Loading...
07/14/2010 - Packet City of Tigard r r . City Center Advisory Commission ❑ Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday,July 14, 2010— 6:30-8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions......................................................................................................6:30— 6:35 2. Review / Approve June Minutes............................................................................................. 6:35 — 6:40 3. Main Street Green Street Project kick-off.............................................................................6:40— 7:30 Meet consultant team;review pr ject overview;discuss CCAC's role and schedule;discuss parking issues. (Kim McMillan and members of the consultant team) 4. Downtown Circulation Plan.....................................................................................................7:30— 8:00 Discuss Leland memo and cost estimates. Potential action item:recommend revisions and additions to plan. (Sean Farrelly) 5. Parks Bond Discussion.............................................................................................................. 8:00 — 8:10 Discussion of potential parks bond and CCA Cs role (Vice-Chair Murphy) 6. Updates ........................................................................................................................................ 8:10 — 8:25 A. Transportation System Plan B. Facade Improvement Program C. Downtown bike rack installation Information only (Sean Farrelly) 7. Other Business............................................................................................................................. 8:25 — 8:30 8. Adjourn.........................................................................................................................................8:30 p.m. Upcoming meetings of note: 7/27, Council: consider resolution to submit Parks Bond for November 2010 ballot (7:30,Tigard Town Hall) 8/11, CCAC: regular meeting (potential 5:30 start for Main Street walking tour with consultant) 8/19,Main Street Green Street Project Open House #1, (6:30,Tigard Town Hall) CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA—July 14, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft 44 Vol City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: July 14, 2010_ Location: Tigard City Hall,Town Hall Called to order by: Vice Chair Thomas Murphy Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 8:32 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Ralph Hughes; Kevin Kutcher; Peter Louw; Vice Chair Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong; Linli Pao (alternate); Philip Thornburg (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Chair Alexander Craghead, Commissioner Alice Ellis Gaut Others Present: Consultants (Dana Beckwith, Gary Alfson, and Stefanie Slyman); audience members (Darlene Mayberry,Jim Thoma,Jeff Thoma, Mark Woodard, Mike Marr) Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager;Kim McMillan, Engineering Manager;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were made. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): AGENDA ITEM #2: Approve Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: Motion by Commissioner Shearer, seconded by Commissioner Louw, to accept the June 9, 2010 minutes as written. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Kutcher abstained. AGENDA ITEM #3: Main Street Green Street Project kick-off Important Discussion and/or Comments: Kim McMillan introduced the consultant team: Dana Beckwith from DKS Associates (transportation component of the design); Gary Alfson from Harper Houf Peterson Righellis (project manager); Stefanie Slyman from Slyman Planning Resources (public outreach). Kim advised that the design for Main Street will begin after the Burnham Street project is wrapped up. Main Street is expected to go to construction in June, 2012. CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 1 of 10 Gary Alfson reported on the project. There is no engineering design as yet. The consultants are doing fact finding and information gathering right now. The project will go from the railroad corridor, south and west to Hwy. 99W. It will be a multimodal green street project. The green street part will bring the street up a little, enhance the aesthetics of the street, and treat the stormwater before it goes into the catch basins and eventually into the creek. We will utilize planters in the roadway for the stormwater treatment. The upside to this is getting the stormwater treated; the downside is where to put the landscape island. If we put it in front of the curb, it will take up parking spaces;if we put it behind the curb, it means moving the sidewalk. Another component of the project is the multimodal traffic combination,which will accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. Sidewalks will be made more attractive for pedestrians. The wider the sidewalk, the better for pedestrians; however, if we widen the sidewalk, we'll go into the street which affects parking and the green street treatments. If we widen in the other direction, we get into right-of-way and closer to buildings. We'll need to find the best balance between all the issues. Putting in crosswalks will make it more user-friendly for crossing back and forth across the street and sidewalk furniture will enhance the environment for pedestrians. We want to improve the environment for bicyclists. Bike lanes are the best way to do that, but they would take up a lot of parking. We'll need to find a way to address that. We want to encourage more people to be Downtown in their vehicles, but we also want to discourage the cut through traffic. Stefanie Slyman spoke about the public involvement process for this project. She reviewed the schedule for the public involvement strategy (Exhibit A) with the Commissioners. She will be meeting with the CCAC every month through January, 2011. There will be 4 meetings in August with business owners to discuss concerns about parking and other issues concerning Main Street. There will be 3 open houses to share information with the public and to solicit input. The consultants would also like to schedule a walking tour of Main Street with the Commissioners. It was suggested scheduling an additional meeting with business owners later in the schedule, before final decisions are made. They could then review the proposed plan and let us know if it will work, or not work, for them. Kim McMillan agreed that meeting with individual business owners during the process will be beneficial. She also wants to hear from business owners on how they would like to follow up on the project. It was also suggested pushing the walking tour back to after the meetings with business owners, so the consultants could point out what had been discussed at the meetings and the open houses. The Commissioners were agreeable to meeting outside their normal CCAC meeting times. CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 2 of 10 Dana Beckwith discussed the parking analysis that was done in the Downtown (Exhibit B). They are determining what the current supply is for on-street (public parking) and off-street (private parking). The consultants are looking at what the current supply is, what the occupancies are, and the current turnover rate so they can understand what is out there today. They will also be looking at land use ratios and demand ratios. They will look at future parking demand based on possible changes in land uses that could occur over time. They will look at barriers to parking opportunities —what existing parking strategies are in place within the City and new strategies that could be implemented. Comments from the Commissioners and audience members regarding the parking study: • There are several locations on Main Street where buses stop. Those bus stops take up parking spaces and they should be identified on the map. • Erase the parking spaces shown on the railroad tracks. • Should adjacent parking on Burnham, Commercial, Scoffins be included since the Park and Ride spaces are include& Kim McMillan advised that Burnham will now have functional parking spaces. It used to be a collector street, so parking was not allowed, except for the spaces next to Capistrano's. It was noted that the parking study included parking spaces 300' on either side of Main Street. • The public parking shown at the intersection of Commercial and Main Street should be considered private parking rather than public parking. That space is leased to the Bishop building. Kim advised that the space is TriMet property; currently the parking is private and the lease may or may not change as the lease expires. The consultants will change it to show private parking. • The consultants were asked to better differentiate the colors between the 2 hour parking and the no limit parking sections. The markings shown on the map are too close in color for people to easily distinguish between the two. • The Post Office parking lot should be considered private parking, because it's for postal patrons only. • For the Chamber building, only 10 spaces are for public parking (shows 15 spaces). • We need to remember that we're in a recession, so businesses don't have nearly the customers and traffic that they normally have. An audience member asked how Commercial Street will be affected by the Main Street construction. Kim McMillan does not believe Commercial will be impacted as far as design; however, it may be impacted during construction. When Main Street is under construction, the City may also do some improvements on a section of Commercial Street that is failing. With regard to more lighting, Kim said that Phase 2 of the Main Street project might include more lighting, but it's possible that the City could do something in the interim. She urged citizens to email any suggestions they may have to her. It was also suggested installing some drinking fountains Downtown, maybe by the WES station. Kim advised that she is the City contact for the Main Street project. People can get in touch with her if they have any questions or problems related to the project. CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 3 of 10 Gary Alfson noted that they have some options for walkway permeability. Stefanie Slyman said the Commissioners are invited to attend the open houses. At the first open house, the plan will be broken down into specific elements— stormwater facilities, pedestrian facilities, etc., so people can go to those specific stations to learn more about those features and offer ideas. Commissioner Shearer noted that some of the Commissioners attended Beaverton's green street tours and found it to be very interesting. She suggested that people check the City of Beaverton's website to see if the tours were being offered this year. Kim advised that the consultants would be bringing examples of design elements that were used in Milwaukie. Commissioner Barkley said the consultants should be ready to address the issue of not having enough off-street parking on Main Street. A lot of businesses in the Downtown only have street parking for their customers. If that street parking will be eliminated, the consultants need to be prepared to explain to business owners where their customers will park. Businesses can't afford to lose parking unless there's a plan to replace it. Gary Alfson said that they will go over the pros and cons of the plan, i.e., we can have green street treatments, but we'll lose a parking stall. People can weigh the benefits and the disadvantages. Commissioner Shearer noted the Commissioners had talked about consolidation of spaces for public parking behind Main Street. There is some space available and agreements between owners to share parking with the public might give them an adjustment in their parking fees. The Commissioners would like to encourage owners to consider doing this. Sean Farrelly said that staff and the consultants are aware of the importance of parking and that is why the first task for this project was to do the parking analysis. Vice Chair Murphy offered the Commission as a resource that would be available to the consultants for the public outreach effort. The Commissioners would like to be included in the process. With regard to the old railroad tracks on Tigard Street, Sean Farrelly advised that the City is considering that area as a future rail-to-trail project. There could be some parking associated with that project. The big hurdle is that Portland and Western Railroad has an easement on the property, and railroad companies are hesitant to relinquish easements. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Vice Chair Murphy said the walking tour should be coordinated with Chair Craghead. AGENDA ITEM #4: Downtown Circulation Plan Important Discussion and/or Comment: Sean referred to a memo from Leland Consulting Group (Exhibit C) and the rough estimated cost of the Downtown Circulation Plan Implementation (Exhibit D). The Leland memo reviews past work on the Circulation Plan and points out potential ways of implementing, improving, and revising it. A list of potential revisions/additions to the Plan is shown on Exhibit E. Sean said that after discussion tonight, he would like to see if we're at a point where the Commissioners agree that this would be a framework CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 4 of 10 to go ahead and make some changes to the Plan. There's a small amount of money left in the budget with SERA _architects that we might be able to use for an implementation strategy or memo. It was asked if the Ash Street crossing was considered in the rough estimate (the pink section in Exhibit D). Sean answered that the creek section was not included, but the right-of-way and the road bed of the railroad crossing was included. The cost of the gates and other safety things that would need to be done for an at-grade crossing was not factored in, but should have been. He will try to get some ballpark estimates for that. Commissioner Barkley asked if the existing station would have to be moved. She thinks it would have to be moved and if so, that would change the estimate. Sean said that it is unlikely we'd be moving the station. The rail company has an easement on the tracks for operating the trains. ODOT Rail owns the corridor and there are federal safety rules that have to be considered. Commissioner Louw referred to the last paragraph on page 2 of the memo (land use plans for redevelopment indicate that they will be largely for residential development;residential development does not necessarily need extensive street frontages to create an urban context). He thinks there are some areas that would be more suitable for residential development while others would be more suitable for commercial or retail development. Maybe those areas which are more suitable for residential development could be given less priority in the Circulation Plan. Sean noted that this idea was discussed at the last meeting with the City Transportation Planner. There is a difference between streets used for circulation to get traffic into and through the Downtown and streets used for accessing a residential development. Residential streets in the Plan are always going to be narrower; they tend to have low traffic and low speed. There may be cases where we might have a private street with some public easement to allow pedestrian circulation. This would be a much cheaper option than having full street standards. Commissioner Hughes suggested having a way to differentiate the unnamed streets that don't exist. Staff agreed. Commissioner Barkley likes the idea that streets don't necessarily have to be a square grid, but thinks we need to pay more attention to the property lines. Overall, she is very pleased with the Leland memo. Sean acknowledged that if streets cut through properties and leave slivers of land that are hard to develop, it will not create value. We want to avoid that. Vice Chair Murphy thinks the Leland memo crystallized a lot of concerns the Commissioners have had with the Circulation Plan as it has been presented. There is tension between the Plan that was presented as the model for a circulation plan and the flexibility to deal with the unknown, and the existing facts on the ground, such as where the property lines are. Something that has been emerging is the idea of prioritization. He wonders if there are certain aspects of the transportation plan that we absolutely need. If we can identify them, prioritize them, and have them drawn in as permanent, then anything would have a certain degree of flexibility within the Plan. There has to be CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 5 of 10 a recognition that once the things we prioritize most highly are implemented or made immutable, they will impose constraints. We'll have to work around those, but this might be a more realistic approach to a transportation plan and one that the CCAC can embrace more readily. Sean referred to Exhibit A-2 from the June, 2010 minutes that show what staff considers as primary, secondary, and access roads. He asked if there is a comfort level with the Commission to develop an implementation strategy which would include prioritization and other strategies that would lead us to fund a network like this. Commissioner comments: • We definitely need a fund—would it come from developer fees? Also, is the Ash Street train crossing a priority? As long as that's a question, that part of the Circulation Plan won't be completed. • We need to find out what the plans are for the Verizon building before we'll know if Festival Street will go through. • We have to determine what we need to accommodate circulation and prioritize those. We should look to the City to provide for high priority projects. If a street doesn't give us circulation, it should be lower on the priority list and should fall into the hands of developers. • Commissioner Barkley stated that for the Burnham Street project, the Streetscape Committee drew some conceptual maps and pictures. Now, those pictures have been become the plan without it ever being agreed to by the committee. She is concerned about conceptual pictures becoming concrete and that's why she's concerned about the Circulation Plan. She also referred to pictures of a deck overhanging Fanno Creek and the picture of a building next to the Plaza in the Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park. She is afraid that if we ever get the plaza, we'll have a building exactly like the one in the conceptual drawing because it's shown in the Master Plan. Sean advised that the picture in the Master Plan is a concept and what is eventually built next to the Plaza will depend on what the developer wants, as long as it conforms to our design standards. He also reported that the CCAC will have the opportunity to discuss the deck overhanging Fanno Creek during the Main Street green street design process. Vice Chair Murphy said that staff has identified a couple of suggestions for moving the Circulation Plan process forward. One is Exhibit A-2 from the last meeting which was an exercise in proposed prioritization. The other is the list of potential revisions and additions shown in Exhibit E. Commissioner comments on Exhibit A-2: • It needs to be further prioritized. Eventually it will have to be prioritized a block section at a time as opportunities arise. • If we did accept this, the next step would be to look at the blue streets and break it down further. What are the 3 or 4 portions within the blue that are "gotta have its" or close to it. Sean remarked that a lot of the streets shown in blue are existing streets; there are 5 new proposed streets. CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 6 of 10 • Would it appropriate to show the existing streets with Ash Street as a desirable street, and then dot the other new streets to show them as more tentative streets? We could discuss the recommendation for looking at property lines and looking at different connections within the existing streets. • We could look at parcel boundaries to see if streets could be moved one way or the other. • Based on that conversation, a graphic needs to be in our hands sooner rather than later. • The street between Scoffins and Commercial should be changed from orange to pink (a lower priority) because it's an interior street for a residential connection; it doesn't necessarily have to be a public street. • The alley along the mass transit parking lot could be a higher priority because it would be easier to put that in along those property lines. • Festival Street will come only with development. • To construct Garden Place,we'll have to displace low income people in the trailer park. We'll have to find a way to give them housing. • We need to keep looking at this as a 50 year plan. That park may not be there 20 years from now. • Sean advised that if a connection is needed there, the location will respect property boundaries to the extent possible. Construction of the street will completely depend on if the mobile home park redevelops. If it doesn't redevelop, the street won't be built. • We need to prioritize the priorities. We should pick one as the most important and focus on that. • Are we going to prioritize by which is the most important street to us, or are we going prioritize them by order of possibility of happening? If we want the street that's important, Ash Ave. should be on the top. If we want what's most apt to happen and something that will help circulation, the alley along the Park and Ride could rise to the top. • We could consider both —what we would like to see happen and what looks possible. The rest could happen as things develop. • We should keep cost estimates in mind so that we can have something done within 5 years. • Cit%, staff needs to keep looking for opportunities on Ash Ave.,but if there's a project that falls into our lap,we should grab it. • If the alley behind Main Street is a possibility,we should look at it. If it can be done easily and the right-of-way is there, it would be a great place to start. Using this map, hearing what the priorities are, and having this kind of framework of things that need to be improved, Sean asked if the Commissioners are ready to have staff and the consultants come back in September with a final draft plan and implementation memo for review. He noted that one of the Council goals is to adopt a Circulation Plan this year. Commissioner Barkley said there's a consensus to have staff put what was discussed into a picture, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to vote on it in September. We are still at a very low discussion level, and she doesn't think the Commission is ready to formalize it. Sean said he wasn't CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 7 of 10 asking the Commission to adopt anything; he was asking for direction for the next steps. He would like to focus on the implementation to give us a realistic roadmap for the next 10 years. Commissioner Shearer made a recommendation that the street between Commercial and Scoffins be demoted to pink, as a lower priority. It will be for residential access once it's developed. Commissioner Wong suggested showing existing streets, have priority streets be a certain color, and then the rest could be dotted as suggestions for connections that we'd like to see, but they may not be in that exact location due to property lines or development that may occur. There would be language stating that whatever development occurs on the larger chunks of land, there would be permeability and access into that development. Sean said staff could come back next month with a graphic taking into consideration what was discussed, showing what's existing,what the top priorities are,what's secondary, and what's needed for access. Then the implementation, funding strategy,ideas for private streets with public easements, and accompanying design standards can be pushed out to September or October. Vice Chair Murphy thinks there are two general aspects to this —there's what and there's where. With the exception of the existing streets, he is still at the what stage. An example of a what could be the alleyway on Main Street. At this point in prioritizing, the where might not be very important, so except for existing streets, the rest is not to scale and does not show a specific location (these are concepts). Once we have the what, then factors such as existing property lines, creating orphan parcels, existing structures, etc., can be built into the where. He thinks it would help to have a drawing, not to scale, with the existing streets and showing the what that we're seeking to accomplish with the Circulation Plan. The Commissioners went over the list of potential revisions and additions to the Circulation Plan (Exhibit E). Their comments included: • There are distinctively residential and commercial opportunities within the district. Those areas should be identified more. • The Main Street alley should be continued behind the liquor store to the A-Boy parking lot. • The map doesn't show property lines. We can't tell exactly where the alleyway behind Main Street runs—if it goes along property lines or not. Maybe the alley can meander to run along the property lines. • Under#2, the language is confusing on whether those requirements are a minimum or a maximum. Sean advised that pedestrian connections are required, at minimum, every 330' and full streets are required, at minimum, every 530'. There could be more connections, but no less. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Sean will have a revised map for the Commissioners at the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM #5: Parks Bond Discussion CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 8 of 10 Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean advised that the parks bond will be $17 million and 10% will be allocated to the Downtown. It will be officially endorsed by Council on July 2711. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board invited Chair Craghead to speak in support of the parks bond at the meeting on the 27th. AGENDA ITEM #6: Updates (Information only) Important Discussion and/or Comments: A. Transportation System Plan It was advised that the Planning Commission approved the TSP, which includes the Ash Ave. connection across Fanno Creek to the Downtown. The TSP goes to the City Council next for workshops and a public hearing. B. Facade Improvement Program Sean advised that the joint sub-committee made 2 matching grant awards to the Main Street Stationery Shop and Underwater Works on Main Street. The grants were much smaller than the previous liquor store project. The City is in the process of hiring an architect for the next two years for the program. Once the consultant is selected,we will start on the waiting applications. We have received 7 applications already for next year. Sean thinks interest in the program has grown. C. Downtown bike rack installation Sean advised that 21 new bike racks have been installed along Main Street; a few racks have also been placed on Pacific Hwy. They were free to the City as a result of a Metro grant. They worked with property and business owners to install the racks. Some of the racks are in front of the Tigardville Station. Commissioner Thornburg noted that better signage is needed along the bike trail. There are a couple of places where the trail jogs across roadways. The trail markings aren't very visible and it's not clear on the bike map where the trail picks up again. Sean will pass on the request to Mike McCarthy. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Thornburg will ask his friend to email Sean with the locations on the bike trail where better signage is needed. AGENDA ITEM #7: Other Business Important Discussion and/or Comments: The Commissioners suggested having the walking tour on the last Wednesday in august at 6:30 p.m. Sean advised that for the Main Street green street open houses, we will mail notices to property owners, business owners, and other interested parties. Commissioner Barkley suggested having Commissioners contact owners directly on Main Street. CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 9 of 10 Sean handed out copies of the Pacific Higbway to a Sustainable Future, Tigard 99WI Corridor Urban Design Vision, which the University of Oregon recently completed. There's a section in the document that has to do with the Downtown area. He noted that the document does not have any official standing—nothing has been adopted. It's a tool to use to convey the vision of how Pacific Hwy. could be transformed by high capacity transit with decision makers and property owners. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The legend on page 5 is very fuzzy and hard to read. Commissioner Hughes thinks the Ash Ave. crossing over the railroad tracks should be moved to the top of the priority list for the Circulation Plan. If that crossing is not moved forward, we need to find another location for providing circulation to the middle section of the Urban Renewal District. AGENDA ITEM #8: Adjournment Important Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Jer e Lewis, CCA Secretary ATTEST e Chair Tom Murphy CCAC Meeting Minutes for July 14,2010 Page 10 of 10 STREET CHARACTER CLASSIFICATIONS ,8i .:.r,....: . .. ------------------------------------------- ----- Street and pathway r,n—ecaons In this area will be addressed as part of the 2010 City otTigard Transportation System Plan Update(TSP)and HCT Land Use Plan. PFy��C '41 •GneoaN OP99 T�A ' HQ P� t c�T KNOLL Zf -\ P yl r. bG 9y l fi w S9h 1 adopted in the current Tigard Tra nsper aridn System Plan(TSP) " LEGEND Character Classification Central City Urban Renewal Distrix r_ Upper Hall Boulevard Main Street Green Street Downtown Mixed Use 1-Downtown Collector with median Downtown Mixed Use 2-Downtown Collector ®■ Downtown Mixed Use 3-Downtown Local iiiiiiiiiiiiin Downtown Mixed Use 4-Upper Burnham miiiiiiiiin Downtown Mixed Use 5-Lower Burnham aiiiiiiiiiin Urban Green Street 1 r_ Urban Green Street 2 Urban Residential .. Festival Street Alley ......• Bike/Peciestrian Connection ' Multi-Use Trad O Existing pudic transit center and WES Commuter Rail station ClassificationStreet Character Downtown to TIGARD,OREGON TIGARD MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SCHEDULE Major Project Tasksfor Coordination CCAC Meetings Business Outreach Open Houses with Public Involvement CCAC#1: 7/14 CD Purpose: Review Project 3 c Project Scope and Public N Initiation Involvement Schedule Parking CCAC#2: 8/11 Business/Property Owner OH#1: 8/19 z o Analysis Purpose: Share Parking Meetings: Purpose: Share project 3 c Analysis; Undertake Purpose: Survey business information;Solicit input on a N Walking tour of Main Street needs;share information community needs and with CCAC and project team about project goals concerns CCAC#3: 9/8 a, Purpose: Review Business E and Open House input; Q. N Review final parking memo; cn Alternatives Identify key issues for Development development of alternatives 0 CCAC#4: 10/13 OH#2: 10/21 c Purpose: Review Design Purpose: Solicit input on OV ^� Alternatives to present at Design Alternatives OH#2 Preferred CCAC#5: 11/10 Alternative Purpose: Review input £ o Selection from OH#2; Recommend N Preferred Alternative c Z Concept Plan Development d o OH#3: 12/9 c Purpose: Solicit input on avi N Preferred Alternative Preliminary Plan CCAC#6: 1/12 Development Purpose: Review OH#3 M input; Make final 3 q 4 recommendation on ca Preferred Alternative Advanced Plan N Development IV Downtown Tigard Parking %w,nventory SW GREENBURG RD EXISTING SUPPLY W as of June 2010 a' Value Village 107 W 16- z z W U Rite Aid 129 McDonald's Parking Type Inventory8 � • Tigard eaners 9 On-Street (117 spaces) SCOFFINS ST 2 Hour Parking a Bank r 25 No Limit ' Car u tBead-Shop,Scuba Shop,etc. a ' Cr 6 _ 39 Off-Street (843 spaces) LU a�a 4 Public Parking Q -Z ) Post 0 Rice customer parking sacany 24 O , 16I' z a a Private Parking N Stam andstat! ry = V 12 Park&Ride , a a Carpet and Tile Store 39 COMMERCIAL ST a a a State Farm Ins., _z Tigard TrWait-Center Bldg. �a�,�. / a o a o a A a M ket,etc. Frame Central,5 o a 26 Q Barber Shop, Bento a a ✓ ReFf, Etc. 16 Public Parking . 6 SW COMMERC33IAL ST 9 .......,.. ratrcrt';r;. lr} rid —"-fin=iiZiLLues. n;rt; INGTON 1 i B�t!AmTimmerce nu RAILROAD�- 15 7 rd,etc. SW Tl W1-P-tncclTc 20 Attorney Office 9 5 4 Computer Skills,Salon,etc. Offi a Jew Iry Store 28 9 6 10 ELECTRIC ST (//(►�y���{ Tyler's Automotive ( Lab-331skate shop) 16 �keklll 4 BURNHAM ST Sub Shap 14 Liquor Store,Glass Shop 18 Upholster Shop,Dry CleaCleanrs 12 I.- V)to 99W h A-Boy,BMDA,etc. _ 67 Q CIa a 32 Brew Pub Office 7 5 Tile rpeE Store Karate 5 7 Acupunctur inic 11 �xtr3 Downtown Tigard Parking Inventory SW GREENBURG RD EXISTING SUPPLY W as of lune 2010 Q Value Mage LU 107 W F Z W v + Bite e 129 I MCOcnal's Parking Type InventoryTurd 8 ./ avers 9 On-Street (117 spaces) SCOfFINS ST a US Bank ® 2 Hour Parking o 25 ® No Limit � ' c„ Bead-shep,Scuba Shop,etc ' Q 6 39 Off-Street (843 spaces) a. " j77 Public Parking > > 2 Pau Office wstome parking Q ' Vacani F' 24 Q N Z 1 Private Parking ev stoma loonti ry of = V 12 Park&Ride ooa Carpet and Tik Sipe 7 39 COMMERCIAL ST 7 ' Rat,a—Ins., Z Tig�x'Tr37iL't'Ce.eer9ld o 7,7 Avan Market,etc Q Frame ro 1-1 5 g' a o 26 Barber SMp Beruo a etc 16 ST PubGc Pari]g 6 SW COMMERCIAL 9 IN t��;: '.,•.,,•'B� TON ... � n e<F02• tla� .. .... ..........am oFtmama a n L RAILROAD is 1 7 te,eta SW TIrP-0W6cA1c 20 Attorney ce 9 5 Computer Sinus.Sakyn,etc Offi e n store 28 9 6 L ELECTRIC ST I Tyler's Automotive Lab-33(skate p) 16 4 BURNHAM ST Sub Shop 14 Liquor Store,Glass Shap 18 Whpl,lteri shop, Oean4rs 12 in N 99W h A.Boy.SMDA,etc = ' 67 Q a ' � a a a ; 392 Pu Office 7 5 Tile rpet Store Karate 5 7 Aurpunctu inic 11 J G x � LELAND CONSULTING GROUP Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Memorandum -' To Sean Farrelly,City of Tigard From Chris Zahas,Leland Consulting Group Date 2 June 2010 Subject Review of draft downtown circulation plan Project No. 5051.2 Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize observations and key findings from a review of the draft Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan and its incorporated appendices. Leland Consulting Group was asked by the City to review these documents and to comment on them,specifically examining issues related to the proposed street and circulation network's impacts on development opportunities and on to possible issues related to implementation of the network concept. Leland Consulting Group approaches this assignment with the realization that the consulting team that prepared the document did so with considerable research and analysis. As a result,there are likely factors and considerations that helped to form the recommendations that may not be specifically discussed in their document. Therefore,this limited review can only be made on the basis of what is written in the document and supporting graphics and data. It is understood that the plan's purpose is to improve connectivity both to and within Downtown Tigard and to establish an environment that is supportive of new investment and redevelopment. It is a long-term plan,showing ideal street connections that most realistically will be implemented over a period of many years. As development takes place and changes occur,the impacts on circulation may similarly be affected by change. Hence,due to the time frame,the plan should ideally be as dynamic and flexible as possible. A significant part of the observations and recommendations by Leland Consulting Group are based on the premise that public financial resources will be increasingly scarce and that policies and techniques for infrastructure need to become much more cost sensitive than has been the case in the e„taiz,g o*mo*,_ past. Demands on public resources for infrastructure at all levels of government has intensified and all indicators are `'`ate P�cc”" T that will become worse. Hence,creativity is vital to achieve implementation. a�geting Real Estate Success Shapng Finawai Strategies Sb`ag"cr'ingco'nn'urnn Findings Enabkng sustainatrbikh d+ry&Liva Making Ghee R`c, In general,Leland Consulting Group finds that the proposed network would result in an overall circulation pattern that is supportive of mixed-use development and would create value for the community and property owners. However,we feel the plan could benefit from greater emphasis on implementation,specifically discussing how the new connections would be paid for,phased,and whether they would be City or developer responsibilities. The following observations are not presented in any particular order. • Since the plan mentions potential adoption into the City's Transportation System Plan(TSP),what is shown on the bin SW Akle,Stem suite 1008 maps could have significant implications in terms of formally establishing City policy in regard to speck Paltaa Crena+ connections and impacts to specific properties. Additional phases of this assignment might be considered with a g`205-3''t a 503 zzz 1-30C focus on implementation prior to locking the plan into the City's TSP. In our experience,the team that prepared 15032225078 this phase of work should continue its effort into a subsequent phase of refinement. sewe vwN a In most cases,the graphics show new streets going through parcels without respect to existing buildings or lot New Yak hleur Ypk 9 P � 9 9 9 P Pe 9 9 San Degoca�rxa lines. In practice,this will create multiple layers of complexity,since each building and lot line represents a real Bew Cregmi ;:rTexas estate transaction and/or land use procedure for demolition,lot line adjustments,etc. The implication is that such San MgW 7e Lsende"ex`o buildings and properties will be acquired for rights-of-way. That would be another consideration to be addressed www.leiandconsulting.com more specifically in a subsequent phase of work including the financial implications of property acquisition. Or,are there aftemative alignment opportunities that might achieve the desired results of connectivity without the higher cost impact of building purchases and demolitions? LELAND CONSULTING GROUP The economic analysis indicates that up to 6.3 percent of the land in the urban renewal area might be impacted as a result of the proposed street network. This may understate the actual loss of developable land,since the small slivers and other unusable parcels that will be created may not be developable. If many unusable parcels are. indeed,created.the City would likely be obligated to acquire(or condemn)entire parcels(instead of just the necessary right of way).increasing the total cost of implementation and potentially further reducing the developable capacity of the area. The issue of requiring dedications of public right-of-way from developers at the time of development could create legal issues for the City as it relates to nexus and rough proportionality if the impact of the dedication on each property is out of scale with the impact that each property would have on the road network. Tigard's city attorney should review the policy prior to implementation. We see some potential similarities of requiring street dedications to the Dolan case. • Given that many of the properties will not redevelop for many years,if not decades,it will be important to consider how the street network might be built out in a coordinated manner when properties will redevelop in a very disconnected pattern. A more thorough phasing schedule showing the order in which streets would be built(but not necessarily year-specific)would be helpful.This too can be dealt with in a subsequent refinement phase of work. • The cost of construction of the street network is not presently estimated in the plan. Developing such a cost would help in prioritizing connections and evaluating whether the costs of implementation are commensurate with the likely benefits from redevelopment of the parcels that would subsequently have improved access. For example,a very expensive road connection should be justified if it provides access to land that will have a high level of redevelopment. Measuring this cost-benefit ratio will help in comparing alternatives. We recognize the significant level of detail that will go into such an analysis and we are assuming that it was not an element in the current work phase. Until the strategy and concept has general council support.it would be premature to prepare detailed costs. Possible Solutions There are several implementation strategies that could be utilized to carry out the goal of greater connectivity within the downtown while minimizing the complexities and challenges of the current draft plan. • Align the new street network along parcel lines wherever possible,allowing new streets to be made through dedications along the edges of property as they are redeveloped while simultaneously minimizing the creation of slivers and undevelopable remnants. This could result in something less than a neat grid. At the same time,it might add interest and attraction to the downtown environment. This begs the question as to whether transportation is a"means"or an-end'. A rigid grid suggests that it is end objective. Perhaps land use should trump or rule and transportation be a supporting component. • Similarly,avoid demolition of existing buildings wherever possible unless such buildings are clearly of little economic value or are considered a nuisance or barrier to development in which case they might be acquired as much for barrier removal as for circulation. • Consider developing prioritization criteria and a matrix to guide the phasing of other connections in order to inform the public and the council of intent and purpose. • Rethink the need for so many street connections. Although the existing downtown is made up of very large superblocks,land use plans for redevelopment of these areas indicate that they will largely be for residential development. Residential development does not necessarily need extensive street frontages to create an urban context. Pedestrian pathways.private alleys.and other design features can be used to penetrate these larger LELAND CONSULTING GROUP holdings without resorting to the creation of public streets with the attendant right-of-way needs,utilities,and other infrastructure costs. Focus commercial and mixed-use development along the edges of existing streets and reserve the interior areas for residential connections that do not necessarily need to be public streets. In effect,as expressed previously,leverage public funds wherever possible even if it means breaking with traditional thinking about very tight grids. • Create policies that require or encourage internal connectivity within large sites,but without full dedication as public rights-of-way. Smaller streets that provide access deep into large lots could stay as private roads similar to driveways or alleys. Through good design standards and possibly public easements,these connections could provide,at a minimum,pedestrian through access—achieving much of the stated policy goal without having to deal with private land acquisition. There will likely be a handful of key road connections(e.g.,Ash Street)where nothing short of creating a full public street is suitable. • Seek out additional funding tools to implement the plan beyond developer exactions and TIF. Potential tools might include: o Local Improvement District(LID)—Work with groups of existing property owners to create LIDS to fund necessary improvements or to enhance the quality of improvements. o Sustainable Communities—This is a rapidly-evolving federal collaboration between HUD,DOT,and the EPA that will shape the future of transportation funding. Keep an eye out for how the program evolves to see if projects such as this would qualify since it is something that will improve livability. o Prioritize these connections in the City's capital improvement plan(CIP)to enable existing transportation funds to be utilized. o Consider delaying development impact fees until the sales phase of projects in order encourage investment by reducing critical front-end developer capital demands. A higher fee might be achieved depending upon the point in the cycle when the developer has to pay. Conclusion We hope that these comments are useful to the City and to the CCAC. This is not a comprehensive review of the plan,as stated above,as we have not been party to the many planning sessions that led to the recommended network. Overall,the vision for a better-connected downtown Tigard is a good one and will benefit existing property owners and visitors alike. We believe that the plan should include a more robust discussion of implementation issues to better lay a foundation for incrementally building the new connections. As also stated,the cost of carrying out the recommendations cited here should be addressed in a new phase of work and budget to work out those details. The planning team for the first phase should continue this work into the next phase as that team now has the background and familiarity with plan and its details. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about these comments or suggestions. Rough Estimated Cost of Downtown Circulation Plan Implementation(based on costs for Burnham Street project) Proposed New Road Classification from SqL),IF('fOOtJgC Of pfoposed new ROW Estimated street/sidewalk Estimated Construction Land Acquisition(@$30 TOTAL ESTIMATED Circulation Plan" (street/sidewalk) construction cost per square foot Costs sq.ft)*** COST Downtown Mixed Use 2 2,475'of new ROW x 66'w=163,350 sf 163,350 $25 $4,083,750 $4,900,500 $8,984,250 Downtown Mixed Use 3— 1,682'of new ROW x 58'w=97,556 sf 97,556 $25_ $2,438,900 $2,926,680 $5,365,580 Urban Green Street 1- 661 of new ROW x 60'w=39,660 sf 39,660 $20 $793,200 $1,189,800 $1,983,000 Urban Green Street 2— 1,026'of new ROW x 60'w=61560 sf 61,560 $24 $1,477,440 $1,846,800 $3,324,240 Urban Residential— 2,339'of new ROW x 52'w=121,628 sf 121,628 $23 $2,797,444 $3,648,840 $6,446,284 1102 601P_.- 7 2 60: Total sq.ft.ROW 520,674 $12,255,294 $15,620,220 $27,875,514 Acres 12 "Actual costs may vary based on the need for utility work,drainage,amenities,etc. ••Colors correspond to Street Character Classification-Preferred Alternative Ma *"'Costs may be higher depending on what is Impacted structure,parking lot,etc.) Potential revisions and additions to Downtown Circulation Plan for discussion 1. Reflect parcel boundaries and avoid creating sliver parcels to the greatest extent possible. 2. Preserve the best opportunity sites,while keeping with the Tigard Development Code minimum of a pedestrian connection every 330'and a full street every 530'. 3. Prioritize roads based on: A. Whether the connection is needed for primary circulation, secondary circulation,or access B. The potential cost of the road versus its ability to create an important connection C. 4. Develop design guidelines and other methods (such as public easements) to obtain connections through larger blocks 5. Develop a strategy,including funding, to implement the plan 6. 7. Oaw*xo..n-fib Cv[LY40n abn 0--be 2009 —90 row 5o AR Is-00 0 � s el t R P >$0O�2i P5 !f 'Ib � F r 9 4� • ti s g 2050 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TIGARD,OR I�KRTELSON$ASSOCIATES,INC. t1 w•nsnoarwnow c..c.<ca.c,w�+...ac 34 TIGARD.OREGON CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 02-A A RF_SOLUTION ADOPTING THE.TIGARD TREE MANUAL WIIEREAS, the Tigard Tree Ordinance provides direction to the City regarding the planting, maintenance, protection and removal of trees on City Property; and WHEREAS, in Tigard Municipal Code Section 9.06.010.3,authority is given to adopt a Tree Manual; and WHEREAS,the Tree Manual establishes the guidelines by which the ordinance will be followed; and WHEREAS, the Manual will serve as a reference for determining such things as the correct amount of tree protection, the number of trees required to replant an area or what protocol must be followed when evaluating and/or removing hazardous trees. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard Tree Manual, Exhibit "A", is the official guideline for the care, maintenance, protection,planting and removal of trees in the City of Tigard. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Resolution to be effective thirty(30)days after adoption. PASSED: This day of UVQm. ' ,2002. ayor- City A Tija'r(V ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard r RESOLUTION NO. 02, C Page 1 Exhibit A TIGARD TREE MANUAL Guidelines for the Care, Maintenance, Protection, Planting and Removal of Trees in the City of Tigard, Oregon Attachment#3—Exhibit A Index: 010 Purpose 020 Definitions 030 Tree Planting 040 Tree Care and Maintenance 050 Tree Protection 060 Hazardous Tree Removal 070 Tree Removal and Replanting 010 Purpose. 1. The purpose of this manual is to provide detailed standards to implement Tigard Municipal Code Section 9.06. 020 Definitions. 1. Afforestation. The conversion of open land into forest. See: Reforestation. 2. Calier. The diameter of a tree trunk measured 6 inches above the soil. If the diameter is more than four(4)inches then the diameter must be measured at 12 inches above the soil. 3. City Forester. Under the direction of the Public Works Director is responsible for planning, developing and implementing a comprehensive urban forestry program, and providing community education and advice in support of urban forestry activities. 4. City Property. "City Property" includes all land owned by the City and all land dedicated to the public and administered by the City, including but not limited to City right of way and City parks. 5. City-owned Property. City property other than right of way. 6. Critical Root Zone (C1ZZ). A circular region measured outward from a tree trunk representing the essential area of roots that must be maintained and protected for the tree's survival. The CRZ is determined by whichever is greater: a. The outer edge of the dripline; b. Measuring a radius outward from the tree equal to one foot for every caliper inch less than four(4)inches when measured at six inches above the ground; c. Measuring a radius outward from the tree equal to one foot for very inch at DBH when the caliper inches are greater than four(4) inches when measured at six inches above the ground. 7. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). Diameter of the tree trunk measured four and a half feet (4'/z feet) from the ground on the uphill side if slope exists. 8. Large-sized Tree. Any tree that habitually grows in excess of 40 feet in height and has a canopy spread of more than 35 feet at frill maturity_ Attachment#3—Exhibit A 9. Medium-sized Tree. Any tree that habitually grows between 25 feet and 40 feet in height and has a canopy spread of 16 to 35 feet at maturity. 10. Mulch. Organic material applied within the root zone of a tree. May include leaf litter, pine straw, shredded bark,peat moss or wood chips. 11. Prune. The cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with ANSI A300- 2001. 12. Reforestation. The creation of a biulugical community dominated by tires and other woody plants containing at least 100 trees per acre with at least 50% of those trees having the potential of attaining a 2-inch or greater diameter at DBH within seven years. See: Afforestation.. 13. Small-sized Tree. Any tree that habitually grows less than 35 feet in height and has a canopy spread of 25 feet or less at maturity. 14 Terminal Role. Branch that assumes the dominant vertical position on the top of a tree. 15. Tree Pit. A cut-out area in the sidewalk where a tree is growing. 030 Tree Planting 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish standards for the proper and appropriate planting, maintenance, protection and removal of street trees located within City property and the City right of way in order to maintain and improve the survival, safety, aesthetics and environmental benefits of trees: a. By planting trees according to the guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture; b. By caring for and maintaining trees according to the American National Standards Institute(ANSI) guidelines; 2. Tree Planting: a. The Public Works Director or designee must approve the planting of any trees planted on City property. This includes choosing appropriate trees from the Street Tree List or those approved by the Public Works Director or designee; b. All trees shall be planted according to the standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture; c. Plant material shall be of high grade,and shall meet the size and grading standards of The American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.1-1996; d. Planting diverse types of trees lowers the potential for devastating impacts of insect and disease outbreaks that many communities have experienced. In order to lower the effects of insect and disease outbreaks and lessen the burden of tree removal and replacement efforts on the city, choosing a diversity of appropriate species, genera and farnilics of trees to plant on City property shall be a priority; Attachment#3—Exhibit A e. Planting native tree species shall be the primary goal. However, choosing tree species that will adapt to the site and reach maturity shall also be a factor when planting trees on City property; f. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director or designee, trees shall have a minimum caliper of one inch and a maximum of 1.75 inches (when not in conflict with Community Development Code provisions),when measured 6 inches above grade; g. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director or designee, the specific spacing of trees by size of tree shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow-stature trees shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart and not closer than 15 feet apart; (2) Medium-sized trees shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart and not closer than 20 feet apart; (3) Large trees shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart and not closer than 30 feet apart; (4) Street Trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light poles or utility poles; (5) Visual clearance must be maintained according to the guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.795 of the Tigard City Code; (6) Trees shall not be planted closer than four feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or utility poles to maintain visual clearance; (7) Tree pits shall be located so as to not include utilities (e.g. water and gas meters) in the tree well; (8) On-premises utilities (e.g. water and gas meters) shall not be installed within existing tree well areas; (9) New light poles or utility poles shall not be positioned closer than 20 feet to the main trunk of existing street trees except when public safety dictates, then they may be positioned no closer than 10 feet to the main trunk; (10) Where there are overhead utility lines,the street tree species selected shall be of a type which,at full maturity,will not interfere with the lines; (11) Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway; (a) Space between the tree and the hard surface may be covered by a nonpermanent hard surface such as grates, bricks on sand, paver blocks and cobblestones; and (b) Tree pits shall be at least: Attachment 93—Exhibit A 1) 4' X 4' for small-sized trees; 2) 5'X 5' for medium-sized trees; 3) 6' X 6' for large-sized trees. h. All persons other than the City who are required to plant trees as a condition of approval for a tree removal on City property shall provide a binding maintenance agreement for the minimum length of three complete growing seasons or three calendar years, whichever i,- longer. slonger. i. The City may require any person granted a permit for tree planting on City property to provide a maintenance agreement for the tree. The maintenance agreement shall normally be waived if the tree planting is voluntary. However, even if voluntary, the City may require a maintenance agreement to avoid costs of removal of trees that do not survive. j. The maintenance agreement shall detail how the plantings will be maintained to ensure the protection and satisfactory survival of trees according to the guidelines in Table 1 in Section 050. Reinforcement plantings shall occur if survival rates drop below the required guidelines in Table 1 in Section 050. (1) The maintenance agreement shall include: (a) An assessment of existing conditions and needs for: 1) Water. 2) Nutrients. 3) Control of competing vegetation. 4) Protection from disease,pests,predators,and mechanical injury. 5) Reinforcement planting provisions if survival rates drop below those outlined in the tree planting guidelines in Table 1 below. 6) A plan to conduct the needed treatments and monitor results. 7) Evidence of legal right to implement the agreement on the selected site. 8) Certitication or agreement by a party responsible for the care and monitoring. 9) Provision for access and inspection by the Public Works Director or designee. 050 Tree Planting Requirements 1. Except as otherwise approved by the Public Works Director or designee, all trees planted on City property, except street trees, shall be of a species native to the northern Willamette Valley and selected from the publication "Trees to Know in Oregon", published by Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Forestry, or recognized publication identifying native trees and shrubs. Attachment#3—Exhibit A 2. Tree planting guidelines: Table 1 Survivability #Required Per Aere Approximate Spacing Requirement After Size (For Afforestation And (For Afforestation And Three Years Or Three Reforestation Only) Reforestation Only) Growing Seasons Plantings) Bare root seedlings or 300 12' X 12" 75%/225 Whips Container grown (1,2,3 300 12' X 12' 75%/225 gallon) Container grown (5,7 200 15' X 15' 85%/170 gallon) or I" caliper Ball&Burlap (B&B) Container grown(15, 25 100 20' X 20' 100%/100 gnllon) or 2" caliper Ball&Burlap (B&B) NOTES: • These stocking and survival requirements are the minimum numbers estimated to meet the definition of forest from bare land. • In certain circumstances any combination of the above mentioned stocking options may be appropriate strategies to fidf1l the requirements of tree mitigation. They will he evaluated on a ease-by-case basis by the Public Works Director or designee. • Spacing does not imply that trees or shrubs must be planted in a grid pattern. 060 Tree Care and Maintenance 1. General Provisions a. This section applies to trees planted on City property by persons other than the City; b. All trees shall be maintained according to ANSI A300-2001 for proper tree care and maintenance; c. All trees planted shall be cared for and maintained for a period of three calendar years or three complete growing seasons,whichever is longer,after the date of planting. 2. Tree Care and Maintenance a. Mulch shall be maintained on the Critical Root Zone; (1) Cage shall be taken to avoid placing mulch against the base of the tree trunk; (2) At least three inches and no more than four inches of mulch shall be placed on the tree's Critical Root Zone. b. When feasible, trees shall be watered from May 1 until September 30; Altaclunenl#3—Exhibit A (1) Trees shall be watered at least once a week; (2) Water shall be placed only within the Critical Root Zone; (3) The trees shall be watered at a rate of at least ten(10) gallons per week; (4) Trees shall not be watered more than twice a week during the maintenance period. c. If tree stakes and tree ties are installed at the time of planting they shall be removed one year after planting; d. Trees shall be maintained for visual and passageway clearance; (1) Visual Clearance: Visual clearance must be maintained according to the guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.795 of the Tigard City Code. (2) Passageway Clearance: (a) Sidewalks-trees shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above the walkway; (b) Local Streets- trees shall be pruned to provide at least 13 feet of clearance above the roadway; (c) Collector Street- trees shall be pruned to provide at least 15 feet of clearance above the roadway (d) Arterial Street- trees shall be pruned to provide at least 18 feet of clearance above the roadway. (e) Topping trees is an unacceptable form of tree care and maintenance and shall not be practiced on any tree located on City property except in the case of an emergency. Topping is defined as the severe and indiscriminate cutting of tree branches back to lateral branches that are too small to assume the terminal role. 070 Tree Protection The tree protection provisions in this section apply to the protection of trees on City property. 1. Tree Protection Methods a. The protection of an individual tree's critical root zone shall be determined by the method listed below unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director or designee: Attachment#3—Exhibit A Trunk Diameter Method - one foot of radial distance for every one inch of tree diameter (DBH, 4 '/2 feet above the ground on the uphill side) under 30 inches DBH. For trees over 30 inches DBH allow 1-'/Z feet per 1 inch of DBH. b. All tree protection devices shall be located on the Tree Protection Plan. Details and specifications are required as to how the trees will be protected on site; c. Tree protection devices shall be installed to protect the root zones of trees located on adjoining properties if any type of construction activity will be disturbing the critical root zone unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director or designee; d. A construction sequence shall be provided and shall include: (1) installation and removal of tree protection devices; (2) clearing,grading, or installation of sediment and erosion control measures; (3) other activities that may be required to implement the tree protection measures; e. Include in the notes on the final set of plans: "Equipment, vehicles, machinery, dumping or storage, or other construction activities, burial, burning, or other disposal of construction materials shall not be located inside of any tree protection device."; f. All tree protection devices shall be: (1) Visible; (2) Well-anchored; (3) Approved in the field by the Public Works Director or designee prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction; (4) Remain in place and maintained until the project has shown compliance with development requirements from the City's Planning Department. g. The location of the stockpile and staging areas for construction shall be identified on the Tree Protection Plan; h. All tree protection guidelines shall be included in the final Tree Protection Plan's notes or drawings; i. Guidelines for replacement. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: (1) A replacement tree shall be an approved species taking into consideration site characteri sties; (2) If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Public Works Director or designee shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: Attachment#3—Exhibit A The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the caliper inches of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the replacement tree(s) (no less than 1 inch and no more than 1.75 inches). The caliper inches shall be measured at six inches above the ground, on the uphill side if there is a slope. If the diameter is larger than four(4)inches in diameter at six inches above the ground then the measurement shall be taken at DBH. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Public Works Director or designee may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either on City property or, with the consent of the owner, on private property; (3) The planting of a replacement tree shall take place according to the guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture. 080 Hazardous Tree Removal 1. The standard used by the Public Works Director or designee for evaluating a tree's condition will be the International Society of Arboriculture's"Tree Hazard Evaluation Form"; 2. Above-ground parts of a felled tree on City property should normally be removed from the site by the City or its contractor. The wood may be left on site if it does not create a hazardous condition. No person other than the City or its contractor shall remove wood from City property without the approval of the Public Works Director or designee. 090 Replacement Trees This section applies to the replacement of trees and trees planted as mitigation as required by Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 9.06. 1. Existing non-hazardous trees removed by development projects or other construction activities shall be replaced with types of trees approved by the Public Works Director or designee according to the tree plan requirement below; 2. Tree plan required. A tree plan for the removal,planting, and piutcctiuii of trees six inches at DBH or greater prepared by an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist shall be provided for any development on City property. Widening of existing public streets will be exempted ftum tree mitigation requirements. Construction of new streets and extension of existing streets as shown in the Transportation System Plan maps are likewise exempted from the tree mitigation requirements. Protection is preferred over removal. a. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: (1) Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees six inches DBH and larger; (2) Identification of a program to save existing trees six inches DBH or greater and/or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches DBH. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines set forth in the Guidelines for Replacement in the Tree Manual, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of Attachment#3—Exhibit A trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, street trees and parking lots: (a) Retention of less than 25%of existing trees over 12 inches DBH requires a mitigation program in accordance with the Guidelines for Replacement in the Tree Manual; (b) Retention of 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches DBH requires that two-thirds of the DBH of those trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with the Guidelines for Replacement in the Tree Manual; (c) Retention of 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches DBH requires that 50 percent of the DBH of those trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with the Guidelines for Replacement in the Tree Manual; (d) Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches DBH requires no mitigation. (3) Identification of all trees that are proposed to be protected; (4) A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction shall be provided. 3. All trees to be protected and retained must be evaluated by an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist and deemed of acceptable risk, free of significant insect and disease problems and be in an overall healthy condition; 4. Guidelines for replacement. When replacement of a tree is required as a condition of a tree removal approval,replacement shall take place according to the following guidelines: a. A replacement tree shall be an approved species taking into consideration site characteristics; b. If the number of replacement trees cannot be viably located on the development site, the Public Works Director or designee may require some or all of the replacement trees be planted on another site within Tigard on City property or, with the consent of the owner, on private property; c. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place according to the guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture. 5. In lieu-of payment. In lieu of tree replacement under Section 090.2 above, a party may, with the consent of the Public Works Director or designee, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement for the caliper inches at DRH that were removed. The replacement cost to plant a one inch caliper tree shall be based the total of the costs listed below. a. Average wholesale cost of one, 1-inch caliper tree. h. Average hourly cost for two City employees to plant one. 1-inch caliper tree. Attachment#3—Exhibit A c. Average cost of materials required for two City employees to plant one, 1-inch caliper tree. d. Average hourly cost of equipment and equipment operation by City employee to plant one, 1-inch caliper tree. e. Average cost for two City employees to handle and transport one, 1-inch caliper tree. Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD City Center.kdvisory Commission Name of Board, Commission or Committee July 14, 2010 Date of Meeting I have verified that to the best of my knowledge, these documents are a complete copy of the official record. I was not the original administrator for this meeting. S�it?LetA A . La Pna-p- Print Name Signature 5/ogl l i,--,;� Date