City Council Packet - 01/19/2010 Revised 1/15/10 — Added Agenda Item
No. 7 — Discuss Mayor /Council Proposed
Budget
14
'1 City of Tigard
:,:.,_ ,.:=4 „„:„,•.,,,,,,,x T Workshop Meeting - Agenda
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE /TIME: January 19, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 1.3 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1'
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
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 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead
time as possible. 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).
CABLE VIEWERS: The City Council Workshop meeting is taped and will be broadcast at the following times on
Channel 30:
Thursday noon Sunday noon
Friday 10:00 a.m. Monday 6:00 a.m.
Tuesday 2:00 p.m.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
• TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 19, 2010
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 -639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 1 of 3
II City of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting — Agenda
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE /TIME: January 19, 2010 . — 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
• 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.
6:30 p.m
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - 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. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TREE CODE
AMENDMENTS
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
4. WORKSHOP NO. 3 ON DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS (CPA
2009 - 00003)
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 19, 2010 _
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 2 of 3
5. REVIEW DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
6. DISCUSS ISLAND ANNEXATION INITIATIVE
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
7. DISCUSS 'PROPOSED MAYOR AND COUNCIL BUDGET FOR 2010 -11
• Staff Report: Administration Department
8. ADJOURNMENT
I: \ADM \CATHY \CCA\2010 \100119 workshop.doc
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 19, 2010
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 3 of 3
r'
Agenda Item # .02
Meeting Date January 19, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Annual Joint Meeting with the Committee for Citizen Involvement
Prepared By: Marissa Daniels Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The purpose of the joint meeting will be to update Council on the status of the.Committee for Citizen Involvement's
goals set for 2009, and seek suggestions for-the Committee's goals in 2010. . This meeting will allow both sides an
opportunity to ask questions and provide information to one another. In addition, Council will be asked to finalize
topics recommended by the CCI for discussion at the 2010 Fanno Creek Conference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to the Committee for Citizen Involvement and staff, as appropriate.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Committee for Citizen Involvement's (CCI) mission statement reads,
"The Tigard CCI reviews the form and process of two -way communication between the City and its residents
to improve those communications and to encourage City residents to be more involved with City affairs."
The Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement chapter was developed under the direction of the Committee for Citizen
Involvement over 2007 and adopted in early February, 2008. Goal 1.1, addresses the CCI and its role in Tigard:
Policy 1 The City shall maintain a Committee for Citizen Involvement representative of a broad cross -
section of the Community to:
A. Make recommendations to the City regarding ways to engage the public in City issues,
projects, and the land use process;
B. Help implement and develop a public information and citizen involvement program
applicable to a wide range of issues; and
C. Support the enhancement of Tigard's overall level and quality of civic engagement by
promoting meaningful citizen involvement in city government.
The Committee has been hard at work over the past year on a few major tasks — review and approval of
communication and. public involvement plans, 2010 Census Complete Count Committee, implementation of the
Neighborhood Network program, and the Fanno Creek Conference.
I:A 1,RPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 AIS Joint Meeting with Council.doc 1
The CCI is 'charged with the oversight of the Neighborhood Network program and its effectiveness. Major
accomplishments of the Program and the Committee include three active steering committees, 21 confirmed steering
committee members, and 3 annual neighborhood events held in 2009. Many activities will continue into 2010 including
formation of Neighborhood Steering Committees, administration of the two grant programs, and an open house to be
held in February. ,
The Committee set four goals to accomplish in 2009, and their progress �n each is detailed in Attachment 1. The CCI
would like to receive input from City Council regarding their expectations for the Committee in 2010. The CCI will set
goals for 2010 at their January and February meetings.
This joint meeting will also serve as an opportunity for the Council and CCI to discuss topics for the 2010 Fanno Creek
Conference. Potential topics are listed in Attachment 2. -
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Memorandum dated January 4, 2010 to City Council
Attachment 2: Memorandum dated December 31, 2009 to City Council
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
I: \Cit \ Council Packets \ Packet '.10 \100119 \1 -19 -10 AIS Joint Meeting with Council.doc
2
" City of Tigard ATTACHMENT I
T I G A R D Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner
Re: 2009 Committee for Citizen Involvement Goals Update
Date: January 4, 2010
CCI 2009 Goals Update:
2009 Goals Accomplishments
1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th uarter
a. Outreach to Methods, CERT Underrepresented
underrepresented Program Groups Follow -up
groups
b. Respond to City Transportation US Census Fanno Creek Fanno Creek
Council ad hoc Committee Complete Count Conference Conference Topics
requests Committee Logistics Discussion, Census
Program, Census Discussion Complete Count
Partner Support Committee
Program Training
c. Evaluate public Capital Main Street Green
involvement plans Improvement Plan, Street, Downtown
Urban Forestry Circulation Plan,
Master Plan, Street Transportation
Maintenance Fee System Plan, Hwy
99W Projects
d. Coordinate with
CPO program
e. Reach out to
Tigard business
communi
2. Develop an active steering committee in each Neighborhood Network Area
a. Neighborhood 16 Confirmed 20 Confirmed 21 Confirmed Neighborhood
Network Steering Committee Steering Committee Steering Committee Network Open
application review Members, 3 Active Members, 3 Active members, 3 Active House Update
Steering Steering Steering
Committees Committees, 3 Committees, 3
Annual Events Annual Events
2009 Goals Accomplishments
1st Quarter 2nd • uarter 3rd • uarter 4th • uarter
3. Develop an outline to implement a Tigard Civic Leadership Academy
a. Present to City Brainstorm, Shift from
Council Recommendation Leadership
to Council Academy to Fanno
Creek Conference
4. Recognize Good Citizenship [COMPLETE]
a. Tigard Chamber Development of Chamber Banquet
Shining Stars Nomination held April 24, 2009,
Banquet Materials Mr. Bob Brown
chosen as award
recipient
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner
Re: 2010 Fanno Creek Conference Topics Suggestions
Date: December 31, 2009
At the. City Council meeting on November 10, 2009 Council narrowed the CCI's brainstorm of possible
Fanno Creek Conference (FCC) topics to four general ideas. On December 16, 2009 the CCI agreed to
forward, the following list of topics to Council for final consideration. Under each topic is a short
description by the Fanno Creek Conference Project Team (Liz Newton, Assistant City Manager, Susan
Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, Dianna Weston, Community Event
Coordinator, and Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner) of potential topic format and speakers.
Topics
1. Urban Wildlife: shoot `em or feed `em?
• Short, snappy, humorous
• Potential Speakers: Mark from Mark and Brian radio show, Audubon Society, Tualatin
Wildlife refuge, Norm Penner or Mike Houck
• Shorter Topic, Introductory Exercise
2. Not in my backyard! Granny Flats and Condos
• Potential Speakers: Metro, Developer, couple from article in the Tigard Times
• Traditional Format
3. What will you vote for? Mock Public Facilities Ballot Title and Public Hearing
• Alternate format:, Present attendees with a mock voter's pamphlet and include two
arguments, one for, and one against. After a short for /against example, floor will be
opened to attendees. Straw poll taken at the end.
• Potential Speakers: Tigard Toastmasters, particularly to present pros and cons
4. Rails, Trails, and Automobiles: Where do we put our limited resources?
• Format: Potential for Mayor to give an overview of balanced transportation.
• Potential Speakers: TBD
Additional Items
• The CCI has talked about changing the name of the Fanno Creek Conference
o Current name is not descriptive of conference
o Do we have a 2010 hidden asset in Tigard? (To keep with the theme of FCC)
o Complete Community Conference?
• Lunchtime speaker about the importance of civic engagement
r
,Aecig brodwu -Nets .a?iJt I NEWS YOU CAN USE I O cD
� S
cr
3 O
It's Your Neighb � • 0
2
O
Neighborhood Network Program
Although citizens in the City view some issues from a citywide perspective, more often issues
that affect citizens on a day -to -day basis are unique to their neighborhood.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Network is to involve citizens as partners in addressing
their neighborhood issues and strengthen connections between neighbors and the city through:
> Neighborhood web pages
> Opportunities to comment on development proposals
> Annual neighborhood beautification /clean -up activity
> School to Neighborhood Connections
> Neighborhood Watch
> Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT)
> Capital Improvement Plan input
> Mediation
> Annual Neighborhood events
> CRIME Spotter
> National Night Out
> Cityscape neighborhood news
> Committee for Citizen Involvement
The Committee for Citizen Involvement, the body charged with oversight of citizen
involvement in the city, is charged with the oversight of the Neighborhood Network Program
and its effectiveness.
• Neighborhood Network Boundaries
The City is divided into 13 geographic areas around elementary schools and major
transportation routes. The Committee for Citizen Involvement sets neighborhood area
boundaries with input from neighborhood residents. A neighborhood boundary map can be
viewed on the city's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/neighborhood/docs/
boundary_map.pdf.
Contact: Liz Newton I liz @tigard - or.gov 503.718.2412
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Boulevard I Tigard, OR 97223 1 503.639.4171
J
Agenda Item # 3
Meeting Date January 19, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Regarding Tree Code Amendments, CG lb
Prepared By: John Floyd Dept Head Approval: /W
41 City Mgr Approval: CR
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Receive overview of the Tree Code Amendment Project, and host a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission
to discuss guiding principles for Tree Code Amendment Project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive overview of the Tree Code Amendment Project, provide direction or feedback if desired, and engage in
dialogue with the Planning Commission to clarify guiding principles for the Tree Code Amendment Project.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At this meeting, Council will host a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss aspects of the upcoming
Tree Code Amendment Project. Prior to the discussion, both Council and the Planning Commission will receive an
overview of the project components and phasing. A summary of the project is included as Attachment 1.
To help facilitate a productive outcome, staff has created a list of topics to frame the conversation; this list was
developed in consultation with the two bodies. As stated at previous meetings, these topics are not exhaustive of all
the issues that will be faced by decision makers when implementing new urban forestry regulations. The intent of
this list is to help establish guiding principles for the project and to focus the joint meeting on issues that are
expected to be the most challenging to decide and will produce the greatest amount of public discourse and public
comment. This list of topics is included as Attachment 2.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
2009 Council Goal lb: Update Tree Code to meet Comprehensive Plan
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Overview of Tigard Tree Code Update Project
Attachment 2: Topics for Joint Council and Commission Discussion
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
ATTACHMENT I
Tigard Tree Code Amendment Project
Overview
The following is a summary of project goals, key players, and the major components of the Tree
Code Amendment Project.
Project Goals
Adopt a comprehensive update of Tigard's urban forestry regulations in a manner that achieves the
following outcomes:
1. Implements the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. Implements the Goals and Sub -Goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan;
3. Consistency with state and regional policies and standards; and
4. Consistency with Council direction and community preferences.
These project goals can be realized through Council adoption of:
A. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection standards in the
Community Development Code, including the identification and abatement of hazard trees;
B. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection regulations in the
Tigard Municipal Code, including the identification and abatement of hazard trees;
C. A tree grove inventory and protection program; and
D. A design and maintenance manual for trees.
Public Involvement
The project will involve a high level of public involvement, to be coordinated through a Public
Involvement Plan that will be reviewed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) in
February and March of 2010. The role of the CCI is to review the process of communications with
residents. Based upon recent projects and Council desires for innovative outreach programs, the
following items will be included in the project's public involvement efforts:
➢ A Communication Plan to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity to access information
on issues in an understandable form, to communicate directly with the City, and participate
in the planning process. Each phase of the project will be broken into discrete components
to ensure transparency and understanding of project milestones. The plan will speak to the
ways in which citizens and stakeholders will be able to receive information, communicate
with City staff, and participate in the Tree Code Amendment project during each phase.
Methods for communication and participation are expected to include the following:
o Project Website
o Informational documents including maps, flyers, factsheets, and other educational
handouts
o Cityscape articles and press releases
o Listserve messages
o Open Houses and Public Forums
o Informational Booths at Community Events
o Presentations to Community Groups such as service clubs and key stakeholders
o Opportunities for public comment at meetings of the Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC), Planning Commission, and City Council
Key Players
Project Team
The Project Team (PT) will consist of City staff and the project consultant hired to assist with the
Tree Grove components of the project. The PT will be responsible for developing draft documents,
facilitating meetings of various committees and hearing bodies, and coordinating the project with the
leadership of the City.
Technical Advisory Committee
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of public agency and public utility stakeholders
will review and provide input. The TAC will include representatives . from all affected Tigard
departments, Metro, Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Portland Gas and Electric, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and Clean Water Services.
Citizen Advisory Committee
A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will be composed of Citizen Stakeholders that will meet and
provide input to staff on the update. The CAC will be composed of representatives from existing
Tigard committees that have some aspect of tree regulation or maintenance in their charge including
the Tree Board, the Planning Commission, and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board.
Peer Review Committee
A Peer Review Committee (PRC) will provide a technical evaluation of the draft amendments prior
to consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. The function of the PRC will be to
provide a professional evaluation of the draft amendments to ensure they are technically sound and
are likely to perform as intended. Membership of the PRC would include private and public sector
professionals and stakeholders with experience in urban forestry.
2
I: \LRPIN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 1 Joint Meeting with Planning Commission re Tree Code.docx
Major Tasks
Code Amendments
Amendments to the Community Development Code & Tigard Municipal Code will address the
following issues related to tree management:
• Tree Removal, Protection, and Maintenance Standards
• Mitigation Standards
➢ Landscape Planting and Maintenance Standards
➢ Street Tree regulations
• Nuisance Trees and Hazard Abatement
➢ Code Flexibility
Tree Grove Inventory and Protection Program
The project will develop a tree grove inventory, an Economic, Social, Environment, and Energy
(ESEE), an analysis required by Oregon land use law, and grove protection incentives and /or
protection standards. A consultant will be hired to assist in this aspect of the project.
Design and. Maintenance Manual
The project will , include the development of a design, protection, and maintenance manual to assist
developers and property owners. This manual will include drawings and specifications for species
selection, planting, protection, and maintenance.
Phasing
The Tigard Tree Code Amendment Project is anticipated to take approximately one -year to
complete, with project initiation beginning on January 19, 2009 after the Council and Planning
Commission provide additional feedback regarding guiding principles. The target date for
completion is winter of 2011, with project completion achieved by Council adoption of all project
components. A more detailed timeline will be provided at the meeting on January 19, 2010.
3
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 1 point Meeting with Planning Commission re Tree Code.docx
ATTACHMENT 2
Tree Code Amendment Project
Topics for joint Council and Commission Discussion
1. Council members and the Planning Commissioners identified the following issues to
help identify the degree of consistency and divergence with regard to the development of
new urban forestry regulations.
a. The appropriate balance of Mitigation versus Preservation; and
b. How far the City should go in respecting "property rights" versus limiting an owner's
• ability to develop property in order to save or plant trees.
2. Council members expressed interest in communicating guiding principles, specific
requests, or desired outcomes to the Planning Commission with regard to:
a. Simplicity in the new code — avoid complexity; and
b. A two -tier approach with both an objective and discretionary approval path.
3. The Planning Commission expressed interest in specific advice or guidance from the
Council regarding the following aspects of the tree code amendments:
a. To what extent does the Council desire flexibility to accommodate desired project
density?
b. To what degree should the Tree Grove Protection Program emphasize incentives,
regulatory protections, or a combination of the two?
4. The Planning Commission suggested using the goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan
to help focus the joint discussion on the kinds of outcomes that are desired and
achievable through the Tree Code Amendment Project. Staff suggests focusing on the
following specific goals and sub -goals as they are expected to produce the greatest
amount of deliberation and public comment during the course of the project.
Goal 1: Revise Tigard's Tree Code
Sub -Goal 1.1: Revise Tree Code to allow for more flexibility and ensure a qualitative
approach to tree preservation.
Sub -Goal 1.2: Revise tree code so that standards do not solely impact those property
owners with trees.
Goal 2: Revise Tigard's Landscaping Code
Goal 3: Develop a Tree Grove Preservation Program
Sub-Goal 3.1: Focus on preserving large groves of native trees.
Sub -Goal 3.2: Develop a flexible and incentive based grove preservation program
that meets the needs of affected property owners.
Goal 4: Develop a Hazard Tree Identification and abatement program
Sub -Goal 4.1: Establish a City storm and hazard tree response program.
Sub -Goal 4.2: Establish a City program to facilitate tree hazard identification and
abatement on private property.
Goal 6: Develop an urban forestry stewardship program
Sub -Goal 6.1: Prevent pre - development clearing of lots.
5. The Council expressed interest in discussing alternative outreach approaches beyond
the "typical" 'efforts for development of the tree code amendments.
•
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 2 joint Meeting with Planning Commission.docx
2
•
Agenda Item # �(
Meeting Date January 19, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Workshop #3 on Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards CPA 2009 -00003
(Council Goals # la and 2b)
Prepared By: Sean Family Dept Head Approval: 1111P City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The last of three workshops has been scheduled with Council to review-.and discuss the draft Downtown Code
Amendments and Design Standards. At a public hearing scheduled for January 26, 2010, Council will be requested to
consider adoption of the new Downtown comprehensive plan, development code, and zoning map amendments (CPA
2009 - 00003).
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review, discuss, and provide feedback on the proposed Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards to
facilitate the Council public hearing on January 26, 2010.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff presented an overview of the proposed Downtown Land Use and Design Guidelines Code Amendments at
Council workshops on October 20, 2009 and December 15, 2009.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the code amendments to Council at an October 19 public
hearing. A second public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission on December 7 to discuss changes
that were made to be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. Property owners were notified of the change in
the public hearing schedule. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the code amendments
to Council.
Attachment 1 consists of the updated Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments Draft #5.2, (dated December
30, 2009). This version differs from the prior draft version reviewed by Council in October by including the code
language revisions to meet the Transportation Planning Rule and language allowing "pedestrian- oriented" roof signs
(2 feet above the roof line allowed on buildings 20 feet and less).
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
•
Council Goal 1: Implement Comprehensive Plan
a. Update Tigard zoning maps based on Comprehensive Plan Update
•
In support of Council Goal 1a, the proposed Development Code Amendments would implement the following
goals. of the Comprehensive Plan:
Chapter 15: Special Planning Areas: Downtown
Goal 15.1: The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the
community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural
resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live, work, play, and shop in an
environment that is uniquely Tigard.
Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village.
Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban. Renewal
b. Complete land use regulations and design standards for the Downtown.
Long Term Goals: Implement. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments Draft - #5.2, dated December 30, 2009
FISCAL NOTES
Not Applicable
•
Il
Proposed Downtown Tigard
TIGARD Code Amendments - :DRAFT #5,2
A.
di ,•- .
6
•
r MP
9 i , liti i ,,,...0 . 4..
--- il 4 *
silliii 1041 4
''' Z A
..> dil li r ilW...-■- -- ----- x...........—...- awir itillit j l irTi llit ir i ' '-.4---
` 2„„„ , II. it ;i. . � iI����I1111111M + ® W I ��i c - �
41 47lllk - I 1 A I 111 s �' -_-_ - - - - -- -- _ ' , N' !l � � m o � - I f r . Fi 1j1 1 4 11 1 . c s - II�In/1 I 'p i U is 1 t o ���` 0 �? '� 7 .•,.1� � I� �aJ n� `- I f ID fIIIJOU ��_ _ ' 1 � 1� j. " , . �
' . v t ► =i ll ° s n� 1'IIIIUi� / /f��f i -. 1; .- > ^^ im
owes ' o •` . 1 i Ihl li�ll 1 t ��- ��� •
1, � h � ► W u , I i : , M►., `...�� I 1 A li . . � -- ;
1; ! E `'a� +j ,�`�NP r i --�I .„ �� 4. /l
111i Wellai s l i ifflittli*I
•
V ...-- .... ..................2-
. "..
3 i '�. 4'�- �"F � '! e� 3 �.ni CU '9 Jd .. R R ���Y"'° � � � �i•r
l a � �' � .� S a�� t � ,, a �1 i � aF w �,:� ✓� � '� °G rr`.F a� t 5j� � .
1 Ihtroducti a n sa ��.
.. . 5cyd•• F. ,.. 's.- ,` . f f .,.. ._ ` - - } r„ s tir a`':; _ . 1,SLvF. .enwt.z...et . �iy _.. =4C" o. :��e _�;t a s
The proposed Code. Amendments are intended to implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The Special Planning Areas-
Downtown chapter of the Comprehensive Plan establishes the policy framework for necessary code amendments. Plan policies and
concepts will be•implemented by amendments to the Community Development Code.
Development, code amendments fall into two basic categories:,
1. Amendments to the existing code section:
Decision- Making Procedures (18.390)
The proposed amendments establish 3 new decision making procedures: Design Review Compliance Letter (Type I), Downtown
Design Administrative Review (Type II) and Downtown Design Review (Type
Commercial Zoning Districts (18.520)
The proposed amendments modify Commercial Zoning Districts (Chapter 18.520), These changes establish a Mixed Use - Central
Business District (MU -CBD.) It would replace the Business District (CBD) zone and expand the zone boundaries to include
all properties in the Urban Renewal. District — which are currently zoned Central , Business District (CBD), General Commercial
, (C -G), Commercial and Professional Commercial (C -P), R -12 (PD),, 3 MUR -1, and R -4.5. The zone will also encompass seven
properties adjacent to, but outside the URD - zoned CBD (PD) and R -12 (PD.)
The following chapters will be updated as; they apply to the new zone:
18.120 Definitions
18.130 Use Classifications
18.310 Summary of Land Use Permits
18.745 Landscaping Screening
18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements
18.780 Signs
18.795 Visual Clearance Areas
18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards
2. New code.section:
Tigard Downtown District Site and Building Design Standards and Objectives (18.610)
The Tigard Downtown District Site and Building Design Standards Chapter is a new section of the development code. The chapter
includes a map ,designating the four design sub -areas of the larger MU -CBD zone and their corresponding development standards
(building height, setbacks, density, etc.) The chapter also includes building and site design standards, requirements for special areas
and sites, and provisions for adjustments for specific conditions. The site and design standards are triggered when application for
new development is made.
Deleted section indicated by ems-outs.
Sections added existing chapters indicated by underlined and bold.
tSta,,(f commentarypappears to shadedrbox on rzght;sade >
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 t Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments I 1
'," 4 r - c"-s , u� a ' 'fie fir
1 r �
_ 0 Part 1: Amendments to ,the Existing ode .Secti®ns - � sn e
Chapter 1,8.390
DECISION- MAKING PROCEDURES
SECTIONS:
18.390:010 Purpose
18.390.020 Description of Decision- Making Procedures
18.390.030 Type I Procedure
18.390.040 Type II Procedure
18.390.050 Type I Procedure
18.39 Type IV Procedure
18.390.070 Special, Procedures _
18.390.080 General Provisions
18.390.010 Purpose
A. Purpose. Thepurpose;of this chapter is to establish a series of standard decision - making procedures that will enable the City, the applicant,
and all interested parties to reasonably review' applications and participate in the local decision - making process in a timely and effective way.
Each permit or action set forth in Chapters 18.320 — 18.385 has been assigned a specific procedure type.
18.390.020 Description of Decision- Making Procedures
A. General. All development-permit applications shall be decided by using one of the following procedure types. The procedure type assigned
to each action governs the decision- making process for that permit, except to the extent otherwise required by applicable state or- federal
law. The Director shall be responsible for assigning specific procedure types to individual permit or action requests, as requested. Special
alternative decision = malting procedures have been developed by the City in accordance with existing state law, and are codified in Section
18.390.070.
B. Types defined. Thereare four types of decision - making procedures, as follows:.
1. Type I Procedure. Type l procedures apply to ministerial permits and actions containing clear and objective approval criteria. Type I
actions are decided by the Director withoutpublic notice and without a
2. Type II Procedure. Type` l procedures apply to quasi - judicial permits and actions that contain some discretionary criteria. Type II actions
are decided by the Director with public notice and an opportunity.for a hearing. If any party with standing appeals a Director's Type II
decision, the appeal of such decision will be heard by the Hearings Officer;
3. Type III Procedure. Type III procedures apply to quasi - judicial permits and;actions contain discretionary approval
criteria. Type III actions are decided by either the Hearings Office (Type°III -HO)-or the Planning Commission (Type III -PC), or Design
Review Board (Type III- C) with appeals to or review by the City Council;,
4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision, or large -scale
implementation of public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City
Council.
C. Summary offpermits• by decision making procedure type. Table 18.390.1 summarizes the various land use permits by the type of
decision - making ;procedure.
2 I Proposed Downtown Tigard' Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
Table 18.390. 1 ar=;tl : w p 1 ,�1, M:itFt , M
SUMMARY OF PERMITS BY TYPE OF StiT A F F COMMENTARY
DECISION -MAING PROCEDURE
TYPE PERMIT /LAND CROSS-REFERENCE(S)
I (18.390.030) Accessory Residential Units 18.710
•
Development Adjustments 18.370.020 B2
Design Review Compliance Letter (Track 1) 18.610
Home Occupation/Type I 18.742
Landscaping Adjustments
• Existing Street Trees 18.370.020 C4a ;18.745
• New Street Trees 18.370.020 C4b; 18.745
Lot Line'Adjustment r 18.410.040
Minimum Residential Density Adjustment 18.370.020 C2; 18.430;
18.715
Nonconforming Use Confirmation 18.385.030A; 18.760
Parking Adjustments
• Reduction of Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5c; 18.765
in Existing Developments/Transit Imp.
• Reduction in Stacking Lane Length 18.370.020 C5g; 18.765
Signs
• New 18.780
• Fisting 18.780
Site Development/Minor. Modification 18.360.090
Temporary Uses
• Emergency Uses 18.785
• Seasonal/Special Uses 18.785
• Temporary Building 18.785
• Temporary Sales Office/Home. 18.765
Tree Removal
• Removal Adjustment 18.370.020 C7; 18.790
• Removal Permit 18.790
Wireless. Communications Facilities — Setback 18.370.040 C8b; 18798
from Other Towers
1 (18.390.040) Access/Egress Adjustment 18.370.020 C3b
Conditional,Use/Minor Modification 18.330.030
Downtown Design Administrative Review 18.610
(Track 2)
Historic Overlay
• Exterior Alternation 18.740 -
NeW Construction 18.740
Demolition 18.740
Home Occupation/Type H 18.742
DRAFT #5.2. I REVISED 12/30/09 E Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 13
TYPE PERMIT, LAND CROSS-REFERENCE(S) t,a
Land Partitions' 18.420.050
STAFF C0MMENTA;IY
Parking Adjustments
• Reductioniin Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5a; 18.765
• Reduction of Miniinum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5b; 18.765
in New Developments/Transit Imp
• Increase in Maximum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5d; 18.765 • Reduction'inBicycle Parking 18.370.020 C5e; 18765
• Alternate Parking Garage Layout 18.370.020 C5f; 18.765
Sensitive Lands Permits
• In 25 %+ Slope 18.775
• Within.Drainageways 18.775
Within Wetlands' 18.775
Sign Code Adjustment 18.370.020 C6; 18.780
—
Site Development Review v
• New Construction 18.360.090
• Major Modification 18.360.090
Subdivision'Without Planned Development' 18.430.070
Variances 18.370.O10C
Wireless Communication Facilities — 18.370.020 C8a; 18.798
Adjustment to Setback from Residences
Appeals to Hearings Officer 18.390.040G
IIIA Conditional Use
(18.390.050) • Initial 18.330.030
Hearings Officer • Major Modification 18.330.030
Sensitive Lands — Within 100-Year Floodplain 18.775
• In 25 %+ Slope' 18.775
• Within Drainageways' 18.775
• Within Wetlands' 18.775
IIIB Historic Overlay — District Overlay — 18.385.010A; 18.740
(18.390.050) Removal of District Overlay 18.385.O10B; 18.740
(Planning Planned Development — With Subdivision — 18.350.100; 18.430
Commission) , Without Subdivision 18.350.100
Zone Map/Text Change/Quasi-Judicial 18.380.030B
IIIC (Design Downtown`Design Review (Track 3) 18.610
Review'Board)
(18.390.050 )
IV Annexation 18.320
(18.390.060)
Zone Map/Text Change/Legislative 18.380.020
'These may processed as either-Type II or III procedures, pursuant to Section 18.775.020 .
D,and E.
[The' rest of Chapter 1 isunchanged]
4 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30109
Chapter 18.520
1..
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS STA F F CO M M,E N TA R Y .
SECTIONS:
18.520.010 Purpose
18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts
18.520.030 Uses
18.520.040 Development Standards
18.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses
18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines
18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts
A. C -N: Neighborhood Commercial District The C -N zoning district is designed to
provide convenience goods and services within a small duster of stores adjacent to
residential neighborhoods. Convenience goods andserices are those which are purchased
frequently, i.e., at least weekly; for which comparison - buying is not required; and which .
can be sustained in a limited trade area. Such uses include convenience markets, personal
services and repair shops. A limited number of other uses, including but not limited to
restaurants, gas stations, medical centers, religious institutions, transit- related park -and-
ride lots and facilities>with drive -up windows, are permitted conditionally.
B. C -C: Community 'Commercial District The C -C zoning district is designed to
provide convenience shopping facilities which meet the regular needs of nearby residential
neighborhoods: With a service area of about 1.5 miles, such commercial centers typically
range in size from 30,000 - 100,000 gross square feet on sites ranging from 2 - 8 acres.
Separated from other commercially -zoned areas by at least one -half mile, community
commercial centers are intended to serve several residential neighborhoods, ideally at the
intersection of two or more collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and collector
street. Housing is permitted on or above the second floor of commercial structures at a
density not to exceed 12 units/net acre, e.g., the maximum density permitted in ,the R -12
zone. A limited number of other uses, including but not limited to car washes, gas stations,
religious institutions, and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. In
addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the
C -C zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well- integrated, attractively
landscaped, and pedestrian - friendly.
C. C -G: General Commercial District. The C -G zoning district is designed to accommodate
a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area.
Except where non- conforming, residential uses are limited to single- family residences
which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including
but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-
warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline
stations, are permitted conditionally.
D. C -P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C -P zoning district is
designed to accommodate civic , and. business/professional services and compatible support
services,. e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to '
residential areas and major transportation facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull
Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density of 32 units /net acre, i.e.,
equivalent to the. R-40 zoning district, are permitted in conjunction with a commercial -
development. Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted
conditionally. Developments in the C -P zoning district are intended to serve as a buffer
between residential areas; and more - intensive commercial and industrial areas.
1 I. 1 r1 1 1 .... � - '1. . • .. Y. • ■ . •1 • •1. 1 . . �. - 1 •' . ., .
_ - _ _ _ _ _ 1
• A I 1 - •1 - 1 I � � . 1 1 - , � - � • • - ' 1 i - 1 11
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 15
• • . •► -.: • • '. , I ;I : : 1' , - : - ;1 i l • . • 1 " : I . ; ;Itl 1 .. i • • ;I '�l5 "L�=/£21Yl..;
1 1 z3�:nt..d'f'S:Aii,:r, E� P. ` ' £ .9P.:€vh 5 `�a h`SW" ` 1r Yr
.fi � V
, 1.1 `:I ';A : A - - , I it , A i 1111 11 :I 1 r . S /1 R1
. _ .... M , M � E N T
F -F CO:
t 1 - . " • i ;I . 1 1 - , 1 111 . 1 1 t 11 1 - 1 t r 1 11 I.II 1 - , I 411 • •
till A "A 11 -1I " 1t " 11 .1 - , . I I11 I . 1 !,.A
7
E. MU -CBD: Mixed Use - Central Business District. The MU -CBD zoning district is Section E `
designed to provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in Downtown Tigard. The Central Business District (CBD)
A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed -use, multi - family zoning distract will • replaced
and attached 'single family residences are permitted. New development and theM ixed'Use CentralBusiness
redevelopment is required to conform to the standards of Chapter 18:610. • District ;(MU'CBD) ; They new land : -
F MUE: Mixed -Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a use categories for the MU CBD will
majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed -use employment district be'inserted into Table 185201
bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I -5. This zoning district permits a the ` Use'Table For Table 185202
wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, Commercial,,. DevelopmentStan-
civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi - family housing at a maximum density of 25 dards, the CBD column will he
units /acre, equivalent to the R -25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not replaced bya column fo CBD
limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, with an' asterisk directing the u
utilities and transit - related park- and -ride lots, are permitted conditionally Although it is to the DowntownDesignStandards
recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to :and within the chapter, fo'r specific development
Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportation to the greatest standards for the sub areas o the
extent possible; and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra - district pedestrian and zone.
transit trips even for those who drive. The zone may be applied elsewhere in the City through
the legislative process.
G. MUE -1 and MUE -2: Mixed Use Employment Districts. The MUE -1 and 2 zoning
district is designed t� apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and
development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses
are allowed but are limited, and residential uses are permitted which are compatible with
employment character of the area. Lincoln'. Center is an example of an area designated MUE-
1, the high density mixed use employment district. The Nimbus area is an example of an
area designated MUE -2 requiring more moderate densities.
H. MUC: Mixed Use Commercial District. The MUC zoning district includes land around
the Washington Square Mall and land 'immediately west of Highway 217. Primary uses
permitted include office buildings, retail, and service uses. Also permitted are mixed -use
developments and housing at densities of 50 units per acre. Larger buildings are encouraged
in this area with parking under, behind or lo the sides of buildings.
I. MUC -1: Mixed Use Commercial —1. The'MUC -1 zoning district, which is designed to
apply to that portion of the Durham Quarry site within the City of Tigard, is a mixed -use
commercial district bounded by 72nd Avenue, Findlay Street and the Tigard, Tualatin and
Durham city limits. This site is the subject of an intergovernmental agreement between the
cities of Tigard and Tualatin. Pursuant to that agreement the City of Tualatin shall furnish all
planning, building and associated development review /permit services for the property. This
zoning district is intended to mirror the City of Tualatin's Mixed Use Commercial Overlay
District (TDC, Chapter 57). It permits a wide range of uses including commercial lodging,
general retail, offices and. housing; the latter includes multi- family housing at a minimum
density of 25 units /acre and a maximum of 50 units/acre. Additional uses, including but
not limited to major event entertainment and motor vehicle retail fuel sales, are permitted
conditionally. In addition to the standards of this chapter, development within this zone is
subject to the standards of Chapter 18.640.
J. MUR: Mixed Use Residential. Districts. The MUR zoning district is designed to apply
to predominantly residential: areas -where mixed -uses are permitted when compatible with -
the residential use. A high density (MUR -1) and moderate density (MUR -2) designation is
available within the MUR zoning district. (02 -33)
6 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guid elines r r ' � r " , 0 ,
A. Development/design guidelines in the C -C zone. STAFF C O M M E N T A Y
1. The following design guidelines are strongly encouraged for developments within the C -C
district. Conditions of approval of the development plan may include, but are not limited
to, any of the site and building design guidelines deemed appropriate to be mandatory. Existing. .Code:
a. Building design guidelines:
(1) The design of buildings within a community commercial development should
incorporate elements such as special architectural details, distinctive color
schemes, special art and other features, which are sensitive to and enhance
the surrounding area and serve to distinguish the complex from other retail
complexes in the city;
(2) All buildings within a multi - building complex should achieve a unity of design
through the use of similar architectural elements, such as roof form, exterior
building materials, colors and window pattern;
(3) Individual buildings should incorporate similar design elements, such as
surface materials, color, roof, treatment, windows and doors, on all sides of the
building to achieve a unity of design. The sides of.a building which face toward
a public street should include public entrances to the building and windows. to
provide visual access to the activity within the building. The sides of a building
which face toward an adjoining property, but not toward a public street, should
include elements such as windows, doors, color, texture, landscaping or wall
treatment to provide visual interest and prevent the development of a long
continuous blank wall.
b. General site design guidelines: Loading areas should not be located on the side of
a building which faces toward a residential use. Loading areas, if located between
the building and the street, should be oriented away from the street and should be
screened to minimize views of the loading, area from the street and sidewalk.
2. Design standards: The following mandatory design standards apply within the community
commercial district:
a. Internal Walkways.
(1) Walkways, eight feet minimum width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk
or right -of -way to the building(s). At a minimum, walkways shall be located
to connect focus points of pedestrian; activity such as transit stops and street
crossings to the major building entry points;
(2) Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be provided to connect with walkways
or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties to create an integrated
internal walkway system along the desired lines of pedestrian travel. The width
of the walkway should be commensurate with the anticipated level of pedestrian
activity along the connecting walkway.
(a) Walkways shall be provided along the full length of the building on any side
which provides building access to the public or where public parking is
available, to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian access to the building;
(b) On the sides of the building which provide public access into the building,
the walkway should be wide enough to allow for sidewalk seating areas
as well as pedestrian travel. Weather protection of the walkway should be •
provided at a minimum at the entrance area and, if appropriate, along the
entirewalkway. .
(3) Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking areas shall be designed to be .
visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low-
maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks or scored concrete to
enhance pedestrian safety and comfort.
b. Other site development standards:
(1) All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut -off shields to prevent the spillover of
light to adjoining properties;
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 17
(2) Mechanical equipment, if located on the building, shall be located within the W y 51 " ° - `" ` ' W
roof form of the building or enclosed within a screening structure, the design
S.IA COMMENTARY
of which is consistent with the design of the building;
(3) Mechanical equipment, not located on the building, shall be screened from
views from the public street, sidewalk and properties outside the district with
a durable, solid wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a combination of the
above;
(4) All refuse and recycling containers within the district shall be contained within
structures enclosed on all four sides and which are at least as high as the tallest
container within the structure;
(5) Bicycle racks shall be provided on site. Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles
shall be provided for developments having 100 or fewer parking stalls,
notwithstanding Section 18.765.050. For each 100 additional stalls, facilities
for five additional bicycles shall,be provided. Bicycle parking areas shall : not be
located within parking aisles; landscape areas or pedestrian ways. It is strongly
encouraged that bicycle parking areas be covered;
(6) The site development plan incorporate a special feature at the corner of
the site. A special corner feature can be a landscape feature, seasonal color
planting area, sculpture or water feature. The feature shall provide a visual
landmark and some amount of seating area;
(7) Parking areas shall be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and
vehicular movements. Parking area landscaping shall be used to define and
separate parking, access and pedestrian areas within parking lots;
(8) The landscape design for the site shall include plantings which emphasize the
major points of pedestrian and - vehicular access to and within the site;
(9) Site features such as fences, walls,.; refuse and recycling facility enclosures, and
light fixtures shall be designed to be consistent with the scale and architectural
design of the primary structure(s). Such site features shall be designed and
located to, contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development;
(10) In multiple building complexes, buildings shall be located to 'facilitate safe
and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings. On sites which are
adjacent to other properties within the community commercial district, building
location shall be chosen to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular connections
to buildings on those adjacent properties. Consideration should be given to
locating buildings closer to the public street with entrances to the buildings
from the public sidewalk, with no intervening parking or driving area. Corner
locations are particularly appropriate for this treatment;
(11) Opportunities shall be found for safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian
connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where needed, shelters
and layover areas for transit vehicles shall be incorporated into the site
development.
c. Sign design standards: All signage shall be an integral part of the architectural
design.
:1: ^ -- 1' - , 1 - : - 11 - - I: - - : ...
11 11111 • • 11 ' • - 1 1 _,•1 - � , 11 1• 1 • ; •A i 11 - 11' • - .I. ,111, ,.', - • - 11 - - 11 .1 •11 .1 - •1 . 1 1
.I - : -, i - I r � ; 1,• 1 1 111'• - � 11 A ,
" 1 : ' • • 1.1 - ' - •• II 11 - : • 1111 .1 - 1 - 1 .1 • . :1, •
•
- : : ; :: - - 1. - •1: : : • • .
i • • 1 i 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 4 • 1 r 1 4 . 1 • • - - - - : 1 1 i -
8 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
• - • . - , _ ' � • 1 ' ,: • , ;, :; . - , -- / a 1. . - • i , .' filsv a•Sag'gmx Y:a: =. mmtp,- . givi . "r'� m.maknGi-!'
1 •
I IA • :A ' 1 A; :• :; 1 . STAFF C 0 NI EN TAR :Y. •
a - : . . 1 - • - i - • : 1 , - - • ' - : 1 i i 1 1 ' w 11 ; ■ r la • • .1 - .44
•a - - as 1` - :1 :1, Section B.1:
ry*�
z q
_ - • 1 •■� 1 - ;. • a - I • • • 1 • - . ' • ; • 1 ; • 1 : • • 1 - 1 • • • The Language ofSection will be
• • i ; ' :1 1; , i delete as, the new Chapter 18.610
i ':•:11,. I. -/- ;• ; :11 , 1,1' I • :1 .A 1 a1: " • • :: - repl esit
structure-Parking, SectiokB.2:
- : - : • - - - al - ; • 11 : - • ' - - A ' a ,'•' ' - -' 1 - 1 : ; • ' 1 1 - - - In, t current. Develop ment Code,
• :. : : 1 1 ; ' : 1 .: 1. . : •' , ° • : • • ` • • - six prOpertaes are specified al-
• ` • : . • ; 1 ' - : • ° :.. : , 1 • ' • lowed to contanue lobe `utilized for
(a) l\ uViD;on of effi.ie,it, L.OuJelucut al, wlltil•uuas pedestrian I -P" Industrial usesafterl noncon=
r
• ' - • 1:1 - ' 1 ;1•;• 1 • -.. 1 1 I:1 ; • • :• • A 1' •1;11 ; forming use limit of six: months: this
,. • : • 1 1 : • • • : .1 will continue, with the exception
1 /1 ; 1 1
1 • •
• • ; :1 ; : a • : • ° • 1• : of 2S 12AA tax lot 4700, which has, ,
. •.. I - a - • 1 - • 1 ` - : 1 - I ; . - . • : ` • • ` : 1 • a : - ' • 1 changed uses from 11 Industrial to
• 1 1 : : ' . A '1 n .: 1 , commercial` (currently�a�`
• - ::1 : I • • : 1 • . a : 1 '1 11 • 1 • ; • • ; - 1 . • i • :1 ; / • . , dance hall) Th properties wall
•I •:1 .• • °- 1 - • - ° • • °- ' 1 /• ` •1 . 1 ' 1 :• :1 dl • retain their statusandthissection
a1: 1 ' . • ... i: • •,• • :11 •• •• •1•1 - ' - - • I • Will be moved to Chapter 18610
• • ' • • • • ' • ;1 :i :.'/ ° : : ° 1 1 ; 1 :. 1 .: ;, The tax lots are, the home of Verizon,
and- Magn Humphries, B & B Printing .
- - : : i 1 : - : 11• : •' ; ; ; • • ; Al • • • • - I ; •• •11 .' : ' :1 • .1 • Ferguso DnterpI Dses, and KEI e Embroidering
, 1 • . . - ; . i 1 1 1 1 . 1 1'11 • 1 .1 1 , 1 • 1 1 . 1 . w 1 , . - , / 1 1 1
. ' 11 1 - .1 1 / - • 1 • ; 1 A . , - / 1 1 •• - i 1 • - 1 .111 M 1 • •I /I. /
•
1 . 1 1 1 , 1 : A - . : 1 1 • - •1 _ 1 • • • : 1 / 1 I • / 11 • .
• 41 :1 : • - : 1 1 I -;I • 1 - •• - 1 / • - I I I i1 _ a
1 :• - 14 a a • 1 i1 • :1 1 1 i . - - -;1 11• . i - •- 1
t hr e r ug lit f
1 1 • ., • I i •• •:• • , : • •. :A • -.
B. MU -CBD. (Downtown)
See Chapter 18.610 for additional development and design objectives.
N • III 1 / 1 / 1 • '1 1 1 1 II I , A - , • 1 / " 1 � 1 : A / •• 1 • I - •
: 11u -- • n11 r11 :f I -- • �/11 n•1 "n , 1 I
1 2AA tax lot 4700 „Map 2S 1 2AC tax lot 100 and 202, Map 2S 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Map
is i•► • : ;, a: .1 • •• • : ;. •
C. Washington Square:Regional. Center. •
See Chapter 18.630 for additional development and design guidelines.
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 19
,;;•'_= 'pill' T. i` I g= 2 w
F 40.7.- .�,.' � STAFF COMMENTARY
\ '■;;":il 11h 11111411011744
��` •41* ` �� �- ��� � F The zone encompasses all of the
4 `
^ 4 `° �* 1. Urban Renewal District, plus those
� �f �i ■ �� other properties that are currently
. + ` .,, ,. �, ` . a * G 1� zoned CBD-PD and the two
> •;, �� > ? � it,4 % � X �I �. j properties of the City -owned Fanno
.,� � +
� s Creek House.
• 't'' 1 � � . • 4 P The zone change will require the
+lti • \.,) I adoption of a new map with the new
Comprehensive Plan designation
I ` . p g
1 ei r Mixed Use Central Business District.
� . ♦i i i «ate! tt i it
_ t \1t :�!' III!!' I ....� k
Zoning Classifications p WWI s.u.d.y
T;tban Renewal Area
City of Ttsa d 1 Zommn Bounden,*
Oregon
Existing Zoning
f'f ` .
f h� -
MU -CBD
,. ... :..:\k„\,<\
* , . -,..\\W:
\\\\,..
'..- \.: Oa ria sr * 0" "*."" i '
Proposed Zone
10 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 1 REVISED12/30 /09
Proposed Land Use Table — MU -CBD ZONE `` `'' i
(to be integrated with Table 18:520.1) S_TfA F F . C 0'M M EN TARN
Use Category Present Present Present Proposed ' ' table displays; ithe three -
CBD Zone C- G'Zone C -P Zone MU -CBD Zone* x tingco me rcial xon es w it b tn
th'e Urban R eneuial D1st a nir '
Residential compares their permitted uses
Household Living R on R'o o R (13) p with the new MU=CBD zone'
Group Living P C N P
Transitional Housing C C N C
Home Occupation R - R R R
Housing Types
Single Units-Attached P N/A N/A P
Multi - family - Units P N/A N/A .
Manufactured'Units P N /A_ N/A P;
Mobile Home Parks,:Subdivisions P N /A N/A R al
t
Civic (Institutional) -
Basic Utilities C N C C •
Colleges N N N P
Community Recreation P N N P
Cultural Institutions P P P P
Day Care P P P P
Emergency.Services P P P P'
Medical Centers C C C C
Postal Service P P P P
Public Support Facilities P P P P
Religious Institutions P P C P
I, Schools N N N P
ii Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges P P P P A new usexategory, Custom Arts and y
Commercial Crdit work, was added because the
Custom Arts and Crafts - - - P Tigard Development Code includes
Commercial Lodging P P R P p roduction of artwork and musicale :
Eating/ Drinldng,Establishments P P R (15) P. instruments in theikfinition oflight: -
Entertainment Oriented Industrial This new use category
Major Event Entertainment C C N C distinguishes small scale art and
Outdoor entertainment P P R (15) C craft production from ' 0g0' . scale;
Indoor Entertainment P P P P
iiidustrral'type productiony -'
Adult Entertainment C C N N .
General Retail
Sales Oriented P P R (16) WV
Personal. Services P P P P
Repair Oriented P P N P = -
Bulk Sales N P N R .
Outdoor Sales N P N N
Animal - related N N N N
Motor Vehicle Related
Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental C P/C I 121 N R
Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair R [181 P/C 1121 N C .
Vehicle Fuel Sales C C N R _
Office P P P P
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments I 11
Use Category Present Present Present New MU -CBD ' iti Ax 1 52 it ':g *o +
Zoning CBD Zoning C -G Zoning C -P Zone*
S:T A F F •C 0, KM EN TA R'Y:
Self - service Storage N C N R al
Non- AccessoiyParking. P P P P
Industrial
Industrial Services • N N N N
Manufacturing and Prod uction
•
Light Industrial N N N N
General Industrial N N N N
Heavy.Industrial N N N N
Railroad Yards N N N N .
Research and Development N N N C •
Warehouse/Freight Movement N N N N
Waste - Related. N N N • N
Wholesale Sales C NT N N
Other . -
Agriculture /Horticulture N N N N ,
Cemeteries N N N N
Detention Facilities C. C N C
Heliports C . C C N
Mining N. N N N
Wireless Com. Facilities p/R [3] pR [31 pi 131 Pill 131 •
Rail Lines/Utility "Corridors P P P P •
Other C 119] C NA Ruz
Footnotes:
* All development subject to. Chapter 18.610 Downtown Urban: Renewal Standards and Map 18.610X
[3] See Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication facilities
[11] A single - family unit providing that :it is located on the same site with a permitted or conditional use in and
is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted or conditional use. Multi- family
housing is permitted as part of a PD
[12] Cleaning, sales and repair of motor vehicles and"light:equipment is permitted outright; sales and rental of heavy
vehicles :and farm equipment and/or storage of recreational vehicles and boats permitted conditionally.
[13] Multi- family residential units, developed at R- 40.standards, only in the C -P District within the Tigard Triangle
and Bull Mountain Road
[14] Restaurant permitted with restriction in size:in conjunction with and on the same parcel as a commercial
lodging use.
[15] As accessory to offices or other permitted uses, the total`space devoted to a combination of retail sales and ' .
eating/drinking establishments may not exceed more than 20% of the entire square footage within the devel-
opment complex.
[ 16] May, not exceed 10% of the'total square footage within an office complex.
[ 17] Single -family attached and multi- family residential units, developed at R -40 standards, except (R -12 PD)
[18] Motorvehiclecleaning _
[19] Drive -up windows are permitted to continue if the property had one lawfully inexistence prior
•
to the adoption of the MU= CBD; designation. Otherwise, not-permitted. ' .
[Xl. Only for properties that were lawfully in existence (as permitted. conditional, or Planned -
Development)- prior'to the adoption of the MU-CBD designation.
[xx]•.New retail and sales uses may not exceed 60.000 square feet of gross leasable area per building - _ .
M all subareas except99W/Hall sub -area. (See Map 18.610.A:)
Table 18.520.2
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
MU -CBD zone will have footnote "see Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development • . '
standards"
12 I Proposed Downtown Tigard °Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
'® Party 2�New Gha p t r xa , _, ' p r
,� Y�" : , `� STAF . C0MMEN
t p ' - - -: �?2 _ a �e _ �.,, -. , _ _ ..'.N ` ri....- `' .t .?J 1t, . >' s mw - 1,R, , 4, .
This is a new section: For readability, text is not underlined.
Chapter 18.610
TIGARD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Development, and Design Standards
STANDARDS , dre,intended,toprovadegreaater ; •
flexibility in the4ypes ofuses "
18:610. 010 Purpose and Procedures. may beallowed through trada
A. Purpose 1 'th e objectives of the Tigard Downtown Development and Design Standards are taonalzoning code" The reasons °are
to implement the Comprehensive Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, and Urban for
Renewal Plan.and ensure the quality; attractiveness,.and special character of the Downtown. Provide a greater range of land`
The regulations are intended to: use s a
oppo sin
1. Facilitate the' development of an urban village•. by promoting the development of a higher t he do wnto w n Tiga • s ob�
density, economically viable, and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian oriented downtown tzveistopromoteredevelopme°nt Y 1
where people can live, work, play and shop for their daily needs without relying on the s z the downtown and wishes -
automobile. The quality and scale of the downtown urban environment shall foster social to jensure that' a wule ' ange;k .;
interaction and community celebration. of compatible uses can `loci k
2. Encourage the:integration of natural features and the open space system into Downtown anyuihere within the MU GBD
by promoting development sensitive to natural resource protection and enhancement; district 4 " } n f;
addressing the relationship to Fanno Creek Park; and promoting opportunities for the 2 BemoreYrespons$ue the real: '
creation of art and use of sustainable design estate market £
3. Enhance the street level.as an inviting place, for pedestrians by guiding the design of the Create a functional, well,=,
building "walls" thatfiame -the right -of -way. (the "public realm ") to contribute to a safe, designed ,and economacallyl.
high quality pedestrian - oriented streetscape. Building features will be visually interesting viable Downtown rdastrzct
and human scaled, such as storefront windows, detailed facades, art and landscaping. Estdhlrsl una f eed and 'cohesi
• The impact of parking on the pedestrian system will also be limited. The downtown design character .'
streetscape shall be developed at a human scale and closely connected to the natural • ■ P, rovide optic/01 to develop _.
environment through linkages to Fanno Creek open space and design attention to trees a wide • range of business =;
and landscapes. enterprises and' housing ;;µ
4. Promote Tigard's Downtown as a desirable place to live and do business. Promote opportunities
development of high -quality high density'housing and/employment opportunities in the
Downtown.
5..Provide a clear and concise; guide for developers and builders by employing, greater use
of graphics to explain community goals and desired urban form to applicants, residents
and administrators. -
B. Conflicting Standards. The following standard's and land use regulations apply to all
development within the Downtown Mixed Use.Central Business District., With the exception • •"
of public facility and,street requirements, if a design standard found in this section conflicts
with another standard in, the Development Code, the standards in this section shall govern, -'`
even if less restrictive than other areas of the code.
C. Applicability,
1. New Buildings and Redevelopment:
All applicable Design Standards apply to new buildings and relatedssite improvements.
2. Expansion, modification and site improvements to existing development: A;
An addition, expansion, enlargement, modification, and/or site: improvements associated
with such lawfully preexisting ; uses and structures shall be:allowed provided the applicant :;" ' '
for such proposed project moves toward compliance with the applicable, development
code•standards: Only those Downtown. Building and Site Design Standards applicable to H `=}
the proposed expansion, modification or site improvements to the existing development
shall be applicable.
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED`1 /09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
3. Design standards-do not apply to the following projects: eC 1275 MMOVA p '' " `ta "
• Maintenance and repair of a building structure, or site in a manner that is consistent
STAFF. COiMMtENTARY.
. with previous approvals and/or necessary for safety; Section Dt
• Projects undertaken to bring an existing development into compliance with the
ThereareMthreepotential`approval ;
Americans with Disabilities Act;
processes or tracks for anrapplica.
• Exterior painting;
tion to get'revtewe'd Track 1 and 2
• Any exterior project that doesn't require a building permit; use the clear and' ` ective hesn ° g t .
• Interior remodeling; bJ
Standards a s the approval crate
• Temporary structures/uses (as defined.in Chapter 18.785); rta Track3 uses he discretionary
• Any project involving a pre - existing single family residential building or duplex (that
is not being or already been converted to a non - residential use). Design Ob as th e approval
D. Downtown Design Review Approval Process criteria.
1. To achieve the purpose of the Downtown Site and Building Design Standards, there are
three methods or "tracks" to apply for approval : Specified renovation:b4lets may:
pp y pp use Track 1 , an Admtnistrdtive • a. Track 1. Design, Compliance Letter provides for a Type I review process, using the clear review, wh_.tch is similar tothe
and objective. Design Standards. It is intended for smaller building and site renovation
existing
projects, which meet the threshold. of 18.610.010;E.1.
b. Track 2. The Administrative Review track provides for a more complex process (Type
Larger renovation pro "and neiu
II). that requires staff review utilizing clear /quantifiable standards. It applies to new
development and renovation /remodeling projects listed in 18.610.010.E.2. buildtng- construction may.use Track
2 . e n Administrative review similar.
c. Track' 3: The Design Review Board Track provides for a Type III review process '
through which a Design Review Board determines compliance with the Design t the Major Modifcatto�i process •
Objectives. After or concurrently with receiving design approval, a project will be The Track'3 process provides the
administratively reviewed as a Type II decision for all other applicable standards (Type opportunity for well designed
III if a Conditional. Use) r ects ich carinomee
r t t the
2. Designing a project to the Design and Development Standards would result in an p o � ' wh •
administrative review process. However, the applicant, at their option, may choose to
clear and'ob�ective; standards
use Track 3 with the Design Review Board. An applicant can address design review for building and site design The ` .
ign
requirements through a combination of satisfying certain Design Standards, and in
discretionary des objectives, are
written as qualitative statements'
instances where they elect not to utilize Design Standards, satisfy applicable Design Unlike the clear and objective design.
Objectives. In such case, the public hearing and ,decision will focus on whether or not standards; th ere are typically many •
the project satisfies the requirements of the applicable Design Objectives only. acceptable ways to meet each design
E. Procedures objective. Projects One'ould.need.to
1. Track 1: Design Review Compliance Letter using Design Standards meet the'Developm`ent Standar
a. Applicability: "'
(1) Addition, elimination, or change in location of windows that does not decrease
The decision making authority is the •
the. minimum required window coverage.
Design Review Board After Design
(2) Addition, elimination, or change in location of entry doors and loading doors:
Review Board approval or with, a
(3) Addition of new and change to existing awnings, canopies, and other mounted rev iew relit application; a typ ll
structures to an existing facade review zs necessary for compliance
(4) For commercial and mixed use developments, modification of up to 15 percent with 0. nalcliaptersaistedaii
on -site landscaping with no reduction in required landscaping. Modification
18.610.025.
refers to changing the hardscape elements and the location of required landscape An;applicant can,address;d
areas and or trees.
review requirements through a
(5) Modification of off - street parking with no reduction in required parking spaces or
co`mbznation ofsatasfyzng, "c`ertdm .
increase in paved area.
Design Sta and in instances
(6) Addition of new fences, retaining walls, or both. whe it elects not.'t D esign
(7) Changing of existing grade. Sta i
(8) An increase in the height of the building(s) less than 20 %; ndards, satisfy applicable Design:
(9) A change in the type and location of access ways and parking areas where off -site
Objectives:ln sucb'a case
hearing and decision will focus�on>
traffic would not be affected; v ._.
(10) An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by less than 10%
Whether o.e not the:prgject.sattsfies
or under 5,000 sq; the: requirements of the: apphcatile.
Design Ob'jectives only.
(11) A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open
14 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
space which does not reduce the open space area below the minimum required required "4sal.irorattgli
by this code or reduces the open space area by less than 10 %;
• b. Process and Procedure Type: S`T A F F C O M M E N T A'R Y
The Type I procedure, as described in Section 18.390.030 of this Code, shall apply Section B:1 and E:2
to an application for Design Compliance Letter. The decision making authority is •
Adopted fr onvStte Develop
the Director. The applicant must show compliance to the Design Standards prior to
issuance of the Design Review Compliance Letter. Review Chapter 18.360 major
triod
c. Process and Approval Criteria: tfication evaluation craters:_
Removed the folloivingtypes of
The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on • r ects
finding that the following criteria are satisfied: the applicable Building and Site Design p °� _ •
Standard(s) for the project (Section 18.610.30) and/or the applicable Additional 1 An t tn;dwelhng unit'
Standards (Section 18.610:035.) density, or lot: co`veragefor
2. Track 2: Administrative Review with Design Standards residential
a. Applicability: A Track 2 review will be required for one of more of the following: 2. A change to the MOO' or number
dt,, e rent
(1) All new Development except those listed in Section 18.610.010.E.1
of types of dwelltng
units
(2) A change that requires additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter An. increase in:;vehtctlar,tra c
- 7. 18:765;
to and from the site a nd the
(3) A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the State
Building Code; - increase . rcan.be; e xpectedto
(3) An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 %;
exceed 100 vehicles per day,
10: A reductionofproject:amentties;
(5) A change in the type and location of access ways and parking areas where off -site below °the m
traffic would be affected; •
(6) An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than 10% by this code: or by more than
excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet; 10 %. where sp'ectfied in the site
plan
(7) A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open
space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this • a Recreational facilit
code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 %; h: Sc reening, t and✓or
b. Procedure Type: c. : Landscapin g p rovisions. •
The Typell procedure, as described in Section 13.390.040, shall apply to an application
using the - Building and Site Design and Development Standards. The decision making
authority is the Director.
Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the
design standards, through architectural drawings, illustrations, graphics, photographs,
a narrative with findings and other materials that demonstrate how the proposed
development implements the intent of the design standards.
c. Process and Approval Criteria:
The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on
finding that the following criteria are satisfied: 18.610.030 Building and Site Design
Standards and Additional Standards 18.610.035.
3. Track 3 Discretionary Design Review Using Design Objectives
a. Applicability:
(1) Any project, at the applicant's option. The applicant may also choose this track if
a project is unable to meet a clear and objective standard.
b. Procedure Type:
Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the ' . •
intent statements of the design objectives, through architectural drawings, illustrations,
graphics photographs, a narrative with findings and other materials that demonstrate
how the proposed development implements the intent of the design standards. •
The Type III procedure, as described in Section 13.390.050, shall apply to an ,
application using Discretionary Design Objectives. The decision making authority is '
the Design Review Board. Projects receiving approval must also undergo review for
land use, engineering, and building approval.
c. Process and Approval Criteria: •
The Design Review Board shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an .
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
application based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: 18. 610.050 " °gu fi ' va_ `. t ' �" a
Building and Site Design Objectives. STAFF COMMENTARY
4. Adjustments and Variances .
a. Variances and adjustments as outlined in Chapter 18.370 may be granted for the .
provisions and regulations of the underlying zone, the Development Standards
18.610.020, and for the Additional Standards (18.610.035) Variances cannot '
be granted for buildingand site design standards in Section 18.610.030. Instead, A,limited number_ of exceptions to
applications unable to meet a standard should use the Track 3 Discretionary Design the standards that may be.grante'd
Review using Design Objectives. are l #sted in .113:610105.
b. For applications using Track 3, variances and adjustments may be only be granted
for the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone, the Development Standards
(18.610.020), and for the Additional Standards (18.610.035), not for the Design
Objectives themselves.
F. Downtown Design Review Submittal Requirements:
1. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing
all of the general information required for a Type II procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.040, or for a Type III procedure , as governed by Section 18.390.050.
2. Additional information. In addition to the submission requirements required in Section Sections F through,Kadapted from
18.390, Decision- Making Procedures, an application must include the following additional Section 18:360Site Development
information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The Director shall provide a list of Review ,Currently,; projects #n the-
the specific information to be included in each of the following: Tigard Triangle and Wash ngton
a. An existing site conditions analysis; Square undergo Site Development
b. A site plan; R and review with the design
c. A grading plan; overlay `standards, Projects the
d. A landscape plan; Downtown will meet the standards
e. Architectural 'elevations of all structures;: and of this Section (and the additional.
f. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. chapters listed in 18610025, :but
3. All drawings submitted with applications for development using Tracks 2 and 3 shall. be need riot undergoSiteDevelopment
stamped by a registered architect. Applications for landscaping projects only may be Review..
stamped by a registered landscape architect. Applications that require engineering or
transportation reports must be stamped by the appropriate specialist.
G. Approval period. Approval by the Director or Design Review Board shall be effective for
a period of 14/2 years from the date of approval. The approval shall lapse if:
1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one -and- one -half
years period; or
2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan.
H. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the
required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that:
1. No changes are made on the plan as approved by the Director or Design Review Board;
2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within the one year
extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance
provisions on which the approval was based.
I. Phased; development
1. If the development of a site takes more than one year, the applicant shall submit a phased -
development time schedule for approval by the Director. In no case shall the total time
period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for design review.
2. The criteria for approving a phased development proposal is that all of the following are .
satisfied :
a. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase;
b. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of
temporary public facilities. A. temporary public facility is any facility not constructed
to the applicable City or district standard;
c. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners
16 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
to construct public facilities that were required as part of the approved development X t l-. t ' n - 1 "R' rt' ' ' " -
proposal; and 'S'TA F F COMMENTARY
d. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Section 18.390.040.G. No -
notice need be given of the Director's decision. . • .
J. Bonding and Assurances .
1. Performance bonds for public improvements. On all projects where public improvements ' '
are required,the.Director shall require a bond in an amount not greater than 100% or . .
other adequate assurances as a condition of approval of the plan in order to ensure the . .
completed project is.in conformance with the approved plan; and Section 18:610 015 ..
2. Release of performance bonds. The bond shall be released when the Director finds the Section A;is based onithe•Washington
. completed project conforms to the approved plan and all conditions of approval are Square Regional Center Design
satisfied. Standards. (Section. 18630030) The
3: Completion of landscape installation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of section addresses, nonconforming .
occupancy permits, unless security equal to the cost of the landscaping as determined by uses andstructures in theDown
the Director is filed with the City Recorder assuring such installation within six months town district. it ha s some difjcerences
after occupancy : with Section 18 760, Nonconforrn
a. Security may consist of a faithful performance bond payable to the City, cash, certified ing Situations Additions and
check or such other assurance of completion approved by the City Attorney; and mode atio nss o ex is t in noncon -.
b.. If the installation of the landscaping is not completed within the six -month period, the form g structures are perinitted As
security may be used by the City to complete the installation. the proposed development; standards'
K. Business Tax Filing would create many nonconforming
The applicant shall ensure that all occupants of the completed project, whether permanent developments, the proposed c ode . .
or temporary, shall apply for and receive a City of Tigard business tax prior to initiating requires only the addition er modi:
business. , f ca to the structure co
toth neui:cod.e requ For
18.610.015 Pre- Existing Uses and Developments within the example, for an application to add
Downtown District windows to the fao of an existing
A. Applicability. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.760.040 (Criteria for building would only haveto meet
Nonconforming Situations), land uses and associated development in the MU -CBD District the window standards ..00#1190 :01?-
t • -
that were lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of these standards may continue as erage, trim, 00 00 not the other
lawful uses:and developments. facade standards (awnings, etc.)
1. Land uses and associated development that were in existence at the time of the adoption .
of the MU -CBD district and Chapter 18:610 may continue on the property. Additions, The proposed code also permits.
expansions, or enlargements to such uses or developments, shall be limited to the nonconforming uses and structures,
property area of said use or development lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of .tocontinue if destroyed, as long
this ordinance, , 2009. as;it is reestablished within one
2. If a pre- existing structure or use is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other act of 'God, or year Section 18 760 permits only'
otherwise abandoned then the use will retain its.pre- existing status under this provision 6 months `Washtngton.Sq::
so long as it is substantially reestablished within one (1) year of the date of the loss. The 3.years to reestablish; but only
new structure would have to conform to the code. f destroyed byfire, earthquake,
B. Standards for Projects. Involving Existing Single Family and Duplex Dwellings or other act ofgod Theproposed
1. Existing single family buildings and duplexes used for residential purposes are exempt language would allow'upto a year' '
from the standards. to reestablish an abandoned use; '
2. For projects involving preexisting housing units used for non - residential uses the Th e r eas on f or t mo pe rmis s i v e:
applicable standards are 18. 610: 020: Building and Site Development Standards, including standard is to lessen thezlkehhood•
the appli sub -area from Map 610.A, 18.610.030. Building Design Standards for th buildings would stand e
• non - Residential Buildings 18.610.035 Additional Standards. d
an durin the ex .
t rans i t i o n o d -
C. Existing nonconforming indu structures f T; .
Existing nonconforming industrial structures at the following locations may continue to be
utilized for I -P Industrial uses after the nonconforming use limit of six months: Map 2S 1 'Section C c ari ies o ve r from the _
2AA tax lot 4700, Map 2S 1 2AC tax lot 100 and 202, Map 2S 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Map 2S 1 exi CBD regulations; with on`e •
2DB tax lot 100, and Map 2S 1 2DA tax lot 300. p revio u s l y listed propertyiremoveEl
(the propertywhere the Ballroom`
Dance Facility" is now located:) •
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 117
4.
18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards
A. Sub- Areas: The four sub -areas located on Map 610.A and described below have different S :TA F F C O''M M, E N TAR¥::
setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger
zone.
1. Highway 99W and. Hall Boulevard Corridor sub -area is intended to create a "pulse -
point" along the Highway 99W corridor. Located at the intersection of 99W and Hall
Blvd., the area has the high traffic and visibility to draw potential retail customers from
the region. It will also serve the potential for future high capacity transit in the corridor.
The area will accommodate higher levels of vehicular circulation, while maintaining
a pedestrian scale at the ground -floor level of buildings. It would allow development
of mixed use and retail buildings that could vary in scale from one -story retail -only
buildings, to mixed use buildings up to eight stories tall with retail on the ground floor
and residential and/or office uses. above.
2. Main St.— Center St.: The sub -area is centered on the City's historic; downtown Main
Street. It is intended to be pedestrian oriented with smaller scale development that would
function like a "traditional Main Street." A pedestrian environment would be improved
with a continuous building wall broken only intermittently. New buildings in the sub-
area must include ground floors with commercial storefront features. Residential and
commercial uses are permitted on upper floors.
3. The Scoffins St.— Commercial St. sub -area is intended to provide an opportunity
for higher density residential as well as an employment base comprised of civic, office
and commercial uses in the areas of Commercial Street and Scoffins. Residential only
buildings, office/commercial buildings, and mixed use developments are all permitted.
4. The Fanno — Burnham St. sub - area provides an opportunity for medium scale
residential or mixed use development . Compatible mixed -uses (live -work, convenience
retail, office and civic uses) are encouraged on the frontage of Burnham Street. The
area in proximity to Fanno Creek Park will be an opportunity to create a high quality
residential environment with views and access to the natural amenity of Fanno Creek
Park. Building heights will step down to three stories so as not to overwhelm or cast
shadows on the park.
•
18 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
Map 18.610.A I
u /' .• . , - STAFF COMMENTARY
1 ' J 1 L ' _ I L 1 Map 18.610.A shows the location of
i;t.j; I. ii " '`;
\\ °` the sub - areas. Each sub -area has
!'`ei" \ distinct height limits and setbacks. iir .1:NL • � � t a� i m '
��"'l: � 1`, • alk... ∎• " "`�11ar sub areas are centered on existin I p � 1► • ,: , fi b►• _ existing '� '♦ , -. ' '� streets, but a lso account for th e
��`r` `�,, r' potential development of future
— \\
ii pp
^l
.1 ♦, s , streets.
4 / . , C
°' °" • ■ ►,� All of the uses displayed in the 1111 -
. ''' Ai / 1 , (c5<illib 6,7 \! :: : ' � * i 18.520.1 land use table are
> f - ; ' �' permitted in all of the sub areas.
itii (,..4 .„450,, '.... - / \ O
Proposed # /<> \'' \ \ .-
d MU-CBD
1\ ' Sub -Areas
&#,.3\10 V
• "�� .a�� � ' O Urban Renewal QS(f4[
V ` II m.... Center
I i ;. It
j ' # _+ , n;xotF.rssCortu+vroal
', � MI Fanndarxnturn
41
11
, 4A 1111 SAP► t ri
17.4 ;.. �' 7: 7IGAR0 OREGON : •.! *'1► to MI"! lill T 1-=-1
Note: for standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040. Special
Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza
B. Development Standards. Development Standards apply to all new development in the
MU -CBD zone, including developments utilizing the Track 3 approval process. Variances or
Adjustments may be granted if the criteria found in Chapter 18.370 is satisfied.
1. Development standards matrix. See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments I 1 9
Table 18.610.1
MU -CBD ,Development Standards Matrix1, 2, 3 S TAFF C O MGM E N TA R Y
STANDARD SUB -AREAS '_ • Main Street 99W /Hall Scoffins/ Fanno/
(MS) Corridor Commercial Burnham
(99H) (SC) (FB)
Front Setback .
Minimum 0 ft. 0/5` ft. 0 ft. 0 ft.
(5 ft. for frontage
on 99W)
Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Side facing,street on corner &;through. lots -
Minimum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. ,
Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A ' '
Sideyard .
Minimum/Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A
•
Rear Setback -
Minimum 0 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. .
Maximum N/A N/A N/A N /A- '
Building height Maximum height is provided in
Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. stories and feet: The limit shall-
Maximum (stories/feet) 3 stories 3 stories 6 stories 6 stories
be: an stories, however having the•
(45 ft.) (45 ft.) (80 ft.) (80 ft.) maximum _expressed in feet allo`ivs
(3 stories /45 ft. or: xihilit in actual�sto h hea hts,r
within 200 ft. of f y g ` '
Fanno Creek Park while,providing:d'hard cap:
boundary (see Map :
610.A) or within 50
ft.of low or med. density '
residential district.)
Ground•Floor_Height Minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. none none
Site Coverage Maximum 100% 90% 90% 80%
Minimum Landscaping 4 0 %5 10% 10% 20% • . : .
Minimum Building, Frontage 50% 50% 50% 50%
Residential' Density (units per acre)
Minimum Density applies to residential -only development (not mixed use) .
Minimum 25 25 25 15 ... • .
Maximum. 50 50 50 50 .
' This table'does not apply to existing development. All New Buildings-in the district must meet these development
standards, including projects usingthe'Track 3 approval process.
z For standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040. Special Require- , -
ments for Development Bordering Urban Plaza.
3 See also 18.610 :045 Exceptionsito. Standards^in the MU =CBD zone. ' ' "
4 In the MTJ-CBD zone, required landscaping , can be provided on roofs.
5 'Landscaing/screening requirements for parking lots must be met:
6 Station Area Overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre (See Map 18.610A)
20 I Proposed. Downtown. Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
insommwommourommasfeem
STAFF COMMENTARY
2. Parking Location:
a. Parking is allowed on the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the
side, the parking area shall not exceed 50% of the total frontage of the site.
b. Parking is set back a minimum of 10' from the front property line.
c. When abutting a public street, parking areas must be behind a landscaped area
constructed to an L -1 standard.
d. Where a parking lot shares a property line with an adjacent parking lot, the landscape
requirement along the shared property line is not required.
• 0000 oo_dv0000dvd0oodoo ood■vdeoa06aara
• •
0
0
l I 0
0 0 •
0
•,'I
Building w i Building
t
l 1
I I 1
I I i
i
-0
0 Parking on the side or rear of buildings 0 L -1 landscape standard
• Max. 50% of site frontage 0 Landscape not required along shared prop. line
0 Min. 10' setback 0 See Ch.18.745 for screening and landscaping requirements
B.2 Parking Location
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
3. Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening
a. The following rooftop equipment does not require screening: STAFF COMMENTARY
(1) Solar panels, wind generators, and green roof features
(2) Equipment under two feet in height
b. Elevator mechanical equipment may extend above the height limit a maximum of 16
feet provided that the mechanical shaft is incorporated into the architecture of the building.
c. Satellite dishes and other communications equipment be shall be limited to 10 feet in height,
shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge and screened from public view to the
extent possible.
d. All other roof - mounted mechanical equipment shall be shall be limited to 10 feet in height,
shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge and be screened from public view and
from views from adjacent buildings by one of the following methods:
(1) A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used
on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry;
(2) Green roof features or regularly maintained dense evergreen foliage that forms an
opaque barrier when planted.
e. Required screening shall not be included in the building's maximum height calculation.
f /
ii
O 10 feet max equipment height
0 Equipmem set back min. ■ feet
B.3 Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening
O
t
0 Sceen made of primary exterior finish material, wood. or masonry
8.3.d.(1) Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening (architectural screen)
22 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09
STAFF COMMENTARY
I ` :1
0 Green roof features with evergreen foliage
13.3.d.(2) Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening (vegitative screen)
4. Other Exterior Mechanical Equipment. Other exterior mechanical equipment on the site
(electrical boxes, etc.) shall be screened from view from adjacent ROW, public spaces,
and parking areas by one or a combination of the following:
a. A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used
on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry; or
b. Setback from the street facing elevation so it is not visible from the public ROW; or
c. Dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted that will be
regularly maintained.
5. Landscaping and Screening. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.745 the
following shall also apply to the screening and landscaping of parking and loading
areas:
a. The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be four feet and the landscaping
shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb.
b. Landscape islands shall provide a minimum of 1000 cubic feet of soil volume per
tree. This may be achieved through open soil (see definition) area, root paths (see
definition) to open soil areas, or covered soil areas (see definition) specially designed
to support root growth. Soil depth will be assumed to be three feet.
c. Tree species shall be large stature/broad spreading at maturity and chosen from the
Tigard Street Tree List unless otherwise approved by the City. If the use of large stature
trees/broad spreading trees is precluded by building lines, trees shall be the largest
size possible given the available space.
d. Irrigation shall be provided for all parking lot trees and landscaping via an automatic
irrigation system.
e. Soil volume calculations (see definition) shall be provided for each tree. Soil
specifications (including amendments and composition of imported soils) and
irrigation details shall be provided on plans prepared by a licensed landscape
architect.
f. Prior to final approval, the project landscape architect shall certify that parking and
loading areas have been planted per the approved landscape plan and the provisions
of this Section.
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 123
SETA FF C 0 M M4E N IAJR'Y=- •
18.610.025 Street Connectivity Section 18''610 025
4Downt911 #CirculataogOa0011
Section to be held until completion of. Downtown Circulation Plan. adopted together the mupdatte:
(in progress) The Circulation
Planwill'inclialftumap with
designated new streets and bicycle/ .
pedestrianconnections,which
new ent wall be r equired
to provide for ;�The,Pla willlaso
incl special street sections for, the :
•
•
•
•
MU =CBD zone.
18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards
A. Create. Vibrant Ground Floors, Streetscapes and Rights -of -Way; Provide Weather
Protection; and Promote Safety and Security. -
Intent. Design standards in this section are intended to foster vibrant, inviting streetscapes • .
and sidewalk- facing.ground floors and entryways. They are also`intended to create buildings •
that are easily accessible to and provide protection from the elements for pedestrians. _ •
They also will help ensure' that the ground floor promotes a sense of interaction between .
activities in the building,and activitiesin the public realm. Building and site design should
also address crime prevention through defensible spaces lighting, and features that allow , . , . ,,
observation and "eyes on the street"
•
24 I Proposed Downtown Tigard'Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
1. Street Facade _
a. ' Street - facing facades shall, be built in proximity to the street. This standard is met when T < I • r
• S TAFF, COMMENT „ARY
at least 50 percent of, the groun floor' front building elevation(s) is located no further - '-- • -
from the front property line than the maximum front setback standard established in • . ~ . ,,., ' .
Table 18.610.1; and, where maximum street - facing side setbacks are required within .. • . .
the Main Street Subarea, at least 50 percent of the ground floor street - facing side
building elevation(s) is located no further from the street- facing side property line • .
than the maximum street- facing side setback standard established in Table 18.610.
' pi a '+ sa c x a z ? �"� f' •P fi,p i . 5 u, . .
6 '( L” 4
ta ca. "a , "' a 411;,:f;i0
g ,e �
:4 ,. r :.� 1 9 „, F u , ,• g 1 .i. ' ' • •
i, e n`: d 4 - V , a e 0 n�,p •
1 � o f R e ,. a 6 e W 0. t d..
,, ,I., .z '' U f a Q S II � 7e t z y ? {' 'r; p � , ' `. � _ • t 1 Budding �� i � a
°t` e .a I s l- z , 4' '.0 d,;c. t ut +r df �' +,; -
•
F zr
"Mrs b - Fl`T 1zn "r" i+a 0 r'- s�•�7c"¢ 7 " _ - ..
.4 , t R �a ran a •
xi a :' tr.1 a • 4 •� '
Q Mutimum seam* ine
11). La: frcrauge -
®, Min_ 5a%dsu lot fmrsige occupier! Isyheidk et setback Fine
d:'i(a) Sheet Facade • • • .
•
b. Buildings more than 3 storie are required to step back six (6) feet from the building t
facade at the beginning of the;fourth (4th) ,story.
a. f i . - t
4 y , ,
fl t . 5 y , • ,>• ' s s e , .. • :a ay .1 e 3 fi 4
iii, ;''X 1 a
x.�i�'. 3,., c2_ Q }. .9_, _ _r.,'"- c
�. . ,.T
_ • e �vf y , ' -1 v 1
0 Min 5 setback . _ ,
A:L (b) StruetFaede , . -
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 125
i
2. Primary Entry - : m t ; a•mr, ro ; : le
a. For Commercial/Mixed Use. Buildings STA F F C :M M TA R Y
(1) At least one entry door is required for each business with a ground floor
frontage.
(2) Each entrance shall be covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent
architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided.
(3) All primary ground -floor common entries shall be oriented to the street or a
public space directly facing the street, notto the interior or to a parking lot.
b. For Residential Buildings
(1) Entry Door: The primary public entrance to each building unit shall be covered,
recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that
weather protection is provided.
(2) All ground -floor common entries of multi - family buildings and individual
unit entries of attached single family units that front the street shall be oriented
to the street or public right -of -way, notto the interior or to a parking lot.
3. Windows
a. Ground Floor Windows•for Non - Residential and Mixed Use Buildings: =
(1) 60% minimum ground floor window coverage for street - facing wall (Minimum
window coverage includes any glazed portions of doors)
(2) Ground Floor Window Transparency. All buildings with non-residential ground
floor windows must have a Visible Transmittance (VT) of 0.6 or higher, with the
exception of medical and dental offices which may have tinted windows.
b. Ground Floor Windows for Residential Buildings:
( 1) 30% minimum ground floor window coverage for street - facing wall (Minimum
window coverage includes any glazed portions of doors) •
c. Upper Floor Windows/Doors for All Buildings:
(1) 30% minimum upper floor window coverage for each floor of the street- facing
wall: (Minimum window coverage includes': any glazed portions of doors)
(2) The required upper floor window/balcony door percentage does not apply to
floors where sloped roofsand dormer windows are used.
(3) Upper floor windows shall be vertically oriented (a minimum vertical to
horizontal dimension ratio ,of 1.5:1.)
d. WindowShadowing for All Buildings:
Windows shall be designed to provide shadowing. This can be accomplished by: •
recessing windows 3.inches into the facade and/or incorporating trim of a contrasting
material or color.
4. Weather :Protection
For Non - residential and Mixed Use Buildings:
a. A Projecting : Facade Element (awning, canopy, arcade, or marquee) is required, on
the street facing faade of the street with the highest functional classification.
b. Awnings/Marquees /Canopies may project a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 6 • " .
feet from the•facade (a maximum of 4 feet into the public right of way)
c. The element shall have a minimum 10 feet clearance from the bottom of the element
to the sidewalk.
d. Awnings must the width of storefronts or window openings.
e. Internally;litawnings are not permitted
f. Awnings must, be made of glass, metal, or exterior grade fabric (or a combination of
these materials)
26 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
Iry UNE r+i .m, ,.e.11 ∎ rTag -' AWt ° eW VAN s i -- ?a. • ?.32AV . '.`
cevidAFrr r sCH. • PUBLIC r:IAJ Fvr OPMENtPN?CEL PO5U REALM + , -
s v 5:.TdA F F: C O M M E T A R' 'Y
j r y `x p 4 . -4` . ^' k 4FR. w1 • t r , ' 1 . .
5 nG ° 8e R b ut ;
1, OR b i ' •
�� '' fi t • " i l BAf 3 .
a ,a.:a as" w++: w , ,..,,. �,b.. III „.,,,1 il�ax.M .,
* ` B8 m,1 r , ? ,F j .
1 'cr._ «_
7 �e _ ��_ ..` _ fir __ V • �.
!! - d
,
51 w h , e
•
e)
•
S t, � :null + '4.. .a [' .+— ,.. ..._ � 4 t r. - _ •
,, "-, aim t.dt- ,. &? a F�—a � :_e - ,„)aa',, , 1 11 ` __ • - .
t 1ILA I . n r .1: p" ` o ,. r t , ,, s ,�`•t l .�., 'j
1 FI '1 b 1�1, a ` n ac ..........=... ..........=... t . •
i, y r - �x�ad� t • s lfger . bY.)1 lsl I) 1 i bl l ".
- ..
m , Primary,entry doors oriented to street or public space Q Primary entry door oriented to street or public space •
0 Entrance is covered and /or recessed behind facade Q ' Entrance is covered and /or recessed behind facade .
o Max 6' balcony /deck projection Q Min 3'; Max 6' projection
Q Min 10 ' clearance Q Max 6' balcony /deck projection
0-Min 30% windows 9 Min 10' clearance .
® Upper windows vertically oriented 0 Min 60% windows
A.2 -4 Residential (Only) Building Q Min 30% windows .
0 Upper windows vertically oriented
A.2 - Commercial /Mixed -Use Building
•
f
t , •
• . . _,
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
.1 •
B. Cohesive architectural facade standards. 'itx ' & : y ' c' `1'4 fl ''' h " r'o..
Intent. Build and expand. upon Downtown Tigard's architectural character by incorporating S T A F < F C O „M M E.N T A R Y 1
cohesive a repetitive architectural elements into the°ground floor of street facing facades. , ` -_ ..` -,
1. Architectural Bays for Non- Residential and Mixed Use Buildings '
Divide the street facing ground floor of commercial/mixed use storefronts into distinct i
architectural bays that are no more than 30 feet on center. For the purpose of this
standard, an architectural bay is defined as the zone between the outside edges of an ' .
engaged column, pilaster, post, or vertical wall area.
', �....._: .; - I:S•L' _ .� _ i 1_ J i_..!. � _ .
I cam
.--. 4 1 -,..._.: I , ' - — 7 1 01 1 , . , , _ _ . , ' , .-
Q :x. k h O . i: 11 - •t" 2 .. ®o ..
{
v
J .Q �i
T m 4 1 m .
O
•
Architectural bay f30' ma* on center! O Building lighting 0 Transom windows 0 Ground floor windowsill
Q Column /pilaster /post co Blade sign 0 Sign band/staterrora (node -
13.1 Architectural Bays .
•
28 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
C. Integrated building fagade standards. °
Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown .Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive
- •
and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, and creates visually — - - ' F F CO NM
M ,
r ,
interesting facades and roofs. _ .
1. Non-residential and mixed use buildingfacades
a. Non - residential and mixed use buildings Tri- Partite: Facades
Non - residential and mixed, use buildings two stories and above shall have three clearly
defined elements on the street-facing facade(s); a base (extends from the sidewalk
to the bottom of the second story or the belt course/string course that separates the
ground floor from the middle of the building).; a middle (distinguished from the top -
and base of the building by use of building elements); and a top (roof form/ element ,
at the uppermost portion of the facade that visually terminates the facade) . A tripartite
facade creates a, unified facade and "breaks up vertical mass. . . •
IL..I1 I I � _ ;x 111s.1 I I —� I I Ir -.l IrH ' r_; �' „ ; _
s Imo, l .I Lh!nl ;r €� IIr'.I . Eli ;: 1 ;
b
,
� � ;t ' I 4 - JU +_1� I Ir . i
i
•
M � � I� 1'. L l �Q r
w3` E ' � . .
h /;
1177 - �n... 114
, I I,„ , 11 1 — Ico
I ` _ ..i _
0 •Base- 0 Bolt courselstr ng
0 •M,Wln' 0 PtojectingcWnlce /Parapet
0 'Too' -
C.1 Integrated Building Facade (Commercial /Mixed -Use Building)
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 I Proposed. Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
2. Residential Building Facades xer.r F:Ct 4 M ,"' u r 'q
a. Unit definition. Each street facing dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a y
roof dormer or bay windows on the street- facing elevation, or by providing a roof S T A F, F', C O M M E N =T A R A Y
gable or porch or balcony that faces the street. b) Trim detail. Trim shall be used • '.
to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary .
structure's elevation(s).
t. q
�1
A ►ni�lln n0 . ffi i
3ij[3 � ?`; G'"'�kri I"` {°t I i itx ;. ,�,I W El �p L ele 4
I <
i 1 t_ 0 CI 1 II I L-] 1.:it ' E. LI ,, I I ,'' i I DO <r —.---- y
4 '• -- �,�� - " W. -A; J 1,: .F &. 7-1 ti .-
3Lir .2 _u �d _ 1 $
r :
t,D El s Marn; to,c. 0 •
p saw-tun tat"
c srnm regrre31 me( Ism, p:iebm,xintl s,anlCenr
C.2 Integrated Building Facade (Residential Only Bui]din�l - 5
3. Roof Forms
a. The roof form of a building shall follow one (or a combination) of the following '
forms: 0
(1) Flat Roof with Parapet or Cornice , _- ..
(2) Hip Roof - ,i'4, . ° •' 'T:
(3) Gabled Roof
(4) Full Mansard Roof .
(5) Dormers
(6) Shed Roof
b. All sloped roofs (other than full mansard roofs) exposed to view from adjacent public 0 . _ •
or private streets and properties shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch.
c. Sloped roofs, shall have eaves, exclusive of rain gutters, that must project from the .
building wall at least twelve inches:
d. All flat roofs or those with a pitch of less. than 5/12 shall be architecturally treated or
articulated with a parapet wall that must project vertically above the roof line at least • • -
twelve inches and /or -a cornice that must project from the building face at least 6 inches. • -
e. When an addition to an existing structure or a new structure is proposed in an existing `., .. ,
development, the roof forms for the new structures shall have similar slope and be t „,.. 4
constructed of the same materials as the existing roof. N
L Green roof features and/or rooftop gardens are encouraged: As part of the development
permit, applicant shall execute a covenant ensuring the maintenance of any green -
roof. The covenant;, shall be approved by the Director on City provided forms.
, y1 1x.;;'5
'• ' • 1
- , i .0. rt
L
. .r
30 I Proposed' Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5:2 I REVISED12/30 /09
Flat roof Htp roof Gabled roof full mansard roof Dormers Shed roof AM , ..r!r„ ` ''>4 AraT ,'ll f' ii< '1 Weil
.. 9 ST A I F .' 0 0 M M N •T A RY
4 ' ' , --0 .; ' o ----. t ' =' ,,,, -' , er 1 1 :Tr AN:.): - 1-= ' , ., ..,' ' , • •
o r� > r! 0 / 1 1 I
r ; I •
0 0 1
o Parapet/cornice must project min. 12' vertically 0 Eaves must project min. 12" from face of building
o Parapet/cornice must protect min. 6' from face of building
Q Min. 5/12 pitch on sloped roots
C.3 Roof Forms
D. Create.Street Corners with Strong Identity
Intent. Create a strong architectural statement at street corners. Establish visual landmarks -
r and enhance visual variety. .
1. For non- residential or mixed use buildings at the corner of two public streets or a street
and public area, park or plaza (for the purposes of this standard an alley is not considered
a public street) incorporate one of the, following features: '
a. Locate the primary entry to the building at the corner.
b. A prominent architectural element, such as increased building height or massing, a
cupola, a turret or a pitched roof at the corner of the building or within 20 feet of the -
corner of the building; -
c. The corner of the building cut at a 45 degree angle, or a similar dimension "rounded"
corner. .
d. A combination of special paving materials, street furnishings and, where appropriate,
plantings, in addition to the front door. '
•
' , _ l I , �i f $1,,' < e� �' (ik� 2 2 xi
' 4 d I ; t : ' Yy ¢ n . IA a ; . . r t i i f, L...'' 0t
a te.._ '. $ , ' «. Ac �� -. 1 2 fa
i ' 11 i ° _ - - - --
, ' u ' � _
a e Primary entry door to the building located at corner
� r r "'� I �� � � '"� 9 " � Prominent architectural,elemerit within 20' of the
r �� t comer of the building
` ` i ,�. , . b t fi „. - T _ v , � e Corner min 10' from street corner and cut at —
-'-- . - 45 degree angle
4L IQ I 11 - I �r� t ,
�- 0 Special paving patterns, street furnishings, and
,. cggo Ot � plantings near front door Y t .
„......___
^0' A.2 -4 Commercial /Mixed -Use Building
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 r Proposed Downtown. Tigard Code Amendments 131
•
E. Assure "Building Quality, Permanence and Durability riat' WAl agitAWYK iare - iTa ` tAi
Intent. Use building; materials that. evoke a sense of permanence and are compatible with
SAF C Q�M U
T N NI Y
Downtown Tigard;and the surrounding built and natural environment. .,
1. Building Materials ,
a. The following exterior building materials or finishes are prohibited:
(1) Vinyl siding
(2) T -111 or similar sheet: materials
(3) Plain concreteblock (not inducting split faced, colored, or other block designs that ,
mimic stone, brick, or other masonry.) Foundation material may be coated
concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet.
(4) Mirrored glass
E Open Space! Public Plaza
Intent: Assure adequate public, private and shared outdoor space Section F •
1. Mixed use and Commercial Developments. greater than 60,000 s£ the. required opentspace for multi ,
a. Development projects with site areas greater than 60,000 sf shall include at:least one family p h been chaangedi„,
public space with a minimum size of 600 sf. from theexistingSDRatandards .
b. Public spaces shall be abutted on at least two Sides by retail shops, restaurants or (Chapter 18360) to allow a more
y p rb anform5ofdevelopmer%t
services with windows entrances fronting on the space. u •
2. Mixed Use. Buildings with Residential Units and. Residential Onl y Multi -Famil .Develo menu 80% of multi family units in a n f
a. Private Outdoor Space: For all residential only buildings and mixed use buildings with development are requared'to provide '
more than;4 residential units: private open pace; which allows"
(1) A minimum of 80% of the dwelling units in a development shall have private more zn the design bf
open space, such as a private porch, a deck, a balcony, a patio, an atrium, or multifamily bus f1ii ks
other outdoor private area The private open space shall be contiguous with the 32 sq ft ofprtvatejopenAspace is
unit in a single °area. required; ,reduced from he�SDR
(2) A minimum of 32 square feet of private open space is required. The open space requirement of48sq. fl.
must have a minimum depth of 4 feet.
(3) Balconies may project up to a maximum of four feet into the public. right -of -way.
(4) Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space
except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit.
b. Shared Outdoor Space for Mixed,Use Buildings with Residential Units and Multi- Family
Buildings:. In :addition to the required•private outdoor space, multi- family buildings
and mixed use buildings with more than 4 residential units shall provide shared open
space (e.g., courtyards, roof decks,or garden, play areas, outdoor recreation
indoor recreation room, and/or similar space) that is equal to or greater than 10% -
percent of the developmentsite, except as follows: = Minimum, required shared' outdoor',}.
(1) Credit for Private Open Space. Up to 50% percent of the shared open space space willbe 10%of the sitearea,
standard may be met by providing additional private open space, such as rather than 200 or.300 sq ft per
balconies, porches and patios (above whatis required in 18.610.03012).
2). unit as required in Chapter 18360'-
(2) Credit for Proximity to a Park: A shared open space credit of 50% percent SiteDeu elopmentReview':
maybegranted when &multiple' family development is directly adjacent to an
improved public park.
(3) Credit for up to 100% of the shared open space standard may be met by paying ti
a fee-in-lieu. The fee will fund parks and/or plazas within theDowntown Urban
Renewal District.
(4) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable to promote crime
prevention and safety.
3. Private Open Space for ,Single = Family Attached Dwelling Units: `-
a. A minimum of 100 square feet of private open space per unit such :as a private porch,
`
yard, a deck, a balcony, a patio;. or other outdoor private area is required.
G. Additional Requirements for. Single - Family Attached Dwelling Units
1.: Garage entry garagesand carports shall be accessed from alleys, or otherwise recessed
behind thefront building elevation (i.e., living area or covered front porch). a distance of
7 feet or- less or 18 feet or greater.
•
32 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
18.610.035 Additional Standards R " r ' ' UR' ` *�' ` _' '4'
Applications must conform to all applicable standards in the following chapters: y G
STAFF COMMENT
•• Access Egressand Circulation see Chapter 18.705
• Environmental Performance Standards see Chapter 18.725 . •
• Exceptions to Development Standards:see Chapter 18.730
• Landscaping and_Screening see Chapter 18.745
• Mixed Solid Waste and. Recyclable Storage see Chapter, 18.755
• Off- Street Parking and Loading Requirements see Chapter 18.765 •
• Sensitive Lands see. Chapter 18.775
• Signs see Chapter 18.780
• Tree'Removalsee Chapter 18.790
• Visual Clearance see Chapter 18.795
• Wireless Communication Facilities see Chapter 18.798
• Street and Utility Improvement Standards see Chapter 18.810
18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering
Urban Plaza
The Urban Plaza is listed. as a catalyst project in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan and T7iese requirements are `floating:
Urban Renewal Plan. Developments on the parcels that directly abut the location of the new zone that,wtll take effectwhen -'
plaza will expected to be in keeping with the character of the plaza New development that is the property for the Urban'Pla*is
built concurrently or subsequent to the construction of the plaza will need to conform to the secured
following standards (in addition to the other applicable standards in this code):
• The building must be minimum of two stories and a maximum of four stories .
• No parking' kit May abut the plaza
• The buildings shall:follow the building and site design and development standards for
Commercial and Mixed Use buildings in the Main Street Sub -area.
18:610.045 Exceptions to Standards
A. Exceptions to setback requirements. The Director may grant an exception to the yard •
setback requirements in the applicable zone based on findings that the approval will result
in the following:
1. An exception which is not greater than,20% of the required setback;
2. No adverse effect to adjoining properties • in terms of light, noise levels and fire hazard; 18 '610 045 adapted from. chapter"
3. Safe vehicular and pedestrian accesslo•the site and on -site; 18360 SiteDevelopmentReuie ii
4. A more efficient use of the site which would result in more landscaping; and
5. The preservation of natural features which have been incorporated into the overall design
of the project.
B. Exceptions to parking requirements. The Director may grant an exception or deduction
to the off - street parking dimensional and "minimum number of space requirements in the
applicable zoning district basedon the following,findings:
1. The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be
permanent in nature, e.g., senior citizen housing, and which has a demonstrated low
demand for off - street parking;
2. There is,,an,opportunity for<sharedparking and there is written evidence that the property
owners :have entered•into a :binding agreement to share parking; or
3. There is .community interest in the preservation of particular natural feature(s) on the -
site, public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the :standards will not
adversely adjoining uses,: therefore -the public interest is not adversely affected by
the granting of the exception.
C:, Exceptions for private or'shared outdoor area. The Director may grant an exception
or deduction to the private outdoor area and shared outdoor recreation areas requirements,
provided the application is for a. use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to . •
be permanent in nature (for example, senior citizen housing) and which can demonstrate
a reduced demand for a private outdoor recreational area based on any one or more of the
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
following findings: '<. , , e.,„ . > 41 4 _y
1. The development operates a motor vehicle which is available on a regular basis to STAFF COMMENTARY
transport residents of the development to public open space or recreation areas; or
2. The required square footage of either the private outdoor area or the shared outdoor
recreation area may be reduced if together the two areas equal or exceed the combined
standard for both.
D. Exceptions to landscaping requirements. The Director may grant an exception to
the landscaping requirements of this code, Section 18.745, upon finding that the overall
landscape plan provides for at least 20% of the gross site to be landscaped. 18.610.050
Track 3 is available as an alternative
18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives (to be used with way of review that ensures projects
Track 3 Approval Process) that are unable to meet the design
A. Applicability standards will have good design
All development using the Track 3 Approval Process must demonstrate compliance with the principles.
design objectives listed in 18.610.050.C. The development must also meet the development
standards of Table 18.610.1. The Building and Site Design
B. Approval Criteria objectives are qualitative
Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the intent statements, with multiple ways
statements of the design objectives, through architectural drawings and a narrative.
' of accomplishing. They are based
The design review body will make findings that the intent of the design objective has been met. on the intent statements from
Applications using the Track 3 process must also show compliance with the development the Design Standards section. The
standards set forth in Section 18.610.020 and Table 18.610.1 application would address each
Concurrently or after Design Review Board approval, the application will be reviewed for applicable objective through a
compliance with the other relevant chapter sections, as listed in 18.610.035: narrative graphics, and architectur-
C. Design Objectives al drawings. The decision making
Each design objective has an intent statement followed by photographs of development press is �'pe III with the Design
exemplifying the objective. Review Board as the decision mak-
1. Create Vibrant Streetscapes and Rights -of -Way; Provide Weather Protection; ing authority.
and Promote Safety and Security
Intent. Foster vibrant, inviting streetscapes and sidewalk- facing ground floors and entry Concurrently, or after Design Review
ways. Create buildings that are easily accessible to and provide protection from the Board approval, the application will
elements for pedestrians. Ensure that the ground floor promotes a sense of interaction be reviewed for compliance with the
between activities in the building and activities in the public realm. Building and site other relevant chapter sections: land
design should also address crime prevention through defensible spaces, lighting, and use, street, utility, issues, etc.
features that allow observation and "eyes on the street." A Design Review Board may consist
of a new volunteer board, appointed
It ,' r - , .. I ; • by Council or a subcommittee of the
ri ;;, Planning Commission. A potential
i ' '�
- , configuration is five members with
r 4 t • ; • ,, c 1 , - ` ,1 • at least three involved in architec-
t ture, landscape architecture, or a
• ,' t - .0 1 . - design specialty.
IF �r The photos are included as examples
a + of development that exemplify the
a ri _ a - � _ ^ objective. 4i r . I ' -
4--,
I I • _ = ""a
lift ..---- -.......- ,, "
34 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
2. Create Cohesive Architectural Facades kfixf.statrif-VaidtvlsalikriglikirAlstilitiaikata
Intent. Build and expand upon Downtown Tigard's architectural character by S T A F F COMMENTARY
incorporating cohesive and repetitive architectural elements into the ground floor of
street facing facades. Relate to the horizontal facade articulation and massing of sur-
rounding development and/or utilize building and site design elements that connect
Fanno Creek Park or extend natural elements to the Downtown.
•
—=.-..:—. L I i:
. _ i 1 1 1 1 . 1 ° F w t r I T I ti.5 _.„ :41:,: . IL ,
....
.....
, .
_ :.:111!
* ..
N., N. i `I
i n , r, ',), . , 4 1 .V ' . ', ..,..
- 4 - 1 . $v ... i ',
3. Design Buildings with Integrated Facades
Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive
and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, creates a visually
interesting facades and roofs.
i "k'� r > r
i I I I . ,..
4001100111111PPIPP— .„ r
of, I w * fM ..r 0 ' i 1 •' ._
il
1 111 I I I �� j, �,,= f ", i
,, ow.. X01 ii �i ?h,,. ",,,'1 1:ipi iii yi ii i ii�i' c
\
s
lulitln�
1 -
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
.- A� 1 i[ STAFF COMMENTARY
: . .rte J ,
i i " ' ' ' .41 . 4 N 4f 1 011 , 1 i - L.
`' i 1 t ' 1 'p It
t ' . l o, / 1.
r ~ ` i ,l
4. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity
Intent. Create a strong architectural statement at street corners to create a strong identity
and opportunities for activity. Establish visual landmarks and enhance visual variety.
„
-
t
:\ , i '; d
Alirr
.;,�_I�l, a I Iri Iii.M.
5
MIZE leg i ' , 4 _7.
4,
bpia.E! I 44 1 . grii.,
.. —.pi
0. 1•
t
36 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
5. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and Durability MF:PNW11106,";Mittiftttlihk-gOvfNiniaNt
Intent. Use building materials that evoke a sense of permanence and durability and are STAFF COMMENTARY
compatible with Downtown Tigard and the surrounding built environment. Windows, doors,
roofs, and weather protection shall appear to be an integral part of the building design.
111111 :**'..1"jk Nk. II .„..,
.1 i . 1 P 1
‘ illik ....... ' 1 .N;6 I -
A ill g i r .. N 1 k
t r, .
r .
S
"r ,
W
i
I
t
.. ., . f .'
}
1 ^
5 R .11
N -..
4 0
6. Provide Adequate Outdoor Spaces
Intent: Assure new residential units have adequate private and shared outdoor space.
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 37
18.610.046 Signs .
A. Sign standards: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18:780 of the Development Code the following STAFF C 0 M M E N T ArR Y ''
.standards shall be. met:
1. 'Zoning' district regulations - Residential only developments within the MU -CBD zone shall meet the .
sign requirements for, the R -40 zone 18.780.130B; non- residential developments within.:the MU -CBD. i,
1861 4
00 •
Signs.
zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones 18.780.1300 and the additional
g" q uirements Most Vkistang CBD and C G , si
requirements below.
regulations are retamed,wzth some
2. Sign areahimits — The maximum sign area limits are: tc s • .
exceptions, .
a'. Freestandingsigns: 70 square feet per:sign'face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. "
b. Wall Signs: shall,not exceed in gross area 15 percent of nay building face on which the sign is , .
mounted.
c. All other:signs area- requirements shall °follow 18.780.130C.
3. Height limits — The maximum height limit for all'signs except wall signs shall be 20 feet '
4. Sign location — Freestanding signs within the. MU -CBD zone shall not be permitted within required L -1 . •
landscape areas.
5. Blade Signs are permitted.
a. One blade sign,(aboye the walkway and under weather protecting awnings, marquees, and parapets) • .
placed'ateach :entrance to a building is allowed. ' - .. 0 .
b. Vertical dimension of a blade sign shall not exceed 1.5 . ft and the width may - not exceed 90 percent • "
of the width of the•weather-protection, for a maximum sign area per sign of 4.5 sq. ft. . _
c.• Height of Sign: The distance from the sidewalk or grade up to the bottom of the sign-shall be at least .
eight feet.
18 610 047 Q,f'.Street Parking. '
d. illumination: The blade sign.may be indirectly illuminated.
6. Projecting signs are permitted, Requirements,..
Development in theMU CBD;Ijave :, - •
a. A projecting sign not greater than 32 square feet per face or a total of 64 square feet
significantly •reduced parking
for all sign faces can project up to four feet into the public right -of -way with a 10 foot
,mmamumsin e th at 0t ' _ er
clearance of the right -of -way, e i n cre , r t
moiler wallsbe. nasangly,:used
7. Pedestrian oriented ;roof /awning signs are permitted. 0
a.`Buildings with a height of 20 feet or less are permitted to have one roof sign which extends above the upper prop • t h e Ma St C -
surface of the awning structure or the roof line.
Sub area will have no maximum
b. The sign may not exceed 2 feet above the roof line and may not extend below the roofline required parking to`preS the
c. The maximum sign area is 45 square feet. { r t
exi •st reet wal on t stre
d. The sign must be oriented to the entrance of.the building' •
e. The sign,may be internally or externally illuminated: .
In addition; in the,e xastmg Chapter
f. One pedestrian orientedroof/awning sign shall be permitted per parcel. 18370 Variances andAdjustments;
an additional 40 %adjustment in the, . -
18 :610.047 Off - Street Parking and Loading Re4itireinents
minimum parking requirement •may _
A. Parking Standards. New development in the Downtown must conform to the requirements of Chapter :';
h rued,:::_'
18.765 with the following,exceptions. (1): Use of transit, ; dema n d ._
1. Multi- family'Units: In the MU -CBD zone the minimum parking requirement for all multi-family units z
m anag e me n t p a n d /or ° ,
shall be 1.0/DU. Adequate provisions for barrier free parking shall be as required by the State Building -ti .. . •
' special c o th -
Cod Vsito are not required. Bicycle parking requirements shall not be reduced. :. , 6 F kr rt ti
customer, c employee o re
2. Alf Other Uses: For all other uses the minimum off - street vehicle parking requirements shall be 75% of t .
the total computed from Table 18. 765.2, Bicycle parking requirements +shall not be reduced population, wilt reduce expected
ve useiand parkin space . -
3. MainStreet- Center Sub -area: New commercial development ,up to. 20,000 square feet in the Main Street �� . - i ii i-k # g ?. r a :' .
de for ihis development, '
Center sub -area (shown•on ,Map 18.610.A) shall have no minimum vehicle parking requirements, 2i.gt : -'i' t ; "p �' sip -.N. ta'+
re d
compa, stan Ins
ex t that any multi =famil units•shall have a minimum of 1.0/DU. S, fill ice ° r k ' ' .,
P y y of Transportation E ngineerst (ITE) ; e ?
4. Fractional. Space Requirements: ,In the MU -CBD zone, when calculating the total um'
al minim number of In' io, t a ., t .i"
«veliacle ra ands
vehicle parking spaces required •in'Ta 18.765.2, fractional space requirements shall not be counted °. 3 y s A, fr ti `t 4
minimum cit par requirement ,
as a whole space. and ... .t> t. 4 ;�
5. Motorcycle/scooter parking may substitute for up to 5 spaces or 5 percent of required (2 r a n parkangs n
automobile parking whichever is less. For every 4 motorcycle/scooter• parking spaces . an ri�w t ,. 4 =' _ � 1 '' «` t
have adverse impact oniadjacen . , .
provided, the automobile, parking requirement is :reduced by one space. Each motorcycle space must . -us ,
be at'least 4 feet wide and 8'feet deep. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision. .
' 6. Further adjustments:•As'provided for-in Section 765.070.E, further adjustments to parking standards can be
li d or. -
Y Pfroposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
•
18.120 Chapter Definitions ' ;K ''` t de `` afeig a' aI+; ^^S
Design RelatedDefrnitions • STAFF' C OfiM M ESN TA RrY
1: Arcade — An exterior covered passageway along a building facade that is open to the
street :frontage: Thesedefin 'itionswerelargelyadripted
2. Awning — An overhead cover extendmg above the sidewalk (usually: above windows from t he City,of Canby s sign code
and doors) asa shelter and/or sunshade. Tli` will,: be znte rated unto the
3. Band Any horizontal flat member or molding or group of moldings p ro j ectin g exmgDefinataons Chapter
slightly from a wall plane and usually Marking a division in the wall:
4. Bay — (a) Within a structure, a regularly repeated spatial element defined by beams •
or ribs and their supports (b) A protruded structure with a bay window.
5. Belt.Course, —. A horizontal band or molding set in the face of•a building as a design •' ' •
element (also called a'string course).
•
6. Canopy A covered area which extends from the wall of a building, protecting an -
entrance or loading dock.
7. Chamfer — To.cutOff the edge or _corner of.
8. Column, — In structures, a relatively long: slender • structural compression member
such as a post; pillar, or strut: usually vertical, supporting a load which acts in (or near)
the direction of its longitudinal axis.
9. Cornice.— Decorative projectiomor crown along the top of a wall or roof..
10. Eaves The lower: edge of a sloping roof; that part of a roof of a building which
projects beyond the wall. • V V
11. Entry— The space comprising a door and any flanking or transom windows associated
with a building,
12: Frieze — A. decorative horizontal band; as along the upper part of a wall in a room;
often used for signage in modern buildings, but derived from classical architectural
principles.
13. Marquee A permanent roof-likeshelter over an entrance to a building.
14. Medallion — A decorative element set into the upper portion of a building facade
periodically typically aligning with columns or pilaster.
15. Parapet — A low solid. protective screening or decorative wall as an extension of V •
exterior building.walls beyond the roof or deck'level,
16. Pilaster — An ornamental or functional column or pillar incorporated into a wall.
17. String:Course — A horizontal bandor molding" setinthe face of a building as a design
element (also called a belt course). •
18. Transom— A horizontal glass plane. typically encased in a wood or metal frame that •
separates the storefront from the upper facade.
19. Turret Avery.small and slender tower attached to a larger building.
20. Visible Transmittance —A me . ure of the amo nt of 'si , le ' ht transmitted throu ; h
a material (typically glass). Information about visible transmittance typically is, or can
be. provided by window manufacturers.
Landscaping related definitions:
21, Open soil — An unpaved area of soil surrounding- a tree: which contains existing,
new or amendedsoil:
22. Root paths .— ' Constructed paths that use aeration or drainage strips to give roots a
way to grow out' of the°tree space and under pavement in: order to access better planting i
soils: Root paths can connect tree spaces -and adjacent green spaces.
23. Covered soil area — An area of soil that is >under pavement and specially designed to
accommodate tree root .growth, Design methods include structural soil, sidewalk
support and soil cells:
24. Soil volume calculations — Sum total of soil volumes from each design method '
used far a tree :.A`soil depth of 2i feet is assumed. Soil Volume (cubic feet) =.open soil s
area (length x width.x depth) (feet) + Covered soil area (length x width x depth) (feet)
+ Root path length .(feet) x 0.25 +: Green space area (length x width x depth) (feet).
*Include'onlyapplicalile soil areassand design methods for each tree. •
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 139
•
Use related 446,woikuryve;w_r4:fra4t
25. Custom arts and craft work . Manufacture of crafts, art, sculpture, pottery, stained N T A<R;Y
` w ''
glass, musical instruments and similar items produced without the use of a mechanized S`T A F F C 0 ' M E
assembly line.
•
40 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
Chapter 1 8:745 O Fx6MMgrsw;M.Mftlf
• LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STAFF COMMENTARY
Table 18.745.1 BUFFER MATRIX a� In k,,,--,:.;
eepi wi a m ixe d' , `u .
d owntown, : diff uses L will
a. a generally not need tom be buffer •
w y , rom each :other w ith t exce tao
CI a . ofparking lots • -
J Lo
a �'�' -' -
C.1 .: CO
Q.. c
r , Q C -
e �''� .
� ; ar "�
*J CV" U a - ` h v
h : c a h '' '
, „..... a. C o ai
;
'V. C ' y' ., . � . O H y C*
a 4 � a cu 'di a'' a
EXISTING /ABUTTING USE
4' y , Q ' Q c Z -4 2 4 4 .
Detached Single Units,
Manufactured Units —A C 'C D C C E F CD
Attached; Single Units • -
and,Multifamily,. -5 Units,
Duplexes A — B C D C CE F CD
AttachedSingle Units
and. Multifamily,,5+ Units A A C D C CE F CD
Mobile Home Parks A A B — D C CE F C D
Commercial Zones (CC, CG,
CP, C-Blio C C CC— A A D D ——
Neighborhood. Commercial
Zone (CN) C C C C A— A D D ——
Mixed Use Employment
Zone (MUE) C C C :C A A — D D ——
Light Industrial Zones, (IP, IL) D D D D. A A A — D — —
Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) D D D D D D D D — ——
Parking Lots C C C C
Arterial`Streets A A A A — —— A D
Note 1: See Table •18.745:2 . for-alternative combinations for meeting these screening ,
requirements.
Note 2: For projects within the MU -CBD zone the following buffering is required .
A) Proposed parking lots musthave'a.buffer to level "C” (Parking lots • .
abutting parking lots do not need a buffer).
B) Proposed uses in_theMU =CBD zone that abut a residential zone must
have a buffer.to level "C."
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1
Chapter 18.765 K r1 �: 3R,I
OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS ST C Q M M E: N TA RAY.
Table 18.765.2
MAIDMUMww • In addition, in theexisting Chapter
18370 Variant s andAdjustments, I
MINIMUM . Zone A Zone B; Bicycle an addatzonal40% adj�u�stment itithe Y ._
ag s
Multifamily Units DU <500 sq ft: none none 1.072. DUs except minimum parkin`g requirementt
1.0/DU (M) elderly, which is b authorized f .
1 bedroom: 1.25/DU (M) 1.0/20 DUs
2 bedroom: 1.5/DU (M) (1) Use of trans$t, `demand
3 bedroom: 1.75/DU`(M) managementprogr
[X] s pecial ch o the
customer,.clent employee
resident population will reduce
Please see Cha i ter 18.610.04 off- street vehicle t arkin minimum re t uirents expected ehtcle' " and parking
s a demand or "this develo meet
in the in the MU -CBD zone. p f p
ds,compared tostandards Institute
:1 11 :;1 :;1 .. , • : - 11 . 1 :;� , '1 ` . , = : II ` : : ::: .: ::: :, : -- - ofrransportatton Engineers•
:1 -.1 i , •A :I I' - -; . IAI 1 I • '• r 1 1'' I " . Art ": 11 IA1 ; (17E) vehielef. i ,generation
_ rates and minimum city parking=
1 , 1 I:-A .1 i 1:1- rr►'I`r r111111 ,. f ryneh 7'
:1 -. d - : � IIr - . ..: :. : . .; ; , - - �I '• � '. '. :,�, -- - 1 - h :1 . . : - _ w 1 , ► : - requireits,, a nd '
•
., 1 11 :;1 • : I O ,
r;
18.765.2. (2) A redisction in parking wall not
havean adverse-i npact kadjucet*
[x] IntheMU- CBDzonetheminimumparkingrequirementsforallmu familyunitsis uses;
•
1.0/DU.
18.765.070.1. Developments in the MU -CBD. Zone Please see Section 18.610.047
off - street vehicle parking minimum requirements-in the in the MU -CBD zone.
•
•
... - Bpi..
42 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09
•
IFS.a: }d! 12.44 ,.1105,1 Qt.f,W `? 71.141 aVI F;
STAFFC O;yM M E ;N TARY •
Chapter 18.780
SIGNS -
Change reference- from:CBD to MU -CBD •
•
•
•
•
•
•
,-
DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 143
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 19, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Review Downtown Circulation Plan (Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban
Renewal; Long Term Goal: Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard)
Prepared By: Sean Farrelly Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Receive briefing on the Downtown Circulation Plan report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss report with staff and consultant and provide comments to facilitate the plan adoption process.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) found one of the major constraints for the development of
Downtown to be the lack of connectivity, which impedes pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation in the
Downtown. The Leland Redevelopment Strategy also recommended implementing long -term plans to increase
connectivity to and within the Downtown over the next 50 years.
A consultant team made up of SERA Architects (urban design), Kittelson and Associates (traffic engineering), and
Johnson Reid (real estate economics) began working on the project in June 2009. A draft preferred alternative
circulation plan with recommendations for street classifications and street sections has been developed (Attachment
2). These draft materials were reviewed and feedback was received from the City Center Advisory Commission and
a Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of representatives of the City Engineering Department, ODOT,
Metro, and Triplet). Preliminary maps were also displayed and comments taken at the Downtown Open House in
July 2009.
The Downtown Circulation Plan addresses constraints and plans for vehicle, pedestrian, transit, and bicycle
circulation in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The purpose of the plan is to:
• Implement a transportation network with improved connectivity and provide the basis to obtain rights -of-
way for the network as new development occurs.
• Establish street standards which will lay the foundation for vibrant, active, pedestrian - friendly streets which
accommodate anticipated uses and allow traffic to move appropriately within the district.
The attached report includes a Preferred Alternative Map that displays recommended new streets and
pedestrian /bicycle connections and their proposed classifications.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal
Long Term Goal: Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Memo to Council dated January 7, 2010
Attachment 2: Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Report
FISCAL NOTES
The Downtown Circulation Plan budget is $35,000 for consultant services in urban design, transportation planning,
traffic engineering and real estate economics. These funds have been budgeted.
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager J4-
Re: Review of Downtown Circulation Plan
Date: January 7, 2010
The Downtown Circulation Plan's focus is to ensure long -term development of an integrated, multi -
modal circulation system in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Also, the purpose of the plan is to:
• Implement a transportation network with improved connectivity and provide the basis to
obtain rights -of -way for the network as new development occurs.
• Establish street standards which will lay the foundation for vibrant, active, pedestrian -
friendly streets which accommodate anticipated uses and allow traffic to move appropriately
within the district.
A consultant team made up of SERA Architects (urban design), Kittelson and Associates (traffic
engineering), and Johnson Reid (real estate economics) began working on the project in June 2009.
The team developed a draft preferred alternative circulation map, and recommendations for street
classifications, and street sections. These draft materials were reviewed and feedback was received from
the City Center Advisory Commission and a Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of
representatives of the City Engineering Department, ODOT, Metro, and Triplet). Preliminary maps
were also displayed and comments taken at the Downtown Open House in July 2009.
The Circulation Plan's proposed street and pathway network would create a fine- grained block structure
that is characteristic of other successful downtowns. The new grid would be pedestrian - friendly,
universally accessible, and supportive of both the existing downtown- appropriate businesses and the
type and scale of development the community desires to see here in the future.
The report proposes several new street classifications specifically for Downtown, with conceptual cross
sections. The cross sections with the recommended right -of -way widths, sidewalk, vehicle and bike
lanes, were developed based on the present and potential contexts of the streets (i.e., the narrowest
streets are proposed for areas that are likely to develop with primarily residential uses). The report also
considers the proposed Ash Street connection (across the railroad tracks and Fanno Creek Park) and the
proposed street that would align with Garden Place at Hall Blvd to be the highest priority.
The appendix of the report includes a transportation engineering review of the recommended
transportation network. It concluded that the proposed street classification matched the anticipated
traffic volumes for Downtown in the horizon year 2050. The real estate assessment, also in the
appendix, evaluated how new transportation connections will positively and negatively affect the value
of properties impacted and the value of properties in the Urban Renewal District as a whole. Thirty -two
out of the 196 parcels in Downtown would be affected, to varying degrees, by the requirements for new
street connections. Approximately 10 acres or 6.3% of the Urban Renewal Area would be dedicated for
new street right -of -way. While noting that the proposed new street alignments would have impacts on
the properties they intersect, the impacts would be lessened by the value of new development,
particularly if new street frontage is created. In cases where the City purchases the right -of -way, there
would be direct compensation to property owners. Increasing connectivity would improve the
marketability and developability of the Downtown overall.
Plan Implementation:
The street network will be implemented as properties redevelop. Development on properties where a
new street is proposed would need to reserve the right of way and construct the street (or half- street)
improvement. Depending on the nature of developments some of the proposed alignments, widths, and
cross sections may be revised. A future policy decision would be whether to, and at what level, assist in the
construction of the new streets with urban renewal and general fund dollars.
The location of the pedestrian /bicycle connections are meant to be flexible and determined in
conjunction with specific development proposals. These connections could take the form of multi -use
paths through private development, paths between buildings, or arcades. Specific code language will
state the requirements for these connections, addressing width, lighting, paving materials, safety, etc.
Next Steps:
The Preferred Alternative Map has been evaluated as part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
update. The final Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan will be incorporated into the Tigard Transportation
System Plan and be included in the adoption process with Planning Commission and City Council public
hearings. The recommended new street connections will appear on the TSP maps and the Downtown
Tigard Circulation Plan will be an appendix to the TSP report. Code language to implement the plan will
also be developed and adopted into the Downtown chapter of the Development Code.
Prior to starting the adoption process in the spring of 2010, staff will conduct targeted outreach to
property owners who would be impacted when the network is implemented as new development
occurs. The Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will be briefed on the report in February. The
City Center Advisory Commission will also vote on their endorsement of the plan.
: .:.,‘. \ \ :
/ 1 1 1 1 :0 > '3'
/
♦
„ • \NZZ
\ 7/\\c°
F
...." \ -,, ,,,,, /./\\.\\50.,•,
. :-A\ ,
00 .0%
. , „ . ". < / _ ,
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan
Tigard, Oregon
22 DECEMBER 2009
Design Team
Matthew Arnold, SERA Architects
Allison Wildman, SERA Architects
Beth Wemple, Kittelson & Associates
Brendan Buckley, Johnson Reid
Technical Advisory Committee
Sean Farrelly, City of Tigard
Mike McCarthy, City of Tigard
Kim McMillan, City of Tigard
Darren Wyss, City of Tigard
Marah Danielson, Oregon Department of Transportation
Anthony Butzek, Metro
Jessica Tump, TriMet
City Center Advisory Commission
Tom Murphy, Chair
Alexander Craghead, Vice Chair
Carolyn Barkley
Alice Ellis Gaut
•
Ralph Hughes
Kevin Kutcher
Peter Louw
Elise Shearer
Martha Wong
Linli Pao, Alternate
CONTENTS
Executive Summary, 3
Introduction, 5
Downtown Study Area, 6
CCAC Statement of Values, 7
Conceptual Downtown Sub - Districts, 8
Connectivity Plan, 10
Street Character Classifications, 14
Pedestrian / Bicycle Connections, 21
APPENDIX: Code Provisions for Connectivity, 29
APPENDIX: Transportation Assessment, 31
APPENDIX: Real Estate Assessment, 37
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Building off of several recent planning efforts for Tigard's traditional center, the
Downtown Circulation Plan describes a vision for a complete system of streets
and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal access to, from,
and within Downtown and organize development within a block structure better
suited to intensive, urban development. The plan also puts forth street character
classifications that have been tailored to meet the future context of individual
street segments.
The plan was developed by urban designers from SERA Architects, with technical
assistance by Kittelson & Associates (traffic and transportation analysis) and
Johnson Reid (market and real estate analysis), under contract with the City of
Tigard. Guidance was provided by the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and
a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from the City of Tigard,
TriMet, Metro, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Public input was
gathered on draft alternatives of the plan at a public open house in July 2009.
The Downtown Circulation Plan divides the Downtown into several conceptual
sub - districts, each with its own unique character and function within Tigard's core.
These sub - districts are: Main Street Village, Hall /OR 99W Area, Urban Residential
Neighborhood, The Heart and Civic Core, and Creekside Residential. The degree of
connectivity and the character classifications for each street have been individually
tailored to meet the design intent of these five conceptual sub - districts.
The proposed street and pathway network would create a fine - grained block
structure that is characteristic of other successful downtowns throughout the
region and the nation. The new grid would be pedestrian - friendly, universally
accessible, and supportive of both the existing downtown - appropriate businesses
and the type and scale of development the community desires to see here in
the future. While achieving the numerous benefits of network connectivity is the
overarching goal of the plan, there are two key connections which should be
considered top priorities of the plan. The first is Ash Street, which, at build -out,
would extend from the residential neighborhood to the south, across Fanno Creek
into Downtown, and then across the railroad tracks to connect (via the proposed
Garden Place Connection) to Hall Boulevard. The Garden Place Connection, with its
direct connection to Hall and its ability to facilitate access to the Urban Residential
sub - district and (proximately) to Main Street, should also be considered a high
priority. Other streets and pedestrian pathways are proposed to further sub - divide
large parcels and create a walkable, mixed -use Downtown.
Street character classifications have been provided for the streets within the
Downtown study area. These character classifications are described with
both text and illustrative cross- sections. In a transportation assessment of the
network prepared for this study, it was determined that each of these character
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
classifications matched closely the anticipated traffic volumes in Downtown Tigard.
Additional findings indicated that traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard / Garden
Place intersection are estimated to exceed the available planning-level capacity
for 2050. No additional changes were recommended to the roadway character
classifications for either roadway. While congestion will likely occur during peak
hours at this location, it is likely that congestion would be limited there during off -
peak times.
A real estate assessment was performed in conjunction with this study to
determine the impacts the circulation plan's implementation would have to
Downtown properties and their redevelopment potential. In general, it was
concluded that greater connectivity within the district would provide better access
to the interior of current super - blocks, thereby making those blocks more attractive
and marketable to developers. This connectivity, the relative ease of pedestrian
circulation within the district, and the increased amount of street frontage would
also facilitate the form of mixed -use redevelopment the City is striving for with its
current development code amendments for Downtown.
While this Downtown Circulation Plan may be adopted as a stand -alone refinement
of previous planning efforts for Downtown Tigard, its alignments and cross- sections
are ultimately meant to be incorporated into the City's Transportation System Plan
(TSP). Depending on the nature of development, some of the alignments, widths,
and cross- sections may be altered during design and construction.
4 TIGARD, OREGON
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Downtown Tigard is currently comprised of several large superblocks with a mix of
low - to-moderate intensity retail, office, light industrial, institutional, and residential
uses. Access into the district is restricted by the OR 99W viaduct to the northwest
and Fanno Creek to the southwest. Connectivity within Downtown is hampered
by both the superblocks and an active rail line that bisects the district from the
northwest to the southeast.
Building off of several recent planning efforts for Tigard's traditional center, the
Downtown Circulation Plan focuses primarily on the area south of OR 99W, west
of Hall Boulevard, and north of Fanno Creek. It describes a vision for a complete
system of streets and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal
access to, from, and within the district and organize (re)development within a
block structure better suited to intensive, urban development. The plan also puts
forth street character classifications that have been tailored to meet the future
context of individual street segments.
The Downtown Circulation Plan seeks to actualize the concepts included in the
Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan,
and the Tigard Downtown Future Vision, and is meant to complement the pending
Downtown Tigard Code Amendments. It has been informed further by current
design efforts for improvements to both Main and Burnham Streets.
The plan was developed by urban designers from SERA Architects, with technical
assistance by Kittelson & Associates (traffic and transportation analysis) and
Johnson Reid (market and real estate analysis), under contract with the City of
Tigard. Guidance was provided by the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and
a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from the City of Tigard,
TriMet, Metro, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Public input was
gathered on draft alternatives of the plan at a public open house in July 2009.
While this Downtown Circulation Plan may be adopted as a stand -alone refinement
of previous planning efforts for Downtown Tigard, its alignments and cross -
sections are ultimately meant to be incorporated into the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP). The focus of this plan is internal circulation for Downtown;
further study is needed for connections to Hall, to the potential high - capacity
transit line on OR 99W, and to Tigard as a whole. With an approximate 50 -year
time horizon, implementation of the Circulation Plan itself (i.e., the construction
of new streets and pathways) is anticipated to occur primarily in conjunction with
redevelopment, although urban renewal may play a role in specific key projects
that have yet to be determined. Depending on the nature of development, some
of the alignments, widths, and cross - sections may be altered during design and
construction.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 5
DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA
, .."1 0.0
LEWIS S 1�'. � e* tir, . - LOMITA -,
fit+ • €'
r i
.2 12 F., ,,...."---"I ,.1
PIHAS o . i 4. 1
� = P
a
TANGELA m r
z z
1 Jo
U
o °
9 sr„ 'Pn
c
l
at 4
I,so A
# int, Obi ✓TF
S
4 S
KNOLL
c`
WES
/11/1 Commuter r
Rail Station 4-�,, °�
P
7
Q P A & q
� 244 ■
. \\\ 2 7
e
4 tiw 1
A <'hCO r I f
1 J.
..> , !
-1'
Tigard
Ai" City Hail
4�
! ? 1y
l .
` P
l u g
e
P < 9�
-
P o� W 1
1-.Q... 4ti . j
Downtown Study Area
— —
uiImnienevml disc is study art,
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project 12.21.09
6 TIGARD, OREGON
CCAC STATEMENT OF VALUES
Statement of Values for the Downtown Circulation Plan
At its April 22, 2009 meeting, the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) put
forth a Statement of Values for the Circulation Plan which reads:
1. Create a street system that will encourage people to visit and return to
downtown.
2. The new street network should result in a positive impact on the environment.
3. All modes of transportation must be accommodated.
4. Encourage a pedestrian- oriented urban village in Downtown.
5. Get people into and around the Downtown, but do not enable vehicles to cut
through (with the possible exception of a connection to Highway 217 via Scoffins
and Hunziker.)
6. The street network should serve the uses envisioned for the future
7. The existing built form should be taken into account when planning new
connections, but the greater economic interests of future development should
take precedence.
Design Principles for the Downtown Circulation Plan
Over the course of the project, with input from the CCAC, the TAC, and the
consultant team, additional general design principles emerged to guide the
planning process. These included the following:
• Maximize efficiency and ease of access for all transportation modes
and for emergency services. (This principle can be realized, in part,
by determining appropriate access spacing and by avoiding off -set
intersections.)
• Enhance accessbility for people of all ages and abilities. (Strategies for
achieving this objective include keeping block sizes relatively small and
providing superlative bike and pedestrian facilities.)
• Create a network with a diversity of human - scaled street types that support
urban places and integrate with blocks /buildings.
• Link with city, regional, and national transportation networks. (Achieving
this end requires careful integration of this plan with Tigard's TSP and with
other local and regional planning efforts.)
• Ensure the economic viability of the blocks that result from the
implementation of the new street grid.
DOWNTOtVN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2005 7
CONCEPTUAL DOWNTOWN SUB - DISTRICTS
• '11,: t 1 • ra. - F - . .. , ° J� S , . � �- 8. , ` '.
.+� T e a . J. 1 i_ � s., r'rNe ,, � „' s
t` r .!4. i p�r`� -, 1
; - wi �, ,. oa �.' Hat/ Qfi99WArea
a. .. .1 L' • 1 1, 446 �
..' , X i �a, Urban
• ; r,. ,, 5 e Resi dential e' . 4: Neighborhood o7'''
o '
o,
I� � R
•
"The Heart" ., / .. • !
F
f;
.....\ ' i: I )
444iittro, OE.
mG : '
� �, t
� h y � Civic
Core k•
I.
j
1
r ,A ..x - 1 ., �r
r . •
0 * - . ' ° Creekside Residential
. \ .• .
� - R r. . •
•.aQy a F �` - r . 1 a 1 w . _.�. -_
.: r �-
.' .• 'k.� • fi b" - h _ •
f 2 v " 4. . '3{ V r "' / e3
• • : .',40110-4,,,, A.- A jam 1i j� _ � . µ w . 1 - 'y • .r ,,. �,. R',. e• •s / _ • -,;. • ° -� ter . T. .• •
Conceptual Downtown Sub - Districts
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project ® , 12.21.09
8 TIGARD, OREGON
DOWNTOWN SUB- DISTR;CTS
Conceptual Sub - Districts
For the purposes of this Circulation Plan, Downtown Tigard is defined by the City Center
Urban Renewal Area, and is bounded approximately by Fanno Creek to the southwest,
Hall Boulevard to the east, and OR 99W to the north. Drawing from previous plans and
the proposed zoning code for Downtown, the area was conceptually subdivided into five
separate sub - districts, defined in part by their uses and their boundaries.
Each sub - district has its own distinct function, density, and mix of uses. Together they
helped shape and inform the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan by serving as the unique
pieces of cloth that need to be stitched together to make a quilt. How future streets and
paths interact with these districts provides the framework for the Circulation Plan and
helps define the context- sensitive character of the individual street and path segments.
The Conceptual Downtown Sub - Districts are:
Main Street Village. This sub-district is defined by the uses along Main Street from
its northern and southern intersections with OR 99W. This sub - district's character
is defined by its traditional role as Tigard's commercial Main Street, comprised of
modestly - scaled buildings, prominent pedestrian- oriented sidewalks, and active ground -
floor uses.
Regional Mixed Use (Hall /OR 99W Area). This large area encompasses the OR 99W
and Hall Boulevard intersection and its corner properties, as well as the "Hall /OR 99W
area" bounded by Hall, Scoffins, and Main Street. Today the area is largely auto - oriented
commercial. In the future, the sub - district is envisioned as a dense, mixed -use regional
commercial area that capitalizes on its highly visible location and access to region -
serving streets and highways.
Urban Residential Neighborhood. This area between Main, Scoffins, Commercial, and
Hall is currently a variety of residential, commercial, office, and light- industrial uses. This
sub - district is envisioned as a dense, mixed -use neighborhood that takes full advantage
of its proximity to high - quality transit and the commercial and civic amenities Downtown
offers.
The Heart and Civic Core. A plaza, festival street, and new park will serve as Downtown
Tigard's new "living room" and anchor the sub - district that will include other civic
functions and institutions (including a new Police Station and a new Performing Arts
Center). This mixed -use sub - district stretches along the north side of Burnham between
Hall and Main Street and also includes the area south of Burnham and north of Ash.
Creekside Residential. Fanno Creek establishes the southern boundary for what is
envisioned to be a largely residential sub - district. The contextually- responsive character
of this sub - district will be shaped by Fanno Creek, its floodplain and riparian zones, and
potential for creating healthy habitat for wildlife.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 9
CONNECTIVITY PLAN
-A *..
:' j
4 , - I Street and pathway connections this
area will r
addressed as part the e 2010
City of Tigard Transportation ys
U sem Plan I
Update te {TSP) and d HCT Land d Use Plan. J
1 j
C\%, • `. `t , .
•
SS ''�� \ .' / .'
i X
,,,,,,"\-\/- \ ' .,"
/ J ° \ 1 - Nou�
• L
# .:0 ? ,,,,,..\\:::\.* .7 \
° �. � Fq . LktA \\> • c
if . .
.-2
' •-• /.? ...., \
\ •
\4''' . y94, "II
As adopt ' n the \.
ans,vltendTigard - •
e T rpolletien • , r a ps la Plan fTSPI ,_ ` .. k....,
Sy •
LEGEND
Nom Existing street! public right -of -way /!
I_ Proposed street r
•
- Proposed alley _
- Existing bicycle and pedestrian - -. - '
connection
- - - - Proposed bicyde and pedesMan
connection -fixed alt ireern
Proposed bicycle and pedestrian s
connection - exact location to be HAP • •
determined upon redevelopment - ti
Existing public transit center and 4.... WES Commuter Rail station ��� � -+�
III
Downtown Connectivity Plan - Preferred Alternative
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project ® 12.21.09
10 TIGARD, OREGON
CONNECTIVITY PLAN
Connectivity Plan
Today, Downtown Tigard lacks a complete network of streets and paths. The lack
of connectivity and large superblocks make getting around troublesome and
inefficient, especially for pedestrians. Auto traffic is concentrated on relatively few
streets, and several of these therefore suffer from congestion at key times. To
accommodate traffic volumes that might otherwise be dispersed over a broader
network, several of Downtown's streets are built to a scale much larger than
might be considered appropriate for a central business district. In addition, most
Downtown streets lack adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The Preferred Alternative for the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan proposes a
complete system of street and path alignments to best serve the future uses of the
Downtown and its sub - districts. The preferred street and pathway network would
create a fine - grained block structure that is characteristic of other successful
downtowns throughout the region and the US. The new grid would be pedestrian -
friendly, universally accessible, and supportive of both the existing downtown -
appropriate businesses and the type and scale of development the community
desires to see here in the future.
One of the key components and top priorities of the Preferred Alternative is Ash
Street, which would provide both an important connection to /from Downtown
and a central north -south spine for the district. Downtown is currently accessed
primarily via two heavily - traveled State facilities - OR 99W and Hall Boulevard. The
Ash Street extension across Fanno Creek would offer a local connection between
Downtown and the residential neighborhoods immediately to the south. Within
the Downtown core, connecting Ash Street across the railroad tracks (a significant,
immovable barrier to connectivity throughout the district) would provide a badly -
needed, local alternative to Main and Hall running NE /SW between the various
sub - districts of Downtown. Because of Downtown's current block structure and
roadway configuration, as well as the relatively high cost of constructing a bridge,
it is recommended that this railroad crossing be at-grade. With an additional
extension of Ash Street north of Scoffins, the net result of these moves would be
not only a new route from Hall /Garden through Downtown to the south, but also
an increased cohesiveness for Tigard's central business district. Completing Ash
Street within Downtown should be considered the top priority connection within
this plan (subordinate only to the larger goal of completing the overall network)
because of this street's important role for both accessing the Downtown district
and circulating within it, .
The proposed "Garden Place Connection" would extend from Hall Boulevard
through the northeast Hall /OR 99W area across Scoffins to Commercial, providing
another entrance into Downtown, its commercial areas, and the Urban Residential
Neighborhood sub - district. This street would directly serve new development in
the Hall /OR 99W from OR 99W via Hall and, along with the Ash Street extension,
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 11
CONNECTIVITY PL „N
would provide defined block faces within the Hall /OR 99W area. The new, four - legged intersection of
Garden and Hall may or may not be a full access intersection; future analysis of traffic conditions and
their implications will be needed to make this determination. At a minimum, however, this alignment
would accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. The Garden Place Connection is the recommended
second priority connection within this place because of its ability to bring people to and circulate them
through the district.
The Oregon Department of Transportation currently has jurisdiction over Hall Blvd and OR 99W. The
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) establishes the State classification for these facilities as District and
Statewide, respectively, for which access management policy and standards have been established.
The OHP Goal 3 Access Management policy is to manage the location, spacing, and type of road and
street intersections and approaches on state highways in order to ensure safe and efficient operation
consistent with the classification of highways. The OH P establishes access spacing standards related to
the speed and classification of the highway to minimize the potential for conflicting traffic movements
on the highways. The City of Tigard and ODOT coordinate on access management to improve the safety
of these facilities. Access management tools include locating future street connections consistent with
access management standards (often realized through redevelopment of properties) and establishing
shared driveways for access to multiple properties.
Between the Garden Place Connection and Scoffins, the Ash Extension would help meet these policy
objectives by serving as a "backer road” that not only provides access to the properties south of Hall/
OR 99W area, but that also provides rear access to those properties that currently front (and have their
access on) Hall. Further access to and through this wedge of properties would be provided by a network
of pedestrian and bicycle connections.
New streets and an alley in the Urban Residential Neighborhood sub - district could serve to divide an
existing downtown superblock into pedestrian -scale blocks. Chief among these would be a new street
running from Main to Ash and bisecting the superblock between Scoffins and Commercial. This proposed
street would extend beyond Ash and turn 90- degrees to make a connection with Commercial.
An alley running between Scoffins and Commercial immediately east of Main Street would allow utilities
and services (deliveries, recycling) to move to the rear of the buildings. Another alley is posited between
Burnham and the railroad tracks along the same approximate alignment. This system would allow the
pedestrian realm in front of the buildings (i.e. on Main Street) to be used for more pedestrian amenities,
such as outdoor cafe seating, street furniture, trees and landscaping, and wider sidewalks.
A proposed alley would run south of and parallel to the railroad corridor in order to provide motor vehicle
access to the WES commuter station and to properties along the line. In addition to the Ash Street
railroad crossing, two streets are planned to run between Burnham and the railroad corridor in the
Heart and Civic Core sub - districts. The depth of the existing block ( -325' to -375' from Burnham to the
proposed alley) is awkward, as it is a bit too deep from a pedestrian standpoint but not deep enough to
sub - divide with an additional street parallel to Burnham. As such, pedestrian and /or bicycle connections
should traverse the blocks NW /SE to allow for better sub - district connectivity.
12 •1IGARD, CR.EGON
CONNECTIVITY PLAN
A special street - called a Festival Street in planning documents - is planned south of
Burnham and north of Ash. This street is intended to serve the new community plaza and park
in this location, and provide additional public space for temporary markets and festivals. New
proposed pedestrian and bicycle paths also would connect through the new park to the'existing
Fanno Creek Trail, Ash, and Main.
Since the Creekside Residential sub- district is comprised of several large lots, and given its
proximity to the natural barrier of Fanno Creek and its floodplain, the area is more likely to
develop as a planned unit residential development than other locations in Downtown Tigard.
Thus, the connectivity strategy for this sub - district is to establish a primary east -west street
between Ash and Hall, and to connect it to Burnham with new north -south streets. Additional,
potentially private, streets and pathways would provide additional access to the sub - district.
This basic framework, then, allows for network flexibility in the future as long as policies are
in place to guarantee full connectivity throughout the sub - district. Equally important will be
pedestrian and bicycle access to the Fanno Creek Trail, one of Downtown's prized assets. A
new connection to the trail is desired approximately every 300 feet; the standards for these
connections should be clearly articulated in the Development Code or other binding policy
document.
A project that has been in the City's planning documents for many years is also articulated in
the Preferred Alternative: straightening the east leg of Scoffins to meet Hunziker directly at Hall
Boulevard, thereby transforming an awkward, off -set intersection into a four - legged one.
During the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan process, the concept of providing a direct
connection from Greenburg to Hunziker was discussed. This concept entailed extending
Greenburg across OR 99W into the Hall /OR 99W area and then south to Scoffins. Southbound
traffic then would turn left onto Scoffins to connect to Hunziker or right onto Scoffins to connect
to Main Street. Under this scenario, the existing stretch of Main Street between Scoffins and
OR 99W would need to be closed (at least to through traffic) due to issues with queuing,
turning movements, and signal timing at the intersection with Greenburg. Because of potential
technical issues, financial implications, and negative impacts to Main Street businesses, the
Greenburg -to- Hunziker connection has not been included in the Circulation Plan's Preferred
Alternative, but could be revisited in the future.
The portion of the Regional Mixed Use sub - district north of OR 99W has been included in
the study area for this particular project; however, new streets and pathways in this area will
have connectivity implications that reach beyond the boundaries of the study area. Therefore,
future street and pathway connections in this area will be addressed as part of the 2010
Transportation System Plan Update and as part of the Tigard High Capacity Transit Corridor
Land Use Plan.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 13
STREET CHARACTER C ASSIFICATIONS
.. ,
... - ,
S .
_
( Street and pathway connections in this
I eroa will be addressed es part of the 2010 '
t \ City of Tigard Transportation Systeri Plan
Updato iTSP) and HCT Land Use Plan J
N N 1
fv,
i
1
t ain , ,.. ., lr''-'i .
7 - '
AP / .'"..------
64%44 %.4, 4444.
-...
i:
,. ,.
/
. ,, x ....
=
, ,, ..,,„,,, < ...--
$ * 4 11 • A \
, , , , \ .„
< ,./. ,/ 4 :,
- Otr.: --.
\--,......., ,
.411111FIP \.< ,
. .• ,irk, : \ 0. , .,,,,
. \\\ ) A •
.,,
-14• r ,. \
„.•• ,\,, ,
. ...
.......„
,...
.......\ , \....".. \ /„.
....
e \ ' \ •
\ t
,.., , ',..... ■ Z t,"
. ,
"••• , '. \ /
• 1 ,
, .
X \\ >
‘ .
iti er t _ .. / •
As adopted 111 the
• . currem Tigard .
Or Transportation - : •-
Sytem Plan
SP)
• ,
, • ,
. , . \ •,
. • -,-.-___...... ,
• •
LEGEND k
, Character Classification ;:,.. ,
1 :ma try Oen Poore Liit Kt
; MIMI Lipper 114411 Boule,r4
1 MIN main Street C444, Sr..4 ,
=MI Downtown Mixed 114e 1- Dow tom Colle-inr VII me J. .
1 =MIN Dow.toron121.4.d Le 2 - Dcw-1.1. Coll,-14. .
k ■ 1/1...1 Muted Li ' 1.,-.1 " — ...,
, 11■I 41-..1,-..M24.111'. 4 Elmer IX telart /
I .......................„......„._4
.-...
- MIMI Dow Muted Use 4 Lower Porrnam -
• .
k .... lkbaq Own Str 1 ,
Urban Re.td mai
MINI Fes.4.1Street
■■ Abe,
?,t<eirett'e. ot an Corriecot ■ 14, 4
, _ • 4
• ,
—•—• MA t - Trall •
. .A 4.V
0 E 1 ur y iii IC UV I WIL I , d WES Cxrrnuter P. stat,
Street Character Classification - Preferred Alternative
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project 0 12 21 09
14 TIGARD, OREGON
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Street Character Classifications
"Functional classification" is a transportation planning term often used to
categorize what type of street is appropriate for a given alignment or location
based on a series of quantifiable inputs or desires, such as traffic volume, mobility,
speed, and access. Functional classification is usually translated into a set of
standards for cross- section and roadway design and is generally applied to whole
alignments or long stretches of a single roadway. Viewed from this largely technical
standpoint, functional classification often ignores the context- sensitive inputs or
design elements that help form the character of a street (or how a street "feels"
when one travels along it).
Street character, in contrast, begins with the notion of the street as a key piece of
the public realm, not as just a means to move goods and people. Street character
considers each street segment's immediate and potential context, including
adjacent land uses and the design of those uses, the proximity of buildings to the
right -of -way, and the relationship of an individual street segment to the rest of the
city and the rest of the network. It also factors in the full range of both users and
uses - and therefore considers not only the need to move cars, trucks, bikes, and
pedestrians, but also a street's potential to host sidewalk sales, outdoor cafes,
parades, festivals, etc. Although difficult to quantify and catalogue, these "livability"
and "programming" inputs are crucial to consider, as they should impact every
aspect of street design - including cross- section dimensions, paving materials,
fixtures, and the spacing of various elements. Although they require additional
visioning, planning, and input from the public, street character classifications can
ultimately tell a better and clearer story about a place's character and potential.
The Preferred Alternative for the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan uses character
classifications to determine which street types should be applied to each
segment throughout downtown. These classifications endeavor to capture the
desired character of the sub - districts and provide a more comprehensive view
of the transportation network in Downtown Tigard. The character classifications
for Downtown Tigard are shown on the map on the preceding page, and are
individually described and illustrated on the following pages. Please note that
these character classifications are conceptual, and are fairly general in terms
of design treatments. The City is strongly encouraged to take full advantage of
best practices regarding stormwater management, pedestrian -scale lighting,
landscaping, the use of materials and fixtures, etc. when designing actual
streetscape improvements for any of these facilities. Also note that additional
turn lanes may be necessary on some street segments in order to accommodate
higher traffic volmes; the needs for such turn lanes will be determined by the City
Engineer.
DOWNTOWN CIRCUI ATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 15
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
II
smi
■
15 8 6 11 14 11 15 8 15
■4' ROW
Hall Boulevard - Upper
Upper Hall Boulevard. Hall Boulevard is currently a State -owned facility with an emphasis on moving traffic. The cross- section
here is recommended, with the understanding that further study and resolution may be needed. Upper Hall Boulevard has a
right -of -way of 94 feet and the recommended cross- section includes a travel lane in either direction, a center turn lane, bicycle
lanes, on- street parking on both sides of the street, and 15 -foot sidewalks. A portion of the sidewalk would be dedicated to a
continuous landscaping strip to help calm traffic, buffer pedestrians from motor vehicles, and provide shade. This landscaping
strip can also serve as a stormwater facility with proper study and design. Future consideration may be given to varying this
cross- section adjacent to the industrial -zoned properties on the east side of Hall.
tio
In 12 8 5 l0 12 10 8' 10 t�
78' 82' ROW
Downtown MUed Use 1 - Downtown Collector with Median
Downtown Mixed Use 1— Downtown Collector with Median. Designed to move higher volumes of traffic through a mixed -
use district, this street type has three -lane cross- section that accommodates bicycles, on- street parking, and pedestrians
as well as cars and trucks. A center turn lane provides turning capability at intersections but is intended to be a raised
landscaped median between intersections to limit access and provide additional landscaping. Adjacent land uses are
characterized by active ground floor uses, either commercial or residential. Street trees are provided along the sidewalk
ensconced with decorative grates or landscaped ground cover.
16 TIGARD, OREGON
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Downtown Mixed Use 2 - Downtown
Collector. This cross- section is
intended for the north -south alignment
of Ash Street, and provides a fully
multi -modal street for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motor vehicles with a r
their own separate facilities. Ten to A ti d i. e
twelve foot sidewalks provide space for - LI - .`"� ' 4 . `- 1
pedestrians and streetscape amenities. • "- -.
On- street parking serves businesses Lir '"
and residences fronting the street.
Bicycle lanes provide a dedicated IIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIII
space for bicyclists. 10 -foot travel lanes
Downtown Mixed Use 2 - Downtown Collector
encourage slow vehicle speeds for this
important downtown street.
"° Downtown Mixed Use 3 - Downtown
Local. In this street type, motor vehicles
- 4411°
each have one lane of travel that is
;;' .r shared with bicyclists. On- street parking
w.
.- - provides direct access to mixed-
! ■ use development along the street.
` j 1
' Sidewalks are between 10' - 12' and - _i. e r r • `
Pt • have street trees and other pedestrian
ip• 611
_ fit`'`
�� amenities.
ilirr „ t r- m FA, ,r
,.,.H . „r.. sidennai /U 12 8 11 11 8 :l: 11 8exeo usF rrsdrnna
58' - 62' ROW
Downtown Mixed Use 3 - 0<lvnton1 Local
Downtown Mixed Use 4 - Upper
Burnham. This cross - section was
designed and developed in early 2009,
prior to this planning project. The
cross-section includes two travel lanes, '� ” . _.
on- street parking, and sidewalks of i
variable width with stormwater planters i I v la ° •:- .
landscaping. Detailed plans for the ,,,m, "'�' - °
_ is street design can be found on file at ® `�. . " �
City Hall. '
i. 16 I 8' 11 11 8' 12 18
62 74' ROW
Downtown Mixed Use 4 - Upper Burnham
rimmonememunm
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 17
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Downtown Mixed Use 5 - Lower
Burnham. This cross- section was
- - designed and developed in early 2009,
L • ' prior to this planning project. The cross-
., section includes two travel lanes, a
® E y •
■
�. L continuous left turn lane that includes
& , ? a median in places, on- street parking,
i■i - " ° u► and sidewalks of variable width with
ill- `"\ landscaping. Detailed plans for the
7.
• '` street design can be found on file at
City Hall.
Downtown Mixed Use 5 - Lower Burnham
Urban Residential. The urban
4-:" residential street has the narrowest
- overall cross - section. This type of street
is suitable for use in sub - districts with
predominantly residential uses. The
N. motor vehicle travel way is a "shared"
I PL - n width of 18 feet, which allows most
l.. vehicles to safely pass one another at a
- k I slow speed. On- street parking provides
- _ front door access to residential units
i 2 x 1 esitlenua facing the street for deliveries and
Raw visitors. Sidewalks are 1O-to 12 -feet
Urban Resioenaal wide with a continuous landscaping
strip.
18 TIGARD, OREGON
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) posited the idea of an "urban creek" / greenway running NE -to -SW through
the district. In the Downtown Circulation Plan, this linear feature is put forth as an urban green street that utilizes a
combination of porous pavers, bioswales, flow- through planters, rain gardens, and /or other innovative features to capture
and treat stormwater. The cross- sections below are conceptual, and it is anticipated that current best practices for managing
stormwater would be employed during design and construction of these facilities. It should be noted that many of these same
features also may serve a traffic calming function.
O bench
' a Q rain garden in curb exteneton
permeable pacers in parinngt p
I wzrenfaawre
_sir_ .s; Q stormwater planters street trees
Q
`` _ y ` I .
n ..1 usa re∎idr :real 12 A 10' rexmenua
60' ROW
Urban Green Street 1
Urban Green Street 1. Designed to fit a context similar to that of the Downtown Mixed Use 3 section, this
cross- section has two 11' travel lanes flanked by parking aisles and generous sidewalks.
•
bens
Q rain garden in cub pension
0
Q permeable Pacers in parking strip
e ,Y Q water feature
/"• Q stormwater planters
III s■
!�! Q street trees
1 6 ?
• 2
'nixPn isp fbS10e10ai n ve(1 Ise residenllal
Urban Green Street 2
Urban Green Street 2. All of the same stormwater facilities are utilized in this version of the urban green
street, except that the sidewalk stormwater planters are wider which enables them to better capture
and treat stormwater runoff. This width is gained by slightly narrowing the motor vehicle travel way (to
a combined 18') and parking lanes (to 7' each). This curb -to -curb dimension is the same as the Urban
Residential street as this type, too, is used in mixed -use, residential areas where slow speeds and local
traffic patterns are anticipated.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 19
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Alley. An alley is a narrow right -of -way that provides access to the back of
adjacent properties. These corridors provide a place for services such as
garbage and recycling. They also provide a place for loading and unloading
at the rear of the building, where many commercial establishments keep
their stock in storage. Alleys in Downtown Tigard should be 20 -feet wide
and constructed with permeable pavers or porous pavement to manage
on- street stormwater.
VERMEAPIF Festival Street. A festival street is designed to be closed periodically
PAVER,
20 ROW for public events, such as festivals, farmers markets, and parades. The
Alley materials and fixtures used to construct the streetscape are typically
distinct from other streets in the district; festival streets often utilize
special textures, patterns, colors, and street furniture to differentiate
them. The festival street will be designed and located as part of the
Downtown Plaza planning process, and thus a diagram of this concept is
not included in this report.
Main Street Green Street. Main Street is the primary retail spine of
Tigard's Downtown, and as such should accommodate high - levels of
pedestrian and commercial activity. As of the writing of this report, the
cross - section and plans for Main Street are being developed as part of
another City process. The current streetscape concept is that nearly the
full length of Main Street would be reconfigured to accommodate on-
street parking, wide sidewalks, and stormwater planters. A diagram of this
concept is not included in this report.
20 TIGARD, OREGON
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
: . . , ' Pedestrian / Bicycle Connections
Included in the Downtown Circulation Plan is a flexible network of off - street
pedestrian connections, some of which may also allow for bicycles. These
., "'' ;' w connections would allow for greater permeability of individual blocks, and would
s� allow non - motorists to move more efficiently across the district. The "Bike/
Pedestrian Connection" lines on the Circulation Plan maps indicate which blocks
are to be bisected by such connections. It is recommended that these pedestrian
i connections not be permitted within one hundred feet (100') of an intersection.
k { The precise alignments of these connections, however, will be determined
r ;, 1
4. - •: t - in conjunction with specific redevelopment proposals. (Note: examples of
development code connectivity standards can be found in the Appendix.)
The designs of individual pedestrian and bike /ped facilities will depend not
only on transportation considerations, but also on their relationship to adjacent
r _ - development. Issues and elements that should be addressed will include
(at a minimum): width, vertical and horizontal clearance, lighting, crossings,
irt. :s_ c', i,1„m - :nt v-ith active rour: signage, pavement markings, grade separation, paving materials, street trees
, c s • , ca : re +_a 1 . _ . . ' ( ' ' . . ' : t i .V and landscaping, street furniture, and the placement of public art. In addition,
vin vi ;nt sLrs of r,lur.,,. The
n rro; r: � or this par_icu - r p sr: ,',m consideration should be given to the building facades that front these pathways,
con ; .,CtiJr, is fl, ,aPA, 1 7 ti ;dCT,u-. with particular emphasis on the location and proportion of doors and window
rticu,t con,:r t; molt. �:: r.` (1 :: S. openings. Some connections may be open paths between buildings, some may
(` +r; c. c t Viii,-,; ;. Trg;,,ri„ OF :,
be arcades, and some may cross semi - public open space ringed by development.
Thus, the successful implementation of these off - street connections will be
facilitated by standards set out not only in the Transportation System Plan, but also
in the City's development code.
The photographs that accompany this section demonstrate some of the issues
described above, as well as some of the successful ways in which these issues
have been addressed in other communities.
at
x <
/
CI ? :), ur r o, h /e ih pees rian * --1 ,F +� °`
1 .:elite . 1,.. t n ' vnlcu o, i. T " �. •
i;rr r rser�,ror,)a,e c;eUto ..... _� ag
HMO irk-
hi. r offe r rE wr me ri. u' tp ersu, e ! we ' ! � .rra,.�
the CU!,lf Ort r..l S1 of ,It u This .rr—s. MO r �,-
sep, r co . 1 '.)e .col %red br t› pa, .- ,
of sump or Eal .. , rile `ollowin pity I - - - IP F -
h::,rr:- s. N r
::fe pa�rin= `:nater.als c E -
te`tore , c f;ercrt cC o, striping. _ - — -� -
n`urccu.`:;r, LC • ... « 5 —, –s '
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 21.
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
a
.
. .
0
lir it. ■.....4}-. :. -, ,-- i
,
lit.
-
,... . li
.
" k - • -' • ' - .
.-..... .... , )
'...o "':. ' 1,- 1 1 '. ' ' i ' „ ...„. i . - —
`41 l'il II i
- 4-, . ' , ' 4 • °. , ,, , I'• i ' I. • ' Ill
, 1 I-4 ............
..,
„,......r
4 41
. ,
..-
4 ,
...
Puciestria)) thro' 'gh - con o t o Arc Ocs c al i)ro/Lie .-) fro:mil ''.'irlf.,r 'fru,: - le: can a.'sn :
ii)corhorat. .) ht../ ')nila n:: Ti)k- v,.(.2, ..Vilif .; c'tC.'",:ti _;!')..3C(_,S thoir plas, 1,K...1C11cS, ;, nd ouzdr ca:c
arcaco spacc 1,. Iic1 'vitn , ,,'"E 11 hr.:, or, sciisc c. . lr,.. . Cl'3E..r.3i ,c,.. L.'o, (c ). : ; )
restaurant L.scs, bu,'. :Is: ; ,-. h.,:ig,,t if •ti) , . it/ :•.),c .. T.s
din co) t;ecticr, 6,...:- ./c,f -: L )r) c.nc' a Pr the.i. .', ,' li.`'11
gE:ileF fifior-c riefizcd I:ci. (s/:In, OR) c....rm., 'F'orciF., c, Or
. - • p,
. .
. , • .. ..
- ... '
, i' . .,, 1 -s- • •• N s 4; / • , ,
••'''' ' ir ---Ili „.
i
. ■e . - r l • • * ') '...
. . —
. .... , . a .. , ... .
Yr 1 ,.; c ' '-tr..' , .." 4, - .1• :
ri
40 ,
. 4.
, :. . ...., • .C ' '
1 ., • 1 kl /
..........
...
le 4..., c
..,
.. :.....
. ...1 __
.7:......„ „yr! • , 1' i
••,Il , lo• •Is, • O. 4 , ,
* ' P 1 ir ill.
. !
,
•
Pedestrian iind p.,.1 iat,,/Jiko Paths can often he used if, :ho ir rFtit.til sp.c3
1 )6t: - . , ‘ Cifferi .81E1 C.; 'Lies, Lfs L een This pork ;,'-:f , -fci., rr.,) .so vullf_iin_ (rie,ht.).
(New 01. I A)
22 TIGARD, OREGON
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
. ili ,^ .':. , = , . - : e I 4 i r Li ,, ..
s - ..d - 7 t 3. s .ter. '
.
4ti •
Pec -,,Lin ii.,tl,-. cE /sc urv:: %::s upen park sp.. '. , t ,- ' :he proirjn - ,nce of the bench,!,-, c:reetlights a. , , i landscap nth. (TOP:
Purtlanc. Oft; LOTTO,'J4: Vatic, ,v,.-,; I .C.;
_. if I r ' 1 ri
„, - 1
'4... r
•
V /
"�'
-1 r • 1
. Of
.0i 0004# '"� ✓ , r 0 „
6. L+!r
. i _ ---+ 1
at OW-. _ _ .. r '
_' ' ~ — • ./
•�� itin `
f Y
..if t .� Y f\41k.
,
I
n , -
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 23
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
Pedestrian (:2nd soh t:11,, s oicv,lo; ccnncctror s hob: % i
higher- donz,ty l3rci us ,..s that �,r a tall.,, ti le,. n o sic ,:es V- AS MUM MIN t"
should he ide ^nough .o cr :3te a:1 inviti;:6 and aft 3► ;1.A. "_� if, v.
passageway for uses. lri`^ can be dcl,ieve_1 through the
use of h! ild s tb c, nldr Tstep bsicks, occio;:trian
scab 1i htin rd I2rdsca pc. • bu,rcring As c r en r - oI ruh or i 1,
,,..
,Iii rrob.:hc2 higher u f rldi,r, tn: - ,a_rthoacce- sway.
I I-
I
r l F o 1 TOP, CI CC/ ,S
• 0 t rd OI P; -)r - 1 .,, i CiR;
Jcar ri r , r 1 r r i : ', z PerJa „d OR: Board,., V,./A:
+ A ; 1, r • ' U,neo•tvcr, B.C.
.. •' � f'.. I i
,
a _
. L
4
i , .. „ lit\
j illi 1 !.... it . - . . . 2 .° i i .
L' 't
tr
1 Mb i
t
I 1[- �f r • . ..
l t.
9
/ 'rk
r
1 1 1 •1110[ , ..-
24 TIGARD, OREGON
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
in tr;.orials ai'd li-inc.scarn silo! iici
I T .
" ty, car scted . ..0 . Me - r
- •
., . , •
Ef,,•..,/aod; BELOW: ,".1',"3 arJach, a)
8 ,
. ,
' .
:. .
" — -
•
.,..
. .
'111N1
.,.
-
...Ai 4
........ .
........
. ,
. , _.....
... ..
111011101111■- -_,._.,
_ .. ,.. .
■ -. -
NE Ill■ IIIL Illk Ilk 1■11. III Ilk ' ..0*
'II ■ 11116. IIL III■ I\ IL III& ' .
II IIR MIL MIL III Ill■ MIL IIIIl _ __,-- .
....---
.. ,,
. I shri f j. ' •
, *,' aa
filillr ,'' ..: ; lima
r ---
• : 1.10
1 ....11,
,..._._ , 1101 lbw . t .
I IM INI. •••,,,
031
, ._. -..
Pot1.n.).'a5." pr,..i.;L: / r)
' c , - F f , , =s 3i K eclosJr?,. (L"zeoci, OR)
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 25
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
' • . )1t1j1,, 11, soma cast.s, p connec
- -
*, may b•..-com? full-sca pc.. m,
....;, ,,...„ .
.
c'oped to outomohlic use L d actir5tocf by
':•. 4 1 . 1 IIKIL. - /I - intansh, r.t411,..)e. (aiarCc lo sville, VA)
• . • -
.. I
1111 Ili>
tr I r
gli I a p i
...de • -
Or Inillbot 1 1 • . p .11■Ifit , ..%
71
■ . E
r i ek..
- - -i n
. 14 ,„..je y . .. —.8•6; ... .. .. (
+.1 .
-..,.•......_-._,.... ::. - -„,.-, ,,
,.. , .
. , . -....... t. ,,,..„ . ,
16, ..i.....-,..,
A i ......; - t,1 .. ,.....
l :. 4 plgt, - -. --- . - hil. • a Ima...... -
- - ' — - -
7 . --- - ''-- ' ------- -..";.....v•-• ._
, . , ' .-.■ '-` - ' '. -
,-"•-: -...;•:- . . , r: • . .,,‘ .1. .„,
. -- • , " . 1..tir ,.. - - .. ...b&
- --
V --
'.:‘1"" - -t.'.:... ' -• .t'.4■ i 1 ,,..;
, 40• ot, Iv,
., .....
- 21 i A
_ -...e _
..I. .... _
. . / -
A n ir,tc,•-connactod o-rb ns cf r,:c ,% ti ,.,:ays ean fern at i.n:A.a - Jr .
se.nc odary L ,. , 'len -'s ' v tr.: ( - ) s,..:c I ^ '?t1(! /,:. - ,r_. =a,'
carnpt,ces ':e(L). ',', o:',.c,L• pdiks. or higr-c Er re., bent."(I come' - -x: - .. (riEcht).
(Portl..,J. OR) • -ve - ..
, 1 1 - ,
, V k • - . ' ' - ....,.. ': " '
-.1 i
...,.. .
1 -,:..,.;.„ .:-: \''''.'-," ...- ' -- -4 . i i •
4 it:='- , . . ■ ......
a
• •
. .....- A
-
\
e .. . I • "`
N —
'•"••• - 141.1. ,
- Ala - ■-•'• I.;
. .
. , •
. .
. .
• ;;." ''':." '' s - .1 .• •". ' - - . ' t.:- ... 44".' ..... . . ,
• -,, ". ---• " ‘■:'•-•...'' ' '•••• 4 . " ' : -1. v. ar , 111 • '•
AtthOUgi ; sat in a park n',..,)•ht). this multi-use part, provides direc*:.. sec( ,(.. -_ 'o
the lic/Js,ng Jnit :;t the left. :Cririotte, NC)
26 TIGARD, OREGON
Appendix
APPENDIX: CODE PROVISIONS FOR CONNECTIVITY
Connectivity standards are common in municipal or county development codes, and are often represented in terms of street
spacing or block size (perimeter). Given the eccentric shape of the Tigard's Downtown district, the constraints placed upon
it by the state highways, Fanno Creek, and the rail line, it was determined that standard street spacing or block size was not
practical for this area. However, some code provisions for pedestrian connectivity should be considered. As discussed in the
preceding plan, it is recommended that, for those blocks where pedestrian connectivity is specified, those connections should
not occur within 100' of any bounding street. The following are three examples of connectivity standards, and should be used
for reference in considering code language for Downtown Tigard.
From the State of Oregon's Model Development Code (3.4.100.G):
4. Street Connectivity and Formation of Blocks. In order to promote efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation
throughout the city, subdivisions and site developments of more than two (2) acres shall be served by a connecting
network of public streets and /or accessways, in accordance with the following standards (minimum and maximum
distances between two streets or a street and its nearest accessway):
a. Residential Districts: Minimum of [100] foot block length and maximum of [600] length; maximum [1,400] feet block
perimeter;
b. [Downtown / Main Street District]: Minimum of [100] foot length and maximum of [400] foot length; maximum [1,200]
foot perimeter;
c. General Commercial Districts: Minimum of [100] foot length and maximum of [600] foot length; maximum [1,400] foot
perimeter.
From the Revised Draft (June 2009) of the Fuller Road Statoin Area Form -Based Code (Clackamas County, OR):
a. Maximum Block Length: See Map 1 "Regulating Plan" for the location of future streets. New streets are intended to
create blocks with a perimeter no greater than 2,200 feet. Exact location of these new streets may vary up to 50 feet,
provided this provision is met. See Section 2 "Street Types" for further requirements.
b. Additional Through Block Connections: In addition to the mapped streets (existing and future) illustrated in the
Regulating Plan, any block face longer than 450 linear feet must provide an additional connection through the block. This
additional connection may be a `D" Street or an "E" Pedestrian Street, and may be located no closer than 100 feet to
an adjacent street intersection (existing or planned). These new connections are encouraged to align with other existing
or planned streets where possible. (See Figure 1 for example). See 2. "Street Types" for permitted "D" and "E" Street
designs.
From the Rancho Cordova (CA) Form -Based Code: Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan Area (Table III -1):
REQUIREMENTS BY STREET FRONTAGE
STANDARD FOLSOM BOULEVARD: MAIN STREET LOCAL STREET FOLSOM BOULEVARD ARTERIAL STREET
PULSE POINT
Connectivity Maximum block length /perimeter: 600'/2,000' Maximum block Maximum block length /perimeter: 6602,640'
Through block pedestrian connection: 350 ft length /perimeter: Through block pedestrian connection 350 ft
minimum 400'/1,500' minimum
Cul de sacs prohibited Through block pedes- Cul de sacs prohibited
trian connection 200 ft
minimum
Cul de sacs prohibited
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 29
/ KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G
610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.81 69
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 22, 2009 Project #: 10170.0
To: Matt Arnold
SERA Architects
From: Elizabeth Wemple, PE, Jamie Parks and Michael Houston
Project: Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan
subject: Horizon Year Transportation Circulation
As requested by SERA Architects, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI) has performed a year 2050
estimate of trip generation, distribution and traffic analysis for Tigard, Oregon. This analysis was
conducted to support the City of Tigard Downtown Circulation Plan. The study area is roughly
bounded by Highway 99W to the northwest, Hall Boulevard to the east, and Fanno Creek to the
south and west. The area approximately corresponds to Metro's Town Center designation.
METHODOLOGY
Year 2050 estimates for the total development areas in downtown Tigard were provided by City
staff. Downtown Tigard is expected to experience high residential, retail, and office growth
between now and the horizon year of 2050. Table 1 summarizes the expected extent of total
development in downtown Tigard in 2050. As shown, over 1 million square feet of retail, 532,000
square feet of office, and roughly 3,260 dwelling units are anticipated for downtown Tigard.
Table 1 Year 2050 Total Downtown Build -Out
Sub -Area Highway 99W- Main Street- Scoffins Street- Fanno Creek- Station Area Totals
Summary Hall Boulevard Center Street Commercial Burnham Overlay
Street Street
Retail Area (sf) 376,500 366,625 305,250 271,700 none 1,320,075
Office Area (sf) 230,000 52,000 50,000 200,000 none 532,000
Dwelling Units 667 117 958 824 695 3,260
Trip Generation and Mode Reduction
Based on the anticipated development in the study area, future person trips were estimated using
the Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. This standard resource was published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE).
In the year 2050, it is expected that a significant portion of the travel in and out of downtown
Tigard will occur using non -auto modes. The Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 31
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0
December 22, 2009 Page 2
a target for the maximum percentage of single- occupant vehicle (SOV) trips for downtown
Tigard. The target is between 45 and 55 percent. Similarly, the City of Tigard has a desirable
maximum SOV of 40 percent in this part of town. Both are year 2035 targets. For this analysis, we
estimated that thirty percent of the person trips in and out of downtown will use non - automobile
transportation (i.e., transit, bicycle, or walk) in 2050. This anticipates that in addition to the non -
automobile trips, approximately 20 to 30 percent of all trips will occur by carpooling.
Table 2 summarizes the estimated trip generation of the expected development in downtown
Tigard, taking into consideration the anticipated reduction in vehicle trips.
Table 2 Year 2050 Downtown Trip Generation Summary
Daily Weekday PM Peak Hour
Land Use C Size Weekday
Trips Total In Out
Retail Area (sf) 820 1,320,075 sf 58,640 5,510 2,650 2,860
Office Area (sf) 710 532,000 sf 5,855 795 135 660
Dwelling Units 230 3,259 units 18,935 1,695 1,135 560
Subtotal 83,430 8,000 3,920 4,080
30% Non -Auto Mode Reduction (25,030) (2,400) (1,175) (1,225)
Total 58,400 5,600 2,745 2,855
As shown in the table, downtown Tigard is expected to generate 58,400 daily trips, where 5,600
will occur during the p.m. peak hour. Of the peak hour trips, 2,745 are anticipated to be entering
the downtown while 2,855 are expected to be exiting. The anticipated retail development in
downtown is expected to have the largest portion of trips between the three land uses.
Trip Distribution
To estimate the number of vehicle trips on the proposed downtown Tigard transportation
network developed by SERA Architects, the trips shown in Table 2 were assigned to the future
roadway network. The trip distribution for each of the arterials in the immediate area was based
on estimates developed using Metro's regional travel demand model. Table 3 shows the
estimated trip distribution to the arterials.
32 TIGARD, OREGO%
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0
December 22, 2009 Page 3
Table 3 Downtown Trip Distribution
Roadway Direction Total Percent
In 140
Hall Boulevard —North 5%
Out 145
In 550
Highway 99W —East 20%
Out 570
In 550
Hunziker Boulevard 20%
Out 570
In 270
Hall Boulevard —South 10%
Out 285
In 275
Highway 99W —West 10%
Out 285
I n 140
Ash Avenue — South 5%
Out 145
In 550
Greenburg Road 20%
Out 570
In 270
Garden Place 10%
Out 285
I n 2,745
Total 100%
Out 2,855
As shown in the table, the roadways that are expected to carry the highest proportion of
downtown trips are Highway 99W to the east, Hunziker Boulevard, and Greenburg Road.
Vehicle trips were assigned onto the future roadway network according to the distributions
shown in Table 3. In addition, background traffic (i.e. regional traffic without an origin or
destination within downtown) was included in the estimate. Background traffic was estimated
using demand estimates from Metro's 2035 regional travel model. It was assumed that the areas
adjacent to downtown Tigard would be primarily built -out by 2035 and that little growth would
occur in these areas between 2035 and 2050. For this reason, no adjustment factor was added to
the 2035 background volumes.
Figure 1 shows the assigned 2050 peak -hour trips (background plus trips originating /destined for
downtown Tigard) on each link of the roadway network. Average daily volumes would be
approximately 10 times the peak -hour volumes shown in Figure 1.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 33
�__+a___ December 2009
&>
�® w+ m7 •
�$ oe 2- ,0'
e.
9 a ® °
v , ! \ % / \
%.'4,\`'* wt 2 /
§�
� ®
w<
0 I ^ ~ \4
^ #
�
, . « \
f t ° 7 >
y
/ \& c
:� & i
y 4 @ %\
�: .
\
! ®
y \ y&
a
s <
{
)
§
f
{
t.
6 2050 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOL _e
\, TIGARD, OR IIII
R KIT LN 3 ASSOCIATES, INC.
34 2URD, ORSm
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 70770.0
December 22, 2009 Page 5
ROADWAY CHARACTER
SERA Architects provided a street character classification map for the future roadway network.
The following roadway characteristics correspond to the character classifications provided by
SERA:
• Upper Hall Boulevard: Three -lane cross - section, with bike lanes for cyclists. Assumed
planning -level capacity is 20,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 1 — Downtown Collector with median: Two -lane cross - section
with a median for turn lanes at intersections, and bike lanes. Assumed planning -level
capacity is 15,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 2 — Downtown Collector: Two -lane cross - section with bike lanes
for cyclists. Assumed planning -level capacity is 8,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 3 — Downtown Local: Two -lane cross - section with no bike lanes.
Assumed planning -level capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 4 — Upper Burnham: Two -lane cross - section with no bike lanes
similar to the Downtown Mixed Use 3, but wider sidewalks are provided. Assumed
planning -level capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 5 — Lower Burnham: Two -lane cross - section with a continuous
left -turn lane and no bike lanes. Assumed planning -level capacity is 12,000 vehicles per
day.
• Urban Green Street 1: Two -lane cross - section similar to the Downtown Mixed Use 2, but
with permeable pavers for parking. No bike lanes are provided. Assumed planning -level
capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day.
• Urban Green Street 2: Narrow two -lane cross - section with permeable pavers for parking.
Assumed planning -level capacity is 2,000 vehicles per day.
• Urban Residential: Narrow two -lane cross - section. Assumed planning -level capacity is
2,000 vehicles per day.
• Alley: Narrow roadway, usually with several access points. Alleys are assumed to
provide local access only and have no specific planning -level capacity.
In addition, bike lanes are recommended if traffic volumes exceed 3,000 vehicles per day on
roadways, particularly those with bicycle and multi use pathway connections. Based on the
characteristics described above, the volumes shown in Figure 1 were compared to the thresholds
for each of the character classifications shown in the proposed downtown street network
provided by SERA. The projected volumes and roadway cross - sections were found to match the
characteristic of the proposed street network.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 35
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #. 10170.0
December 22, 2009 Page 6
HALL BOULEVARD /GARDEN PLACE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard /Garden Place intersection were estimated under year
2050 p.m. peak hour traffic conditions. Turning movements at the intersection were based upon
the link volumes shown in Figure 1. The graphic on the next page illustrates the turning volumes
and lane configurations assumed at the intersection.
44 IL.
100 1,050 50
50 50
Hall Boulevard/
150 Garden Place 200
250 100
200 950 150
The intersection was evaluated using critical movement analysis (CMA), a standard procedure for
estimating planning -level intersection operations. The lane configurations shown above result in
intersection operations that are estimated to exceed the available capacity by roughly 15 percent
in the year 2050. It was found that the primary capacity constraint is the through volumes on Hall
Boulevard, and additional lanes on Garden Place, such as exclusive turn lanes, result in only a
slight improvement to intersection operations. Additional north and southbound lanes on Hall
Boulevard bring the intersection significantly under capacity. However, while the forecasted
traffic volumes at the intersection are expected to slightly exceed the available capacity with the
lane configurations shown above, it results in the future congestion expected in a downtown
setting.
CONCLUS I ON
Based on the findings described above, each of the character classifications shown in the
proposed downtown street network provided by SERA match closely to the anticipated traffic
volumes in downtown Tigard.
While the traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard /Garden Place intersection were estimated to
exceed the available planning -level capacity in the future year, no additional changes are
recommended to the roadway character classification of either roadway. Therefore it is likely that
there will be peak period congestion and /or queuing in the vicinity of this intersection. The
likelihood is that the congestion will be limited to peak commuting or shopping periods, and that
off peak the intersection would operate with limited congestion.
We trust this memorandum summarizes the analysis and results for the future traffic circulation
in Downtown Tigard. Please don't hesitate to contact us at (503) 228 -5230 if you have any
questions.
36 TIGARD, OREGON
,, �
JOHNSON REID
LAND JSE ECONOMICS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 22, 2009
To: Mr. Sean Farrelly
Long -Range Planning Division
City of Tigard, Oregon
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
FROM: JOHNSON REID, LLC
SUBJECT: Tigard Circulation Study, Real Estate Assessment
TIGARD CIRCULATION PLAN: MARKET -BASED AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
JOHNSON REID assessed the effects of the proposed street network and functional classifications on
the real estate market. This discussion includes the impacts on both the district as a whole and the
individual properties and sub - districts affected by the placement of future streets.
IMPACTS ON THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
Connectivity: The greatest single benefit of the proposed street network from a real estate market
perspective will be to improve the general connectivity within the Downtown district by extending
the street grid into the existing superblocks that are prevalent in the district. Currently, the
superblocks present a significant barrier to the district functioning as a successful, mixed -use
neighborhood for residents or businesses.
From the perspective of local residents, superblocks can prevent easy passage from Point A to Point
B, instead imposing a longer trip around the perimeter. These long distances make walking and /or
biking less attractive even for trips within the district. Once a district resident feels the need to
drive, the natural advantage of living in the district is diminished. In other words, the driver could
just as easily live in any adjacent neighborhood.
The proposed street grid, adjacent to commercial amenities in the district, should encourage more
local trips and enhance the desirability of residential properties and development sites located in
the district itself.
Most businesses benefit from more convenient customer access and increased traffic. From the
perspective of businesses on and around Main Street, the proposed street system would increase
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX- 22 DECEMBER 09 37
■
accessibility from the southeast, though not directly from OR 99W. Improved access should benefit
businesses with increased multi -modal traffic from within the district itself, as well as from Hall
Boulevard and beyond. An extension of Ash Street over Fanno Creek would also provide access
from residential neighborhoods to the southwest.
Street Frontage and Access: The proposed street system will increase the linear street frontage
through the district significantly, creating new mixed -use and residential streets within the
superblocks. Prospective development benefits from street frontage by gaining access from the
new street, enhanced visibility, and adjacent on- street parking.
Auto access is key for unlocking the economic potential for most land uses. While other modes of
transportation play an increasingly important role, developers still seek sites with good auto access,
visibility from auto - oriented streets, and sufficient parking for users. The proposed path system
will be an additional amenity, particularly for residential uses.
Auto access into the interior of the superblocks will allow for more active uses on the main mixed -
use streets such as Commercial and Burnham. It will also allow parking, deliveries, waste
management, etc. to occur in the rear of new development. The smaller block sizes, with potential
access from multiple streets, provide flexibility in site planning and allow preservation of the most
valuable street frontages for storefronts and walk -up residences.
For the impacted properties, the loss of some developable land to the future street may be partially
mitigated by the street frontage or increased access. The benefits to a given property depend on
the specific property size, configuration, location, and development type under consideration
(discussed more below).
Sub - Districts: As discussed, the proposed street and trail system will sub - divide Downtown's
superblocks and allow new access to the interior of these blocks. The newly divided areas can be
roughly broken down into four sub - districts:
• Hall /OR 99W Area: The shopping center area is located in the northeast corner of the
district, and bounded by OR 99W to the north, Hall Boulevard to the east, and Scoffins Street
to the southwest. While it forms one contiguous block, it contains multiple parcels under
multiple ownerships.
The proposed street network would divide this triangular block roughly through the middle
with an east /west extension of Garden Place connecting to Hall Boulevard, and add an
extension of Ash Street connecting to Scoffins Street. These future streets would provide
enhanced access to the interior of this block from these two streets, while breaking the
superblock into smaller block sizes.
The new Ash Street extension would provide the added benefit of rear access to parcels
along Hall Boulevard; these parcels currently face access restrictions onto Hall, which is a
State -owned facility and is subject to access management standards. Increased access to
these sites would enhance their development flexibility.
38 TIGARD, OREGON
Overall, the Hall /OR 99W Area itself will remain a good candidate for a larger scale
redevelopment, either at once or in phases. The new street access will help define the
nature of what replaces the current shopping center.
• Urban Residential Neighborhood: Currently, there is a large block bordered by Main,
Scoffins, Ash, and Commercial, and an additional large block across Ash to the southeast,
bordered by Ash, Scoffins, Hall, and Commercial Streets. These blocks ( -500' x —900' and
—500' x —485', respectively) are very large compared to a traditional city center block size
of 200' to 400' per side.
Under the proposed transportation network, the larger block (to the northwest of Ash)
would receive two new streets, which would cross in the middle of the superblock, thereby
dividing it into rectangular quadrants. This division should greatly enhance access to these
parcels, improve connectivity, and increase development flexibility.
The block to the southeast of Ash would be divided by new streets which would form an "L"
between Ash and Commercial. This "L" would not provide new access to Hall, but, as with
the Hall /OR 99W Area discussed above, it would provide additional access to parcels along
Hall that currently face access restrictions. This new connection would increase the
development flexibility for these parcels.
• The Heart and Civic Core: There is a long block bordered by the rail easement on the
northeast and Burnham Street on the southwest that currently forms a single,
uninterrupted barrier for nearly a half mile. This long superblock is not currently
penetrated by any NE /SW cross streets.
The proposed street network would add three such streets, two of which would end at a
new alley / frontage -road running adjacent to the rail tracks, and the third being the
extension of Ash Street, which is proposed to cross the tracks and allow continuing
connectivity to the northeast part of the Downtown District.
Of the proposed streets, the Ash extension, with its at -grade crossing of the rail -line, would
be the most significant, both for this superblock and the district as whole - because of the
additional access it would provide in piercing the major barrier formed by the rail
easement.
However, all three streets would provide interior access and divide the superblock into
more regularly -sized blocks, with the attendant benefits discussed previously. The streets
that end at the alley /frontage road will have more limited connectivity, but will provide
access for employees and /or residents in the area. They will also provide access to the
amenities of the park- and -ride lot and the trail system.
• Creekside Residential: Similar considerations apply to the area between Fanno Creek
Park and SW Burnam Street. Currently this area is characterized by industrial and
employment uses on relatively Large lots. These properties front onto Burnham with access
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 39
G1
S1
■
by private drives into the interior. Many of these parcels extend many hundreds of feet off
of Burnham.
As opposed to the Scoffins /Commercial block, which has a significant fragmentation of
smaller parcels, the Creekside Residential sub - district features many large parcels which
would facilitate larger planned developments. Larger and /or planned developments will
offer greater flexibility and resources for providing future streets - be they public or
private.
The proposed network features a long, new street running parallel to Burnham along with a
series of shorter streets connecting the two. These streets would likely serve the internal
users of this area, and would likely not be a prime candidate for significant retail or
commercial services, compared to streets like Main, Burnham, and Commercial.
Even while providing additional access, this alternative would leave many large parcels.
However, combined with fewer owners, this configuration should help maintain flexibility
for future development and allow for creative solutions.
The construction of these interior streets largely presupposes the redevelopment of this
area from current industrial and warehousing uses to new residential and mixed uses. In
the long run, the adjacency of Fanno Creek Park and the Main Street amenities should make
this area marketable for new residential uses.
District -wide Conclusions: The current transportation network is far from optimal for a
designated city center, featuring very large superblocks and extended arterials (such as Burnham,
Commercial, and Scoffins) with few cross - streets. The existing network poses barriers, particularly
to movement in the NE /SW direction. The network likely hampers the marketability of the area as
distinct from other suburban neighborhoods, and its desirability as a residential location.
Increased access and connectivity within the district, as well as the individual superblocks, should
improve the marketability and developability of properties in the area, and bolster the health of
local businesses.
This transportation network should make the Downtown district more amenable for denser, more
vertical development forms than have historically been seen here. In combination with proposed
zoning and design code changes in the Downtown, the resulting smaller block structure can
produce a more urban -scale experience both for business and housing.
Improved connectivity and walk -able scale should be a positive in attracting new residential
development to the area. A pedestrian -scale street grid and the proximity of Main Street retail and
Fanno Creek Park can create a marketable character for this district not found elsewhere in Tigard.
Greater household density should in turn be a significant boon to the business climate on and
around Main Street.
From the district -wide perspective, the costs of creating the proposed transportation network are
the costs of purchasing right -of -way and developing individual new public improvements. It is not
40 TIGARD, OREGON
;■
within the scope of this analysis to estimate these costs or propose their phasing, which will be
addressed through the Transportation System Plan process. However the impacts on the individual
properties intersected by future streets are discussed in more detail below.
IMPACTS ON THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES
As proposed, the future street network would intersect a total of 32 parcels (as identified by SERA
Architects). Thirty of these parcels are located in the core Downtown District, south of OR 99W,
while two additional parcels are located to the north, in the shopping center located at the
northwest corner of OR 99W and Hall Blvd.
(One additional impacted parcel identified by SERA has already been purchased by the City, with
street improvements underway, and therefore is not included in this analysis.)
These parcels are all in some way impacted by the street alignments proposed in the future
transportation network. This section does not discuss each property individually, but covers the
types of economic impacts created by future street designation, and quantifies the estimated overall
impact on property values and tax revenue.
The main potential impacts on the affected parcels are:
• Loss of Developable Land: This simply refers to the portion of the parcel which is covered
by the new public easement / right -of -way. The owner loses land area on which to
accommodate new development, parking, or other economic uses of the property. The loss
of land, resulting in a smaller parcel, may contribute to less flexibility in programming new
development, less allowable density, and the like.
• Parcel Slivers /Fragments: Future streets have the potential to isolate slivers or fragments
of parcels that are too small or oddly configured to allow private development. Routing
streets along property lines at the time of planning reduces this risk. In cases where
fragments are unavoidable, public acquisition or compensation may be necessary.
• Odd Configurations: The future street may bisect a parcel in such a way that the
remaining parcel, while not being too small as a sliver, is otherwise configured oddly so as
to discourage efficient development.
For reference, the estimated impact on the affected parcels is presented below. However, it is
assumed that the expansion of the circulation system proposed in this project will be predicated
mostly on the private redevelopment decisions of the property owners or City acquisition of parcels
at a fair market value. Therefore, the negative impacts discussed here would ideally be negated by
the added value of the new development or compensation for public acquisition.
The following table presents the aggregate statistics and estimates for the impacted parcels. The
parcels will lose some developable land to future streets. The extent of the impact varies based on
the parcel. It is estimated that 25 of the parcels (75 %) would require the removal of one of more
building improvements on site.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 41
As the table demonstrates, the streets would impact an estimated 16% of the overall land area.
This amounts to 6.3% of the total 157 acre Urban Renewal Area. The land lost to right of way
amounts to just under 10 acres.
IMPACTED PARCELS
Impacted Parcels Urban Renewal Area
Number of Parcels: 32 196
Total Acreage: 62.1 157.3
Total Square Footage: 2,704,913 6,851,988
Impacted Square Footage: 432,529 (9.9 Acres) 432,529 (9.9Acres)
Impacted Percentage: 16.0% 6.3%
Real Market Land Value (RMV) $31,658,640 $77,767,430
Estimated Value of Impacted Land: $5,756,309 $5,756,309
Estimated Total Remaining RMV Value: $25,902,331 $72,011,121
Loss as % of Current RMV: 18.2% 7.4%
Total Taxable Assessed Value (TAV) $24,467,170 $70,260,200
Estimated Loss of TAV (Land): $2,296,237 $2,296,237
Estimated Remaining TAV Value: $22,170,933 $67,963,963
Loss as % of Current TAV: 9.4% 3.3%
1 All Real Market and Taxable Values reflect the 2009 estimates and assessments of Washington County
As mentioned, it is important to note that these estimated impacts are only those to the property
and its existing improvements. It does not reflect the new value added by the new
development /redevelopment activity which would take place on the site at the time the future
street is added. The new development will mitigate lost value and increase future Taxable Assessed
Value (TAV).
If redevelopment takes place through public condemnation, all or some of this value would
presumably be compensated directly. However, any future private redevelopment of these parcels
presupposes that the current use has lost its value relative to the newly proposed use (in other
words, demolition is planned anyway). In that case, the current value sacrificed should be similar
or equal to only the value of the developable land that is given over to the new street and other
public improvements.
Future Developable Land and Tax Revenue: The future value of these parcels after
redevelopment cannot be predicted, and therefore hard estimates of future tax revenue would be
unreliable. SERA Architects estimates that the proposed circulation plan would reduce the current
developable acreage of the Urban Renewal Area from roughly 157 acres to 147 acres (not including
42 TIGARD- OREGON
the shopping center north of OR 99W). The specific parcels identified would lose an estimated 9.9
acres of area.
The table above presents the estimated loss of Taxable Assessed Value from the loss of land area. It
amounts to 9.4% of the TAV of the parcels themselves, or 3.3% of the TAV of the entire URA.
This land area would become public right -of -way, and therefore have no taxable value. This
loss of value to the Urban Renewal Area and other taxing districts would be partially or
totally counteracted by new value created through redevelopment.
If, as noted above, these streets are phased in at the time of private redevelopment, this
presupposes that the private owner has determined a use which s /he believes will have
greater economic value than the current use, even considering the loss of land to the public
right -of -way.
The development of this new use should result in a new property value greater than before,
and thus greater Taxable Assessed Value. The increase in tax increment would benefit the
local Urban Renewal Area.
CI In cases where the private property owner is not pursuing redevelopment and the street
easement is taken through condemnation, the action may potentially result in the loss of the
current economic value without the potential of replacing that value with new uses, or uses
that are as efficient as the current use. For instance, if condemnation left a poorly
configured site for redevelopment, the value of the property may be diminished in the long
run. In addition, if condemnation takes place in a poor development market,
redevelopment may not occur until market conditions improve.
The proposed circulation system could also create opportunities for parcel assembly and
planned development. The loss of private developable land and the expense of road
improvements can incentivize larger scale developments to help defray these costs. This
dynamic helps achieve goals for density in the district while producing new uses with
higher property values.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX -22 DECEMBER 09 43
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 19, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Island Annexation Initiative
✓--
Prepared By: G. Pagenstecher /R. Bunch Dept Head Approval: Mgr Approval: (s _
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Council is requested to discuss and provide direction for taking the next steps towards implementing an island
annexation initiative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council is requested to provide direction regarding 1) requesting formal County interest in the City annexing
unincorporated islands; 2) an outreach effort directed to property owners that would be subject to island
annexation; 3) a target timeline if Council decides to pursue island annexation; and 4) the type and extent of
incentives that might be used to promote island property owners to annex.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Washington County, through informal communication with Tigard, has urged annexation of unincorporated islands
within the City limits to resolve County service inefficiency issues. Unincorporated islands pose jurisdictional
problems to City and County law enforcement agencies and other service efficiency and equity issues occur as well.
The City Council has long held the policy position that municipal services are best provided by a city. Furthermore,
the City / County Tigard Urban Services Agreement (TUSA) identifies the City as the eventual provider of services
to these and other unincorporated areas within its service area. Cities are also identified as the appropriate provider
of urban services by the County's Urbanization Forum Resolution 9 -63.
In consideration of its policy position, and the County's urging, Council directed staff at an August 18, 2009
workshop, to take steps to initiate an island annexation program within six to twelve months, with a preference for
seeking voluntary annexation first. Council emphasized the need to talk to property owners prior to initiating
annexation.
As a first element of the citizen outreach effort, it is recommended that Tigard secure a formal request from
Washington County to proceed with island annexation. If the County does not follow through, then Council may
wish to reconsider its position towards island annexation. If County support is forthcoming, then it is
recommended that the City follow up with a citizen outreach effort. Once this is complete, Council could direct
staff to shape the program appropriately, including the offering of incentives. Attachment 1 is a summary
communication plan for the outreach effort.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 AIS final Island Annexation Workshop with changes craig p doreen (2).docx 1
It is important to discuss what, if any, incentives to offer to encourage island property owners to annex voluntarily.
The City's experience since March 2007 has been that incentives, including a city property tax phase -in period, have
not been successful. This might change if Council decides to exercise the ability provided by state law (ORS
222.750) to involuntarily annex islands. In this case, owners of island properties that annex voluntarily would
receive a substantial benefit through phase -in of property taxes and those who choose the involuntary method
would not. The appended memo from staff (Attachment 2) provides additional detail about the incentive issue.
The objective for offering incentives should be to create a "win -win" situation for both the City and property
owners. An important consideration is Attachment 2 — which shows that a phase -in period of at least seven years is
required to come close to the "win -win" standard.
It is important to note that Council has also directed Community Development to work on several other priorities.
These include Highway 99W high capacity transit (HCT); Transportation System Plan; Community Development
Code updates; Downtown zoning and design standards; Downtown Circulation Plan; periodic review of the
Comprehensive Plan, Tree Code revisions, etc. Beginning an in -depth public outreach effort around island
annexation, involving person to person contact, would require significant staff time and delay achievement of some
of these and other tasks.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Council has the option to direct staff to revise any element of the proposed island annexation program, including a
more or less aggressive schedule.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Comprehensive Plan Goal 14.2, Policy 5 states, "The City shall maintain its right to annex property as allowed by
state statute."
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Initial Public Communication Plan for Island Annexation
Attachment 2: Memorandum from Staff
FISCAL NOTES
The total assessed valuation of all 78 island properties is about $26 million. If all were annexed, the City would
realize an annual property tax revenue increase of approximately $37,000. The amount of property taxes the City
would receive following adoption of ordinances initiating annexation is unknown and dependent on how taxes are
phased -in for voluntary annexation and the number of property owners choosing involuntary annexation.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 AIS final Island Annexation Workshop with changes craig p doreen (2).docx 2
Attachment 1
Communication Plan: Island Annexation Public Outreach Prior to
Consideration of Annexation Resolution
Communication Goal: Provide information to and receive feedback from property owners
and residents in unincorporated islands before Council considers a resolution to initiate
island annexation. If it decides to proceed, Council will use this information to tailor the
island annexation program as it deems appropriate.
Key Themes:
• Supported by both County and City
• Urban Service Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness
• Benefits to Being Tigard Citizen
• Tigard and Washington County wish to hear from citizens before taking action
Timeline: To begin, January 13, 2010 to first determine that the County will formally
request / support an island annexation initiative. If County does not provide support,
Council may wish to reconsider the effort. If the decision is made to proceed with island
annexation, then outreach will be complete by April 16, 2010.
Time frame Objective and Method Message
Jan 11 - 15 Contact by City elected official to Key Message: Joint interest
determine if County will formally request of both entities to address
the City to initiate island annexation. service efficiency and pros
and cons of unincorporated
islands annexation
If County expresses support, then the project proceeds upon receipt of the official request.
If not, should Council reconsider island annexation? If County supports and the Council
decides to proceed, then the following outlines the next steps.
Jan 18 — 29 Complete prepared materials, mailers, Key Message: Determine
tax information materials, web materials what are island property
owner issues and concerns
with annexing to Tigard.
Explain island annexation
process; potential incentives;
and impacts on property
taxes, etc.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \ 2010 \ 1-19-10 Attach 1 Island annexation final to doreen.docx
Attachment 1
Timeframe Objective and Method Message
Feb 1 - 5 Mail informational materials to all Key Message: As above
property owners and post web materials and emphasize that Tigard
and Washington County
want to talk to their citizens
before taking action. Give
dates when property owners
will be contacted to set up
one on one meetings.
Feb 15 —March Contact undeveloped island property Key Message: Ask for
12 owners; schedule and hold meetings with concerns; obstacles to
them. annexation; explore options
and alternatives; answer
questions; collect
information to relay to
Council.
March 8 - 26 Identify potential hosts of neighborhood Identify potential hosts for
coffees to discuss annexation issues in small neighborhood
the Arlington Heights area. gatherings to facilitate small
group discussions.
March 8 -26 Contact Arlington Heights property Same as above.
owners and hold meetings.
March 29 -Apr 15 Organize 3 — 4 neighborhood coffees in Repeat Feb. 15 — March 12
Arlington Heights neighborhood to key messages.
discuss annexation issues.
At the conclusion of this effort, participants will report back to Council. Council will
determine a course of action based on information received. For example, Council may
decide to proceed; modify its approach, such as annexing some, but not all, of the islands or
properties therein; or decide to delay island annexation.
I : \LRPLN \Council Materials \ 2010 \ 1-19-10 Attach 1 Island annexation final to doreen.docx 2
I I . 1111 City of Tigard ATTACHMENT 1
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of City Council
From: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planne
Re: January 19 Workshop on the Tigard Island Annexation Initiative
Date: January 12, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The following provides greater detail about incentives to encourage island property owners to annex
to the City. Also discussed are state annexation laws, and how they affect the way an island
annexation program would have to be structured in order to offer incentives.
In preparing these materials, staff utilized some of the City of Hillsboro's experience and would like
to acknowledge Alwin Turiel, Hillsboro Long Range Planning Supervisor, and her staff.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Incentives to Annex
The City has tried to promote voluntary annexation since March, 2007 with a City property tax
phase -in and emphasizing the advantages of being part of an incorporated community. Also, the
City offers to waive application fees, pay the Metro mapping fee, and assist with legal descriptions.
However, few property owners have chosen to annex. One or two have done so solely to be a part
of Tigard, but most have needed City services.
It is acknowledged that the reason the City's invitation to annex has not been broadly accepted is
that basic urban services are available in the Tigard's Urban Services Area (TUSA) through special
districts and County levies. Municipal services not available in unincorporated areas can be easily
accessed in nearby cities by unincorporated residents. In this situation the advantages of being part
of a city does not have much sway with property owners.
Therefore, in order to encourage voluntary annexation of island properties, staff recommends that
Council emphasize a monetary incentive through a phase -in of increased property taxes. However,
the following Table 1 shows that a lengthy phase -in is required for there to be significant incentive for
island property owners to annex voluntarily, versus choosing the involuntary method.
ORS 222.750 states that involuntary annexation is effective no less than 3, and no more than 10, years
from the effective date of the enabling ordinance. Consequently, involuntary annexations are delayed a
minimum of three years. In Table 1, Columns B and C show that, assuming City property taxes are
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 2 island annexation workshop wchart changes to doreen final.docx 1
$500 a year, a property that is involuntarily annexed will pay $2,000 in City taxes over a seven year
period. On the other hand, annexation would be immediate for voluntarily annexed properties which,
in this case, results in $3,500 of City taxes. Unless City property taxes are deferred, this would be a
substantial disincentive to annex voluntarily.
In order for voluntarily annexed property owners to gain an incentive to annex, City property taxes
would have to be phased in over a period of several years as shown in columns D and E of Table 1.
During the first 2 years after annexation, taxes would have to be waived and phased in at 20% per year
for the subsequent five years. Staff evaluated this issue extensively and, regardless of the percentage
factor applied, the phase -in period is lengthy for there to be a reasonable monetary incentive to annex
voluntarily.
Table 1: Example of City Property Tax Phase -in for Voluntary versus Involuntary Annexation
A B C D E
Tax Year % of Tax Phase -in Tax Bill % of Tax Phase -in Tax Bill
Involuntary Assuming City Voluntary Assuming City
Annexation Property Tax = Annexation Property
$500 more/ yr Tax = $500
more /yr
Annexation effective 3 years Annexation effective
0 from date of ordinance immediately (taxes to start
enactment subsequent year unless
waived as shown)
1 - - 0% 0
2 - - 0% 0
3 Annexation effective (taxes - 20 $100
start subsequent year)
4 100% $500 40% $200
5 100% $500 60% $300
6 100% $500 80% $400
7 100% $500 100% $500
Seven Year Tax Bill Involuntary vs. $2,000 $1,500
Voluntary Annexation
The above 7 year phase -in would allow a property owner to save one year's worth of City property
taxes through voluntary annexation. Also, once annexed, these properties would likely see their tax
rates go down immediately by being withdrawn from special districts or levy paid services, thus
realizing additional financial benefits. It is staff's opinion that this is as much compromise that the
City should offer for voluntary annexation. From this perspective, it is important to balance the
incentive with the need for properties to be on the tax rolls within a reasonable time period.
Staff does not recommend any other monetary incentives, such as deferring system development
charges (SDC), reducing utility rates, fees and charges, etc. The primary reason is that the island
annexation initiative seeks to address service efficiency and livability issues. Resolution of these
matters should not be delayed any longer than necessary. Furthermore, the burden of dealing with
the monetary / service impacts of service or fee reductions and /or deferrals should not fall to
existing City residents and businesses.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 2 island annexation workshop wchart changes to doreen final.docx 2
Staff was requested to evaluate if the availability sewer reimbursement districts would also be an
incentive. In this case, there are only about 3 parcels in the Fern Street area that might benefit. The
remaining 75 properties would not. Sewer service is either provided already to properties or is
accessible.
Maximum Stipulated Time for Effective Date of Involuntary Annexation
Staff recommends that if Tigard proceeds with involuntary annexation as part of this effort, it
should stipulate that properties that are annexed involuntarily be allowed to remain unincorporated
for a maximum of 3 years. This is important for a property tax phase -in incentive to be feasible.
There are other consequences of extending the annexation time. Hillsboro found that there could
be unintended consequences for property owners if the annexation date is pushed out, such as, up
to a decade. Delayed annexation could prevent a property owner who initially did not want to annex
willingly but later discovered they need to. Also, having a patchwork quilt of different annexation
dates for involuntarily annexed properties would be problematic, difficult to administer, and not
consistent with the City's and County's objectives.
It is essential to adopt separate ordinances to enact Tigard's island's annexation effort. The reason
is that state law (ORS 222.111 (3)v does not allow involuntary annexations to phase -in property
taxes. Therefore, for the proposed property tax incentive to work, Council will need to adopt a
separate ordinance annexing property of those who agree to do so voluntarily within a period of
time specified in the resolution.
If there are questions or comments about the above, please do not hesitate to contact Community
Development Staff.
ORS 222.750 provides for annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city. ORS 222.750(4)
states, "That unless otherwise required by its charter, annexation by a city under this section must be by
ordinance or resolution subject to referendum, with or without the consent of any owner of real
property within the territory or resident in the territory. ORS 222.750(5) states for property that is
zoned for, and in, residential use when annexation is initiated by the city under this section, the city shall
specify an effective date for the annexation that is at least 3 years and not more than 10 years after the
date the city proclaims the annexation approved.
ii ORS 222.111(3) allows cities to reduce the amount of annual taxation on a ratio basis for the first
ten years following a voluntary annexation. The statute states, "The proposal for annexation may
provide that, during each of not more than 10 full fiscal years beginning with the first fiscal
year after the annexation takes effect, the rate of taxation for city purposes on property in
the annexed territory shall be at a specified ratio_of the highest rate of taxation applicable that
year for city purposes to other property in the city. The proposal may provide for the ratio to
increase from fiscal year to fiscal year according to a schedule of increase specified in the
proposal; but in no case shall the proposal provide for a rate of taxation applicable that year for city
purposes to other property in the City. If the annexation takes place on the basis of a proposal
providing for taxation at a ratio, the city may not tax property in the annexed territory at a rate other
than the ration which the proposal authorizes for that fiscal year.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 2 island annexation workshop wchart changes to doreen final.docx 3
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 19, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Review Downtown Circulation Plan (Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban
Renewal; Long Term Goal: Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard)
Prepared By: Sean Farrelly Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Receive briefing on the Downtown Circulation Plan report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss report with staff and consultant and provide comments to facilitate the plan adoption process.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) found one of the major constraints for the development of
Downtown to be the lack of connectivity, which impedes pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation in the
Downtown. The Leland Redevelopment Strategy also recommended implementing long -term plans to increase
connectivity to and within the Downtown over the next 50 years.
A consultant team made up of SERA Architects (urban design), Kittelson and Associates (traffic engineering), and
Johnson Reid (real estate economics) began working on the project in June 2009. A draft preferred alternative
circulation plan with recommendations for street classifications and street sections has been developed (Attachment
2). These draft materials were reviewed and feedback was received from the City Center Advisory Commission and
a Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of representatives of the City Engineering Department, ODOT,
Metro, and Triplet). Preliminary maps were also displayed and comments taken at the Downtown Open House in
July 2009.
The Downtown Circulation Plan addresses constraints and plans for vehicle, pedestrian, transit, and bicycle
circulation in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The purpose of the plan is to:
• Implement a transportation network with improved connectivity and provide the basis to obtain rights -of-
way for the network as new development occurs.
• Establish street standards which will lay the foundation for vibrant, active, pedestrian - friendly streets which
accommodate anticipated uses and allow traffic to move appropriately within the district.
The attached report includes a Preferred Alternative Map that displays recommended new streets and
pedestrian /bicycle connections and their proposed classifications.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal
Long Term Goal: Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Memo to Council dated January 7, 2010
Attachment 2: Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Report
FISCAL NOTES
The Downtown Circulation Plan budget is $35,000 for consultant services in urban design, transportation planning,
traffic engineering and real estate economics. These funds have been budgeted.
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager J4-
Re: Review of Downtown Circulation Plan
Date: January 7, 2010
The Downtown Circulation Plan's focus is to ensure long -term development of an integrated, multi -
modal circulation system in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Also, the purpose of the plan is to:
• Implement a transportation network with improved connectivity and provide the basis to
obtain rights -of -way for the network as new development occurs.
• Establish street standards which will lay the foundation for vibrant, active, pedestrian -
friendly streets which accommodate anticipated uses and allow traffic to move appropriately
within the district.
A consultant team made up of SERA Architects (urban design), Kittelson and Associates (traffic
engineering), and Johnson Reid (real estate economics) began working on the project in June 2009.
The team developed a draft preferred alternative circulation map, and recommendations for street
classifications, and street sections. These draft materials were reviewed and feedback was received from
the City Center Advisory Commission and a Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of
representatives of the City Engineering Department, ODOT, Metro, and Triplet). Preliminary maps
were also displayed and comments taken at the Downtown Open House in July 2009.
The Circulation Plan's proposed street and pathway network would create a fine- grained block structure
that is characteristic of other successful downtowns. The new grid would be pedestrian - friendly,
universally accessible, and supportive of both the existing downtown- appropriate businesses and the
type and scale of development the community desires to see here in the future.
The report proposes several new street classifications specifically for Downtown, with conceptual cross
sections. The cross sections with the recommended right -of -way widths, sidewalk, vehicle and bike
lanes, were developed based on the present and potential contexts of the streets (i.e., the narrowest
streets are proposed for areas that are likely to develop with primarily residential uses). The report also
considers the proposed Ash Street connection (across the railroad tracks and Fanno Creek Park) and the
proposed street that would align with Garden Place at Hall Blvd to be the highest priority.
The appendix of the report includes a transportation engineering review of the recommended
transportation network. It concluded that the proposed street classification matched the anticipated
traffic volumes for Downtown in the horizon year 2050. The real estate assessment, also in the
appendix, evaluated how new transportation connections will positively and negatively affect the value
of properties impacted and the value of properties in the Urban Renewal District as a whole. Thirty -two
out of the 196 parcels in Downtown would be affected, to varying degrees, by the requirements for new
street connections. Approximately 10 acres or 6.3% of the Urban Renewal Area would be dedicated for
new street right -of -way. While noting that the proposed new street alignments would have impacts on
the properties they intersect, the impacts would be lessened by the value of new development,
particularly if new street frontage is created. In cases where the City purchases the right -of -way, there
would be direct compensation to property owners. Increasing connectivity would improve the
marketability and developability of the Downtown overall.
Plan Implementation:
The street network will be implemented as properties redevelop. Development on properties where a
new street is proposed would need to reserve the right of way and construct the street (or half- street)
improvement. Depending on the nature of developments some of the proposed alignments, widths, and
cross sections may be revised. A future policy decision would be whether to, and at what level, assist in the
construction of the new streets with urban renewal and general fund dollars.
The location of the pedestrian /bicycle connections are meant to be flexible and determined in
conjunction with specific development proposals. These connections could take the form of multi -use
paths through private development, paths between buildings, or arcades. Specific code language will
state the requirements for these connections, addressing width, lighting, paving materials, safety, etc.
Next Steps:
The Preferred Alternative Map has been evaluated as part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
update. The final Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan will be incorporated into the Tigard Transportation
System Plan and be included in the adoption process with Planning Commission and City Council public
hearings. The recommended new street connections will appear on the TSP maps and the Downtown
Tigard Circulation Plan will be an appendix to the TSP report. Code language to implement the plan will
also be developed and adopted into the Downtown chapter of the Development Code.
Prior to starting the adoption process in the spring of 2010, staff will conduct targeted outreach to
property owners who would be impacted when the network is implemented as new development
occurs. The Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will be briefed on the report in February. The
City Center Advisory Commission will also vote on their endorsement of the plan.
: .:.,‘. \ \ :
/ 1 1 1 1 :0 > '3'
/
♦
„ • \NZZ
\ 7/\\c°
F
...." \ -,, ,,,,, /./\\.\\50.,•,
. :-A\ ,
00 .0%
. , „ . ". < / _ ,
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan
Tigard, Oregon
22 DECEMBER 2009
Design Team
Matthew Arnold, SERA Architects
Allison Wildman, SERA Architects
Beth Wemple, Kittelson & Associates
Brendan Buckley, Johnson Reid
Technical Advisory Committee
Sean Farrelly, City of Tigard
Mike McCarthy, City of Tigard
Kim McMillan, City of Tigard
Darren Wyss, City of Tigard
Marah Danielson, Oregon Department of Transportation
Anthony Butzek, Metro
Jessica Tump, TriMet
City Center Advisory Commission
Tom Murphy, Chair
Alexander Craghead, Vice Chair
Carolyn Barkley
Alice Ellis Gaut
•
Ralph Hughes
Kevin Kutcher
Peter Louw
Elise Shearer
Martha Wong
Linli Pao, Alternate
CONTENTS
Executive Summary, 3
Introduction, 5
Downtown Study Area, 6
CCAC Statement of Values, 7
Conceptual Downtown Sub - Districts, 8
Connectivity Plan, 10
Street Character Classifications, 14
Pedestrian / Bicycle Connections, 21
APPENDIX: Code Provisions for Connectivity, 29
APPENDIX: Transportation Assessment, 31
APPENDIX: Real Estate Assessment, 37
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Building off of several recent planning efforts for Tigard's traditional center, the
Downtown Circulation Plan describes a vision for a complete system of streets
and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal access to, from,
and within Downtown and organize development within a block structure better
suited to intensive, urban development. The plan also puts forth street character
classifications that have been tailored to meet the future context of individual
street segments.
The plan was developed by urban designers from SERA Architects, with technical
assistance by Kittelson & Associates (traffic and transportation analysis) and
Johnson Reid (market and real estate analysis), under contract with the City of
Tigard. Guidance was provided by the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and
a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from the City of Tigard,
TriMet, Metro, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Public input was
gathered on draft alternatives of the plan at a public open house in July 2009.
The Downtown Circulation Plan divides the Downtown into several conceptual
sub - districts, each with its own unique character and function within Tigard's core.
These sub - districts are: Main Street Village, Hall /OR 99W Area, Urban Residential
Neighborhood, The Heart and Civic Core, and Creekside Residential. The degree of
connectivity and the character classifications for each street have been individually
tailored to meet the design intent of these five conceptual sub - districts.
The proposed street and pathway network would create a fine - grained block
structure that is characteristic of other successful downtowns throughout the
region and the nation. The new grid would be pedestrian - friendly, universally
accessible, and supportive of both the existing downtown - appropriate businesses
and the type and scale of development the community desires to see here in
the future. While achieving the numerous benefits of network connectivity is the
overarching goal of the plan, there are two key connections which should be
considered top priorities of the plan. The first is Ash Street, which, at build -out,
would extend from the residential neighborhood to the south, across Fanno Creek
into Downtown, and then across the railroad tracks to connect (via the proposed
Garden Place Connection) to Hall Boulevard. The Garden Place Connection, with its
direct connection to Hall and its ability to facilitate access to the Urban Residential
sub - district and (proximately) to Main Street, should also be considered a high
priority. Other streets and pedestrian pathways are proposed to further sub - divide
large parcels and create a walkable, mixed -use Downtown.
Street character classifications have been provided for the streets within the
Downtown study area. These character classifications are described with
both text and illustrative cross- sections. In a transportation assessment of the
network prepared for this study, it was determined that each of these character
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
classifications matched closely the anticipated traffic volumes in Downtown Tigard.
Additional findings indicated that traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard / Garden
Place intersection are estimated to exceed the available planning-level capacity
for 2050. No additional changes were recommended to the roadway character
classifications for either roadway. While congestion will likely occur during peak
hours at this location, it is likely that congestion would be limited there during off -
peak times.
A real estate assessment was performed in conjunction with this study to
determine the impacts the circulation plan's implementation would have to
Downtown properties and their redevelopment potential. In general, it was
concluded that greater connectivity within the district would provide better access
to the interior of current super - blocks, thereby making those blocks more attractive
and marketable to developers. This connectivity, the relative ease of pedestrian
circulation within the district, and the increased amount of street frontage would
also facilitate the form of mixed -use redevelopment the City is striving for with its
current development code amendments for Downtown.
While this Downtown Circulation Plan may be adopted as a stand -alone refinement
of previous planning efforts for Downtown Tigard, its alignments and cross- sections
are ultimately meant to be incorporated into the City's Transportation System Plan
(TSP). Depending on the nature of development, some of the alignments, widths,
and cross- sections may be altered during design and construction.
4 TIGARD, OREGON
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Downtown Tigard is currently comprised of several large superblocks with a mix of
low - to-moderate intensity retail, office, light industrial, institutional, and residential
uses. Access into the district is restricted by the OR 99W viaduct to the northwest
and Fanno Creek to the southwest. Connectivity within Downtown is hampered
by both the superblocks and an active rail line that bisects the district from the
northwest to the southeast.
Building off of several recent planning efforts for Tigard's traditional center, the
Downtown Circulation Plan focuses primarily on the area south of OR 99W, west
of Hall Boulevard, and north of Fanno Creek. It describes a vision for a complete
system of streets and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal
access to, from, and within the district and organize (re)development within a
block structure better suited to intensive, urban development. The plan also puts
forth street character classifications that have been tailored to meet the future
context of individual street segments.
The Downtown Circulation Plan seeks to actualize the concepts included in the
Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan,
and the Tigard Downtown Future Vision, and is meant to complement the pending
Downtown Tigard Code Amendments. It has been informed further by current
design efforts for improvements to both Main and Burnham Streets.
The plan was developed by urban designers from SERA Architects, with technical
assistance by Kittelson & Associates (traffic and transportation analysis) and
Johnson Reid (market and real estate analysis), under contract with the City of
Tigard. Guidance was provided by the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and
a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from the City of Tigard,
TriMet, Metro, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Public input was
gathered on draft alternatives of the plan at a public open house in July 2009.
While this Downtown Circulation Plan may be adopted as a stand -alone refinement
of previous planning efforts for Downtown Tigard, its alignments and cross -
sections are ultimately meant to be incorporated into the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP). The focus of this plan is internal circulation for Downtown;
further study is needed for connections to Hall, to the potential high - capacity
transit line on OR 99W, and to Tigard as a whole. With an approximate 50 -year
time horizon, implementation of the Circulation Plan itself (i.e., the construction
of new streets and pathways) is anticipated to occur primarily in conjunction with
redevelopment, although urban renewal may play a role in specific key projects
that have yet to be determined. Depending on the nature of development, some
of the alignments, widths, and cross - sections may be altered during design and
construction.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 5
DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA
, .."1 0.0
LEWIS S 1�'. � e* tir, . - LOMITA -,
fit+ • €'
r i
.2 12 F., ,,...."---"I ,.1
PIHAS o . i 4. 1
� = P
a
TANGELA m r
z z
1 Jo
U
o °
9 sr„ 'Pn
c
l
at 4
I,so A
# int, Obi ✓TF
S
4 S
KNOLL
c`
WES
/11/1 Commuter r
Rail Station 4-�,, °�
P
7
Q P A & q
� 244 ■
. \\\ 2 7
e
4 tiw 1
A <'hCO r I f
1 J.
..> , !
-1'
Tigard
Ai" City Hail
4�
! ? 1y
l .
` P
l u g
e
P < 9�
-
P o� W 1
1-.Q... 4ti . j
Downtown Study Area
— —
uiImnienevml disc is study art,
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project 12.21.09
6 TIGARD, OREGON
CCAC STATEMENT OF VALUES
Statement of Values for the Downtown Circulation Plan
At its April 22, 2009 meeting, the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) put
forth a Statement of Values for the Circulation Plan which reads:
1. Create a street system that will encourage people to visit and return to
downtown.
2. The new street network should result in a positive impact on the environment.
3. All modes of transportation must be accommodated.
4. Encourage a pedestrian- oriented urban village in Downtown.
5. Get people into and around the Downtown, but do not enable vehicles to cut
through (with the possible exception of a connection to Highway 217 via Scoffins
and Hunziker.)
6. The street network should serve the uses envisioned for the future
7. The existing built form should be taken into account when planning new
connections, but the greater economic interests of future development should
take precedence.
Design Principles for the Downtown Circulation Plan
Over the course of the project, with input from the CCAC, the TAC, and the
consultant team, additional general design principles emerged to guide the
planning process. These included the following:
• Maximize efficiency and ease of access for all transportation modes
and for emergency services. (This principle can be realized, in part,
by determining appropriate access spacing and by avoiding off -set
intersections.)
• Enhance accessbility for people of all ages and abilities. (Strategies for
achieving this objective include keeping block sizes relatively small and
providing superlative bike and pedestrian facilities.)
• Create a network with a diversity of human - scaled street types that support
urban places and integrate with blocks /buildings.
• Link with city, regional, and national transportation networks. (Achieving
this end requires careful integration of this plan with Tigard's TSP and with
other local and regional planning efforts.)
• Ensure the economic viability of the blocks that result from the
implementation of the new street grid.
DOWNTOtVN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2005 7
CONCEPTUAL DOWNTOWN SUB - DISTRICTS
• '11,: t 1 • ra. - F - . .. , ° J� S , . � �- 8. , ` '.
.+� T e a . J. 1 i_ � s., r'rNe ,, � „' s
t` r .!4. i p�r`� -, 1
; - wi �, ,. oa �.' Hat/ Qfi99WArea
a. .. .1 L' • 1 1, 446 �
..' , X i �a, Urban
• ; r,. ,, 5 e Resi dential e' . 4: Neighborhood o7'''
o '
o,
I� � R
•
"The Heart" ., / .. • !
F
f;
.....\ ' i: I )
444iittro, OE.
mG : '
� �, t
� h y � Civic
Core k•
I.
j
1
r ,A ..x - 1 ., �r
r . •
0 * - . ' ° Creekside Residential
. \ .• .
� - R r. . •
•.aQy a F �` - r . 1 a 1 w . _.�. -_
.: r �-
.' .• 'k.� • fi b" - h _ •
f 2 v " 4. . '3{ V r "' / e3
• • : .',40110-4,,,, A.- A jam 1i j� _ � . µ w . 1 - 'y • .r ,,. �,. R',. e• •s / _ • -,;. • ° -� ter . T. .• •
Conceptual Downtown Sub - Districts
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project ® , 12.21.09
8 TIGARD, OREGON
DOWNTOWN SUB- DISTR;CTS
Conceptual Sub - Districts
For the purposes of this Circulation Plan, Downtown Tigard is defined by the City Center
Urban Renewal Area, and is bounded approximately by Fanno Creek to the southwest,
Hall Boulevard to the east, and OR 99W to the north. Drawing from previous plans and
the proposed zoning code for Downtown, the area was conceptually subdivided into five
separate sub - districts, defined in part by their uses and their boundaries.
Each sub - district has its own distinct function, density, and mix of uses. Together they
helped shape and inform the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan by serving as the unique
pieces of cloth that need to be stitched together to make a quilt. How future streets and
paths interact with these districts provides the framework for the Circulation Plan and
helps define the context- sensitive character of the individual street and path segments.
The Conceptual Downtown Sub - Districts are:
Main Street Village. This sub-district is defined by the uses along Main Street from
its northern and southern intersections with OR 99W. This sub - district's character
is defined by its traditional role as Tigard's commercial Main Street, comprised of
modestly - scaled buildings, prominent pedestrian- oriented sidewalks, and active ground -
floor uses.
Regional Mixed Use (Hall /OR 99W Area). This large area encompasses the OR 99W
and Hall Boulevard intersection and its corner properties, as well as the "Hall /OR 99W
area" bounded by Hall, Scoffins, and Main Street. Today the area is largely auto - oriented
commercial. In the future, the sub - district is envisioned as a dense, mixed -use regional
commercial area that capitalizes on its highly visible location and access to region -
serving streets and highways.
Urban Residential Neighborhood. This area between Main, Scoffins, Commercial, and
Hall is currently a variety of residential, commercial, office, and light- industrial uses. This
sub - district is envisioned as a dense, mixed -use neighborhood that takes full advantage
of its proximity to high - quality transit and the commercial and civic amenities Downtown
offers.
The Heart and Civic Core. A plaza, festival street, and new park will serve as Downtown
Tigard's new "living room" and anchor the sub - district that will include other civic
functions and institutions (including a new Police Station and a new Performing Arts
Center). This mixed -use sub - district stretches along the north side of Burnham between
Hall and Main Street and also includes the area south of Burnham and north of Ash.
Creekside Residential. Fanno Creek establishes the southern boundary for what is
envisioned to be a largely residential sub - district. The contextually- responsive character
of this sub - district will be shaped by Fanno Creek, its floodplain and riparian zones, and
potential for creating healthy habitat for wildlife.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 9
CONNECTIVITY PLAN
-A *..
:' j
4 , - I Street and pathway connections this
area will r
addressed as part the e 2010
City of Tigard Transportation ys
U sem Plan I
Update te {TSP) and d HCT Land d Use Plan. J
1 j
C\%, • `. `t , .
•
SS ''�� \ .' / .'
i X
,,,,,,"\-\/- \ ' .,"
/ J ° \ 1 - Nou�
• L
# .:0 ? ,,,,,..\\:::\.* .7 \
° �. � Fq . LktA \\> • c
if . .
.-2
' •-• /.? ...., \
\ •
\4''' . y94, "II
As adopt ' n the \.
ans,vltendTigard - •
e T rpolletien • , r a ps la Plan fTSPI ,_ ` .. k....,
Sy •
LEGEND
Nom Existing street! public right -of -way /!
I_ Proposed street r
•
- Proposed alley _
- Existing bicycle and pedestrian - -. - '
connection
- - - - Proposed bicyde and pedesMan
connection -fixed alt ireern
Proposed bicycle and pedestrian s
connection - exact location to be HAP • •
determined upon redevelopment - ti
Existing public transit center and 4.... WES Commuter Rail station ��� � -+�
III
Downtown Connectivity Plan - Preferred Alternative
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project ® 12.21.09
10 TIGARD, OREGON
CONNECTIVITY PLAN
Connectivity Plan
Today, Downtown Tigard lacks a complete network of streets and paths. The lack
of connectivity and large superblocks make getting around troublesome and
inefficient, especially for pedestrians. Auto traffic is concentrated on relatively few
streets, and several of these therefore suffer from congestion at key times. To
accommodate traffic volumes that might otherwise be dispersed over a broader
network, several of Downtown's streets are built to a scale much larger than
might be considered appropriate for a central business district. In addition, most
Downtown streets lack adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The Preferred Alternative for the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan proposes a
complete system of street and path alignments to best serve the future uses of the
Downtown and its sub - districts. The preferred street and pathway network would
create a fine - grained block structure that is characteristic of other successful
downtowns throughout the region and the US. The new grid would be pedestrian -
friendly, universally accessible, and supportive of both the existing downtown -
appropriate businesses and the type and scale of development the community
desires to see here in the future.
One of the key components and top priorities of the Preferred Alternative is Ash
Street, which would provide both an important connection to /from Downtown
and a central north -south spine for the district. Downtown is currently accessed
primarily via two heavily - traveled State facilities - OR 99W and Hall Boulevard. The
Ash Street extension across Fanno Creek would offer a local connection between
Downtown and the residential neighborhoods immediately to the south. Within
the Downtown core, connecting Ash Street across the railroad tracks (a significant,
immovable barrier to connectivity throughout the district) would provide a badly -
needed, local alternative to Main and Hall running NE /SW between the various
sub - districts of Downtown. Because of Downtown's current block structure and
roadway configuration, as well as the relatively high cost of constructing a bridge,
it is recommended that this railroad crossing be at-grade. With an additional
extension of Ash Street north of Scoffins, the net result of these moves would be
not only a new route from Hall /Garden through Downtown to the south, but also
an increased cohesiveness for Tigard's central business district. Completing Ash
Street within Downtown should be considered the top priority connection within
this plan (subordinate only to the larger goal of completing the overall network)
because of this street's important role for both accessing the Downtown district
and circulating within it, .
The proposed "Garden Place Connection" would extend from Hall Boulevard
through the northeast Hall /OR 99W area across Scoffins to Commercial, providing
another entrance into Downtown, its commercial areas, and the Urban Residential
Neighborhood sub - district. This street would directly serve new development in
the Hall /OR 99W from OR 99W via Hall and, along with the Ash Street extension,
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 11
CONNECTIVITY PL „N
would provide defined block faces within the Hall /OR 99W area. The new, four - legged intersection of
Garden and Hall may or may not be a full access intersection; future analysis of traffic conditions and
their implications will be needed to make this determination. At a minimum, however, this alignment
would accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. The Garden Place Connection is the recommended
second priority connection within this place because of its ability to bring people to and circulate them
through the district.
The Oregon Department of Transportation currently has jurisdiction over Hall Blvd and OR 99W. The
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) establishes the State classification for these facilities as District and
Statewide, respectively, for which access management policy and standards have been established.
The OHP Goal 3 Access Management policy is to manage the location, spacing, and type of road and
street intersections and approaches on state highways in order to ensure safe and efficient operation
consistent with the classification of highways. The OH P establishes access spacing standards related to
the speed and classification of the highway to minimize the potential for conflicting traffic movements
on the highways. The City of Tigard and ODOT coordinate on access management to improve the safety
of these facilities. Access management tools include locating future street connections consistent with
access management standards (often realized through redevelopment of properties) and establishing
shared driveways for access to multiple properties.
Between the Garden Place Connection and Scoffins, the Ash Extension would help meet these policy
objectives by serving as a "backer road” that not only provides access to the properties south of Hall/
OR 99W area, but that also provides rear access to those properties that currently front (and have their
access on) Hall. Further access to and through this wedge of properties would be provided by a network
of pedestrian and bicycle connections.
New streets and an alley in the Urban Residential Neighborhood sub - district could serve to divide an
existing downtown superblock into pedestrian -scale blocks. Chief among these would be a new street
running from Main to Ash and bisecting the superblock between Scoffins and Commercial. This proposed
street would extend beyond Ash and turn 90- degrees to make a connection with Commercial.
An alley running between Scoffins and Commercial immediately east of Main Street would allow utilities
and services (deliveries, recycling) to move to the rear of the buildings. Another alley is posited between
Burnham and the railroad tracks along the same approximate alignment. This system would allow the
pedestrian realm in front of the buildings (i.e. on Main Street) to be used for more pedestrian amenities,
such as outdoor cafe seating, street furniture, trees and landscaping, and wider sidewalks.
A proposed alley would run south of and parallel to the railroad corridor in order to provide motor vehicle
access to the WES commuter station and to properties along the line. In addition to the Ash Street
railroad crossing, two streets are planned to run between Burnham and the railroad corridor in the
Heart and Civic Core sub - districts. The depth of the existing block ( -325' to -375' from Burnham to the
proposed alley) is awkward, as it is a bit too deep from a pedestrian standpoint but not deep enough to
sub - divide with an additional street parallel to Burnham. As such, pedestrian and /or bicycle connections
should traverse the blocks NW /SE to allow for better sub - district connectivity.
12 •1IGARD, CR.EGON
CONNECTIVITY PLAN
A special street - called a Festival Street in planning documents - is planned south of
Burnham and north of Ash. This street is intended to serve the new community plaza and park
in this location, and provide additional public space for temporary markets and festivals. New
proposed pedestrian and bicycle paths also would connect through the new park to the'existing
Fanno Creek Trail, Ash, and Main.
Since the Creekside Residential sub- district is comprised of several large lots, and given its
proximity to the natural barrier of Fanno Creek and its floodplain, the area is more likely to
develop as a planned unit residential development than other locations in Downtown Tigard.
Thus, the connectivity strategy for this sub - district is to establish a primary east -west street
between Ash and Hall, and to connect it to Burnham with new north -south streets. Additional,
potentially private, streets and pathways would provide additional access to the sub - district.
This basic framework, then, allows for network flexibility in the future as long as policies are
in place to guarantee full connectivity throughout the sub - district. Equally important will be
pedestrian and bicycle access to the Fanno Creek Trail, one of Downtown's prized assets. A
new connection to the trail is desired approximately every 300 feet; the standards for these
connections should be clearly articulated in the Development Code or other binding policy
document.
A project that has been in the City's planning documents for many years is also articulated in
the Preferred Alternative: straightening the east leg of Scoffins to meet Hunziker directly at Hall
Boulevard, thereby transforming an awkward, off -set intersection into a four - legged one.
During the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan process, the concept of providing a direct
connection from Greenburg to Hunziker was discussed. This concept entailed extending
Greenburg across OR 99W into the Hall /OR 99W area and then south to Scoffins. Southbound
traffic then would turn left onto Scoffins to connect to Hunziker or right onto Scoffins to connect
to Main Street. Under this scenario, the existing stretch of Main Street between Scoffins and
OR 99W would need to be closed (at least to through traffic) due to issues with queuing,
turning movements, and signal timing at the intersection with Greenburg. Because of potential
technical issues, financial implications, and negative impacts to Main Street businesses, the
Greenburg -to- Hunziker connection has not been included in the Circulation Plan's Preferred
Alternative, but could be revisited in the future.
The portion of the Regional Mixed Use sub - district north of OR 99W has been included in
the study area for this particular project; however, new streets and pathways in this area will
have connectivity implications that reach beyond the boundaries of the study area. Therefore,
future street and pathway connections in this area will be addressed as part of the 2010
Transportation System Plan Update and as part of the Tigard High Capacity Transit Corridor
Land Use Plan.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 13
STREET CHARACTER C ASSIFICATIONS
.. ,
... - ,
S .
_
( Street and pathway connections in this
I eroa will be addressed es part of the 2010 '
t \ City of Tigard Transportation Systeri Plan
Updato iTSP) and HCT Land Use Plan J
N N 1
fv,
i
1
t ain , ,.. ., lr''-'i .
7 - '
AP / .'"..------
64%44 %.4, 4444.
-...
i:
,. ,.
/
. ,, x ....
=
, ,, ..,,„,,, < ...--
$ * 4 11 • A \
, , , , \ .„
< ,./. ,/ 4 :,
- Otr.: --.
\--,......., ,
.411111FIP \.< ,
. .• ,irk, : \ 0. , .,,,,
. \\\ ) A •
.,,
-14• r ,. \
„.•• ,\,, ,
. ...
.......„
,...
.......\ , \....".. \ /„.
....
e \ ' \ •
\ t
,.., , ',..... ■ Z t,"
. ,
"••• , '. \ /
• 1 ,
, .
X \\ >
‘ .
iti er t _ .. / •
As adopted 111 the
• . currem Tigard .
Or Transportation - : •-
Sytem Plan
SP)
• ,
, • ,
. , . \ •,
. • -,-.-___...... ,
• •
LEGEND k
, Character Classification ;:,.. ,
1 :ma try Oen Poore Liit Kt
; MIMI Lipper 114411 Boule,r4
1 MIN main Street C444, Sr..4 ,
=MI Downtown Mixed 114e 1- Dow tom Colle-inr VII me J. .
1 =MIN Dow.toron121.4.d Le 2 - Dcw-1.1. Coll,-14. .
k ■ 1/1...1 Muted Li ' 1.,-.1 " — ...,
, 11■I 41-..1,-..M24.111'. 4 Elmer IX telart /
I .......................„......„._4
.-...
- MIMI Dow Muted Use 4 Lower Porrnam -
• .
k .... lkbaq Own Str 1 ,
Urban Re.td mai
MINI Fes.4.1Street
■■ Abe,
?,t<eirett'e. ot an Corriecot ■ 14, 4
, _ • 4
• ,
—•—• MA t - Trall •
. .A 4.V
0 E 1 ur y iii IC UV I WIL I , d WES Cxrrnuter P. stat,
Street Character Classification - Preferred Alternative
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project 0 12 21 09
14 TIGARD, OREGON
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Street Character Classifications
"Functional classification" is a transportation planning term often used to
categorize what type of street is appropriate for a given alignment or location
based on a series of quantifiable inputs or desires, such as traffic volume, mobility,
speed, and access. Functional classification is usually translated into a set of
standards for cross- section and roadway design and is generally applied to whole
alignments or long stretches of a single roadway. Viewed from this largely technical
standpoint, functional classification often ignores the context- sensitive inputs or
design elements that help form the character of a street (or how a street "feels"
when one travels along it).
Street character, in contrast, begins with the notion of the street as a key piece of
the public realm, not as just a means to move goods and people. Street character
considers each street segment's immediate and potential context, including
adjacent land uses and the design of those uses, the proximity of buildings to the
right -of -way, and the relationship of an individual street segment to the rest of the
city and the rest of the network. It also factors in the full range of both users and
uses - and therefore considers not only the need to move cars, trucks, bikes, and
pedestrians, but also a street's potential to host sidewalk sales, outdoor cafes,
parades, festivals, etc. Although difficult to quantify and catalogue, these "livability"
and "programming" inputs are crucial to consider, as they should impact every
aspect of street design - including cross- section dimensions, paving materials,
fixtures, and the spacing of various elements. Although they require additional
visioning, planning, and input from the public, street character classifications can
ultimately tell a better and clearer story about a place's character and potential.
The Preferred Alternative for the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan uses character
classifications to determine which street types should be applied to each
segment throughout downtown. These classifications endeavor to capture the
desired character of the sub - districts and provide a more comprehensive view
of the transportation network in Downtown Tigard. The character classifications
for Downtown Tigard are shown on the map on the preceding page, and are
individually described and illustrated on the following pages. Please note that
these character classifications are conceptual, and are fairly general in terms
of design treatments. The City is strongly encouraged to take full advantage of
best practices regarding stormwater management, pedestrian -scale lighting,
landscaping, the use of materials and fixtures, etc. when designing actual
streetscape improvements for any of these facilities. Also note that additional
turn lanes may be necessary on some street segments in order to accommodate
higher traffic volmes; the needs for such turn lanes will be determined by the City
Engineer.
DOWNTOWN CIRCUI ATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 15
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
II
smi
■
15 8 6 11 14 11 15 8 15
■4' ROW
Hall Boulevard - Upper
Upper Hall Boulevard. Hall Boulevard is currently a State -owned facility with an emphasis on moving traffic. The cross- section
here is recommended, with the understanding that further study and resolution may be needed. Upper Hall Boulevard has a
right -of -way of 94 feet and the recommended cross- section includes a travel lane in either direction, a center turn lane, bicycle
lanes, on- street parking on both sides of the street, and 15 -foot sidewalks. A portion of the sidewalk would be dedicated to a
continuous landscaping strip to help calm traffic, buffer pedestrians from motor vehicles, and provide shade. This landscaping
strip can also serve as a stormwater facility with proper study and design. Future consideration may be given to varying this
cross- section adjacent to the industrial -zoned properties on the east side of Hall.
tio
In 12 8 5 l0 12 10 8' 10 t�
78' 82' ROW
Downtown MUed Use 1 - Downtown Collector with Median
Downtown Mixed Use 1— Downtown Collector with Median. Designed to move higher volumes of traffic through a mixed -
use district, this street type has three -lane cross- section that accommodates bicycles, on- street parking, and pedestrians
as well as cars and trucks. A center turn lane provides turning capability at intersections but is intended to be a raised
landscaped median between intersections to limit access and provide additional landscaping. Adjacent land uses are
characterized by active ground floor uses, either commercial or residential. Street trees are provided along the sidewalk
ensconced with decorative grates or landscaped ground cover.
16 TIGARD, OREGON
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Downtown Mixed Use 2 - Downtown
Collector. This cross- section is
intended for the north -south alignment
of Ash Street, and provides a fully
multi -modal street for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motor vehicles with a r
their own separate facilities. Ten to A ti d i. e
twelve foot sidewalks provide space for - LI - .`"� ' 4 . `- 1
pedestrians and streetscape amenities. • "- -.
On- street parking serves businesses Lir '"
and residences fronting the street.
Bicycle lanes provide a dedicated IIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIII
space for bicyclists. 10 -foot travel lanes
Downtown Mixed Use 2 - Downtown Collector
encourage slow vehicle speeds for this
important downtown street.
"° Downtown Mixed Use 3 - Downtown
Local. In this street type, motor vehicles
- 4411°
each have one lane of travel that is
;;' .r shared with bicyclists. On- street parking
w.
.- - provides direct access to mixed-
! ■ use development along the street.
` j 1
' Sidewalks are between 10' - 12' and - _i. e r r • `
Pt • have street trees and other pedestrian
ip• 611
_ fit`'`
�� amenities.
ilirr „ t r- m FA, ,r
,.,.H . „r.. sidennai /U 12 8 11 11 8 :l: 11 8exeo usF rrsdrnna
58' - 62' ROW
Downtown Mixed Use 3 - 0<lvnton1 Local
Downtown Mixed Use 4 - Upper
Burnham. This cross - section was
designed and developed in early 2009,
prior to this planning project. The
cross-section includes two travel lanes, '� ” . _.
on- street parking, and sidewalks of i
variable width with stormwater planters i I v la ° •:- .
landscaping. Detailed plans for the ,,,m, "'�' - °
_ is street design can be found on file at ® `�. . " �
City Hall. '
i. 16 I 8' 11 11 8' 12 18
62 74' ROW
Downtown Mixed Use 4 - Upper Burnham
rimmonememunm
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 17
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Downtown Mixed Use 5 - Lower
Burnham. This cross- section was
- - designed and developed in early 2009,
L • ' prior to this planning project. The cross-
., section includes two travel lanes, a
® E y •
■
�. L continuous left turn lane that includes
& , ? a median in places, on- street parking,
i■i - " ° u► and sidewalks of variable width with
ill- `"\ landscaping. Detailed plans for the
7.
• '` street design can be found on file at
City Hall.
Downtown Mixed Use 5 - Lower Burnham
Urban Residential. The urban
4-:" residential street has the narrowest
- overall cross - section. This type of street
is suitable for use in sub - districts with
predominantly residential uses. The
N. motor vehicle travel way is a "shared"
I PL - n width of 18 feet, which allows most
l.. vehicles to safely pass one another at a
- k I slow speed. On- street parking provides
- _ front door access to residential units
i 2 x 1 esitlenua facing the street for deliveries and
Raw visitors. Sidewalks are 1O-to 12 -feet
Urban Resioenaal wide with a continuous landscaping
strip.
18 TIGARD, OREGON
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) posited the idea of an "urban creek" / greenway running NE -to -SW through
the district. In the Downtown Circulation Plan, this linear feature is put forth as an urban green street that utilizes a
combination of porous pavers, bioswales, flow- through planters, rain gardens, and /or other innovative features to capture
and treat stormwater. The cross- sections below are conceptual, and it is anticipated that current best practices for managing
stormwater would be employed during design and construction of these facilities. It should be noted that many of these same
features also may serve a traffic calming function.
O bench
' a Q rain garden in curb exteneton
permeable pacers in parinngt p
I wzrenfaawre
_sir_ .s; Q stormwater planters street trees
Q
`` _ y ` I .
n ..1 usa re∎idr :real 12 A 10' rexmenua
60' ROW
Urban Green Street 1
Urban Green Street 1. Designed to fit a context similar to that of the Downtown Mixed Use 3 section, this
cross- section has two 11' travel lanes flanked by parking aisles and generous sidewalks.
•
bens
Q rain garden in cub pension
0
Q permeable Pacers in parking strip
e ,Y Q water feature
/"• Q stormwater planters
III s■
!�! Q street trees
1 6 ?
• 2
'nixPn isp fbS10e10ai n ve(1 Ise residenllal
Urban Green Street 2
Urban Green Street 2. All of the same stormwater facilities are utilized in this version of the urban green
street, except that the sidewalk stormwater planters are wider which enables them to better capture
and treat stormwater runoff. This width is gained by slightly narrowing the motor vehicle travel way (to
a combined 18') and parking lanes (to 7' each). This curb -to -curb dimension is the same as the Urban
Residential street as this type, too, is used in mixed -use, residential areas where slow speeds and local
traffic patterns are anticipated.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 19
STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS
Alley. An alley is a narrow right -of -way that provides access to the back of
adjacent properties. These corridors provide a place for services such as
garbage and recycling. They also provide a place for loading and unloading
at the rear of the building, where many commercial establishments keep
their stock in storage. Alleys in Downtown Tigard should be 20 -feet wide
and constructed with permeable pavers or porous pavement to manage
on- street stormwater.
VERMEAPIF Festival Street. A festival street is designed to be closed periodically
PAVER,
20 ROW for public events, such as festivals, farmers markets, and parades. The
Alley materials and fixtures used to construct the streetscape are typically
distinct from other streets in the district; festival streets often utilize
special textures, patterns, colors, and street furniture to differentiate
them. The festival street will be designed and located as part of the
Downtown Plaza planning process, and thus a diagram of this concept is
not included in this report.
Main Street Green Street. Main Street is the primary retail spine of
Tigard's Downtown, and as such should accommodate high - levels of
pedestrian and commercial activity. As of the writing of this report, the
cross - section and plans for Main Street are being developed as part of
another City process. The current streetscape concept is that nearly the
full length of Main Street would be reconfigured to accommodate on-
street parking, wide sidewalks, and stormwater planters. A diagram of this
concept is not included in this report.
20 TIGARD, OREGON
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
: . . , ' Pedestrian / Bicycle Connections
Included in the Downtown Circulation Plan is a flexible network of off - street
pedestrian connections, some of which may also allow for bicycles. These
., "'' ;' w connections would allow for greater permeability of individual blocks, and would
s� allow non - motorists to move more efficiently across the district. The "Bike/
Pedestrian Connection" lines on the Circulation Plan maps indicate which blocks
are to be bisected by such connections. It is recommended that these pedestrian
i connections not be permitted within one hundred feet (100') of an intersection.
k { The precise alignments of these connections, however, will be determined
r ;, 1
4. - •: t - in conjunction with specific redevelopment proposals. (Note: examples of
development code connectivity standards can be found in the Appendix.)
The designs of individual pedestrian and bike /ped facilities will depend not
only on transportation considerations, but also on their relationship to adjacent
r _ - development. Issues and elements that should be addressed will include
(at a minimum): width, vertical and horizontal clearance, lighting, crossings,
irt. :s_ c', i,1„m - :nt v-ith active rour: signage, pavement markings, grade separation, paving materials, street trees
, c s • , ca : re +_a 1 . _ . . ' ( ' ' . . ' : t i .V and landscaping, street furniture, and the placement of public art. In addition,
vin vi ;nt sLrs of r,lur.,,. The
n rro; r: � or this par_icu - r p sr: ,',m consideration should be given to the building facades that front these pathways,
con ; .,CtiJr, is fl, ,aPA, 1 7 ti ;dCT,u-. with particular emphasis on the location and proportion of doors and window
rticu,t con,:r t; molt. �:: r.` (1 :: S. openings. Some connections may be open paths between buildings, some may
(` +r; c. c t Viii,-,; ;. Trg;,,ri„ OF :,
be arcades, and some may cross semi - public open space ringed by development.
Thus, the successful implementation of these off - street connections will be
facilitated by standards set out not only in the Transportation System Plan, but also
in the City's development code.
The photographs that accompany this section demonstrate some of the issues
described above, as well as some of the successful ways in which these issues
have been addressed in other communities.
at
x <
/
CI ? :), ur r o, h /e ih pees rian * --1 ,F +� °`
1 .:elite . 1,.. t n ' vnlcu o, i. T " �. •
i;rr r rser�,ror,)a,e c;eUto ..... _� ag
HMO irk-
hi. r offe r rE wr me ri. u' tp ersu, e ! we ' ! � .rra,.�
the CU!,lf Ort r..l S1 of ,It u This .rr—s. MO r �,-
sep, r co . 1 '.)e .col %red br t› pa, .- ,
of sump or Eal .. , rile `ollowin pity I - - - IP F -
h::,rr:- s. N r
::fe pa�rin= `:nater.als c E -
te`tore , c f;ercrt cC o, striping. _ - — -� -
n`urccu.`:;r, LC • ... « 5 —, –s '
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 21.
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
a
.
. .
0
lir it. ■.....4}-. :. -, ,-- i
,
lit.
-
,... . li
.
" k - • -' • ' - .
.-..... .... , )
'...o "':. ' 1,- 1 1 '. ' ' i ' „ ...„. i . - —
`41 l'il II i
- 4-, . ' , ' 4 • °. , ,, , I'• i ' I. • ' Ill
, 1 I-4 ............
..,
„,......r
4 41
. ,
..-
4 ,
...
Puciestria)) thro' 'gh - con o t o Arc Ocs c al i)ro/Lie .-) fro:mil ''.'irlf.,r 'fru,: - le: can a.'sn :
ii)corhorat. .) ht../ ')nila n:: Ti)k- v,.(.2, ..Vilif .; c'tC.'",:ti _;!')..3C(_,S thoir plas, 1,K...1C11cS, ;, nd ouzdr ca:c
arcaco spacc 1,. Iic1 'vitn , ,,'"E 11 hr.:, or, sciisc c. . lr,.. . Cl'3E..r.3i ,c,.. L.'o, (c ). : ; )
restaurant L.scs, bu,'. :Is: ; ,-. h.,:ig,,t if •ti) , . it/ :•.),c .. T.s
din co) t;ecticr, 6,...:- ./c,f -: L )r) c.nc' a Pr the.i. .', ,' li.`'11
gE:ileF fifior-c riefizcd I:ci. (s/:In, OR) c....rm., 'F'orciF., c, Or
. - • p,
. .
. , • .. ..
- ... '
, i' . .,, 1 -s- • •• N s 4; / • , ,
••'''' ' ir ---Ili „.
i
. ■e . - r l • • * ') '...
. . —
. .... , . a .. , ... .
Yr 1 ,.; c ' '-tr..' , .." 4, - .1• :
ri
40 ,
. 4.
, :. . ...., • .C ' '
1 ., • 1 kl /
..........
...
le 4..., c
..,
.. :.....
. ...1 __
.7:......„ „yr! • , 1' i
••,Il , lo• •Is, • O. 4 , ,
* ' P 1 ir ill.
. !
,
•
Pedestrian iind p.,.1 iat,,/Jiko Paths can often he used if, :ho ir rFtit.til sp.c3
1 )6t: - . , ‘ Cifferi .81E1 C.; 'Lies, Lfs L een This pork ;,'-:f , -fci., rr.,) .so vullf_iin_ (rie,ht.).
(New 01. I A)
22 TIGARD, OREGON
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
. ili ,^ .':. , = , . - : e I 4 i r Li ,, ..
s - ..d - 7 t 3. s .ter. '
.
4ti •
Pec -,,Lin ii.,tl,-. cE /sc urv:: %::s upen park sp.. '. , t ,- ' :he proirjn - ,nce of the bench,!,-, c:reetlights a. , , i landscap nth. (TOP:
Purtlanc. Oft; LOTTO,'J4: Vatic, ,v,.-,; I .C.;
_. if I r ' 1 ri
„, - 1
'4... r
•
V /
"�'
-1 r • 1
. Of
.0i 0004# '"� ✓ , r 0 „
6. L+!r
. i _ ---+ 1
at OW-. _ _ .. r '
_' ' ~ — • ./
•�� itin `
f Y
..if t .� Y f\41k.
,
I
n , -
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 23
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
Pedestrian (:2nd soh t:11,, s oicv,lo; ccnncctror s hob: % i
higher- donz,ty l3rci us ,..s that �,r a tall.,, ti le,. n o sic ,:es V- AS MUM MIN t"
should he ide ^nough .o cr :3te a:1 inviti;:6 and aft 3► ;1.A. "_� if, v.
passageway for uses. lri`^ can be dcl,ieve_1 through the
use of h! ild s tb c, nldr Tstep bsicks, occio;:trian
scab 1i htin rd I2rdsca pc. • bu,rcring As c r en r - oI ruh or i 1,
,,..
,Iii rrob.:hc2 higher u f rldi,r, tn: - ,a_rthoacce- sway.
I I-
I
r l F o 1 TOP, CI CC/ ,S
• 0 t rd OI P; -)r - 1 .,, i CiR;
Jcar ri r , r 1 r r i : ', z PerJa „d OR: Board,., V,./A:
+ A ; 1, r • ' U,neo•tvcr, B.C.
.. •' � f'.. I i
,
a _
. L
4
i , .. „ lit\
j illi 1 !.... it . - . . . 2 .° i i .
L' 't
tr
1 Mb i
t
I 1[- �f r • . ..
l t.
9
/ 'rk
r
1 1 1 •1110[ , ..-
24 TIGARD, OREGON
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
in tr;.orials ai'd li-inc.scarn silo! iici
I T .
" ty, car scted . ..0 . Me - r
- •
., . , •
Ef,,•..,/aod; BELOW: ,".1',"3 arJach, a)
8 ,
. ,
' .
:. .
" — -
•
.,..
. .
'111N1
.,.
-
...Ai 4
........ .
........
. ,
. , _.....
... ..
111011101111■- -_,._.,
_ .. ,.. .
■ -. -
NE Ill■ IIIL Illk Ilk 1■11. III Ilk ' ..0*
'II ■ 11116. IIL III■ I\ IL III& ' .
II IIR MIL MIL III Ill■ MIL IIIIl _ __,-- .
....---
.. ,,
. I shri f j. ' •
, *,' aa
filillr ,'' ..: ; lima
r ---
• : 1.10
1 ....11,
,..._._ , 1101 lbw . t .
I IM INI. •••,,,
031
, ._. -..
Pot1.n.).'a5." pr,..i.;L: / r)
' c , - F f , , =s 3i K eclosJr?,. (L"zeoci, OR)
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - 22 DECEMBER 2009 25
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE CONNECTIONS
' • . )1t1j1,, 11, soma cast.s, p connec
- -
*, may b•..-com? full-sca pc.. m,
....;, ,,...„ .
.
c'oped to outomohlic use L d actir5tocf by
':•. 4 1 . 1 IIKIL. - /I - intansh, r.t411,..)e. (aiarCc lo sville, VA)
• . • -
.. I
1111 Ili>
tr I r
gli I a p i
...de • -
Or Inillbot 1 1 • . p .11■Ifit , ..%
71
■ . E
r i ek..
- - -i n
. 14 ,„..je y . .. —.8•6; ... .. .. (
+.1 .
-..,.•......_-._,.... ::. - -„,.-, ,,
,.. , .
. , . -....... t. ,,,..„ . ,
16, ..i.....-,..,
A i ......; - t,1 .. ,.....
l :. 4 plgt, - -. --- . - hil. • a Ima...... -
- - ' — - -
7 . --- - ''-- ' ------- -..";.....v•-• ._
, . , ' .-.■ '-` - ' '. -
,-"•-: -...;•:- . . , r: • . .,,‘ .1. .„,
. -- • , " . 1..tir ,.. - - .. ...b&
- --
V --
'.:‘1"" - -t.'.:... ' -• .t'.4■ i 1 ,,..;
, 40• ot, Iv,
., .....
- 21 i A
_ -...e _
..I. .... _
. . / -
A n ir,tc,•-connactod o-rb ns cf r,:c ,% ti ,.,:ays ean fern at i.n:A.a - Jr .
se.nc odary L ,. , 'len -'s ' v tr.: ( - ) s,..:c I ^ '?t1(! /,:. - ,r_. =a,'
carnpt,ces ':e(L). ',', o:',.c,L• pdiks. or higr-c Er re., bent."(I come' - -x: - .. (riEcht).
(Portl..,J. OR) • -ve - ..
, 1 1 - ,
, V k • - . ' ' - ....,.. ': " '
-.1 i
...,.. .
1 -,:..,.;.„ .:-: \''''.'-," ...- ' -- -4 . i i •
4 it:='- , . . ■ ......
a
• •
. .....- A
-
\
e .. . I • "`
N —
'•"••• - 141.1. ,
- Ala - ■-•'• I.;
. .
. , •
. .
. .
• ;;." ''':." '' s - .1 .• •". ' - - . ' t.:- ... 44".' ..... . . ,
• -,, ". ---• " ‘■:'•-•...'' ' '•••• 4 . " ' : -1. v. ar , 111 • '•
AtthOUgi ; sat in a park n',..,)•ht). this multi-use part, provides direc*:.. sec( ,(.. -_ 'o
the lic/Js,ng Jnit :;t the left. :Cririotte, NC)
26 TIGARD, OREGON
Appendix
APPENDIX: CODE PROVISIONS FOR CONNECTIVITY
Connectivity standards are common in municipal or county development codes, and are often represented in terms of street
spacing or block size (perimeter). Given the eccentric shape of the Tigard's Downtown district, the constraints placed upon
it by the state highways, Fanno Creek, and the rail line, it was determined that standard street spacing or block size was not
practical for this area. However, some code provisions for pedestrian connectivity should be considered. As discussed in the
preceding plan, it is recommended that, for those blocks where pedestrian connectivity is specified, those connections should
not occur within 100' of any bounding street. The following are three examples of connectivity standards, and should be used
for reference in considering code language for Downtown Tigard.
From the State of Oregon's Model Development Code (3.4.100.G):
4. Street Connectivity and Formation of Blocks. In order to promote efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation
throughout the city, subdivisions and site developments of more than two (2) acres shall be served by a connecting
network of public streets and /or accessways, in accordance with the following standards (minimum and maximum
distances between two streets or a street and its nearest accessway):
a. Residential Districts: Minimum of [100] foot block length and maximum of [600] length; maximum [1,400] feet block
perimeter;
b. [Downtown / Main Street District]: Minimum of [100] foot length and maximum of [400] foot length; maximum [1,200]
foot perimeter;
c. General Commercial Districts: Minimum of [100] foot length and maximum of [600] foot length; maximum [1,400] foot
perimeter.
From the Revised Draft (June 2009) of the Fuller Road Statoin Area Form -Based Code (Clackamas County, OR):
a. Maximum Block Length: See Map 1 "Regulating Plan" for the location of future streets. New streets are intended to
create blocks with a perimeter no greater than 2,200 feet. Exact location of these new streets may vary up to 50 feet,
provided this provision is met. See Section 2 "Street Types" for further requirements.
b. Additional Through Block Connections: In addition to the mapped streets (existing and future) illustrated in the
Regulating Plan, any block face longer than 450 linear feet must provide an additional connection through the block. This
additional connection may be a `D" Street or an "E" Pedestrian Street, and may be located no closer than 100 feet to
an adjacent street intersection (existing or planned). These new connections are encouraged to align with other existing
or planned streets where possible. (See Figure 1 for example). See 2. "Street Types" for permitted "D" and "E" Street
designs.
From the Rancho Cordova (CA) Form -Based Code: Folsom Boulevard Specific Plan Area (Table III -1):
REQUIREMENTS BY STREET FRONTAGE
STANDARD FOLSOM BOULEVARD: MAIN STREET LOCAL STREET FOLSOM BOULEVARD ARTERIAL STREET
PULSE POINT
Connectivity Maximum block length /perimeter: 600'/2,000' Maximum block Maximum block length /perimeter: 6602,640'
Through block pedestrian connection: 350 ft length /perimeter: Through block pedestrian connection 350 ft
minimum 400'/1,500' minimum
Cul de sacs prohibited Through block pedes- Cul de sacs prohibited
trian connection 200 ft
minimum
Cul de sacs prohibited
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 29
/ KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G
610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.81 69
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 22, 2009 Project #: 10170.0
To: Matt Arnold
SERA Architects
From: Elizabeth Wemple, PE, Jamie Parks and Michael Houston
Project: Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan
subject: Horizon Year Transportation Circulation
As requested by SERA Architects, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI) has performed a year 2050
estimate of trip generation, distribution and traffic analysis for Tigard, Oregon. This analysis was
conducted to support the City of Tigard Downtown Circulation Plan. The study area is roughly
bounded by Highway 99W to the northwest, Hall Boulevard to the east, and Fanno Creek to the
south and west. The area approximately corresponds to Metro's Town Center designation.
METHODOLOGY
Year 2050 estimates for the total development areas in downtown Tigard were provided by City
staff. Downtown Tigard is expected to experience high residential, retail, and office growth
between now and the horizon year of 2050. Table 1 summarizes the expected extent of total
development in downtown Tigard in 2050. As shown, over 1 million square feet of retail, 532,000
square feet of office, and roughly 3,260 dwelling units are anticipated for downtown Tigard.
Table 1 Year 2050 Total Downtown Build -Out
Sub -Area Highway 99W- Main Street- Scoffins Street- Fanno Creek- Station Area Totals
Summary Hall Boulevard Center Street Commercial Burnham Overlay
Street Street
Retail Area (sf) 376,500 366,625 305,250 271,700 none 1,320,075
Office Area (sf) 230,000 52,000 50,000 200,000 none 532,000
Dwelling Units 667 117 958 824 695 3,260
Trip Generation and Mode Reduction
Based on the anticipated development in the study area, future person trips were estimated using
the Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. This standard resource was published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE).
In the year 2050, it is expected that a significant portion of the travel in and out of downtown
Tigard will occur using non -auto modes. The Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 31
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0
December 22, 2009 Page 2
a target for the maximum percentage of single- occupant vehicle (SOV) trips for downtown
Tigard. The target is between 45 and 55 percent. Similarly, the City of Tigard has a desirable
maximum SOV of 40 percent in this part of town. Both are year 2035 targets. For this analysis, we
estimated that thirty percent of the person trips in and out of downtown will use non - automobile
transportation (i.e., transit, bicycle, or walk) in 2050. This anticipates that in addition to the non -
automobile trips, approximately 20 to 30 percent of all trips will occur by carpooling.
Table 2 summarizes the estimated trip generation of the expected development in downtown
Tigard, taking into consideration the anticipated reduction in vehicle trips.
Table 2 Year 2050 Downtown Trip Generation Summary
Daily Weekday PM Peak Hour
Land Use C Size Weekday
Trips Total In Out
Retail Area (sf) 820 1,320,075 sf 58,640 5,510 2,650 2,860
Office Area (sf) 710 532,000 sf 5,855 795 135 660
Dwelling Units 230 3,259 units 18,935 1,695 1,135 560
Subtotal 83,430 8,000 3,920 4,080
30% Non -Auto Mode Reduction (25,030) (2,400) (1,175) (1,225)
Total 58,400 5,600 2,745 2,855
As shown in the table, downtown Tigard is expected to generate 58,400 daily trips, where 5,600
will occur during the p.m. peak hour. Of the peak hour trips, 2,745 are anticipated to be entering
the downtown while 2,855 are expected to be exiting. The anticipated retail development in
downtown is expected to have the largest portion of trips between the three land uses.
Trip Distribution
To estimate the number of vehicle trips on the proposed downtown Tigard transportation
network developed by SERA Architects, the trips shown in Table 2 were assigned to the future
roadway network. The trip distribution for each of the arterials in the immediate area was based
on estimates developed using Metro's regional travel demand model. Table 3 shows the
estimated trip distribution to the arterials.
32 TIGARD, OREGO%
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0
December 22, 2009 Page 3
Table 3 Downtown Trip Distribution
Roadway Direction Total Percent
In 140
Hall Boulevard —North 5%
Out 145
In 550
Highway 99W —East 20%
Out 570
In 550
Hunziker Boulevard 20%
Out 570
In 270
Hall Boulevard —South 10%
Out 285
In 275
Highway 99W —West 10%
Out 285
I n 140
Ash Avenue — South 5%
Out 145
In 550
Greenburg Road 20%
Out 570
In 270
Garden Place 10%
Out 285
I n 2,745
Total 100%
Out 2,855
As shown in the table, the roadways that are expected to carry the highest proportion of
downtown trips are Highway 99W to the east, Hunziker Boulevard, and Greenburg Road.
Vehicle trips were assigned onto the future roadway network according to the distributions
shown in Table 3. In addition, background traffic (i.e. regional traffic without an origin or
destination within downtown) was included in the estimate. Background traffic was estimated
using demand estimates from Metro's 2035 regional travel model. It was assumed that the areas
adjacent to downtown Tigard would be primarily built -out by 2035 and that little growth would
occur in these areas between 2035 and 2050. For this reason, no adjustment factor was added to
the 2035 background volumes.
Figure 1 shows the assigned 2050 peak -hour trips (background plus trips originating /destined for
downtown Tigard) on each link of the roadway network. Average daily volumes would be
approximately 10 times the peak -hour volumes shown in Figure 1.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 33
�__+a___ December 2009
&>
�® w+ m7 •
�$ oe 2- ,0'
e.
9 a ® °
v , ! \ % / \
%.'4,\`'* wt 2 /
§�
� ®
w<
0 I ^ ~ \4
^ #
�
, . « \
f t ° 7 >
y
/ \& c
:� & i
y 4 @ %\
�: .
\
! ®
y \ y&
a
s <
{
)
§
f
{
t.
6 2050 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOL _e
\, TIGARD, OR IIII
R KIT LN 3 ASSOCIATES, INC.
34 2URD, ORSm
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 70770.0
December 22, 2009 Page 5
ROADWAY CHARACTER
SERA Architects provided a street character classification map for the future roadway network.
The following roadway characteristics correspond to the character classifications provided by
SERA:
• Upper Hall Boulevard: Three -lane cross - section, with bike lanes for cyclists. Assumed
planning -level capacity is 20,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 1 — Downtown Collector with median: Two -lane cross - section
with a median for turn lanes at intersections, and bike lanes. Assumed planning -level
capacity is 15,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 2 — Downtown Collector: Two -lane cross - section with bike lanes
for cyclists. Assumed planning -level capacity is 8,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 3 — Downtown Local: Two -lane cross - section with no bike lanes.
Assumed planning -level capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 4 — Upper Burnham: Two -lane cross - section with no bike lanes
similar to the Downtown Mixed Use 3, but wider sidewalks are provided. Assumed
planning -level capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day.
• Downtown Mixed Use 5 — Lower Burnham: Two -lane cross - section with a continuous
left -turn lane and no bike lanes. Assumed planning -level capacity is 12,000 vehicles per
day.
• Urban Green Street 1: Two -lane cross - section similar to the Downtown Mixed Use 2, but
with permeable pavers for parking. No bike lanes are provided. Assumed planning -level
capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day.
• Urban Green Street 2: Narrow two -lane cross - section with permeable pavers for parking.
Assumed planning -level capacity is 2,000 vehicles per day.
• Urban Residential: Narrow two -lane cross - section. Assumed planning -level capacity is
2,000 vehicles per day.
• Alley: Narrow roadway, usually with several access points. Alleys are assumed to
provide local access only and have no specific planning -level capacity.
In addition, bike lanes are recommended if traffic volumes exceed 3,000 vehicles per day on
roadways, particularly those with bicycle and multi use pathway connections. Based on the
characteristics described above, the volumes shown in Figure 1 were compared to the thresholds
for each of the character classifications shown in the proposed downtown street network
provided by SERA. The projected volumes and roadway cross - sections were found to match the
characteristic of the proposed street network.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 35
Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #. 10170.0
December 22, 2009 Page 6
HALL BOULEVARD /GARDEN PLACE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard /Garden Place intersection were estimated under year
2050 p.m. peak hour traffic conditions. Turning movements at the intersection were based upon
the link volumes shown in Figure 1. The graphic on the next page illustrates the turning volumes
and lane configurations assumed at the intersection.
44 IL.
100 1,050 50
50 50
Hall Boulevard/
150 Garden Place 200
250 100
200 950 150
The intersection was evaluated using critical movement analysis (CMA), a standard procedure for
estimating planning -level intersection operations. The lane configurations shown above result in
intersection operations that are estimated to exceed the available capacity by roughly 15 percent
in the year 2050. It was found that the primary capacity constraint is the through volumes on Hall
Boulevard, and additional lanes on Garden Place, such as exclusive turn lanes, result in only a
slight improvement to intersection operations. Additional north and southbound lanes on Hall
Boulevard bring the intersection significantly under capacity. However, while the forecasted
traffic volumes at the intersection are expected to slightly exceed the available capacity with the
lane configurations shown above, it results in the future congestion expected in a downtown
setting.
CONCLUS I ON
Based on the findings described above, each of the character classifications shown in the
proposed downtown street network provided by SERA match closely to the anticipated traffic
volumes in downtown Tigard.
While the traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard /Garden Place intersection were estimated to
exceed the available planning -level capacity in the future year, no additional changes are
recommended to the roadway character classification of either roadway. Therefore it is likely that
there will be peak period congestion and /or queuing in the vicinity of this intersection. The
likelihood is that the congestion will be limited to peak commuting or shopping periods, and that
off peak the intersection would operate with limited congestion.
We trust this memorandum summarizes the analysis and results for the future traffic circulation
in Downtown Tigard. Please don't hesitate to contact us at (503) 228 -5230 if you have any
questions.
36 TIGARD, OREGON
,, �
JOHNSON REID
LAND JSE ECONOMICS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 22, 2009
To: Mr. Sean Farrelly
Long -Range Planning Division
City of Tigard, Oregon
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
FROM: JOHNSON REID, LLC
SUBJECT: Tigard Circulation Study, Real Estate Assessment
TIGARD CIRCULATION PLAN: MARKET -BASED AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
JOHNSON REID assessed the effects of the proposed street network and functional classifications on
the real estate market. This discussion includes the impacts on both the district as a whole and the
individual properties and sub - districts affected by the placement of future streets.
IMPACTS ON THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
Connectivity: The greatest single benefit of the proposed street network from a real estate market
perspective will be to improve the general connectivity within the Downtown district by extending
the street grid into the existing superblocks that are prevalent in the district. Currently, the
superblocks present a significant barrier to the district functioning as a successful, mixed -use
neighborhood for residents or businesses.
From the perspective of local residents, superblocks can prevent easy passage from Point A to Point
B, instead imposing a longer trip around the perimeter. These long distances make walking and /or
biking less attractive even for trips within the district. Once a district resident feels the need to
drive, the natural advantage of living in the district is diminished. In other words, the driver could
just as easily live in any adjacent neighborhood.
The proposed street grid, adjacent to commercial amenities in the district, should encourage more
local trips and enhance the desirability of residential properties and development sites located in
the district itself.
Most businesses benefit from more convenient customer access and increased traffic. From the
perspective of businesses on and around Main Street, the proposed street system would increase
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX- 22 DECEMBER 09 37
■
accessibility from the southeast, though not directly from OR 99W. Improved access should benefit
businesses with increased multi -modal traffic from within the district itself, as well as from Hall
Boulevard and beyond. An extension of Ash Street over Fanno Creek would also provide access
from residential neighborhoods to the southwest.
Street Frontage and Access: The proposed street system will increase the linear street frontage
through the district significantly, creating new mixed -use and residential streets within the
superblocks. Prospective development benefits from street frontage by gaining access from the
new street, enhanced visibility, and adjacent on- street parking.
Auto access is key for unlocking the economic potential for most land uses. While other modes of
transportation play an increasingly important role, developers still seek sites with good auto access,
visibility from auto - oriented streets, and sufficient parking for users. The proposed path system
will be an additional amenity, particularly for residential uses.
Auto access into the interior of the superblocks will allow for more active uses on the main mixed -
use streets such as Commercial and Burnham. It will also allow parking, deliveries, waste
management, etc. to occur in the rear of new development. The smaller block sizes, with potential
access from multiple streets, provide flexibility in site planning and allow preservation of the most
valuable street frontages for storefronts and walk -up residences.
For the impacted properties, the loss of some developable land to the future street may be partially
mitigated by the street frontage or increased access. The benefits to a given property depend on
the specific property size, configuration, location, and development type under consideration
(discussed more below).
Sub - Districts: As discussed, the proposed street and trail system will sub - divide Downtown's
superblocks and allow new access to the interior of these blocks. The newly divided areas can be
roughly broken down into four sub - districts:
• Hall /OR 99W Area: The shopping center area is located in the northeast corner of the
district, and bounded by OR 99W to the north, Hall Boulevard to the east, and Scoffins Street
to the southwest. While it forms one contiguous block, it contains multiple parcels under
multiple ownerships.
The proposed street network would divide this triangular block roughly through the middle
with an east /west extension of Garden Place connecting to Hall Boulevard, and add an
extension of Ash Street connecting to Scoffins Street. These future streets would provide
enhanced access to the interior of this block from these two streets, while breaking the
superblock into smaller block sizes.
The new Ash Street extension would provide the added benefit of rear access to parcels
along Hall Boulevard; these parcels currently face access restrictions onto Hall, which is a
State -owned facility and is subject to access management standards. Increased access to
these sites would enhance their development flexibility.
38 TIGARD, OREGON
Overall, the Hall /OR 99W Area itself will remain a good candidate for a larger scale
redevelopment, either at once or in phases. The new street access will help define the
nature of what replaces the current shopping center.
• Urban Residential Neighborhood: Currently, there is a large block bordered by Main,
Scoffins, Ash, and Commercial, and an additional large block across Ash to the southeast,
bordered by Ash, Scoffins, Hall, and Commercial Streets. These blocks ( -500' x —900' and
—500' x —485', respectively) are very large compared to a traditional city center block size
of 200' to 400' per side.
Under the proposed transportation network, the larger block (to the northwest of Ash)
would receive two new streets, which would cross in the middle of the superblock, thereby
dividing it into rectangular quadrants. This division should greatly enhance access to these
parcels, improve connectivity, and increase development flexibility.
The block to the southeast of Ash would be divided by new streets which would form an "L"
between Ash and Commercial. This "L" would not provide new access to Hall, but, as with
the Hall /OR 99W Area discussed above, it would provide additional access to parcels along
Hall that currently face access restrictions. This new connection would increase the
development flexibility for these parcels.
• The Heart and Civic Core: There is a long block bordered by the rail easement on the
northeast and Burnham Street on the southwest that currently forms a single,
uninterrupted barrier for nearly a half mile. This long superblock is not currently
penetrated by any NE /SW cross streets.
The proposed street network would add three such streets, two of which would end at a
new alley / frontage -road running adjacent to the rail tracks, and the third being the
extension of Ash Street, which is proposed to cross the tracks and allow continuing
connectivity to the northeast part of the Downtown District.
Of the proposed streets, the Ash extension, with its at -grade crossing of the rail -line, would
be the most significant, both for this superblock and the district as whole - because of the
additional access it would provide in piercing the major barrier formed by the rail
easement.
However, all three streets would provide interior access and divide the superblock into
more regularly -sized blocks, with the attendant benefits discussed previously. The streets
that end at the alley /frontage road will have more limited connectivity, but will provide
access for employees and /or residents in the area. They will also provide access to the
amenities of the park- and -ride lot and the trail system.
• Creekside Residential: Similar considerations apply to the area between Fanno Creek
Park and SW Burnam Street. Currently this area is characterized by industrial and
employment uses on relatively Large lots. These properties front onto Burnham with access
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 39
G1
S1
■
by private drives into the interior. Many of these parcels extend many hundreds of feet off
of Burnham.
As opposed to the Scoffins /Commercial block, which has a significant fragmentation of
smaller parcels, the Creekside Residential sub - district features many large parcels which
would facilitate larger planned developments. Larger and /or planned developments will
offer greater flexibility and resources for providing future streets - be they public or
private.
The proposed network features a long, new street running parallel to Burnham along with a
series of shorter streets connecting the two. These streets would likely serve the internal
users of this area, and would likely not be a prime candidate for significant retail or
commercial services, compared to streets like Main, Burnham, and Commercial.
Even while providing additional access, this alternative would leave many large parcels.
However, combined with fewer owners, this configuration should help maintain flexibility
for future development and allow for creative solutions.
The construction of these interior streets largely presupposes the redevelopment of this
area from current industrial and warehousing uses to new residential and mixed uses. In
the long run, the adjacency of Fanno Creek Park and the Main Street amenities should make
this area marketable for new residential uses.
District -wide Conclusions: The current transportation network is far from optimal for a
designated city center, featuring very large superblocks and extended arterials (such as Burnham,
Commercial, and Scoffins) with few cross - streets. The existing network poses barriers, particularly
to movement in the NE /SW direction. The network likely hampers the marketability of the area as
distinct from other suburban neighborhoods, and its desirability as a residential location.
Increased access and connectivity within the district, as well as the individual superblocks, should
improve the marketability and developability of properties in the area, and bolster the health of
local businesses.
This transportation network should make the Downtown district more amenable for denser, more
vertical development forms than have historically been seen here. In combination with proposed
zoning and design code changes in the Downtown, the resulting smaller block structure can
produce a more urban -scale experience both for business and housing.
Improved connectivity and walk -able scale should be a positive in attracting new residential
development to the area. A pedestrian -scale street grid and the proximity of Main Street retail and
Fanno Creek Park can create a marketable character for this district not found elsewhere in Tigard.
Greater household density should in turn be a significant boon to the business climate on and
around Main Street.
From the district -wide perspective, the costs of creating the proposed transportation network are
the costs of purchasing right -of -way and developing individual new public improvements. It is not
40 TIGARD, OREGON
;■
within the scope of this analysis to estimate these costs or propose their phasing, which will be
addressed through the Transportation System Plan process. However the impacts on the individual
properties intersected by future streets are discussed in more detail below.
IMPACTS ON THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES
As proposed, the future street network would intersect a total of 32 parcels (as identified by SERA
Architects). Thirty of these parcels are located in the core Downtown District, south of OR 99W,
while two additional parcels are located to the north, in the shopping center located at the
northwest corner of OR 99W and Hall Blvd.
(One additional impacted parcel identified by SERA has already been purchased by the City, with
street improvements underway, and therefore is not included in this analysis.)
These parcels are all in some way impacted by the street alignments proposed in the future
transportation network. This section does not discuss each property individually, but covers the
types of economic impacts created by future street designation, and quantifies the estimated overall
impact on property values and tax revenue.
The main potential impacts on the affected parcels are:
• Loss of Developable Land: This simply refers to the portion of the parcel which is covered
by the new public easement / right -of -way. The owner loses land area on which to
accommodate new development, parking, or other economic uses of the property. The loss
of land, resulting in a smaller parcel, may contribute to less flexibility in programming new
development, less allowable density, and the like.
• Parcel Slivers /Fragments: Future streets have the potential to isolate slivers or fragments
of parcels that are too small or oddly configured to allow private development. Routing
streets along property lines at the time of planning reduces this risk. In cases where
fragments are unavoidable, public acquisition or compensation may be necessary.
• Odd Configurations: The future street may bisect a parcel in such a way that the
remaining parcel, while not being too small as a sliver, is otherwise configured oddly so as
to discourage efficient development.
For reference, the estimated impact on the affected parcels is presented below. However, it is
assumed that the expansion of the circulation system proposed in this project will be predicated
mostly on the private redevelopment decisions of the property owners or City acquisition of parcels
at a fair market value. Therefore, the negative impacts discussed here would ideally be negated by
the added value of the new development or compensation for public acquisition.
The following table presents the aggregate statistics and estimates for the impacted parcels. The
parcels will lose some developable land to future streets. The extent of the impact varies based on
the parcel. It is estimated that 25 of the parcels (75 %) would require the removal of one of more
building improvements on site.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 22 DECEMBER 09 41
As the table demonstrates, the streets would impact an estimated 16% of the overall land area.
This amounts to 6.3% of the total 157 acre Urban Renewal Area. The land lost to right of way
amounts to just under 10 acres.
IMPACTED PARCELS
Impacted Parcels Urban Renewal Area
Number of Parcels: 32 196
Total Acreage: 62.1 157.3
Total Square Footage: 2,704,913 6,851,988
Impacted Square Footage: 432,529 (9.9 Acres) 432,529 (9.9Acres)
Impacted Percentage: 16.0% 6.3%
Real Market Land Value (RMV) $31,658,640 $77,767,430
Estimated Value of Impacted Land: $5,756,309 $5,756,309
Estimated Total Remaining RMV Value: $25,902,331 $72,011,121
Loss as % of Current RMV: 18.2% 7.4%
Total Taxable Assessed Value (TAV) $24,467,170 $70,260,200
Estimated Loss of TAV (Land): $2,296,237 $2,296,237
Estimated Remaining TAV Value: $22,170,933 $67,963,963
Loss as % of Current TAV: 9.4% 3.3%
1 All Real Market and Taxable Values reflect the 2009 estimates and assessments of Washington County
As mentioned, it is important to note that these estimated impacts are only those to the property
and its existing improvements. It does not reflect the new value added by the new
development /redevelopment activity which would take place on the site at the time the future
street is added. The new development will mitigate lost value and increase future Taxable Assessed
Value (TAV).
If redevelopment takes place through public condemnation, all or some of this value would
presumably be compensated directly. However, any future private redevelopment of these parcels
presupposes that the current use has lost its value relative to the newly proposed use (in other
words, demolition is planned anyway). In that case, the current value sacrificed should be similar
or equal to only the value of the developable land that is given over to the new street and other
public improvements.
Future Developable Land and Tax Revenue: The future value of these parcels after
redevelopment cannot be predicted, and therefore hard estimates of future tax revenue would be
unreliable. SERA Architects estimates that the proposed circulation plan would reduce the current
developable acreage of the Urban Renewal Area from roughly 157 acres to 147 acres (not including
42 TIGARD- OREGON
the shopping center north of OR 99W). The specific parcels identified would lose an estimated 9.9
acres of area.
The table above presents the estimated loss of Taxable Assessed Value from the loss of land area. It
amounts to 9.4% of the TAV of the parcels themselves, or 3.3% of the TAV of the entire URA.
This land area would become public right -of -way, and therefore have no taxable value. This
loss of value to the Urban Renewal Area and other taxing districts would be partially or
totally counteracted by new value created through redevelopment.
If, as noted above, these streets are phased in at the time of private redevelopment, this
presupposes that the private owner has determined a use which s /he believes will have
greater economic value than the current use, even considering the loss of land to the public
right -of -way.
The development of this new use should result in a new property value greater than before,
and thus greater Taxable Assessed Value. The increase in tax increment would benefit the
local Urban Renewal Area.
CI In cases where the private property owner is not pursuing redevelopment and the street
easement is taken through condemnation, the action may potentially result in the loss of the
current economic value without the potential of replacing that value with new uses, or uses
that are as efficient as the current use. For instance, if condemnation left a poorly
configured site for redevelopment, the value of the property may be diminished in the long
run. In addition, if condemnation takes place in a poor development market,
redevelopment may not occur until market conditions improve.
The proposed circulation system could also create opportunities for parcel assembly and
planned development. The loss of private developable land and the expense of road
improvements can incentivize larger scale developments to help defray these costs. This
dynamic helps achieve goals for density in the district while producing new uses with
higher property values.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX -22 DECEMBER 09 43
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date January 19, 2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Island Annexation Initiative
✓--
Prepared By: G. Pagenstecher /R. Bunch Dept Head Approval: Mgr Approval: (s _
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Council is requested to discuss and provide direction for taking the next steps towards implementing an island
annexation initiative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council is requested to provide direction regarding 1) requesting formal County interest in the City annexing
unincorporated islands; 2) an outreach effort directed to property owners that would be subject to island
annexation; 3) a target timeline if Council decides to pursue island annexation; and 4) the type and extent of
incentives that might be used to promote island property owners to annex.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Washington County, through informal communication with Tigard, has urged annexation of unincorporated islands
within the City limits to resolve County service inefficiency issues. Unincorporated islands pose jurisdictional
problems to City and County law enforcement agencies and other service efficiency and equity issues occur as well.
The City Council has long held the policy position that municipal services are best provided by a city. Furthermore,
the City / County Tigard Urban Services Agreement (TUSA) identifies the City as the eventual provider of services
to these and other unincorporated areas within its service area. Cities are also identified as the appropriate provider
of urban services by the County's Urbanization Forum Resolution 9 -63.
In consideration of its policy position, and the County's urging, Council directed staff at an August 18, 2009
workshop, to take steps to initiate an island annexation program within six to twelve months, with a preference for
seeking voluntary annexation first. Council emphasized the need to talk to property owners prior to initiating
annexation.
As a first element of the citizen outreach effort, it is recommended that Tigard secure a formal request from
Washington County to proceed with island annexation. If the County does not follow through, then Council may
wish to reconsider its position towards island annexation. If County support is forthcoming, then it is
recommended that the City follow up with a citizen outreach effort. Once this is complete, Council could direct
staff to shape the program appropriately, including the offering of incentives. Attachment 1 is a summary
communication plan for the outreach effort.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 AIS final Island Annexation Workshop with changes craig p doreen (2).docx 1
It is important to discuss what, if any, incentives to offer to encourage island property owners to annex voluntarily.
The City's experience since March 2007 has been that incentives, including a city property tax phase -in period, have
not been successful. This might change if Council decides to exercise the ability provided by state law (ORS
222.750) to involuntarily annex islands. In this case, owners of island properties that annex voluntarily would
receive a substantial benefit through phase -in of property taxes and those who choose the involuntary method
would not. The appended memo from staff (Attachment 2) provides additional detail about the incentive issue.
The objective for offering incentives should be to create a "win -win" situation for both the City and property
owners. An important consideration is Attachment 2 — which shows that a phase -in period of at least seven years is
required to come close to the "win -win" standard.
It is important to note that Council has also directed Community Development to work on several other priorities.
These include Highway 99W high capacity transit (HCT); Transportation System Plan; Community Development
Code updates; Downtown zoning and design standards; Downtown Circulation Plan; periodic review of the
Comprehensive Plan, Tree Code revisions, etc. Beginning an in -depth public outreach effort around island
annexation, involving person to person contact, would require significant staff time and delay achievement of some
of these and other tasks.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Council has the option to direct staff to revise any element of the proposed island annexation program, including a
more or less aggressive schedule.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Comprehensive Plan Goal 14.2, Policy 5 states, "The City shall maintain its right to annex property as allowed by
state statute."
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Initial Public Communication Plan for Island Annexation
Attachment 2: Memorandum from Staff
FISCAL NOTES
The total assessed valuation of all 78 island properties is about $26 million. If all were annexed, the City would
realize an annual property tax revenue increase of approximately $37,000. The amount of property taxes the City
would receive following adoption of ordinances initiating annexation is unknown and dependent on how taxes are
phased -in for voluntary annexation and the number of property owners choosing involuntary annexation.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 AIS final Island Annexation Workshop with changes craig p doreen (2).docx 2
Attachment 1
Communication Plan: Island Annexation Public Outreach Prior to
Consideration of Annexation Resolution
Communication Goal: Provide information to and receive feedback from property owners
and residents in unincorporated islands before Council considers a resolution to initiate
island annexation. If it decides to proceed, Council will use this information to tailor the
island annexation program as it deems appropriate.
Key Themes:
• Supported by both County and City
• Urban Service Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness
• Benefits to Being Tigard Citizen
• Tigard and Washington County wish to hear from citizens before taking action
Timeline: To begin, January 13, 2010 to first determine that the County will formally
request / support an island annexation initiative. If County does not provide support,
Council may wish to reconsider the effort. If the decision is made to proceed with island
annexation, then outreach will be complete by April 16, 2010.
Time frame Objective and Method Message
Jan 11 - 15 Contact by City elected official to Key Message: Joint interest
determine if County will formally request of both entities to address
the City to initiate island annexation. service efficiency and pros
and cons of unincorporated
islands annexation
If County expresses support, then the project proceeds upon receipt of the official request.
If not, should Council reconsider island annexation? If County supports and the Council
decides to proceed, then the following outlines the next steps.
Jan 18 — 29 Complete prepared materials, mailers, Key Message: Determine
tax information materials, web materials what are island property
owner issues and concerns
with annexing to Tigard.
Explain island annexation
process; potential incentives;
and impacts on property
taxes, etc.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \ 2010 \ 1-19-10 Attach 1 Island annexation final to doreen.docx
Attachment 1
Timeframe Objective and Method Message
Feb 1 - 5 Mail informational materials to all Key Message: As above
property owners and post web materials and emphasize that Tigard
and Washington County
want to talk to their citizens
before taking action. Give
dates when property owners
will be contacted to set up
one on one meetings.
Feb 15 —March Contact undeveloped island property Key Message: Ask for
12 owners; schedule and hold meetings with concerns; obstacles to
them. annexation; explore options
and alternatives; answer
questions; collect
information to relay to
Council.
March 8 - 26 Identify potential hosts of neighborhood Identify potential hosts for
coffees to discuss annexation issues in small neighborhood
the Arlington Heights area. gatherings to facilitate small
group discussions.
March 8 -26 Contact Arlington Heights property Same as above.
owners and hold meetings.
March 29 -Apr 15 Organize 3 — 4 neighborhood coffees in Repeat Feb. 15 — March 12
Arlington Heights neighborhood to key messages.
discuss annexation issues.
At the conclusion of this effort, participants will report back to Council. Council will
determine a course of action based on information received. For example, Council may
decide to proceed; modify its approach, such as annexing some, but not all, of the islands or
properties therein; or decide to delay island annexation.
I : \LRPLN \Council Materials \ 2010 \ 1-19-10 Attach 1 Island annexation final to doreen.docx 2
I I . 1111 City of Tigard ATTACHMENT 1
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of City Council
From: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director
Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planne
Re: January 19 Workshop on the Tigard Island Annexation Initiative
Date: January 12, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The following provides greater detail about incentives to encourage island property owners to annex
to the City. Also discussed are state annexation laws, and how they affect the way an island
annexation program would have to be structured in order to offer incentives.
In preparing these materials, staff utilized some of the City of Hillsboro's experience and would like
to acknowledge Alwin Turiel, Hillsboro Long Range Planning Supervisor, and her staff.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Incentives to Annex
The City has tried to promote voluntary annexation since March, 2007 with a City property tax
phase -in and emphasizing the advantages of being part of an incorporated community. Also, the
City offers to waive application fees, pay the Metro mapping fee, and assist with legal descriptions.
However, few property owners have chosen to annex. One or two have done so solely to be a part
of Tigard, but most have needed City services.
It is acknowledged that the reason the City's invitation to annex has not been broadly accepted is
that basic urban services are available in the Tigard's Urban Services Area (TUSA) through special
districts and County levies. Municipal services not available in unincorporated areas can be easily
accessed in nearby cities by unincorporated residents. In this situation the advantages of being part
of a city does not have much sway with property owners.
Therefore, in order to encourage voluntary annexation of island properties, staff recommends that
Council emphasize a monetary incentive through a phase -in of increased property taxes. However,
the following Table 1 shows that a lengthy phase -in is required for there to be significant incentive for
island property owners to annex voluntarily, versus choosing the involuntary method.
ORS 222.750 states that involuntary annexation is effective no less than 3, and no more than 10, years
from the effective date of the enabling ordinance. Consequently, involuntary annexations are delayed a
minimum of three years. In Table 1, Columns B and C show that, assuming City property taxes are
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 2 island annexation workshop wchart changes to doreen final.docx 1
$500 a year, a property that is involuntarily annexed will pay $2,000 in City taxes over a seven year
period. On the other hand, annexation would be immediate for voluntarily annexed properties which,
in this case, results in $3,500 of City taxes. Unless City property taxes are deferred, this would be a
substantial disincentive to annex voluntarily.
In order for voluntarily annexed property owners to gain an incentive to annex, City property taxes
would have to be phased in over a period of several years as shown in columns D and E of Table 1.
During the first 2 years after annexation, taxes would have to be waived and phased in at 20% per year
for the subsequent five years. Staff evaluated this issue extensively and, regardless of the percentage
factor applied, the phase -in period is lengthy for there to be a reasonable monetary incentive to annex
voluntarily.
Table 1: Example of City Property Tax Phase -in for Voluntary versus Involuntary Annexation
A B C D E
Tax Year % of Tax Phase -in Tax Bill % of Tax Phase -in Tax Bill
Involuntary Assuming City Voluntary Assuming City
Annexation Property Tax = Annexation Property
$500 more/ yr Tax = $500
more /yr
Annexation effective 3 years Annexation effective
0 from date of ordinance immediately (taxes to start
enactment subsequent year unless
waived as shown)
1 - - 0% 0
2 - - 0% 0
3 Annexation effective (taxes - 20 $100
start subsequent year)
4 100% $500 40% $200
5 100% $500 60% $300
6 100% $500 80% $400
7 100% $500 100% $500
Seven Year Tax Bill Involuntary vs. $2,000 $1,500
Voluntary Annexation
The above 7 year phase -in would allow a property owner to save one year's worth of City property
taxes through voluntary annexation. Also, once annexed, these properties would likely see their tax
rates go down immediately by being withdrawn from special districts or levy paid services, thus
realizing additional financial benefits. It is staff's opinion that this is as much compromise that the
City should offer for voluntary annexation. From this perspective, it is important to balance the
incentive with the need for properties to be on the tax rolls within a reasonable time period.
Staff does not recommend any other monetary incentives, such as deferring system development
charges (SDC), reducing utility rates, fees and charges, etc. The primary reason is that the island
annexation initiative seeks to address service efficiency and livability issues. Resolution of these
matters should not be delayed any longer than necessary. Furthermore, the burden of dealing with
the monetary / service impacts of service or fee reductions and /or deferrals should not fall to
existing City residents and businesses.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 2 island annexation workshop wchart changes to doreen final.docx 2
Staff was requested to evaluate if the availability sewer reimbursement districts would also be an
incentive. In this case, there are only about 3 parcels in the Fern Street area that might benefit. The
remaining 75 properties would not. Sewer service is either provided already to properties or is
accessible.
Maximum Stipulated Time for Effective Date of Involuntary Annexation
Staff recommends that if Tigard proceeds with involuntary annexation as part of this effort, it
should stipulate that properties that are annexed involuntarily be allowed to remain unincorporated
for a maximum of 3 years. This is important for a property tax phase -in incentive to be feasible.
There are other consequences of extending the annexation time. Hillsboro found that there could
be unintended consequences for property owners if the annexation date is pushed out, such as, up
to a decade. Delayed annexation could prevent a property owner who initially did not want to annex
willingly but later discovered they need to. Also, having a patchwork quilt of different annexation
dates for involuntarily annexed properties would be problematic, difficult to administer, and not
consistent with the City's and County's objectives.
It is essential to adopt separate ordinances to enact Tigard's island's annexation effort. The reason
is that state law (ORS 222.111 (3)v does not allow involuntary annexations to phase -in property
taxes. Therefore, for the proposed property tax incentive to work, Council will need to adopt a
separate ordinance annexing property of those who agree to do so voluntarily within a period of
time specified in the resolution.
If there are questions or comments about the above, please do not hesitate to contact Community
Development Staff.
ORS 222.750 provides for annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city. ORS 222.750(4)
states, "That unless otherwise required by its charter, annexation by a city under this section must be by
ordinance or resolution subject to referendum, with or without the consent of any owner of real
property within the territory or resident in the territory. ORS 222.750(5) states for property that is
zoned for, and in, residential use when annexation is initiated by the city under this section, the city shall
specify an effective date for the annexation that is at least 3 years and not more than 10 years after the
date the city proclaims the annexation approved.
ii ORS 222.111(3) allows cities to reduce the amount of annual taxation on a ratio basis for the first
ten years following a voluntary annexation. The statute states, "The proposal for annexation may
provide that, during each of not more than 10 full fiscal years beginning with the first fiscal
year after the annexation takes effect, the rate of taxation for city purposes on property in
the annexed territory shall be at a specified ratio_of the highest rate of taxation applicable that
year for city purposes to other property in the city. The proposal may provide for the ratio to
increase from fiscal year to fiscal year according to a schedule of increase specified in the
proposal; but in no case shall the proposal provide for a rate of taxation applicable that year for city
purposes to other property in the City. If the annexation takes place on the basis of a proposal
providing for taxation at a ratio, the city may not tax property in the annexed territory at a rate other
than the ration which the proposal authorizes for that fiscal year.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \1 -19 -10 Attach 2 island annexation workshop wchart changes to doreen final.docx 3