residential to be part of any mixed use development. Ground floor uses may include retail or office. The purpose of this zone is to provide for higher density housing (up to 8 stories) with a minimum of 2 stories. The zone borders Hall Blvd., a higher capacity state highway by classification, supports higher intensity uses along the street, with existing higher density housing. The area adjoins the Urban Creek Corridor, with the density and building height being reduced to a 4 story limit. Mixed Use Emplo rti i ent The Mixed Use Employment Zone provides both single use office or mixed use with options for retail or office on the ground floor, and residential above. The zone is intended to support the expansion of existing or new businesses in the Downtown. The district adjoins the commuter rail line, which is more compatible with office then residential uses, although the option is provided. The zone is designed to be flexible, but support development of office space. Report to Council Downtown Land Use / Design Guidelines Framework Report Page 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Proposed Land Use Designations August 23, 2006 I City of Tigard Oregon L -ED SE- M 911 ,HHA L VD t MAIN< T\\ 11). EI~UU M, E"SE RES,IDEN IAL, . oleo FANNO PARK RESIDENTIAL Ci all i 2 20 50 0 11.0 F --t:- - - ATTACHMENT 4 Downtown Land Use, Densi , Height Matrix--Aug 23 ~C O` ~c <<.a \0aR 0 ~J w V~ ~ Amy 0 ~ m m eb Land Uses / Density / Height 4b~,a J~oac}ma}~a Land Uses Mixed Use (MU) GF Retail-Office / Res. above x x x x GF Retail / Res-Office above x x x x GF Retail Required x x Residential Required x x x Retail Single Use x x x Office Single Use x x RES Single Use x x x Height Minimum 2 Stories x x x x x x Max 4 stories x x x Max 6 stories x x Max 8 stories x Density Residential-Single Use: min: 1 unit/ 1450 SF; Max: 1 unit/ 1000 Sf (30 u / acre to 43 u / acre): Up to 65 units / acre with density bonus provisions x x x x x x FAR Minimum FAR 1.5:1 x x x x Setbacks / Recessed Bldg Entries Provide Residential / Mixed Use Landscape setbacks 3' to 10' x Encourage Recessed Bldg Entries for Pedestrian space x x ATTACHMENT 5 Downtown Design Guidelines Matrix August 23, 2006 .r J a° F °F U° may. FQ ~y J U Q' ~ Jy~ U`~ Jy~ Jy~ c° Design Element Site Design--Park / Open Space Provide access to Park at viewpoint locations x x x Provide access transtions to Park / midblock accessways x x x Integrate ecological concepts in site development x x x x x x Integrate stormwater management in site development x x x x x x Integrate viewpoints, overlooks public gathering spaces at points of entry x x x Incorporate outdoor lighting that responds to different uses (SWDG-B2- 1) x x x Permit uses that are complementary to park / open space views x x x Orientation to open space x Incorporate opens space, cluster development, pedestrian access x Provide accessways to interior open space / transitions to park from public sidewalks x Incorporate sustainable design practises x x x x x x Design transitions from public to private space Develop transitions between private development and public open space (CCFDG-C6 p113) x x x Use site design features such as movement zones, landscape elements, gathering places, and seating opportunities to develop transition areas where private development directly abuts a dedicated public open space (CCFDG-C6 pl13) x x x Incorporate recessed entries along sidewalks (CCFDG-C6 pl 14) x x Incorporate private outdoor spaces as transitions to public space (CCFDG-C6 p115) x x x x Develop a sequence of transition spaces to the building (CCFDG-C6 pl15) Use gathering areas and/or landscaping to define transition areas (CCFDG-C6 p113) x x x x Provide clear transitions from public to private spaces (CCFDG-C6 p116) x x x x Building Design Enhance view opportunities Develop building facades that create visual connections to adjacent public spaces (CCFDG-C1 p 92) x x Orient windows, entrances, balconies, and other building elements to surrounding points of interest and activity (CCFDG-C1 p 93) x x x x Size and place new buildings to protect existing views and view corridors (CCFDG-C1 p 93) x x x Use design principles and building materials that promote quality and permanence.(CCFDG-C1 p 97) x x x x x x Establish Traditional Main Street Character x Integrate the different building and design elements including, but not limited to, construction materials, roofs, entrances, as well as window, door, sign, and lighting systems, to achieve a coherent composition (CCFDG-C5 p 108) x x x x x x ATTACHMENT 6 Downtown Design Guidelines Matrix August 23, 2006 P. Co. 0 lCa °F U° °y 6Q `r Jym U`0 Jym Jym ° a c a a Design Element Encourage sustainable building design REncoura a LEEDS buildin s and / or" reen architecture" x x x x x n egra e s orm wa er managemen wI oven sI a an development design x x x x x Encourage the into oration of Eco Roofs x x x x x Encourage mu ti unctiona storm water systems such as roo gardens, planters, that infiltrate water naturall x x x x x Design Corners that build active intersections Use design elements including, but not limited to, varying building heights, changes in facade plane, large windows, awnings, canopies, marquees, signs, and pedestrian entrances to highlight building comers (CCFDG-C7 p118 x x x Locate flexible sidewalk-level retail opportunities at building comers (CCFDG-C7 118) x x x Locate stairs, elevators, and other upper floor building access points toward the middle of the block CCFDG-C7 118) x x Differentiate the sidewalk level of buildings Differentiate the sidewalk-level of the building from the middle and top by using elements including, but not limited to, different exterior materials, awnings, signs, and large windows (CCFDG-C8 122) x x x Develop flexible sidewalk level spaces Develop flexible spaces at the sidewalk-level of buildings (CCFDG-C9 p124 x x x Integrate roofs and use rooftops Integrate roof function, shape, surface materials, and colors with the building's overall design concept (CCFDG-C11 131 x x x x x Size and place rooftop mechanical equipment, penthouses, other components, and related screeing elements to enhance views from Highway 99W CCFDG-C11 31 x Develop rooftop terraces, gardens, and associated landscape areas to be effective stormwater management tools CCFDG-C11 131 x Integrate Signage Integrate signs and their associated structural components with the overall buildings design concept CCFDG-C11 131 x x x x Size, place, design, and light signs to not dominate the visual environment and provide human scale. CCFDG-C11 131 x x x x Weather Protection Develop integrated weather protection systems at the sidewalk-level of buildings to mitigate the effects of rain, wind, glare, shadow, reflection and sunlight on the pedestrian environment. CCFG-B6 84) x x x Scale / Design Prevent large-scale retail1service uses that can overburden the Downtown's transportation system and that are out of scale with the neighborhood. X x x x Require active uses in ground floors aces x x Reinforce street., as a small scale retail district with specialty retail (require retail and encourage specialty shops on round floor level x Encourage neighborhood retail services in Downtown (Ex. bonus provisions) x x Where permitted, encourage small scale office with pedestrian compatible scale x Where permitted, encourage larger scale office that is auto accomodating, but pedestrian oriented x Encourage private development of plaza / open sace x Discourage buildings which visual dominate adjacent residential areas x x x Require 15% window coverage for upper-floor facades x x x ATTACHMENT 7 Downtown Parking Guidelines / Commercial Size Restrictions--8123 k 0 my FQ ti V m Q Vi Qty. ~4, J: ~b. V~ ;P Jy0 Parking Guidelines / Commercial Jb ao y. ~a Size Restrictions Parking Requirements Limit the size of new surface parking lots x x x x x x Encourage "shared use" of parking facilities x x x x x x No off-street parking required for retail uses x x x x x x All parking must be located to the rear of buildings x x x x x x Parking in the rear must be screened from streetview x x x x x x Encourage parking to locate within structures x x x x x x Exempt 50% of above-ground structured parking area from FAR reps (applicable to sites greater than 100' depth x x x x x x Reduce the visual impact of parking x x x x x x Reduce the visual impact of parking areas from sidewalks, streets, and especially from adjacent residential zones x x x x x x Allow parking permits for residential parking on public streets (long-term) x x x x x Restrict parking access along the street to create a continuous building frontage, and minimize pedestrian / vehicular conflicts x x Insure a higher standard for parking areas in commercial zones adjacent to residential zones including the following: x x x Provide pedestrian access that is protected from auto traffic x x x Insure that vehicle access does not enter through neighborhoods x x x Improve and soften the appearance of parking areas; x x x Design parking lots that use sustainable design and materials including; pervious pavement, bioswales, native plants, extra shading x x x Reduce the amount and rate of stormwater runoff from vehicle areas; x x x Reduce pollution and temperature of stormwater runoff from vehicle areas; x x x Minimum landscaping: 30 % of lot area; Minimum landscaped width: 10 ' x x x Require large canopy trees with coverage (full-grown) of 80% of lot area x x x Commercial-Single Use Restrictions Prevent large-scale retail . Service uses that can over burden the district's transportation system over burden transportation system and are out of scale with neighborhood Max. Size: 20,000SF x x Max Size : 60,000 SF x ATTACHMENT 8 Comparison of Height Limits-TDIP, Framework Report, Current CBD Zone Framework Report / Estimate Current CBD Height limits TDIP of ft Zone* Main St: 40 ft 4 stories / 44 ft 80 ft MUE 60 ft 6 stories / 66 ft 80 ft MUC 40-50 ft 6 stories / 66 ft 80 ft M U R High 75 ft 8 stories / 88 ft 80 ft MUR Fanno 45 ft 4 stories / 44 ft 80 ft Urban Creek 40-50 ft 4 stories / 44 ft 80 ft A, reh z~r 2!57,/ _ "4 100 7 0U1,j G14/6~e/ass- Tigard Downtown. Planning Land Use and Project Schedule Design Guidelines CCAC-Framework June-Sept 06 Public Outreach Oct-May commission Oct-June City Council Updates Nov-May I'l Other Related X Urban Creek Corridor-feasibility • Nov-Feb S Refine Circulation Plan Fanno Crk Park Master Plan Nov-June J M Il ^ ~ I r Yropacd Land Use . I 7~ -~"I. -r' ~ . • P.p.w9 d Land Des[gnaduns U. kl j `1 - Des `6_6, E-- i. z .17 "Framework Recommendations" CCAC Review Recommendations • Zones implement the - Endorses the Framework Report No specific architectural theme-but quality Evalvate • codes design • housing: 2 • • • optional corridor" • • height. parking Desigo Develop for "architechiral • -sustainable" design character" of MaiI7 Street Limits Parking: location, scieening, size Limits 1 20, 000 SF @ Maio St 111 SF MUC • Hall/ 1 Design Guidelines-Objectives Height Restrictions 1. Ensure quality • Comparison of Height Limits-TDIP, Framework Report, Current CBD Zone 2. Address orientation to b amework port/ Estimate Current CBD open Creek Park • Height limits TDIP ft Zone" Urbao Creek Corridor Main St: 40 it 4 stories / 44 it 80 it MUE 60 ft 6 stories 166 it 80 ft MUC 40-50 it 6 stories / 66 it 80 it 3. Address MUR Hi g; 75 it 8 stories / 88 ft 80 ft "traditional" Main Street MUR Fanno 45 ft 4 stories / 44 ft 80 it architectural character Urban Creek 40-50 it 4 stories / 44 it 80 it Note: Main St. to included "view corridor" height restrictions an / Creafing Mal*n Street Character Lake • / Oswego A Street Lake Oswego Block A -2 Story 2 story -Design -Ground Floor -English Tudor Design Guidelines Two Story Traditional Design Small scale Mixed Use--Portland .AR 10 { t . 0 Wr ac -ter Lake i Oswego- B Stieef Lake • new development Traditional design-office above Use of older building Zupans ground floor-large scale 2-storv Mixed Use ground floor design Single story Condosabove ground floor design 2 • • District-Small Scale Mississippi Ave--Portland } TP, Lloyd a District ' Broadway-small scale retail use single story retail Mississippi Ave-2 Story r- • Use-NW • Pearl t. . Wi - n Lloyd 1 NW 231~ St Portland-4 story MU Residential: Medium Pearl District: Hoyt 1 It Tr Street Properties Housin type RcwhOLIses rear parking Neighborhood Address 4102-4120 N Mississippi St Zoning CSd f Site size 9985 SF U i's ln.,,i,4,: I tinit per 2496 SF (I unitslacre) Parking 4 spaces (parking pads Density: 1 tinit per 2496 SF 118 anitslaco) accessed from alley) AL Note Average design quality Size of units, 1312 SF (3 Iddrms) Housin type ROWhOLIses rear garages 00 D strict Developer Pearl 1 Comments Johnson Street Townhouses Rowhouses on 00 garages) -deep lots will) Units are raised above street level and Density.: 1 anit or 1462 SF (30 parking accessed from set back behind landscaped terraces unitslacre) pre-existing alley, which allowed for both providing privacy in a th,gh-densily Parking 14 (rear rear yard s and rear urban environmen I Size of units 0 2000 park I ng pads Year completed 3 f~:P -4 fid"Opp l I . Room forms and parapet walls effectively .pp, is een equipment from view A range of high quality building „(iu R materials and deall create an impression of permanence Permanence and Durability and durab,l,ttt I mini This equipment is visible from the street I ! 41, and from the residential units themselves Lake ' - r Basic Information Housing type Rowhouses rear garages 09wego-off"B" Street Rowhouses Neighborhood Sullivan s Gulch 3 story design Address 14091427 NE 171h Ave Zoning RH Site size 6440 Units 4 Density: 1 iinit nor 1610 SF (27 Parking 4 (rear garages) 0 Size of units 1782-2057 SF (2 bdrins) Yea, completed 1998 eveloper Marvin Wakefield and Tint and "AIIIIIIIII.- Susan Brown 0 tiers Coalb Architecture ra. n owhouses with contemporary design. Lake es Osvvego- whose landscaped front setbacks and lack of front garages result in street frontages f Millenium Park area story design that continue the green landscaped character of the surrounding neighborhood ,p . . 4 Agenda Item # Meeting Date September 19, 2006 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title Review the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan Prepared By: Denver Igarta Dept Head Approval: ~C City Mgr Approval: CP ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan and provide input on the streetscape design concepts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and provide input on the Plan. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In September 2005, the City Council approved the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (I'DIP). The first of eight catalyst projects identified in the TDIP is to develop a Streetscape Enhancement Program for the downtown area. The Tigard Downtown Design Streetscape Plan establishes the design theme and functional improvement plans for Downtown's streetscape and design concepts for gateways, public spaces, and streets (including "green street" treatments). Design concepts were established for Main Street, Burnham Street and Commercial Street (west of Main Street). The design concepts and thematic elements developed during the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan will directly guide the final engineering design and construction of downtown streetscape components in the future. A citizen Streetscape Working Group (SWG) was formed to provide guidance and design input throughout the formation of the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. Seven meetings were held with the SWG from December 2005 to July 2006. A public Open House was held on May 25, 2006 to introduce residents to the downtown streetscape design concepts. In February and May 2006, the consultant team and staff presented status reports to Council including an overview of the project, recommendations for design themes, design concepts for Burnham Street and Main Street, and concepts for unifying elements, public art, and gateways and public spaces. On September 26, 2006, the City Center Development Agency will be asked to consider a resolution adopting the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT 2006 Tigard City Council Goals: Implement Downtown Plan • Implement catalyst projects including improvements to Burnham Street and identify and purchase land for a Downtown public gathering place • Work to assure passage of the Urban Renewal Plan Ballot measure • Identify and make changes to the Tigard Development Code needed to implement the Downtown Plan (e.g., zoning overlays, design standards ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan (including Appendices) FISCAL NOTES None. IAadmXc9thyVorms12006\cound1 agenda item summery sheet 06 - june revision.doc _f''~ I • . ~ • • 1 • • • • • • i I Elements of the Plan i Downtown Streetscape Design Plan 1 i December 2005 - August 2006 Streetscape Working Group i Stakeholder Interviews j Public Open House i i i Transportation Analysis Gateways and Public Framework Planning Spaces Design Public Art nal Plan Functi Plans o Street Concept Design Phasing and Costs Green Street Guidelines Final Report i i i i I r P v~ ~ ~ b r ' ' J Js aJPJPJ'~Jd ~a A py © ® e o 0 P R a' r r°~ • • T' ,'~J'PJ~.t~ ~r•'J'.~.N°' O :Jr f r Pd`J. P'P J:+P r'J+J• Jr/ir~%° r dt'<~' r~✓.~'`r, ~j~ J ~ f ~ i ~ ~ S~a d a.4rPrr f~~r'•J.!,°~~~rr~J~~rrr'%ryrP~ V ~rr' r iNg rvJ .•O ✓,P' ~P ,d ~r rJ PP'~:a'✓~s's.; ~ i ~ I., Q k r.•°JJ J'a ,44'PROVEM'~~.. 1d LUJ i ~ ~2~C~~~3Il 00 ate. ~ 0 o t~0o tai Tr 0R lat Qpdong U UUUC°JO L`'~IJU~UU~U UUU~ C°JUUI_J ~C"' "UUl1L7..;JlSULJUIJ~J ' • l MC(3 Acqmmmomen ~C~C0"Marc d o0 n i A t i~ Ask ~ppppOp"'- ~ OpppOpOp,. 1 - Q I r.ma"°"° ~y,..Y ~ trap oo ~NTOVUM ,~pRO~irarne 4AN I Y~6AR0 GonCeptua{ i 1 \t / pp ffi f i - - MA - e TE E r f t _ (kl • • Key Themes Concrete pavers Sidewalks, gateways, public Unifying elements for downtown spaces ; J • _ - streetscapes, gateways and public spaces are stone Gateways, public spaces I intended to express the themes of an urban (especially Fanno Creek) F _ - village and a "green heart." The emphasis on Compacted gravel Public spaces (especially Fanno one theme over another may vary from street Creek) and Gateways to street, gateway to gateway and among the Decorative metals Bridge/overlook railings, barrier i .x _ key public spaces. However, a unifying fencing, street furnishings palette of textures, colors and forms suggests ////'''~~~~pppp A a "family of places" and the visual interest Color., Color is a visually unifying clement COLO FQRM found in diversity of design. linked to textural materials. Colors tie ap together spaces separated by distance and Texture: Texture can be a unifying element function. Black is recommended as a unifying 1 through a simple and consistent palette of color for strcetscape furnishings and materials for paving, walls, columns and decorative railings. Complimentary colors of railings. The materials may be used in. grays and reds/oranges can be found in the varying combinations as part of strcetscape selection of sidewalk/gateway paving, f and gateway designs. gateway columns, walls and naturalistic stone i work utilizing locally available basalt or i _ .1- - - - - - - Mnrrrial Applieoriar similar material. rZ Scored concrete Sidewalks, crosswalks, gateways Pervious concrete Sidewalks, gateways. public Plant Materials are an important color and spaces textural element as well, providing the j _ J z unifying appearance of green (especially in the street tree canopy) and seasonal change through flowers, fall foliage and colorful - - winter stems and branches. Ap Form: Form can provide both visual unity j and interesting visual distinction. Form, along i r -zr ♦ with color and texture, provides a sense of orientation for downtown and serves as f visible landmarks. The preferred form for r ~t downtown is the "classic" or "traditional" style, particularly with regard to strcetscape Sri t - - • iK x furnishings. However, more naturalistic - t - forms may also be appropriate at gateways or within the public spaces, especially near - - - - - Fanno Creek. I Public Art: Public is an opportunity to explore the use of key textures, complementary textures not found in other strcetscape or gateway elements, and provide enjoyable elements of surprise in form or interpretation of themes. 1 t : • NOW- t e as Functional heM 14 and O 1 SaIeW ment • pedestflan f t i . i pcces On.-S .41 i r t i Framework Plan Theme as Green Heart Green Heart, Green Connections I ~ I P Trees and Landscaping i Connections to Public Spaces i Connections to Fanno Creek Sustainability i • Public Art ~ arm P ~ i i Framework Plan e Theme as 'Artistic" Representation i Style or Historic Period I Street Lighting i Street Furnishings 0 Sidewalk Paving 0 Public Art I I I t ~1•' i I I i Theme as "Artistic" Representation Classical Style Contemporary/Art i i I I ~ { may,-III ~ .1 5 -s i a D; a r: a M1', n`r ( L . n 1 1 ' ¢ • I ?r 1 1 tr. l~ 4-0 • 1 1 ~ t LL U) U) R 01 m ki~ a?4 s~ il It n i `M1k Ar&i 4 "e t a i.PC' ?3,t. a > ",k ,mow '°P' 1. i Yfi.e. '•(ti,.Vy r. , : . y a • i ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ , i • ~ • ~ • I 11- . . MAIN ST. BURNHAM ST. NEIGHBORHOOD ST. ON-STREET PARKING - - Parallel parking 40 ® F a_ Angled Parking ® 0f SIDEWALKS Wide sidewalks outdoor scating/conversation -y Retail focus/window shopping Distinctive paving Curblcss design options r _ j SIDEWALK FURNISHINGS r High level of furnishings Complementary to rail station I rt Historical character , + Bike rocks Benches F Drinking fountains i itMr _ Trash receptacles Bollards, trees grates, decorative drain covers, etc. LIGHTING Pedestrian scale (15' or less) ff f Classicffraditional Style Option for hanging baskcts/banners { Special needs for performing arts center Accent lighting for art/public spaces i r A 91 LANDSCAPING - a Deciduous trees/canopy' i Native species 51 Median tree planting Planters and window boxes Green street strategies ' `=Z f PUBLIC ART/COMMUNICATION Wayfinding system Information/Exhibits \ - Performances/Events Reflect broad downtown themes Recommended Optional • - - Not Recommended An An A& Am 0 Dcmonstrffiion 0 Garden % 0 i ! r<2 _ - _ non Avcmic 0 a ` - - u Realignment 0 Potential Stotmwatcr ,nµ Roundabout 0 l BURNHAM ST. = PIMA= (typ) rr i 1 0 , m © m m Ull _ cc3 _ -eD--=_-cs----are A;3 - I I 1r,l 1 111 l l I t - Pedestrian/ Retail ~ - I 1 g Oriented Stredscapc l - - Mid-Block Crossing On street PP - arkmb - Ungrovements u 0 Pedestrian C u 0 Connection 0 fff 0 e - 0 0 Fite Station Tigard Water 0 District Gateway© 0 ee 0 Potential Stormwater Potential Starmwater Q 0 Planters (typ) Planters (typ) 1 1„ 1 © ® - wIfy 'AT .41MAY 104 I r~t 0 0 Mid-block Cmssmg 12' Sidewalk-- a 0 Improvements On-street Parking 0 Landscaped Median--~ 0 I, I A . A • • Ah • An A& As Cal ZA h, IN 0 M MAIN BURNHAM NEIGHBORHOOD Definition ST ST ST A Green Street is a collector or residential CURD TO CURD street within the downtown area. The street Landscaped Median T- Y right-of-way dimensions may vary from s street to street or from block to block. What Permeable Roadway Paving' Q ® ® ,9 a will distinguish these streets from other S • y_ i, Tree Canopy (shade & stormwater) streets is the opportunity to consider the ' entire right-of-way for operational and design Light Colors (crosswalks) ® treatments emphasizing the key elements of a Native Vegetation ® Green Street. r Purpose Green Streets are an important opportunity to HACK OF CURB reinforce themes of the Tigard Downtown j Permeable Sidewalk Paving' Improvements Plan such as "green heart" and k- "green connections." Complementary f Flow-through Sidewalk Planters S • ('z ! , .r objectives might include: I • _ ^ - - Rcflcct community desire for a Flow-through Curb Extension Planters S 40 Tree Wells ® ® t -1 sustainable relationship between natural systems and the urban environment i Light Colors (sidewalks & plazas) S • f Create an environment attractive to 1 Tree Canopy (shade & stormwater) • S " { z_4 - pedestrians Native Vegetation • _ w Preserve a sense of open space in an r- - increasingly developed environment Identify opportunities for an integrated demonstration project for green design - street, site and building. Key Elements Green Street elements are not limited to techniques for management of stornwater 'Permeable paving performs best where soil types typically have good - within the street right-of-way. In fact there infiltration characteristics. Subgmde modification with sub-drains or open- may be existing or future streets with limited graded gravel reservoirs can compensate for poor infiltration for permeable opportunities for innovative stormwater paving. management. Those strcetscapes can still be targeted for key elements of a Green Street, such as: Safe and appealing pedestrian • ~ _ environment Mullimodal travel choices Maximizing opportunities for trees and landscaping • Visual and physical connections to public and open spaces • Save what is special or unique Recommended 40 Optional _ Not Recommended • • • 1 • • _ 11-5 f AS Ah A x\..11 ► ~ Near the Source ` rlnmrr.I Sustainable stormwater management sent WWII practices in the right-of-way and the idea of Green Streets has become increasin 11+u'-s5a'sr9 g Y sar...u, pl- popular in the past 5-10 years. Green Street 175'- 1x5.519 stormwater management facilities control runoff and associated pollutants near the source. Management of runoff near the source AML s allows for smaller facilities that manage a•I I I m smaller runoff volumes and smaller pollutant I f s' + loads. Collectively, they can provide great benefit to the management of flow and pollutants in an urban area. The proximity of FLOW THROUGH CURB EXTENSION PLANTER FLOW TIIROUGII CURB EXTENSION PLANTER Fanno Creek makes the implementation of these stomi water management practices all the more important and beneficial. I I Multi-functional Streetscape Stormwater management facilities can occur in medians, parking lanes, travel lanes. sidewalks, tree wel is or underground. Green Streets can and should become a familiar part of the urban landscape. They provide Pmmerw?re.> r>rl;on~l opportunities to appreciate and interact with j 1115'-I2o.sr) Pm'iuue Ping g Ygme Pac;ng the hydrological cycle. As with streets Klraoarh u.nrcr.i-j themselves, these facilities need not be 19ow Through q St'n-er'Fav Well Sid-11.14-1 r regarded as unattractive, but as functional 'free WcH 112'-1 S' SF) 05'-50'SPI Inflasinicture. I j y; Increased Habitat and Human Interaction , q _ with Nature I - Habitat for animals and insects is limited in urban environments. From tree canopy to - i - i q'(- -q " - - - - - j - - -}_tI-I{- y - - -a ~:?~i stormwater facilities to improved water q I a`~ l la, ; I sI I quality. Green Streets can contribute m vcr•--iii--its' beneficially to that habitat, while also xirsm„ t increasing opportunities for human PLANTER AND TREE WELL FLOW THROUGII FLOW TIIROUGH interaction with nature and our surrounding COMBINATION TREE WELLS SIDEWALK PLANTERS landscape. 1 _ x _ - , . o ~ _ ~~n ~l ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ a I ~ ~ ~ ' ~,1 I : ~ ~ ~ ~ ,1 . ~ .\1 r 11 ~ ' 1 c~ ~-x~Y~ n < v ter' 0 ``-;..u rim'":-- ~yr - _ - _ r ?`_r Q - - _ ~ - - ~ G'~paaaaaaaaaaaa~ ; - - Q I 1~~ . I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a ~ ~ I . ~ , . ~ 9~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ' f t ~ , i ~ ~ i r • AM i f Commacial Pwk E- I Pathway Coon r r= o i z~ /JI I r CO) MnTR RAII. ! f rte.. i i - I i colatu i i PHASING OPTION H PHASING OPTION A Cuwbless Street Edge Cuibless Street Edge varies 12' 1Q '10' B j 7 7 1Z Ens4ng Private E,~sng Piivete Gateway Easting?Ifvahe paddng p 3idewak t-el Travel pere6el Padng Sidewalk Travel Lane) (no impacts) fmPa~) Lena Lane PeAri~g Development pmpscts) Lane Le u q 28 5a' R.O.W. 5V RA.W. I i Gateways/Public Spaces Character Options a Ae+ Traditional Forms ! Tl- I I I Alk i • / WE ®r- Choosing different materials from the Unifying Elements palette can alter the quality of the gateways, softening the forms, making them less heavy, more transparent or more irregular.'rhe Unifying Elements palette is intended to be (le.xible and allow j the kind of variety illustrated below to emerge in the final design, l i t i l Brick and Black Railing: Open railing replaces the - masonry wall. t I ~a ~ Columnar Basalt Stone: Naturalistic materials replace "bricks and mortar." Fundamental forts of columns and walls are still visible. i I t t - join- "-lz Stone Columns and Walls: Walls and column move toward -t.-- naturalistic materials. IB-ta i \ G ► \ • : . • \ G I I, 4 ~ 9 R 1 I i DOWNTOWN TIGARD Project Description Enhance visual character of the existing Fanno Creek Bridge as a downtown landmark and gateway into downtown. Bridge improvements can be combined with an ! improved pedestrian crossing for Main Street and other streetscape improvements to encourage pedestrian walking along Main Street with the bridge and creek as a =vas-; destination. Viewing opportunities should be j - from both sides of the bridge. I Key Features t _ Obelisks or columns at bridge ends Decorative iron bridge railing to replace - ik-;''~ e - existing open railing Distinctive sidewalk paving such as a flagstone or angular basalt Marked pedestrian crosswalk with natural r* stone bollards Estimated Construction Budget: i 5180,0004195,000 t i i III-4 i e I I • ~ ~ I ` i i I eto i DOWNTOWN TIGARD Project Description A temporary demonstration garden for urban away ~ sustainable practices applied to home gardens o+~^ and small businesses can be developed on two vacant tax lob:. The focus could be sustainable _ horticultural practices for the home garden, water conservation and generation of solar rwyeoe - - power to supplement conventional electrical AS/FONIWa saa. eow ; \ power sources. The garden can also serve as a supporting space for downtown events and festivals. i Inn This concept for a demonstration garden is sL fry _ intended to be an interim use. The TDIP has ti r 1 Y ©MYMm ^i . identified the potential within the vicinity of • ',a.~ I this site for development of a performing arts center. Other redevelopment opportunities may occur as well. If redevelopment occurs, Exec incorporation of the educational aspects of the Fr demonstration garden into ed the Fanno Creek / Public Area is encouraged. Kev Features • Small pavilion to be used for educational uses (e.g. organized "how to" classes and information) • Native landscaping and wildflowers with signage indicating characteristics and potential uses in the home garden Demonstration composting bins OG - Demonstration of min harvesting and infiltration techniques 0 f Play area for children 2 to 6 years old • Optional water feature in lieu of the play ^ area Estimated Construction Budget: $140,000-$155,000 1 . ~ ~ 111-17 i T, x W ~ Wa Sh r~ ! ! M 'hn ~ tt>, ,t y" .wi0 PTay;,r.";,;ry y~V JG'q $ 3'.. r , w Nr ; , w. 3}. X i ~ Sheet for bookmarking items unable to send to microfiche Date: 9/19/06 Item: CD Subject: Downtown Streetscape Design Plan - Council Workshop Stored in vault: See Records Division ~ PROJECT PPPENDI ~ C 1 1 1 1 1 Table of Contents ' Public Involvement Comments ' SWG Meeting Summaries Open House Comment Summary Street Lighting Memorandum ' Traffic Analysis Memorandum ' Estimated Construction Budgets i ~ MErITS ~ OL~MENT COM 1 pUgLIC INV 1 1 1 1 Streetscape Design -Theme Components r. Streetscape Working Group #1 Summary of Comments Received by Dec 22"d THEME COMPONENT SWG COMMENTS ' • In the vision I have, and reflecting the thoughts I have heard from the public, all of the theme components should blend together for the General Comments "early nineteen hundreds urban village" feel throughout the defined ' downtown district. (1) • Home street (Ash-ScofFns) (4) • Whatever the street design be (Icon Street, Great Street or Home Street), lighting and landscape should be a significant part of the functional criteria. (1) • I am uncomfortable with "curbless" design options; need to see examples to consider appearance and overall functionality. (1) • Consider creatively looking at bike lanes within the sidewalk configuration. Bicycle lanes within the auto asphalt is expensive (and not significantly used by bicyclists), creates restrictions on automobile movement and parking, and places bicyclists in greater danger (there is not a lot of danger of a bicyclist being hurt if hit by a pedestrian). (1) • Regarding the paving options, my response is Yes to all options. (1) • Add to the considerations having curbouts at crossing locations. Naturally, if not by law alone, handicapped friendly as well. (1) • As much pervious materials as possible within the necessary limitations. (2) • Maintenance and durability issues need to be high on the priority list. ' Sidewalks • Textured concrete is fine. (3) • Real bricks are not that serviceable. (3) • Curbless where possible. (3) ' • Room for restaurant (bistro style) seating. (4) • Public watering fountains? (4) • Cost of paving materials eating the budget? Cleaning issues? (4) • Wide sidewalks for retail window shopping, chatting (i.e. outside the Starbucks). (5) • Icon street - more retail focus movement. (5) • Icon street - Yes, also discourage bikes from using sidewalks - particularly the wider' sidewalks. Bike racks. (5) • Great street - less furnishings than icon street. Not nearly as much retail sidewalk needs. (5) ' • Mixed use for sidewalks including outside restaurant seating,.space for pedestrians to congregate, talk, window shop, etc. (6) • Discourage bikes, skateboards on sidewalks by putting racks off icon streets. (6) 1 • Great street - connect Main Street with Library. (6) Page 1 of 4 Streetscape Design - Theme Components r • Whatever the street design be (Icon Street, Great Street or Home Street), lighting and landscape should be a significant part of the ' functional criteria. (1) • I am uncomfortable with "curbless" design options, need to see examples to consider appearance and overall functionality. (1) • Regarding the furnishing options, whatever the street design be (Icon ' Street, Great Street or Home Street), lighting and landscape should be a significant part of the furnishing options. The benches, trash cans, artwork, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc. should create a ' safe and enjoyable experience no matter where the pedestrian might be, not to mention the general attractive appearance from any . Street Furnishings perspective. Public phones (and/or emergency phones) should also be considered (even though many people now have cell phones). (1) ' • Compliment the early 1900's origins of the city (3) • Charming rather than abstract (3) • Green space water feature - stormwater management (4) ' • Directly behind curb. (6) • Compatible with rail station design. (6) • Signage at rail station directing commuters to Main Street. (6) • Incorporate "educational opportunities" in furnish/art, etc. (6) ' • Look at benches selected for commuter rail station. (6) • Flower baskets attached to light poles - change seasonally. (6) • In my vision, trees are a part of the landscape considerations. Working with the Tree Board for appropriate deciduous trees is appropriate (for appearance and maintenance issues). Trees should not be ones that will grow to excessive size (may require pruning , periodically depending on type selected). A mix of deciduous is okay Street Trees for the benefit of color as well as style. (1) • Deciduous trees only - space liming if too close to curb making auto ' access difficult. Clean up very expensive and intensive. (2) • Yes, deciduous - ornamental varieties (3) • Greenscape concepts - involve the Tree Board. (4) , • Trees should be a major component of all streets. Prefer a combination of trees that provide color. (6) • Prefer ornate / antiquated lighting (remove all cobra style lighting). Consider arms for plant baskets and seasonal banners. Consider water access (drip system) for water needs of plants. Consider electrical outlets on each or every other pole fixture for potential power needs (events). (1) • Avoid utilitarian look. Lake Oswego has gone the extra step to take poles and fixtures like Tigard has in a couple of locations and ordered them in black. It makes a big difference in the appearance. (1) • We ought to have consistent lighting fixtures throughout the Central Street Lighting Business District. (1) • Accent lighting would be very attractive. (1) • Ped-scale lighting especially on Main • Tall lights at main intersections (3) • Shorter, charming lights along sidewalks (3) • Early 1900's main street light fixtures (3) ' • Interaction with business signage. (4) • Power outlets in poles. (4) • Hanging baskets. 4 Page 2 of 4 Streetscape Design - Theme Components • Bring in different design options to choose from. (4) • Power sources within the street light. (5) • Burnham - consider needs for performing arts area in downtown plan and location of the fire station. (5) • Look at light poles selected for commuter rail station. (6) • While crossings at intersections are important, we should consider "mid block" crossings because Tigard's downtown city blocks are very ' long. We need to provide a pedestrian friendly accommodation for crossing streets. (1) • Crossing should be distinctive and very visible. (1) While it may be in some other material, consider crossings to be in a ' cobblestone or brick appearance. Color may be appropriate but should be subtle. (1) Pedestrian Signalized intersection - as few as possible (2) ' Crossings Curbless where possible (3) • Garbage/refuge cans. (4), • Crosswalk signals. (4) • Bike lanes for Great Streets- not Icon Streets. (4) • Burnham - consider,needs for performing arts area in downtown plan and location of the fire station. (5) • Signalize intersections for visually impaired. (6) • Does colored concrete fade? (6) • Like different pavers/color on different streets. (6) • Having respect for bicycle accommodation, but also having respect ' for the cost / benefit relationships, I draw attention to comments about sidewalks and incorporating bicycle lanes within the sidewalk design; minimize mix of automobiles and bicycles. (1) • Bike storage doesn't seem much of a priority. (2) • Make pedestrians the strong focus (2) • Minimal emphasis in most areas. Perhaps more bike racks in public ' meeting areas. (3) Bike Improvements • Currently, I'm not aware of bike use in the downtown area. As currently configured people aren't biking to downtown. (3) Tie ins with bike trail at Fanno Creek. (4) • Consider how bikes and peds can coexist or encourage separation - safety issues (small kids - bikes don't mix). (5) • Encourage bike paring with lots on racks. (5) • Accommodate bikes who come in and safety at issue in how we deal with them, but not necessarily spend a lot on attracting bikes. (5) • Like bike access/parking to designated areas - keep off Main St. (6) 1 i Page 3 of 4 1 Streetscape Design - Theme Components • Balance (2) Understand that Fanno Creek is habitat for painted turtles.'It seems ' that turtles would be fun to incorporate. (3) • The cat tails in the downtown task force logo were seen as a natural element that could be incorporated into artistic railings, bike racks, etc. (3) • More natural than abstract because of the green urban creek. (3) Public Art City clock - sidewalk - steam? (4) • Plaza centerpiece at north end of Main Street. (4) , • Art styles - classical - Americana - water features. (4) • Incorporate wherever possible. (6) • Use art to educate. (6) • Major component in gateways. (6) ' • Artwork should reflect broader theme/brand of city. (6) 1 i Page 4 of 4 Streetscape Working Group TIGARD DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN STREETSCAPE WORKING GROUP MEETING (SWG) #2 JANUARY 19, 2006, TOWN HALL Welcome and Introductions ' Updates for the SWG On January 9, Chair Lisa Olson presented the streetscape project to the City's Tree Board and invited representatives to attend SWG meetings. Tree Board members Janet Gillis and ' Rob Callan were in attendance. On January 14", Steve Witter of Trimet gave the City Council and update on the status of the commuter rail and station design. The decision-making process for the SWG will be based on a consensus model. In case consensus cannot be reached the group will make decisions by majority vote. Public Art - The Character of Art Valerie Otani initiated the discussion of public art by asking what the group saw as the potentials for public art in shaping the character of Downtown Tigard. Public Art influences the way people interact with their public space. It draws people to a ' space and gives the space meaning. It can convey the values and history of an area. Several case examples were presented in photographs. ' The group was asked whether felt downtown `gateways' provided a good location for public art. Should the art pieces be visible to drive-by traffic or smaller scale for pedestrians? Fanno Creek (at Main Street) provides an opportunity to educate about natural assets and integrate the built and natural environments. Natural materials or designs can draw people into the park. The trail connects the downtown with the Tigard Public Library. Art work can be integrated (or layered) into different design elements of the streetscape. Some of the ideas discussed included the following: • Artist designed/modified - decorative fencing, benches, lighting, etc. • In-lay art into the sidewalk using durable materials Attract visitors from the 99 overpass (e.g. something tall at the rail station) • Remain consistent with overall historic theme ' • Draw attention to downtown (plaza at Liberty Park with sculpture/water feature) The group was instructed to send additional ideas on public art to the City (denver@tigard- or.gov) to be forwarded on to the consultant team. Design Themes Summary A matrix of street typologies was distributed to the group defining unique characteristics of each identified street type. The matrix outlines general design principles which can be used throughout the project. There will be flexibility in the application of principles for each type. The suggested designs will not preclude anything in the future, and will be flexible to accommodate market demand. 1 Streetscape Working Group The Main Street was classified as an Icon Street; Burnham Street was classified as a Great Street; and a Home Street represents one of the more minor (low-volume) streets. Trash receptacles were change from optional to recommended on the Icon Street. The Icon Street ' is where the most time is spent on foot, most often visited, and most identified with Downtown Tigard Consensus was reached on accepting the matrix as guide for designing downtown streets. Design Function ' Peter Coffee of DKS discussed future demands downtown from a transportation standpoint. Peter distributed a map classifying the streets by color (blue = arterial streets, green = ' collector streets, red = neighborhood routes) and showing traffic volumes (averaged daily) Future traffic volumes were determined based on modeling with and without new roadway ' connections. The block width from Main Street to Ash Street is approximately 1000 feet. Circulation could be improved with new mid-block connections. Realignment of intersections on Main Street (at Tigard Street and Commercial Street) creating four legged ' intersections could also improve traffic flows. Street Design ' Tom Litster presented preliminary concepts for Burnham Street and Main Street formed based on defining characteristics at a functional level. Concepts for Main Street included preserving the 2-lane option west of Burnham to allow the possibility of an event street, curbless design, asymmetrical sidewalk (larger on the north-side). The concept would not allow for dedicated bike lanes on Main Street. , Concepts for Burnham Street included creation of a landscaped boulevard with bike lanes, a median, partial on street parking and possible green street treatments. One option would route bikes to Fanno Trail at Ash Street allowing on-street parking between of Ash and Main Streets. Another option would bring in bike lanes to dust before the Main Street intersection. This concept would require expanding the current right-of-way (current max. , 60 ft) to at least 68ft along the full length of Burnham. Decision-making on proposed design options was postponed until the next SWG meeting. Next steps The group recommendation that a summary of pros and cons for each design option be ' prepared to help inform the group of the primary issues. In attendance: , Streetscape Working Group: Jim Andrews, Carolyn Barkley, Mike Curtis, Marland Henderson, Mike Marr, Lisa Olson, Catherine Renken, Sue Wirick, Chris Lewis Staff Gus Duenas, Phil Nachbar, Barbara Shields, Denver Igarta ' Consultants: Peter Coffey, Tom Litster, Joe Dills, Valerie Otani Others: Janet Gillis, Rob Callan 2 Streetscape Working Group TIGARD DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN STREETSCAPE WORKING GROUP MEETING #3 FEBRUARY 9, 2006 TOWN HALL Welcome and Introductions Handouts disttrbuted.- presentation slides, draft Burnham St. concept and cross-sections, Main St. draft concept and cross-sections, Scope of Services - summary of products, Tri-met ' Art Committee Memo Purpose of Tonight's Meeting ' 1. Take time to back up and explain the links between the Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP), the Streetscape design process, engineering design and actual construction. Emphasis the importance of each step in the process. 2. Gain some closure on broad design concepts for Burnham Street and Main Street. 3. Set the agenda for the next meeting in March. Key Steps and Timeline The consultants reviewed with the group how the streetscape design process fits within the broader downtown planning and development picture and final products that will be contained in the Downtown Streetsc ape Design Plan. There are three major steps involved: ' 1. The Vision is contained in the Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) - OTAK looked at the principles and projects ' 2. Design Concepts - build on the vision and articulates the TDIP in a more concrete way. a. Why this process is important - set some design principles, get into ' conceptual designs, building a house metaphor - functions of a room e.g. living room 1) how big? 2) pick furniture. Sidewalk & street is an outdoor room, how to make things fit and program function, how should it look. b. Final product - alternatives and phasing to providing flexibility over time ...to be chosen based on funding and priorities. 3. Construction - visible & functional changes in future. Final design - budget and ' sequence for improvements based on cost estimates over the coming years. Changes may occur due to funding or priorities. ' Products: • Themes as Role: 0 Safety, Comfort & Access 0 Green Heart & Green Connections - Sustainability 0 Style or Historic Period - street furniture, lighting, paving, public art • Streets: Draft design concept Plans • Gateways & Public Spaces: program, themes and refinement 1 1 Streetscape Working Group Burnham Street Design Key elements of the design concept include: ' ° Wide sidewalks (12 feet or greater) - conservative/ minimum - what the sidewalk is used for, pedestrians, traffic calming Landscaped Median - traffic calming effect, small sporadic islands, ' achieved incrementally over time with redevelopment. Driveways - conflict with bikes, disrupts sidewalk, pedestrians ° Trees and Landscaping ' Street Furniture Sustainability - innovative stormwater management ° Public Space Connection ' Cross sections - south of Ash with bike lanes / north of Ash parallel parking - pedestrian oriented - gaps in development provide access to Fanno Creek Elements: , • Event Street - no street closures - sidewalks used for vendors - sidewalks are big. One idea might be close part of the on-street parking and rent to vendors. ' • Medians - provide for mid-block crossings, stormwater management possibilities and traffic calming - protect trees, pedestrians & bicyclists • On-street Parking - supports retail, pedestrians ' • Bike lanes - could be routed to Fanno Creek if land uses and development. make that option preferable. • Possible roundabout at Ash St. ' • Curb extensions - possible stormwater treatment location SWG Comments: , Keep in mind the long term needs and short term funding. Main Street Design Retain the character of Main Street. Key elements of the design concept include: ° Primarily a retail street ° Linked to Commuter Rail & Fanno Creek, Trees and Landscaping, Street ' Furniture. ° Wide sidewalks -12 ft or greater on either side ° Increased on-street parking - angled parking west of Burnham ' Curbless design - Is this a reasonable side? Pros - pedestrian oriented, co-mingling of cars and pedestrians - cohabitation. Visual ' link for storefronts, traffic calming, changes the awareness of pedestrians and behavior. Cons - expensive and creates stormwater drainage issues ' Gateways and Public Spaces Build the "Green Heart" between Fanno Creek, Main and Burnham - a gigantic open space ' downtown to make the streets contribute to space, enhance access for people to get there 2 Streetscape Working Group ° Make entrance to Fanno Creek bigger and more visible ° Green connections: Fanno - Burnham - Public Space Main and Burnham Event Streets and sidewalks ° Create open connections from Burnham St. to Fanno Creek Next Steps At the next meeting the group will spend time discussing the following: 1. "Style" of furnishings, lighting paving, signage and artwork the right palette to program into each element. 2. Gateways and public spaces In attendance: Streetscape Working Group: Jim Andrews, Carolyn Barkley, Mike Curtis, Marland Henderson, Mike Marr, Lisa Olson, Catherine Renken, Chris Lewis Staff Barbara Shields, Phil Nachbar, Denver Igarta Consultants: Tom Litster, Joe Dills ' Others: Alexander Craighead, Rob Callan The next meeting will be on March 9 at the Library Community Room 1 3 Streetscape Working Group TIGARD DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN STREETSCAPE WORKING GROUP MEETING (SWG) #4 ' MARCH 9, 2006 Tigard Library, Community Room Welcome and Introductions Group Chair Lisa Olson welcomed the group and provided opportunity for the following updates: , • Urban renewal video: first taping session this morning. Struggling with the legal issue of how to move forward with this City lead project to • Newspaper articles: Rick Bella column with quote by Mike Marr in the Oregonian. ' Walmart article in the Willamette Week suggests interest in Tigard location. • City Center Development Agency (CCDA): update provided on SWG work and Streetscape Plan progress ' • City Center Advisory Committee: SWG members invited,to attend next meeting. Purpose of Tonight's Workshop , • Discuss the three items on the agenda Burnham St. concepts, Style-Theme options, Gateways and Public Spaces concepts • Obtain direction and input for these items ' Review Burnham Street Options The group continued the discussion of design concepts for Burnham Street. A revised option was ' developed based on City Council and SWG feedback. The group discussed whether to allow these alternatives to go forward as part of the Streetscape Design Plan and their individual preferences on alternative and elements presented. The two options developed provide the possibility to mix-and-match in the future. Both options provide for an "event street" near Main St. (providing for intense sidewalk activity, storefront display, outdoor seating, etc.) Option 1: The alternative we've already discussed. Will spend more time discussing option 2. ' Ll 3 lanes from Main to Hall Q Landscaped median with breaks for turning movements Q On-street parking Option 2: This alternative was developed as a result of feedback from the SWG meetings and City Council. , Q Kept the 3 lanes with landscaped median from Hall to Ash (curb to curb 50~ Q 2 Lanes from Ash to Main Street - no median (curb to curb 38~ Q On street parking Main to Hall ' Q No bike lanes Q Consistent ROW - 74 feet minimum Q Extra-wide sidewalk space (up to 18 feet) ' Q Bike lane moved to Fanno Creek Trail 1 Streetscape Working Group Transportation and Circulation Issues There are "street function" issues related to the concepts for Burnham Street including the following: • Needs will be determined by future land uses (e.g. mix of housing and office) ' • Commuter rail station will impact traffic volumes • Estimate between 50%-100% increase in traffic volumes that may create a need for additional access points, left turn lanes, signalization (at Main St?) ' • Burnham is projected to reach 10,000 cars a day by 2025. Group Consensus The group was asked to reach consensus on the following questions (understanding that there will be some mix and match possibilities preserved for future decision making): 1. Does the committee consider these options to be reasonable to move forward as part of the Streetscape Design Plan. The group did not support sending option #1 forward as part of the Streetscape Plan. ' 2. Does the committee favor one alternative as the best option for Burnham Street. Eight members of the workinggroup were present. In the initial vote, five members preferred Option #2, one ' member preferred Option # 1, one member abstained from voting and one member expressed interest in a third option (3 lanes with no parking and no bike lanes). The group ultimately reached consensus on Option 2 as the preferred alternative for Burnham Street noting the following concerns. ' • The ability for pedestrians to cross the street safely - need to provide pedestrian crossing opportunities • Kig& of way issues - explore phasing options ' • Will the design gual6~for Transportation Impact Fee funds? The group recommended creation of a matrix to illustrate the relationship of the design concept and the optional elements for future mix and matching. Theme as Style and Period The group continued the discussion on the concept of "theme as role" focusing on the component "theme as style and period". The elements of the streetscape that can be stylized are limited. The consultant team presented a photo essay of street furnishings. ' The street as a room in a house: Once you know what room goes where and how big it will be, you can begin selecting the furniture you want. The group was instructed to "not select a bench", rather to ' note their general preference for the categories (e.g. classical, traditional, contemporary, etc) presented. The group was also asked the following: • Are there any styles that don't belong in Downtown ' • Are there elements that belong only on certain streets Unifying downtown "style" themes: • No "modern/contemporary" furnishings • General theme: classical • Materials: metal, brick and wood ' • Color: black • Texture: linear 2 Streetscape Working Group Specific element/location "style" themes: ' • Green Pockets at parks/open space - stone/natural materials • Fountains - strategically placed • Ballards - Classic & some stone • Bike Racks - Opportunity for both classic and art (up to 50%) • Light fixture - repeat "station" design recommendations • Hanging baskets & banner arms mounted on light fixtures , • Paving - decorative concrete and pavers (pervious) • Tree grates - Simple design but more decorative at specific locations • Planters - all options shown are good, no hand watered planters ' • Planting - in curb extensions, native plantings preferred • Trash - repeat "station" design recommendations Gateways and Public Spaces ' The consultants presented the preliminary "programming" for designated gateways and public spaces. The concepts address how the space should be used and what the basic elements are. ' Meeting Adjourned In attendance: ' Streetscape Working Group: Catherine Renken, Sue Wirick, Marland Henderson, Carolyn Barkley, Lisa Olson, Mike Mart, Chris Lewis, Jim Andrews , Staff Tom Coffee, Phil Nachbar, Gus Duenas, Denver lgarta Consultants: Joe Dills, Tom Litster, Peter Coffey Others: Alice Ellis Gaut ' 3 1 1 Streetscape Working Group TIGARD DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN STREETSCAPE WORKING GROUP MEETING (SWG) #5 APRIL 139 2006 TIGARD TOWN HALL ' Welcome and Introductions • Chair Lisa Olson discussed the May 25`h Open House and sent around sign-up sheet for volunteers to help man booths. . • Asked for ideas about how to get business to get downtown businesses involved in the open house - such as donating door prizes. • Lisa passed out brochures on the video with a schedule on where it can be viewed. Purpose of Tonight's Workshop • Tonight's Topic: Gateways, Public Spaces, and Public Art. There will be a mix of presentation and action oriented discussion. • Committee will help narrow the choices, state preferences and add comments. Gateways, Public Space and Public Art: Main and Burnham Streets Valerie Otani presented ideas for Public Art. • Main St. art walk could have connection to nature. • Hall Blvd. could have Civic theme, with art related to government. • Green Heart: could use natural materials, have connection to the creek. Art could support natural education and encourage stewardship. ' Tom Lister presented ideas for Gateways • For Main Street East and West, there were two similar options. -Option 1. Traditional, durable materials, has a vertical feel visible to motorists. -Option 2. Uses naturalistic materials: low forms, soft materials and plantings. • Hall and Burnham: -Option 1: Traditional option with vertical feel and "bricks and mortar" materials. -Option 2: Naturalistic soft materials • Gateway materials could be traditional materials, naturalistic materials or a combination. • Roundabout at Burnham and Ash could be a secondary gateway. Group Consensus: • Civic Art shouldn't be located all along Hall Blvd, but only at the gateway of Hall and Burnham. A Civic Art "node" rather than a "district." • The TDIP's Urban Creek, stretching up to Hall and 99 should be part of the Green Heart Art plan. Keep option for the "headwaters" near Hall and 99. ' • As other gateways develop (such as Hall and Hunziker) public art should be a part of it. Good street and design guidelines should be encouraged to encourage art/good design throughout the district. ' Are these good options to carry forward or are there preferences? • Members thought there should be a "hybrid" option, combining the vertical, traditional feel of Option 1, but uses some aspects of the naturalistic materials of Option 2. 1 Streetscape Working Groctp • Seven members were present. Four stated a preference for a hybrid option, and three stated a preference for Option I. Considering the vote, Option 2 for the Main Street ' Gateways, by itself, is not supported. Commercial St, Gateway and Public Space ' Tom presented: • Street design for W. Commercials St. will have a sidewalk on one side. A gateway could be at the overpass, with murals and uplighting. 6 on-street parking spaces are created. A ' space currently used for parking would be removed. • For the small gateway on Main Street there are two options: -Option 1: Traditional, vertical feel, could feature an info kiosk or clock tower ' -Option 2: Uses naturalistic materials. • Commercial Park could use soft surfaces and have a play structure. Group Consensus: ' • There was a feeling that the Main and Commercial gateway, is really more of a mid-point node, rather than a full gateway. There was a general consensus for Option 2. ' • Commercial Park should be seen as an interim use, because of potential future exit ramp from 99W, so plans should keep expenses low. Lighting is desirable for safety reasons. The park is not seen as a key downtown space. Play structures are not recommended because the park is not an appropriate area for children. Gateways, Public Space and Public Art: Green Heart (Tom Litster) ' • Fanno Creek gateway on Main St. Additions to the bridge and a possible overlook will help remind people that the creek is there. It can have a theme that ties into the Main St. art theme, with such features as artistic railings, bollards on the bridge. ' • Burnham Park (city owned tax lots on Burnham) could use soft surfaces and have an urban agriculture theme and potential space for the Farmers market. Phil talked about the new development that may be going in where the gateway is pictured. Staff ' is working with the new owner to protect a potential gateway on the creek side. Group Consensus: ' • The committee had a positive response. One member noted that it should be made clear Fanno Creek will be restored. • The group voted to forward the concept drawings to open house, even though one picture ' shows the removal of a building that may be redeveloped. The understanding is that the city could purchase the building sometime in the future. Next Steps and Adjourn • A memo inviting committee members to Metro's upcoming Get Centered event on Streetscape Design was distributed. ' • The meeting was adjourned at 8:55. The next meeting is scheduled for June 15`n In attendance: ' Streetscape Working Group: Jim Andrews, Carolyn Barkley, Marland Henderson, Chris Lewis, Mike Marr, Lisa Olson, Catherine Renken, Sue Wirick Staff Phil Nachbar, Barbara Shields, Sean Farrelly ' Consultants: Tom Litster, Joe Dills, Valerie Otani 2 Streetscape Working Group TIGARD DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN STREETSCAPE WORKING GROUP MEETING (SWG) #6 JUNE 15, 2006 TOWN HALL ' Welcome and Intro The meeting commenced at 6:35 pm, and Chair Lisa Olson discussed the following updates: ' • The next and final SWG meeting will be held on July 27`x'. • Tonight the group will sit down and go through that decisions have been made, recap all plan components and confirm that all are comfortable with where things are. • Comments on outstanding issues for implementation will be documented as part of the Plan. This is the groups opportunity to go on the record about issues and concerns for implementation. • Green Street handouts were mailed as part of the meeting packet. These are guidelines for green street development for the group to review outside of the meeting. ' What We Have Accomplished The group started by discussing the first three columns (plan components, what's in the plan, and how your input was used) on the matrix and then returned to the outstanding issues afterwards. Tom Litster (Otak) and Lisa Olson walked the group through the following sections of the matrix: • Downtown Themes: The group reviewed the Downtown Plan's "great ideas", the three aspects of theme, and unifying elements • Gateways and Public Spaces • Street Design Concepts: Burnham Street was redesigned based on SWG and Council input; Main Street design concept included as "event" segment south of Burnham without full street closure; Commercial Street is considered a "gateway street" • Green Street Guidelines • Street Furnishings and Lighting • Transit Improvements • Public Art SWG Feedback: • Sustainability Park - clarification was provided on the concept for this space. It is intended to be an interim use that will not preclude redevelopment of the site in the ' future. It provides an opportunity to begin to build the reputation of a "green heart", to demonstrate green development techniques and art concepts, and to be educational. The temporary use as a "sustainability park" provides the flexibility to use the site to advance ' the Downtown Plan. There was a request to change the name from "park" to something more temporary, such as "demonstration garden", so it won't be seen as a permanent amenity. Another comment suggested allowing a rotation of uses to reinforce the temporary nature of the space. This concept should not become a distraction to the redevelopment vision of the Downtown Plan. • Structural Gateways - group is looking for a hybrid of the traditional and naturalistic designs. For the city to. be noticed, a structural (vertical) element is required to create that sense of space. The "traditional" form for gateways is the "urban village" statement. Natural plantings (shrubs and grasses) can be used to express the green theme. 1 Streetscape Working Group • Street Design - Some felt Main Street should not be focused on as an event street any more than any other street. Other streets (such as Scoffins, Ash and Commercial) in the ' downtown could be an event street. Perhaps the use of the word "event street" needs to be redefined. An event can be more broadly defined as accommodating small activities and not simply a "big" occasion. Consider changing the term "event" to something else. ' Pedestrian, Bike and Transit Access Tom Litster presented a series of diagrams on pedestrian, bicycle and transit access for the , framework plan. • Transit - Bus Stops: The designs suggest upgrades to the bus stops to create bus "stations". Relocate the bus stops to the intersections of Scoffins to bring greater ' importance to the street... and to the Fanno Creek gateway. Themes from the commuter rail station design can be carried over to the bus stop design. • Transit -Access to the Commuter Rail Station: The design begins to grid out the ' accessways to the commuter rail station. It was noted that perceived or real distance has a powerful influence on whether riders use the train. Don't forget about how important it is to get to the station. ' • Pedestrian/Bike Plan - A diagram was presented that identifies where connections can be made and access can be improved. SWG Comments: ' • Transit Center redesign - Is curbside loading better than off street loading & unloading in a transit center? Idling buses are not attractive (noise & pollution) for streetside cafe dining. Consider rebuilding a new transit center. ' Review Street Light Option The consultants have been instructed to carry over the commuter rail station lighting into ' downtown streets. A cautionary note was given about the applicability of a specific light fixture as a street light. • Is the group comfortable giving the City street lighting options other than just the station light fixture? • The group has recommended a light fixture that is...pedestrian scale, single acorn, consistent with commuter rail, steel, fluted, black color, with hanging flower baskets. • Key issues: pole height, light type, spacing of fixtures, light levels required, not PGE approved (which means the City is required to do all the maintenance). • Pole height - a diagram was presented showing the human scale & banner height. The ' Trimet pole doesn't have the wind load to put a hanging basket on it. • PGE lighting options - would provide for maintenance, banners, flower baskets, and better spacing. ' SWG Feedback: • The group is more interested in compatibility, than having the exact same light. • The light fixture should be on the PGE approved list. ' Downtown Projects Update Staff provided a brief update on other downtown projects currently underway. ' • Land Use: A major project for this FY will be to work on the land use and design standards for the downtown area. The primary advisory group will be the Planning Commission. A public involvement plan will be created for this process. The project is ' 2 Streetscape Working Group estimated to take one year (formal launch in September). Architects, designers, property ' owners and developers will be invited to participate in this effort. • Art Program: A questionnaire was distributed at the Open House and will be inserted into the Cityscape newsletter. The plan is to initiate the project at the grassroots. ' • Downtown implementation strategy: The strategy is being prepared by Planner Phil Nachbar, who is working with the City Center Advisory Commission. Elements of the strategy include a master plan for Fanno Creek, Metro Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) application for Main Street & a master plan for the Transit Center. Final Comments • Staff will plan to invite Streetscape Working Group and former Task Force members to the attend the Planning Commission meetings on downtown land use. • Staff will distribute the Art Questionnaire to group members for dissemination. • Streetscape Plan draft sections will be distributed and comments will be incorporated into the final report. There will be a balance to the changes being incorporated - minor adjustments will be made. ' . In attendance: Streetscape Working Group: Jim Andrews, Carolyn Barkley, Mike Marr, Lisa Olson, Catherine ' Renken, Sue Wirick Staff Barbara Shields, Denver Igarta Consultants: Tom Litster 1 1 3 Streetscape Workirig Group TIGARD DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN STREETSCAPE WORKING GROUP MEETING (SWG) #7 ' JULY 27, 2006 TIGARD TOWN HALL Welcome and Meeting Purpose The meeting commenced at 6:35 pm, and Chair, Lisa Olson, discussed the purpose of the ' meeting: • Staff mailed hard copies of the draft sections on the design framework, street design concepts and gateways and public spaces for the SWG to review. ' • Tonight the group would have an opportunity to provide their feedback on the draft. What's Next • Staff and the consultant will give a presentation on the Streetscape Design Plan to the Planning Commission Presentation on August 7`h. All are welcome and encouraged to attend. ' • The final Streetscape Design Plan will be completed in August and presented to City Council in September. • Staff is working with OTAK to develop a concept design for Commuter Rail access ' o Staff is coordinating with Trimet, which is in the permit process for the commuter rail station and parking lot. o The design concept to be prepared will focus on an emergency access planned , from Hall to the parking lot along the south side of the tracks. o The plan is to use this ROW for a multi-use (bike and pedestrian) pathway which may incorporate green design elements. ' • Burnham Street - Final Design and Construction o Recently Council approved the contract with OTAK to perform the next phase of ' the project for final engineering design for Burnham Street. Surveying will begin shortly. ROW negotiation and acquisition will be part of this phase. o Burnham Street will be the first Metro area green street outside Portland to incorporate the specific green technology being proposed. ' o This phase will be followed by construction which could start as early as 2007, depending on cost factors and ROW negotiations. ' o Temporary "Demonstration Garden" along Burnham: there is the potential for volunteers from the Boy Scouts and collaboration with Home Depot on the project. Review Draft Sections • Outline of the Report o Tom Litster, OTAK project manager, gave a brief summary of the contents of the ' entire plan. o Project overview will be completed shortly • The Framework ' This section addresses all those things that establish the basis for design, including design principles and themes that cut across the individual components of the plan. 1 1 1 l Streetscape Working Group ' o SWG Comments ■ Color scheme: How can we avoid the color controversy which recently occurred in Sherwood? The Tigard Downtown Streetscape Plan states explicitly that black is the selected color and the photos show all black ' lighting fixtures and furnishings. ■ Main Street, commuter rail station - Where it mentions a clock ' tower ...might this be the place for noting the need for a kiosk with public restrooms? The statement of public restrooms could get lost in the document. It is recommended that this be addressed as part of another, more appropriate, future Downtown Plan implementation project. ■ Public Art images under contemporary art. Should the tall poles with the aluminum balls on top be included in the plan? This Plan provides general direction, but should not specifically restrict artwork designed as part of a future project. ■ Ash Avenue: The possibility of an extension is referenced. DKS, the ' traffic consultant, identified the extension as being in the best interest of the downtown. Based on traffic analysis, DKS is giving an honest, professional, recommendation. The Pedestrian/Bike Plan makes an annotation of the extension stating existing right of way. • Clearly state that recommendation and support documentation for the Ash Avenue connection is based on expert assessments of ' downtown traffic. ■ Consider the need for wayfinding systems near the commuter rail station... should this be stated explicitly? o Functional Plans ■ Connectivity in the Downtown • Why is the roadway (couplet) shown along the urban creek? In order to maximize the redevelopment potential, there needs to be additional connectivity for cars, pedestrians and bikes. • The current layout offers poor circulation and is not walkable because of large block system. • Street Design ' o Main, Burnham and Commercial Streets ■ Main Street - Section A & Section B - It states that with redevelopment, the full 80 foot ROW can be obtained. Does this presume that building ' would be replaced and new structures would be setback from the street? This statement simply addresses the possibility to obtain an 80 ft. ROW . with future redevelopment. ' Burnham Street - is the street design diagram "overtreed"? Will it distract from the view of the building facades? Staff and consultants will work with Urban Forester during the final design process to ensure that there is a good balance to trees and their spacing. This plan diagram is conceptual and does not show precisely how many trees will be planted and how they will look. 1 2 Streetscape Working Group 1 • Gateways and Public Spaces o Public Spaces ' ■ Was there any prioritization given to the sequence of spaces? No. ■ Consider removing Commercial Park on the other side of 99W...it's not the best use of limited funding. The park currently exists and was part of , the original project scope. The design provides a record of what the project was. A number of factors will determine what will happen on this site in the future. ' o Gateways ■ The section will be rearranged to keep the design options for each of the gateways together. Completion Celebration In attendance: ' Streetscape Working Group: Carolyn Barkley, Mike Marr, Lisa Olson, Catherine Renken, Chris Lewis Staff Barbara Shields, Denver Igarta Consultants: Tom Litster ' 1ALRPLN\D0WNT0WN\Streetscape Design\Streetscape Working GroupNecting #7UULY SWG mtg summary.doc ' 3 DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE OPEN HOUSE ' COMMENTS FORM RESPONSES ' FOUR QUESTIONS ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 5: Not at All Somewhat Yes, Very Much ' 1 2 3 4 S 1. 2. 3. 4. RESPONDENT Street Design Gateways Public Art Open House QUESTIONS 1 5 5 5 3 2 5 5 5 5 1. STREET DESIGN ' 3 4 5 4 4 Do the street designs on display 4 4 4 5 4 tonight reflect your vision for 5 5 5 5 5 downtown? 4.3 6 5 5 5 5 ' 7 2 2 3 5 2. GATEWAYS/PUBLIC SPACES 8 4 4 4 n/a Do the gateways and public spaces 9 4 4 5 5 on display tonight reflect your vision 10 4 3 3 4 for downtown? 4.3 11 5 5 5 5 12 4 4 4 5 3. PUBLIC ART ' 13 4 4 4 5 Does the public art on display 14 4.5 5 3 4 tonight reflect your vision for 15 3.5 3 3 4.5 downtown? 4.3 16 5 5 5 4 17 3 3 3 5 4. OPEN HOUSE 18 5 5 5 5 Was the meeting format informative 19 5 5 5 3 and helpful to you? 4.5 Totals 81 81 81 80.5 MEAN 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.5 ' FREQ.5 8 10 10 10 FREQ. 4.5 1 0 0 1 FREQ.4 7 '5 4 5 ' FREQ. 3.5 1 0 0 0 FREQ.3 1 3 5 2 FREQ. 2 1 1 0 0 ' FREQ.1 0 0 0 0 Respondents 19 19 19 18 ' PERCENT 5 42% 53% 53% 56% PERCENT 4.5 5% 0% 0% 6% PERCENT 4.5 37% 26% 21% 28% PERCENT 3.5 5% 0% 0% 0% PERCENT 3 5% 16% 26% 11% PERCENT 2 5% 5% 0% 0% PERCENT 1 0% 0% 0% 0% Tigard Downtown Streetscape Open House Comments Summary , Street Designs ' The majority of the respondents believed that the street designs displayed at the open house reflected their vision for downtown. Some of the respondents showed skepticism of the proposed ' round-a-about and cost of the improvements. Overall the written comments supported the "green" concept and aesthetic design of the street improvements. • I'm afraid of the tra tc circle, that its going to make the commute more difficult, ecialy l of all the school busses - ' f f . ~ f I drive those roads everyday to come to work. • Functional, contemporary, inviting - th y all appear well planned. I did not see anything I did not like. • I like the Green Concept. The Entire plan is very attractive. • L.ooksgreat. Increase value of town. Remember bike paths. ' • A welcome improvement to the City. • I HATE round-a-bouts in the middle of roads! They're a pain! It will also be a problem for the fire trucks to drive around, right on Burnham where the fires station is. Not particularly interested in this big amphitheatre. , Seems like that should be in a big place like Cook Park where there is more parking. • Allgood dater drainage and historical motifs in fixture/ lights planned - excellent. • The green plan reminds me of the Multnomah building kicking Columbia sportswear out of Portland and adding ' seismic straps to hold up 100 tons of dirt. High tech cells should be used for new roads, not remodeling a road that doesn't need repair. Wby not save the experimental ground water stuf for the Ash Street extension or the east side of 99V (OD0T plan. ' • It's green/ sustainable; It's the right thing to do first; it incorporates designlart Gateways and Public Spaces Similar to the displayed street designs, the majority of the respondents believed that the gateway and public spaces designs displayed at the open house reflected their vision for downtown. Some respondents were concerned about the proposed changes to Fanno Creek Park and relocation of the ' post office. Overall, the written comments supported the displayed gateway and public space improvements. • Great - Love the concept. It is about time for Tigard. ' • Area for marketgood. • Felcomel invite people to visit the area. ' L:\Project\13300\13381\Planning\Refined summary.doc ' 1 1 Tigard Downtown Streetscape Open House ' Comments Summary ' I don't want them "improving" Fanno Creek Park by blasting roads through it (no Ash Street Thruo. I don't see why they need to create a pedestrian bridge when there already is one! The person I talked to didn't even know ' there already was one. I was upset a couple ofyears ago when thy tore out our best blackbery bushes from Fanno Creek Park. We like walking or biking there in the summer and picking blackberries. Kids eat them right there. Th y're part of the natural habitat. ' I like the structural portals for the entrances to downtown. I believe it creates a greater sense of downtown being a destination orplace. • Natural materials. Please, please, put in hanging flower baskets. • Leave the post ofce alone and concentrate on the cultural orgreen space plans south of the light rail near the heart. Same reasons (It's greenlsustainable; It's the right thing to do first; it incorporates design/art.) Public Art The examples of public art displayed at the open house were supported by the majority of ' respondents as reflective of their vision for downtown. The written comments reflected that although the respondents liked the idea of art in downtown, the type, style, and location preferred varied. • Vey nice. • I saw quite a bit that would work for Tigard - Art, is evolving - It is just as import to have it. • Adds to the overall enjoyment and attractiveness of the area. • Don't know. Not really into "modern" type are. Would like more `fun" stuff- like the type of fountains Tualatin has in the commons and kids can run through them in the summer. Where is the skate park in all this? I would rather see the money spent on that - something kids really want and need. • Animal motifs -excellent. Maybe squirrels too. Historic Art. • I liked thegeneral feel of the art. I like *some that is just "art" but I also like art incorporated into the functional aspects as railings, bike racks, etc. • . Will current propery owners on Burnham benefit from this or is it only to get rid of the industrial and retail ' businesses. IYlhen will the appraiser start raising properly values to encourage more revenue? Will new honing force change? • Most of it is organic. ' L:\ Project\ 1 3300\ 13381 \Planning\ Refined summary'doc Tigard Downtown Streetscape Open House Comments Summary , Additional Comments, Questions, or Concerns ' The majority of respondents believed the meeting format was informative and helpful. The written comments were supportive of the process, the presentations, and the improvements planned for ' downtown. • Thanks for allyour hard work. • He pful displays professionally prepared - informed reps - its all good • Learned a lot. Get all of these concepts on the Tigard City website. • The plan is well thought out, and now that funding is resolved it will move forward. It is most exiting to see these plans. • The people involved have done an excellentjob of planning what should be done and how it will enhance downtown Tigard • I don't see a reason to move the post ofce - I like where it is. Who else is getting moved? Are they planning to fightA-Boy again? ' • Good overview. Explained how to get more information. • Can a more long-term exhibit of essential exhibits be available to general public on an ongoing bases somewhere? • I admire the attempt to change downtown but would like to see something different than the headaches of the library access or fighting A-Boy and Fal--mart. Funding with tax revenue bonds seems optimistic when all the drawings show massive govermtient acquisition. Zone 7 is already halfgovernment and Zone 6 will be? • Excellent displays. ' 1 1.:\Project\13300\13381\Planning\Refined summary.doc ' i 1 IvIEM~- ~ STg~gT LIGHT 1 i 1 1 1 j 1 DKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS 1 MEMORANDUM. ' DATE: June 28, 2006 l TO: Tom Litster, Otak 1 FROM: Peter Coffey, PE, DKS Associates Colette Snuffin, PE, DKS Associates 1 SUBJECT: Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan Street Lighting Recommendations P05303 1 . The purpose of this memorandum is to document lighting design criteria for the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. Recommended lighting levels for each roadway segment are based primarily on functional classification and land use. These criteria along with the assumed roadway width, luminaire type, and pole height determine desirable luminaire spacing. ' The City of Tigard's Public Improvement Design Standards require illumination levels to be in conformance with An Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting (AASHTO, 1984). This reference has been superseded by Roadway Lighting Design Guide (AASHTO, October 2005), 1 which has been used to establish the lighting design recommendations in this memorandum. The Downtown Task Force for Commuter Rail chose a decorative acorn-style luminaire (Providence fixture from Architectural Area Lighting) with a post-top or twin arm mounting for ' the Commuter Rail station, parking and street frontage, with the intent that there would be consistency in appearance with the lighting used on Main Street. The Streetscape Working 1 Group has further defined the desired downtown lighting scheme to be a pedestrian-scale single post-top acorn fixture with a black, fluted pole capable of holding hanging baskets. The City. of Tigard's Public Improvement Design Standards require street lighting to be operated and maintained by Portland General Electric (PGE) which would require choosing a style of 1 luminaire and pole that is included on the PGE Approved Street Lighting Equipment list. The PGE list offers four decorative acorn-style luminaires and a fluted cast aluminum pole that can be used with or without a decorative twin arm, but the fixture chosen for the Commuter Rail ' station is not on the PGE-approved list. The functional classification of both Tigard Street and Commercial Street north of Main Street is 1 neighborhood route according to the Tigard Transportation System Plan, but the AASHTO lighting guide does not include neighborhood route as a functional classification category. The function of these roadways is most similar to collectors so they have been categorized. as such for 1 1400 SW Fifth Avenue suite 500 Portland, OR 97201 1 (503) 243500 ((503) 243-1934 fax . www.dksassociates.com DKS Associates Tigard Downtown- Street Lighting ' TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS June 28, 2006 Page 2of4 1 the purpose of determining the lighting design criteria of those facilities. Commercial Street between Main Street and Hall Boulevard is classified as local, but has been treated as a collector ' for lighting design criteria due to higher levels of pedestrian and bus activity near the transit center. Table 1 lists the proposed design light levels for each roadway within the Tigard Downtown study area. Figure 1 shows the roadway lighting classifications for each roadway listed in Table 1. Table 1: Desirable Street Lighting Criteria for Tigard Downtown Streetscape Plan Average Illuminance Roadway Segment Classification Maintained Uniformity Veiling Luminance Illuminance' Ratio3 (max.) Ratio (max.) Main Street ' Burnham Street (Main to Ash) Tigard Street Commercial ' Collector 1.1 4:1 0.4:1 (Hwy 99W to Main) Commercial Street (Hwy 99W to Ash) Ash Avenue Burnham Street (Ash to Hall) ' Tigard Street Intermediate (NW of Hwy 99W) Collector 0.8 4:1 0.4:1 Commercial Street ' (Ash to Hall) Scoffins Street ' New Connection Commercial 0.8 6:1 0.4:1 (local street from Main to Hall) Local New Connection ' (Green Corridor Urban Creek Intermediate 0.7 6:1 0.4:1 with one-way couplet betty. Main Local ' and Ash) Commercial Street Residential (NW of Hwy 99W) Collector 0.6 4:1 0.4:1 , The lighting analysis for Main Street and Burnham Street first assumed a pole height of 12 feet (lamp height approximately 14 feet) as proposed for the Commuter Rail station lighting. However, using a pole height of 14 feet (lamp height approximately 16 feet) yielded better light levels, less glare and greater spacing. In addition, using a taller pole will provide greater ' Roadway Lighting Design Guide, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, October 2005, Table 3-5a, Road Surface Class R3. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Lighting TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS June 28, 2006 Page 3of4 1 opportunities for decorative elements such as banners and flower pots. Spacing was normalized ' to multiples of 25 feet to better integrate with 25-foot tree spacing. Trees and light poles should generally be placed at least 20 feet apart if the tree is columnar or 25 feet for wider trees. The spacing listed in Table 2 is based on 14-foot poles installed opposite across (light poles on both sides of the street directly opposite from one another). Table 2: Main Street and Burnham Street Luminaire Spacing* Roadway Segment Proposed Pavement Metal Halide Pole Spacing Width Lamp Wattage Main Street 42' 15OW 100' ' (Burnham to Commercial) Main Street (Hwy 99W to Burnham and 51' 150W 100' ' Scoffins to Hwy 99 W) Main Street 60.5' 150W 75' (Commercial to Scofns) ' Burnham Street (Main to Ash) 38' 10OW 75' Burnham Street (Ash to Hall) 50' 100W 75' ' * Spacing based on Providence fixture from Architectural Area Lighting with 14-foot pole (16-foot lamp height). DKS Assoc t s T 1 1 I } I y.Kf J RCNI ~ X 1.~Pfl.$€ ~'"5 Ana F. I'd L.itY1ICt~tY{~E H ~'Ppt?ox. 1000 i tt~ w LEGEND Figure 1 Roadway Lighting ass=zcatioa ROADWAY LIGHTING '~'"✓;:~merci~' C;a3lector zef~„e sae cone or CLASSIFICATION ~om~rser4 Local A Mu late mediate. Local i ~.?S;$crt IiT r1utClo( ' _ _ - - _ - Proposed Road i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 DKS Associates TRANSPOR1A110N 10113110NS MEMORANDUM 1 DATE: July 10, 2006 TO: Tom Litster, Otak ' FROM: Peter Coffey, PE, DKS Associates Colette Snuffin, PE, DKS Associates CIS SUBJECT: Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan Traffic Analysis for Street Function Improvements P05303 This memorandum contains recommendations to improve the function of downtown streets for all modes and integrate roadway improvements with the overall design theme of the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. The recommendations are based on an evaluation of existing conditions for the study area, a review of existing planning documents that pertain to the ' downtown area, and the analysis of future traffic volumes. Existing Conditions This section describes the existing transportation conditions in the Tigard Downtown study area including roadway network, existing traffic volumes, intersection traffic operations and geometries, collision data, parking, and non-motor vehicle facilities. Study Area The Tigard Downtown study area is bounded by Hwy 99W to the northwest, Hall Boulevard to the east and Burnham Street to the south, as shown in Figure 1. The seven existing intersections selected for this study are: ■ SW Main Street/SW Burnham Street ■ SW Main Street/SW Tigard Street SW Main Street/SW Commercial Street ' ■ SW Main Street/SW Scoffins Street ■ SW Hall Boulevard/SW Burnham Street ■ SW Hall Boulevard/SW Commercial Street ■ SW Hall Boulevard/SW Scoffins Street/SW Hunziker Street 1 1400 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 500 Portland, OR 97201 (503)243.3500 ((503) 243-1934 fax mnvw.dksassociates.com i fi DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements ' . TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 2of20 The intersections of Main Street/Scoffins Street, Hall Boulevard/Scoffins Street/Hunziker Street, and Hall Boulevard/Burnham Street are signalized. The intersection of Main Street/Burnham ' Street is all-way stop-controlled. Tigard Street and Commercial Street are stop-controlled at Main Street. Commercial Street is stop-controlled at Hall Boulevard. Roadway Network Table I lists the functional classification and existing characteristics of roadways in the study area. These roadways are shown in Figure 1 along with the approximate average daily traffic for ' each. Figure 2 shows existing traffic control at the study intersections, lane configurations, bus stop locations, sidewalks, bike lanes, on-street parking and posted speed. Table 1: Existing Roadway Characteristics S TSP Posted Through On- TriMet Roadway Functional Speed Travel street Bike Lanes Sidewalks Bus , Classification Lanes Parking Routes Parallel, 12, 45, Main Street Collector 20 2 angled - Both sides 64, 76, ' 78 Asphalt paving Ash Avenue Collector Not 2 Parallel - on most of one - posted ' side Hall One or both sides Boulevard Arterial 30 2 - Yes for entire study 76,78 area Burnham Collector 30 2 Parallel - Intermittent Street - Tigard Neighborhood 35 2 - Westbound Both sides south - , Street Route of Hwy 99W Commercial Neighborhood Both sides for 12, 45, Street Route/Local 30 2 Parallel - most of study 64, 76, area 78 Scoffins Not Both sides Street Collector posted 2 - - between Main - and Ash TSP = Tigard Transportation System Plan, City of Tigard, January 2002 Motor Vehicle Operations , Intersection turn movement counts were conducted during the PM peak period to determine existing levels of service (LOS) based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for signalized intersections.' Traffic counts were conducted for the evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM).2 Figure 3 provides a summary of the existing traffic counts. Existing intersection performance is summarized in Table 2. 1 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Chapters 16 and 17. 2 Intersection turn movement counts conducted by All Traffic Data on January 4, 2006. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 3of20 Table 2: Intersection Performance for Existing 2006 PM Peak Hour Conditions Study Intersection Delay LOS V/C Signalized ' Main Street/Scoffms Street 16.8 C 0.44 Hall Blvd/Scoffins Street/Hunziker Street 30.4 C 0.68 Hall Blvd/Burnham Street 33.6 C 0.89 Unsi nalized Main Street/Burnham Street 17.8 C 0.70 Main Street/Tigard Street 38.8 E Main Street/Commercial Street (North Leg) 17.6 C ' Main Street/Commercial Street (South Leg) 18.0 C = Hall Blvd/Commercial Street 28.5 D Delay = Average Stopped Delay per Vehicle (seconds) ' LOS = level of service A/A = major street LOS/minor street LOS V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio ' The City of Tigard's minimum intersection performance standard is LOS E with a demand-to- capacity ratio of 1.0 or less.3 The results of the intersection analysis for existing (2002) conditions are shown in Table 2. All study intersections currently operate at LOS E or better ' during the evening peak hour. Level of service calculations are attached. Parking ' The City of Tigard staff and members of the Downtown Task Force conducted a parking supply and demand survey during the summer of 2003. The results of this survey have been summarized in Table 3. The variety and location of parking remains the same. Parking demand has increased slightly due to a number of factors, including growth and change in business operations. However, the City staff believes the survey results to be valid in depicting current activity. 1 3 Tigard Transportation System Plan, City of Tigard, January 2002, p. 2-6. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements ' TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 4of20 Table 3: Downtown Tigard Parking Supply4 Roadway On-Street Parkin Total , 15-minute 2-hour Unrestricted Main Street (west of railroad) 2 15 78 95 Main Street (east of railroad) 2 15 35 52 1 Commercial Street 0 21 40 61 Tigard Street 0 6 0 6 ' Burnham Street 0 3 24 27 Total 4 60 177 241 ' Collisions Collision data for Main Street and Hall Boulevard within the study area was obtained from 1 Oregon Department of Transportation records.5 Table 4 summarizes the collision history for the three-year period between January 2002 and December 2004. Nearly half of the collisions reported on Hall Boulevard were at the signalized intersection with Scoffins Street and Hunziker ' Street. The two reported pedestrian collisions resulted in injury, but less than half of the total reported collisions resulted in injury. No fatalities or bike collisions were reported for this period. Table 4: Study Area Collisions by Type and Severity (2002-2004) Total Number of Number of Number of ' Collisions of Collisions Collisions Each Type Resulting in an Resulting in a Injury Fatality Main Street from Hwy 99W/Johnson Sreet to Hwy 99W/Greenburg Road Turning Movements 9 3 0 Rear End 2 0 0 Backing 1 0 0 i Sideswipe-Overtaking 1 0 0 Pedestrian 2 2 0 Total 15 S 0 , Hall Boulevard from Hwy 99W to 500' south of Burnham Street Turning Movements 4 3 0 Rear End 15 3 0 ' Backing 1 1 0 Sideswipe-Overtaking 1 1 0 Angle 1 1 0 ' Head On 2 1 0 Total 24 10 0 1 4 Kittelson & Associates, Final Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraint Memo, October 2004. 5 Collision data received from ODOT, January 9, 2006. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 5of20 Other Modes of Transportation ' Sidewalks are nearly continuous on one or both sides along Main Street, Commercial Street and Hall Boulevard. Burnham Street, Scoffins Street and Ash Avenue have some sidewalk, but it is not continuous. Very few pedestrians were observed at the Hall Boulevard study intersections during the evening peak hour. A greater number of pedestrians were observed at the intersections on Main Street from Burnham Street to Commercial Street where there is more retail development. ' A total of 25 bikes were counted at the study intersections during the evening peak hour. Over 60 percent of the bikes counted were traveling east-west on Main Street where there are no bike lanes. Less than 20 percent of the bikes counted were traveling on Hall Boulevard where bike lanes exist today. The Tigard TSP identifies Tigard Downtown as a Pedestrian District. Fanno Creek trail is identified by the TSP as a Proposed Regional Off-Street Multi-Use Path running south of and parallel to Burnham Street with a crossing at Main Street between Johnson Street and Burnham ' Street. The TSP also identifies a Major Transit Stop (Tigard Transit Center on Commercial Street) and Proposed Commuter Rail and Station (currently in design). 1 ' Main Street Scoffins Street Hall Boulevard Future Conditions and Alternatives ' Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic volumes were developed for the Tigard Downtown study area for the year 2025 ' using the regional travel demand model developed for the Tigard TSP with land use modifications made by the County for the Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study6. Land use was disaggregated in the model to better distribute traffic from the existing and 1 proposed downtown land uses. Forecasting the amount of future traffic at the study intersections was done by using a methodology incorporating existing (2006) traffic counts, base (1994) travel demand model volumes, and future (2025) travel demand model volumes.7 This methodology 6 Tigard OR 99W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study, DKS Associates, December 15, 2005. ' Year 2006 Traffic Counts + Model Increment = Year 2025 Traffic Volume Projections. Model Increment = (Year 2025 Model Volume - Year 1994 Model Volume) x 19/31. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements ' TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 6of20 minimizes the effects of model error by adding the increment of growth projected by the travel demand model to the existing traffic counts. Some adjustments to model increments were made ' to account for differences between the 1994 model and 2006 counts. Specifically, the 1994 model showed a large volume of traffic traveling south on Tigard Street from north of Hwy 99W then turning west on Main Street to access Hwy 99W when in reality, most of these trips would ' travel west on Grant Avenue to access Hwy 99W via Johnson Street rather than traveling through downtown. Although the Ash Avenue (Walnut Street) extension is included in the TSP, the TDIP did not include the extension in the preferred design alternative. An additional study to ' evaluate the need for this extension has been proposed, but has not yet been undertaken by the City. Because construction of the extension is uncertain, future traffic volumes were developed for the year 2025 with and without the Ash Avenue extension. Future volumes are shown in , Figure 4 and Figure 6. Whether or not the Ash Avenue extension is ' j' constructed, there are proposed projects outside of Tigard Downtown that will change the existing circulation patterns in the study area. The most significant are the two proposed , Highway 217 overcrossings8 - an extension of Hunziker Street over Highway 217 to 72nd ' Avenue and a new north-south roadway connecting Hunziker Street to Dartmouth Street. The latter was not included in the TSP as a recommended improvement, but the.TSP does recommend retaining the ali nment for future consideration of the project. Realignment of Hall Boulevard/Scoffins Street/Hunziker Street Scoffins Street and Hunziker Street at Hall Boulevard will increase traffic volumes on Scoffins Street within the study area by providing a more direct link from the downtown area to Hunziker Street and the new Hwy 217 overcrossings. The increase in future traffic volumes for this improved collector route will be much greater than the increases on Burnham Street and Commercial Street. Extension of Ash Avenue to Walnut Street would generally decrease future traffic volumes west of Ash Avenue in , the downtown area. The recommended roadway connections (see Figure 5) for improved Downtown street connectivity are listed in Table 5. Most of the connections have been previously recommended by either the Tigard TSP or the Tigard-Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP). The TDIP included a Green Corridor Urban Creek (GCUC) with one-way roadways on either side that ' would provide local circulation and function as a couplet connecting Burnham Street to the new local street connection north of Scoffins Street. This proposed one-way couplet included a new 8 Tigard Transportation System Plan, City of Tigard, January 2002, Figure 8-18. 9 Tigard Transportation System Plan, City of Tigard, January 2002, p. 8-44. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 7 of 20 railroad crossing between Burnham Street and Scoffins Street in the TDIP. Because it is exceptionally difficult to gain approval of new railroad crossings, the vehicular crossing at that location is not recommended by this plan, but the TDIP vision of building the GCUC has been retained. It is recommended that the roadway portion of the GCUC include building the one-way couplet from Burnham Street to a turn-around at the proposed Commuter Rail parking lot/structure and from Commercial Street to Scoffins Street. A pedestrian railroad crossing at the GCUC would connect the couplet turn-around to Commercial Street. This plan also recommends realignment of Tigard Street to meet the intersection of Main Street/Burnham Street, eliminating the existing intersection of Main Street/Tigard Street and improving intersection spacing. Table 5: Recommended Roadway Connections Tigard Tigard ' See Roadway Connection Transportation Downtown Downtown Figure 5 System Plan Improvement Streetscape Plan Plan 1 1 Ash Avenue (Walnut Street) extension ✓ 2 Ash Avenue connection over Portland & Western ✓ ✓ ✓ Railroad tracks 3 Commercial Street realignment at Main Street ✓ ✓ 4 Tigard Street realignment at Main Street ✓ Green Corridor Urban Creek with one-way ✓ 5 couplet connecting Scoffins Street to Commercial (crosses RR in ✓ Street between Main Street and Ash Avenue TDIP) Green Corridor Urban Creek with one-way ✓ 6 couplet connecting Burnham Street to proposed (crosses RR in ✓ Commuter Rail parking lot/structure TDIP) • Local Street between Hall Boulevard and Main 7 Street east of Scoffins Street to be right-in/right- ✓ ✓ out at Main Street ' 8 Scoffins Street/Hunziker Street realignment at ✓ ✓ ✓ Hall Boulevard ' For the purpose of this analysis, the proposed street connections and realignments listed above and shown in Figure 5 have been included in the future scenarios. In addition, the intersections of Main Street/Burnham Street/Tigard Street and Main Street/Commercial Street would meet the PM peak hour traffic signal warrants 10 so those intersections were analyzed with. signals. Future intersection performance for the year 2025 with and without the Ash Avenue extension is summarized in Table 6. ' 10 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements ' TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 8of20 Table 6: Intersection Performance for Future 2025 PM Peak Hour Conditions* 2025 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak ' w/o Ash Avenue Extension w/ Ash Avenue Extension Study Intersection Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Signalized Main Street/Scoffins Street 21.6 C 0.67 19.7 B 0.58 Hall Blvd/Scoffins Street/Hunziker Street 33.3 C 0.88 36.2 D 0.93 ' Hall Blvd/Burnham Street 23.8 C 0.81 23.9 C 0.81 Main Street/Burnham Street/Tigard Street 17.2 B 0.72 14.5 B 0.61 Main Street/Commercial Street 13.3 B 0.68 12.0 B 0.55 Unsi nalized Hall Blvd/Commercial Street 27.3 D - 28.9 D - * Assumes roadway connections shown in Figure 5 and intersection geometry shown in Figure 6. , Delay = Average Stopped Delay per Vehicle (seconds) LOS = level of service A/A = major street LOS/minor street LOS ' V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio All study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the evening peak hour in 2025, ' with and without the Ash Avenue extension, meeting the City of Tigard's minimum intersection performance standard. Level of service calculations are attached. Coordination with Other Projects Although the intersection of Main Street/Greenburg Road/Hwy 99W was not included as a study intersection for this plan, the improvements proposed for this intersection by other studies must , be accommodated in the final design of Main Street improvements. The TSP includes the addition of a second southbound left turn lane and retaining the westbound right turn lane when Hwy 99W is widened to 7 lanes. A later study'' recommends adding a northbound left turn lane and a second northbound right turn lane on the Main Street approach at Main Street/Greenburg Road/Hwy 99W. That study also recommends adding southbound duel left turn lanes on the Greenburg Road approach and an additional lane in each direction on Hwy 99W. , Metro's 2004. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes several projects in the vicinity of the downtown area. Projects that should be considered during the,design of Tigard Downtown or the roadways and signals that are immediately adjacent are listed below along with RTP program years: ■ Fanno Creek Greenway Extension Planning - planning and preliminary engineering to i extend greenway (2004-2009) Tigard OR 99 W/SW Greenburg Road Alternatives Study, DKS Associates, December 15, 2005. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 9 of 20 ■ Hall Boulevard Improvements (Locust Street to Durham Road) - improve Hall Boulevard to 5 lanes (2004-2009) ■ Greenburg Road Improvements (Tiedeman Avenue to Hwy 99W) - widen to 5 lanes (2016-2025) Walnut Street (Ash Avenue) Extension - extend street east of Hwy 99W to connect to Hall Boulevard and Hunziker Street (2010-2015) ■ Highway 99W Improvements (1-5 to Greenburg Road) - widen to 7 lanes (2016-2025) ' ■ Highway 99W Bikeway (Hall Boulevard to Greenburg Road) - retrofit for bike lanes (2010-2015) ■ Tigard TC Pedestrian Improvements - improve sidewalks, lighting, crossings, bus shelters and benches (2016-2025) ■ Highway 99W System Management - signal interconnect on Highway 99W from I-5 to Durham Road (2010-2015) ' ■ Highway 99W/Hall Boulevard Intersection Improvements - add turn signals and modify signal (2010-2015) ' In addition to the planned projects above, the Commuter Rail project is currently in design and includes a new station on Main Street. Evaluation of Transportation Alternatives ■ In an effort to improve the function of downtown streets for all modes and integrate roadway improvements with the overall design theme, this section will recommend enhancements to existing plans, the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP). Street functional requirements for the existing plans listed above and the alternatives presented for this study are compared for Burnham Street (see Table 7), West Commercial Street (see Table 8) and Main Street (see Table 9). The Tigard Downtown Streetscape Plan options shown in the tables for Burnham Street and Main Street were developed by the design team and refined with input from the Streetscape Working Group for this study. 12 1 ,z Based on options presented by Otak at Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan SWG Work Sessions held ' January 19, 2006 and March 9, 2006. DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 10 of 20 Table 7: Street Functional Requirements - Burnham Street Transportation Tigard Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard Downtown r System Plan Improvement Plan Streetscape Plan - Streetscape Plan - Option 1 Option 2 Functional Collector Collector Collector Classification ROW 60' - 74' 76' - 92' 68' - 74' 74' ' Through 2 2 2 Travel Lanes Main to Ash: Main to Ash: Landscaped with left None Median Type Optional 12'- 14' turn pockets Landscaped with left median/turn lane Ash to Hall: turn pockets Ash to Hall. Two-way left turn Landscaped with left , turn pockets lane Main to Ash: On-street None Parallel parking on Parallel Parallel parking on Parking both sides botAshh parking h Ha sides ng on ll: both sides No parking Main to Ash: Bike Lanes Proposed Not specified No bike lanes None Ash to Hall: Provide bike lanes ' Main to Ash: 18' with tree wells/ landscaped Sidewalk 5' with 6' - 8' with 12' with tree wells stormwater planters Width 6' planting strip 6' planting strip Ash to Hall: 12' with ' tree wells/ landscaped stormwater planters Pedestrian Traffic calming such RTP Pedestrian Curb extensions, marked crosswalks, refuge in Crossing District as curb extensions or raised medians Improvements chokers Existing Transit Route - construct Work Provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bike access Transit sidewalks, with Ters, b to to Commuter Rail parking from Burnham via Facilities crosswalks, etc. provide shelters, bike the Ash Street connection until the GCUC is adjacent to transit storage, and parking developed routes Optional raised Raised median from Main to Ash: Access median, spacing of new road Main to Ash, Raised median from no access points ways and Control driveways encourage shared Main to Hall Ash to Hall: = 200' - 400' access points raised median Intersection Main: future signal Controls Not specified Not specified Ash: future signal or roundabout Hall: signalized a 1 DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 11 of 20 Table 8: Street Functional Requirements - West Commercial Street Transportation Tigard Downtown Tigard'Downtown Streetscape Plan System Plan Improvement Plan ' Functional Local Local Classification ROW 50' 50' ' Through 2 2 Travel Lanes Median Type None None The Tigard Downtown On-street None Improvement Plan made Parallel parking on one side Parking recommendations for the ' collector segment of Bike Lanes None Commercial Street None Sidewalk between Main Street and 5.5' Hall Boulevard only. 6' with 6' planting strip Width The segment of ' Pedestrian Commercial Street west RTP Pedestrian of Main Street is a local Crossing with Curb extensions, marked crosswalks Improvements District street primarily residential land uses. Transit None None Facilities 1 Access None None Control Intersection Not specified Main: future signal ' Controls 1 1 i DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 12 of 20 Table 9: Street Functional Requirements - Main Street Transportation Tigard Downtown ' Tigard Downtown Streetscape Plan System Plan Improvement Plan Functional Collector Collector Collector , Classification ROW 60' - 74' 76' - 92' 80' Through 2 2 2 Travel Lanes Optional 12' - 14' Landscaped with left Median Type median/turn lane turn pockets None On-street None Parallel parking on Parallel parking on south side, Parking both sides 45-degree parking on north side None proposed, , however, bike lanes Bike Lanes are shown on Not specified None collector street cross ' section Sidewalk 5' with 6' - 8' with 12' with tree wells Width 6' planting strip 6' planting strip Pedestrian RTP Pedestrian Traffic calming such Crossing District as curb extensions or Curb extensions, marked crosswalks Improvements chokers Existing Transit ' Route - construct Work with T Relocate existing bus stops to curb extensions Transit sidewalks, provide shelters, b ers, b toike shown on plan, upgrade bus stop amenities, , Facilities crosswalks, etc. storage, and parking provide pedestrian access to adjacent to transit Commuter Rail station routes Optional raised Access median, spacing of Raised median, ' Control new roadways and encourage shared Encourage shared access points driveways access points = 200' - 400' ' Hwy 99W/Greenburg: signalized Intersection Scoffins: signalized Controls Not specified Not specified Commercial: future signal ' Burnham: future signal H 99W/Johnson: signalized DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 13 of 20 Roundabouts Constructing a roundabout at the intersection of Burnham Street/Ash Avenue has been identified as a project element for Burnham Street improvements. Several issues require careful ' consideration prior to building a roundabout. A discussion of those issues follows: ■ Volumes - Based on a cursory review of model volumes at Burnham Street/Ash Avenue, a single lane roundabout would be feasible.13 ■ Speeds - The posted speed on Burnham Street is 30 mph. As a collector, Ash Avenue would probably be posted at 30 mph. The FHWA Roundabout Guide . recommends a maximum entry design ' speed of 20 mph for an urban single lane w roundabout. Geometry can adequately ..x°, slow traffic to 20 mph with deflection on the approaches before the vehicles enter Burnham Street ' the circulating roadway. ■ Pedestrians - Roundabouts create uncontrolled pedestrian crossings for each entry and exit point. These crossings would require careful treatment. The U.S. Access Board is ' currently developing guidelines and conducting research regarding pedestrian crossings at roundabouts. 14 ■ Bicycles = Bicycles face one additional conflict point when negotiating a roundabout versus a conventional intersection. The location of additional conflict depends on whether they choose to negotiate the roundabout as a vehicle or as a pedestrian. ■ Accommodating Trucks - For single lane roundabouts, a wider apron may be required on the central island to accommodate tracking of the rear wheels of large trucks. When this apron is wider, care should be taken in the design to make sure it does not look like a sidewalk, luring pedestrians to an unsafe area. ' Local Familiarity - Although there are currently no roundabouts in Tigard, the number of roundabouts continues to increase in the metro area, increasing drivers' familiarity. ■ Right-of-way Impacts - Roundabouts require more public right-of-way than a ' conventional intersection. 13 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, U.S Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067, Section 3, Exhibit 3-1. 14 http://www.access-board.gov/research/roundabouts/bulletin.htm DKS Associates Tigard Downtown - Street Function Improvements ' TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS July 10, 2006 Page 14 of 20 Recommendations i The following is a summary of recommendations provided in this memorandum: ■ Provide roadway connections as listed in Table 5 and shown on Figure 5. , ■ Provide specific street improvements as listed in Table 7 (Burnham Street), Table 8 (West Commercial Street) and Table 9 (Main Street). ■ Add left turn lanes for all legs at each of the three proposed four-legged intersections as ' shown on Figure 6. ■ Provide a pedestrian railroad crossing at the Green Corridor Urban Creek to connect the couplet turn-around to Commercial Street. ■ Install new traffic signals at Main Street/Burnham Street/Tigard Street and Main Street/Commercial Street when warranted by future volumes after realignment of Tigard Street and Commercial Street. , ■ Coordinate with other planning and design projects to accommodate extension of the Fanno Creek Greenway and improvements on Hwy 99W and Hall Boulevard. ■ Coordinate with TriMet to relocate bus stops as needed and provide passenger amenities. . i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 „i 17 I 'Fx t ~ rR y~v I i9w I i 'aVySfz ~U i ° i41 rix gS , Prams{ Center 'N , 0_1 r 46 4 R + 'rr + 41 1 i 4 µ n +x Unsig ai{;ed Study Intersection Signalized ri `i r Im rsection Signalized S u y `nrersacuoa STUDY AREA s rta =xistire Averaya Daily Traffic EM"CtWna_ C_M44ifitat on Arlen a! Neighborho{ d Rome Coll- -do" Local - - - - - - 1 a F I 'Uir. I Ct -~'3 I r i (hh'n Ery4,i;, ~ a, 35 ~ -fir a 30 r YVrd-- ~ i n t I 4rfil tt?1' ri ~ I 20 30 L--- Figure n Configuration Bike thn EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK S gna+l. ,2d inmrseciMn - Transit Stop Stop Sign Contrn!ied Side"41k, Int,~secticn DKS Associates 217 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS NOT c~FFN TO SCALE eGR ~o 99W , m nay°T 7 . Main @ Burnham r ce n r 2. 5. ' Gy 6■ 0®~ ~®0~ l® ® ~ 0'V7~ OO 2. Main @ Tigard 3. Main @ Commercial 4. Main @ Scoffins 31 ~titi a ®A~~ All* 901- 66 ® ,1 5. Hall @ Scoffins 6. Hall @ Commercial 7. Hall @ Burnham °vc`O" e6~1~h wv W$ 60 -'06' 44 ' t6 ® m® 53M..+ "~591H he ^o ~ 2260-1, Oil LEGEND 11.0 - Study Intersection & 4- - Lane Configuration Figure 3 ® EXISTING (2006) ' Number Signaled Intersection 00 -Peak Hour Traffic Volume - TRAFFIC VOLUMES 110D - Volume Turn Movement ~ -Stop Sign Controlled Left'Thiu-Rrcfi Intersection LEGEND - "Jn~+~ , ~rec~ 5#u~it t~ ersa ? tt» a ate # x~sii~ A '1 khthrt A Ave, Ext ~4 n yr7nn,ec~Stua~lnr,,e~t<l 026 DT V U00 s 2025 AD1 Mbli /§u I +va. r {t S ~aT slgnafize#i 1rntef spa.on ' L I % Functional CIA.ssif cation xtstirggps-ec NPi~hf,am~;6 F~cu`t' l ,~ak, i'iUUd R~~tre ! i 09Vv 11:: L 5 Tigard fit § cS:,,E 7`rarssif 060fer t A Mpg 7s i dig w 6 gin ✓ r x ` ~GJ~ }~Q~ Fly i APPROX. 0 1000' ~sjj, S 0000 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME DKS Associates ESTIMATES I r DKS ,associates Future Roadway Connections 1: 0 - Ash Avenue Extension to Walnut Street lp -A,sh Avenue Connection Over Railroad - Commercial Street Realignment at Main Street I - Tigard Street Realignment at Main Street 1011- Green Corridor Urban Creek oath One wav Couplet Connecting Scoffsns Street to Conlsnerc.tai Street Green Corridor Urban Creek with cone-wav°ioupiet j Connecting Burnham Street to Proposed Parking Lot/Structure Local Street Connecting Main Sheet to Hall Boulevard iRiah WRight-out at Main Street) Scoffing Streetrt-lu dicer Street Realignment at Hal; Boulevard "1'~ IIII Y,- jf{ 0 # ° J r} f riL,]aPC} p t CC` I ` J'fBYbStf i w Sf7 C:v:ntxx f ~p w s r a 'r re e 14 Parking L neJ~{puc?vse s ~ ~"3a . `rt, I 5/ s t 1APPROX 1000 6 N V ~ 4 did a z_ W f a ~ ;e 17< n I k. ~ a a e I i n£ x. k 51 a a 1 L9 Figure Functional _CZU rf cation POSE FUNCTIONAL Existhig Proposed i n { CLASSIFICATION AND rollAf> r t6f T ° CONNECTIVITY NeighhorhGod Ro##te Neighborhood Route L, •a; - - - m - odi DKS Associates 217 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS NOT cQF~c~ ' TO SCALE 99W o m c~F~c N~ 3. ~i • Ica ■ 1798 Tant Ti ♦ y Centeri i Sf ~ c S `rte APPROX. 1000 5 Gays, • S~ 6. . Main @ Burnham/Tigard 2. Main @ Commercial 3. Main @ Scoffins ~`~d doh°~ \ °o\ gol 60\ %Np • ~p®®~ J 9°0® %so~i 0\x'990 ~~~"'o ~1p°~\~~O ~p® eo,,~J \~Q 60~ J ~'L9a011 X60\ s~ ~3 `ao\ 4. Hall @ Scoffins 5. Hall @ Commercial 6. Hall @ Burnham 10 m«®m m8 e~ o~°~ 0 0 +4 ®?90/70 /_6 (110) 110m~ ~1 j (210) 220 ® 60) 60 (90) 70M mm (m (320) 320 m 0® LEGEND , EGE Intersection a Number 4- - Existing Lane Configuration Figure 6 1.0 - Study AA (BB) -Peak Hour Traffic Volume - a ' Proposed Lane Configuration FUTURE (2025) AA-Without Ash Ave. Extension Proposed Road TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' (BB) - With Ash Ave. Extension Signalized Intersection ml ®.m Volume Turn Movement Lei - Stop Sign Controlled Intersection 1 i p endix 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 7p y a i as yi a p+m (,'m,~a,'m,~s{.lQ~ i~$ mm w Nd ~o ~t~f~~~yw rm~,m',myN!r °q 3n ~'oV{V~VV(V~VVVJ~,yJVmNm pW'a~Iwm Nm (o~,aw pmw~N6 $3~, wC f~p ~ ~ N S N S a• V "11 < S ~l < m ' C~. tai O U O UI O N O Zp a OIN O~fn O N O N O N S tNii O N o~N S N O U O fn S c4~roor o C m°iwr ~5 C N W ~Np ^'r Q mm~m~om +"++J +im+A~+mNr G A. C N~ ~ m m C + m t 0 W 41 m N m A + N m W 0 0 0+ A m O~ M t b mZ °pj e c v~ zW 3 w .°o.~ ~ fff~~~ ZZ ~ ~ o vC ~ ~ fff}}}~111~~~ W+ N N y G O N O -I m Q N me 0 3 m N o N 1- o o" y co Z O N o 0 0 0++ 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0++ o o y~ O~ C , LPI Er pp 7 QOp CqJjC N P C QcS p~ m p~ p ~ ZI ~A N C pLq AI p' d 91 ,il rya3y~ NEYpD~ O~N¢ 2~ m ~JWNi0O~m773$~ m~NdAV2V00mNIm~4mSWNS4NimIPNJmm00~3n OO~I O~ it Ww -a it N 3 +0+ P°oOD, N 00+0000+ N 000000+00000000000000- 001 oa . V mom r J g m r N j H Ow+ W O A w+ r ~ 000-++-•"OON~0000-•N+N+O+PO r 0 Q L0 y En w W - - m - - f m m + N W y m N Q+ N m W O O O O+ O++ y m W 000000.0.000-00101 0 0 0 0++ O O 1 + C U 2C C O- "C G C m V 3 $ ° $ i4 y y $ m N A W .M 9 j m y y ea m 3 V°+- N moo-.11 V 00000 O O+ + O++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 7) 3 G O m y SCi n 4f a + N N m W I m" W O$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 0 +11 0 i 1 0o W ~ W N W N r m Cj w r .5 N O+ O N O O++ r N O O O O O+ O O o O N 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O r VV mm o~ Vy~m IN ym ~.f p~ N ~t N N i N eee~~~ m N V V S NIA~iy OWt°J~gN W WNStnm~C+~o -1 +e Nb 8 NiTiIWmVm~(W.1NW Ntf'NN N+N+NN+N ~=Ny a mo ~ O V m N m m U m m (~pp~~pp~~ 9 44 pp~~ N EE m W W W+ m V A m' W N N W V N m m N N m m N L 1O fJ (J O N$ W~ W~ p 6'i N 6 ~ N O ~O m N A t0 (NJi ~Im y ~ O G7 q W fo ~ W 00 s N++~ $J + N O'+O OI+000w N 0000 +0~000~00000"000000 O-till, mo WNm ao~~'w~m~:i~~tn m'J'yom~r 9 w NNNNyf/)x. NT y N ~d r g N e i 1 A I gW O l~ ~V m NmU 'F N yyi~pp pp~~ mm nfNN +mmomm J a~' o :rm + W fD11~~ m N A N A n"~ ~ a N m tJ A m ~ ~ ~I+ '~L O W ~p ,2~ O A 1p O m m O N ~ a S m N 3 m N N y HV6.7% V mm N 77 y N Om y y W N 2a 00 A+N+N m' 77 y a ~j 0000 OON I NO-' 000+ +OO+O+N~+]I a b 4j PHF 0.63 w C 0~`W@~i m m" ~ N a 19 +NN~ ~j + W +000.+0+0 W O+00000000000+000000+0000 Z Nq~ L ~ tP ~y ~ ~'cy m NO yypp~~((r~ ~ S ~ Npr ~ ~~Opp N ~py N ~ VNV W 1N1pp mmN NN'~ ~ N mm Ipppp {{pp _ + p_pp_p p_pp_p ~~pp -10 C ~ N~ b v~~; ~l ~ + m~OW Oo`E (D 6 OtPD C m UVNm V+~B N~O~mU~AtNOOVWNNNfJNNP WW NmfOfg ~ H Z 2 ~ Ot 6 m m m V s J V W N N O N+ -9 V W O O O N O N N 0 0 0 IO++ 0 -101-1-10 0+ HV 1.6% _ PHF 0.69 1 y m G 0. g+ A N mm a s A OO+N NgN O W .Ow V N ON+N+mO A n17 S Err LLII m mmILL o~ o i' ~ n PI tly ~ ow VVUN~F~ WW•J m O+N Wi++00 j m 0000+000 NOW OOO+00+000 OOO~Q~ N ~ bb - w tD g s ON I ip0 ~jj ++IVNNtOWV N 00'++00POW++WO++P+PO+NO +'m~ I ~ i ss y 00000.-OOOOON ~OOO O010000~Ir m a10.ONI~00N m 3M 3MdMM O O ; 1 IIIIII 3 (n+~ tz.0000 r N000r O00 N000N O-10M 0 rNN M W OOO 0 00000*4 '0:fmd - oNNM-€~ o'0 AH ~z z z mm yy m O CO h $Ooi8lS~~m O~~OS~~~~^'~m00lmnA d a"1NMStO t~I~N O C1 Cf 01 O ~ • 0O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r y O ~F E N SF N F .-NO F rN0 S1-r N O O N 4 YO 000-00000 r 0000 O O O O O O r O O O M O r O r O O r 0 M N N N N m m m n ~ M y 4 qm y{~~y p~^pp~ f NCO pm % 6' a C e¢ m ~N„ r r' .N-. 1O O! N m NON N N N m N Cf Oj ~3 N¢ M /'1 O O ~7 m ~O LL] n N¢ m C¢ In f~ N N L8'0t AdH m m pp mm ~~yy NN ~J nn m op mm ,3&qI oo aa IIOO tm~ .~}`QJ~ .p ~(yy (q~ N ~ 1-N N~~~l7N MNNlOV N~FI F~NM~iMNN WN~ }~FNr qm mmm000 tD $ N~ Q ~OfA~ t7C ; Wt7 t7 m M J OOOO 10-1 00~ 000 M JOOr OOr.- O M S J N O J+NN d m O i O O O- 0 000-0+ O O O O I N•- O O D I O O M m O O N O N O M N m m M M d N p H f~flDNOp ~g1S¢0~00000000000000 o 0 0000.0 o CM¢000000.00 o C~o14 c6¢OO8 9¢0000 11 0 C; F. g ~p pp pp mm pp p~~yy m t~ qq m ~~yy mm py ~pJ ~y W y r lh N Mt7N M MM N M M N d ~I N NN N m W y~ CO nlOl m n N O d N O f co W N~ CppJ eO f~A ~ M t~ JMp'NMmN^W p~y~d Oppmm dmN m O m n y11~~~~OON O C~ Jd~m Jd~~CmY r R r c~ N N N r N.N ~ r N m m ~ a J a~ d ~~R1 m N~M d N N N N NN N ~ tl n N N d M 0 0 0 0 010 O r 0 0 0 N r 0 0 0 .101. 0 0 0 0 m Y O ~ ~ O M 0 0 0 m N d ap$pQ 'w p'j /L m f N r p ~ c / ~~QQmm N ¢ mm NMnNn W mm OI~m mOdmMm Onl 9E¢N N ON O E O E ¢ Ncid C e ¢~O'm C r 5 „ _0 55 r. y@ T°~F Ob O SN }-0000 p F 000000000000000000 j OOI00 O p 00000000 O N A O4 W a f/1 a (y J mlm m m m N m m d m O d m n ~,m O N m Mid M N J m g m R n~N a l0 O J O J m~ lO m N RXtt (V \ E \ O go~ooooooo1ooooooooo'oooo0110 o o °Yooooloooo o go ag ~oooo °o I co 00 ~ooo co ca g, t ` R a $E¢oooo00o 10 0 gN¢ooooioooo o $N oN N¢Ogg Cc _0-0 N A C 1 I ~ C; 00 ~'a WaL a ~F a€ d R° 'a€ ~~F-ooooo000 o E~ ON rrh-obg ~O ~a~i-oo ro0 r _ 7 yq O rooooo0000000000000000 0 o o o \ T q S O N M N zIn C O .7 N b 0 J O O y J O o 0 0 ? V/ a M p J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1. 0 0 0 0 C0 0 0 0 0 .14.1.1. O 2 J O o o o 0 0 00 O y.2 c N pp pp pp ~OO pp QQI~ pp ~OO pp oo yy pp QQ pp oo yy~~ ~ 4 C a 00 ~~NN MC]dY Nm OC~~N htO'1•c~o00N H ri C a Z ~O~~iaO~c~d. Z Yr a ,-P I E LL C 4 ti ~O~MO O C Oq BEmo~c ru•m~rimmmro mmr~r~rni~i.nn~nnnl°-Np $NFidm id ma ;8qa m ~a a$N~irromm rr rr r rr rr ~ r r r rr r rr rr rr r r rr rr C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 OWN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ~ O O N ~`.N O O m 3 m 3 M d m Q m O C'~W~NOO~~O~~iMN ~OOO~~~~~OOOMOO~WMN NmlO MOM ~'YW~ CW~~rM Q V ISE w NgNgNq ,j 80NONON_d N-d-d MM~O OOONONMf~ ~NQ nb'~ONm OMN,Mm Sa A Q N N - ~ I p N S y N N 4 ~ 0 A H d O O I N N O O r 0 0 0 0 0 N O M N 0 0 0 0 m C d N O m N m o G n n' m m lL ~tl 4 Z j z _ mm m N W C~ h .9 d Ad MIflmAm mgmno nM A (y mM m ~A ADO O N 9 NNntO O ~y4 O oANm~AO1~~mA ~Of a~~gmm$ m~OIA A N O NNt+)NMNMN O'~^ y O 8 h N EM N F rpj0 F 0 m♦ O N 4- 52 ~ 1 x $ + 0000 ~ 0000000000-000 d a-0-00-0 d Y~ N ~ (0~p 24 ~ ~ MNN N 9 d M m i y m ~ F<dic m CL'0:fHd L QN~NMd NAMOm~MNtlNM.- Nom- G C fL OIA m~NmOd g ~N~ m C NQ N~O ~ fL 0p0 j %8'0 AM 41 t &I p $ ~i pp m p pp y°J MMA~OOQ 00pp N ~ _ ^e N diC T}ra N1-NN V 0Nth N fA; NMn n A M 1%c~Id MC7 ~01~ ~ m ~ f mfDmm' W G' CO V ~7i ~ mpM O ~I Ti F pp~ Si m f 0$p p RON iq A 'TNOdO 3N V ~~~QeO 3 •'+0 M O Ord O M C mb ro J M(~1p p p J N- t n O m Q N N 1 Q A M e Q m Q Q N M.- go m J m O i m J d M Q d d UvIS yy y NO O 5 Y000000 ~00000060~60 0 000 oi0 N O t 0110O O N m 2p p y fL I !11 m ' 4O d ~ p Z ' C 2 U7N.-mmmmd Nd NmMmdm. Nm MN N Q WV .M-~bC $ 9J[ ~ tO N m sC Q O ¢ N~~Y ~~yy l{yy 42y4 q 2 Qm~CJi~ ~p~qyy~ .524 pppp~~~p co ~ NNNNM ~f7N NN mNNNNNNNN NNN~ ynj W y ~ m' by~ Md' N u~ NO uS M o ~+N ~ Np W y ~ MNFiN t A A m 1 A A m .w JOId MMm N~OmmQ do mmn A~d~md Mlffd~ 'J 19 NmONMO ~ M F S J~~ O J m f NI.- Q Y~0000000000000000000~00000 O .~~00000000 O 2e O~ ~p~ ~ N 1 m ~m A m 0 0 0 0 as ,,yy ~Q y 111 N~ rm..po N W'a Q m tl A m m O O1 m m A m M n M b~n n d m M Q^ N m N N G O M ¢ OD~ `1 ¢ b A A i I ' ~ N N m A S f~ G d A p E S m O O O f d'O M N N O N O O. 0 0 O O O O J8 F m m M N M O N ( U 1- m~[] O'U F"' a m p CO 4 N N N - y y y b J M y A 'k ca Q J Q!- N N r O O r Q N d N M 0 0 0 M N N N N M y J P, M m i m M O d o O SP J 2 O J N N N c a cc ~o~ooooooolooooo00ooocoo O~OO o ~ooooo000 o Yo mm~ ~oooo Nt-~mo G r C N~ 1 Na bm N cA co p e~ m tpo r Q~ Qf ma Im N N '/L~ ~Q Q aim 0 m n n min m n n A ~~Q A m m m m m ~;A m m N R N N N : Nm N O N p L Q W c+ C @ C a Of 0 i d C V .-~4 ( WOZ AEr YOm S lC~ i• ii^ ~D y O H ~,N N O O Mi- O N O O N O O Q O O O N N O H d N b NIN d N M N V Y O m O H O Z U 1- O. \ ZZZ ZZZ V C W vw oh M M MQ NMtl mmQ-.. 4 a b O $ i:i~F~ O $y ro~bmi6i~r~~r:a~ ~tq m '.a m a s ~p r8~;dmmiu tr ~v 5 v 5 N lxm > > ~v e 3O~NNOO^^O^ONOON^^^00100000 ~ #d^NNf7NOO ~ 3O 'AmRiA C N Cm W O~N O O H O O N N -N.. O c`9 0 0 0 0 0 N O O w N^ d N Cf W O N ri O~ ~ m us o I q S $ I N n - 0 m O N y m m N N LL Ot0 0^^ N O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 m O d O N 000 IL JL pp i U ~ O. *t& *0 dHdO OIO N ~"f d Q '0 AH Om m m N m 6: s N N N N N O ti CO N ^00000OOONO N f O.-O.-N N m ib 00'OrodHcrco0eooo.oo0O-10a000 a010 P ¢ooooo000 0 ¢om0000 m a ^ o3rmnA MOOmmvimmo~co^mNU~am p^o ?r~~veiSlca~Q ~38`< ~ 8 e3H (pf~pV~m SU. ^ ~jNG 3y ^NNNN^ N^ ^ N-^ 3~j ~ •=N O ~ to m ^ ~ O 3 m NN^ N to O. J m v» of tl A Yf m Q m t7 m Q N Q A N n m N m A A l7 J N^ m N tl A q J N p J N IO N unf Q ° q C ffi 00 ^ 0000000 P ^00000^ ^00000 Q _ffi ^ 00 ^ O ^ ^ O Q co b O~ m N^NPY 6~ m 61 S Lnl lV C m f~A,nwgiBnN mm em53~ vy m~pD aryiO:;;.W! Nn~mNm mm m ¢ N co m m t7 O C. LL' ^min o (y 1p pr N `2 r ~0 ~ A {~qp ~ ^^^!{^~p y r t~~N m N m N N ~ N N tN N N N N N N N 0 m t2 N r n 10 m f0 n fD N 1n g am s N~ N O W. m r NNN N J 000000000000000000000000 O JOO OI00000 O Cm JOO J0000 6 A ~oooooooolo°oo°ooooooooo!oo o ~oooPOOOO o ~ogoooo v/ m m HOOD m m 13 a O O m 0 0 0 0 0 y • `O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C M O Hwo C j .0 o o P C P P PIC P P C P P C P PiP P P P P~ ~ O4 pO a ~rooooo000i00000000000000100 0 3r000OO000 0 aC ~ rood ~ roooo g _ _L N m Fnj ~~QQ g JO 0i00000010000000✓0000040000 O J00000000 O 50 JO pp bo J0000 G C 1 q , C ; Y00000^N 0I0000000I0 000^0000 a ~O^N0i0O^O d ^ 'a mN m0 N^ g 1 ro _m I M y_goSocD m 3 CmCL mOlAn rm~N~N„A N~mmm77'm m m mmn N NI N vNQ mAd~mm010 'y C m C om~¢Npp ~~v~6a0~mn m , 1 ^ L` NNN ^ ^ ^ , Q ~ O ~ 4 A ^ O 5 67 A m N E~ M C O a ~~g{ i yCa $a rar o $ w4 pX JIV , _ y4 t oeoooo°00000000000~000°00 ° ~p 3~'r0 0o. 1.1 0 ~p ~ n r0 E 3 "r0000 i 'm$ ~3 I ( p zN Ea z% zN oo zN O ~ y J t7 W m m m m n N N N N N t') N O^ N N N N N N y Q O< (N t O C! m r m a y r C N J N O 5 J N N N _ L p a x r 0. _O C O O N N ~`7 CN'), O O N N 8 N O H N O N i0 R O N N •G Q m O N •m T E> LL 1L ~l a r N O m O P. r. r. r . ..-g~$r.'?<$^ aca re ex a C g8^~Q . ~ O e ~'O c~►-~c id ~dmmmrom<om mm~~~~.A-~~~~~A.~FN NCO mNFmmmm~~~~~°-y ,;Q m 8~ mm BC~ ^~yFm~c iero ca c ~°ooo~oo~oooooooiM .-ooooo0o m ~o.-.-oodo~o m 3d ~NN,Nd W OO O 0000 oOCOO0o0olm oooCe mlO o F WOOOOOOOO o mWO "WOO~oo b 3 ~d ngg w S fi 3 a ~ooooo0000000000000000000 o gUNOOOOOOOO o g~NO ~ Noooo 89'OdHd ~~'ooooo0000000000000000000 00000000 0 00 00000 0 ~l4 ` U %9'Z AH a g z z E ±L t r~ g O ~ O 2~1 O ♦O ~ 3 rrqq " CO e: ♦ = 4 x00 o .00 0000000000000000 0 xo0 0 oo000 o e50 -n8e0 goo 70 Y1~ m m m~~d m 9 d '~F ~E oo0000000000000000000 0 ~m¢ooooo000 o gma~ ~m¢ob~ cmmo0oo 00'OdHd C d' °cg¢ooo 1 ~q a~ m mrm a pO 960'0 AH O ~ O LiW m~p m nQ yIm NO ppO)Ol mm(~N mOmm W ~ 3r8~~~f~y `r°a °m ~3~°ui"O ~y~ ~;r""~`mN M ~ ~O .2 N r <N[INN MNN Nd MNMNC7N MdN'd MNNN n }j N~ n 3m0 d '}(A O .~+m N('~('~ d LL 1 1 p p a J Q~MQmjv O O Q I co Q M MNO"N"IV dO" m Jim OONdnN JN~Om JCt7NN n Q I ~ I m I G G I ~ol00o~oooiooooo000000o~oool00 o ~ooooo000 0 ~o~ ~ ~oooo m ca C;O C a n cq n n!n Olm m n° m m r m° m m Q m n Q N b¢ n N M m n 1d m 2 9 2 ~~yy m 9 2 (N~ M M Z m N N N N N N N m F N ¢ O O 0 0 0 0 9 $m Cm q (~~I pp~~ ~~pp a ff~~ !tpp (y aa mm p c~I a q a {py pp u~ yl r aMN<NM!NmQt+l W NNONNLn'JNNI7N`c~N m r o00i01~OMI W Nw m y~ O bf 0 W r ln'l d r $~i J0~00000000000000000000000 O Joo0o0000 O ca JO~~s U1 J0000 qq d 0 $ 0'0001000000000000000100000 O 00000000 O X O O 1 0000 M m m ~ 0 m V _ _ _ O V ° d d V ¢ O¢ O O¢ 9¢ pp C¢ ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O `y p 0 ¢ O~ o ~ `y ¢ p 0 0 0 Z °d 3ro00oo0000000000000000000 ° $3rooooo000 0i~o 33robo3roooo V r ~ to m fA m ~Q pp N J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O co J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 101 J O b Q J O O O O N 00 ' 00000o0oo000000000000000 0 ,Z000o000. o 0aa0 m m co V7 • ~n1' ¢ NN ~m NnN~M~mmmmmm~nmmmNmm O 'dj ¢N~~N.n-(V < C y a"f C ~$N ¢ rz nn ¢ G1 c 54 " ya ' " rte ro Y ~O N H r 0 0 ooooo~ooooo000000000000 0_ ~4z m"O 32 b0 ~a EO 3roooo Y r 7 o g~ 'mo 1:9 3rooooo000 0 z;= 3: do .fw.` •C w m m nyN~~~pp a" d N n Q^N N " N m m o m m c$ m JF H m J Nt7mM W J [CJNN[1if~iNMNNNN"P1NClN{ ~i''1N ~ ti w J n~nf.k'Ax rz ~ y w -d N d fir M _ pp~p SO pp OO ~~pp pp~p pp yy~~ GG, pp pp ~ p po oo Cp III=www• p 1_ ' S 4 C OO ~bN 17t~1 V dtpN ~~NNClM dd m~ ti a t Or MOO~[~f C d Z Q Em 71L T E LL = 4 O.m-P°'!O CO yFie~iu id id ic~iero~c id io^^"'^^^~~'^t°-~O $yFmi6 iom.n_~n^r°-N ~Vf m r r r r r~ r r~ r rr r r rr ri i■ ~ r r_ ~r A ay A b I A r I i i g 0 +A op+ai m,ama'~WS O~ ~Q- 3m "w t~~f~ a}y(v~vva(a]~m ~0 (4J~~1(JV411 p~p:yi(~~(:~ivN~:~'y p~opvpmaaopi (m~{mlmrnmmrnpa~~ V~I 4 I N OIN O N S~ Z~ 410 41 O N~ N O NIO N O fNIl O iP11 O N OIN C N O 401 O~ W L x !D p 1 I S ~ l{ 1i1i1ilili ' 4 i 3 r., N C < oooor O y g4or OF O Vy o oooooooor O j o oloooooi0oo~oooooolooa olo ooloo r O » 0 oil a~C ~C ~2 f O~ t N C p0 W WZ d N C y2 p l C~ 0000-1~ 6~ oy:9 os ZE 61~ o olIoooboao-~ o O~ O 00.0000001000000000II00o0 0 0 -1 $q G 0000 py ~ pC}Op ~i O OWN; O o000000oma. 0 000000000000000000~00000071~n ~m cDOZOO.. 333... @^ m- ? m" ~ i ~ p p$ 3 a a p P m O P a p a a c a a a { i a a a a P P a P P 000 O O a P O o aI0 Orr 00 W W oo N N ~ tNilm4wir W Q~ r v W V W to W oo 1W r v ENO V 00^+ONPN WOPNANAAANW N~ r Q NW 1p03p~ NW W W ~ W 00001 $ g p-t ~ ggy o ..O..000 4E 0 OOOpoooooOOo o P p oo p o POOOO~f~ eQQ[ Sg W 9 3 ~jQQQ p N Q O e b 71 A p O N O v a O W p N O a O V a O N a a W W W W N W m N W P W N W N D N pppp ~ w 12 V N A° m W m < O O O O a m~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ o 000 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o m N w o a P W o N br (J ! fNA tNa r '(Oj r a j w w .c. V W r N 01- o o Q10 TO N IM m V-1f Vwti " G_ Y3mk'mf35a,~' ~ 3a ~la" d!a`3$ N V W W~ aY + S O ~ A~~ G A W -;:8=28 -1 tl ~7 A m N N IPI, r tN0 V N V S2 P N W 0~ d V mm O O O O p a Q g O :0O1 a O O O O O O O O O p? O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p i p + P ddd oo~ mP O o oovooooo 0 000000000000000000000000'-' g 00 0 A A O O O o r p Cj P r g j 0 000000!0 O r O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O aO O O O O CH. r O 2c `.C OJ y~~ V W VN P PP NNaW g~ obi` a T O to g a C. m o W 1 `r m N A N N W .~i .1 w V b" V 1V1 fJ W V A~f.1 v "'t y W pp HV 1.2% PHF 0.78 4wi Wm ~i t°o p Z t.~ iq y p m VIW JO VtT fj p Z a m O A w N A N N- VIN W N P W W O W NEA P V W w N ]I a a O 4J t+ Odd+~YA m 44~1 000 a0~~ 00m P OlOOp 00000000000000000000 ' O O~ 7 z, ~cto AE w 5 g C o♦ o re~.i~~J■A/7~~ z o o s C g O ~'J N B. f S a A(Oiwj~ O 0 W V W A~CA~ W AOO O+tDN Wt~°D IIDA ~°1mA~~ ST 7yS~ CSI G P6 o I.t H Oo~ W W Wm~_ ~2Cm P a C ~+1 1 oooo v o 00000000 o ooooovooooo00000001000000 24 w 0.0% 0 1 PHF 0.00 4i Ug, (T ~ o ~ O o00ooooogQB o 000000000000000000000000 S o N oooo FI oooo~ o Q 0 00000000 7766 o ooPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Orn c p p p a@ P m 66 p P p P P a P a P ry p P p P p O p p a p a a a a a p p P P p p P p a P W • Ag~ > A~ ~ti I A~ A ~ ,A oiwmrn NS q' v £ mW voE CPg ~m co~v~vmmmm~Wg C~ co~_____+_~_~____+_++_+_+_ N' qC VI 1w~~, P ~Z ~ ~ a 3~ T~~ a~ P•• GA O~~ ~ m tJ~NPVVV V,nV,'~I~V;J+,N OI P.Q/W O1N01 Pl~OQI ~ a O ~ W mWVmr O ti opWr cg O y N N+oWN++Nr O~ N o++o+oooo•o+NO-~+o-ooo++~o+r O~ 0 i Q~~ - F (!1 'Z O! 012 rG ` .T +NNP O N O J Q + V g Q X11 a fib OOO+e0+0 W y i5 O N 0000000000+0000+0 00000+N 1 p a IIyf lW. n4 t V N4+ ~1+ Oo +3 •ZS 1 37 b C i 3 3 ; INJ Gi + D 6 N 3p~ w D W w N P W W I W P W ~W D 3 N + OI+ +~N + N O+ O O W+ N O Ni0 N N O++++ D g (d W iJ W X f GGG 7 _ oooo$ wq g C IS o ooooloooo o ooio ofo ooo ol000000000000000 si Q N AtNJ~r pi PiNr ~j N m~NVW'JPW Pr N +NW+W+~,ION+NWNN WNIO NN W+OOAr 1Qw N ` $.g N +000000+i N O+~O 0000~000000000000OOOOI+-i cn , 000+1~ SOHO-1 ~J 6SS WW 3 19 6 N AtT fNJ Nw WfNJmD N AV~W NO1V mWWV1WWWAWNWWfmmAV WND T AfVTN D 4 V~AD~1'~ OJT 01 G~ N N O O+ O o O+ O~ N N v oio v O v oI+ v v O O v O v o 0 0+ 0 0 0 O O~ W ~y I I J P J O r pOV r J'- O cWii °l W V W- N fNJ r O_ W J~V W b W N A V W V W V OD p W f0 W J J W fm W r pp VV VVS-1~m m ASS WOC NN++W U N(~• W N W PPW W WA A(~W(~[~AN W(.t m NM:jA N~ m At0 ~WO~OT W tT y~ O NNPN WOG V~+fD 1000+WQ OAWAP V+WO~~~ O A A O o o D? a N p A D U W A O P 0 0 0 0 0 0 IJ z O. A 0 0 0++ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 071 ? N V + Oi G ' GG ~a+Q p W mn ~ d oooo~ ~aQ o o 000 it"OOH 0 000000000000000000000000 5 g WWmWr Lt~WY' OVi >r ~ NN+OONANr ~ NOOf++00+000 000000 NONN~++O rl = p~ W S 0+ V N~ A~ W i + N¢ + NWfAANN N W N W appA A W W `2 O N12~m ((ppCO1 ny $ ^ f P V JWGn W AN-Iim ANW O W++m V N W INm~W OOW V WO Wm~OW+~ ~m pp N~fP 2 OA V fOAV N W Ot Wyk _ A N V ap~mQp + 14 HVB.,go p i ?1 O O oC D G (J~ p~ N WI+ O N N D aWT N W V V P fhlW W ~~N + N W W N W P W W V N N V .w p 0.80 FL w O o+c V [S (1~ Gl ~ ococypBG 4 O ooocvoco$ o ooaoo pfco Ioo oooo~OOCOCCCCC~ 2 g t 8s . L - I J O A i I (C >p+>p j'~pp (Q i; ~ ~mOp 1~Q+ p 011~uqq" o J (Ql pW~WW!W W W W p S N mWa~pp pp t~ I N ~+p p++O{p++-IS C y O N 2 O y O~ _ ONO VNi~ E Vb~~ ~ 0 ~A~PiO ~D ~1W E~ ~ NAO WmW NO VjW N~N~J?V WO~~ON O~~00~m {!1 ~ UI ~fl~ I I H b m o oooo° 0 0 00000000° 0 000000000000000000000000° HV 10.0% - ~ I 'y PHF 0.88 ~vv p~ (p/~ W i ' W O o~ OOWWC nd C$ W COCCOG WGg a W OLIO VOOOCOCG VOV VGiv OOWV00IC 09 W O+ oooo oM o ooooo~ooom o oolooooo00000000000ooooofo p; J 7777 - _ f ~ ~ g s +W WN~ W ooo+oNOO$ W o000000000~+0oooN0000o 00o~ t a~ ati A-+ s ao < < ;pm s ~ m I w o~ N MOM OS v2e P~ a ~ aW ~ia:~:epp~m Wm(pmm~~ $~yNNV~pJpJVV VNVNVVddJ py mla o~pwpa~o{~t+m ma+m pm"~S O~. S w~, 3 3 i& N N O tAJ~ O N 0 3 N 041 O YWi 0 UN1 O fn O G$ N O N O {W!1 0 UNi 0 Ul O N O .3 C ` _ W .iii px 13 C ~ ffffff f~jD ~ ~ ~ < oooor C ; $qor og C o 000ooooor C 5 0 00~00000000000ooooogooooor a~ Pt { Qi Nl 2``~~ m z v, N ~ Z p~ ~ ~ v+ O1 m ~ `C ~ ~ 1 0000-11 $b 'O$ otimg p OF. ~w o 1~g by o oo~000000000000000000ooo0-41 roc F~ 00000ooo 5 q 3 5 t 4' p 5gg~ a~ $ OOOoDf$ 9P..§ $ O -N§ q 00000000D'$ 0 0000000000000000000o0 0 0 0 D3a e CL Al y V/ oooo_ w" ~ oooo $ og o 000ooooow o 00000000000000001000oo000 Ota 90 r Eq ~j r m $ W WN~NO~jvr $ W ANNNN_0- V ON PPm NfDPNpIN V W J r O ((qq 7~ /~I\~ W (n oQ~ p o O p y p 4 0 1 W g / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O O O O O O O O O O O o Q.0. O O O O O O O O -4 m P GG oo~~ ✓ _ pNN p 6y1 m p ~p A Ny ~ W V I~DO D+ g,s m g' a ~(J o N O WN V OCJ V W D N SAN mt00J OfN.IN~ V W W~ V ~~NN ON V V P D~ 7 N Nn Nn ! W 1 y _ Q~ V P O _ Q ~ ~ _ m ~ O NNN p~m N~ N OOOO~ONOO N 000000~000~000 O O ON00000000 ~ 11~~ I~1 G N W J p~IN A W A ry NN N N N _ C. tT 8r Wr lJ ~D IO OlOAINOIJ Nr O°;OWV Vmfn f0V01-.N N1SV OlmNV_PVr . TEO VV 1I pp-1y Qm0 ~ N N p~ 1 _ Ip p (n (n y ys p N p 7j~~~71 (p~ Ll N A fJ~ ~ N P N P V ~ A W 10 O f0 00 N ~ /J ~ 2` . J O * R N i•OI ~ £ ~C$F O - o p £ _l m OI W - - . V N ~ ~WR 1pp~ 00 W fWJI fT ~ O O O Dco O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00000C....".1 O O O O D 7 ~ S g o D O 00000 mm iiii W y ~ dd p~p~~33"~.~pvp~~oy6 W 3 m m V"/. N 0~0~0000-~`' N 000 ~D00000+0000000000000 ~ O 9p W oooorg4or3~ o 000ooooor o 0000000000000000000ooooor ° c 2a~' c _ p~ p~ p~ p~ m v p W N p p~ p ~ ~ (n {J1 V VA ^I mNpVp 1 G pWp11 N~~ppm~~pp ((~~ppNN-~ + Nf .1NMNr10NPtAT~00A~A V OtNlIN4l V W~fO-DLO mOp O V OI W S P O, O _ V N r O1 N N W S A pp H,,,.4% yy~~ A ~1 9!- (-Jj¢R BLS m 414 t+ A 0 0& D~ 3 01 D N 7 Q ~j O CI W 01 V A W D l N V N W 4i N W O A (!1 V A W N N V W A N P W W (T W D a PHF 0.84 O G tJ CC ~~pO 6 a ~ o~J 1 ~ VO ~ m n O 01 oooo$ noia°f'~` w o~ 0 00000000 0 000ooooovooooo0000000000$m pCx op --t '~d+, ~g m (V~ ~ W Pp~~pl Op O P 1W~/ Q$i W W w WO1 V+V (W~~ W NA(~A(~AN(~ V yA(~p~ V(~ WNW N+(~(~p~ m !y. Z N W ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P G ~ ~ A L ~ ' NI_ ~0 W 01 ~O ~ ~ ~ p W m fll ~ tT J N~(D O fJ m (D ID ~ !J JN V OW f0 W P N ~ 7 ~ q ~ ° ♦ r to z l l b 0 W ANW4 A8 0 00.00--- a oooooo NO~oooooo-~oooo~q~o Hv0.096 S 99 PHF 0.00 1 o & W y W W y ~ - - W O O O O O O O O O O O C A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O O O O O ON N V O O O O m O d W W O O O O O O O R M W N O -T- HO 0 0 lo- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000-0- : L200000 000000000~0~ooo~ogo-~~ fi existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:54:40 Page 1-1 existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:54:41 Page 2-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Existing Conditions (2006) Existing Conditions (2006) Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report Scenario: existing Level Of Service Command; existing intersection Base Future Change volume: existing Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Geometry: existing LOS Veh C LOS Veh C Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee # 1 Main St/Burnham St C 17.8 0.695 C 17.8 0.695 + 0.000 V/C Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution # 2 Main St/Tigard St E 38.8 0.000 E 38.8 0.000 + 0.000 D/V Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes # 3 Main St/Commercial St (north 1 C 17.6 0.000 C 17.6 0.000 + 0.000 D/V Configuration: Default Configuration # 4 Main St/Commercial St (south 1 C 18.0 0.000 C 18.0 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 5 Main St/Scoffins St B 16.8 0.439 B 16.8 0.439 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:54:41 Page 3-1 existing wed may 24, 2006 15:54:41 Page 4-1 ----------------------I---------------------------------------------------------- Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) PM Peak 41900 vphg/lane) Existing Conditions (2006) Existing Conditions (2006) Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) rrtrf rf arlY♦ltlrrf+rrrtlf}frt+#rr*rt rf a++tr**fflrtr}*++}f 1f*♦t+rf +r ♦f#r+rft}ff}} +♦r!lfarffflffr.r+•#•af llffr+rrr*fff#tf4rfrrrtrlffartrrf*}tf rlRrrR+f Rlf++•r+r*rr Intersection #1 Main St/Burnham St [no north leg: driveway) Intersection #2 Main St/Tigard St [no south leg) ffrlf lf!lRratfa t++af!!rt}rYirff!!!lf art ~f♦afa•f rffff+rff*f•iffff if •+•if rff♦f rfar tfrf}4+a!♦rtfff+•#ff+•rf*itlflfflftlf*RfYftft*Ifafffri*r*tfarYt,f *f of +Iffrr+f+♦rr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(R): 0.695 Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 38.81 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.6 1f++}f+1r11f rf rfr+rfr+ttrr!♦f ltrlt+•++#•trlf ***}rf t...* r tr***rff efrrfarrfrrlrf Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Tigard St Main St +ff***.***rt++**trt}++}•#rrfr*rfr•+f*f+rttlt*ff+rftf rf tf lrt+rfff r++.rartrf +af rf♦ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Street Name: Burnham St Main St Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound I--------------- (I--------------- II--------------- I{---------------I Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled I II--------------- II--------------- II I Rights: Include Include Include Include Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Rights: Include Include Include Include I--------------'II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Min. Green:' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 << Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 84 0 124 240 343 0 0 349 221 I II--.------------- II--------------- II I Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 << Initial Bse: 0 0 0 84 0 124 240 343 0 0 349 221 Base Vol: 136 2 300 8 1 6 3 271 63 190 261 8 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Initial Bse: 136 2 300 8 1 6 3 271 63 190 261 8 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 88 0 129 250 357 0 0 364 230 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 88 0 129 250 357 0 0 364 230 PHF Volume: 151 2 333 9 1 7 3 301 70 211 290 9 I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Reduced Vol: 151 2 333 9 1 7 3 301, 70 211 290 9 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FollowupTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xzxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Final Vol.: 151 2 333 9 1 7 3 301 70 211 290 9 Capacity module: 60 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx I--------------- II II 11--------------- I Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1353 xxxx 495 Saturation Flow Module: Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 165 xxxx 575 967 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 130 xxxx 567 956-xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Lanes: 0.99 0.01 1.00 0.53 0.07 0.40 0.01 0.80 0.19 1.00 0.97 0.03 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.67 xxxx 0.23 0.26 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Final Sat.: 467 7 563 212 27 159 5 433 101 496 519 16 I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Capacity Analysis Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.7 xxxx 0.9 1.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.32 0.32 0.59 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.43 0.56 0.56 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 76.6 xxxx 13.2 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: 1f+f *+af LOS by Move: r F • B B Delay/Veh: 13.5 13.5 17.0 11.2 11.2 11.2 22.7 22.7 22.7 14.8 17.0 17.0 Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adj Del/Veh. 13.5 13.5 17.0 11.2 11.2 11.2 22.7 22.7 22.7 14.8 17.0 17.0 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B B C B B B C C C B C C Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Approachpel: 15.9 11.2 22.7 16.1 Shared LOS: * * * * + r r r f a + Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApproachDel:" xxxxxx 38.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApprAdjDel: 15.9 11.2 22.7 16.1 ApproachLOS: E LOS by Appr: C B C C #f+++rr+af+ffrrtf«*ftt*rfr*af++•*arffY.t•w#+rtrrfrfttr*tt+ltr r+r*rr#+*rrrl*r ►f *a AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of care per lane. rr►rl+rf+f♦+*rfr*f}lrrrrrrr}fra++}f •rr}!1r*ff*fra++r+ff tY•*rff rrfr+rrrrfrtllrtf+ arrf♦♦frtrffff rft+R+f *f rrf t**tftatf♦itffffrtrf rr*1r+♦f N rtf#+r+++t**ar**f }t}ttff Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. .arrrrf}f}}}f+rfffrf+fffr*+++a+f•f+f+!lf+ff+fl.lf.af •rfrRr*+.*rr*ferf +ff*rreffrr Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to DRS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:54:41 Page 5-1 existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:54:41 Page 6-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Existing Conditions (2006) Existing Conditions (2006) Level Of Service Computation Report Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) a+aaf+tfr+rlr rfat+w•+ra+afa+taf arrarrrrfrff xrtw♦aaf*raatlxxl+r+f*++lRf rrrrf rwr+r w+r♦++rf++rffrf rffelafewfxtarafalt++arr if ralfawxtf ii•+arfaraa afrra•artsarii+ir++ Intersection $3 Main St/Commercial St (north leg) (west] Intersection 44 Main St/Commercial St (south leg) [east] extffi xrrrar++lf rf rafeffratyrfafaa+fwrrrwalaxwff++•+!w#ia.ii++ax+a.rrrfwa#af r#xrr #wr..rrr++r+++#wrf afxrrw atiatiiiar+taf arafriwraw*wwrR+tt++t rarrrrf rr rwrwaiiwr+ir Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.61 Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 18.01 1fx.arfwara r,#rf rlrf.rara•ww•x!•wxrarl r+t*ir+i•ftr«•aa tr •rrr«aaw«irf waawaaaw aawra aia*w+'i+Rta•arwrwaararaar as wf+•.ttfi++rrraraarfar rarai+r♦+a ♦f +frar}fiffiaffaf fffaf Street Name: Commercial St Main St Street Name: Commercial St Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- II--------------- ►I--------------- II--------------- I I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II------------ =--I I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 << Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 Base Vol: 0 0 0 31 0 88 66 342 0 0 471 50 Base Vol: 84 0 91 0 0 0 0 315 58 45 437 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 31 0 88 66 342 0 0 471 50 Initial Bse: 84 0 91 0 0 0 0 315 S8 45 437 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 33 0 93 69 360 0 0 496 53 PHF Volume: 88 0 96 0 0 0 0 332 61 47 460 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 33 0 93 69 360 0 0 496 53 Final Vol.: 88 0 96 0 0 0 0 332 61 47 460 0 I II--'------------- II--------------- II--------------- I ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Critical Gp: 6.5 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.6 xxxx 3.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx I II--------------- II--------------- Il--------------- .I' ------------I--------------- II--------------- 11---------------II---------------! Capacity Module: Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1034 xxxx 535 558 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 939 xxxx 395 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 415 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 258 xxxx 547 1007 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 285 xxxx 639 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1139 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 242 xxxx 541 999 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 270 xxxx 622 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1118 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx 0.17 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Volume/Cap: 0.33 xxxx 0.15 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx ------------I---------------II---------------fl---------------11---------------I ------------I---------------11---------------I1---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2Way95thQ: 1.4 xxxx 0.5 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 24.7 xxxx 11.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * LOS by Move: C B • • • • • ' A * + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 409 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ' * C • ' ' • * * • Shared LOS: * * * ' * * • • • A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 17.6 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachDel: 18.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachWS: ' C * ApproachLOS: C * * ' ff wff Rw Rfaf wa}laltf a#w#aRRw Rf t1•f++fRttrwatff#1f rRf+tl+titf •af a}f #RYalraf if ikf r! afafR♦}fiaffiff+ftif!lararafrafafff}ffaffRf}R♦afrarltiii•rartaraf of alffrffaa*+•tt! Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ff}rra*rf tffa++ltratf rwf#arff rrrltrrarrr+aarrraa+trratr+##aaaef taf #xwfrr++f affft iR+#Raa*fttfRrrartf rwRftxwtxtlxta*wfRriaawrafrlaf it}rffaffxtxxrt+rr+f#ri#fra#i+f Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:54:41 Page 7-1 Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Existing Conditions (2006) Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) 1r+t tlrffflf♦r1l+rfr+fff~++r4.11r4frrf rllrff lff}r4}tr4afarf4#rrf+rf w}rr44}wrf }ff1 Intersection 45 Main St/Scoffins St (no north leg] +f1f+t#♦ff►wfr♦#wf lr4wf1r4ff4A+f Off tf tt}f♦f4f4ffffa4lt affft#1111 R}*}f wf Rf llf rfff Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.439 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.8 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B #+1f++♦}!4111 1itttf 11t1f♦ff}+11t}/1r1rrf111f 11tr1rwf11Rfrf/}t♦1f♦f }txf w}ff♦1f YfR Street Name: Scoffins St Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II ---------------i Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 I II II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 << Base Vol: 283 0 72 0 0 0 0" 260 119 60 183 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 283 0 72 0 0 0 0 260 119 60 183 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 308 0 78 0 0 0 0 283 129 65 199 0" Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 308 0 78 0 0 0 0 283 129 65 199 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 308 0 78 0 0 0 0 283 129 65 199 0 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.83 0.90 0.94 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1787 0 1599 0 0 0 0 1845 1568 1702 1792 0 I II--------------- II--------------- il---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.00 Crit Moves: R4'f 1111 fa11 Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.44 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.24 0.44 0.25 0.00 Delay/Veh: 16.1 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 16.4 32.4 12.7 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 16.1 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 16.4 32.4 12.7 0.0 LOS by Move: B A B A A A A B B C B A HCM2kAVgQ: 5' 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 2 2 -3 0 +f+f+ArArr A4twf+++t if rwwf+llwR r♦t1w4444+1444+ftf tt♦#aff Af♦fff#*AAf ARa Off of}aaf Ar Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. frlrftr}t++t+f trf rf aA rf rrlflraaflf♦frarfta+r+rrra rllrafr}yf kf+rfl+lr++r++rf +f+ef Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR r existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:56:44 Page 1-1 existing Wed may 24, 2006 15:56:44 Page 2-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) Existing Conditions (2006) Existing Conditions (2006) Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report Scenario: existing Level of Service Command: existing Intersection Base Future Change volume: existing Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Geometry: existing LOS Veh C LOS Veh C Imp3Ct Fee: Default Impact Fee # 6 Hall Blvd/SCoffins St/Hunziker C 30.4 0.680 C 30.4 0.680 + 0.000 D/V Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution # 7 Hall Blvd/Commercial St D 28.5 0.000 D 28.5 0.000 + 0.000 D/V Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes # 8 Hall Blvd/Burnham St C 33.6 0.886 C 33.6 0.886 + 0.000 D/V Configuration: Default Configuration Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:56:44 Page 3-1 existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:56:44 Page 4-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) Existing Conditions (2006) Existing Conditions (2006) Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation.Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM unsignalized method (Base Volume*Alternative) rr••fre•r+«+•11f+f++f aarearfrr++++f♦wrfaef••r•+afa•a+++r+++a++rarraf rrr rffraf rt+ rw++aaf••••f•+rtra+rr+•a rf rf•ar•aaf rr•arratr+•r•fr•+1f+++•ftw+rr«r•r•rrelf►lrtrf Intersection #6 Hall Blvd/Scoffins St/Hunziker St Intersection #7 Hall Blvd/Commercial St (no east leg: driveway] •fr•rrrrrrrf♦rwf♦aaaa+a+•+.a++a••r+rafr•a•r«raraa«aaar+•1f•f ♦••r+..++fr+•raa••fa .a+++++r•+rrafrta•wrrrrrr••a«a+++r•rtw•arar«••af++a++a+.aft+•ar rr rarr•rara•+f+++ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.680 Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.0 Worst Case Level of Service: D[ 28.5) Loss Time (sec): 16 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/Veh): 30.4 ++•+•++*•+*`•r••rfarr••rr+•f •f+f r*.l+cart.«+af••♦+•r+r•++f•fl+r+e►•afflrf +♦+f+aa Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Hall Blvd Commercial St +rf«♦•ar•+++a++++•ar+«•r♦••••r•faf•r•wr•+1w+f*a+1t++r++++•+r1r+r•«•rrr•rf•w1r•fa Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Street Name: Hall Blvd W: Scoffins St / E: Hunziker St Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound . West Bound I--------------- II--------------- II II---------------I Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign I II II--------------- II--------------- I Rights: Include include include include Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Rights: Include include Include Include I--------------- II--------------- II II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 « Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Base Vol: 107 442 4 3 705 60 25 0 74 6 1 13 I If II--------------- II--------------- I Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 << Initial Bse: 107 442 4 3 705 60 25 0 74 6 1 13 Base Vol: 13 360 95 26 401 15 18 7 59 308 20 80 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Initial Bse: 13 360 95 26 401 15 18 7 59 308 20 80 PHF Volume: 110 456 4 3 727 62 26 0 76 6 1 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Final Vol.: 110 456 4 3 727 62 26 0 76 6 1 13 PHF Volume: 14 387 102 28 431 16 19 8 63 331 22 86 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Reduced Vol: 14 387 102 28 431 16 19 8 63 331 22 86 Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 3.6 xxxx 3.4 3.6 4.1 3.4 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Final Vol.: 14 387 102 28 431 16 19 8 63 331 22 86 Capacity Module: ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Cnflict Vol: 789 xxxx xxxxx 460 xxxx xxxxx 1449 xxxx 759 1481 1473 458 Saturation Flow Module: Potent Cap.: 831 xxxx xxxxx 1101 xxxx xxxxx 107 xxxx 400 99 122 587 Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Move Cap.: 831 xxxx xxxxx 1101 xxxx xxxxx 93 xxxx• 400 72 105 587 Adjustment: 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.83 Volume/Cap: 0.13 xxxx xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx 0.28 xxxx 0.19 0.09 0.01 0.02 Lanes: 1.00 0.79 0.21 1.00 0.96 0.04 0.21 0.08 0.71 0.94 0.06 1.00 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Final Sat.: 1676 1352 357 1676 1692 63 342 133 1120 1567 102 1486 Level Of Service Module: I II--------------- II-------------- =II I 2Way95thQ: o.5 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.7 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Analysis Module: Control Del: 10.0 xxxx xxxxx 8.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx. 16.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.06 LOS by Move: A • • A * ` ' C ' Crit Moves: Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Green/Cycle: 0.01 0.42 0.42 0.02`0.43 0.43 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.31 Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 93 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 174 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.59 0.59 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.19 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx Delay/Veh: 82.8 26.1 26.1 85.8 22.9 22.9 57.9 57.9 57.9 33.7 33.7 25.4 Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 58.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 28.5 xxxxx User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared LOS: * ' ' * + F a r D AdjDel/Veh: 82.8 26.1 26.1 85.8 22.9 22.9 57.9 57.9 57.9 33.7 33.7 25.4 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 26.7 28.5 LOS by Move: F C C F C C E E E C C C ApproachLOS: f ` D D HCM2kAvgQ: 1 13 13 2 11 11 4 4 4 10 10 2 •a+•ar••rraraarr•w•ar•a+a++•ra•ra•rrrrraa•••raa.+•++a•rrrr r•rrf r♦•r f•fflr•a+•faa .+a.f.'f•:.a+r.++r«.f++1.rff+.•.+..1f..rf•.rr.•w•a...awrf.f.w...+..+a.++.a+..rr.• Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ♦•+•a+arr+rar•rr•arfraarf••r•f•faa+rlf+frr:•r•f•••f lr+•aafraa!•ar•1r•r•l+rf•r••f afrrrar••ear•+••re♦•ra»•e aff•+r1rrl lffrafr++rfa•++rra+rrr•++r•r•r •r••rr••f rwr •f Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR existing Wed May 24, 2006 15:56:44 Page 5-1 Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) Existing Conditions (2006) Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) r+f+rrrrrwa+af♦lrrrra}+a+fw+ar+*+f»++x»a++»+++afr+rrart++r+r+r+rra•*•++f+!•r+>ix Intersection 48 Hall Blvd/Burnham St (no east leg] f+xf++r++++flrr♦!!♦rt+lfrrr*r!!!r+•!!!rf*Rf rRrrrlr»+•++far+lrrxwra»+rl++}+**f rrr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.886 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 33.6 Optimal Cycle: 104 Level Of Service: C !**+r tafrrf arlfrffftoRtaflrrtlr}•f♦•MffRRrfatfartf r•1f rf+4rRff+f llflf+rlflf!lfft Street Name: Hall Blvd Burnham St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound . Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 4 Jan 2006 << Base Vol: 256 507 0 0 744 48 53 0 226 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 256 507 0 0 744 48 53 0 226 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 275 545 0 0 800 52 57 0 243 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 275 545 0 0 800 52 57 0 243 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 275 545 0 0 800 52 57 0 243 0 0 0 i--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.83 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00• Final Sat.: 1676 1764 0 0 1764 1499 1676 0 1499 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------I1---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: rf R* rrR! +rt+ Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 64..6 6.9 0.0 0.0 32.3 12.4 34.9 0.0 67.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.6 6.9 0.0 0.0 32.3 12.4 34.9 0.0 67.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: E A A A C B C A E A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 12 7 0 0 25 1 2 0 10 0 0 0 »+*r+rra+rrrrrrraaw+ara+•rra•+•+++r•++++f+a+r++xtraar!lf rrlrar alrrltw+++>•r+r.r* Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. waarrr.r}+rrrrrrsitrra+rR rr»*ralf•fww*+fwr•}rwxf•r+»>+r+•+++++xa*f +rrra*ffarR wwf Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR without walnut Wed May 24, 2006 15:38:50 Page 1-1' without walnut Wed May 24, 2006 15:38:52 --------Page 2-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (20251 without Ash Extension lmitigatedl Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report Scenario: without walnut Level Of Service Command: without walnut Intersection Base Future Change Volume: without walnut Deli V/ Del/ V/ in Geometry: without walnut LOS Veh C LOS Veh C Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee # 1 Main St/Burnham St/Tigard St a 17.2 0.717 8 17.2 0.717 + 0.000 D/V Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution # 4 Main St/Commercial St B 13.3 0.679 B 13.3 0.679 + 0.000 D/V Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes # 5 Main St/Scoffins St C 21.6 0.668 C 21.6 0.668 + 0.000 D/V Configuration: Default Configuration Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DRS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR without walnut Wed May 24, 2006 15:38:52 Page 3-1 without walnut wed may 24, 2006 15:38:52 Page 4-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) rra#•Yrxrrr*txe*trra•trraYer•rx#wt#r♦+*trxatrr+#arerxrr•#•erw•rxr *•rarrrarrrrrrr ra+rrr*rr+rrrx•rrr*r•arrra•+rrra++rr+a•:trr+rwara awrrt•:rrYrarrrr it#•rr*rrra#t+• Intersection N1 Main St/Burnham St/Tigard St [realigned) intersection $4 Main St/Commercial St (realigned) +••i#Mrxra♦+++♦riaR+r1R•ff••YrY+ra*##afrrrr+rrarwYxf r+r*+fr*r+rra+ararrrrar*a*** r#frarrrr*rr♦*•r+rf*af r•iii#+a+ar•artata#Yrrrrrr•xfrr+•rir♦•r14Y•rlRftrRrrrrlfa+ Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol. /Cap.(X): 0.717 Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.679 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.2 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.3 Optimal Cycle: 47 Level Of Service: B Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: B Yara++•rr#rar ra#rre+rrr*r•r•Yrawa•r+rrat+raarrrrerara#••rrrararYrawrr*r++r#rrrr• wxwrrrr*++rta*♦rrerr+r rrrwrrr+*a•rr+rrrrr#•rrr*r•a*+•rrtt #t•Ya••rx•r+a++•r••r•w r. Street Name: Burnham St/Tigard St Main St Street Name: Commercial St Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------It---------------I II If ---------------I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include Include include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 11--------------- 1 I II II ---------------I Volume Module: Volume Module: Base Vol: 250 80 250 140 40 110 110 160 110 160 190 450 Base Vol: 100 120 60 80 130 70 90 370 60 50 720 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 250 80 250 140 40 110 110 160 110 160 190 450 Initial Bse: 100 120 60 80 130 70 90 370 60 50 720 90 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 263 84 263 147 42 116 116 168 116 168 200 474 PHF Volume: 105 126 63 84 137 74 95 389 63 53 758 95 Reduct Vol: 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 263 84 263 147 42 116 116 168 116 168 200 474 Reduced Vol: 105 126 63 84 137 74 95 389 63 53 758 95 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 263 84 263 147 42 116 116 168 116 168 200 474 Final Vol.: 105 126 63 84 137 74 95 389 63 53 758 95 ~ Saturation Flow Module: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.62 0.87 0.87 0.34 0.83 0.83 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.54 0.87 0.87 Adjustment: 0.42 0.87 0.87 0.51 0.95 0.95 0.23 0.95 0.95 0.45 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.24 0.76 1.00 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.59 0.41 1.00 0.30 0.70 Lanes: 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 0.65 0.35 1.00 0.86 0.14 1.00 0.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 1179 400 1250 650 422 1159 475 1017 699 1024 490 1161 Final Sat.:. 801 1103 552 969 1171 630 428 1554 252 858 1612 202 I--------------- ---------------I I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.41 0.41 Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.47 0.47 Crit Moves: ar•• *r " Crit Moves: •aar Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0'.32 0.32 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.67 0.67 0.72 0.32 0.32 0.43 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.72 0.72 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.59 0.59 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.68 0.68 Delay/Veh: 27.1 24.0 24.0 32.6 18.5 18.5 9.7 7.9 7.9 8.0 13.6 13.6 Delay/Veh: 37.7 28.7 28.7 26.7 28.8 28.8 4.9 4.6 4.6 3.6 7.8 7.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.1 24.0 24.0 32.6 18.5 18.5 9.7 7.9 7.9 8.0 13.6 13.6 AdjDel/Veh: 37.7 28.7 28.7 26.7 28.8 28.8 4.9 4.6 4.6 3.6 7.8 7.8 LOS by Move: C C C C B B A A A A B B LOS by Move: D C C C C C A A A A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 7 8 8 5 3 3 2 3 3 2 12 12 HCM2kAvgQ: 4 5 5 2 5 5 1 4 4 0 12 12 rrw+#rww#++++ta+rrarararrr#*#++ee•Yrx•rrr w+#r rrw+aarr*+r+a•rtrrr+va+r•rr+rrr+a•r •r*r.r•rrrr•arrrrrYrxwrxw+xr*+•rtrrr rarrrrr•rrrrrr*r•rrr•r#ra##•Yarrr•#*##++ar•+ Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. •r•arra*+•a••rrr+++rr++•rr++raa+t.•r+rxa+.rr•r+arrr ••rY•rYaaYrrrwarrrr+•+*.r+•r• rar+•r•+w:•arr+r.r•+#t•rrYf rrr rYrart#rrrr••rtaarrrra•r•#rrr+*#+rrat r+•+t+*rrrrar Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2066 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR without walnut Wed may 24, 2006 15:38:52 Page 5-1 Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations method (Base Volume Alternative) !ra•RRlatltf trt♦f raa!ltaa!!!rr•!lf trr•rfRR•rrf rrfr##l+af•rr#•rf •rrear•Rx•RrxftrR Intersection #5 Main St/Scoffins St (no north leg) r!#tfftr!!fr!!f•rrr••f RRrfx.arr t+fffaafrtrarrfr Rartrf RR rrrf r••ff}R•r•f++r •trrrrr Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.668 Lass Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.6 Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: C +raaRrtar4af•i•ff♦rtrff}*+tf titt##faafarf•faRafrlflf Rtt}f•fff+itatrfaRrif#lf if#R Street Name: Scoffins St Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- II-------------- II--------------- II--------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 480 0 120 0 0 0 0 290 190 170 260 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 480 0 120 0 0 0 0 290 190 170 260 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 505 0 126 0 0 0 0 305 200 179 274 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 505 0 126 0 0 0 0 305 200 179 274 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 Final Vol.: 505 0 126 0 0 0 0 305 200 179 274 0 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.83 0.90 0.94 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1787 0 1599 0 0 0 0 1845 1568 1702 1792 0 ------------1=--------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Capacity'Analysis module: Vol/Sat: 0.28 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.00 Crit Moves: Rrr! t.a# R.+• Green/Cycle: 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.41 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.51 0.67 0.38 0.00 Delay/Veh: 18.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 23.9 34.1 14.9 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 18.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 23.9 34.1 14.9 0.0 LOS by Move: B A B A A A A C C C B A HCM2kAvgQ: 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 4 5 4 0 r*ff#r!r!r#f rffrffffelffrtRa Rf rftlat++f arf•t#tf rrRlrf#rr}faf •rtRRf*#f t+it#tr+trr Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ff1#f arRRt•r}R♦rf*ftf+i+Rrf#afrtalararf RY!!!r♦•fr}f •R•tf+t•t+it+rfttt•if t}rf #Rrr Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR without walnut Wed May 24, 2006 15:43:42 Page 1-1 without walnut Wed May 24, 2006 15:43:42 Page 2-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane{ Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) -Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report Scenario: without walnut Level Of Service Command: without walnut Intersection Base Future Change volume: without walnut Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Geometry: without walnut LOS Veh C LOS Veh C Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee # 6 Hall Blvd/Scoffins St/Hunziker C 33.3 0.877 C 33.3 0.877 + 0.000 D/V Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution # 7 Hall Blvd/Commercial St D 27.3 0.000 D 27.3 0.000 + 0.000 D/V Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes # 8 Hall Blvd/Burnham St C 23.8 0.807 C 23.8 O.B07 + 0.000 D/V Configuration: Default Configuration Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DRS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR without walnut Wed May 24, 200615:43:42 Page 3-1 without walnut Wed May 24, 2006 15:43:43 Page 4-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Level of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base volume Alternative) ra***•*•••x•••++ara++r•a+a+•r•+*ar:+r•ararrarrrr r+a++r••rrrre*•■*x+••r••r*•••r+r arra•+raar.rrr■*a■w•■arr•r*•*+••ar rarr a••f rrawaar*•*•rr+*aa+•r+aarrar■rarra•r*rf Intersection #6 Hall Blvd/Scoffins St/Hunziker St Intersection #7 Hall Blvd/Commercial St (no east leg: driveway) ararr•r+rrraraa a•+f arras a■raaa•raaa+rr uar•}r+r+.rasa.+r.+++.•••+++•ar*aarf r: ra• rrarraraar•r•*++r•••afr*rarirf rrrrr•raf wr*ra*r•}ar••iaaa•r**aaa••aar r\rr•a•••rr* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.877 Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 27.31 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 33.3 *r*ft+*t+++*fa+rrraa efa*aa+:oaraar*a*r*rt+rr•++aar urr►r*eaa+♦*•r•**►a•r•a*fr» r Optimal Cycle: 89 Level Of Service: C Street Name: Hall Blvd Commercial St •a•rrar+trt•fr*r+rrrrr•rrra•}oarsaraaar*•a•:arrr**r+r*ar•a*r+aaa•a•*f+**•r*rf*rf Approach: - North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Street Name: Hall Blvd W: Scoffins St / E: Hunziker St Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T R L - T - R Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign I II II--------------- II--------------- Rights: Include Include Include Include Control: Permitted. Permitted Permitted Permitted Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Rights: Include Include Include include I--------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume.Module: Lanes:. 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Base Vol: 180 460 0 0 640 30 40 0 180 0 0 0 I---------------II---------------~I---------------~I--------------- ~ Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volume Module: Initial Bse: 180 460 0 0 640 30 40 0 180 0 0 0 Base Vol: 20 400 100 110 430 110 110 220 70 220 290 80 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 D.95 0.95 0.95 Initial Bse: 20 400 100 110 430 110 110 220 70 220 290 80 PHF Volume: 189 484 0 0 674 32 42 0 189 0 0' 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Final Vol.: 189 484 0 0 674 32 42 0 189 0 0 0 PHF Volume: 21 421 105 116 453 116 116 232 74 232 305 84 I--------------- II--------------- I~--------------- ~I---------------I Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Reduced Vol: 21 421 105 116 453 116 116 232 74 232 305 84 Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.5 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.6 xxxx 3.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I--------------- II II---------------II ---------------I Final Vol.: 21 421 105 116 453 116 116 232 74 232 305 84 Capacity Module: I---------------I~---------- 7----~I--------------- II--------------- ~ Cnflict Vol: 705 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1553 xxxx 690 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Saturation Flow Module: Potent Cap.: 893 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 122 xxxx 438 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Move Cap.: 893 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 102 xxxx 438 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adjustment: 0.15 0.95 0.95 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.63 0.63 0.83 Volume/Cap:. 0.21 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.41 xxxx 0.43 xxxx xxxx xxxx Lanes: 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.76 0.24 0.43 0.57 1.00 I II II--------------- II---------------~ Final Sat.: 277 1369 342. 352 1361 348 584 1303 415 488 643 1486 Level Of Service Module: I---------------I~---------------~I---------------~I---------------I 2Way95thQ: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.1 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Analysis Module: Control Del: 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat, 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.06 LOS by Move: B * * • C Crit Moves: a••• Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Green/Cycle: 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Shared Cap.:'xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 102 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.20 0.81 0.81 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.88 0.88 0.10 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 21.8 35.5 35.5 69.9 41.8 41.8 13.9 13.0 13.0 33.6.33.6 11.2 Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 63.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared LOS: * * F Adj Del/Veh: 21.8 35.5 35.5 69.9 41.8 41.8 13.9 13.0 13.0 33.6 33.6 11.2 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 27.3 xxxxxx LOS by Move: C D D E D D B B B C C B ApproachLOS: * * D HCM2kAvgQ: 1 17 17 6 20 20 2 5 5 18 18 1 raf*rrrrr+f rrarr■err■rrr*a+r*arr+*+a*+*f*r•rar+a•*r+r•rr•r•r of •a*rraer*ra •rr•r as r.r.■.•.r*ar..*....faa..oar..*.•.•.•..a*.*ar.*..r.r*ar.r■.*+..r..*r...***.***.*a Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. a+a.r.:aaaraaar+..fa.*.■raa+.+.:a•a*aaraaa.+raa.*•ra«r.*ra*f*.+*.a:.arr.+:}•.+.+ • +rfa*rrr•ra+ar+*+rr•a+ta**taf+trf•tirf+*rtat*trf+r+++a•+**+t *r rrr+art•**+•*r Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DRS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DRS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR without walnut Wed May 24, 2006 15:43:43 Page 5-1 Downtown Tigard P24 Peak 11800 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) without Ash Extension (mitigated) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) wfrrwrr♦Rxfw+}tttrxewxrrx/xaxrRxRRt}Rt♦rRRxRRRt+R}t++Ra4r++++rYx//xxfxx/xR}x}+tx Intersection N8 Hall Blvd/Burnham St (no east leg) r+Rxwwrrrraar}xrRwrrrrrRwx♦wrwxRx:+ttR+R+tww+xwrrrxrarrr}rw+}xx}RrxRrr++.++Rr+rr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.807 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y*R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.8 Optimal Cycle: 79 Level Of Service: C xrex♦}xxiatrwta+rxr}rar}arwrw:rwrrR}xxx/rRxx•rrx+rr++r+rrxwrRr/rR }rxxrxRrxw+xtrr ' Street Name: Hall Blvd Burnham St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I II--------------- II--------- -----II---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 310 630 0 0 800 70 60 0 320 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 310 630 0 0 800 70 60 0 320 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PH? Volume: 326 663 0 0 842 74 63 0 337 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 326 663 0 0 842 74 63 0 337 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 326 663 0 0 842 74 63 0 337 0 0 0 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.83 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1676 1764 0 0 1764 1499 1676 0 1499 0 0 0 I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: x}Rx Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.05 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 47.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 20.6 8.8 91.2 0.0 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 47.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 20.6 8.8 91.2 0.0 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: D A A A C A F A D A A A HCM2kAv9Q: 12 6 0 0 22 1 4 0 11 0 0 0 +ra xr Ra:xxR+}wr++rrwrrrayaRa+aRrax xwxxRxwxwRw/xxxxtrR+xart++ta+Rawawrrar RRRRa w/R Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. xxax}t/+aara+rw Rxawx♦wxrx/xx♦RRaRxR+}txrx w++rx+xrxra}earrxraerxa/ww xx++xxRa }arr} Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS.ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:03:53 Page 1-1 with walnut Wed May 24. 2006 16:03:53 Page 2-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report Scenario: with walnut Level Of Service Command: with walnut Intersection Base Future Change Volume: with walnut Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Geometry: with walnut LOS Veh C LOS Veh C Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee A 1 Main St/Burnham St/Tigard St B 14.5 0.610 B 14.5 0.610 + 0.000 D/V Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution # 4 Main St/Commercial St B 12.0 0.552 B 12.0 0.552 + 0.000 D/V Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes # 5 Main St/Scoffins St B 19.7 0.582 B 19.7 0.582 + 0.000 D/V Configuration: Default Configuration Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 1c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:03:53 Page 3-1 with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:03:53 Page 4-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ♦♦r•++Iaaararr*a*}ilaarrr#aarar*+♦arrr+r+r}+r+Irl>+}##I•raa++r}rarer.#a•}rs}>#a# I>rlarl##alrrrarrrrrrrrlr••a••aara r.a.aa.aa#+r}+a•ra•}*ararrrrrarrraarrraraaa•*} Intersection ;1 Man St;Burnham St;Tigard St [realigned) Intersection Y4 Main St/Commercial St [realigned) asaarrr}#r#t#11x3#•a}#r}y•a*rrr#;xx##1r*s}#+Rrt;f};raYf x}trt*I+*e;#♦rx}}1+}1}x•} >aa>r1•r#r**aaeeaafrrr4rr4 rr#rrrr>rfrr•♦reeRReefrt*}ar}ar}Rrarrrrf}e#}r #rare+•ai Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.610 Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.552 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.5 Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.0 Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: B Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B r*earrar*re*}xxxrr }rar}rrrxxrrr#}rrra*er#Irrr+rrrr rar*#a*rerreerreelrrearrr♦r*+e rr rrerrrrrrrrrrrr*rr*♦x}r+rratr}aeare#rrraaearrrerrr rerr•errr rrerrrr.rrrlrrr}er• Street Name: Burnham St/Tigard St Main St Street Name: Commercial St Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II H II I I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Rights: Include include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I II fl--------------- I II II II ---------------I Volume Module: Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 80 250 130 40 110 100 150 60 160 170 350 Base Vol: 50 120 70 70 140 70 80 360 40 50 550 80 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 110 80 250 130 40 110 100 150 60 160 170 350 Initial Bse: 50 120 70 70 140 70 80 360 40 50 550 80 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 116 84 263 137 42 116 105 158. 63 168 179 368 PHF Volume: 53 126 74 74 147 74 84 379 42 53 579 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 116 84 263 137 42 316 105 158 • 63 168 179 368 Reduced Vol: 53 126 74 74 147 74 84 379 42 53 579 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 116 84 263 137 42 116 105 158 63 168 179 368 Final Vol.: 53 126 74 74 147 74 84 379 42 53 579 84 ~ Saturation Flow Module: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.63 0.87 0.87 0.37 0.83 0.83 0.32 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.87 0.87 Adjustment: 0.43 0.87 0.87 0.51 0.95 0.95 0.31 0.96 0.96 0.47 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.24 0.76 1.00 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.71 0.29 1.00 0.33 0.67 Lanes: 1.00 0.63 0.37 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 1192 400 1250 695 422 1159 612 1249 500 1116 542 1116 Final Sat.: 819 1040 607 913 1203 602 594 1636 182 886 1580 230 I--------------- ---------------I I---------------Il--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.33 0.33 Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.37 0.37 Crit Moves: Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.61 0.61 0.57 0.29 0.29 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.61 0.61 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.55 0.55 0.34 0.55 0.55 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 17.0 21.0 21.0 22.0 17.0 17.0 9.5 8.6 8.6 8.9 12.3 12.3 Delay/Veh: 23.5 25.9 25.9 23.9 25.8 25.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 4.3 6.8 6.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 17.0 21.0 21.0 22.0 17.0 17.0 9.5 8.6 8.6 8.9 12.3 12.3 AdjDel/Veh: 23.5 25.9 25.9 23.9 25.8 25.8 4.9 5.3 5.3 4.3 6.8 6.8 LOS by Move: B C C C B B A A A A B B LOS by Move: C C C C C C A A A A A A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 7 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 9 9 HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 5 2 5 5 1 4 4 0 8 8 •rrrrrrreerra~r+•a ae a♦ara rrrr•aeaerrrrr•erre.rear..+}a+rrr+}}+rr+a•atr#+r ra;a.aa raear•a}•}+aaa.•+•a+r}a••r+e rreeearrr•r reararaerrre•er•er rerre•rrrereearrrereree Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. r++r+>+rar+eaaaer#*#ere;r;ae++rer+;r+arrx**raxrrrrr#•rr*rrrrrr rrrreeree•raerrrrr x•exrexa•a#rrrrx xaaaelta}*r}errrea•rrrarrrrrrerrr•rrwrr►r*e•rrrerrrr }rrerrrr eery Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:03:53 Page 5-1 Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1900 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) .fl+..frrf.+.•+rr.+r+}.}+...i••••++.••+rfff.f•f.fr•++r....•.}+t.+++•++}+++}+r.++ Intersection 45 Main St/Scoffins St (no north leg] «rf rriarrf afff llrf+«4t1f 1rrrrir}•}}}f}4ril4firiff«•}+.f4raf+.+...ffllrw+ftw+.+4r Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.582 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.7 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: B f+}+.•r+r•rf ifrrfffrrrlrr+r•••r 11f+•rriflri}rrfif rr+rffrif rrf rrtrr rrfarrlr}rf rrr Street Name: Scoffins St Main St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11--------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 I II II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 380 0 120 0 0 0 0 290 180 150 260 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 380 0 120 0 . 0 0 0 290 180 150 260 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj:. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 400 0 126 0 0 0 0 305 189 158 274 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 400 0 126 0 0 0 0 305 189 158 274 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 400 0 126 0 0 0 0 305 189 158 274 0 I Il--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.83 0.90 0.94 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00'1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1787 0 1599 0 0 0 0 1845 1568 1702 1792 0 -----------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.12 '0.09 0.15 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.44 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.42 0.58 0.34 0.00 Delay/Veh: 18.3 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 21.0 30.4 13.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 18.3 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 21.0 30.4 13.0 0.0 LOS by Move: B A B A A A A C C C B A HCM2kAvgQ: 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 4 4 4 0 rift}fi«fifllf•Iff••r1}•triif ifffi•+•«.lfY«r•«r«f«yiff}!f}rf}f•}riff 4f♦flff Yfllt Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. rrf •tr }♦ff«ff}r•fir}}rf+ifirrf••1fr•f+r♦}f}}f 4ff•/4++f rrf++•}t++++•f+•i+f.rr tf rrTraffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DRS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR with walnut Wed may 24, 2006 16:01:58 Page 1-1 with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:01:59 Page 2-1 - Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Future conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report Scenario: with walnut Level of Service Command: with walnut Intersection Base Future Change Volume: with walnut Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Geometry: with walnut LOS Veh , C LOS Veh C Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee 4 6 Hall Blvd/Scoffins St/Hunziker D 36.2 0.928 D 36.2 0.928 + 0.000 D/V Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution A 7 Hall Blvd/Commercial St D 28.9 0.000 D 28.9 0.000 + 0.000 D/V Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes R 8 Hall Blvd/Burnham St C 23.9 0.814 C 23.9 0.814 + 0.000 D/V Configuration: Default Configuration Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR irr rr rr ~■r rr rr rr ' rr ~r . r it r~ rr i■r rr r~ r ~ r with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:01:59 Page 3-1 with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:01:59 Page 4-1 Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) PM Peak 11800 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Future conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Level of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report '2000 HCM Operations method (Base Volume Alternative) 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Y+w♦fff/Yf Yrf lwwffww++awa+tww+.fr+lrrf w♦a+Rf#fif+fr•«•+wffawriwr+.+wYff rafrlawt• +f•~f+wwYrYffff+rf twaYtrfa#ar+f#+fYflrf afYtrww#.*w♦rrwfr♦►rf+f ff ifYrrffffaYrtflf Intersection #6 Hall Blvd/Scoffins St/Hunziker St Intersection #7 Hall Blvd/Commercial St [no east leg: driveway) ♦fffrfwlrrw+lwa#ww++w+f#xf rr+wrw+rf xf+rra+:••a+wa+r+a rw+++r•ar:+aarr.rf +ff++afff f+awff arefrrr 11f 1f+rf rrf rwf#++rrrrYaaff+fitaafrllt+rtfafffff+rff+wY+rfff •f+rf e+f _ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Val./Cap.(X); 0.928 Average Delay (sec/veh): 510 Worst Case Level of Service: D( 28.9) Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 36.2 w111w►w+fYrw+wx:ww+f++t+.++#♦+wrlfa+:rrfllf+fYf♦♦rrarf r+.•#afa+rf +wt.+afraf lff rY Optimal Cycle: 117 Level of Service: D Street Name: Hall Blvd Commercial St +wa++fffr♦+rrlffr#rrrtf YlrYff+rra+f+f#++ff+r+ffrrr1r11wr 1rrlt#Y►f +rr♦r11w+1f++YY Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Street Name: Hall Blvd W: Scoffins St / E: Hunziker St Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - 'R L - T - R .Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Rights: include include include Include Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Rights: Include Include Include Include I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Base Vol: 190 460 0 0 650 40 40 0. 160 0 0 0 I II--------------- II i Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volume Module: Initial Bee: 190 460 0 0 650 40 40 0 160 0 0 0 Base Vol: 20 400 100 110 430 150 110 210 90 210 320 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Initial Bse: 20 400 100 110 430 150 110 210 90 210 320 70 PHF Volume: 200 484 0 0 684 42 42 0 168 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1100 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Final Vol.: 200 484 0 .0 684 42 42 0 168 0 0 0 PHF Volume: 21 421 105 116 453 158 116 221 95 221 337 74 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Reduced Vol: 21 421 105 116 453 158 116 221 95 221 337 74 Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.5 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.6 xxxx 3.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Final Vol.: 21 421 105 116 453 158 116 221 95 221 337 74 Capacity Module: ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Cnflict Vol: 726 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1589 xxxx 706 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Saturation Flow Module: Potent Cap.: 877 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 116 xxxx 429 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Move Cap.: 877 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 95 xxxx 429 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Adjustment: 0.12 0.95 0.95 0.21 0.94 0.94 0.30 0.95 0.95 0.63 0.63 0.83 Volume/Cap: 0.23 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.44 xxxx 0.39 xxxx xxxx xxxx Lanes: 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.74 0.26 1.00 0.70 0.30 0.40 0.60 1.00 ------------I-•--------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Final Sat.: 222 1369 342 370 1257 438 547 1191 511 448 683 1486 Level of Service Module: I II--------------- II--------------- II--------------'I 2Way95thQ: 0.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.8 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Analysis Module: Control Del: 10.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 18.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.49 0.49 0.05 LOS by Move: B + • ' • * * C Crit Moves: Movement: L'f - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 95 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.93 0.93 0.09 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 22.1 33.5 33.5 54.7 48.7 48.7 14.8 13.7 13.7 42.4 42.4 11.6 Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 69.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared LOS: + ` * * ` F ` • ' ` AdjDel/Veh: 22.1 33.5 33.5 54.7 48.7 48.7 14.8 13.7 13.7 42.4 42.4 11.6 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 28.9 xxxxxx LOS by Move: C C C D D D B B B D D B ApproachLOS: D HCM2kAvgQ: 1 16 16 5 22 22 3 6 6 20 20 1 +++**•••wfwlw+wfrtw+r+#rf#rr#•ffa•raafaffrYfw#flrff+++rrww+••++.a+fY++w•#.++.••. rfwwwf..raaa...www+r..r.fwa+++.rw.w.wa.«wr...fw.w+w.w.f+«.rwf.rr.ww•Y.waawrww.+w Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. *•+**+++••*••*+•***•+++++•+*•+•••+•••••+*+**•a+.flf.a+YY•.ff.lf r.+lr.t+.f rf+ff.Y #r+aff r+rllrrf a•Yrr++arrr+rr+rffr++rr+r rff+rf#+ff++rltlr+lt rff+Y+twr+er++rarfra+ Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR with walnut Wed May 24, 2006 16:02:59 Page 5-1 Downtown Tigard PM Peak (1800 vphg/lane) Future Conditions (2025) with Ash Extension (mitigated) Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) #;r;tarartaar+ta;;+rRal+ar*efrrw++;r}r+rrf rrfrrr•r;••are+r+rr+#r+•}++•; t••+r*+tr Intersection 48 Hall Blvd/Burnham St (no east leg] .rr•r*r.r++;rra♦ar+a ar+++fa+tar+trraa}rr}arar}a}•aa.a}}r#+#rrraa.raa;#}.aarar}#. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.814 Loss Time (sec)': 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.9 Optimal Cycle: 80 Level Of Service: C #fft#1rr}rrrlrkr♦frlrrff#r}♦rrrt#r#;rrraarir}f;+*f 1tf;}•f}raif R}R♦}}i RffrlR♦Rlfr Street Name: Hall Blvd Burnham St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- ---------------fl---------------I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include, Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I--------------- ---------------I Volume module: Base Vol: 330 630 0 0 790 70 60 0 320 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 330 630 0 0 790 70 60 0 320 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 347 663 0 0 832 74 63 0 337 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 347 663 0 0 832 74 63 0 337 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 347 663 0 0 832 74 63 0 337 0 0 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.83 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1676 1764 0 0 1764 1499 1676 0 1499 0 0 0 I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.05 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 46.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 21.9 9.4 93.3 0.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 46.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 21.9 9.4 93.3 0.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: D A A A C A F A D A A A HCM2kAv9Q: 12 6 0 0 22 1 4 0 11 0 0 0 tr}fr;}far}}#rf}+f aw }rr rra Rrrlr•+r•rrrf+rf arff+•rra••r+++a;+r•+awa++a+awat}a+### Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. aaf rra♦t;;;r+rrrarrr++•Ra}+•Rt•}r#•f lww•fr}f rROf♦r •rrwrf wffwrf ♦rrf rrrrrf rrf rrlrr Traffix 7.8.0115 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DRS ASSOC., PORTLAND, OR ~.........r r . r r . . . . r . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION BUDGETS 1 1 i 1 Conceptual Cost Estimate: Plan Date Jul 2006 Estimator:Otak Inc. Date of Estimate: 7/3/06 Revised: Otak Inc. Scope of Work: Pro'ect Sco in Cost Estimate 700 Washington St., Suite 401 StreettAvenue Main Street Conceptual Plan Vancouver, WA 98660 1 Paving Sections 3° AC Grind/Overla ; 8° AC/14° A r. Base Full Section ITEM TOTAL UNIT NUMBER QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE COST 1 1 MOBILIZATION 10% L.S. $169,00 0 $169,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL 2 1 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 3% L.S. $51,000 $51,0 0 PREPARATION 3 1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING L.S. $45,0 00 $45,000 4 1 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS L.S. $60,0 00 $60,000 GRADING 5 1 500 GENERAL ROADWAY EXCAVATION C.Y. $12 $18,000 6 2,500 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE S.Y. $2 $5,000 ' BASES 7 1,760 DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE TON. $25 $"'000 8 10,500 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL 3-INCH DEPTH S.Y. $4 $42,000 WEARING SURFACES 9 1,725 LEVEL 3,1/2-INCH, DENSE HMA MIXTURE OVERLAY 3-INCH DEPTH TON $60 $103,50 0 ' 10 1,150 LEVEL 3,1/2-INCH, DENSE HMA MIXTURE RECONSTRUCT 8-INCH DEPTH TON $60 $69,000 STORM SEWER 11 1,300 12-INCH STORM SEWER PIPE L.F. $75 $97,500 12 260 18-INCH STORM SEWER PIPE L.F. $90 $23,400 13 5 STORM SEWER MANHOLE 48 IN. DIAM. EACH $2,50 0 $12,500 ' 14 1 STORM SEWER MANHOLE 60 IN. DIAM. EACH $6,00 0 $6,000 15 1 FLOW SPUTTER MANHOLE EACH $7,00 0 $7,000 16 17 CONCRETE INLET EACH $2000 $34000 STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 17 3 WATER QUALITY MANHOLE STORMFILTER EACH $20,0 00 $60,000 18 6 WATER QUALITY CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER EACH $7,500 $45,000 19 0 GREEN STREET TREATMENT SYSTEM S.F. $25 $0 EROSION CONTROL AND LANDSCAPING 20 1 EROSION CONTROL L.S. $7,00 0 $7,000 21 80 STREET TREES EACH $350 $28,000 22 80 TREE GRATES EACH $1,25 0 $100,000 OTHER 23 5,350 CONCRETE CURB L.F. $14 $74,900 24 6,050 CONCRETE WALKS S.Y. $45 $272,25 0 ' 25 6 TEXTURED CROSSWALKS EACH $12,0 00 $72,000 26 250 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 2' TO 4' HEIGHT) S.F. $60 $15,000 ILLUMINATION SIGNALS SIGNING AND STRIPING 27 1 STREET LIGHTING L.S. $432,000 $432,005 28 1 PERMANENT SIGNING AND STRIPING L.S. $9,600 $9,600 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,902,650 25% CONTINGENCY $475,66 3 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $2,378,313 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION DESIGN 20% $475,663 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 20% $475,663 ' PROJECT TOTAL $3,329,638 NOTES: 1. Quantities based on conceptual plans dated Jul 2006. 2. This estimate does not include right-of-way a uisistion construction easement building demolition, or wetland mitigation costs ' R:\Reports\Cost Est-Main Street\Main Street Estimate.XLS 8/30/2006 Conceptual Cost Estimate: Plan Date Jul 2006 Estimator: Otak, Inc. Date of Estimate: 7/3/06 Revised: Otak, Inc. Scope of Work: Pro•ect Sco in Cost Estimate 700 Washington St., Suite 401 Street/Avenue Main Street Conceptual Plan Vancouver, NA 98660 Green Street Option with No-Curb Walks ' Paving Sections 3" AC Grind/Overlay; 8" AC/14" A r. Base Full Section ITEM TOTAL UNIT NUMBER QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE COST 1 1 MOBILIZATION 10% L.S. $180,00() $180,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL 2 1 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 3% L.S. $54,0 00 $54,000 PREPARATION 3 1 CLEARING AND GRUBBING L.S. $45,00 0 $45,000 4 1 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS L.S. $60,0 00 $60,000 GRADING 5 2 000 GENERAL ROADWAY EXCAVATION C.Y. $12 $24,000 6 2,500 SUBGRADE GEOTEXTILE S.Y. $2 $5,000 BASES , 7 1,760 DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE TON $25 $44,006 8 10,500 COLD PLANE PAVEMENT REMOVAL 3-INCH DEPTH S.Y. $4 $42,000 WEARING SURFACES 9 1,725 LEVEL3 1/2-INCH DENSE HMA MIXTURE (OVERLAY 3-INCH DEPTH TON $60 $103500 10 1,150 LEVEL 3.1/2-INCH, DENSE HMA MIXTURE RECONSTRUCT 8-INCH DEPTH TON $60 $69,000 ' STORM SEWER 11 1,300 12-INCH STORM SEWER PIPE L.F. $75 $97,505 12 260 18-INCH STORM SEWER PIPE L.F. $90 $23,400 13 5 STORM SEWER MANHOLE 48 IN. DIAM. EACH $2 500 $12,500 14 1 STORM SEWER MANHOLE 60 IN. DIAM. EACH $6,000 $6,000 , 15 1 FLOW SPUTTER MANHOLE EACH $7,000 $7,000 16 23 CONCRETE INLET EACH $2,000 $46000 STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 17 3 WATER QUALITY MANHOLE STORMFILTER EACH $20,000 $60,000 18 0 WATER QUALITY CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER EACH $7,500 $0 ' 19 5,400 GREEN STREET TREATMENT SYSTEM S.F. $25 $135,000 EROSION CONTROL AND LANDSCAPING 20 1 EROSION CONTROL L.S. $7,000 $7,000 21 80 STREET TREES EACH $350 $28,000 22 80 TREE GRATES EACH $1,25 0 $100,000 OTHER 23 4,150 CONCRETE CURB L.F. $14 $58,100 24 1,200 CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER L.F. $20 $24,000 25 6,050 CONCRETE WALKS S.Y. $45 $272,250 , 26 6 TEXTURED CROSSWALKS EACH $12,00 0 $72,000 27 200 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 2' TO 4' HEIGHT S.F. $60 $12,000 ILLUMINATION SIGNALS SIGNING AND STRIPING 28 1 STREET LIGHTING L.S. $432,000 $432,000 29 1 PERMANENT SIGNING AND STRIPING L.S. $9,600 $9,600 ' CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2028850 25% CONTINGENCY $507213 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $2,536,063 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION DESIGN 20% $507,213 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 20% $507,213 PROJECT TOTAL $3,550,488 , NOTES: 1. Quantities based on conceptual plans dated Jul 2006. 2. This estimate does not include right-of-way a uisistion construction easement, building demolition or wetland mitigation costs ' R:\Reports\Cost Estimates-Streets\Cost Est-Main Street\Main Street Estimate.XLS 8/30/2006 , Burnham Street - Main Street to Hall Blvd. Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Water Improvements Green Street Plan City of Tigard, Oregon Preliminary Cost Estimate April 7, 2006 Prepared by: Jones/MarkesInolOtak, Inc. Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Mobilization and Traffic Control Mobilization LS 1 $ 280,000.00 $ 280,000.00 Temporary Protection and Direction of Traffic LS 1 $ 188,000.00 $ 188,000.00 Erosion Control, Complete LS 1 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Roadwork Construction Survey Work LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Sawcut Pavement LF 150 $ 2.00 $ 300.00 ' General Excavation CY 5490 $ 22.00 $ 120,780.00 12 Inch Subgrade Stabilization SQYD 900 $ 20.00 $ 18,000.00 Drainage and Sewers 10" PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe LF 306 $ 70.00 $ 21,420.00 15" PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe LF 153 $ 110.00 $ 16,830.00 12" PVC Storm Pipe LF 517 $ 90.00 $ 46,530.00 15" PVC Storm Pipe LF 980 $ 110.00 $ 107,800.00 18" PVC Storm Pipe LF 150 $ 120.00 $ 18,000.00 24" PVC Storm Pipe LF 155 $ 130.00 $ 20,150.00 30" PVC Storm Pipe LF 535 $ 150.00 $ 80,250.00 Concrete Inlet EA 13 $ 1,500.00 $ 19,500.00 Concrete Storm Sewer Manholes EA 11 $ 2,700.00 $ 29,700.00 ' Adjust Manholes EA 15 $ 500.00 $ 7,500.00 Bio Retention Treatment Facilities SF 8621 $ 5.00 $ 43,105.00 Class 50 Riprap CY 5 $ 60.00 $ 300.00 ' Waterline Ductile Iron Water Pipe a. 16" Class 52 FT 1910 $170.00 $ 324,700.00 b. 12" Class 52 FT 12 $140.00 $ 1,680.00 ' c. 8" Class 52 FT 62 $110.00 $ 6,820.00 d. 6" Class 52 FT 147 $100.00 $ 14,700.00 Fittings for Ductile Iron Water Pipe, Class 350 (DI) LB 10410' $4.75 $ 49,447.50 Butterfly Valves, MJ ' a. 16" EA 8 $2,600.00 $ 20,800.00 c.8" EA 2 $1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 Gate Valves, Resilient Seated a. 16" EA 1 $2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 b. 12" EA 1 $1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 c.8" EA 2 $1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 d.6" EA 6 $500.00 $ 3,000.00 Anchor Blocking LS 1 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 ' Standard Blow-Off Assembly c.6" EA 1 $900.00 $ 900.00 Fire Hydrant Assemblies EA 4 $2,200.00 $ 8,800.00 1" Water Service Line EA 20 $1,500.00 $ 30,000.00 2" Water Service Line EA 1 $2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 Relocate Water Service EA 21 $500.00 $ 10,500.00 Connect to Existing Watermain EA 2 $2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Water System Testing, Flushing & Disinfection LS 1 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Utility Undergrounding Joint Utility Trench Excavation & Backfill IF 1910 $ 26.00 $ 49,660.00 2" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (ATT) LF 11134 $ 3.00 $ 33,402.00 2" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 585 $ 3.00 $ 1,755.00 ' 3" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 925 $ 3.50 $ 3,237.50 4" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 3400 $ 5.00 $ 17,000.00 5" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 120 $ 7.00 $ 840.00 2" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (Verizon) LF 80 $ 3.00 $ 240.00 4" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (Verizon) LF 2780 $ 5.00 $ 13,900.00 #660 PGE Vault EA 7 $ 3,000.00 $ 21,000.00 ' 1 of 2 R:\Reports\ProJect Appendix\Bumham PrelimCost_Green.xls Printed: 8/30/2006 8:42 AM Burnham Street - Main Street to Hall Blvd. Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Water Improvements Green Street Plan , City of Tigard, Oregon Preliminary Cost Estimate April 7, 2006 Prepared by: Jones/Markesino/Otak, Inc. Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total ' PGE 5'-6" x 6' Pad EA 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 #233 - LA Vault EA 4 $ 3,000.00 $ 12,000.00 #504 - PGE Pad/Vault EA 10 $ 1,800.00 $ 18,000.00 AT&T Pedestal EA 21 $ 500.00 $ 10,500.00 Verizon Pedestal EA 14 $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 Electrical Services (MIC) EA 8 $ 2,500.00 $ 20,000.00 #1730 Splice Vault EA 4 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 Bases Aggregate Base (3/4"-0") TON 1528 $ 25.00 $ 38,200.00 , Aggregate Subbase (2"-0") TON 6590 $ 20.00 $ 131,800.00 Wearing Surfaces Asphalt Concrete TON 2038 $ 65.00 $ 132,470.00 Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 4181 $ 25.00 $ 104,525.00 , Concrete Median Curb LF 2150 $ 22.00 $ 47,300.00 Concrete Driveway SF 9337 $ 6.00 $ 56,022.00 Concrete Walks SF 41802 $ 4.50 $ 188,109.00 Sandset Unit Paver Walks SF $ 6.75 $ - Permanent Traffic Control and Guidance Devices , Painted Permanent Pavement Striping, Complete LS 1 $ . 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Signing, Complete LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Traffic Signal Loop Detectors LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 ' Right-of-Way Development and Control Street lighting LS 1 $ 325,000.00 $ 325,000.00 Irrigation System SF 6100 $ 1.50 $ 9,150.00 Median and Planter Landscaping Incl. Maintenance SF 6100 $ 4.00 $ 24,400.00 , Deciduous Trees EA 145 $ 450.00 $ 65,250.00 Remove & Relocate Existing Mailbox EA 14 $ 200.00 $ 2,800.00 Sub-Total of Items $ 3,010,070 ' Contingencies @ 30% $ 903,020 Total $ 3,920,000 THIS COST ESTIMATE WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS: , The street has 12'- 18' sidewalks, curb and gutter Excavation for pipes is included in the unit prices The prices do not include any rock excavation. The prices used in the estimate are adjusted for 2006 prices ' and reflect summertime construction conditions. All quantities are preliminary and are subject to change upon completion of detailed design. 2of2 , R:\Reports\Project Appendix\Bumham PrelimCost_Green.xls Printed: 8/30/2006 8:42 AM Burnham Street - Main Street to Hall Blvd. Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Water Improvements The Boulevard Plan City of Tigard, Oregon Preliminary Cbst Estimate April 12, 2006 Prepared by: JoneslMarkesinolOtak, Inc. Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total ' Mobilization and Traffic Control Mobilization LS 1 $ 270,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Temporary Protection and Direction of Traffic LS 1 $ 178,000.00 $ 178,000.00 Erosion Control, Complete LS 1 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Roadwork Construction Survey Work LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Sawcut Pavement LF 150 $ 2.00 $ 300.00 General Excavation CY 5490 $ 22.00 $ 120,780.00 12 Inch Subgrade Stabilization SQYD 815 $ 20.00 $ 16,300.00 Drainage and Sewers 10" PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe LF 306 $ 70.00 $ 21,420.00 15" PVC Sanitary Sewer Pipe LF 153 $ 110.00 $ 16,830.00 12" PVC Storm Pipe LF 517 $ 90.00 $ 46,530.00 15" PVC Storm Pipe LF 980 $ 110.00 $ 107,800.00 ' 18" PVC Storm Pipe LF 150 $ 120.00 $ 18,000.00 24" PVC Storm Pipe LF 155 $ 130.00 $ 20,150.00 30" PVC Storm Pipe LF 535 $ 150.00 $ 80,250.00 Concrete Inlet EA 13 $ 1,500.00 $ 19,500.00 Concrete Storm Sewer Manholes EA 11 $ 2,700.00 $ 29,700.00 Adjust Manholes I EA 15 $ 500.00 $ 7,500.00 Bio Retention Treatment Facilities SF 8621 $ 5.00 $ 43,105.00 Class 50 Riprap CY 5 $ 60.00 $ 300.00 Waterline ' Ductile Iron Water Pipe a. 16" Class 52 FT 1910 $170.00 $ 324,700.00 b. 12" Class 52 FT 12 $140.00 $ 1,680.00 ' c. 8" Class 52 FT 62 $110.00 $ 6,820.00 d. 6" Class 52 FT 147 $100.00 $ 14,700.00 Fittings for Ductile Iron Water Pipe, Class 350 (DI) LB 10410 $4.75 $ 49,447.50 Butterfly Valves, MJ a. 16" EA 8 $2,600.00 $ 20,800.00 c.8" EA 2 $1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 Gate Valves, Resiliant Seated a. 16" EA 1 $2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 ' b. 12" EA 1 $1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 c.8" EA 2 $1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 d.6" EA 6 $500.00 $ 3,000.00 Anchor Blocking LS 1 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Standard Blow-Off Assembly c.6" EA 1 $900.00 $ 900.00 Fire Hydrant Assemblies EA 4 $2,200.00 $ 8,800.00 1" Water Service Line EA 20 $1,500.00 $ 30,000.00 ' 2" Water Service Line EA 1 $2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 Relocate Water Service EA 21 $500.00 $ 10,500.00 Connect to Existing Watermain EA 2 $2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Water System Testing, Flushing & Disinfection LS 1 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Utility Undergrounding Joint Utility Trench Excavation & Backfill LF 1910 $ 26.00 $ 49,660.00 2" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (ATT) LF 11134 $ 3.00 $ 33,402.00 2" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 585 $ 3.00 $ 1,755.00 3" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 925 $ 3.50 $ 3,237.50 4" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 3400 $ 5.00 $ 17,000.00 5" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (PGE) LF 120 $ 7.00 $ 840.00 2" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (Verizon) LF 80 $ 3.00 $ 240.00 4" Schedule 40 PVC Conduit (Verizon LF 2780 $ 5.00 $ 13,900.00 ' R:\Reports\Project Appendix\Bumham PrelirnCost Boulevard.xls 1 of 2 Printed: 8/30/2006 8:43 AM Burnham Street - Main Street to Hall Blvd. Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Water Improvements The Boulevard Plan , City of Tigard, Oregon Preliminary Cost Estimate April 12, 2006 Prepared by: Jones/Markesino/Otak, Inc. Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total #660 PGE Vault EA 7 $ 3,000.00 $ 21,000.00 , PGE 5'-6" x 6' Pad EA 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 #233 - LA Vault EA 4 $ 3,000.00 $ 12,000.00 #504 - PGE PadNault EA 10 $ 1,800.00 $ 18,000.00 AT&T Pedestal EA 21 $ 500.00 $ 10,500.00 Verizon Pedestal EA 14 $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 Electrical Services (MIC) EA 8 $ 2,500.00 $ 20,000.00 #1730 Splice Vault EA 4 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 Bases ' Aggregate Base (3/4"-0") TON 1374 $ 25.00 $ 34,350.00 Aggregate Subbase (2"-0") TON 5497 $ 20.00. $ 109,940.00 Wearing Surfaces Asphalt Concrete TON 1832 $ 65.00 $ 119,080.00 Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 4094 $ 25.00 $ 102,350.00 Concrete Median Curb LF 2026 $ 22.00 $ 44,572.00 Concrete Driveway SF 9337 $ 6.00 $ 56,022.00 Concrete Walks SF 30258 $ 4.50 $ 136,161.00 Sandset Unit Paver Walks SF $ 6.75 $ - Permanent Traffic Control and Guidance Devices Painted Permanent Pavement Striping, Complete LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Signing, Complete LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Traffic Signal Loop Detectors LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 I Right-of-Way Development and Control Street lighting LS 1 $ 325,000.00 $ 325,000.00 Irrigation System SF 11000 $ 1.50 $ 16,500.00 Median and Planter Landscaping Incl. Maintenance I SF 11000 $ 4.00 $ 44,000.00 Deciduous Trees EA 170 $ 450.00 $ 76,500.00 Remove & Relocate Existing Mailbox EA 14 $ 200.00 $ 2,800.00 Sub-Total of Items $ 2,930,620 , Contingencies @ 30% $ 879,190 Total $ 3,810,000 ' THIS COST ESTIMATE WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS: The street has 12' sidewalks, curb and gutter ' Excavation for pipes is included in the unit prices I The prices do not include any rock excavation. , The prices used in the estimate are adjusted for 2006 prices and reflect summertime construction conditions. 2of2 ' R:\ReportslProject Appendix\Bumham PrelimCost_Boulevard.xls Printed: 8I30/2006 8:43 AM 1 Commercial Street - Lincoln Avenue to Main Street Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Water Improvements ' Option B: Gateway Concept City of Tigard, Oregon Preliminary Cost Estimate April 17, 2006 Prepared by: Jones/Markesino/Otak; Inc. ' Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Mobilization and Traffic Control Mobilization LS 1 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 ' Temporary Protection and Direction of Traffic LS 1 $ 27,000.00 $ 27,000.00 Erosion Control, Complete LS 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Roadwork Construction Survey Work LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Sawcut Pavement LF 160 $ 2.00 $ 320.00 ' General Excavation CY 1528 $ 22.00 $ 33,616.00 12 Inch Subgrade Stabilization SQYD 266 $ 20.00 $ 5,320.00 Drainage and Sewers ' 12" PVC Storm Pipe LF 519 $ 90.00 $ 46,710.00 Concrete Inlet EA 4 $ 1,500.00 $ 6,000.00 Concrete Storm Sewer Manholes EA 3 $ 2,700.00 $ 8,100.00 Adjust Manholes EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 ' Connect to Existing Structure EA 2 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 Waterline Fire Hydrant Assemblies EA 1 $2,200.00 $ 2,200.00 ' Bases Aggregate Base (3/4"-0") TON 474 $ 25.00 $ 11,850.00 ' Aggregate Subbase (2"-0") TON .1794 $ 20.00 $ 35,880.00 Wearing Surfaces Asphalt Concrete TON 516 $ 65.00 $ 33,540.00 ' Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 1650 $ 25.00 $ 41,250.00 Concrete Driveway SF 980 $ 6.00 $ 5,880.00 Concrete Walks SF 10700 $ 4.50 $ 48,150.00 Sandset Unit Paver Walks SF $ 6.75 $ - ' Permanent Traffic Control and Guidance Devices Painted Permanent Pavement Striping, Complete LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Signing, Complete LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 i Right-of-Way Development and Control Deciduous Trees EA 19 $ 450.00 $ 8,550.00 Chain Link Fence LF 60 $ 30.00 $ 1,800.00 ' Retaining Wall SF 1020 $ . 40.00 $ 40,800.00 Sub-Total of Items $ 461,470 Contingencies @ 30% $ 138,440 Total $ 599,910, ' THIS COST ESTIMATE WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS: The street has 12' sidewalks along entire north side of street, and 12' sidewalks between Highway 99 and Main Street on the south, and curb and gutter on both sides ' 1 of 2 R:\Reports\Project Appendix\Commercial PrelimCost_preferred.xls Printed: 8/30/2006 8:41 AM Commercial Street - Lincoln Avenue to Main Street Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Water Improvements Option B: Gateway Concept ' City of Tigard, Oregon Preliminary Cost Estimate April 17, 2006 Prepared by: Jones/Markesino/Otak, Inc. ' Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Excavation for pipes is included in the unit prices The prices do not include costs for right of way acquisitions ' The prices do not include any rock excavation. The prices used in the estimate are adjusted for 2006 prices and reflect summertime construction conditions. All quantities are preliminary and are subject to change upon completion of detailed design 1 i 1 1 i 2 of 2 , R:\Reports\Project Appendix\Commercial PrelimCost_preferred.xls Printed: 8/30/2006 8:41 AM ' Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan Planning Level Cost Estimate .Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. July, 2006 ' Fanno Creek Gateway - Option 1 Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Demolition & Site Preparation 5,100 SF $2.50 $12,750 Bridge Obelisks 4 EA $10,000.00 $40,000 ' Bridge Railings Decorative 160 LF $100.00 $16,000 Special Paving' 600 SY $85.00 $51,000 Basalt Bollards 4 EA $550.00 $2,200 Crosswalk Pavement Allowance2 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Sub Total: $136,950 Contingency 40%: $54,780 ' Estimated Constructions Costs: $191,730 Final Design - 15%: $28,760 ' Special sidewalk and pathway paving is an optional enhancement in lieu of simple concrete paving. `Crosswalk Pavement Allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to concrete pavers. Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are planning-level for identifying future capital improvements projects. Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan , Planning Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. July, 2006 HWY 99 and Main Street Southwest Gateway - Option 1 Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total , Demolition & Site Preparation 11,300 SF $2.50 $28,250 Pathways & Pavin i 130 SY $75.00 $9,750 Mason Wallsz 350 SF $80.00 $28,000 ' Precast Wall Ca s 120 LF $65.00 $7,800 Concrete Footings 120 LF $50.00 $6,000 Columns2 4 EA $5,000.00 $20,000 ' Crosswalk Pavement Allowance 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Planted Areas w/irri ation 9,300 SF $4.00 $37,200 , Trees 10 EA $350.00 $3,500 Sub Total: $155,500 Contingency 40%: $62,200 ' Estimated Constructions Costs: $217,700 ' Final Design -15%: $32,655 Cost allows for use of decorative concrete pavers. Pavement materials & design ' determined through final design development. Planning level cost assumes combinationof finished concrete and concrete pavers. ZFace materials or veneer to be selected during final design development. ' 3Wall cap optional depending on face materials selected. Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are ' planning-level for identifying future capital improvements projects. ' Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan Planning Level Cost Estimate ' Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. July, 200,6 HWY 99 and Main Street Northeast Gateway - Option 1 Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Demolition & Site Preparation 15,000 SF $2.50 $37;500 Plaza Area' 140 SY $80.00 $11,200 Pathways - Asphalt 1,250 SF $3.00 $3,750 Mason Walls2 360 SF $80.00 $28,800 Precast Wall Ca ' 120 LF $65.00 $7,800 Concrete Footings 120 LF $50.00 $6,000 Columns2 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000 Crosswalk Pavement Allowance4 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Planted Areas w/irri ation 930 SF $4.00 $3,720 Trees 7 EA $350.00 $2,450 ' Sub Total: $126,220 Contingency 40%: $50,488 Estimated Constructions Costs: $176,708 Final Design - 15%: $26,506 Cost allows for use of decorative concrete pavers. Pavement materials & design determined through final design development. Planning level cost assumes combination of finished concrete and concrete pavers. 2Face materials or veneer to be selected during final design development. 'Wall cap optional depending on face materials selected. 4Crosswalk Pavement Allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to concrete pavers. Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are planning-level for identifying future captial improvements projects. Tigard Downtown Streetsea a Plan ' Planning Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard ' b : OTAK, Inc. July, 2006 Burnham Hall Gateway - Option 1 Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total , Demolition & Site Preparation 5,000 SF $2.50 $12,500 Mason Walls' 330 SF $80.00 $26,400 Precast Wall Ca 2 110 LF $65.00 $7,150 Concrete Footings 110 LF $50.00 $5,500 Columns' 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000 Pathways & Pavin 3 500 SF $4.50 $2,250 ' Crosswalk Pavement Allowance4 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Planted Areas w/irri ation 400 SF $4.00 $1,600 ' Trees 10 EA $350.00 $3,500 Sub Total: $83,900 Contingency 40%: $33,560 , Estimated Constructions Costs; $117,460 Final Design - 15%: $17,619 'Face materials or veneer to be selected during final design development. ' 2Wall cap optional depending on face materials selected. 3Cost allows for use of decorative concrete pavers. Pavement materials & design determined through final design development. Planning level cost assumes combination ' of finished concrete and concrete pavers. 4Crosswalk pavement allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to concrete pavers. ' Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are planning-level for identifying future capital improvements projects. ' Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan Planning Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. August, 2006 Commercial Street Gateway - Option 1 Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Demolition & Site Preparation 7,750 SF $2.50 $19,375.00 Mason Walls' 100 SF ' $80.00 $8,000.00 ' Precast Wall ca z 35 LF $65.00 $2,275.00 Concrete Footings 35 LF $50.00 $1,750.00 Columns 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000.00. Pathways & Pavin s 125 SY $75.00 $9,375.00 Crosswalk Pavement Allowance" 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Site Kiosk Allowance 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Planted Ares /irrigation) 1,200 SF $4.00 $4,800.00 Trees 6 EA $350.00 $2,100.00 ' Sub Total: $87,675 Contingency 40%: $35,070 Estimated Constructions Costs: $122,745 ' Final Design - 15%: $18,412 'Face materials or veneer to be selected during final design development. ' 2Wall cap optional depending on face materials selected. r Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan ' Planning Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard ' b : OTAK, Inc. July, 2006 Commercial Park ' Item, Quant. Unit Unit Price Total ' Site Preparation 18,600 SF $1.50 $27,900 Pathways-Asphalt 350 SF $3.00 $1,050 Pathway Lighting 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 ' Play Area Allowance 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Understo Planting 14,300 SF $1.50 $21,450 ' Sub Total: $80,400 Contingency 40%: $32,160 ' Estimated Constructions Costs: $112,560 Final Design - 15%: $16,884 ' Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are ' planning-level for identifying future captial improvements projects. ' Prepared for: City of Ti and b : OTAK, Inc. July, 2006 Demonstration Garden Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total ' Site Preparation 11,400 SF $1.50 $17,100 Soft Surface Pathways 1,800 SF $3.00 $5,400 Play Area Allowance 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Pavillion' 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 ' Crosswalk Pavement Allowance 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Interpretive Si na e 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500 Planted Areas 8,000 SF $4.00 $32,000 Trees 12 EA $350.00 $4,200 Sub Total: $106,200 ' Contingency 40%: $42,480 ' Estimated Constructions Costs: $148,680 Final Design - 15%: $22,302 Optional elements 2Crosswalk pavement allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to ' concrete pavers. ' Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are planning-level for identifying future capital improvements projects. Tigard Downtown Streetsea a Plan ' Planning Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard ' b : OTAK, Inc. July, 2006 1 Fanno Creek Overlook - Option 2 Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total ' Bank Restoration 11,000 SF $2.00 $22,000 Overlooks 720 SF $85.00 $61,200 Overlook and Pathway Railings Decorative 130 LF $100.00 $13,000 ' Pathway Paving 1 8,200 SF $4.50 $36,900 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Pedestrian-Scale Lighting Allowance2 1 LS $16,000.00 $16,000 ' Planted Areas w/irri ation 8,200 SF $4.00 $32,800 Trees 8 EA $350.00 $2,800 Sub Total: $189,700 ' Contingency 40%: $75,880 Estimated Constructions Costs: $265,580 , Final Design - 15%: $39,837 Pathway paving cost-assumes concrete paving. Decorative pavers or flagstone will increase cost. PPedestrian-Scale Lighting Allowance assumes continuation of Main Street lighting into pathway ' and overlook areas. Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are planning-level ' for identifying future capital improvements projects. i 1 1 Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan Planning Level Cost Estimate ' Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. August, 2006 HWY 99 and Main Street, Southwest Gateway - Option 2 ' Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Demolition & Site Preparation 11,300 SF $2.50 $28,250 Low Walls' 525 SF $40.00 $21,000 Soft Surface Path 1,600 SF $2.50 $4,000 Crosswalk Pavement Allowance2 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Planted Areas 5,300 SF $2.50 $13,250 ' Trees 10 EA $350.00 $3,500 Sub Total: $85,000 ' Contingency 40%: $34,000 Estimated Constructions Costs: $119,000 ' Final Design - 15%: $17,850 Cost assumes cut stone or columnar basalt laid horizontally. ' 2Crosswalk pavement allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to concrete pavers. Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are 1 1 1 Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan ' Plannin Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. , August, 2006 HWY 99 and Main Street, Northeast Gateway - Option 2 ' Item Quant Unit Unit Price Total , Demolition & Site Preparation 15,000 SF $2.50 $37,500 Low Walls' 500 SF $40.00 $20,000 Soft Surface Path 950 SF $2.50 $2,375 Plaza Pavin z 90 SY $85.00 $7,650 ' Crosswalk Pavement Allowance3 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Planted Areas 4,900 SF $2.50 $12,250 ' Trees 5 EA $350.00 $1,750 Sub Total: $96,525 ' Contingency 40%: $38,610 Estimated Constructions Costs: $135,135 ' Final Design - 15%: $20,270 Cost ssumes cut stone or columnar basalt laid horizontally. ' 2Cost assumes combination of finished concrete and concrete pavers. 3Crosswalk pavement allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to concrete pavers. ' Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are planning-level for identifying future captial improvements projects. ' Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan Plannin Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. August, 2006 ' Burnham & Hall Gateway - Option 2 Item Quanta Unit Unit Price Total Demolition & Site Preparation 5,000 SF $2.50 $12,500 Low Walls' 300 SF $40.00 $12,000 Plaza Pavin Z 30 SY $85.00 $2,550 Crosswalk Pavement Allowance3 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Site Furnishing Allowance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Planted Areas 2,800 SF -$2.50 $7,000 ' Trees 6 EA $350.00 $2,100 Sub Total: $51,150 ' Contingency 40%: $20,460 Estimated Constructions Costs: $71,610 ' Final Design -15%: $10,742 ' 'Cost assumes cut stone or columnar basalt laid horizontally. 2Cost assumes combination of finished concrete and concrete pavers. 3Crosswalk pavement allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to ' concrete pavers. ' Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are planning-level for identifying future capital improvements projects. 1 Tigard Downtown Streetsca a Plan ' Planning Level Cost Estimate Prepared for: City of Tigard b : OTAK, Inc. , July, 2006 Commercial Street Gateway - Option 2 ' Item Qaant Unit Unit Price Total ' Demolition & Site Preparation 7,750 SF $2.50 $19,375 Seat Walls' 7 EA $1,000.00 $7,000 Basalt Bollards 8 EA $550.00 $4,400 Crosswalk Pavement Allowance2 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 ' Plaza Paving 3 640 SY $65.00 $41,600 Site Kiosk Allowance 1 LS $15;000.00 $15,000 Trees 8 EA $350.00 $2,800 ' Sub Total: $100,175 Contingency 40%: $40,070 ' Estimated Constructions Costs: $140,245 Final Design - 15%: $21,037 ' Assumes columnar basalt laid horizontally. 2Crosswalk Pavement Allowance assumes a range of options from roughened concrete to ' determined through final design development. Planning level cost assumes combination of finished concrete and concrete pavers. Note: Estimated costs are for construction only and are in 2006 dollars. Estimates are , C, 0) 00 rr' O s "0 , 7tool Vk y~. rF f" r Contact: Otak, Inc. 700 Washington Street, Suite 401,Vancouver, WA 98660. V: 360-737-9613. Project #13381. . • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • • • • Tigard City Council / City of Tigard Staff • City Center Development Agency Craig Prosser, City Manager E Craig Dirksen, Mayor Tom Coffee, Community Development Director • j Nick Wilson, Councilor Barbara Shields, Long-Range Planning Manager • 'r 1 Sydney Sherwood, Councilor Denver Igarta, Project Manager, Long-Range Planning • - - Tom Woodruff, Councilor Phil Nachbar, Senior Planner Sally Harding, Councilor Sean Farrelly, Long-Range Planning • Gus Duenas, City Engineer • Kim McMillan, Development Review Engineer ry$. Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager • - Brian Rager, Assistant Public Works Director • Streetscape Working Group Carla Staedter, Surface Water QualityNolunteer Coordinator ' % - Lisa Olson, Chairperson Matt Stine, Urban Forester • _ Ja„anF, Catherine Renken, Vice Chairperson • Meeting of the Streetscape Working Group Carolyn J arolyn Barkley • kley • Mike Curtis Marland Henderson Consultant Team • - - Chris Lewis Tom Litster, Project Manager, Urban Design • S. Carolyn Long Ron Heiden, Landscape Architecture • Mike Man Maggie Daly, Landscape Architecture Sue Wirick Joe Dills, Public Involvement • STREET DESIGN Jerry Markesino, Civil Engineer • , Sheryl Walsh, Civil Engineer no.. ` - Pam Wiedeman, Civil Engineer • r Kevin Timmons, Stormwater and Natural Resources Engineer • _ Jim Neighorn, Cost Estimating • City Center Advisory Commission Mandy Flett, Project Assistant Marilou Davis, Project Assistant Carl Switzer, Chair • Carolyn Barkley Peter Coffey, DKS Associates, Professional Engineer GretchenBue Colette Snuffin, DKS Associates, Professional Engineer • Gretchen Buehn er Alexander Craghead Valerie Otani, Public Artist • Suzanne Gallagher • - . _ _ _ Alice Ellis Gaut • Public Open House, May 25, 2006 Lily Lilly • Judy Munro • Roger Potthoff • • • • • • Downtown .1' . City of • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • • • Acknowledgements • • Project Overview iv-v • • Design Framework 1-1 Street Design H-1 Gateways and Public Spaces m-1 • • Overview I-2 Overview II-3 Overview III-2 Thematic Elements I-3 Street Design Matrix 11-4 Fanno Creek Gateway: • Furnishing Styles I-4 Green Streets II-5 Options 1 and 2 1114 • Unifying Elements 1-5 Main Street Plans: 11-8 HWY 99/Main Street Southwest Gateway: • Public Art Plan I-6 Village Plan 11-8 Options 1 and 2 III-6 Framework Plan I-8 Green Street Plan II-10 HWY 99/Main Street Northeast Gateway: • Functional Plans: I-9 Burnham Street Plans: II-12 Options 1 and 2 III-8 • Pedestrian/Bike Plan I-9 Green Street Plan II-12 Burnham/Hall Gateway: • Pedestrian Crossings 1-10 Boulevard Plan II-13 Options 1 and 2 111-10 Transit Functional Plan 1-12 Sections 11-14 Commercial Street Gateway: • Commuter Rail Access 1-14 Commercial Street Plan II-16 Options 1 and 2 111-12 • Street Connectivity 1-15 Sidewalk Functional Zones 11-17 Option 1 Gateways: Street Lighting Plan 1-16 Varying the Materials 111-14 • Street Tree Plan 1-17 Burnham Street Roundabout 111-15 • Commercial Park III-16 • Demonstration Garden III-17 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Downtown . 1' . • 1 City • • , _ ~ iii • PROJECT OVERVIEW Introduction In addition to those outreach efforts, the City Center closely linked to the streetscape design concepts areas for complementary but slightly different types of . The Downtown Streetscape Design Plan was Advisory Commission received project updates from developed as part of the project. public art. completed between December 2005 and September City staff. City Council members, serving as the City 2006. It was a catalyst project for implementing the Center Development Agency, received project updates Design Framework Streetscape Design Concepts vision and guiding principles of the Tigard Downtown from the consultant team and City staff. A Design Framework was developed through work The TDIP recognized the public value of improving . Improvement Plan (TDIP). More than 20 concept sessions with the SWG. Five aspects of the framework the quality of streets. The first priority for designs were developed for streetscapes, gateways, will guide implementation of specific downtown implementing the TDIP vision was the Streetscape public spaces, and Green Streets. Functional improvements projects: Enhancement Program. That priority led directly to the improvement plans for transit, street connectivity, Vision Downtown Streetscape Design Plan as a catalyst pedestrian circulation, and street lighting were Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan . Framework Plan that identifies specific project and project. Three downtown streets were identified for developed. • Guiding Principles opo- - enhancement locations conceptual design: • Great Ideas • Thematic ideas from the TDIP . The conceptual plans built upon the TDIP to establish ' Catalcsc Projects . Unifying Elements for streetscapes, gateways, and . Burnham Street specific boundaries for improvements, general public spaces • West Commercial Street configurations, dimensions, and a basis for developing • Public Art Plan . Main Street planning-level budget estimates. Funding sources and Conceptual Design • Functional Plans . amounts can be identified and implementation Downtown Streetscapa Design Plan Burnham Street and West Commercial Street are schedules established for final engineering design and Thematic ideas were refined using a three part scheduled for final design and near-term construction. construction. ' Framework Plan approach. First' functional design parameters were Final design efforts will be guided directly b design • Dimensions & t®1 Y Configuration considered. These included street elements such as concepts and thematic elements developed during the . • Toolkit Options right-of-way width, travel and turning lanes, sidewalk Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. Public Involvement • Phasing & Cost Estimates % widths, on-street parking, and bicycle lanes. Creating a A Streetscape Working Group (SWG) served as a high quality pedestrian environment was paramount in Green Street design principles were established to . citizen advisory committee. Most SWG members had developing these parameters. Second, characteristics of serve as guidelines for the design concepts for previously served on the Downtown Task Force, Implementation an urban village were refined through selecting Burnham and Main Streets. Plans to reconstruct charged with developing the TDIP. Throughout the Final Engineering and Specifications appropriate styles for street furnishings, lighting and Burnham Street as a Green Street marks a major process they provided active design input and valuable paving options for the sidewalks. Third, the concept of commitment to sustainablility for the City of Tigard. . "testing" of design ideas for consistency with the gin~dngublic Space r a green heart for downtown was established. TDIP. A summary of their comments from each work • Funding Sources Opportunities to be "green" included maximizing trees Gateways and Public Spaces • . session has been included in the Project Appendix Right of Way Acquisition and landscaping, as well integrating sustainable Thematically integrated gateways and public spaces under Public Involvement Comments. • Construction development strategies in the management of will also create dramatic changes on the ground. stormwater run-off. Throughout the project an Gateways are portals into the streetscape, creating Interviews with property and business owners along overarching theme endorsed by the SWG was the role highly visible drive-through entries and landmarks for Main Street and Burnham Street were conducted in of sustainability in revitalizing downtown. the downtown. Design and scale must attract motorists' . February of 2006. Participants were given updates on attention without becoming unfriendly to pedestrians. the planning process and an opportunity to ask Plan Elements Unifying Elements are primarily a palette of materials Gateway design will also express key downtown questions and make design suggestions. The Downtown Streetscape Design Plan consists of for streetscape and gateway design. The intent is to themes by drawing from the palette of Unifying three iterative parts. Each part was guided by the allow specific materials to vary from place to place but Elements in final design. Gateway locations are along . A public open house was held in May of 2006. The themes and great ideas of the TDIP and examined in maintain a recognizable "family of materials" Main Street, Burnham Street and Hall Boulevard. street design concepts, design concepts for gateways conceptual detail. Conceptual design details are an throughout downtown. Primary characteristics of the and public spaces, the public art plan, and overall essential next step in making on-the-ground changes in unifying elements are texture, color and form. • usefulness of the open house were rated highly in the Downtown Tigard. . formal comment process. A summary of comments A Public Art Plan added a new dimension to the TDIP. from the Open House has been included in the Project Functional Plans illustrate critical design and location Public art will bring a unique vitality to the downtown Appendix, also under Public Involvement Comments. characteristics for enhanced pedestrian crossings, experience. Important places can be interconnected, . access to bus and commuter rail transit, street trees and emphasizing the flow of people, history, and nature. street lighting. These design characteristics were The Public Art Plan identifies three distinct downtown Downtown .p' , . +J City 1 o ~ iv , - ism 401 400 j'i 3) k w{3- ;ri "Ai }',i id >i -rt'jf ..CSt4E <ii it} >i- i i't. - t7 t z~tiL s-< t , F t t l.t{ 1 _-•I t'✓" ~ ~n~~ a. ~ *@Yw•~ 3 t,; :1;,.u , We rii i ¥ L f1 ts.'~ f t! -#t }}S-- arrt lii, {i.lt l a Q - #iti if- t-TI i~ Ism i -+._C{li dus,__, 1-.-f "ii.x, public mclajeco ~S o bur, "+,iv,l li.iti;zl 4 41.'.::'27? +,~1}..i-}, it ,jtyti', F'•li.l 1""ont>?i:_a annY x LY§ W 't, „y # Win B st:l)al.'i. l`s rv P u v' }.'~,'iiTf s Ile a(=atli,=,,;;r:.'i.,! s}ak 14m MA f7rh"q "ft) dk "~En _2[ t. Ile Q! ow Greer, Heart Mquchs m s, ~AA. concep~ lle ' e ua,it. :i'v'. and POW: svac;' ii bGi'anli: v,,Y id':-:72 that y 4 + fit j T:Lu..,.};'~Lttt E:ti161 ti i:iftz~ti +t[..i CF7'c:;;itb..#t'l. ffi4 4t}Ifx ti-'7L`'tfits;. {:1 t;!'c'.:t: ovi2'.actunns juldt',r1Fiau }ri- *1, ' titr 4 - i i2f 2! s'i'~or , , -and m F k s s!`li iii f[+l a4 uld #x par! t'? isl )hd ed i!u FlY; „ij ` T(al x.'~.'7 ,:?:11 s`S17Yt# t:it nc%, ~tI 'i.~'" E ~r tPpQ PC Ile Stz.:t'iPii. apiwf ii1:nf0%zff}:i:i?tw COult# f37.:S!ttfi' ~t i3iFrn u:T' Stree?t't`ti'.'itjf"iii L;t Ft?:i.7C: :IU:iiL44(JvesF? ? tq p ~q, xn ,,+1 li Si-t irv.t v.'9 Cr del a.l=t.tf,?ss,,i xtc}.c An l'f F x ti $ q Ile f:.`'S.iu)vt and tram r ilhar;i,C.2at'w ;thin;' f4auRy {_r eck. i ew' .i'a9 A j r`^(`et}ninsira;dvi (wruca, .t?iuig Bu fliaw S€ c& as n in Si'. 'jelr_'.i:4ij}}iii°t',i ? 2}ii c'7 ( eriii .:ll# t'.xiw1_d x e =fi;.'" [;C: 7`, tr't!i?rd,_ tF#t:nIY n, Chd and OWNS sucu ION 4410 ION g'4 3b A f Ile y ~R""rr C yy F " n ION .b m»''~ S x~v.x S i,W "x"` A>A h}.." 1 u, $3$y, 'W ce kyA t J'~ mm :.M ta:.a.: 'rv y ~ .e . m. .m^wMT S ya '.ry sf 4 AM a ~ A J .uN y ro: M -t ~4' tr,~' 41, ~ 1* 401 c. ;?`s" 1~ z • Design - o~ • • Introduction for downtown was integral to the development of a Ephemeral outdoor projects • A key step in completing the Downtown Streetscape Design Framework. The project team and the SWG Transit Improvements Plan - location, access and Object-oriented works Design Plan was establishing a Design Framework for approached the question of theme as three interrelated station improvements for bus and commuter rail Performance art , the public realm of downtown. The framework reflects parts. Each thematic part was considered as a basis of Street Lighting Plan - lighting types and spacing Text-based works . the Preferred Design Alternative from the Tigard design. (full lighting analysis can be found in the Project Light and media works Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) and was Appendix memorandum titled Tigard Downtown Demonstration or community gardens • developed during work sessions with the Streetscape Functional Design addresses safety, comfort and Streetscape Design Plan: Street Lighting • Working Group (SWG). It provided a thematic basis access for users of the transportation system Recommendations by DKS Associates) Attempts to make public art uniform or singular in its • for concept design to implement the TDIP vision. • Green Heart addresses trees and landscaping, Street Tree Plan - spacing and canopy types theme are not encouraged. Art is a unique opportunity In any downtown revitalization effort vision cannot be connections to open spaces, and sustainability Street Connectivity - future roadway connections to step outside the conventional design vocabularies of • the only element. The Design Framework focuses on • Artistic Representation addresses streetscape streetscape and public space. Through its diversity and specific downtown improvement projects. furnishings expressing a style or historic period Street connectivity was part of an overall traffic creative expression of ideas and themes it can heighten • analysis for street function improvements. The analysis the experience of downtown and the interconnected • Streetscape Enhancements A palette of unifying elements for streetscape and addressed existing and future traffic conditions, flow of people. • Downtown Gateways gateway design was developed. The primary alternative transportation modes, functional . • Public Spaces characteristics are texture, color, and form, suggesting requirements for street and intersection design, and it r ; - - a "family of materials" throughout the downtown area. recommended roadway connections. The full analysis ' i F • The combination of specific materials may vary from can be found in the Project Appendix memorandum Each project is an opportunity for action. Over time, place to place but there should be a visually titled Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan: , completed projects will represent a significant public recognizable consistency. Traffic Analysis for Street Function Improvements by investment in the downtown's public realm. Fully DKS Associates. • realizing the potential of downtown Tigard will also An overarching theme discussed with the SWG was require the City to become plan stewards by funding sustainability in the revitalization of downtown. Public Art Plan and creating project partnering opportunities for the Becoming a more sustainable society is another Public art can bring more vitality to the downtown urban renewal district, and by reexamining the City's unifying element for the specific themes and guiding experience by creating a set of interconnected places, • zoning and development standards. principles of the TDIP, the Downtown Streetscape and emphasizing the flow of people, history, and • Design Plan, and future economic development of nature. It can create a more memorable experience of ' Design Themes and Unifying Elements Tigard. Specific sustainable principles can include: street corridors, gateways and public spaces, which are • Discussion and refinement of a general design theme key aspects of the public realm. The Public Art Plan Recognize mature, healthy trees as a high identifies three distinct areas within downtown for A meeting of the Streetscape Working Group performing environmental tool in the design tool complementary but slightly different types of public • kit art: • Make sustainable practices a visible educational ) • J tool • Civic Art r • Improve pedestrian access and circulation Main Street Art - r= rt" Recognize environmental and social Green Heart Art t sustainability provided by open spaces • Emphasize green street stormwater management Implementing a public art program should include re i • Identify policy and development tools to assessing the potential for regional support and w integrate sustainable systems funding, setting aside urban renewal funding for art, k- formalizing public art as part of the City's mission, and . ` Functional Plans coordinating with local businesses. Implementing s The Design Framework includes a series of functional actual artwork should emphasize a variety of artworks • plans for the downtown area: and experiences. For example: • Pedestrian and Bike Plan - primary routes and Project inspired by local history The Mayor of Tigard Addresses a Public Open House recommended street crossing improvements Ecological and nature-based art for the Downtown Streetscape Plan on May 25, 2006 • PROJECTAREA Downtown -p' Plar 1 . I-2 +J City # -1o 7 1 b~ -J A I- sign ramew EM I ELEMENTS ~ j Theme as Artistic Representation ~ Theme as Functional Design Theme as Green Heart Safety, Comfort and Access Open Space, Sustainability, Connections Style or Historic Period Opportunities:- Opportunities: ~ Opportunities: ~ ~-Street Lighting - Pedestrian Environment - Trees and Landscaping - Street Furnishings - Walkability - Connections to Public Spaces - Bike Travel - Connections to Fanno Creek - Sidewalk Paving -Public Art - Access to Transit - Sustainability Implementation: - On-Street Parking - Public Art -Traffic Calming - Street Design Concepts Implementation: - Gateways/Public Spaces • Implementation: -Street Design -Transit Functional Plan • - Street Design Concepts - Green Street Guidelines - PedestrianBike Plan - Gateways/Public Spaces • - Public Spaces/Gateways - Pedestrian/Bike Functional Plan • - Transit Functional Plan - Connections to Public Spaces • - Street Lighting Functional Plan - Unifying Materials Palette o~ % r J • via A • +j City of . • 1 • I-3 0 Design Frameworl Guiding Principles ° J \ Streetscape furnishings are finishing touches for "place making." They create a human scale and help to identify different functional Classical Style i areas of the streetscape. Complementary furnishings based on guidelines from the • Unifying Elements will provide a thematic a== _ consistency that is a key implementing • ~~~~////~::;:~u~r~nua~~~;::~•~~\~~: Design Plan. principle for the Downtown Streetscape • Preferred as the dominant theme in streetscapes and gateways Information kiosks and signage are • opportunities to incorporate furnishing • characteristics into other visible elements of the streetscape. Signage may be developed • with unique architectural forms and materials • or grouped with information kiosks. Kiosks • can use an architectural form suggestive of _ other conspicuous forms such as the • °tl o commuter rail station. Consideration should also be given to masonry pole bases for the • conventional types of street and traffic signs. • \ As an example, pole bases could be • Contemporary- - complementary to the columns and walls of Art Style f IF T, R -4 nearby Gateway designs. • Limited use as a counterpoint to classical style in streetscapes and gateways • r • r ~ • V A Naturalistic Style ; man • Applicable in Fanno Creek area, Commercial St. gateway Downtown - - , - , • and public areas • +j City CA I-4 • Design Framework i ZE ~E_ Key Themes Concrete pavers Sidewalks, gateways, public A ; i : - Unifying elements for downtown spaces streetscapes, gateways and public spaces are Stone Gateways, public spaces i - intended to express the themes of an urban (especially Fanno Creek) village and a "green heart." The emphasis on Compacted gravel Public spaces (especially Fanno one theme over another may vary from street Creek) and Gateways to street, gateway to gateway and among the Decorative metals Bridge/overlook railings, barrier -71 A-7;, 7T r key public spaces. However, a unifying fencing, street furnishings . palette of textures, colors and forms suggests a "family of places" and the visual interest Color: Color is a visually unifying element 0010 Fn NA ^ found in diversity of design, linked to textural materials. Colors tie . V Q I V-1 ~1 Y1 - together spaces separated by distance and • a Mme` Texture: Texture can be a unifying element function. Black is recommended as a unifying through a simple and consistent palette of color for streetscaPa furnishings and ,a. s = materials for paving, walls, columns and decorative !Y railings. Complimentary colors of . 4 railings. The materials maybe used in grays and reds/oranges can be found in the varying combinations as part of streetscape selection of sidewalk/gateway pavin gf and gateway designs. gateway columns, walls and naturalistic stone work utilizing locally available basalt or - - - - - - - - Material Application similar material. _ ^ } r- Scored concrete Sidewalks, crosswalks, gateways Pervious concrete Sidewalks, gateways, public Plant Materials are an important color and f "S1 r spaces textural element as well, providing the ,j ,'syYw:'y . - - - 1 i j unifying appearance of green (especially in the street tree canopy) and seasonal change ~ i~ ~ F ; . • • t ; ~ ~ ~ - - ~ti ~ , through flowers, fall foliage and colorful 4 . winter stems and branches. - - - - Form: Form can provide both visual unity o and interesting visual distinction. Form, along with color and texturef provides a sense of orientation for downtown and serves as visible landmarks. The preferred form for t4 fr _ r - r'~ downtown is the "classic" or "traditional" ale ptw iiv< ' . ~i style, particularly with regard to streetscape furnishings. However, more naturalistic forms may also be appropriate at gateways or within the public spaces, especially near Fanno Creek. Public Art: Public is an opportunity to . explore the use of key textures, complementary textures not found in other streetscape or gateway elements, and provide enjoyable elements of surprise in form or . interpretation of themes. ~ .r • I-5 g4 d { S ~v,.pyp~^"q ~ Q u ~ #F x t 48 ~x w`1' 'YF ~ , s n s INS w> , 9 lei hot- A, yy pq qp -5{ M 4t a rN"rv + yy ( 1 w T 3 ' % a^M$„9dr i, INS 3 ; Y t~ 3. 'E S A ~ F 3 A yn a m O!X 6 der r- : Y a + xb 6. C v _ low a':"} :L + rtp#, o'er >h' w x } - "Oaks t } } t J, 0. Awn svw~ d "r sm xu,, n t low GREEN HEARTAR 0A xw ~s g X a,°9.. .s+ * v w A''2 al ;t1: t l l- lei ap a R' 'm ° e ,ire`' q°„% a' •„vr ;.,,,,,t.v.t.+- , t i :ii P!l, A ! t^. .7t ';+...ti wall "'r o W# Y a a„ Ai s'(Y.:f AN Mat TAi si' fl tx tt .i t'. rf. WWI 1.:,<}u:a., ~ ;it-. t:.• i <llk, :ti ~t3~ 5 •yg ~~~b~'~'d A~W i~ A, n : ~ i't ` ~ f t:4`~v INS way ~ 4 ° t 91 " kk\ ti ~ x INS a a`"! a"'h A! 1N?nd aP vV +-1 4' Y INS 'r' ,•a ' w#,.4 "4`, 3,rc 4 w.;wa s t - -„y",.,.,2' prim - +...d lei WI* k s:; lei 9 3y"< `J'Y Ito ffi ~s n by ' y SA o< I R~ V~ vy.%M X' C r' v" . r% r. 4. r~r rt r frrn. I YO vt ~ r T L ,t f f I Design Framework' • • • • MAIN STREET ART CIVIC ART GREEN HEART ART ~71 ; PP, A- J f L ~ r -41 • A M ?C' r ~ f . S l WW" sow- • Examples of how the scale and character of art could vary among the art districts of Downtown • • • downtown. Exact art pieces will be developed through artist commissions and • thematic appropriateness, City • I-7 • 10 AOe%,kh,-%FM?-, mJ 401 ,f "m RL":h AliL-wf"k lie ISO lob ik 14f r lie lie i t..f* o a, Soar, ISO 44D Priman, Bicycle Routes .ft'•~: }1}Lail - - 410 y M, Mu, Pat! lie 410 f f Bus S?C}p irra ox cmc}-,t5 INS i ~ .t IL 1 lie lie, HOW (Ws,~mg ION fr lie t 410 lie 410 110 ION IND IND 401 OEM- 1. lie 4410 ..Vile Emig ~ b iwmi, n rtt ANW, h lie v'i~ k' 410 _ 1 The following table can assist City staff in evaluating the overall performance of Guiding Principles pedestrian environment measures, including their effect on the traffic a Pedestrian are "design vehicles" of equal . environment. This guideline applies to local and collector streets with two travel standing with cars. Designing streets for lanes and less than 15,000 ADT. t' • pedestrians as carefully as for cars requires a basic understanding of pedestrian needs. Safe and appealing pedestrian travel requires the N 4r _ following: A continuous walking path h, A feeling of personal safety Pedestrian Performance Guidelines A perception that the distance is not too 12 far or the time too long Pedestrian Traffic Traffic Relative Overall ` Meas ures A feeling of walking comfort Environment Speeds volume Cost Rating l An understanding of where pedestrian Irnplement Overall Overall Unclear Moderate to facilities are and how to use them Streets cape Plan improvement reduction High R Two of the greatest constraints experienced by Continuous Lower with Low to pedestrians are likely to be out-of-direction Sidewalks Improved furnishing No effect Moderate R travel and difficulty in crossing streets with zone moderate to high volumes of traffic. Block • ~ - - - j . Driveway Safety and size or intersection spacing between signals . No effect No effect Low R - frequently creates distances over %4 mile. nsofidation continuity Perception of distance discourages walking i h alit g ~'y Comfort and Overall Moderate to - trips. Sidewalk safety reduction No effect High as R ' .I Furnishing Zone retrofit i Out of direction travel can be reduced by: _ A full connected streetsystem id-Block "Z" Safety if Lower at No effect Moderate S_ y Crossing properly used crossing point Additional and enhanced crossing points . for existing streets id-Block Refuge Safety if Lower at g - ' Pedestrian pathways where existing streets No effect Low . stand properly used crossing point do not provide connectivity Some effect if Difficult street crossings can be improved b Curb Extensions Safety and Lower at used as Low to R . Y• visibility crossing point chokers moderate • Shorter distances from curb to curb Traffic calming strategies to reduce • t • e)dured/Paved VisibGty Low to vehicle speeds rosswalks (limited use) Little effect No effect moderate S ■ Traffic controls ■ "Road diet" principles used when existing . ignage for Visibility and streets are repaved or new streets are Little effect No effect Low S constructed rossings awareness _ Road diet is street design that physically and • R=Recommended as generally effective. S=Selective use effective in certain situations. Not always justified. = visually reduces the size of a built roadway. These physical changes help improve the functional and aesthetic qualities and raise awareness of the pedestrian's place in the street system. Downtown ,p' , l • City I-10 ~ -J • D- / Framework • • - PEDESTRIAN CRO.SSING DETAILS • • Guiding Principles • Collector streets with typical vehicle speeds of • "T" INTERSECTION 4-WAY INTERSECTION MID-BLOCK CROSSING 30 m.p.h. or less and less than 15,000 ADT • COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET (Average Daily Trips) are opportunities for • (Unsignalized) (Signalized) (Unsignalized) physical streetscape changes to enhance pedestrian crossing points. The safest crossings • Ped Light will be at signalized intersections. Where tragic or Signage control signals do not exist but a significant • I / I I crossing demand does exist a combination of • F \ Pedestrian Curb measures is recommended. Potential measures 1000,- • Visibility a Extension include: • Landscaped • Curb extensions for pedestrian visibility and • \ Median ` shorter crossing distances Bus Stop on ~ • s Curb Extension \ • Adequate street lighting • / L Pedestrian crossing signage or pedestrian \ Pedestrian activated signals Visibility Or- Curb Extension • • "Z" Crossing Design . Textured crosswalks to increase motorist • Pedestrian s (Recommended treatment) awareness of the crossing point: Visibility -Scored Concrete • Textured Crosswalk b ~ -Concrete Pavers • -Stamped Concrete ® b b Ped Light -StampedAsphalt • Curb Extension y b or Signage Textured crosswalks alone, without other • supporting strategies to increase pedestrian • visibility and awareness, are not recommended. • \ Concrete Pavers Better street connectivity is also crucial to • providing enhanced pedestrian crossings. • 1 Connectivity can provide new streets with more • closely spaced intersections available for • crossing, and realignments of existing streets to eliminate offset or "T" intersections. • Extra Wide Crossing • • • +J City • • • ~ I-11 Design Framework TRANSIT FUNCTIONAL-PLAN ~ Intersection Crossing • Improvements Shelter/Amenities on Curb Extension , Shelter/Amenities Crossin On Curb Extension Mid-Block ® Improvements nts Main St. . 4 Fanno Creek Gateway i Y \Redevl'opment \ ch kedevlopmeat -~1 ~S~te~1/fd~ture o S~te~1/fd~ture WEST MAIN STREET BUS EAST MAIN STREET STOP RELOCATION BUS STOP RELOCATION r LOCATER MAP A ~ i Wy 99 Gateway -r- [1❑ EQ - 6 Gateway CZ} CD \ Mail' inSt. 6c3~ ED' C3 ~sW MAIN ST ~ O in. n ~i 0 0 0 o❑ Li ll, ' fi \ Fanno Creek U - 1 Gateway \ A l_ Downtown .pe i i +j City of I-12 • • Design Framework • • BUS STATION DETAILS • • • - Custom Designed Bus Shelter Distinctive Pavement from • (similar to commuter rail Unifying Materials Palette shelter) • Wayfinding Kiosk Or Public Art Space • • Sidewalk • Clear Area • i Standard TriMet • c~ Shelter and b • Amenities • _ ~r r „nTn,T~p • ~s Sidewalk Clear Angled Parking ' ~ P • Area • Pedestrian Crossing • Curb Extension Improvements • Loading Area L~j • Pedestrian Crossing Improvements • • *Nt FF • • Parallel Parking • • q - OPTIONAL CITY IMPROVEMENTS (Upgrade from Bus Stop to Bus Station) • • • RELOCATE AND UPGRADE BUS STOPS • (Standard TriMet Shelter and Amenities) Downtown ' • +J City of • , I-13 • • • Design - o7 • • / 1f 1` C1 t' 1111111 C_J Commuter rail trips originating within downtown have less than ideal • L_J ° access to the station. Improving access will become increasingly • important as redevelopment occurs, bringing new residences and • employee destinations to downtown. Three fundamental access 1 strategies should be pursued: • Street connectivity to improve pedestrian access • Multiuse pathway for bike and pedestrian access • • Adding at least one new railroad crossing Commuter Rail • II : - Station Street Connectivity ' J Transit Extending Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to the commuter rail Commute Center parking lot should be the first priority. Connectivity beyond that point • Rail o will depend on obtaining a permit for a new railroad crossing. • Parkingi l" ` In general, downtown needs a smaller block pattern than currently • Railroad Crossing exists. As redevelopment occurs, additional neighborhood streets or • Pedestria I~ Pedestrian Only pedestrian friendly alleys will create that pattern and improve access to • a Island the station. Green Corridor Multiuse Pathways • I ►11~ Urban Creek Developing the Green Corridor Urban Creek (GCUC) will provide new • ~I l access opportunities for both bikes and pedestrians. Opportunities to • 1 integrate the design of the GCUC into the commuter rail parking lot • (now or in the future) should be explored. The objective would be to • Railroad Crossing create physical space and features within the parking area that give Vehicle/Pedestrian visual and physical priority to corridor users as they pass through the • parking area. • Extending Ash Avenue will eliminate the need for an emergency vehicle • Ash Avenue access from Hall Boulevard. In its place a multiuse pathway could be • Extension developed from Hall and eventually extend further north as a rails-to- • trails project. • r Railroad Crossings • The first priority should be a vehicle crossing for Ash Avenue. Second • priority should be a pedestrian only crossing for the GCUC. A Multiuse Pathway "crossing order" is required for the construction of a new railroad • 0 Vehicle crossing. Design considerations will include crossing warning devices ~ Entry/Exit ~ Parallel to Parking • FD Access Alley surfacing within the rails and any change in roadway configuration or a u via Ash Ave sidewalks within 500 feet. For information on obtaining an order, • contact the Rail Division at (503) 986-4321. The Rail Division can help • 0 expedite projects by reviewing proposals and facilitating • Pedestrian/Bike Access 0 New Railroad Crossings communication with railroads. • • • • Downtown ,p- Pla 1 • I-14 , City a _ • vw ~k r:T4 R i 410 Future Rcadway Cornection . 0, J 11 yp. ...x7.. - + .+A i':,t ° k`aJ`4i.F t77:Ft tf ,Jt ,'v ;tt S+_+ 4s t:z'i a+rc i_k !a.<..!k ~f 12„ a,.tf,i'•+, .17I in<, +fr ':i a +i_< a Main Street limp :~cp,;,rq - - ,Y t. t'l L,2„fkvi:'.7.5- r. lei +1J 1r 1 rl !I.{ s too he 7 - r, F'i EfE V i }ii`, r`f:,l>,'+.14 ti # ;"i„':'> ~ t.~il'(t ~~>t" ~.'t'$7~i', 7.. 7•::l`i~ IND It W X ? E`.< a local €a"z;ui£:IX10 ctF [`.oi"tUniq Or it4i=v.>iii;i.,', and 1A Y. ,:iii tl{'i=., i h .'r.✓.. _-r~r,• i,;); .71`,:.' #li'i)l, ide \ wild ,i' i7Yt;i);'ittt?S;• ,rte _ sas ar .t d'23 `ii#'i't$ =:r;>imig o ih rail hnea sh-lSin the r+;..:.+t in fib v i'_fJ2 ib`4 {)E#t k'.)t~P.i3::47. r• ,rte.; iti'ii i+d .ii vi 2 " ~.4+... rewn - fit Ci L`'Li#. + i! S,s ftS in, \it4zi ill provide CIiuch !?#iui. ad Iti i S.tni t- hilt e r•==,' F ai;+ `'-i C`i <I'~ it L"t:i t it st-- {ELx. u. o res { t f+:i,:t?$4'f Rail `ii1?t, Tt 101 a 1,eti rain,oad ',fa-.rc c ry' =rl5',yshig i7v'.t; b, ThiC ..,t.Sf'€nct?<i,_ii ni f+ #Etr .i INS r Ki 4''tady €r} i ave `srit'}" ix over :f {,i ( .I ~fi11's '93 i'.it~s;•v_.-;,tg '~,lt .~,'i:t:ttr ~~}~~~1~;Ik~Ft Street Ile Ile Odn az an Ile t'r 'Jovko nt'.w a. ` 9+' ' U(I<F"C ira#'iU <i =,r[5~:;;;>, #'4; l}m-ni-inni sn-tel ,ald:'k'3:Uii :xln" e' S:an bet i \pi.':'<'kf I£` K' .<?iti. low ;i: ;IS}~(;`e'ti=iL7+{trCS issf,n,Ciit}t'..i'.. Ile a bc'tti' s ud titlia n u Ile N1 thin 104ruthb, Linvnecinn: On rly no lei f. tV I t k "k: lei iEGE `!D vy. ,..•:;n., rnih" puiillii ;.tl '.Itt`.£at and ::salt ki,V is low IND Ile GR'.Y n. ,d. Design Framework, STREET LIGHT FUNCTIONAL PLAN A 4-WAY INTERSECTION "T" INTERSECTION "T" INTERSECTION 14' Minimum Light Lit pole Height Allows for Light (Typ.) (Trot) Banners and Hanging Baskets s 9 s q 14' POLE . Ihol. s ~ b m b . za _921 6 a 0 ILI s . Light at Each Comer 3 Lights 4 Lights Design Criteria Street lighting is an important unifying element for downtown streetscapes. Light poles are also an . opportunity to expand the vertical design elements of the street. Key criteria: Light 75'- 1001 • Decorative acorn-style luminaire included • on the PGE Approved Street Lighting Equipment list • Fluted cast aluminum poles painted black • Structural wind-loading for banners or . Opposite Across hanging flower baskets Placement • Pole height of approximately 14 feet (lamp height approximately 16 feet) ! • Average illuminance consistent with Table 1 . inTigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan: Street Lighting Recommendations Sidewalk ("F ORNAMENTAL LIGHT SPACING memorandum in the Project Appendix. COLLECTOR STREETS Downtown Streetscape Plan 1 ~ City • . I-16 , ; W, Design FrarneWork STREET TREE FUNCTIONAL PLAN ~ TREE SPACING INTERSECTION TREES Guiding Principles . Street trees should be chosen for their color, texture, canopy size, ease of maintenance and ability to 20' Trees of the same species withstand urban conditions. Open vase shapes and Narrow Canopy Trees and and distinct from upright, arching vase shapes are good choices. The . Street Lights mid-block species canopy diameters at maturity correspond to the width highlight intersections. of the Right-of-Way as follows: Different canopy + characteristics might R.O.W. Width Canopy Diameter include spring flowers, 70' to 80' 30' to 35' . fall color, foliage texture + 60' to 70' 25' or canopy size. Where there are conflicts with storefront signs, i 25' windows or exterior structures columnar varieties can Broad Canopy Trees and be useful. Street Lights An assortment of tree species helps create variety in the urban environment, avoids the problems . + associated with planting monocultures, and can enhance the sense of place. a Specific tree species should be chosen from the . approved City street tree list and in coordination with the Urban Forester. A 3-1/2" caliper at installation and spacing of 25' to 30' is recommended for street trees. . Midblock Spacing Zs'- 30' + - _ Coordinated with Street Lights at 75' -100' Spacing, 1 1 _ 1 Angled parking can + ri allow closer spacing to maximize the number of street trees. + + + + I Columnar Form Vase-Shaped Form Y. t Downtown Stree scap. Plar +J City of - I-17 ~ , ~ I • • , • • • ~ i • • ~ • • • ~ • Introduction Roadway Area - Traditionally, the roadway area has Street Design Matrix Great downtowns need great streets. Great streets need been designed primarily as a vehicle facility, providing Three downtown streets were a focus for conceptual great downtowns. Streets provide a setting for shared through travel and local access for cars, trucks, buses, design: • activities - walk, talk, shop, and even be playful. The and emergency vehicles. Bicycle travel has become Main Street ' Downtown Tigard Improvements Plan (TDIP) increasingly recognized and provided for in street Burnham Street recognized the public value of improving the quality of design standards. The importance of pedestrians as a Commercial Street . streets. The first of the catalyst projects to implement "design vehicle" operating within the roadway (Only the portion of Commercial Street west of Main the TDIP vision was the Streetscape Enhancement (specifically at crossings) should also be fully Street was considered during conceptual design.) Program, a priority leading directly to the Downtown recognized. Streetscape Design Plan. Early work sessions with the A design matrix was developed to identify key . Streetscape Working Group (SWG) identified At a minimum, pedestrians cross multiple streets in the streetscape enhancements. The matrix included future_''~ b important guiding principles for design: course of a single walking trip. The volume of moving local street development that will serve primarily Enhanced pedestrian environments are critical to vehicles and the speed at which they move are residential uses. Other streets where redevelopment an urban village feel universal constraints for those trips. The roadway and has a strong mixed use or retail focus will likely draw . Visual attractiveness is essential to downtown its border area must provide clearly understood from the design matrix for Burnham Street. appeal crossing areas for pedestrians. • Safe and comfortable access is essential to Jir- t Green Street Design tr downtown appeal Green Streets are an important opportunity to reinforce Opportunities to make green connections themes of the Tigard Downtown Improvements Plan such as "green heart" and "green connections." While consensus of the SWG. Full implementation will Safety, Comfort, and Access Green Street design means primarily the use of require amendments to the current Transportation Safety, comfort, and access were fundamental themes innovative techniques for stormwater management, System Plan. developed during SWG work sessions. In order to that is not its sole characteristic. Streetscapes can - Recommendations achieve those objectives, it is useful to regard . provide other "greed" elements: Future Roadway Connections were provided for future roadway connections streetscapes as having an "anatomy." Each part of the Street Walls - An important element of streetscapes is Safe and appealing pedestrian environment including the eventual extension of Ash Avenue and . anatomy provides more than one function. When the found just outside the public right-of-way. Street walls Multi modal travel choices the Scoffms/Hunziker realignment. There was limited parts function well, the whole is healthy. The parts of are what you perceive directly beyond the sidewalk Maximizing opportunities for trees and discussion of future roadway connections with the that anatomy can be described as the Border Area, the (e.g. border area). Good architectural facades make landscaping SWG, and no consensus was asked of them. Project Roadway Area, and the Walls. handsome buildings as well as handsome streets. Visual and physical connections to public and team recommendations anticipate substantial increases Visible doors and large windows are inherently open spaces ~ Border Area - The border area is effectively a public y in traffic with the downtown redevelopment Y pedestrian-friendly. While the design character of envisioned in the TDIP. Continued discussion landscape from the curb to the building front or architectural street walls was not addressed by the Traffic Analysis for Street Function Improvements regarding implementation of roadway connection property line. The border should provide comfortable Downtown Streetscape Design Plan, the impact on Recommendations were developed to improve recommendations is needed. • and relatively quiet space to walk and socialize and walkability and traffic speeds should not be functional aspects of streets and integrate roadway provide direct access to buildings. Three distinct and underestimated. improvements with the overall design themes. Additional recommendations include: continuous zones are needed: furnishing zone, Recommendations were based on an evaluation of Added left-turn lanes for all legs at each of the • pedestrian zone, and frontage zone. Each zone has an A continuous planting of street trees in the border area existing conditions, review of relevant planning three proposed four-legged intersections. . important function in supporting pedestrian activities, can also act as a street wall. Enclosing the street with documents, analysis of future traffic conditions, and • Pedestrian railroad crossing at the Green Corridor slowing traffic, and creating downtown character. street trees adds value to the thematic qualities of a work sessions with the SWG. The full analysis has Urban Creek visual1 een heart for downtown Tigard. been in included in a Project Appendix. • _ ~ , . ~ _ Y ~ ~ New traffic signals at Main Street/Burnham r = A r Street/Tigard Street and Main Street/Commercial Recommended Street Function Requirements - such as Street when warranted by future volumes after _ right-of-way width, sidewalk widths, on-street parking, an realignment of Tigard Street and Commercial and bicycle lanes -were subjects of extended _ . discussion with SWG. The design concepts for Main Street. Street, Burnham Street, and West Commercial Street directly reflect those recommendations and a Downtown 1.1' . City • - 11 -3 h,: nmwht~h- -J Street Design Concept S-FREE-IF • - MAIN ST. BURNHAM ST. NEIGHBORHOOD ST. ON-STREET PARKING Parallel parking . Angled Parking i V . SIDEWALKS Wide sidewalks Outdoor seating/conversation Retail focus/window shopping Distinctive paving Curbless design options i SIDEWALK FURNISHINGS T- High level of furnishings: Complementary to rail station Historical character Bike racks Benches Drinking fountains Trash receptacles . Bollards, trees grates, decorative drain covers, etc. LIGHTING Pedestrian scale (15' or less) Classic/Traditional Style ri Option for hanging baskets/banners Special needs for performing arts center ~ Accent lighting for art/public spaces ~ M w.1 LANDSCAPING . Deciduous trees/canopy f/ Native species Median tree planting Planters and window boxes Green street strategies PUBLIC ART/COMMUNICATION F k A c Wayfinding system Information/Exhibits i . Performances/Events Reflect broad downtown themes Recommended Optional Not Recommended Downtown . 1 ' • 1 ~ II-4 C ~ Street Design Concep~ • • C; FZ F= F= NJ -1F R • • MAIN BURNHAM NEIGHBORHOOD Definition • ST ST ST A Green Street is a collector or residential • CURB TO CURB street within the downtown area. The street Landscaped Median - 7~ right-of-way dimensions may vary from • J street to street or from block to block. What • Permeable Roadway Paving* 0 0 will distinguish these streets from other • Tree Canopy (shade & stormwater) streets is the opportunity to consider the entire right-of-way for operational and design • Light Colors (crosswalks) 1 treatments emphasizing the key elements of a Native Vegetation Green Street. • Purpose • Green Streets are an important opportunity to • BACK OF CURB rt reinforce themes of the Tigard Downtown o - Improvements Plan such as "green heart" and • Permeable Sidewalk Paving* - green connections.„ Complementary • Flow-through Sidewalk Planters Q k objectives might include: Reflect community desire for a • Flow-through Curb Extension Planters Tree Wells sustainable relationship between natural systems Light Colors (sidewalks & plazas) and the urban environment • s ' _ Create an environment attractive to Tree Canopy (shade & stormwater) pedestrians • Preserve a sense of open space in an • Native Vegetation, =<.-•nR~ increasingly developed environment ='y Identify opportunities for an integrated • demonstration project for green design - street, site and building. • • Key Elements ® Green Street elements are not limited to techniques for management of stormwater • *Permeable paving performs best where soil types typically have good within the street right-of-way. In fact there • infiltration characteristics. Subgrade modification with sub-drains or open- may be existing or future streets with limited • graded gravel reservoirs can compensate for poor infiltration for permeable opportunities for innovative stormwater pavin management. Those streetscapes can still be • r?':i~;'; targeted for key elements of a Green Street, • f(~ such as: Safe and appealing pedestrian " j~ environment 'All • ■ Multimodal travel choices ■ Maximizing opportunities for trees and •3 landscaping • ■ Visual and physical connections to public • and open spaces • ■ Save what is special or unique • Recommended Optional Downtown , , , • Not Recommended • M City of • , _ ~ II-5 • Street Design Concep TYPES APPLICATION HOW IT WORKS BETWEEN CURBS BEHIND CURBS • GreenNegetated/Eco Roof On top of structures within the right-of--way, such as A series of layers is built onto the roofs. The top most NO YES • covered bus shelters or benches, above ground utility layer consists of low growing vegetation that can store enclosures, or awnings that extend into the right-of-way. water in its leaves and roots, absorbing up to 70% of the • stormwater that falls onto the roof. • v 4 F • Rr 7' NAP,; Im 'all 4.2 P ~ ~,~.-fir _1~ ~ _ • Rainwater Harvesting Capture and re-use of stormwater runoff for landscape Collect runoff and convey it to a storage facility during YES YES • irrigation in the right-of-way. Runoff captured from the wet season to be re-used for irrigation during the dry • surfaces within the right-of-way. Runoff collected from season. Harvested water can also be re-used for non- • the roof of an adjacent public (or private) building would potable purposes in a building. be cleaner and may be more feasible for re-use. • • • Permeable Paving Nearly all impermeable surfaces within the right-of-way Pores created in the paving system allow water to pass YES YES • could be constructed using permeable paving materials through the surface to the subgrade and promote • such as permeable asphalt, permeable concrete, or paving infiltration. Depth of subgrade material depends on needs blocks. In the Portland Metro area this is commonly being for stormwater storage. Overflow conveyance systems can • applied to sidewalks, parking lanes, and parking lots. be used to reduce depth of subgrade. • - • _ IRVIN=" Zl~ j, z t.f, "''x~c ~f r s r 1.+= ~ 0171 ^ S i`~ '`t _ _ • r•. ~~.r ~z't.. n . y, ~"~s` JU M 11 Y6r r.-. .Y ~ • r o IL 4 Downtown . 1' Plal • • City of II-6 , • -y- I -Mr-.A • Street Design Conceo TYPES APPLICATION HOW IT WORKS BETWEEN CURBS BEHIND CURBS Bioretention Fits into a variety of containers. Containers can be swales or Makes use of engineered or amended soils to promote YES YES . depressions graded into a landscape area or (for more urban infiltration and evapotranspiration of stormwater. Must make areas) can be concrete planters, a median, a tree well, or other use of an overflow conveyance system in areas with poorly architectural feature. draining soils to manage larger storm events. fbJ . MrrrMli4r~~r~r~ C t Grass or Vegetated Swales Can be difficult to locate in an urban area due to land Flow through channel that uses channel geometry and YES YES availability and limited right-of-way. May need to vegetation to control velocities and settle pollutants. Can . acquire additional right-of-way or drainage easements to provide conveyance and treatment of stormwater. Landscaped construct. Similar to a Bioretention system if modified to areas can be designed to function as stormwater swales. promote infiltration. l • NOTES Infiltration in Downtown Tigard Traditional Conveyance Systems Maintenance Soils in the downtown area are mostly comprised of silts Green Street stormwater management facilities will not Maintenance efforts required by Green Street and clays - hydrologic soils group C with some D. This capture all storms. They need to be designed to overflow stormwater facilities have not been tested locally over a . suggests relatively poor conditions for infiltration of during large storms that exceed the capacity of the facility long period of time. Performance of these facilities will stormwater into the native ground. Optimal design of and underlying soils. The overflow should be sent to a depend on their maintenance. Additional upfront costs sustainable stormwater management facilities should be controlled location, such as an existing or traditional storm will be required. Long-term requirements can be able to handle at least the water quality design storm sewer system. reduced through the use of conservative design . equal to 0.36 inches of precipitation in 4 hours in assumptions. downtown. Downtown .1' . City of II-7 Street De-sign Conce 1 VILLAGE STREET PLAN ~ 11 ° Project Description 0 Main Street will likely be the primary retail street for Gate I I J _ 11111 i I _ `I downtown. Gateway intersections and high visibility from 1111111 the highway will become visual landmarks for downtown. ~ • ° ©0 0.fi a Ir Pedestrian Crossing Streetscape enhancements will include: rovements (typ) 1~ /1111111 ~s" . _ 1~tm 16 _ - • Continuous wide sidewalks on both sides of street . LL.J C_J o = " • Increased on-street parking through driveway consolidation I II I-i • Design elements linked to Commuter Rail Station . ® Q I • Street trees, landscaping, high quality street furnishings ,i T' 1 Coordination with other projects The City is encouraged to investigate opportunities to . Demonstration Fanno Creek Pedestrian and i share project costs and/or ensure functional and thematic . Public Area Retain _l Oriented- Garden Streetscape o a consistency as downtown improvements take place: G' o a • O _ o • On-going dialogue with TriMet regarding Main Street • O c~ OO o o II 0 Commuter Rai] station • I • Coordinate potential intersection improvements at Main Street/Hwy 99/Greenburg Road . O • Fanno Creek Regional Trail and Public Area • Realignment of Tigard or Commercial Streets at Main Street . Potential Phasing 0 Pedestrian Crossing ng 1 ` Potential phasing could be considered if funding were not. 1 0 -Improvements (typ) _ available for a complete rebuild of the street. Complete p _ - rebuild assumes pavement grind and overlay, utility ` improvements and streetscape. Ga ay - mi III p Option A - Greenburg Road/Hwy 99/ Main Street intersection 11 _ o IIIIIIIII _ _ O f / improvements to Scof6ns Street with potential Gateway II I I I V I I I _ development. o _ A Option B - Option A plus sidewalk improvements from Scoffn Street to the Fanno Creek Bridge. Sidewalk improvements would 1 include new trees, lighting, paving and furnishings. • t 1 Option C - Whole street reconstruction to Burnham Street. Reconstruction from Burnham Street to Maplewood as a Green Street demonstration project would be deferred to a later phase. . Estimated Construction Budget: $3,300,000 -Downtown Streetscap . 1 +J City of II-8 0 • Street Design Concept 1I \ . \ Section A - Two Lanes SECTION B Existing angled on-street parking on one side (Near Term) of the street is retained with a change in the . ° parking angle to approximately 45 degrees. Changing the parking angle maximizes sidewalk widths. Loss of parking spaces can be recaptured by closing and/or consolidating existing driveways as part of redevelopment. Design parameters are: . Functional Classification: Collector . ROW: 80' SECTION A 7.' ll' 12' 11' 8' 12' Through Travel Lanes: 2 • Sidewalk Travel MedianlTum Travel Parallel Sidewalk Median: None . Lane Lane Lane Parking , F~ On-street Parking: I?'sidecalk Q=11e1P~ D Parallel parking on south side, 45- Q D degree parking on north side 48 Bike Lanes: None Q 60' R.O.W. (75'+/ Future) D Sidewalk Width: • 12' or greater with tree u wells/stormwater planters Pedestrian Crossing Improvements: Curb 0 o SECTION B extensions, marked crosswalks (Long Term) • 12'orgreater 19' 12' 12' 8' 12'orgreater I,k Section B - Three Lanes . Sidewalk 45 Degree Travel Travel Parallel Sidewalk In the three lane section the third lane e„ Parking Lane Lane Parking functions only as left turn lane. Traffic Q D volumes, existing intersections and driveways 51' will require maintaining a three-lane section. . Q If increased Main Street traffic cannot be 80' R.O.W. fi mitigated, then increasing the length of the three-lane section may be unavoidable in the • 12' or greater 8' I l' 12' 11' 8' l2' future. Creating alternative vehicle routes into . and Parallel Travel Median/Turn Travel Parallel Sidewalk out of the downtown area, eliminating Parking Lane Lane Lane Parking driveways, and realigning the Tigard Street and/or Commercial Street intersections will be Q 48' key strategies. Q LOCATION OF SECTIONS: 80' R.O.W. (Future) D The near term scenario reflects an existing constrained right-of-way condition. SECTION A SECTION B SECTION A Eliminating parallel parking on one side will allow development of a continuous sidewalk. - ° ► With redevelopment, the full 80 foot right-of- way can be obtained. Parallel parking can be restored and the sidewalk expanded to the recommended 12 foot minimum. Downtown Streetscape Plan • 1 City • II-9 71177 1 ~J Str(Fe__t_D&_s__[g_n Concept: MAIN: GREEN STREET PLAN _ Project Description 7_ Main Street can continue to demonstrate commitment X1/1 r"' rl ~J HWY 99 I n to sustainable development. Burnham Street to . I I Li Maplewood Drive could be funded as a Green Street 11111 ~J r--~ - 111111 I J ; I demonstration project featuring stormwater o I Green Street I management. Green elements could be: . k1ki- ST - Demonstration Project • Flow through stormwater planters . • Street trees in landscaped tree wells rather than grates n _ • Visual and functional connections to Fanno Creek Public Area a o = ® • Interpretive signage and/or public art ® • A curbless cross-section FANNO CREEK GATE Y vA I D I j - - The demonstration project would likely require • r [1 { approximately 4,000 - 4,500 ,500 square feet of planter area. The remainder of Main Street would be treated 1 Q ! I with mechanical measures such as StormFilter ,i► ' Pedestrian Connection j cartridges, providing improved water quality with less . 0 sidewalk/curb extension space required. 0 Implementation 4 Regional funding sources for Green Street 1 _ p demonstration projects such as Metro and Clean Water f o O ~ ~ ~ ❑ ~ ❑ L_-:1 o o 0 1= C3 00 ❑ ~ III ~ Services should be explored. C_~ o0 ooao00 I Resource protection, natural materials and interpretive Potential Phasing . art/signage will complement the Green Street concept Green Street improvements could be a stand-alone project for developing the Green Heart of Tigard. STORMWATER PLANTERS CURBLESS DESIGN OPTION Potential phasing of an overall Main Street improvement plan should be coordinated with street . improvement projects between Burnham Street and Scoffins Street. Coordination with Other Projects . Y Opportunities to share project costs and/or achieve . maximum functional benefits at the most reasonable cost: • Fanno Creek Regional Trail and Public Area . • Major redevelopment project(s) • Future realignment of Tigard Street to Burnham Street Sidewalk sales, vendors, street fairs, Shared space for vehicles and pedestrians. pedestrian activity are "green" However, increases in traffic volume may Additional Green Street Budget: $220,000 • negate this potential benefit. . Visible, functional Downtown S-treets-ca-pe 1 City of II-10 , n Street Design Concept • • • • • • Evaluating Costs Raised Planter Sidewalk Planter Sustainable stormwater management facilities • with Seat Wall (30' - 35' SF) are not always the least expensive engineering • (800' SF) solution. However, space is already limited in • ® an urban environment, and land is expensive. Land value required for traditional stormwater • facilities is often overlooked in reporting • facility costs. If land value is figured into the equation, then sustainable stormwater + facilities make better financial sense. . Variable Costs 50-55' (ryp) The cost to construct a sustainable stormwater • facility is as variable as the designs • FLOW THROUGH CURB EXTENSION PLANTER FLOW THROUGH SIDEWALK PLANTER themselves. Major factors that influence the . cost include soil conditions, construction material palette, and whether the facility is • part of new construction or part of a retrofit situation. As an example, the use of concrete . walls to form a container would be more expensive than using an area that is enclosed by a curb extension, especially if the curb is already a necessary part of the streetscape. • Raised Plante Pervious Paving Sidewalk and Parking Impacts with Seat Wall (Optional) Parking Egress Paving Flow through stomiwater planters are the • (340-350 SF) (Impervious) recommended strategy for a Main Street • Stormwater Sidewalk Planter Green Street demonstration project. Selection Tree Well (45' - 50' SF) of specific design treatments should consider b A other sidewalk uses such as outdoor seating, • ` x~` b (12'-15' SF) • 4't a' storefront displays, as well as maintenance of adequate on-street parking. Closure or • consolidation of driveways provides • bM - opportunities to construct curb extension • 40'-45' _zz facilities, which will likely provide the 1 -40`4 1 li-4d a` greatest functional benefit for the least • 30'-35' (typ) F comparable cost. • FLOW THROUGH CURB EXTENSION PLANTER FLOW THROUGH TREE WELLS FLOW THROUGH SIDEWALK PLANTER • • • • • Downtown .1' . • 1 • +J City • , ~ II-11 ' ~ -J Street De-S-146-Concept ■ - D Project Description Demonstration This plan was the preferred alternative of the SWG. - Garden Between Ash Avenue and Main Street Burnham Ash Avenue ~ Street will be an important retail or mixed-use street Realignment J for downtown. It will also provide access to the f PotentialSytpoj water Roundabout Fanno Creek Public area, a future performing arts • BURNHAM ST. Planters p _ center, and connection to the Green Corridor Urban I _ ® _ 1 Creek. Streetscape enhancements will include: III , I I i 117 hi+F\ - I F I I T' Continuous wide sidewalks on both sides of Pedestrian/IRetail 18' Sidewalk ( 14 the street . Oriented Stieetsca a Mid Block Crossing a On-street parking through driveway consolidation P On street Parking U= Improvements • ~ or closure Pedestrian - Q D Street trees, landscaping, high quality street Connection furnishings . o rt-- Mid-block pedestrian crossings A roundabout at Ash Avenue a Stormwater planters as a Green Street feature o Implementation . Based on SWG input and City Council direction, the Green Street Plan was selected as the preferred alternative. ttl Potential Phasing a The City intends to build all elements in one phase if U~ p Fire Station Tigard water right-of-way acquisitions are successful. District Gateway Coordination with Other Projects To the extent possible, the location of specific Potential Stormwater Potential Stormwater ® streetscape elements should complement future _iP Planters (typ) Planters (typ) development of other important downtown projects. . 7 7.. Mid-block pedestrian crossing points, on-street ® ® l parking, and stormwater treatment planters are - ® important elements. Projects include: t, , l III i ~ I ~ ; It, IT u . Mid-block Crossing 12 SidewalkJ Fanno Creek Public Area ~ . Improvements On=street Parking Performing Arts Center p Landscaped Medi Green Corridor Urban Creek V 0 Estimated Construction Budget: . $3,900,000 Downtown .1' Plan 1 City ~ • II-12 , Street Design Concept BURNHAM: BOULEVARD PLAN o Project Description 0 The concept for a Boulevard Street was not the . 0 alternative preferred by the Streetscape Working L Demonstrdtiori 0 Group. It emphasized a landscaped median to create 9 Garden ga a boulevard street as a long gateway into downtown. ,g o 0 The themes of green heart and green connections Landscaped Median would be emphasized by the maximizing the space DID ' . 4 available for street trees and landscaping. . r - m- Traffic calming would result as the median was T - _ 9 r - - completed incrementally with redevelopment or 1 Midblock Pedestrian On-street Parking w Bike Lanes other opportunities to consolidate driveways. Crossing (Typ.) (Ash to Main) > (Ash to Hall) Landscaped medians narrow the field of vision for _ motorists and increase their awarness of pedestrians and bikes within the street right-of-way. The Boulevard Plan provides less on-street parking but includes bike lanes. Functional Requirements . This alternative is consistent with the Transportation System Plan with the exception of not providing on-street bike lanes from Ash to 0~ Main. The physical design parameters are: Q Fire Station Tigard Water District Gateway C ROW: 68'- 74' ap / Through Travel Lanes: 2 Median: Landscaped with left-turn pockets :20 Bicycle Lane On-street Parking: Main to Ash: Parallel parking 1 (Hall to Ash) / Ash to Hall provides no parking - - - Bike Lanes: Main to Ash provides none Ash to Hall provide on-street bike lanes Bi1RNHAM ST. Sidewalk Width: 12 • 0 - Pedestrian Crossing Improvements: . Curb extensions, marked crosswalks, refuge in raised medians Implementation Based on SWG input and City Council direction, Bicycle Path to Faano the boulevard plant was' not considered the Creek and Main Street ~ ~ I I preferred alternative. ~ v . Estimated Construction Budget: $3,800,000 ♦ / 1 . 1' . • "W City II-13 • ; Street Design Concepi GREEN STREET Green Street Plan The Green Street concept will require MAIN TO ASH ASH TO HALL (with median) amendments to the City Transportation Plan but it was the preferred concept of the . Streetscape Working Group. Design . parameters are: Functional Classification: Collector ROW: 74' Through Travel Lanes: 2 d ° Median: Main to Ash: None Ash to Hall: Landscaped with left-turn . pockets On-street Parking: Parallel parking on both sides . Bike Lanes: None "12'- 18' 8' 111 IV 8' 12'- 18' 12' 8' l1' 12' 11' 8' 12' Sidewalk Width: . Sidewalk Parallel Travel Travel Parallel Sidewalk Sidewalk Parallel Travel Median/Turn Travel Parallel Sidewalk Main to Ash: 18'with tree Parking Lane Lane Parking Parking Lane Lane Lane Parking wells/landscaped stormwater planters . Ash to Hall: 12' with tree wells/landscaped Q 38' (min.) 50'(min.) stormwater planters Pedestrian Crossing Improvements: Q 74' R.O.W. Q 74' R.O.W. Curb extensions, marked crosswalks, . refuge in raised medians Boulevard Plan . BOULEVARD PLAN The Boulevard Plan concept was largely . consistent with the City Transportation Plan. MAIN TO ASH ASH TO HALL (with median) It was not the preferred concept of the Streetscape Working Group. Design a parameters are: Q^{..r. ~p o Functional Classification: Collector ROW: 68'- 74' Through Travel Lanes: 2 Median: Landscaped with left-turn pockets On-street Parking: Main to Ash: parallel parking both sides Ash to Hall: None. Bike Lanes: 12' 8' H, 12' H, 8' 12' 12 5 H, 12' 11' S' 12' Main to Ash: None Sidewalk Parallel Travel Median/Tum Travel Parallel Sidewalk Sidewalk Bike Travel Median/Tum Travel Bike Sidewalk Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Ash to Hall: Provide bike lanes . Parking Lane Lane Lane Parking Sidewalk Width: 12' with tree wells Pedestrian Crossing Improvements: 50' Q 44' Curb extensions, marked crosswalks, . Q . 74' R.O.W. (min.) 68' R.O.W (min.). refuge in raised medians Downtown • / • M City of II-14 10 -F- I <7 Street Design Concept B Li W, ■~il~ Near the Source Planter Trees Sustainable stormwater management . (Optional) Planter with Seat Wall practices in the right-of-way and the idea of (340'-350' SF) Green Streets has become increasingly • Sidewalk Planter b popular in the past 5-10 years. Green Street 175'Igs'sF) stormwatermanagementfacilities control :;r ?rl runoff and associated pollutants near the source. Management of runoff near the source = allows for smaller facilities that manage , 91 smaller runoff volumes and smaller pollutant loads. Collectively, they can provide great ttyp, benefit to the management of flow and ryP pollutants in an urban area. The proximity of FLOW THROUGH CURB EXTENSION PLANTER FLOW THROUGH CURB EXTENSION PLANTER Fanno Creek makes the implementation of these stormwater management practices all the more important and beneficial. • Multi-functional Streetscape Stormwater management facilities can occur in medians, parking lanes, travel lanes, sidewalks, tree wells or underground. Green . Streets can and should become a familiar part of the urban landscape. They provide • Planter wlTrees Optional opportunities to appreciate and interact with . (115'-120'SF) Pervious Paving Parking Egress Paving the hydrological cycle. As with streets (Optional) (Impervious) themselves, these facilities need not be • Flow Through q Stormwater Tree Well Sidewalk Planter regarded as unattractive, but as functional . Tree Well (12'-I5' SF) (45'-50' SF) infrastructure. (12'-15' SF) • Increased Habitat and Human Interaction q ""M with Nature Habitat for animals and insects is limited in • urban environments. From tree canopy to + stormwater facilities to improved water q 1 zo, 44 quality, Green Streets can contribute W , (te) F beneficially to that habitat, while also 30.35' (0 16'-18'(6P) increasing opportunities for human interaction with nature and our surrounding PLANTER AND TREE WELL FLOW THROUGH FLOW THROUGH COMBINATION TREE WELLS SIDEWALK PLANTERS landscape. Downtown .1' . +J City of II-15 0 =31 AOOC~ ~ ~ F_J Street D_es_'______ ign oncept:i, WEST COMMERCIAL STREET Project Description A half-street improvement (Lincoln Street to Main) jointly developed with a gateway at Main Street. For the downtown streetscape • .y environment the streetscape east of HWY 99W ~ Commercial Park and i x~~, ' ~ w„ is the most important. Key features: w Pathway Connection ; 1 r - / • Continuous sidewalks and street trees y~. ® . N 4 ; .e ~ ~ • Curbless street edge (west side only) o Implementation Construction is scheduled for 2007. Right-of-way acquisitions will be required at the Main Street intersection. Property acquistion of ® the existing small parking area south of the COMMUTER RAIL street will be required to develop the gateway. The City should continue on-going discussions a with the Commuter Rail Project for that Co acquisition. • tahonuter~il . \~\4 Project Coordination On-going planning and feasibility studies for transportation improvements may impact West ` Commercial Street: . • Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan I \ / / \ • Commercial Street realignment Realignment of Commercial Street may isolate . the gateway from the street and leave it as an impediment to future revedevolpment of vacated PHASING OPTION A PHASING OPTION B right-of-way. A . Potential Phasing Curbless Street Edge Cwbless street o r° ° 1l~ Potential phasing could be considered if funding Edge were not available for both street and gateway o improvements or property acquistion cannot be o - o completed for 2007 construction: . Option A - Half- street improvements only with private 12' 12' 12' Existing Private parking as an interim use. Existing Private Existing Private 12' 10' 10' 8' varies Parkin Sidewalk Travel Travel Pig . 8 (no impacts) Parking Sidewalk Travel Travel Parallel Gateway Option B -Street improvements with on-street parking (impacts) ~j Lane Lane (impacts) Lane Lane Parking Development integral to the gateway plaza design. v 24 ~ 28 . Estimated Construction Budget (Street Only): 50' R.O.W. so' R.O.W. $600,000 ~ • Downtown Streetscape Plan, City of II-16 , ♦ Street Design Conceptl SIDEWALK FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 18 FOOT SIDEWALK Street Light (typ) Functional Zones Tree Well Options Pavement Sidewalks function with different zones, each zone options supporting different pedestrian activities. • Curb Zone • Famishing Zone Curb Zone V) [ i rw This zone physically separates pedestrian uses from roadway uses. No furnishings in this zone. Pedestrian Zone Furnishing Zone This zone has two basic purposes. First it is an area Building Zone where pedestrians access on-street parking or transit. M Second, it provides space for permanent signs, poles, street trees, and the selected street furnishings. A / visually distinctive pavement treatment is suggested. opons include: \R11 Pavement 15 FOOT SIDEWALK ME '\ffl~ Concrete with distinctive scoring Curb Zones Concrete pavers with color and texture Furnishing Zone Tree well options include: k: Landscaped tree wells, 5x 9' V Pedestrian zone Tree grates in the Classical style 60 Pedestrian Zone Building Zone Intended for through and unobstucted travel by N pedestrians. It should remain free of furniture, outdoor / seating/displays or other obstructions. It should be the smoothest and least detailed pavement surface within • the sidewalk. The pedestrian zone should not be less 12 FOOT SIDEWALK than 6 feet of clear space. Curb Zone Building Zone • Famishing Zone Z, The area between the pedestrian clear zone and building facades. This an important zone for retail or Pedestrian Zone ,Wr mixed use streets. Appropriate uses include outdoor seating, temporary storefront displays or small projections from buildings such as planters or steps. / Pavement may be identical to the pedestrian zone or have a more distinctive appearance through detailed scoring patterns or concrete pavers. Downtown . 1' . City of II-17 ~ -J a u~ r Q C9 sees$ Gateways and • Publ-ic -Spaces • • • • • Introduction Long-term use of the site has been identified as a would provide the green canopy. • As they are developed in the future, public spaces and performing arts center in the preferred development Public Art • gateways will be integral to the revitalization of the alternative of the TDIP. A more naturalistic form (Option 2) was also explored. Public art should be considered for each public space • downtown. Implementation will create dramatic This form would create different massing and and gateway. Art can increase our awareness of the changes on the ground. The concept design for each Fanno Creek Gateway - Fanno Creek is a unique and geometry of small spaces. The icon of the column qualities and history of a public space, a portion of the • space attempts to meet four critical objectives: hidden asset of downtown. Visitors often arrive and would be eliminated and the low walls would be streetscape or a significant landmark. It can increase • • Reinforce thematic identity for downtown leave without knowing the creek is there. Acquisition become multiple horizontal elements. The horizontal our emotional attachment to places and make them • Create appealing spaces and landmarks of property on the west side of the creek will allow elements can be constructed from materials such as more memorable. • • Utilize high quality materials development of a loop pathway, connections to the fitted stone, stacked river rock, or columnar basalt. r~„ • • Identify the next set of catalyst projects regional Fanno Creek Trail, overlooks, a small open space for passive uses, and enhancements to the bridge Ground plane planting would be a variety of native ~s • Public Spaces itself. The result will be new visual and physical access grasses and low native groundcovers accented by small • Public spaces are small urban rooms. Their design to a downtown natural resource that is uniquely Tigard. canopy trees in a composition with dominant should invite pedestrian and bicyclists to enter and Restoration and maintenance of the creek banks will horizontal pieces. • linger while feeling safe and comfortable. With the complete the picture.x • support of the Streetscape Working Group (SWG), the A majority of the SWG expressed a preference for the • concept design for public spaces was developed to: Gateways more traditional forms with the exception of the Minimize hard surfaces in favor of soft surfaces Gateways are portals in the streetscape, creating highly gateway at West Commercial and Main Streets, where The Public Art Plan can serve as a general road map • • for implementing downtown art. However, and landscaping visible drive-through entries and landmarks for a more naturalistic treatment was preferred. - • Express the City's commitment to Fanno Creek as downtown. Design and scale must attract motorist's considerable flexibility and creativity should be • an important natural resource attention without becoming unfriendly to pedestrians. Hybrid Gateway Forms afforded any individual artist commissioned. • Express the City's commitment to sustainable Gateway design will also express key downtown SWG members asked if materials more natural and • development practices themes by drawing from the palette of Unifying less traditional than "bricks and mortar" masonry or Water features can be integrated with the design of • Provide new gathering spaces for people Elements in final design. garden style landscaping might be used while still • maintaining the fundamentals of traditional form. selected public space and gateways. As public art they g may become artful designs in their own right. Water • Gateway Forms Changing materials can essentially soften the forms, features options include conventional fountains that The primary streetscape gateways into downtown are making them less heavy (physically and visually), • at Main Street and Highway 99W and at Hall more transparent, or more irregular in size and edges. circulate and display potable water, as well as designs Boulevard and Burnham Street. A preference of the For instance, a low brick wall can be rougher and more that will display rain water and kinetic energy only - SWG was for street gateways to have a visually similar irregular by using stacked stone or river rock. That during storm events. The latter water feature may also • play a functional role in the management and treatment • appearance. With that in mind, two distinctive forms of same wall can become even more irregular gateway design were explored. Option 1 was (naturalistic) as a horizontally placed column of basalt of stormwater, particularly within the planned Fanno traditional and Option 2 was naturalistic. The with matching vertical pieces of columnar basalt. Creek Public Area. • traditional form is based on simple combinations of Garden style landscaping, such as flowering non- \ -i • The Downtown Streetscape Plan identified two public low walls and columns. These elements are long- native shrubs and mowed grasses might become spaces as catalyst projects in developing a Green Heart , • standing urban village icons, signifying arrival and native grasses of varying height and stem colors for downtown. entry, and solidly in the tradition of "bricks and supplemented by masses of low native shrubs and ` • ows for the massing spreading groundcovers. Annual flowers might become Demonstration Garden (adjacent to Burnham Street mortar. This traditional form all ~i • and scale needed to attract passing motorists on highly perennials or wildflowers. and south of Main Street The interim use for this F: • traveled streets. 1'~ } s, • space can be an educational demonstration garden for sustainable landscaping practices. The educational 6 . Walls and columns can be constructed from materials b , ` • focus could be on native landscaping as fundamental to such as detailed cast-in-place concrete, brick, fitted However, water features require regular maintenance. urban horticulture, and on a variety of sustainable- Their implementation should occur only when it is • stone, or stacked river rock. Ground plane planting clear that lon term maintenance fundin will practices for small businesses and the home. The space would be a variety of maintained grasses or low g- g be • could also provide for passive recreational uses and available. On-going maintenance costs are often a groundcovers accented by massing perennial and w i . rester deterrent than construction costs. • support space for downtown festivals and events. annual flowers. Small to medium flowering trees g • • Downtown ,I- Pla 1 • I1I-2 City of • 10 -IF- I 41C7710 _ e . • h w~ • ~ III t* C ~ ` ~I ~ . •9 O t ` • Fa ~ :b ~ ` ~ n~ LI 14, ,fir `t` \ iY y b AI ic' ♦t• 1 +F ~Pi' r,t i • 1 i~ J~ r~TTb~~'w J Rjaw 71 4~i r~ ~ z1 ,~~a 41+ • • zr z ty Wyly y~ • n Z Z • d l w Gateways and Public Spaces . : ;DOWNTOWN TIGARD 4 ' Project Description Enhance visual character of the existing Fanno Creek Bridge as a downtown landmark . and gateway into downtown. Bridge . improvements can be combined with an improved pedestrian crossing for Main Street and other streetscape improvements to . encourage pedestrian walking along Main a'Street with the bridge and creek as a • destination. Viewing opportunities should be r from both sides of the bridge. Key Features f, • Obelisks or columns at bridge ends • • Decorative iron bridge railing to replace existing open railing • Distinctive sidewalk paving such as a t . flagstone or angular basalt Marked pedestrian crosswalk with natural _ stone bollards • "ter Estimated Construction Budget: $180,000-$195,000 L1;2 i a 5 lit"w.~ ELM / r ~ °4 # l yr • •l r'r P . Downtown Stre- ap' Plac III-4 +J City a ~ • Gateways i Spacef • = , , ► , Ay- JI Project Description ry Fe' " " ' # 'f Enhance the landscape and habitat characteristics of Fanno Creek as a downtown w , , n natural resource to be celebrated and cared ji~ A *f ° ~P for. Bank restoration will be a key aspect of K resource care. Restoration should include eradication and control of invasive plant • r Y species, and native plantings, which will r~+F 's:• g provide shaded areas for the creek, food for wildlife, and cover habitat above the waterline. y" R.4A ~ rt V 0. tit j ` . , •~•My r s• 1 f Additional open space for passive uses and r viewing can be developed on the west side of the creek and will become a subordinate but 4 complementary space for the Fanno Creek Public Area. • `q Key Features: Cantilevered overlooks with decorative } r'= 0, i + iron railings ` " - • Distinctive pathway paving such as a . flagstone or angular basalt 4 ' • Interpretive signage Note: Rough textured concrete would be an . ' alternative paving material for pathway and ' overlook. Since this is part of a regional trail ` I system, compacted gravels or other soft surface materials are not recommended. Full development of the Fanno Creek Gateway concept requires 'ff property acquisition by the City. I . Estimated Construction Budget: $245,000 - $265,000 Downtown .1' . +J City of III-5 Gateways and Public Spaces i • • , t 0 r ,<br vie • DOWNTOWN TIGARD r Project Description f' Develop a vehicular scale gateway for Main Street based on the traditional forms of ' columns and low walls (up to 3 feet high). . Gateway development should include nighttime uplighting for the walls and columns and lettering or signage coordinated with other City of Tigard entry signs currently u being planned. F d 6 $ The choice of materials for walls, columns, . ¢ pathways and landscaping may vary from the X-~L` quite traditional "bricks and mortar" style to use of more natural materials such as stacked stone or river rock along with native landscape . planting. Within this range of possible materials the hybrid form of gateway can be achieved through final design - blending the traditional and the natural. Key Features • Columns and low walls with options for . materials - Brick with precast concrete caps - Fitted small stone with precast caps - Large stone or river rock without . o p concrete caps Columnar basalt • Applied lettering such as anodized • ~f aluminum or brushed steel for walls or II~ J p columns 0 l f Pathways of concrete or concrete pavers Seating opportunities Landscape planting and trees Public art or water features are optional 1 Estimated Construction Budget: . r $200,000 - $220,000 ~I Downtown •pe • .i 1 . +J City of III-6 0 = • I I I , • , ml~ a*. MM V W1 i e p ,,y%. DOWNTOWN TIGARD Project Description This was an optional gateway design for this location. It was not the option preferred by the . . Streetscape Working Group. The intent was to explore forms without the traditional columns, and a palette of materials more natural in + character. • Key Features / r • Low walls creating intimate spaces with • , seating: - Columnar or stacked basalt • - Stacked "field" stone I + ' - River rock Native plants, grasses and paving in a • textured grid o Soft surface paving • Public art, water feature (optional) Estimated Construction Budget: • $110,000 - $120,000 • • • 9 t t.~ • • • • • Downtown • - Plar City of III-7 • • 0 ~k Gateways and Public Spaces, • . , , ~ n d F• a"` r }p J DOWNTOWN TIGARD X., yE Project Description Develop a vehicular scale gateway for Main Street based on the traditional forms of . columns and low walls (up to 3 feet high). . Gateway development should accommodate the existing Liberty Park tree canopy and pathway, as well as additional right-of-way . that is needed for intersection improvements at Main Street and Greenburg Road and Highway 99W. Gateway features and - " materials selection should be similar to the . - west Main Street gateway. As with other traditional gateways, the choice of materials for walls, columns, pathways and landscaping may vary, making possible a hybrid form of gateway -blending the traditional and the natural. • Key Features a Columns and walls with options for 4 materials 0 - Brick with precast concrete caps - - Fitted small stone with precast caps - Large stone or river rock without concrete caps Columnar basalt • Applied lettering such as anodized ` aluminum or brushed steel . Seating opportunities Public art or water features optional Estimated Construction Budget . $160,000 - $180,000 1 City . • III-8 a ,a 4 DOWNTOWN TIGARD At-' ' Project Description This was an optional gateway design for this location. It was not the option preferred by the S 4 Streetscape Working Group. The intent was to explore forms without the traditional columns, ' and a palette of materials more natural in 5. character. Key Features r Low walls creating intimate spaces with seating: - Columnar or stacked basalt a Stacked "field" stone r;t River rock Native plants, grasses and paving in a "textured grid #I' o Soft surface paving • Public art, water feature (optional) • Estimated Construction Budget: $125,000 - $135,000 h ~ } RY r . Downtown / 1 • City o - ~ III-9 ~ , Gateways and Pu lic a Spaces a k ~ h , as A 5L t1n~ Y :t+. _ r. i DOWNTOWN TIGARD y Project Description Develop a vehicular scale gateway for Main Street based on the traditional forms of columns and low walls (up to 3 feet high). The gateway area will use property already ` owned by the City of Tigard. Development should include nighttime uplighting for the f Jv walls and columns and lettering or signage coordinated with other City of Tigard entry E~m • signs. . The choice of materials for walls, columns, r' pathways and landscaping may vary from the • Main Street Gateways and should be visually . complementary. The hybrid form of gateway - can be achieved through final design. ri memo_ Key Features . • Columns and walls with options for D materials • - Brick with precast concrete caps - Fitted small stone with precast caps - Large stone or river rock without concrete caps • I - Columnar basalt • Applied lettering such as anodized • aluminum or brushed steel for walls or columns • Pathways of concrete or concrete pavers • Seating opportunities Landscape planting • Public art or water features are optional Estimated Construction Budget: $100,000 - $120,000 • • • Downtown ,1- , +J City of III-10 • • • 1 1 1. a r • n - DOWNTOWN TIGARD • Project Description This was an optional gateway design for this • Syr.`' location. It was not the option referred b the Streetscape Working Group. The intent was to • explore forms without the traditional columns, • and a palette of materials more natural in character. • Key Features Low walls creating intimate spaces with • seating: • - Columnar or stacked basalt • - Stacked "field" stone - River rock • Native plants, grasses and paving in a • n ° - textured grid • Public art, water feature (optional) 0 • Estimated Construction Budget: • $60,000 - $70,000 • • • • • • • • • • • Downtown I. 1' . City • • , III-I1 • Gateways and Hublic Spaces ~o . DOWNTOWN TIGARD ° Project Description o O O This was a traditional gateway design for this location. It was not the option preferred by the . Streetscape Working Group. A more natural character was selected. Key Features • • Small plaza with sand-set concrete pavers • Masonry seat wall • Compass rose in paving . • Landscaping and trees Optional Features • Information kiosk • Clocktower ti Public art © Public restrooms • Estimated Construction Budget: y $105,000 - $120,000 77, Downtown .1' Plar 1 . City of III-12 ~J 10 • • Gateways and Public Spacei. 1! 111111111t: 11 1 A 5 • w :4 DOWNTOWN TIGARD Aft U0 • O r ~ ' Project Description • O O • Considerably less vehicle traffic and more • pedestrian traffic can be expected at this gateway. It was conceptually designed as a • small public space (i.e. urban room) more • than a gateway (i.e. portal). The space will provide a small pedestrian plaza along Main • Street as a place to linger or to orient oneself • to downtown as a visitor. More naturalistic • forms and materials (absent the traditional icon of columns) were preferred by the SWIG. • • Key Features • Columnar basalt or low walls of fitted • stone at seat wall height (15-18 inches) • ' " Stormwater treatment planters (pending • full analysis of stormwater requirements) Distinctive paving • i1 Curbless street design (western edge) • On-street parking Natural stone bollards for parking and crosswalks • • '''h' Optional Features Wayfinding kiosk for downtown • f' y, Clock tower • Decorative railroad barrier fencing 5 x Artistic painting and uplighting of the understructure of the Highway 99W overpass R~ Estimated Construction Budget: • • $120,000 $140,000 • • Downtown .1' Plar- +J City • • III-13 • p• ,OPTION 1 GATEWAYS: Varying the Materials Choosing different materials from the Unifying Elements palette can alter the quality of the gateways, softening the forms, making them less heavy, more transparent or a more irregular. The Unifying Elements palette is intended to be flexible and allow . the kind of variety illustrated below to emerge in the final design. I` Iwo Brick and Black Railing: Open railing replaces the ° masonry wall. ova C i • ~ f 1 S Columnar Basalt Stone: Naturalistic materials replace "bricks s and mortar." Fundamental forms of columns and walls ` ~Q o are still visible. y 1 Stone Columns and Walls: Walls and column move toward naturalistic materials. 1 ~ • III-14 • • o t • • 0 0 • 0 x, DOWNTOWN TIGARD 0 • e` • . ` Project Description WON; • A roundabout at Burnham Street and Ash • Avenue will be a second "portal" into downtown. It is likely that future development • along Burnham Street will concentrate a • higher amount of retail and pedestrian- oriented uses north of Ash Avenue. In that • scenario, the roundabout will be a visual • marker for a shift in land use types. It will also visually mark the shift to significantly • wider sidewalks along Burnham Street. • Q Q ; , Realignment of Ash Avenue will be required. As a traffic management device, the • roundabout will be fully functional when ° o extensions of Ash Avenue occur. • _ Key Features • t Landscaped central portion of the N, roundabout • Optional aesthetic enhancements include: • 1 - Low, curving walls of fitted stone to © segment the inner circle • D - Columnar basalt stone for the inner ' circle • - Flowering trees • Curb extension areas on each comer of the intersection may be used for stormwater • , treatment (bioretention) planters Estimated Construction Budget: • Included in Burnham Street Construction • v`' Budget. See Project Appendix, • City • • III-15 • Gateways and Pu Vic Spaces • 11,11-11,41E R-- _C~ I 00 Ar,, / • f ~ • DOWNTOWN TIGARD • Project Description fil Physical and visual remoteness from aJ downtown are limiting factors for the potential • uses and importance of this small park area. However, it may be possible to develop a - - - - - a small neighborhood park and children's play • area under the existing tree canopy. An • Q © improved and well lighted pathway } connection will provide access to downtown • a • via West Commercial Street. Park development maybe an interim use. • Future access and circulation strategies to • o mitigate the negative impacts of Highway • s 99W congestion may dramatically change the long-term use and character of this site. Those strategies are currently being studied. • ~ Key Features ~ • Play area for children 2 to 6 years old • j Lighted pathway connection to West • Commercial Street _ u Preservation of existing tree canopy • Q. 1 Enhancement of the tree understory with • d native plants • • Estimated Construction Budget: $100,000-$115,000 • • • • • f. • Downtown ,1' , • 1 • III-16 +-J City • • _ • 0 • r~ r r ~ ~ r ~ • ~Amlkq MA 01 • > F L m I r Compost • Bins DOWNTOWN TIGARD 4 • Project Description • A temporary demonstration garden for urban Native sustainable practices applied to home gardens • saroen and small businesses can be developed on two ° +io•k.. r' vacant tax lots. The focus could be sustainable • 'Gar illative : horticultural practices for the home garden, water conservation and generation of solar • Play Area power to supplement conventional electrical Uwe or Y ,,„Y;.• Meow - I power sources. The garden can also serve as a • PV Fountain supporting space for downtown events and • :yT:,rt>>_;. _.a.,. F festivals. This concept for a demonstration arden is 1:.=,` intended to be an interim use. The TDIP has sa :r :Native • na>!)ih5} Nr)) N.)}» } ; identified the potential within the vicinity of ,f..:•~:• Garden ~ • ` ' " this site for development of a performing arts • Rcenter. Other redevelopment opportunities al may occur as well. If redevelopment occurs, • incorporation of the educational aspects of the 0 Existing ` `3 s demonstration garden into the Fanno Creek • / Douglas Fir Public Area is encouraged. • r :1 Key Features • Small pavilion to be used for educational • uses (e.g. organized "how to" classes and • information) • Native landscaping and wildflowers with signage indicating characteristics and potential uses in the home garden Y,~{fi qrt r • ~i,~ ' 'r ; t' ° • Demonstration composting bins • ~i,,~,I~`~-~ Demonstration of rain harvesting and infiltration techniques • v~ ,`t? , Play area for children 2 to 6 ears old • re G Optional water feature in lieu of the play • area • Estimated Construction Budget: • $140,000 - $155,000 • 1 +J City • • 111 -17 l~ 0 lgr~ - --~iA Agenda Item # Meeting Date 9-19-06 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue/Agenda Title MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program) Application Process Status Report Prepared By: Duane Roberts Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay L ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND KEY FACTS What is the status of the applications to Metro for the two Downtown MTIP projects? STAFF RECOMMENDATION This is an information-only item. No Council action is required. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY MTIP identifies how all federal transportation money is scheduled to be spent in the Portland Metropolitan Region. This includes some $30 million in flexible funds to finance a wide variety of transportation-related projects and programs. Metro distributes this flexible money to local jurisdictions, public agencies, and special districts based on applications submitted by project sponsors. The Council previously authorized the submittal of two Downtown-related projects for 2008-11 MTIP funding: redesign of the transit center site and retrofitting the western half of the Main Street to full "Green Street" standards. Also of interest is that Metro is the sponsor of a Westside (Powerline) Trail project application that would provide $300,000 for master planning all the gaps in the 15-mile trail. This includes funding for the Bull Mountain segment located inside the City. Since the project proposal due date, Metro staff has completed technical evaluations of all the 64 MTIP applications submitted and compiled a First Cut List of projects, representing approximately 150% of available funding. The two Tigard-sponsored projects and the Westside Trail project are on this 150% list of projects recommended for further consideration. The next step in the selection process includes TPAC (Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee) review and action on the First Cut List at its September 29`h meeting. This is followed by a three-month public hearing and comment period, leading to a JPACT Qoint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) January, 2007, decision on a recommended 100% project list. In February, Metro Council holds public hearings and adopts a funding list. The obligation of funds for first-year projects takes place in October, 2010. Gus Duenas will be present at the Council meeting to discuss the MTIP selection process and to answer questions Council may have. He also will present an overview of public involvement and political considerations involved in the application process and will highlight potential strategies the City may wish to consider in support of the two Tigard- specific projects. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This is an information-only agenda item. I:\LRPLNWouncil Materials\2006\9-19-06 MTIP Update AIS.doc 1 COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT The two Tigard-sponsored projects are consistent with 2006 Council goal of Implementing the Downtown Plan and with the Community Character and Quality of Life Visioning goals of upgrading the Central Business District (Goals 1 and 2). ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES The grant amounts requested for the Station and Green Streets projects are $160,000 and $2.54 million, respectively. In the case of both projects, the required local match shares are 10.3%. To improve these projects' funding chances, staff is proposing respective over-matches of $40,000 (20.0% of the total project cost) and $500,000 (16.4% of the total project cost). The funding source in the case of both projects would be Gas Tax dollars. The Metro application process calls for grants to be awarded for federal years 2010 and 2011. No local matching dollars have been allocated as yet. I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2006\9-19-06 WIP Update AIS.doc 2 q/l12 G~ l DRAFT M ETRO 2007 Transportation Priorities And 2008-11 MTIP: Investing in the 2040 Growth Concept Calendar of Activities 2006 February JPACT/Metro Council adopt Program policy objectives. June 30 Final applications due to Metro. July MTIP Subcommittee: Review of project/program applications. August 14 MTIP Subcommittee review and comment on draft Transportation Priorities technical scores. August 25 TPAC review of draft Metro Staff recommended First Cut List. September 7 ]PACT review of draft Metro Staff recommended First Cut List. September 29 TPAC action on First Cut List. October 10 Metro Council work session on release of First Cut List. October 12 JPACT action on release of First Cut List. October 13- December. 1Public comment period, listening posts on First Cut List and Draft ODOT STIP (including TriMet TIP and SMART programming). Listening Posts: November 9 (Thursday) 5 to 8 PM Springwater Trail Room: City Hall Building 1333 NW Eastman Parkway, Gresham November 13 (Monday) 5 to 8 PM Beaverton CommunitycCenter: Community Room and Vose Room 12350 SW Fifth Street, Beaverton November 14 (Tuesday) 5 to 8 PM Pioneer Community Center 615 Fifth Street, Oregon City November 16 (Thursday) 5 to 8 PM Metro Central: Council Chamber and Council Annex 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland Updated 8130106 e DRAFT December Metro Council work session: policy discussion and direction to staff on narrowing to the Final Cut List. December JPACT briefing on public comment report and policy discussion about direction to staff on narrowing to the Final Cut List. 2007. January ]PACT action on policy direction to staff on narrowing to the Final Cut List. January TPAC action on Final Cut List. February Public hearing on draft Final Cut List at Metro Council. March JPACT action on Final Cut List pending air quality analysis. March Metro Council action on Final Cut List pending air quality analysis. April-June Programming of funds. Air quality conformity analysis. July Public review of draft MTIP with air quality conformity analysis. August Adopt air quality conformity analysis and submit to USDOT for approval. Adopt MTIP, including final Metro area state highway programming and TriMet and SMART Transit Investment Plan, and submit to Governor for approval. Governor approves incorporation of MTIP and STIP and submittal of STIP to USDOT. September Receive concurrence from USDOT: Printed in final STIP. October Obligation of FFY 2008 programming begins. Updated 8130106 Transportation Priorities G'''am 2008-2011 Application Summary Project Metro Staff code Project name Funding Technical Score Recommend- Tier request ation Blke`/Trall i Bk1126 NE/SE 50s Bikewa : NE Thompson to SE Woodstock $1.366 78 x Willamette Greenway Trail in South Waterfront Phase I: SW First tier Bk1048 Gibbs to SW Lowell. $1.800 72 x Bk5026 Trolley Trail: Arista to Glen Echo $1.875 65 x Not in RTP NE/SE 70s Bikeway 70s: NE Killin sworth to SE Clatso $3.698 65 Bk3012 Rock Creek Trail: Orchard Park to NW Wilkins $0.600 64 x Marine Dr. Bike Lanes and Trail Gaps: NE 6th Ave. to NE Bk4011 185th Ave. $1.873 61 Sullivan's Gulch Planning Study: Eastbank Esplanade to Second tier N/A 122nd Ave New project development) $0.224 50-85 **77 x Bk3014, Westside Corridor Trail (aka Beaverton Power Line Trail) - 3072, Tualatin River to Willamette River following the BPA power x 3092 6020 line corridor. New ro•ect development) $0.300 39-94 **87 Bk5053 Milwaukie TC to Lake Oswego TC Trail PE $0.583 59-74 **69 x Bk5193 Willamette Falls Drive Im rovement: Hwy 43 to 10th St $2.987 48 Third tier Bk3114 NE 28th Ave PE: E. Main St to NE Grant $0.300 (40-55)--47 Subtotal $15.606 Boulevard Bd3169 E Baseline: 10th to 19th $3.231 96 x Bd3169 E Burnside/Couch Street: 3rd to 14th $4.700 93 x Bd5134 McLoughlin Blvd Phase 2: Clackamas River to Dunes Dr. $2.800 91 x First tier Bd2015 NE 102nd Avenue Phase 2: Glisan to Stark $1.918 90 x Bd2104 Burnside Road: 181 st to Stark $1.500 90 x Bd1221 Killingsworth Phase 2: Commercial to MLK $1.955 84 x Second tier Bd3020 Rose Bi i extension: Crescent St. to Hall $5.387 78 Third Tier Bd6127 Boones Ferry Rd: Red Cedar to S of Reese Rd $3.491 78 Subtotal $24.982 Diesel Retrofit Sierra Cascade SmartWay Technology and Outreach z DR0001 Center $0.200 n/a Second tier DR8028 Transit Bus Diesel Engine Emission Reduction $3.592 n/a x Subtotal $3.792 Freight: ; Fr4044 82nd Avenue/Columbia Blvd Intersection Improvement $2.000 86.75 x First tier N Portland Rd/Columbia Boulevard Intersection Fr0002 Improvements (Project development) $0.538 (66.25-91.25)**88 x N Burgard/Lombard Street PE/ROW: Columbia to UPRR Third tier Fr0001 Bridge $3.967 70 Subtotal $6.506 Green Streets•Culvert' ; McLoughlin Blvd (Hwy 99E) PE: Kellogg Lake culvert/dam x First tier GS5049 removal $1.055 100 Subtotal $1.055 Green Streets Retrofit GS1224 NE Cull Boulevard: Prescott to Killin sworth $3.207 77.50 x - GS605Q Tigard Main-Street: Hwy 99W to Commuter Rail $2.540 72 Firsttier Subtotal $5.747 Large Bridge a RR1010 Morrison Bridge Deck Replacement $2.000 75.75 x Second tier Subtotal $2.000 Pedestrian Pd2057 Hood Avenue: SE Division to SE Powell $0.887 90 x Pd1160 Foster-Woodstock: SE 87th to SE 101st $1.931 87 x First tier Pd5052 17th Ave: SE Ochoco to SE Lava Drive $1.655 82 x Pd1120 Sand Blvd Pedestrian Improvements $0.712 70 • Hall Blvd Bike/Ped crossing study: Fanno Creek trail and Second tier Pd6007 Hall (New project development) $0.359 (40-80)-'67 Pd6117 Pine Street: Willamette Street to Sunset Blvd $1.100 47 Third tier Subtotal $6.643 Transportation Priorities 2008-2011 Application Summary Project Metro Staff code Project name Funding Technical Score Recommend- Tier request ation Planning P10006 Metro MPO planning $1.993 n/a x P10005 Metro RTP Corridor First Tier $0.600 n/a x P10002 Metro Livable Streets Policy and Guidebook Update $0.200 n/a x Pd8035 Pedestrian Network Analysis and transit access $0.247 n/a x P10003 Tanasborne Town Center $0.200 n/a x Second tier P10001 Metro Big Streets: design solutions for 2040 corridors $0.250 n/a x P10004 Hillsboro Regional Center $0.350 n/a x P10007 Happy Valley Town Center $0.432 n/a x Subtotal $4.272 Regional Travel Options n/a RTO Program $4.447 n/a x First tier n/a Individualized Marketing Program Add $0.600 n/a x n/a Additional TMA Program Support Add Second tier $0.600 n/a x Subtotal $5.647 Road,Capaclty. • i, RC5069 Harmon Road: 82nd Ave to Highway 224 $1.500 84.50 x First tier RC3030 Farmington Road: SW Murray to SW Hocken $4.284 80.75 x RC3016 Tualatin-Sherwood Road ATMS: 99W to 1-5 $1.561 77.00 x RC3113 10th Avenue: Southbound right turn lane $0.600 76.25 x RC7036 190th: Pleasant View/Hi hland to 30th $3.967 75.50 Second tier RC5101 Clackamas Count ITS New programmatic) $0.592 n/a x RO0001 ITS Programmatic Allocation New $3.000 n/a x RC3023 Highway 217 Environmental Assessment: Allen to Denny $0.500 (47-77)--59 x RC7000 172nd Avenue: Sunn side Road to Multnomah Count line $1.500 69.50 Cornell Road System Management: Downtown Hillsboro to RC3150 US 26 $2.002 67.75 Third tier RC2110 Wood Village Boulevard: Halsey to Arata $0.643 61.50 RC3192 Sue/Dogwood Connection $3.455 30.25 Subtotal $23.603 Road :Reconstruction , Division Streetscape and Reconstruction Project: SE 6th to 79 RR1214 39th $2.000 Second Tie RR2081 223rd RR Undercrossing $1.000 76 Subtotal $3.000 Transit . TO 106 lEastside Streetcar: NW 10th to NE Oregon $1.000 80 x Tr8035 On-Street Transit Facilities $2.750 74 x First tier South Corridor Ph. 2: Preliminary Engineering ( Existing Tr1003 project development) $2.000 (85-100)"100 x 60 hd-tlgr Tr8025 JYRedesign (New project development) $0.160 (33-68)**55 C7" Subtotal $5.910 Transit Oriented Development ` . ` TD8005a TOD Implementation Program $4.000 97 x First tier TD8005b Centers Implementation Program $2.000 82-97 *`96 x Hollywood Transit Center Redesign and Development (New X Second tier TD8025 project development $0.202 (80-95)""94 Subtotal $6.202 Bond Repayment $18.600 Grand Total $133.564 " project received a weighted score and a range.