Loading...
08/11/2010 - Packet City of Tigard r r . City Center Advisory Commission ❑ Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday,August 11, 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 July Minutes..............................................................................................6:35 — 6:40 3. Main Street Green Street Project Parking Analysis......................................................... 6.40 7.40 Parking analysis consultantpresentation:Introduction to parking concepts;methodology and key findings of Main Street analysis (Kim McMillan and members of the consultant team) 4. Downtown Circulation Plan.....................................................................................................7:40 — 8:10 Review ofpotential connections to be included in implementation strategy (Sean Farrelly and Judith Gray) 5. Parks and Open Space Bond Discussion...............................................................................8:10 — 8:20 Discussion of parks and open space bond (Chair Craghead) 6. Potential Field Trips...................................................................................................................8:20 - 8:25 Check in aboutpotential field trips (Albany, downtown Milwaukie) (Sean Farrelly) 7. Other Business............................................................................................................................. 8:25 — 8:30 8. Adjourn.........................................................................................................................................8:30 p.m. Upcoming meetings of note: 8/19,Main Street Green Street Project Open House #1, (6:30,Tigard Town Hall) 9/8, CCAC regular meeting, 5:30 start time for Main Street walking tour 10/13, CCAC regular meeting 10/21,Main Street Green Street Project Open House #2, (6:30,Library Community Room) CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA—August 11, 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 City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes TIGARD Date of Meeting: August 11, 2010 Location: Tigard City Hall,Town Hall Called to order by: Chair Alexander Craghead Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 8:50 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alexander Craghead; Alice Ellis Gaut; Peter Louw; Vice Chair Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer;Linli Pao (alternate); Philip Thornburg (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Ralph Hughes, Kevin Kutcher, Martha Wong Others Present: Dana Beckwith and Alan Snook from DKS; Stefanie Slyman from Slyman Planning Resources (consultants); Darby,Tigard Cleaners;Barbara Stevens Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager;Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner;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: There is a typo on page 8—Commissioner Won should be changed to Commissioner Wong. The secretary will make that change. With regard to the Commissioners meeting outside their regular meeting dates, it was clarified that there will be a walking tour on Sept 8th at 5:30 p.m. There are no other additional meetings scheduled at this time. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Shearer, seconded by Commissioner Louw, to accept the July 14, 2010 minutes. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Chair Craghead and Commissioner Ellis Gaut abstained. AGENDA ITEM #3: 'Main Street Green Street Project Parking Analysis CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 11,2010 Page 1 of 8 Important Discussion and/or Comments: Stefanie Slyman advised that the goal of the presentation tonight is to make sure the Commissioners understand the methodology that went into the parking analysis and some of the findings. Staff is reviewing it from a technical perspective and is getting ready to finalize it. The Commissioners have the opportunity to let the consultants know if there are any major issues with the study findings so far. There will also be an opportunity to talk- about alkabout parking strategies in the future. Ms. Slyman also provided an update on the public involvement process so far. The consultants have held three out of the four business/property owner meetings on Main Street. The fourth meeting will be held next week. A detailed survey is being handed out to business and property owners. On Thursday, August 19th, the first open house for the general public will be held in Town Hall. Alan Snook gave a PowerPoint presentation on the existing parking conditions in the Downtown area (see Exhibit A). He advised that he would only be talking about the existing parking tonight. The presentation included the methodology used for the parking study; the existing supply of parking in the Downtown area (both on and off-street); the existing demand (who's using it and for how long); a little bit about the potential for future land use and how it relates to future demand for parking; and the next steps. Presentation remarks: • There's a nexus between land use and parking—the amount of walking distance/how far away you're willing to park from your destination. • Types of parking include public, on-street, private, off-street, pay or free parking, time restricted and no-limit parking. • Supply is the total amount of available parking; demand is who's using the available parking. • Occupancy and turnover refers to the use of the parking stalls—are the stalls being fully utilized? It's good when the stalls are utilized at least 85% of the time over the course of the day. • Turnover refers to how many cars use a stall during the day. • Parking generation is a way of saying, based on a particular land use, how many stalls will be necessary. • Shared parking refers to two different types of land uses that use the same parking area (sharing the same parking lot). • The parking study area included 300' on both sides of Main Street and also included the TriMet park and ride lot. • Consultants walked Main Street every half hour on a Thursday, a Friday, and a Saturday to survey the parking use. They surveyed from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday and Friday; and from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. • Thursday had the highest amount of parking utilization,with the peak at about 12:30 p.m. (47% average occupancy). CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 11,2010 Page 2 of 8 • The stud` found that most violators (people parking over the 2 hour time limit) are staying about 2 '/z hours. A few of the violators did stay for up to 9 hours. • If the block did not have any signage about time limits, more people tended to stay longer than 2 hours. • The turnover rates for the 3 days were between 7.46 and 8.44. Anything over 5 is considered a good rate for 2 hour parking in a 10 hour day. • For the land use, there are currently 3.31 parking stalls for every 1,000 square feet of building space; 1.5 stalls are actually being utilized. • Under land use, the supply ratios are based both on the public and the private supply. • Currently, there isn't any residential use in the Downtown that the consultants can use as an example for future land use assessment, but they are working with staff to get a supply ratio rate to determine what the parking demand would be. • The findings of the study show: a. The overall existing occupancy is at low to moderate levels. b. There is higher utilization of overall parking in south Downtown. c. There is higher off-street utilization south of the railroad tracks and on the west side of Main Street. d. "There is higher occupancy and longer duration in unsigned, on-street parking. e. :Midday has the highest on-street use. f. The average duration of signed parking is approximately 1 hour. g. There is a 6-10010 violation rate of the on-street parking limit. We need to get it below 6% to be efficient. h. The turnover rate is approximately 7-8 users per stall/per day. This is good. i. There are currently 3.31 parking stalls supplied for every 1,000 square feet of building space. J. _approximately 1.5 of those 3.31 parking stalls are being used. k. The future parking demand assessment indicates an opportunity to improve parking utilization to better utilize the supply we have in the Downtown. • The average for on-street parking utilization was a little higher than off-street parking. • _after the analysis has been finalized, the consultants will develop some short-term and long- term strategies for parking management and utilization management. This will be discussed the next time the consultants meet with the Commissioners. • AN of this information will be coordinated as input into the green street design element. Commissioner comments/questions [consultant and staff comments in italics]: • In Salem and Hillsboro, a big portion of their downtowns are around the government complexes that are metered. Violators in Salem average about 4%; Downtown Tigard averages about 6-10%. Meters have a direct affect on those percentages. • XX'hat is the rule of thumb to improve the use of the current supplyr How can we utilize it better; what are the tools% That'rgetting into the strategies, but some possibilities could be to change the signage from 2 liourparking to 1 hour(so there would be a higher turnover rate);shared parking, and employee parking permit programs. CCAC Fleeting Minutes for August 11,2010 Page 3 of 8 • There are a lot of cars are parked at Tyler's Automotive for an extended period of time for service work. How was this factored in? For Tyler's Automotive, we factored it in and we did individual license plate surveys for the on and of-streetparking. Wle have the data, so if the Commissioners want to factor it out, we can. • For the spaces on each side of Electric Street, the consultants didn't have those slots counted, but they did a spot check throughout the day. It doesn't really look like a street—it blends in with the surrounding parking lots, so those spaces were missed. • Was there a way to differentiate between employee parking and non-employee parking? No, the only way we could do the survey was by the license plate number, so there wasn't a way to di erentiate between employees andpatrvns. Business owners have complained that employees are taking up customer parking. • We're trying to develop the Downtown and bring people in. Right now we may be at less than maximum utilization, but it's frustrating to have to more your car if you're in a 1 hour zone and you have several businesses you need to visit. Are parking strategies typically re- visited over time to make adjustments for hourly maximums as the demand grows? It can be. In Afilwaukie s case, it was set up in their TSP to be able to re-visit what'sgoing on. They do survys once a month. Shared parking might hep with using the same supply, but at di erent times. There are different strategies that could be used. • How do you minimize the neighborhood impacts? As we change the kinds of restrictions we have in the Downtown, some people may park in residential areas. That's why we have to be careful about making changes, such as from a 2 hour to a 1 hour. People parking in the residential area would have a longer walk to get to Alain Street. People tend to not want to park more than 500'awa) from what they re trying to do. Its a balance of what can we do for the land uses to make sure that there's enough parking supply based on what the potential demand might be, but we don't want to over-supply to where we have too much parking and it s not being efciently used. Also, there are residential permit programs that could be considered • Did the study identify which surfaces are hard surfaces and which are more like gravel% [k'e didn't do that level of survey;we just did the supply itself. • Behind several of the businesses on Main Street (Block Face D), there are gravel parking lots which deteriorate and get muddy in the winter. People are reluctant to walk through those areas. Those spaces rrray have to be backed out of the supply which may then change the ratios in the sunTy. • Is there any information available about consumer behaviors? How far is too far for people to walk? There have been several studies on this. It can depend a lot on what the trip purpose is and if there's an inviting walking environment. IY/e should consider what we can do to make it an int-iting walking entironment so we can extend the effective supply. • This parking survey, was done during a recession and there aren't near as many customers Downtown as usual, so there are a lot of empty parking spaces. Wle're at levels now, even with the recession, where the average occupancies are 47%. Our numbers might be a little deflated, but even if we had an influx of 30%more parking use, we'd be at 77%. We still wouldn't be at that 85% threshold If you changed that to north and south of the railroad tracks, the percentages would be dramatically different. • Considering that this project ends at the railroad tracks, the numbers that are going to matter to the people will be the numbers on the south side of the tracks. The 470,10 average CCAC Meeting Minutes for:august 11,2010 Page 4 of 8 occupancy factors in sections that are not going to under construction with this project. You might consider only using the numbers for this project that go south from the tracks. We can take a look at that—maybe go 300'from the tracks • Another factor in how far people are willing to walk is how far they've come to get to the Downtown area in the first place. For example, if they drive from Newberg to the jewelry store in the Downtown, they won't be as willing to walk from Rite slid to the jewelry store as if they had come from the Main Street Village. A lot of customers come from out of town. It all gets to the trip purpose—what people are trying to accomplish. • At a recent meeting with business owners, Don fmm New Shoes advised that he had led a parking task forxe during the last reconstruction of Main Street. Some of theirpmposals were adopted, including some designated 15 minute parking spots Those spaces have faded over time. Often there aren't enough of those spaces. • Why were Thursday, Friday, and Saturday chosen as the days to do the survey? We typically do intersection surveys on a Tuesday, U%dnesday, or Thursday, because of the relaxed traffic counts close to weekends. We stay away fmm Mondays and Fridays We picked a Thursday for this study. We wanted 3 conset-wive days of data and we wanted to include one weekend day because of the retail nature. Thursday is agood rrprrsentation of what'sgoing on for an average weekday. Friday's data isn't that far o�fmm Thursday s data for parking. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The consultants will be back at a future meeting to talk about different strategies for future parking in the Downtown area. The parking analysis will be posted on the website. AGENDA ITEM #4: Downtown Circulation Plan Important Discussion and/or Comment: Sean Farrelly discussed the proposed approach for the Circulation Plan implementation with the Commissioners (Exhibit B-1 through B-4). His proposed approach is outlined in Exhibit B-1. The map (B-2) has been updated slightly since the last meeting. The streets shown in blue are for primary circulation, the orange are for secondary circulation, and the pink are access roads that are dependent on development. The connections identified on the map by letters (a through h) are detailed on B-3, but are not in priority order. Sean advised that this is a conceptual framework, a 50 year plan. These are connections we want to make. Where the access roads will ultimately be constructed is flexible. It will depend on what develops, the scale of it, and the site plan. The arrows are meant to guide, but not to be exactly where a road will be. They also might be private roads with public accesses. A lot of the roads may not be built for 50 years. The blue streets are seen by staff as primary circulation connections—the streets that are the most important to get people around the Downtown, to break up some large super blocks, and open up some interior spaces. These are seen as shorter term, 5, 10, 15 years, and would be prioritized, especially connections a (Ash Street connection across the railroad tracks) and b (straightening up the Scoffins/Hall/Hunziker offset intersection) which have been on City maps for quite some time. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 11,2010 Page 5 of 8 Connections c through h are priorities, but they will depend on redevelopment. It was questioned why connection c is a primary circulation factor. Sean said it presents a new way to get into the Downtown from Hall Blvd. It also provides a way for those properties between Scoffins and the new connection to be serviced. Any new development could limit access for those properties. Judith Gray also noted that with all the individual driveways on Hall Blvd. in that area, if those properties redevelop, ODOT will likely limit access to Hall Blvd. It would be better if those properties had access elsewhere. Because this is a smaller chunk of land to break up in terms of circulation, Commissioner Louw thinks this particular street should be classified as a street dependent on private development. The north-south stretch of connection c to Ash should be considered as a secondary street. Vice Chair Murphy noted that connection c provides a northeast- southwest route across the Urban Renewal District which does not exist anywhere else other than Hwy. 99W or Main Street. It could have a lot of potential in terms of circulation. Commissioner Barkley suggested putting the connections listed on Exhibit B-3 in some kind of priority order to make it easier to come up with an implementation plan. Judith said this is a 50- year plan, so we're trying to establish a long range plan. We want to look at the big horizon and how it will be useful. Over the next 10 years, the CCAC will probably be working on the Ash railroad crossing and maybe the Scoffins/Hunziker realignment. There might be a couple of others that we may want to choose. We want to identify what we want, but we also want to be equipped for development so if something comes in,we have some kind of framework established. Sean advised that with regard to implementation, he will be developing some incentive-based ideas, see how streets can be built with private development, and what urban renewal can do to help carry out these projects. He thinks it would be fine for the Commissioners to rank the streets by priority, but in terms of implementation strategies,it's not necessary. We will be concentrating on the primary circulation streets, but if something comes up with new development, there might be some potential incentives or other methods to help them out. Commissioner Pao noted that labeling the streets as primary and secondary already prioritizes them in a way. Judith responded that most transportation classifications would call these streets major collectors and minor collectors, so it gets away from first and second categorization. After some discussion on individual preferences for prioritizing the proposed connection list, the following suggestions were made: • Connection d needs to be a priority- because of safety issues. • Connection c should be realigned to connect from Hall Blvd. to the Scoffins-Commercial connection (connection e). • Connection g (the Main Street alley) should be continued further to go behind the Liquor Store and A-Boy. If they had shared parking,it would be a good circulation turn-around between Burnham, Main Street, and the alley. It could also provide an alternative access to parking. Commissioner Barkley said this could happen now if the property owners agreed to remove the bump that divides those parking lots. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 11,2010 Page 6 of 8 • Vice Chair Murphy suggested adding the comments about connections c and g as footnotes to Table 1 (Exhibit B-3) and move ahead with endorsement of the map. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): There was consensus to endorse connections a, b, and d as the highest priority projects because they are public projects, and to have Sean to move forward with the implementation strategies. AGENDA ITEM #5: Parks and Open Space Bond Discussion Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Craghead distributed copies of Resolution No. 10-40 (Exhibit C), that Council adopted calling for the Parks and Open Space bond measure election. Since it is now a political matter, the Commissioners are only allowed to discuss strategy, being for or against the measure, etc., as a private individual. The Commissioners cannot discuss it in their official role as a CCAC Commissioner. Chair Craghead advised that he has been in touch with the Trust for Public Lands which is running the campaign for this effort. If anyone wants to get involved, he has the contact information. It was clarified that the bond specifies up to 10% of the total for acquisition of park land in the Downtown. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #6: Potential Field Trips Important Discussion and/or Comments: The Commissioners discussed possible field trips to Albany, Milwaukie, or Oregon City. Sean noted that there is a very recent transit oriented development in Milwaukie that he thinks would be good to see and possibly talk to the developer. Sean recently visited Oregon City and had a tour led by their Downtown organization staff. They discussed activities that a Downtown organization can do. He thought the CCAC might want to take the tour or invite the Downtown organization staff to a CCAC meeting here. The Commissioners would like to schedule visits to Milwaukie and Oregon City, hopefully during one trip. It was suggested coordinating the visits so the CCAC could also meet with the groups who worked on those projects to get some insight on what they went through. It was also suggested seeing if there are any PowerPoint presentations available for the CCAC to view. Sean reported that the Oregon City Downtown Organization has a very good website and video. Sean will send that link to the Commissioners. It was suggested finding out when the Oregon City Downtown Organization meets and then see if they will invite us to a meeting so we can see how they work. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Sean will send out the link information and call someone in Milwaukie and see if there is someone who can walk us through the development. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 11,2010 Page 7 of 8 AGENDA ITEM #7: Other Business Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean provided copies of the adopted 2010-11 CCD. budget (Exhibit D). Commissioner Pao shared some comments she has heard from neighbors in the Ash Street area. One issue was whether or not the road would be expanded if it vas opened up. There is concern about speeding traffic — there are no speed bumps. Also, if the road is widened, people would be forced to give up some of their property. Would people have any say in that? Sean thinks Council is considering making that connection, but wants to avoid the single family neighborhood and somehow hook up with Walnut Street. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #8: Adjournment Important Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Jerret Lewis, CCAC Secretary- ATTEST:/-X�C� Chair .-ilex der Craghead CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 11,2010 Page 8 of 8 DOWNTOWN TIGARD PARKING ANALYSIS CCAC PRESENTATION AUGUST 1 1 , 2010 PRESENTED BY ALAN SNOOK,AICP DKS Associates i Existing Parking Conditions AGENDA n Parking 101 5 minutes Methodology 5 minutes L Existing Supply 5 minutes ❑ Existing Demand 15 minutes n Future Land Use 5 minutes ❑ Future Demand 10 minutes ❑ Next Steps 5 minutes PARKING 101 ❑ Nexus between land use and parking ❑ Types of parking © Public or Private o On-street or Off-street o Pay or Free E3 Time restricted or No-limit ❑ Supply and Demand L Occupancy and Turnover ❑ 85% Peak Occupancy ... why is this important? r-1 Parking Generation ❑ Shared parking ti Study • Parking Survey til +� - .,, EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY LEGEND V - ~_ ^ .r Parking Supply a .y 1 -10 _ 11 -25 00 • ,�w'. 26 50 - 51 - 100 - > 100 tow 1 :�� ".�'-�'e � :i�4 _ •tiAT' -.,r,,µ� �g' '�"Y '.i•• f�r,,,�; .:«•. -� 10 _ ' .�• - 0 4 5 zc . 12 12 14 16 22 6 9 39 8 34 12 2 25 '4 7 18 4 v 7 67 F 3 a 20 107 20 f 103 39 I� On-Street 144 `1 Off-Street 761 Off-Street (park-and-ride) 103 Tota 1 1 ,008 Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 _.. LEGEND C Parking Utilization may, , 01 slat '� low 4 ■ s MW .. .FAverage Occupancy: 30% Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June ]�0 LEGEND Parking Utilization •X11 '. + i11"- �. • 1 1 �' y4 l• verage Occupancy: 30% - �� � � � _, j Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 LEGEND 'h1* Parking Utilization . �. f9 Env Average Occupancy: 35% ' :� Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 LEGEND Parking Utilization 1 TYR verage Occupancy: 36% Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 Iw ,7 LEGEND 1 r Parking Utilization ,; 40 I to eel 1 � • _H t c 1 '•n - �} �S ri z 3 Y Average Occupancy: 37% Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 LEGEND 1 Parking Utilization <5 5% 65% 5% =l 1 >85% -7 �;�.wu� .`,111 �' alp' _ .. "�• �j'��.�.ry ~r .,. ,��, +j'~:�a, / .. I 1 •'71r. b..:�,�.Jp. 1> tl 1 1 t i •1 ' L t 0 o a a a a a a a a. O• 0 2 — N CI) V to •O Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 70 Parking Utilization �. .� . viol lot. 1■ � _ Average Occupancy: ° 46 /0 Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 LEGEND Parking Utilization IK Rini, Ib "Avg V110 WWI air ;t � . •jam Average Occupancy: 47% �} • Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 70 rLEGEND Parking Utilization d" 40 f • ^ , a S •is ILI ' its � J i Average Occupancy: 42% -- Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 -1110 R / + LEGEND Parking Utilization 41 \• _ , MENEM u O y ^.1 � � "�4. �.eYti•- � : ..Jam'. ' Average Occupancy: 39 /o _ Y""' • • • • 01 0 04 CI) IT LO 10 Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 70 Iw LEGEI 0". LEGEND Parking Utilization 1,F4, �: . wry T �� �� M'.. •.fit a = ' •,a+� '! t Average Occupancy: 41 % • Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 r c Average Occupancy: 34% - ,� ,•= ' � _ Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 i fPirking Utili r. IP kJa IV to 10 Average Occupancy: 35 /o -� .-• •..$. Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 !` " t •r Yy i d e � n 1 Average Occupancy: 34 /o �. ;• —� Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 �,. ;. 1 - AN Parking Utilization' ! r" ' z= ^� p¢F¢• Average Occupancy: 37% Parking 3. A 1 I LEGEND a, Parking Utilization _ <65% 4 65%-85% i, a 1 a� .pr s°` Curs" ., ~,yri "�_�''y 9i�` - "" /► +�'ars-'x t ,A. , a o° ° c° a N r°i o O a MMMIIParking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 s f, ' r . a 4 rLEGEPND Parking Utilization INN.r 1 '` • fr Average Occupancy: 30% Parking utilizationby of • • y Thursday, June 7 0 i 1. 1 Parking Utilization <65% ► .'q,� f " >85% 4 arm, mr i y ' � 1 T— ' ti 0 o a a a a a a a 6- o, 0 N N M h .p Parking utilization by time of day Thursday, June 10 cwAl Parking Utilization .: °�_ ►. ! T. •. LEGEND MM � 1117'1•Ii� 'f21.1, ' �� � '! 1 i Atilt$'Ii -. Average Occupancy: 30 /o -� Parking 100% ■Thursday 90% ■Friday 80% ■Satruday V 70% C Q 60% V O50% ( 40% 30% Q 20% 10% 0% NONE f ::E ::E ::E f ::E ::E f :E ::E I ::E ::E f ::E f Q Q Q Q Q Q a. a. a n. a. a. a. a a. c. a. a a. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O M O M 9 M 9 M 9 M O M O M O M O Ol Ol O O N N — — N N ri M 7 h h 10 Time of Day Parking utilization by time of day Friday, June 1 1 LEGEND Parking Utilization .?kS. "•S 'n. W. r rem-� i,•.r�� '� � — 1 t1/t 1 r Average Occupancy: 32% Peak Occupancy: 40% • Parking utilization by time of day Saturday, June 72 100, Parking Utilization ,... e M Average Occupancy: 22% Peak Occupancy: 29% �. �:• MEM's On-street Occupancy by Location/Time of Day 100% Block Face nla 0 p g ,1 11' 11 :1 : :1 % i.w■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■ UL �■10% ■■■■■■■■■ ■ r�■■■■■■■■■■■ i■■�■■r■r■��■■ ■■■■■■■ �■■■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■ 10 Block Face B7 0 Block Face D 6 100% � 0 �■ ; 80% �60% 7 ■ �ii■�■■■i �� do% �■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■ �■■■■■■■■w��■�■■ ��w ,. 30% i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �■w�� 20% i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �w■■■www� 10% i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �■w■■■■■■■■■■� �w■w■ r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ i■■■■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■ i■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Mwww■■w■�a Parking Characteristics Day of Week/Findings Thursday Friday Saturday LAND USE ❑ Existing land use approximately 273,580 sq. ft. ❑ Currently 3.31 stalls supplied per 1,000 sq. ft. built space ❑ Approximately 1.51 vehicles being used per 1,000 sq . ft. during peak ❑ Future land use assessment Future Land Use Quantity SuWy Ratio Parking Demand Retail/Restaurant 220,000 1 .48/1 ,000 sq. ft. 330 Office 223,000 2.00/1 ,000 sq. ft. 446 Residential 127,000 1 .1 1 /1 ,000 sq. ft. 141 Totals 570,000 917 Overall existing occupancy at low/moderate levels Higher utilization of overall parking in south downtown Higher off-street utilization south of rail tracks and west side of Main Street Higher occupancy and longer duration in unsigned on-street parking Midday (lunch hour) has highest on-street use FINDINGS ❑ Average duration of signed parking approximately 1 hour ❑ 6%-10% violation of on-street parking limit ❑ Turnover rate approximately 7-8 users per stall/per day ❑ Currently 3.31 stalls supplied per 1,000 sq. ft. built space • Approximately 1.51 vehicles being used per 1,000 sq. ft. ❑ Future parking demand assessment indicates opportunity to improve parking utilization. Finalize parking analysis documentation Develop short-term and long-term strategies Coordinate this information with project design element Citi- of Tigard Memorandum To: Alexander Craghead, Chair, City Center Advisory Commission From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager Re: Proposed Approach to Circulation Plan Implementation Date: August 4, 2010 The following is an outline for a proposed new approach to implementing the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan. It contains the basis for the implementation memo (a draft of which will be prepared prior to the September CCAC meeting). The approach can be further discussed at the August 11, 2010 meeting. 1. The Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan map will be considered a conceptual framework of desired connections to be implemented with new development over the next 50 years. With the exception of the Ash Avenue crossing of the rail,Scoffins/Hunziker realignment, and Commercial Street realignment, the lines on the map are somewhat flexible. The exact alignment is dependent on redevelopment. 2. The implementation memo will indicate the priority connections to be adopted into the Transportation System Plan with recommended street character classifications.The potential priority connections are shown on Table 1 and Map A (attached).The implementation memo will include strategies for funding,potential incentives,and private-public partnerships for the development of these connections. 3. The remaining non-primary connections that appear on the conceptual framework map are needed mainly to access new development. The map shows a line indicating that a connection is desired,but the actual alignment is dependent on the type, level of intensity, and site plan of the development. These connections could also be private streets (with public easements),provided they meet design standards. 4. New development will (at minimum) conform to current Tigard standards of pedestrian connection every 330' and a full street every 530' and other street standards in the Development Code. 5. After review of the memo and maps, the CCAC will be requested to endorse, or endorse with recommended changes, the Circulation Plan conceptual framework and implementation memo. The next step would be workshops with the Planning Commission. MCAQ A ------------------------------------ ------------------.-----.-- sw Y a .d be.d*e%W pard Te 2010 Cp d T."d isddartdron STsmm PL- Q MDdtle(MM .d MCI Lad 1be K 'g �w tQ 90 o Ilk A, Tiaepommn lSplen Plm(TSP) ► ' �m LEGEND d� Ems"sheet t pLtk rOW-Wad r Closed street/Mik ngitdway ��. Proposed street , --- Pmpowdaiey Exi"bxy aW Pedes"c—wcbon as Peeemancormcb- rwdnectioe ... e�x�ad braEEoe m ewe won , I I E,dst.,y TradRad OExa6rrp puh6t transi cenW and :w W S_dmm�ter Rai station Downtown Connectivity Plan-Preferred Alternative Propvsro( 511're7LS Cv,,Plee Pr.mAliy C;�cti��f i0h SA27�1dA�y �i/!N/A fIiM Access (dePemds on duct/apisr.M7'> Table 1 Potential connections to be recommended in Circulation Plan implementation memo (not in order of priority Map Proposed Type of Strengths Weaknesses Potential location connection connection implementation method a. Ash Avenue at grade Primary 1.Adds new NE/SW connection. 1.Crossing predicated on closing Public railroad crossing Circulation 2.Overcomes RR circulation barrier. another at-grade crossing(even then, 3. Included in Urban Renewal Plan. not certain.) 4. In current and proposed TSP. 2. Issue with proximity to Commuter Rail station? b. Scoffins/Hunziker Primary 1. Eliminates offset intersection. 1. Requires purchase and demolition Public realignment Circulation 2. Included in Urban Renewal Plan. of building. 3. In current and proposed TSP. C. Ash Avenue north Primary 1. Provides new entrance to 1. Intersection at Hall will be limited Private/public of Scoffins(Carden Circulation downtown. to right in,right out for vehicles. connection) 2.Allows service of redeveloped 2. Dependant on redevelopment. properties along Hall. d. Commercial Street Primary 1. Eliminates offset intersection. 1. Impact to existing building? Public or realignment at Main Circulation 2. Potentially creates property sliver. private/public C. ~coffins- Primary 1.Opens up large super-block. 1.Dependant on redevelopment. Private/public Commercial Circulation 2. Improves circulation. connection 3.Creates development opportunity in interior of lots. __ 4. Can likelybe aligned alongtax lots. t Burnham St to rail Primary 1. Improves circulation. 1. Dependant on redevelopment. Private/public corridor connection Circulation 2.Creates development opportunity in interior of lots. 3. Can likely be aligned alon tax lots. g. Alley behind Main Primary 1.Allows continuation of street wall 1. May not be able to service large Private/public from Burnham to Circulation on Main with deliveries and access to delivery trucks. the rail corridor parking from rear. 2. Relationship to parking behind 2. ROW exists (meandering) buildings? li. Pedestrian Primary 1.Short connection with large impact 1. Probably can't be implemented Private/public connection from Circulation to pedestrian circulation until Transit Center redevelopment Commercial to Commuter Rail track crossing Statement of Values for the Downtown Circulation Plan City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC)'s Statement of Values for the Circulation Plan from April 22, 2009 meeting 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. Fx, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 10- r,]n A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD,WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, CALLING A MEASURE ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY THE QUESTION OF CONTRACTING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED INDEBTEDNESS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $17 MILLION TO ACQUIRE OPEN SPACES,PROTECT CLEAN WATER, IMPROVE PARKLANDS; DECLARING INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES;AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon (the "City"), has determined that a need exists for the City to finance the costs of land acquisition and capital improvement related to protection of water quality in local creeks and streams; preservation of natural areas, wildlife habitat; creation of community parks and recreational areas;construction and improvement of hiking,biking and walking trails through land acquisition and restoration. The bond proceeds would also be used to pay bond issuance costs;and WHEREAS, the costs of the Project to be funded with bond proceeds are estimated to be not more than $17,000,000; and WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 287A.050 authorizes the City to contract bonded indebtedness to provide funds to finance the costs of the Project and to pay bond issuance costs subject to voter approval; and WHEREAS, the City anticipates incurring expenditures (the "Expenditures") to finance the costs of the Project and hereby declares its official intent to reimburse itself for any Expenditures it may make on the Project from the proceeds of voter-approved general obligation bonds (the "Bonds"), the interest on which shall be excluded from gross income under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code'; and WHEREAS,The City understands that the use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure may occur no later than the later of (a) 18 months after the date of such Expenditure or (b) 18 months after completion of the projects to which such Expenditure relates, and in any event no later than three years after the date of such Expenditure; and may occur no earlier than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the adoption of this resolution; except for preliminary expenditures in an amount not exceeding 20% of the Bond proceeds or expenditures which do not exceed the lesser of $100,000 or 5 percent of the Bond proceeds. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION is A measure election is hereby called for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City the question of contracting general obligation bonded indebtedness in the name of the City in an amount not to exceed $17,000,000. Bond proceeds will be used to finance the Project and pay all Bond issuance costs. The Bonds shall mature over a period of not more than twenty-one (21) years. Pursuant to ORS 250.285, the City Council approves the ballot title that is attached as Exhibit A and directs that this ballot title be filed with the City Attorney and the City Elections Officer. RESOLUTION NO. 10-41C) Page 1 SECTION 2: The measure election hereby called shall be held in the City on the 2nd day of November, 2010. The election shall be conducted by mail pursuant to ORS 254.465 and 254.470. SECTION 3: The City authorizes the Mayor, City Manager (each an "Authorized Representative") or a designee of the Authorized Representative to act on behalf of the City and to take such further action as is necessary to carry out the intent and purposes herein in compliance with the applicable provisions of law. SECTION 4: Pursuant to ORS 250.275(5), the City Elections Officer shall publish in the next available edition of the Tigard Times or in some other newspaper of general distribution within the City, a notice of receipt of the ballot title including notice that an elector may file a petition for review of the ballot title pursuant to ORS 250.296 not later than the seventh business day after the title is filed with the City Elections Officer in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B (the"Notice"). SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 254.095(2) the City directs the City Elections Officer to file a Notice of City Measure Election in substantially the form of Exhibit A with the Washington County Elections Office not earlier than the eight business day after the date on which Exhibit A is filed with the City Elections Officer and not later than September 2, 2010 (sixty-one (61) days prior to the election date). The Washington County Elections Office is required to produce and disseminate a facsimile of the ballot in accordance with ORS 254.205. SECTION 6: The City hereby declares its official intent to reimburse itself with the proceeds of the Bonds for any of the Expenditures incurred by it prior to the issuance of the Bonds. SECTION 7: The law firm of K & L Gates LLP, is hereby appointed to serve as bond counsel with respect to the issuance of the Bonds. The City will pay the fees and expenses of bond counsel from Bond proceeds. SECTION 8: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. PASSED: This 'day of 2010. ayor- City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard 1:\Citywide\Council P2ckets\Packet'10\100727\Bond Measure Resolution REVISED 7-21-10.doc RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 4/D Page 2 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF CITY MEASURE ELECTION CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on November 2, 2010, a measure election will be held in the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon. The following shall be the ballot title of the measure to be submitted to the City's voters on this date: CAPTION BOND TO ACQUIRE OPEN SPACES, PROTECT CLEAN WATER, IMPROVE PARKLANDS QUESTION SHALL CITY ISSUE$17 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO ACQUIRE, PRESERVE AND PROTECT OPEN SPACES, WATER QUALITY, HABITAT,AND PARKS? If the Bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of Sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. SUMMARY If approved, this measure would authorize the City of Tigard to sell up to $17 million in bonds for land acquisition,restoration, capital construction and improvements allocated as follows: 0 80% or more to acquire land to preserve open space,parklands, and wildlife habitat, protect streams for improved local water quality to benefit fish and wildlife, • 20%or less to create and improve community parks,recreational areas and trails, and 0 Up to 10 %of the total for downtown park land. This investment is for the benefit of current and future generations. The Parks and Recreation Board would provide oversight;spending would be audited in the City's yearly audit. Bonds would mature in 21 years or less from issuance and may be issued in one or more series. The estimated additional annual cost to property owners would be $0.29 per$1,000 of assessed valuation. For a home with the median assessed value of$207,000, the City estimates that the additional monthly cost would be about$4.99 per month, or$60 per year. EXHIBIT B NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF BALLOT TITLE Notice is hereby given that a ballot title for a measure referred by the City- of Tigard has been filed with the City Elections Officer on July 27, 2010. The ballot title caption is BOND TO ACQUIRE OPEN SPACES, PROTECT CLEAN WATER, IMPROVE PARKLANDS. An elector may file a petition for review of this ballot title in the Washington County Circuit Court no later than 5:00 p.m.,August 5,2010. Signature of City Elections Officer Ate sigged Catherine Wheatley City Recorder Printed name of City Elections Officer Title This legal notice is to be published by the City Elections Officer in the Tigard Times,Tigard, Oregon, or in another newspaper of general distribution within the City. I:\Ciq�vide\Council Packets\Packet'I0\100727\Park Bond Resolution Exhibits A and B-REVISED.docx City Center Development Agency The City of Tigaes Urban ReneuW agency ;0 1 ��• 1; _ia�f" � IAA OY Ado •�r�:i. 1''•s Mz ;`� •,�.,., �' .1''t� et'y f i 1 Ir by T 1. ( '1`�``y� r.� J►+! fir,•-� � • ` �; \�`.tg - iii,, ,ts,: �*�} 9 GAJ City Center Development AgencN City of Tigard Fiscal Year 2010-2011 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE Rick Parker Craig Dirksen John Bailey Gretchen Buehner Dena Struck Sydney Webb Cameron James Marland Henderson Dan Goodrich Nick Wilson Mona Moghimian(Alternate) CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD Craig Dirksen,Chair Gretchen Buehner Sydney Webb Nick Wilson Marland Henderson EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Craig Prosser COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Ron Bunch REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER for DONX-NTO'%XN Sean FarreUy FINANCE and INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Toby LaFrance s CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Cin of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 503-6394171 FY 2010-2011 BUDGET TRANSMITTAL To the Citizens of Tigard, 1 am pleased to present to you the fourth annual adopted budget for Tigard's City Center Development Agency(CCDA). The City Center Development Agency is charged with the revitalization of Downtown and implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan which was approved by voters in May of 2006. Plans for the Urban Renewal District have been impacted by the severe economic downturn which has slowed bank lending and private development to a crawl. Property taxes collected on the growth in assessed value in the urban renewal district since its establishment(the source of the CCDA's funding of revitalization),remain sluggish. There was a jump in the tax increment distribution in Fiscal Year 2009-10,but it was due to an assessment on utilities(which is distributed by the State on an intermittent basis). Despite challenging economic conditions, FY 2009-10 saw considerable progress on public projects that will benefit the Downtown. The Burnham Street reconstruction project broke ground in 2009. When complete in the summer of 2011,the new street will include pedestrian amenities and green street features that will set the stage for new private development. These features are funded with $200,000 from the CODA. Three other infrastructure projects,the completed enhanced pedestrian crossing to the Tigard Public Library and the soon to be constructed intersection improvements at Pacific Highway/Main/Greenburg and Pacific Highway/Hall will improve Downtown vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian accessibility. The Fagade Improvement program provided design assistance to four Main Street businesses. A matching grant has been awarded to complete a major fagade project(additional grants will likely be awarded). In addition, new Land Use and Design regulations for the Downtown were adopted, which will assure new buildings are well-designed and supportive of the vision of the area as an urban village. Projects to be completed in FY 2010-11 include a Downtown Circulation Plan and design work for reconstructing the southern portion of Main Street as a green street. In addition construction of the Community Partners for Affordable Housing Senior Housing Project, (the Knoll),will begin. While not an Urban Renewal project,the City and its partners have been pursuing High Capacity Transit(HCT) in the Pacific Highway Corridor and will start several planning efforts to this end. HCT would be an additional impetus to the creation of a livable and prosperous suburban downtown. The adopted Agency budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 consists of two funds: the Urban Renewal Capital Projects Fund and the Debt Service Fund. The Urban Renewal Capital Projects Fund is supported by loans. In prior years,all the loans have come from the City of Tigard. For FY 2010-11.the CCDA will continue to require loans to pay for Agency programs and the Burnham St. reconstruction project contributions. It is still early in the Agency's life and it may not yet qualify for bank financing at reasonable rates. We have adopted a third year of loans from the City's General Fund to cover Agency financial needs, but have also directed staff to explore the possibility of bank financing for Agency needs. If private financing is available,then the Agency will explore a potential land purchase. Like loans from the City of Tigard,the private loan will be paid from the tax increment received on property tax in the district. This fiscal year the Agency will direct the Capital Projects Fund to three main projects. First, the CCDA will invest in professional services and other projects designed to promote private investment. The focus of these services will be fostering opportunities for redevelopment and/or renovation of properties that will increase the increment. Examples of these projects include development opportunity studies and facade improvement grants. Second,the CCDA will pay $200.000 toward the Burnham Street project. The CCDA participation is for facilities such as extra-width sidewalks that would not have been included if the project were not in the Urban Renewal District. Thirdly. the adopted budget includes an "opportunity fund"to assist with potential property purchase for redevelopment and/or incentives for private development. This is the portion that will be funded if the agency is successful in acquiring financing outside of the City of Tigard. The Debt Service Fund reflects the revenues anticipated to be generated by the growth in the assessed value of the urban renewal district. In FY 2010-11 we expect the increment to be $211,000.The Fund contains a balance of$414,993 collected in FY 2007-08, FY 2008-09, and FY 2009-10, including interest. Under state law,these revenues may only be used for the repayment of indebtedness. The first loan was made in FY 2008-09 and there is a budgeted loan repayment of $249,000 in the adopted 2010-11 Budget. This is equal to the amount of the FY 10-11 loan from the City's General Fund, and is necessary because of the condition of the City's General Fund. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)between the City Center Development Agency and the City of Tigard. loans from Tigard to the CCDA are repaid in ten equal payments on the principle starting ten years after the loan and interest payments start in the second year after the loan. The CCDA can choose to repay loans earlier. Due to the constraints on Tigard's General Fund, this Adopted Budget agrees to accelerate the principle payments. The objective of the City Center Development Agency is to engage stakeholders and foster economic development in the Downtown. Despite the economic downturn, property and business owners will be engaged to plan for the future, and set up partnerships than can be acted upon when the economy improves. The Agency is fortunate to have an engaged and committed citizen advisory body, the City Center Advisory Commission(CCAC), which has made recommendations on many critical issues. I am optimistic that this year's budget and the projects that are currently underway, will position the Urban Renewal District for further revitalization when the national and regional economies recover. Respectfully submitted, Craig Prosser Executive Director ji '* a •d �� Y,� '+y �I.. 4 \ \ \ . :i'v', i � y_\•�,; ,,ter:�_-i � � � \ Urban Renewal Zone C::3 Urban Renewal Boundary A.1 Sueam Cit);of 1prd Taxlol Boundary - Rat(mac Oregon C�clu�;rryu!-_ mowuily 0.•,.lopacnl Dull-ha 1ry76 'FA.�":Ct_.»_ :¢tiiiCF':- -_.C'S8q'Y-=�•�xufa2o��.:3x - ioJrMl4.wu.w Ifm 6. 61Mlu CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FACTS DistrictFormation Date..............................................................................................May 2006 DistrictSize (acres)............................................................................................................193.71 District Tax Lot Area(acres):...........................................................................................144.14 District Right-of-Way Area(acres)....................................................................................49. 7 BaseAssessed Value ................................................................................................$69,207,378 Assessed Value(2010) .............................................................................................$83,248,718 Annual taxes levied(projected 2011)..........................................................................$212,600 Maximum Debt Limit:..............................................................................................$22,000,000 DebtIssued:...............................................................................................................................$0 Remaining Debt Limit..............................................................................................$22,000,000 FY 2010-2011 Urban Renewal Projects Storefront Improvement Program-$75,000 Expanded program from 4 to 7 businesses. The program pays for all of architectural design assistance and potential grants up to a$25,000 match in improvements. Opportunity Fund-$65,000 Opportunity Fund for land purchase and associated costs, fees subsidies for new development, and Pre-development loans. Redevelopment/Marketing/Real Estate Studies and Assistance-$85,000 This project consists of funding professional services (in real estate development and economics, architecture,and other needed specialists)to foster the opportunities for the redevelopment and/or renovation of properties. The goal is to increase the tax increment revenues in the urban renewal district. A major program will be development opportunity studies to provide business and property owners the technical assistance and resources to assess the feasibility of redeveloping properties in the urban renewal district. Eligible pre-development activities include architectural, planning, and engineering studies, and real estate market and financial analysis. This fund will also pay for the printing of planning and promotional materials for the Downtown Other-$24,000 Completion of the Circulation Plan Refinement, and the Hall Boulevard/Pacific Highway traffic study. Burnham Street-5200,000 This project will partially pay for the construction of enhanced streetscape features(additional sidewalk square footage and street amenities)recommended by the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan for the Burnham Street project. Carry Over-S42,500 The carry-over of funds is required for professional consulting services that the Agency is contractually obligated to complete from FY 2010. These consulting services include development of studies to determine opportunities for redevelopment in the downtown area. Total: $491,500 Debt Service Funds- Urban Renewal Debt Service FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 Adopted vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved Adopted 0410 Revised 40000-Beginning Fund Balance 0 39,662 159.979 414,993 414,993 414,993 159.4% Total Beginning Fund Balance 0 39,662 159,979 414,993 414,993 414,993 159.4% 40100-Current Property Taxes 38,469 115,019 177,004 211,ODo 211,000 211,000 19.2%, 40101-Prior Year Property Tates 0 0 0 1.600 1.600 1.600 100.0% Total Taxes 38.469 115,019 177.004 212,600 212,600 212,600 20.1% 47000-Interest Earnings 1.193 2,898 718 6.225 6.225 6.225 767.0% Total Interest Earnings 1,193 2,898 718 6,225 6.225 6,225 767.0% TotalResourad 39,662 157,579 337,701 633,818 633,818 633,818 87.7% Requirements Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Debt Service 0 0 0 249,000 249,000 249,000 100.0% Trial Owed 0 0 0 249,000 249,fDO 2491000 100.0% Reserve For Future Exp 39,662 157,579 337.701 384,818 384,818 384,818 140% Total Requkements 39,662 157,579 337,701 633,6!8 633,818 633,618 87.7% Capital Project Funds- Urban Renewal Capital Improvements FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 Adopted vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved Adopted 0310 Revised 40000-Begmmng Fund Balance 0 0 27.967 0 0 42,500 52.0% Total Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 27,967 0 0 42,500 52.0% 44501-Intergowrnrnental Revenue 0 323,616 150,000 449,000 449.000 449,000 199.3% Total lntergovernmenta4 0 323,616 150,000 449,000 449,000 449.000 199.3% 49100-Transfer In from General Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Resources 0 323,616 177,967 449,000 449,000 491,500 1762% Requirements Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Work in Progress 0 295.649 177 967 449,000 449,000 491.500 176.2% Total ltdget 0 295.649 177,967 449,000 449,000 491,w 63.9% Reserve for Future Exp 0 27.967 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Requirements O 323,616 177,967 40,000 449,000 49LSW 176.2% City of Tigard Memorandum To: Alexander Craghead, Chair, City Center Advisory Commission From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager Re: Proposed Approach to Circulation Plan Implementation Date: August 4, 2010 The following is an outline for a proposed new approach to implementing the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan. It contains the basis for the implementation memo (a draft of which will be prepared prior to the September CCAC meeting). The approach can be further discussed at the August 11, 2010 meeting. 1. The Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan map will be considered a conceptual framework of desired connections to be implemented with new development over the next 50 years. With the exception of the Ash Avenue crossing of the rail, Scoffins/Hunziker realignment, and Commercial Street realignment, the lines on the map are somewhat flexible. The exact alignment is dependent on redevelopment. 2. The implementation memo will indicate the priority connections to be adopted into the Transportation System Plan with recommended street character classifications. The potential priority connections are shown on Table 1 and Map A (attached). The implementation memo will include strategies for funding, potential incentives, and private-public partnerships for the development of these connections. 3. The remaining non-primary connections that appear on the conceptual framework map are needed mainly to access new development. The map shows a line indicating that a connection is desired, but the actual alignment is dependent on the type,level of intensity, and site plan of the development. These connections could also be private streets (with public easements), provided they meet design standards. 4. New development will (at minimum) conform to current Tigard standards of pedestrian connection every 330' and a full street every 530' and other street standards in the Development Code. 5. After review of the memo and maps, the CCAC will be requested to endorse, or endorse with recommended changes, the Circulation Plan conceptual framework and implementation memo. The next step would be workshops with the Planning Commission. N Z \� i 3 ' i I J/ I i f I 1 1 � b +,......... r 'A ; ' c oC-4 n� m SW 8fiN k i"" d E a s � C N a J ♦ y U cL c ' m cD P e �" 1 n m U------------------ �. \ / a N,103Nn MS rss` •jl •'� v •a D o ?l � V3S13H3 MS r S 1ST6 MS " a k r e v If �ONZ6M5M i i � cLl 14,Z vCcE ' \/? iQ Rimm c c O O U • � U N O c c co C c O Oa T TO U U 3 c° cca m ID M ac H1S6 MS 3 m �� cc m looo C CD CD a:o 3 y� a H •— , c c m'm m of ami o -o _ O T N T0.1 TCC d U.O. / � N O � >` V� V•�N L � fn 'Ga U �C •p c (ty O � N � � �.� •p U U d � O_E l` p� y N N � O� y�0 Q) O • Q) CLW O ID c C _O O O •y �X O y DLL ❑ W U O_ a WCL—, d W W i5 Z • � 1 � W ' , ' I 1 • O I i i Statement of Values for the Downtown Circulation Plan City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC)'s Statement of Values for the Circulation Plan from April 22, 2009 meeting 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. Table 1 Potential connections to be recommended in Circulation Plan implementation memo (not in order of priority) Map Proposed Type of Strengths Weaknesses Potential location connection connection implementation method a. Ash Avenue at grade Primary 1.Adds new NE/SW connection. 1. Crossing predicated on closing Public railroad crossing Circulation 2. Overcomes RR circulation barrier. another at-grade crossing(even then, 3. Included in Urban Renewal Plan. not certain.) 4.In current and proposed TSP. 2. Issue with proximity to Commuter Rail station? b. Scoffins/Hunziker Primary 1. Eliminates offset intersection. 1. Requires purchase and demolition Public realignment Circulation 2.Included in Urban Renewal Plan. of building. 3. In current and proposed TSP. C. Ash Avenue north Primary 1.Provides new entrance to 1. Intersection at Hall will be limited Private/public of Scoffins (Garden Circulation downtown. to right in,right out for vehicles. connection) 2.Allows service of redeveloped 2. Dependant on redevelopment. properties along Hall. d. Commercial Street Primary 1. Eliminates offset intersection. 1.Impact to existing building? Public or realignment at Main Circulation 2. Potentially creates property sliver. private/public e. Scoffins- Primary 1. Opens up large super-block. 1.Dependant on redevelopment. Private/public Commercial Circulation 2.Improves circulation. connection 3. Creates development opportunity in interior of lots. 4. Can likely be aligned along tax lots. f. Burnham St to rail Primary 1.Improves circulation. 1. Dependant on redevelopment. Private/public corridor connection Circulation 2. Creates development opportunity in interior of lots. 3. Can likely be aligned along tax lots. g. Alley behind Main Primary 1.Allows continuation of street wall 1.May not be able to service large Private/public from Burnham to Circulation on Main with deliveries and access to delivery trucks. the rail corridor parking from rear. 2. Relationship to parking behind 2.ROW exists (meandering) buildings? h. Pedestrian Primary 1. Short connection with large impact 1. Probably can't be implemented Private/public connection from Circulation to pedestrian circulation until Transit Center redevelopment Commercial to Commuter Rail track crossing Completeness Review � Vy for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD City Center Advisory Commission Name of Board, Commission or Committee _august 11, 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. earrr. Print Name Signature 5/3ola Date