Loading...
11/17/2014 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 17,2014 CALL TO ORDER Vice President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: Vice President Fitzgerald Commissioner Doherty Alt. Commissioner Goodhouse Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Ouellette Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Commissioner Feeney; President Rogers Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director; Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Agnes Kowacz,Associate Planner; Susan Shanks, Senior Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant;Mike McCarthy, Transportation Engineer;John Floyd, Associate Planner;Lina Smith, Planning Assistant COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSIDER MINUTES September 15 Meeting Minutes: Vice President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the September 15 minutes; there being none, Fitzgerald declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING: CPA2014-00001 / DCA2014-00001 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to adopt the River Terrace Community Plan, Comprehensive Plan Designations, Natural Resources Maps and River Terrace Addendum to the city's Transportation System Plan. STAFF'S REPORT ON THE PROPOSAL Senior Planner Susan Shanks introduced herself and then introduced Kenny Asher as the River Terrace Project Director / Community Development Director. Susan explained that the commission would be reviewing the River Terrace Community Plan as well as other associated documents. She noted this is a Legislative Proposal and that the commission is being asked to make recommendations to Council regarding the River Terrace Community Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Designations, the Natural Resource Maps, and the River Terrace Addendum to the Transportation System Plan (TSP). She explained that this is the first in a Page 1 of 8 series of hearings and adoptions by the Planning Commission and the City Council that will be occurring over the next several months, possibly into early next year and beyond—to adopt various aspects, policies, standards, or code amendments related to implementation of the River Terrace Community Plan. For example, she expects some code amendments will be brought forth in February specifically related to the Community Plan. Susan went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit A). She talked about the complete timeline and explained that this meeting would focus on only the things pertinent to this particular hearing. Susan gave a brief background about River Terrace. Using a map, she showed that it's located on the western-most side of Tigard and explained that before it was called "River Terrace," and still in Washington County, it was known as the 'West Bull Mountain Concept Plan." It came into the City of Tigard (City) in three different pieces initially - Area 64, Roy Rogers West, and Area 63. In 2002,Metro expanded the Urban Growth Boundary in anticipation of population growth that would be in need of housing over the next several decades, and they included only Areas 63 & 64. The concept planning for that area was completed by the county in 2010 - and Metro again expanded the boundary in 2011 to connect Area 63 and 64 by bringing in Roy Rogers West so that it connected the whole area - and that's when Area 64 also annexed to the City. In 2012, the City took responsibility for continuing the Community Planning process for River Terrace. In 2013,Area 63 & Roy Rogers West annexed— and so now, in 2014, the City is looking to adopt the River Terrace Plan - thus the reason for this meeting. Staff is looking for the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council to adopt the River Terrace Plan. At this point, Susan turned the floor over to Kenny Asher, Community Development Director who spoke in detail about the long range planning effort. He said he was very pleased to present the work to the commission and noted that, looking at the timeline,it's been 12 years since this was first contemplated—and that one might wonder what's been taking so long. He said this is an opportunity to build an extension to the City of Tigard that has in it the things that we value most about the community. He explained, "The plan is to build the River Terrace area correctly and, essential to that, is that it be a complete community -which is why this process takes so long. It's not just any one aspect;we have to figure out how to serve it with the critical infrastructure - water, stormwater services, parks & transportation, sewer services — and topography matters —which involves engineering. Thought must be given to what the area is going to end up feeling like for the people who are not part of this process, but who are going to be living there, and for those who already live in Tigard— and who will make use of it. The point of doing this in the first place is to enhance the community—there's no other reason. We're not doing it because we feel like we need to grow, necessarily. We aren't doing it because someone is forcing us to do it. The City has taken this on because we believe it's an opportunity to enhance our community. That's what I'd ask that you keep in mind as we go through this. The other thing that takes a long time is balancing the many interests, because they are not all perfectly aligned." Kenny went on to explain the different interests that need to be balanced. He went over the Long Range plan on the PowerPoint and explained that it's been a healthy process. After Kenny spoke, Susan Shanks continued by going over the plan elements. She summarized the concerns that had been brought up by way of the public comments that had come in. Susan noted that the Project Team and the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) had met several times (at least thirteen) and recommends approval as noted below: Page 2 of 8 1. Community Plan 2. Comprehensive Plan Maps a. Land Use Designations b. Natural Resources 3. Transportation System Plan* ("with caution") *The SWG was concerned about the cost over-all and what that means with regard to the funding strategy; this is something the council will be considering at the December 16th meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the River Terrace Community Plan, Comprehensive Plan Designations, Natural Resource Maps and Transportation System Plan Addendum to the Tigard City Council as determined through the public hearing process. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS TO STAFF "When talking about approving the TSP "with caution"... does that mean that down the road... it can be revised or changed— or is it set in stone? I know there were a couple of concerns about the design of the Boulevard and I have a feeling that's where a lot of the cost was —in the design. So if we accept this "with caution" does that mean that things can be changed later?" Kenny Asher answered: "I'm not sure about the concept of`accepting with caution...' I believe the SWG was simply noting that, while they may be fine with the concepts in the TSP, they were concerned about the funding strategy. The TSP amendment addresses River Terrace Blvd and it shows a maximum section that includes not just the collector, but the trail as well— with dimensions to establish what the optimal section would be —where it could be built so that there would be no misunderstanding when an application came through. If you had to dedicate land for River Terrace Blvd and build it on your property—what the City might be looking for. It doesn't mean that the City would have that much in every segment of River Terrace Blvd but that having a collector - sidewalks, on-street parking, a median, having a trail that runs through a greenway—that that is the vision for this north/south street. So if there's a concern about that concept,we should talk about that tonight as opposed to thinking about how we might change it down the road - because that's exactly what we're trying to avoid." "So it sounds like the SWG's concern was not necessarily the concept, but the cost." "Yes." "On this map, the existing stoplights at Scholls Ferry, Roy Rogers and Beef Bend — they're not on here — I assume they will stay there?" "Yes —those will remain—we're just showing what is to come." There was a question about the trail that would go through eventually and whether a vineyard located in the area would be required to take down a deer fence. The answer was that there's no desire to uproot an existing agricultural business that doesn't want to develop. The map doesn't go into that sort of detail. "Regarding the substation—for future development will there be a need for a second substation?" "I haven't heard that there will be, but I don't know." Page 3 of 8 "And then on the map there's also another—more south— a designation for that possible future or other utility?" No— the other public institution that's on that map is the Tigard Tualatin School District. TTSD has purchased that property so that's a future - either elementary or K through 8 school. They'll have their own planning process for that - but they've already acquired that property. TESTIMONY FOR THE PROPOSAL Don Hansen, with OTAK was there representing Arbor Homes. He'd submitted a letter on 10/31 that's in the Planning Commission packet. He talked about two of the items out of the five that were in his letter. River Terrace Boulevard - relevant to the TSP map —he's primarily concerned about the cost—believes $50M is out of the range—it equates to about $20K per proposed unit in the district. Also - they recommend that the illustration in the TSP be removed because it shows the "ultimate" solution. They don't want that to be a mandated target. They want a more flexible standard. Also on the TSP - they believe there's a need for an access point on Roy Rogers Road halfway between Lorenzo and Scholls Ferry Road, 1400 lineal south of SF/RR intersection. They propose it as a full access because they're not confident there will be a signal on River Terrace and Scholls Ferry Road. He said they would be willing to reduce it to a right in right out as traffic volumes increase but, day one, they need it as access. He also touched on the Planned Development Ordinance - they encourage that this be accelerated - and that the open space requirements in the current ordinance be looked at carefully as they do not believe it reflects the goals of the community plan. Chris Brehmer, with Kittelson was there on behalf of his colleague Mark Butorac who had been working with staff throughout the process and was unable to attend this hearing. He expressed his appreciation to staff for their work. He said he had two suggestions. He spoke about the TSP illustration. He suggested putting in an "area for refinement" and acknowledging that it's something that needs further refinement once a plan gets agreed to and acknowledged - and it sets it up that that's the expectation -versus a graphic that you don't remember how it got there later. The second suggestion was with regard to the signal on Scholls Ferry Road. The TSP appropriately acknowledges that may, or may not, be warranted and it will depend on traffic volumes and how development occurs in the future. They want that note to stay in the plan because it's not a given and should be recognized appropriately. Kelly Hossaini with Miller Nash Attorneys at Law, 111 SW Fifth Ave., Portland was there representing Tigard Tualatin School District and handed out a letter of her testimony (Exhibit A.2). She said TTSD owns 20 acres in River Terrace and that they wanted to express their appreciation to staff that the District had been involved in this process since the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan was processed and adopted. The main reason she was there was with regard to asking for 161St to be extended just down to the school property so they can get in and out. It's always been envisioned that the schools be oriented toward the lower level street which is 161St. They need a couple of travel lanes in public right of way to get from Hazeltine to the school property. Question: Are you asking for this road and the entire infrastructure, sewer and other water infrastructure, to be developed and in place before you build any school facility? Page 4 of 8 We're asking that at least we put it on Table Five in the TSP Plan Addendum— those are the shorter term infrastructure expenditures that will occur... You're looking for this to be a commitment prior to yours - is that right? Why wouldn't it be simultaneous where the community would incur cost as there actually was a plan to have the school in place? We envision that it will most likely be simultaneous. All we're asking for right now is that that infrastructure be put on that Table Five which means that it's going to be built in the shorter term. As soon as those houses start to come on line and those families start to move in over in that northwestern area —we suspect we're going to have to be going out for a bond and start building a school. It's not like we're saying, "In the next two years make sure you get a road out there for us." But if it's not even on Table Five as part of a package of infrastructure that is going to get built in the medium term, it's not anywhere, and we're going to end up with nothing. If we have to wait for development to occur along that road—it's not clear to me how long that'll take. So, in other words,you want to make sure that there's going to be some sort of a road into the school that's on Table Five. Is that what you're asking? To have it put on the list?" That's right; exactly. Jamie Stasny representing Metropolitan Land Group — 17933 NW Evergreen Parkway, Beaverton - has been on the SWG and implementation subcommittee— they own approximately 38 acres just north of the school site. She said they are encouraged about the evolution of the plans for River Terrace and are excited to see some on-the-ground progress. That being said she said they still have a limited number of concerns that they voiced in a letter from Oct. 31 in the commissioner's packet— she went over that letter. Jim Lange- 12564 SW Main St. Tigard—representing Polygon Northwest Company 109 E. 13th Str.,Vancouver, WA 98660 summarized what was contained in a Nov. 15th letter from Fred Gast of Polygon that had been submitted to the record on November 15th and was in the commissioner's packets. Polygon will be building a number of important segments of River Terrace Boulevard and look forward to that opportunity. They are very supportive of the River Terrace Community Plan and urge a positive recommendation. TESTIMONY OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL Steve & Barb Jacobson—15915 SW 150th Ave. Tigard 97223 spoke on behalf of four property owners; Steve &Barbara Jacobson, Daniel & Pat Knox, Brandt& Karin Hulse, and Dr. Mike &Anne McCleskey. He read a letter in its entirety on behalf of this group (Exhibit Michael & Alita Anne McCleskey—15590 SW April Lane, Tigard - vineyard owners in the River Terrace area are concerned about a new regional trail impacting their profitability. Page 5 of 8 They had emailed and hand delivered a letter to put in the record in response to the plan for a regional trail across the south side of Area 63 (Exhibit C). QUESTION Would you have to move your deer fence if the trail went through? Yes,we'd have to move it and we'd have to tear a lot of vines out. So, from your perspective, there's no opportunity to have the trail be at the edge of the property or through areas that weren't something you've already developed? Not if it were to go across the lower part of our property. We have an area that goes up the side of our property that I think at some point looks like it will be designated as a neighborhood park but that area we haven't developed and there is a road that feasibly could go up through that part of our property—on the east side of the property— and meet with the April Lane—which will be part of the connector to Woodhaven eventually. So that might be an option. Laura Landi of Hillsboro had signed up to speak as an opponent but had left earlier in the evening and wasn't present to speak. ADDITIONAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD Other testimony that had come in on the day of the hearing is entered as exhibits for the record: Andrea Bonard (Exhibit D), Dan and Pat Knox (Exhibit E). Polygon (Exhibit F). TESTIMONY CLOSED QUESTIONS OF STAFF FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Can you address the concern about the regional trail that was addressed by several residents - the idea of having end points that are flexible - dependent on development - and also if you had looked at the property and looked at the necessity to impair the vineyard—its fencing and its vines. Kenny Asher came up and talked about the fact that Tigard had inherited the map from the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan that shows that trail segment and said that he believes that they, like Tigard,were not trying to say exactly which linear swath of land the trail is intended to go on—but simply that in the general location there needs to be a trail to complete the loop around Bull Mountain (which is what the WBMCP said) so Tigard did not depart from that. The 300 foot trail needs to connect back so — from the broadest perspective—we didn't do a lot of analysis to figure out exactly where to put this southerly segment of the trail because others had done that work to say "this loop needs to be completed." To get to your question about precisely what the impact would be on the properties —We're not going to adopt this plan and go out and build this trail segment. So my shortest answer would be "there would be none."When you adopt a plan like this, does it have some effect on that property's future ability to use that property however a property owner would want—does it have any impact at all? I'd say, sure it does. The impact isn't that we're going to build it and they're going to lose the use... the impact is that somebody who might want to build on that property in the future, whether these or subsequent property owners,in doing their due diligence would see that there's a trail planned for the southern portion of the property. Page 6 of 8 So, in other words, it's on paper but not set in stone? These plans are to show what's intended;it matters. It's to get as much transparency as possible as to what the City intends to do. Things can be amended but that transparency means that when an application comes in, the public has something to hang its hat on. Regarding TTSD's 161st street proposal—what would it mean to add that particular road to Table 5? Susan Shanks answered —putting this street on Table 5 —what that means is that we'd be putting a neighborhood route on the project list of publically funded projects. So it's not just near-term projects — everything on that Table 5 list would be publically funded as opposed to being built by development- and neighborhood routes are generally built by development. PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSED DELIBERATIONS VP Fitzgerald noted that she was pleased to see so many people who had come up to speak, both for and against this topic, had complimented staff on how much they appreciated that they'd listened to the public and had put forth a lot of effort & transparency leading up to this hearing. Commissioner Muldoon wanted to say he is concerned about the vineyard property and his suggestion is that decisions are timely and actual locations captured for the record. VP Fitzgerald then lead the group in discussions about the three different sections regarding recommendations and it was decided to divide it into four motions. FIRST MOTION Commissioner Doherty made the following motion - seconded by Commissioner Schmidt: "I move that we adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to River Terrace CPA2014-00001 Exhibit One - River Terrace Plan and adopt the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report." A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. SECOND MOTION Commissioner Doherty made the following motion - seconded by Commissioner Muldoon: "I move for approval of application CPA2014-00001 and adopt the findings and conditions of the approval contained in the staff report for Exhibit 2— Comprehensive Plan Designation." A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. THIRD MOTION Commissioner Doherty made the following motion - seconded by Commissioner Schmidt: Page 7 of 8 "I move for the approval of application CPA2014-00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report for Exhibit 3 - Natural Resources Maps." A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. FOURTH MOTION Commissioner Muldoon said that before voting on this motion he wanted into the record that he has concern that an analysis hasn't been performed and yet we're laying a line over some high value facilities potentially. Commissioner Doherty made the following motion - seconded by Commissioner Schmidt: "I move for approval of application CPA2014-00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report for Exhibit 4 River Terrace Addendum to the Transportation System Plan (TSP)." A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. ALL FOUR MOTIONS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDATIONS Vice President Fitzgerald clarified that all the issues approved are as recommendations to be forwarded to Council. HEARING DATE SET FOR CITY COUNCIL The Tigard City Council public hearing on this will be held Tuesday, December 16, 2014. OTHER BUSINESS —VP Fitzgerald brought up a concern that commissioners can sometimes be a bit uncertain as to how exactly to form a motion. She would like the commission to have more training on that. ADJOURNMENT Vice President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Cossion Secretary AT1 EST: Vice Preside Calist.4 tzgerald Page 8 of 8 ap ' liver Terrace RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN HEARING TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2014 Le islative Proposal g Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION 1 . Community Plan 2 . Comprehensive Plan Maps ➢ Land Use Designations ➢ Natural Resources 3 . Transportation System Plan (TSP) Le islative Proposal g City Council DECISION 1 . Community Plan 2 . Comprehensive Plan Maps ➢ Land Use Designations ➢ Natural Resources 3 . Transportation System Plan (TSP) 4. Park System Master Plan 5 . Funding Strategy DID.C7?,+ :T •c€WT:o *T.-.n°3 {��� DEcI IoN14121 ER I.I.I-',ER TERR CE INFRASTRUCTURE 1L IER PLANS Wit• L. ADOPTED ie.olntiou Cann d ^:er AD 07= Reso1'3tiou C7,tucI1 rG-1=7`7.C-L- ADOPTED Resohtioil Council Pmks I 1 a=.ei:Dec 2314 Resoliitiou Conned TLim5,crra xr�°5 Ta ei: 314 d rlir r.re :Planr„n Commission) oiIncal 111.3 41133116413.1.41[01MIEOW IMO ii IV;I IMAZIVIV,el;r:: River Tenace Tint,r,ing Commission) Tonight s Comprehensive Plan P1aiinir Commission) `I"arget.Dec 2014 Dstiinance Designations Map ,in Hearin g Natal Resource Maps Taret Dee 2014 Old; r, iitiin C N1�i171 o 11 Conned Normal 0 I"IX43I ".rif'NM€+Y.•"+1L*+11MJ}:?i°r MMk River Team Ta ett:Dec 2014 Re=.olntiou Co,um.l funding Strategy River Tenace : dminisaatisa Public Improvement Tait,Dec 2014 StafEReview City E nil Design Standards Citywide Stamis4ater : dminisimive Model and Standards Target Dec'01 StafEReview F+'tjfteet River Tenace ;PJN+i+iing Commission) Code A/nal:anW nrs Target Feb 2015 adiva€lce Conned Citywide Infrastructure Reso1uticon Financi g Project' Target=T,l1,X01.3 Oidir an e Council 0 k.A:.11 MI Cbr rig IX*:O A S*% IS 0 f' IZICiit!1+, Zoning Districts Map Target Feb M15 Osdiaiar°�e Commission) Coiinc51 River Terrace(RT) Adoption and Implementation Timeline October 2014DRAFT • II -;i re re 1 =n I ax= aorrs 1 am�rs ias :nisi rts ms I aous I I =n I = I au I aot�s I Z I area I atu I mu I atu V River Terrace Community Plan Adoption Commission Hearing 11/17/14 Council Hearing 12/16/14 •Community Man&Maps •Community Man&Maps •Transportation System Man •Transportation System Man I •Park System Master Plan •Park System Master Man Disclaimers. •vending Strategy •Primarily shows sequencing and relationships among events •Assumes absolute minimum Infrastructure Financing Project—River Terrace and Citywide amount of time for each event Council Briefing 11/18/14 Council Hearing 12/9/14 Council Briefing 2/17/15 60-Day SD C*Notice of Council Hearing 4/28/15 •Multiple factors will control •Water Fees •water Fees •Transportation Fees Methodology 2/18/15 •Transportation Fees actual timing and length of •sewer Fees •Sewer Fees •Parks Fees •Transportation Fees •Pacts Fees events.Examples include: •Storrmwter Fees •Parks Fees •Stontwater Fees -Hearing process •Stonmaatac Fees -Applicant readiness -- - I •System Development D,yr -Political elections -City resources River Terrace Community Man Implementation -Weather City Engineer Approval 12/14 Commission Hearing 1/15 Council Hearing 2/15 I I •PUblK works Standards .mriEnisei= •more Districts h •Stomw2ter Standards •Code Amendments •axle Ammilmettsa II • Land Use Applications PI-Month Minimum Duration)a e' Boidng&Ste Persrim •Free of Cost infrastructure. Permit Final •Recorded final plat required with permit submittal •some asPStance contingent h Aboiaal,Review& Approval' €e Meeting DProv+ •Sots determined at permit submittal and due at issuance upon adoption of new standards (1 month) Construction'(6 ina •Some site work possible prior to final plat approval &regulations (s months) (a months) (l month) at deMoper risk V V Clean Water Services I City of Tigard I I •PT North Sewer wmD Station I •550-Zone Water Improvements? I = • td- t r IX :241 6 c'r", 0 AM '6d + I Sc,ak-k-' 9if Fr' Y I 1., r 7,, In U_I 1111114i L±1 1 WALNUT .4 6. �l(f I ` 1 4 , - - ' BONITA U' i 1 o inn 4 1 p po,) 1111: u Roy a _ BEEF BEND DURHAM Wes! x MI River Terrace Plan Area — Tigard City Boundary i r!Nnd-Ri • Metro 2012 2014 2010 expands UGB • Metro to add Roy • Area 63 and expands UGB • County Rogers West • City accepts Roy Rogers • City to add Areas completes • Area 64 planning West annex to completes 63 and 64 concept plan annexes to responsibility City River Terrace (WBMCP) City for River Community 2002 Terrace 2013 Plan �' 2011 / Lon g Range Plan • Opportunity to create complete community • Balances diverse interests • Bull Mountain neighbors • River Terrace property owners • River Terrace developers • Future River Terrace residents? • Consistent with plans • Comprehensive Plan • Strategic Plan • Regional Master Plans • Funding decided by Council Plan Elements Community I Metro and State Vision 1 Requirements Variety of residential densities & housing options Neighborhood commercial center Multi-modal transportation system Natural resource protection Recreational opportunities Stormwater management Public utilities 1 . Community Plan 2 . Comp Plan Designations River Tern Compreive P Designations 1 a R 11 ..,„„,_ Er.'-' �.; ] rmce r `-1't _I II Comp rel3enseve Plan Designations Coonrnrtn�ry Corn merosl Medium Him-Denser Residential I I.. Medium-Density Residential illt t' ... Low-Density Residential Rs61x Insurunon . y — Existing Right-of-Way -- - _.- p Rixer Terrace Plan Area 1- (—la Tigard Cue Boundary A 1i at � �III, .r. . 3, , '1,11LM'I,1 T i ,_ "_._. , ..,. ___ . .. , ./,,,,thig. 4. i ____, .... „ ,... ..,....,A - R Liati"htli 1 1 t .:I 1 - - - - r 1 -. 1 -_. Al VI: 1 i, 1 .1,,....:,.,,,, " A I 1i 2 . Natural Resource Maps „ T g i er 1 errace Wetlands and Riparian Areas i►9 Terra'i -_.. I' — - . SigniSicancrVedand Jr' _.1,' _ ■ ( CVWS Yegexbced Carrier .'+-! __ 11 sp, : 7 Waxer J Exaun�Righxad-Way 14— IP t] River Terrace Plan Area 61 Tgard City!kwndary t t r, j T � mI :■ ' -' 1 11 ° �x� K`re.TI ' :1• cwt.'s,.iiii.x1.. ..r.r 1 1I Ao.I.Ii 1 i LL adult}k IM -�,■ d141i w ! 3' Ia I�Uj�......e.� �'ry�, �or snrr��l� litln,liti ad,.--._.�_ M.. II a . Ill L4T1L a:1 d + `r M les J r VP, 41 HI ,;,1,4' apjfii,,,,,a _ r__ ___, bi _ i ..„ .1, _, 1 I — —_ —1_nEtr al=•Nn Ro 1 --.:I-.= I I _.. 11■. - ,]Nye 3 . Transportation System i . rver Terrace Transportation Improvements Plan ..- I e I Silce.P Existing Improvements t omer iMterial -`'"r-" - - " ea I ,r Collecc.or I I i Neighborhood Route - 1 ' Ill ii ii el I� Recommended Improvements 4 a ` — � "Collector �_ l '' 1 t --"Neighborhood Ratite 1. •� �• � Traffic Signal rM1y 1{ ' ROLInd9�o L I.... A d, y. "' _+ Connection-to Existing Sweet rc K� Connection-to Fuwre Street - � A , I 0 —River Terrace Trail I _n —Southern Access Trail „ �k `` - .�k, ` LlsalUVH4AIR k() � ' e U- � r FSS [Yrg Right-of-W4 1 �`, ly I� Revel-Terrace Ran Ares � I Tigard City Boundary k ' ^- .. • t .. d d I i Nes dm t t -. Gn.-mtla BovastuT r tie mci-ionn_ + ..I aae.un.....,.e hrL=plan al _ L _ �noymxe spa".,,al a�ax-a1 D D.125 Ea .. 1 f FrH ENb+.Rn EEr�s[N9�Ib" Miles 13.EE k.9.ERG.Rb r Recreational Opportunities River• Terrace Community Parks I i' er Terrace Neighborhood Parks 9f a mow. •• SGnp1L .... a .yy �cS �� ` ••r Ir•• + -- ,C"1j °.J�!` StkbiLS F///kRAY nn —t"p— • • Conceptual Park Locations I I • ••• • . &acre Communay Park I Conceptual Park Locations l • ,` l-acre Neighborhood Park. _� • • 17.-acre Community Part. " .7_— • L� _ • M•.a �L t �3-acre Neighborhaad Park �t ■ • Northern 5ervjce Area. ,_�• ! �Il#MlIe Service Area ■ O Southern Service Area — _• _ E using Right-of-Wap Exss oog Right-o(-Way I • : In Rifer Terrace Plan Area • kjver Tehrace plan Area• • ry [} Trgard City Boundary •_.si • • TigarC Guy Boundary _"' _ • �- - • - Final peak location:d[ atoned Find park loeauws determined ••.... • ,�� al the time of crtg acquisition or . I _ at the [ a q ion or (�] aez-elapet aet�eatioD. + derel pe cl location \.J • ... — 1 -- ethic•r blehkiH kED g Et Li_MOUNTAIN Rt] ••.• i••• . iI.. , 6 / I r--rc l 4 r-- .1. .„, ., .- II ` ,+� 1 1 DI 1 ,_.I It �- i i -; C iI „� I A , '. A r:r SEND Rn 0 6.125 !].25 6EEF eES❑ no 4 D 6.125 625 '� Miles — Mies 0 Stormwater Management & Public Utilities Legend Strategy Area A Strategy Area g ■ Strategy Legerxd Area iC • Blimp. River Terrace station Boundary ® North wain ■ South Basin I-I River Terrace Boundary Legend LI Stormwater - 43.02 tie S ZOne 713 Zone Sewer BorerTerrare Boumdary Water WBMCP Plan Refinements • City LOS standards applied to parks/trails • Stormwater conveyed to Tualatin River • River Terrace Trail integrated w/ River Terrace Blvd • Arterial greenway trails eliminated • Signal recommended at Scholls Ferry Rd • Street connections retained w/ modifications Public Liver Terrace Transportation Improvements 9t %z- • River Terrace Blvd - "�� �� #j - + Existing Improvements. 7sdufr.a I + ! + Ds i i Arterial I I-` � —`etor • R i ve r Te r ra c e Trail A • �Neighborhood Route — ■ t e Recommended l m prove ments � ..r Collector .•r Neighborhood Route • Schol Is Ferry signal �_ I 0 Tragic Signal a Roundabout A ' Connection to Existing Street ft =e Connection to future Street `. —Rtver Terrace Trail —Southern Access Trail • Street alignments ; �uu6ruuwrain� Existing RrverT race Plan Area I Tigard Ctty Boundary • Intersection 111 Yy i treatments _ `„ i 1 • Street connections •+ --- -r ��Urban Y ,,j Glvad.>m�,>ue�mod, 1 a. vx mnwmmdtd by due plan as , or des xxgoixue:pecslapp¢wai r 0 0.125 0251 r t.,x,BE?OWN n E0;0 END..9;0 Miles + 13LEF rlenti r,eu Recommendation Project Team & SWG Recommend Approval 1. Community Plan 2. Comprehensive Plan Maps ➢ Land Use Designations ➢ Natural Resources 3 . Transportation System Plan (TSP) * *SWG recommended approval w/ caution ADDITIONAL INFO River Terrace Blvd I11�'tT' IL'T1 .[L'L' R .IItl1lllunity P1.111 p 1 7 -.1,;100.111 �lti 1Pw4'll I 1`;1.11 +1'11;1111,11 ..ti`+Z1"1r1 --•6 �`' I West Bull Mt Concept Plan I -#.1 Recommended Roads 1 1 1eca,,,�. ..,..,.nr,aepnrla # r • I 1. 1 ��■Prow-mad Tfyi1 �� .. l ^' ..-:Pfapaswd CallwdOr Sta rt I n t all 1 t !' t ���r - - - pYapaascd Nalvighharhuad Rofr I *1 s - I - Neighborhood Route —0 1 11 t�' I Colleuar 1— 1 1 0.46 F —MOW . r� i.,, GrmmuniryMan Are' , Po nt + . �� ; '''‘ii . 2E 0:4 I , + Nn . 1 1 - ":W (WBMCP) i _ . ,!. -)J , . 1 ''4 r IRIP1'I'r 111. 0. •a` t r -*M 0 rlr.- 1 1 A . 1 1 . M I, s .F i 1 1 +I�.. 1 1 F 1 F - ` A 1 - e -It 1 F 1 t.i. a aY 1 • -_ r..* A 1.r 1 _1_ N 1 gyp IP f 1 1 ., 1 1 •w . F i a 0 s • s River Plan Refinements • Reclassified (warranted by traffic volumes) • Straightened (significant tree grove protection) • Retained Trail (SWG preferred over Arterial Greenway Trail) • Integrated Trail (land & cost efficient) Signal at Scholls Ferry Rd (separate but related issue) • Reduces impacts to existing neighborhoods • Reduces out-of-direction travel • Facilitates ped/bike connectivity and safe crossings .River Terracie Transportation Iniprovenients ,..,..,P.,, mss` is - –J –E — y Elke,Ved l Existing Improvements t Onlg ''Amaral S - - I na 1 ,, "1 I r - '—CalErector � f !Neighborhood Roue i t Recommended Improvernerats ■.=J i Collector _ ! --.Neighborhood Route ..'_J–.. •t.. i TraF.i€Roundabout_ _ (] Pro O a t Connection to Existing Street 1 Connection to Future Street —1 -'• - —Raver Terraa€eTrawl - —Southern Access lxlst Right-o ( RTCP) R - r3ll eLx.M{rtl HiFAIHrm. � River Terrace Plan Area fils Tigard City Boundary '4: ••-. ••-d I l I ,1. Y [I • • .. V. • __ ___, :;,es saem the Urban !i -—s: 2 G H®imd.r r are tact,:.. ,y _ . 1 "±.0: -- w ur daF iecmre:pee&appeacal 1 C ®.125 1125>` q . 1 ¢_FgENXSwrgo- sEE'r+!E EN D∎t Miles 1 _ i3 Ers.E E N t...010 I . ttx,' .. . 0,-...'... • ', _., • c. , '7 .... '..... , . 'C',. .,'' • ,. . L-4, .., ... t-,...? .; ., 1.-r....- t. t7. 1°' ..'-` V; C: r---‘' ($ a„.• Ati, ,.C:: • ' . ..:...c:_•'-' L.I. 4::,4..:: ..i,„:: C, '... r. tif, v -,14 Potential .•. _ -,-. . 1 , . „., , ._ .,.. . __ • . .. _ .. ., •• • . " , , . ..„ . . 0, . .. , Site , . _ . .. . __ t ......; .0. ...._ . ; %. iir.'''' . C 1 g --- I .,.., . ,;. .. . ,,,,- ',. r • 'IC ..— , '• %, il• .A. .; Design ._... , . - - . . 4„. „ ... . , .4 ..,% , ,.0. , . c 1/2p-i. ..: L. 1. m ■ . 4... 6..) 1 -... t. 1,' .........71 -M.-. a. . 1 51:7 , .. , . . . 1=f .. . "... : .. 1., ++ .7. _.. ,, C • • All■ , a .,- . •... ;17 •SI . ; .----...k ' - : .. 7..-„....-... ., ,- ., c lit 1 ilk. lig 4 T .: C , ... - • ' '. ' ..' . .1,i4 IL-1.,„ .' ' '- 2.-". ' ' ' ' ''' , t-::::ill' . :. .L . . 111:MillipF7-, .„ ... _4 .... 203 5 River Terrace �.� - f1 —Dour- Volumes ri Uric ta- i a vziLrele P FT '5 hI i.AP I E —. P1 II E ✓ I i m t:':: :a• a • f i 1 7 I A 1 FINAL DESIGN CONCEPT •,, .,. . . , : ..,, " , •. , _.,g .„, , ., Ak. r..... \ ......... _ .. . - . , - ,.. .• ..... , . .. . ,, 9... ;,40..,:.,.. - J,_ --- ott......173'. -.: ____ . , „, . .,.;.. . ... ,.,.... ..„,,,,,,k . .. f. „.,„. ,.„:„ .„7.,,,.. . ...„... .,. ,.....,,,...)„, ,,..... ..., . . .. . i, „. .i. '. ...j,. _ • . F - 111a : 44) ._-'1,4;.,,.' • , . ,„ .,-,-' zi.,,,,c. ;. i - . . -. = _ „.'.,7 . .=.,.' ' • -„ ' ',ear. -...L.0 - 0 _ 1 _,,,_ - •''','..1,,. .' •_ 1.' , ir . , fir ' --- - .,■14%.4 .4/ 7.1, ' + .. ..” !.. i 11 All IL . :.t., ... ... /- 1 7 I a ..:Vb.. r. 6111111' K.' , b' ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS Clear Regional Clear Stormwater Facility Clear Zone Trail s re Zone ` • _*Cyr !III • . I 1. 3' 2' 85' 2' 4.5' 12' 4.5' 3' 46' t f .. it #I �.+.. /s. c _ 3' 12' 2' 4.5' 71 4.5' 3' 33, 4 i L I n' 95 • •{r • I + �, r II .I . _, . h _ _ .. 10 11* ..a.. # I I I 6 1,,"•_ 4 } r II II 4 ... _ _ il sr i . • s Y, z. % — . Vil 1 • . , . . 1111 '4'' • -1!•1110 ''- - ..k A '''' .: 4 -* 'It " '1•11, ''''''..1.7'- ;4' ••, ... • ' "A. .:* 1- ,',• . 1110kr• 0- '+'. . .e 4 " •Witki tr.1- 1 . Oil • - in? -.... .mu..,_ • ... 4alk --• 41• ,. rit .... . _.. A _ fir • .._ ,.-.. . .... -.... ... " - ....., 7, 111 "MIN slob ... A , 150th @ Fr. Prairie Estates - - IP■•• *ft, • ■•••• • I '• g •/ III Ir 1 0 ft SI • j I 1 ,;,...:::::::''''s.---r V ` it S � 4ift -_ ..i 1 Jail,. . ..... " , . .ri . . . ....„0 11 • Is + _ __ : r, ,. , ' i ' x i , r+k * ._-.0.=•• . 44''. .;, 4116kL- --'4'h r •t 4. i d. 'II\ill , } • i Roy Rogers @ Sherwood A .. I I\\ IVA ... A j I --Fir # • y/ It b, 11 • <R i M R 25 ft. 'Wo. ., . L A}' • - -•44 IC p f - •.,,,., ., NI : 0:1 sp:.! iA- WI! L ' i - r r..4" . r t. '' 11 or-'41" • . '',.. . . . . . ''1 f,'::i •V(_ .J :tit 5.*• cr.,. 4 1 er. .-.• ,_ .,:4 ' -;, - .. :, .- , • ... .. .„,.. . . imr, i 1, 1 _ witrislisi lr.idinta- _ "- ,. • beim* ._ -00„.4. .. „ . s •- , . .„......00„. Wilk ' --- eliam•Tik..w...imi- - -t--;.04. .pili- - - , . . 4 4 .,. I , _ . . I •, . , I.- i'$••••• , ! lik Kruze Wy @ West Lake . ., . a i 14 - .•11 ,, , . • 1.... .. . . --, --,-- • ' --•;7— '—• . I .14 a• ft* —., . . . 4 Al ■ii mel , Mei P 11111111."'' r ., 1 I ,1 off 50 ft. ,. _ \N. \ . \ '':. ...e ' ' ' T 4 ., ., , , 0,.., si \ • Thos V41;-: a. , , ...,,,,,,,,,, „. . , 11 wig \ 4 \III, b. , \i. is t ?` � i. River Terrace Boulevard: center Corridor -I -- i -;? k.: 1 4 ; IZA - Y \ 1 .- "... I- / . ... ., I . ‘'.. . ' • . a ■ • AI, .:. Si. . ....... -a 410 4 .., t II., 410_.. A . ....•' .... \ : • 'a .:Ft ;. ••■ .... ... \ . •.-' 1 i i . ; .%. . 1 1 v \ .. . ..- . . I . k i .- , , .. • , ._. .. J _ • 1.11 I • . ,, -. l• • 2 51 In e: • • . - iik, Egi - ks • , .._ ,.. •Vita•- . .- 1 . . ii, ' ' . ' • . . - • 1 N• .0.410 • rk \ ‘ .a . • - . ..,. . 7•• 14• 'a4ai4 ll r e ,,G..... 4:-' _. 91c• r a. ..' .•.-'_.- i a liN Ak .4 t a 7 1 . . '• . .. , . ,... . At. -•-• . .. ..-- . • 1 0 st. ,. I, : s ... S 0 River Terrace Trail (formerly 300- Foot Trail ) ■ se 1 J Ali u J 1 n y tartan 4 .�.w wias • . i ai... . :•M �� � _�� Point X. 1 4 uur •� 11.+ i' �, ! ii.A 1 4.4 r f ■�i ei, ; , izi . ,.. .' a i�� / tea` a ti",...i•L-46.12A, •i � it "fir “ i __ _, . ., , SIN i 1 ,:=.wim .�. (WBMCP) --- 1 ti u T swi K 1�4.:*3 >. .�. _, !A4 f taliiI �i !, a 1 ■ fi f�ajiTi ii ili ii,- .1; 0 411 ' VW ' j :4- mi yi OH I., IIil;iuc1 j r 1111 $61 it v . - + �i �I , 1 " a. 1 rt 300 - Foot Trail • Generally follows the 300-foot contour elevation (beginning at 150th Ave in the southeast quadrant of Area 63 and ending at Scholls Ferry Road) • Is generally flat and easy to walk and/or bike • Connects the entire planning area • Consists of off-street and on-street pathways • Provides access to several community focal points (including the future school and neighborhood commercial center. . Legend ".15a. ,_•'S - - Rive.Terrace 5tudyA-ea r'rowse'd Sk.ret ,4' i"''l , I I Netts!RescKrce Area r ], Proposed Trails F' r• R1we-Trace - .. Seth Cdoper Mocntail .r ;.1 w., . Regional CorKtec6ons I - ,;f} ii 925 c • Final rdIIFE R "-.a r�# Proposal r ' 14I ( RTCP)1,........... , . % . i. \ „ , '''',:.0 . ..., ...- i yti.+ i' un a .-,,,,,_,,,i 1IG , vi 17. t '.0, r+ilIr. j . : -- r. . . _..1 " -4 n Tar "dl —J' 9n j M'' .;, UTM. t d Ca cL .a. .v_�LStx},L ° —Ta a3g'Ral''4la u al-a !c =. x�'1I �� _r .i4 L.L jEti w. .,s '7 . f River Terrace Final;rail alignments may change I . Parks and are subjecato final design, 1/11111 .•-* - C .'' 1 arks Master plan engineering.arEdpermlEling- + ;OAR' $> Trails anmF::cioPo i.. out Cooper Mountain Community Plan ,._.. , rnimi i rarer nerniurrein • - plane+.ri-are-a--"- ."' "i".i'"i''''..""1-.' Elan'''';"'1''. . - - _._ _ -Elementary E.ctic.D.' nlam.r...7 area. 0 0 hi . ..* . .. . . 4- .i. i . . . .. . k [ Ulm Ph313ciacci High ^, Mill f Proptiaed High '.. AIM illIgli- sk 117 PI SdIDDI SiW . AKI Tr14•5"5 iFi. .. • !ieincial Silt. %i"meiraecrriisTriu$.10.1 ill _ 0 - ------- _ ... .,Wertz. Ide Trail i. .• 1 — , _ • , J I • ' grol lir";1.13 • 1 %4. 46,,.10 Sdiool to Sch o 13 Trai I 411%._21" r .a ..` Se _ i RrpeirilTa:rruraec:Trarail il mil am• I 4Vilik, 4.'7151 413' C n Plan Pa vposed Residents So/m0 Regional trails and greenways Metro 41 • vuKOma yr„.:C'A , aIHN La r T / \ POPPJIIO IBMS NM C.C.-\ ,' \ • \ xILLSCNO ,r ` a - Wwrn trw ) •.( r _.1) nrrtrr M1r LO r,.. `1 _11` OM / - Wtw 6Y / i Itl2110 Ws WM=• KW TM r. s 1 \ 1 — 'Ie'< (au 1 wawa �p yy'I' `-a Y Pr.An1 Mall Varna Ma .. \ b mM1M1 ISY / l M.a.ees.lS 1 by Sea lot S.0440 W.W.IC n IryaeOla ]A kelp IacateY MOp:.rnrml 1st Y M less Is I U61.414 Carr SY L%Y.lw ■Mar Or lY I Cu .tN b SIBS bowl.fY 31 111111.414 df US X 11.10..1r• I?O..Won Mw.III 44 SO..NI Si'ANC IS SS?.• MOOaaw S M...W.IM t Gamut IsnrCeormps O Fero O..I'd %1+YCSbII1.0.a Sir II Wow 0-44 1. it Poetk a ate I.Y AS bwnn l.. S:sa.f.W ty to Stltl.Wfbd 4 Nan.Ina Ise T Cbv.T Jay14C C Yee Oa.to S man,M RY h.I D.Wp.r 1.41 Si Anna Own IN Si,fn.+Y1CV*fiY Si'v.Carte tN 42 B4lw1s fed 4 Ir¢e at Stn.IY V.C.aq Ya.b.if II Clenranrl let M.11• kCMW ds-6...r 9.YL.O.a 4••Y Al bid beak IY 4$Mary Mw Owa.1 SI YM.taws lM 01 IMMO.SI i ktOOY.>Ww.m 1, ti Coq Cam St 20 aim W.IS :I.SLS IM SI Wall laCt.f Al..tile So G Xmas Banat f.0 Si,f.Y1/.LY 11 Memo!It F I:rm.0.✓e l.. v CnMM he T 141044 M141 M.IMM SS.WiOIYr..a..rwl C MamsO.ab4 Al M'iPY ft SS toy.C.o.e IN bMnr040avr 'µ.ae..2na..av b P. aw YlnaC..i.nn�.W.M O S ne_'•s4 Ys: alP 4$t flwtYeOaMaM14 IS T#d..Motet.IwS e C P a h Map 5 Segment 2 & 3 Secondary Rou - - - Crex era Grp .i_tyof Tigard 7, _ ---___ e _.- - __ i Secondary route- River Terrace 1 300-foot Trail i I � II \ . , - II, �� ■ i j'�e- : ( ..,-„,r.,-,,.. ft- 0 1pi l -77," GtYx __ _., 'JJestSi de Trar Rtt::mmeeCed Al gnmeet 'Mew Regwn Potental All illustrated alignments 0440 Mu¢.-r.�e: �i bosun Westskde Trail I. Tra ,earls ✓� Wetlands ,,,,',V PoweArles&Towers r..z 'Solt state. Ouwr Tra,s CO P°t„enc [ Taxlots Streams subject to change based Viewpo'v+is ,1„,,Onstream X MdbkxkCrasvgs j Schools Parks and natural areas tb foot contours on final design, permitting, Potental Prase *�Bridge Wetland crossoss ❑ kgtoratnns (—� Pmatey awned /Ns/City Bwndanes and engineering. - Recommended Access Max:Stream Crossets Li P"bkNO1A1Ad /\/Co.-+e Boundants ` ._ v','d`to ,, j t \r Connector Paths - Ls . • = ate ,(1'..j. ' - I-1 ! _! -�� I - - ji..1 I _f �+ i - - i w F - i i en a `° � a - - w (Beal ;(AW) -'- Im �� .1 . I' \.,gin U 0 14 4,V U._ -- - �3Y lr Different from a local or neighborhood trail, a regional trail : • is typically separated from roadways with curbs, plantings, or other barriers • crosses neighborhood lines to connect cities, parks, and other trails • can be a destination itself Source : Metro Regional Trail Plan Greenway Trail i _. ......„.. b �4. Ilnn nau c.9 m'. Jt :a'XtlrNl Ve„ w9';:rrr.„ �: .� T..4. S "11 llllll 1�1 � � an. 1.__11_S L[ r ���ll'' l - O •4F- mPF 1__:ui ♦ 1 . tip AI:-lie-WW1 _ . •o NIIYIIN��. 1 �1. .M �-_R. lilt I..�~61 is lil'�ra P- I 110 .�� — �\ : `i E 'wag 6111 ■■ fir. V. Imia L �ti 04" ¢ ..�J�"a • IZ , ,4 r•- %cude111.1 r,1 ego`.E 1:, i • ! ".., a'it'.: • -7- :.1{ _ig ll ��: „1 V ra r , ■ jra. �7 Colik., W SIP l i .art mei 42 � ur�im( unu ll, ., i 411"1.:. Ill MPG _um:0 H . '0 laille, �t .� V 1--;'.. I ROY ROGERS GREENWAY TRAIL (WBMCP) The Linear Greenway consists of a linear multi-use pathway and, when appropriate, linear stormwater facilities. This amenity will provide opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel completely around the planning area and extend their travels (east along Scholls Ferry and Beef Bend Roads) to existing and future regional trail opportunities, such as the Westside Trail. For concept planning purposes, the greenway is shown as a 50 foot-wide corridor; however the actual width of this feature and placement of the pathway may vary. Source: West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Arterial Street Greenway Trail Analysis Factors Considered Details WA County position Not included in Scholls Ferry widening project. Not in future Roy Rogers ROW. Stormwater facilities Nodular not linear. Trail needs Proposal exceeds standard by 1.34 miles w/o greenway trails. Linear park needs Greenways total 14 acres, which is 6 acres more than what's needed for entire area. Cost-benefit analysis Cost of purchasing/developing land for greenways /trails outweighs benefits. • Uses up all linear park "budget" • Duplicates River Terrace Trail • Not centrally located siodte, 1 i. _ Arterial Road Section a 5,1 ,3d‘mnia."21 trimproimalll0 . 5 = 111.11.111 ali - - ' 30s. . ._ , _ ... s 0 % , c s 5:1 IIAL ) • .4D e o 4. o o cc 7: —6'-t— —6--0--0—E F——G——E——E—.—D——LELE' §::—....g0- K— ION. MN. I MIN. KIN. P ... KO ,E. •i 13 • I . I SIDEWALK EASF.MBIT RURAL CR INTERIN i u 4E44 o t --: ,-, t t o i e NOT DRAWN 70 SCALE Road WaShington Right of Way Paved Width Number of Bike Lane/ Curb Travel Travel Center Turn Parking County Paved Classification — Designation (Feet) (Feet) Lanes Shoulder Lane Lane(s) Lane Al lowed A 8 D A E F G S 08 _ 1 122 90 7 6 12. 12 12 14 . NONi n ArtenaIS A4 os 74 3 6 12 12 14 NONE 2-.7 c A-) 90 60I ' • 6 12 12 0 NONE S5c€ _A-4 90 50• 3 6 0 12 14 NONE 815gd; 'GUM SHOWERS ANDWM ALLOWID MR MESE wrOtn Caa Svuomo WON SEMEN ci e E I RU.E.5 REQUIRED OUTSIDE 01 R/N If SHOLILDEKs no DEEM ARE USED F it 0.2.5 Ow NOW 3123800:00 Ratty Destnotof ks 0038181101 by OW COWS'S ble4POlattet**Old OW lane we*Sim ai 0 Sce AppenSces A ant/nor maps c 1 Ctregy erect hems It 1 0 ID 0 1 USER PREFERENCE, TRAVEL SPEED AND VOLUME Washington County Bicycle Facility Design Toolkit TABLE 1.* There is a significant impact on cycling comfort when the speed 60 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REQUIRED differential between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic is high and motor vehicle traffic volumes are high.To narrow the range of so facilities appropriate for a given roadway use Table 1.Applicable to both the rural and urban setting,Table 1 illustrates the appropriate facilities that may be considered at various speed/volume =40 PROTECTION LEVEL thresholds.To use this table,identify the daily traffic volume on the -. 0_ ••••crcLETRACK y-axis and travel speed on the x-axis for the existing or proposed t •••BUFFERED BIKE LANE roadway. Depending on the inputs,the roadway context will fit =30 ••BIKE LANE into one of three categories,1,2,or 3.Within each category the 8 available facility types have been ranked in order of their level of 6 20 protection.Select the facility with the highest protection level and m proceed to STEP 2 where potential roadway modifications are 10 identified to accommodate this type of bikeway. 9 INCREASING 0 PROTECTION 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • + G w v 8 a1C�Nf; '► PROTECTION LEVEL :A Nrd L _ �Fs ,•Q•••BBIUKFE FLAEREND E BIKE LANE w � + 7 =- 2 e G:::•SHOULDER BIKEWAY • eoutEV ""-G = 6 • • • 2 --'' .. BUFFERED a '1 LANE a 5 cn• :i7- aS, 8 t - • .,,lL. 4• • BIKE LAN t , . • 3 NOWT x LEM • BUFFEREDB ELANE )))_ 2 ••* • 1 -mot•- - _ - / L/Nf • - �/ - .--- •• • r 0 T BICYCLE •• Ne BIKE LAN l � ..CYCLE TRACK BOULEVARD slANED A LANE 0 MAACIMSS• i i 7 'Speed and volume thresholds based on the London Cycling Design U 10 20 U 30 40 50 60 Standards,ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide(2011)and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide 85th-percentile speed(preferred),design speed,or posted speed(mph) Bike Lane Buffered Cycle Track Cycle Track Bike Lane /pkg) (w/curb) a—co- Ilm ad*Dhotis i-L 0 1111 Mil I - 'I i - L MI \ IJ c II J 1.■=. ■ .. ..= ■._ .1. _ ..d1SAMI..■ ■ . 41 - _ , ,* A 1111 PT . . . .. _. o I of, • ' ma ! INF , ,.„,.. . a .,,,.„. . . I Oil Bike 1 Side- Him 1. Side- E ke T Lane Imo Walk Travel Lime 1. ure Wail( -Dad Lau- LiAe2 • 71511t1 LEM .7,•..... ::21• nr r A Ire 1 .4•1111111.1,11191111111111111.191, - -111111 ,01 -- dr 4 - d OP AP Ar 0- Air it liotip - 414"4-7(11._ 4111111111141."21it'-4.- This iaisad u cd crio track in Soot A raised cycle t rack Conallis Oyacjoin Oregar socisross bicyclist,and *OA;Ito inialliensaardessiv mu>du 111011011113 U mei lana whim srosswiry FINAL PROPOSAL • Elimination of Greenway Trail in favor of River Terrace Trail • Recommendation for buffered bike lane or cycle track along Roy Rogers Rd for highest level of bicyclist protection • Recommendation for high-quality edge treatment along Roy Rogers Rd to unify and define River Terrace Luke Lane Connection 14.1.11 6- si I IP I ..,J. — -- , Efir.e/Fed at L R. t N 1 I iii ' ,-...J P Irc. ' 1 I j ' . .071 ...--1 T_ 1 _le , •...b ...,■ j . ,.i DEvvBENy f .N4- '-'■-1 j j .- .....' ..r .-i ...i —I —I-1 m :• • . a , 4... , . -11 --J ....,, .,,j i ..I j j 4,. • _ .4 , 01: - ,..,,, 1/4,.s ' I rt4 ,, , ,../ _, ,_,,Go JJ_L, "--Tr-- w I ' /.J1 4 - __ , ...b ,...' # ....r'10 .-.1 -1` ....1 J J - I ' J I ) ,,.. -.I 8 1 ,_:. .,-1 ...., -J 1, 11 • 1 . ...5:.. -7. I j,i U., . •," '11 -11 i 1 lerj '' ...;' i7L - M111.-M1111143PUNITA IN•.R 0 rn r.c - . -- , ....; —, j_.1-J , ... I,. Li , i i 1—I..."1 --)g j --' ---ijI '72- J I --` ...1 -1 _1 .._t r 7.....d.7. 1 I 1 .1. I E. tio.,,s:r.t.::'.7:,I, . l+ 1 r 455 ' 23 ,l i- „ w 0 A:..t_.:! x''', ''' ..tha' . ., , _ a J 1 L.' m1 3' r 1.316 I4 .380 _- x :°. �}i::r . •.4k57'e�r .5��, f ! ' 14 ~ �RI t`n1 `�h.•', -"x-.z' � ,x ..�:Gr .+k. y 3101 .tl- . . ras • =hP-y-„: ". �'' ac,. ,: - + 131 .... w j�F �'�- :('•+ R t f... 6iwtpn �?P T�ri-: l•- `-/ z � ` 'R� t . t M � v4 ^\4' 7 1 /_ + i '7'S A.;.-� .. i ter r ..-, ee , \ IT . 'Q d4� '� b - 2� .�r'��'. ?`. .� f7 F iii Y-.. N; w 'r i 7P: u•K . ..,..,•• . :• . .. rr_.Y , ,•fi2,1A..NT - , f.. r`�' ..:_ , r.Y' 16361- . "lir..-7---".- , W1 Ij ? 1 . ' - •-'2;- , . . • • ix -1 c..“*.,'C' „.,‘,. ‘ • .• , . I 1 • A: ''`•.**,, A p •,3 ,- ----.• AL, . , 1. , -...e:'....• , - . , . • • Sr:e'de . 1.".i•00E- 4 aL. •._ , • i k ,.... ' . PIY -11. •. :")4 4n '....^:c- ' I."'' -..1 • , st. ;,... 1/4 11/4, • tari"• -:..- '40 . .: . :." '• - -- .11, . . ,, , 4 , . ...,11 'IM .' l', - r Ik. -., ..,...• . i--:- - .':.4,'. .‘ .. . 13.1■'-- i•-^ , :',i;"-......' _ , .. s'e- --" -*-•- ..,, ..:41..:+:1-jr tv '• • .L• .•, .1.. a P ' ts.-e".-.` -■Ter i'la'"..... . ' -}4r.i4.1 ' '' *Sp ' ' •-4! .., '....,,-,•-:::.;,..,-., ,-fr.‘,1 .4, T. 4,- , a • a . ,i•-..,2--,-...--...V.::-1..„.(1, k-,;do;i 4 _ Sf _ ...,,, ,:.... , • , „_...... ,. .c.n.,; „ .7 ,c , a - . _ ir _ ..,. : .-.,.. 7„,,,c__ , , ,.., , _ _ .. -‘,..,... .. ., 10, _ tic. ,. i "•' fl r MEI IIIII - i _:, • Tr • '''.!.i. . - 4•1 7 '4r, -4- kr• '19; .4% , • ;. , I PI - _ 3,.. ,.„.......a,..- .„.-N„..,..-..,.:`,,. ..c":-24 . 1/44,kt 4F: • A • ' it . ,fi ,., gl,./ " l I.. f S. •:.pa) 1 e; I '.' 1+.'. .-. • t. k • r - . ,r 11: ' ii. 11'1 •...: ..t b, — - . 1 lw "21 4, 3:tk e ' • 2e Feet • ..: 111•tet•NS.;1\S. 3:::17_ i Or 16, 1 ... _ . 0 -It "--.64T --- I 2 I 4- II■i =WIWI • ° its Z/Ei S.F ' 2�W $ 109_1:722 W S $708'85'' S a19'53'35'W 147.00 y $ 7gt9 a 74.00 • 73.00 7t.t9 3 N 14 INITIAL POINT } 7 15 g 7,723 S. USETT 073 2 CRASS S ISK O 1 V 1 l 1A 1 16 $ 8,187 S.F. z //ES01//4 CCORNER } 8,906 S.F. 8 a 8,733 S.F. g 8,266 S.F.$ a rt�a SECTION 5, T.2S., R.1W., W.�1. SEE NOTE 11, SHEET 2 a, z EMERGENCY z 1_ .04 C17 n VEHICLE i—— TURNAROUND sot ■ x - \EASEMENT C19 s gg,Og 74. TRACT '13' L�37.38 1144 3sz7 74,30 35. 0 C20 . �W . , . 5 7g50�r V x 42' STRIP RESERVED N S 8759' 5"W 110.00 C4 -t� 6. t 59.78 OR STREET PURPOSES ti' 14 :23 N °g 47.57 ; 62.43t%80.3'1 yt 89 �} w a 21.18 0 !T C22 200 L 73.97 ?' «i X633 1:•34.01 t-5t.{5 , $ 157 S.F g _ EMERGENCY Z' 05 VEHICLE 15' St z ' TURNAROUND 4, 2 1 ,N 8,806 S.F. 8 1 9 LI g 'g 8,539 S.F.N g r : g 20 1.: g 8,508 J.F. „., rn y g 13 WEST T UNE 1 ' 8,067 S.F. 15 SOE i r 06. Y 74.00 1 . ' 70,00 0 70.00 � 09.10 $ 69'59'356W 223.10 1: Pavement = 28' 1 �_- ROW= 42' I 2: Pavement = 32' Big , 1 - -;.. ROW= 44' o - a 4-0 3: Pavement = 32' 4 2 :t:ROW= 44' o 4: Pavement = 24' N P ROW= 46' LAM W 5: Pavement = 30' " ROW= 46' 0 .. —- 8LILksiieV IFAIN�F3,b 6: Pavement = 28' :4ini.Finii1 1-:, _ 1 R 50' �i': w� .. °�" ai � 7: Pavement = 32' , .6 7 ROW= 46' (Average = 29.4' & 45.4') -----_,,,--- -SchrflIS.Ferr..,..,;-T 7 [ — --- Li -I- L r 1 ; ; ; >- ,Th. . 411111111111 r i t-c: ) r-- --T---) ----- --_-31 - __::- j-- ---H - ! 4 Ii r . --i-- . 1----- I . -1 , i ! 11 - ---1 ;1-_______, __ _r L 1 F-----_1_.1 I -1 I-- _ -j -- ,„, .1___ :-"-,, - . -II 1 r .--i 152 1=7=11 -j -- '. - ' I- -),___Tr i > =7,_1_, • L____') LI I ! 7 iik Luke Lane Extension i_l___1- ---i r-T-T-1--) \ 1 -1 _.1J i---- Viv -- • Provide local connection 1-71-) Nr-,_,-------i----- • Provide emergency access ilk • Discourage cut-through traffic by circuitous routing and recommended signal at RTB/Scholls ® PORTLAND,OREGON SEATTLE,WASHINGTON MILLER NASHLLP VANCOUVER,WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON • ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM 340E U.S.BANCORP TOWER FM S.W. FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 OrFICE.503.224.5858 EA),503.224.0155 Kelly S.Hossaini kelly.hossaini@millernash.com (503)205-2332 direct line November 17, 2014 BY HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: River Terrace Community Plan Dear Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to provide additional testimony on behalf of Tigard-Tualatin School District("TTSD") regarding the draft River Terrace Community Plan. TTSD is grateful to have been a part of the planning process for the Community Plan and would like to commend staff on a job well done. TTSD was part of the concept planning process at the county level for this area and believes that the City has done a good job carrying forward the substantial work that went into the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan. As you probably know, TTSD owns 20 acres in River Terrace, which it plans to use as a school site in the future to serve the needs of River Terrace and surrounding areas. TTSD is currently engaged in a facilities planning process that will last through this school year and will help TTSD better plan for future district needs, including identifying facilities that may be required on its River Terrace property. The need for a new school on TTSD's River Terrace property will be mainly driven by growth in the River Terrace area. At this point, Alberta Rider Elementary and Deer Creek Elementary are more or less at capacity and as new homes are built in River Terrace and new families move into the area, TTSD will have to be able to respond quickly to provide additional school capacity. TTSD is concerned that it will not be able to provide the new school facilities that will be necessary to serve this new development in a timely manner, because basic transportation infrastructure may not be in place to serve the school site when it's needed. At this time, TTSD's property can only be accessed by a private easement, Taylor Lane, from Beef Bend Road. TTSD has always envisioned that S.W. 161st Street PDXDOCS:2052140.1 PORTLAND,OREGON SEATTLE,WASHINGTON MILLER NASH--P VANCOUVER,WASHINGTON CENTRAL OREGON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.MILLERNASH.COM City of Tigard Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 2 would be extended from its current terminus at Hazeltine Lane to Beef Bend Road. The current draft of the Community Plan is consistent with that assumption. The school property,then,would take its primary access off of the extended S.W. 161st Street. The issue for TTSD is that it is not clear when S.W. 161st Street will be extended and TTSD is concerned that the need for a school on the property will become acute before there is adequate access to that property. Although extending S.W. 161st Street to Beef Bend Road would be optimal, TTSD understands that there are financial and other constraints that may make this full extension unrealistic in the short term. Therefore,TTSD is asking that an extension of S.W. 161st Street to the school property be added to the list of Recommended Transportation System Improvements, Table 5, in the Transportation System Plan Addendum. The extension does not have to include the cost of a fully built-out street section. The extension could simply be of adequate width for two travel lanes, with the remainder of the street section being constructed as adjacent properties develop. The extension of sewer and water would also have to be coordinated with the road extension. TTSD understands that there are constrained financial resources for infrastructure,but TTSD has an important public service to provide to the new development in River Terrace. TTSD cannot provide that service if all of the resources are directed only to providing infrastructure that opens the door for new development in the northern and western areas of River Terrace, thereby creating the need for the new school facilities, with the hope that somehow uncoordinated, ad hoc development in the eastern portion of the area will allow for a timely provision of those school facilities. TTSD appreciates this opportunity to provide these comments, and stands ready to work with the City to ensure that school facilities can be provided to River Terrace when they are needed. Very truly your Ke Oossaini cc: Mr. Ernie Brown PDXDOCS•2052140.1 1)11,14C-2191(;k1WJCIlLi"41r Tat,411>VW'410 41 g,* KVeNt . November 14, 2014 Via Email and Hand Delivery City of Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: River Terrace Community Plan Public Hearing Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter is written as a follow-up to comments already submitted on the River Terrace website in response to a request for comments on the proposed Community Plan. I believe our other impacted neighbors have also posted comments to that site and we hope that you will consider those comments during your deliberation. That being said,to be clear for the Planning Commission public hearing record,we believe the idea of including a definitive location for a regional trail at this early stage is a flawed and unnecessary inclusion in the proposed Community Plan. We hope the Planning Commissioners will consider recommending that staff take a more flexible approach to the trail location before the matter is forwarded to City Council. Unlike parks,which the City planners have wisely identified where a variety of parks "might" be located generally but have not assigned any definitive locations at this early stage in the process,the proposed regional trail is being treated completely differently. In the proposed Plan, it has been definitely located over our property and those of four(4) adjoining neighbors, none of whom are likely to develop into subdivisions at any time,even in the distant future, and none of whom (including us)voted for this annexation. This effectively means the land use will be restricted for all of the property owners immediately upon adoption of the Community Plan (unless modified) and the question of how the land will be paid for and maintained for the next five,to ten to twenty years or more that it takes for all of those lands to be redeveloped, if ever, must also be addressed now. We, along with our neighbors,who are also impacted property owners, are extremely concerned about the location of the proposed regional trail through our properties, especially without knowing how and when the area will be developed and without knowing how neighborhood roads will be laid out. We are all small individual parcel owners, as opposed to a developer with the land mass who could more easily accommodate such a large regional trail and could develop such a trail on a commonly owned parcel large enough to result in a connected trail sooner rather than later. As the Planning Commissioners are aware, a taking of this property must be at market value and for a legitimate public purpose. We question the legitimacy of exacting a section of trail out any one of these parcels at this time, based on the supposition,that one or more other needed segments might become available at some unidentified point in the future. The reality is that most, if not all, of the impacted parcels will not be developed for many years to come. We are all concerned with the proposed size and scope of the proposed regional trail for safety,security and nuisance reasons,as well as the impact on our adjoining land's value,especially given that this is the view side of all of our properties. We are concerned as to how the City will address paying for the land since the amount of land proposed to be taken from each individual small acreage is not roughly proportional to the potential development impact and the City's known limited budget for both transportation and parks, not to mention ongoing maintenance. Again, if only one parcel in the middle develops so there can be no trail connectivity for many years, how will the City maintain that taken parcel for the next 20 years so it does not create a nuisance, hazard,or blight on the adjoining and nearby properties and their respective market values? There are insufficient park funds as it is to manage existing developed parks and trails. It is not reasonable for the City to restrict development of a large strip of land for years to come without paying just compensation for it at the time the restriction is imposed(which would be now if the Community Plan is approved,as written)and then properly managing, maintaining and patrolling it for years to come until it can,if ever,be developed. There are at least three other areas shown on the map that should also be seriously considered for the location of this trail, based on what develops first and who has the land mass to better accommodate such a taking. We don't understand why the park locations can change but this regional trail location is set in stone. If the goal is to achieve a connected River Terrace Trail sooner rather than later,we suggest it would make much more sense to do the same with the trails as you are doing with the parks, and pick locations in the general area but wait to determine the actual location until the City knows better who will develop and when,and where the neighborhood street will be located. Right now the proposed regional trail would run through a swimming pool,an English garden that is home to dwarf rabbits and other woodland creatures,three large and actively used horse pastures,and an established and successful vineyard where the owner has a significant investment of time and money. Metro will certainly not take a positive view of identifying only one location for the regional trail when that location may not allow for construction of that trail for many years, if ever,assuming planners stay true to their word that the City will not condemn the land until redevelopment is ready to occur. We have all been told repeatedly that the City will not take the property before the owners are ready to develop, nor will it be taken without just compensation. This is not, however,consistent,with the action of definitively placing the trail on these specific properties right now and telling us that this land cannot ever be developed or used by its current owners for any other development purpose. We know that our neighbors who own Horseleap Vineyard certainly have no plans to develop, and it is also highly unlikely that our other two neighbors to the east,who each already have large high end homes located on only own two and a half acre lots(each with about 20%of that acreage being proposed to be taken for this trail, not to mention additional land that will be needed for roads since all properties are currently served by one private narrow driveway),will further develop. These properties are high value estate properties and will likely remain so. Although we have no current plans to develop our property, when I asked what would happen if we wanted to develop and our neighbors did not, I was told we would need to either give an easement or a deed to the City for that piece of land needed for the proposed regional trail as a condition of development but that the planners had not determined how that land would be paid for,when it would be paid for,or how it would be managed or maintained by Tigard as an isolated island strip of a large regional trial that goes nowhere for years to come. I can't imagine many residential homeowners would want lots adjoining such an undefined use with questionable maintenance for an indeterminate amount of time. For all of the foregoing reasons,committing the location of a large regional trail at this time on these particular properties,given they are all small acreages in different ownership that are highly unlikely to be developed together or even remotely in the same time frame, is a poor judgment call which will 15590 S.W.April Lane Tigard, Oregon 97224 November 15, 2014 City of Tigard Planning Commission 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Planning Commission: This letter is written in response to the plan for a regional trail across the south side of Area 63. In 1992 my wife and I bought ten acres in unincorporated Washington County where we built a home and planted a vineyard. When the vines were mature enough,we co-opted with Seufert Winery to begin making wine from the grapes grown on our property. Wine with our pinot noir label is now in several local restaurants and grocery stores. The 2014 harvest was stellar. We harvested a record 20 tons of fruit with a market value of approximately$60,000. When Washington County began to developed plans for our area that included several roads through our land,we hired attorney John Rankin to protect our vineyard. John was able to convince the county to remove all the roads except where our part of April Lane will be included in the connector to Woodhaven. When the County turned over its plans to the city of Tigard,the only remaining part of the plan that would affect our vineyard was a walking trail along the south property line. Now that the city of Tigard has taken over the planning of our area,a new regional trail has been added in place of the walking trail. The plan for this trail would cross the south areas of our three neighbors' properties to the east,then cross the lower part of our vineyard and continue through the backyard of our neighbor to the west. As we understand the plan,the trail is designed to be approximately 30 feet wide,paved,and lighted with open access to the land it crosses. An eight-foot high deer fence to keep deer and other animals from eating the grapes surrounds our vineyard. The lower part of the vineyard has enough room along the bottom of the rows to allow the tractor to turn. If the trail were to pass through our vineyard,the fence would have to be removed or moved further north. Removing the fence would allow deer,dogs and people into the vineyard. Moving the fence would result in the loss of many vines and their resulting productivity. We would expect to be compensated appropriately for the loss of vines and future revenue. We have planned on the income from our grapes and wine as an important part of our retirement. We also love this house and land and plan to maintain it as a working vineyard until we are no longer able to do so. At that time we plan to deed the property to our children for their enjoyment and profit. We do not plan to sell to a developer. We have been a part of Tigard for over 30 years and are anxious to support the planning commission with the development of the community but not if threatens our current and future property value. MICHAEL MCCLESKEY ALITA ANNE MCCLESKEY SENT VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERED create a hardship and land devaluation for each property ownership. These decisions will also likely result in a regional trail that may connect to nothing whereas the other viable locations could much more likely develop sooner and create a connected trail,as Metro would like to see, I am sure. The only reason we have been given for this location is that the prior Washington County plan showed a"trail"of undefined size and nature in this location and the Tigard planners had committed not to revise that plan to the greatest extent possible. The truth of the matter is that the planners have revised the Washington County plan in very significant ways and in numerous locations. What is also true is that the Washington County plan also showed the trail running along Beef Bend Road at one point,which is a much more achievable location if the City wants connectivity. Although we understand the planners may argue that some of the properties adjoining Beef Bend Road were excluded from the UGB,there is a strong likelihood,and a known desire on the part of the City,to bring them in sooner rather than later, and placing the trail along Beef Bend Rd.would be an incentive for Metro to do so. Additionally,there is already authority to improve an existing major roadway to meet transportation needs,which include pedestrian and bicycle modes. Please consider the other options already depicted on your map and treat the trail location as the City is treating the parks—by waiting to identify locations until more is known as to how and when development will occur and what funding will be available for procurement and management. In addition,there is also no need for two trails off 150th Avenue that are only about a quarter mile apart, both merging into the River Terrace arterial Trail,as currently depicted in the proposed Community Plan. Thus,there already exists an identified alternative option to this trail which may be located on land better suited for earlier development,which would also create a more direct route to the River Terrace trail and school. Finally,as outlined above,a trail along Beef Bend Road,where Washington County originally placed it,could be more readily attainable and would be the most direct connection into the Tonquin Trail which,in turn,connects to River Terrace. We urge you to recommend removal of the current firm placement of the trail on our properties and instead designate several areas for possible trail locations and then select the most appropriate option, as development moves forward,that can result in a connected usable regional trail, rather than limiting the option to one ill-conceived location that,at present, has every indication of being the wrong choice and a costly decision for all concerned. Sincerely, G' • S '�an. . • bars Jacobson Property Owners 15915 SW 150th Avenue Tigard OR 97224 Cc: Daniel & Pat Knox Brandt& Karin Hulse Dr. Mike&Anne McCleskey Susan Shanks,Tigard Project Manager Kenny Asher,Tigard Community Development Director November 14, 2014 RE: River Terrace Community Plan Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing on behalf of the residents of Sterling Park an established community of 262 homes and Churchill Forest a community of 40 homes both located in Beaverton's South Cooper Mountain. We would like to state our support of the signal at Scholls Ferry for the River Terrace Blvd and Multi-Use Trail. On November 5th we presented recommendations to the Beaverton Planning Commission Meeting to align the South Cooper Mountain east-west collector to River Terrace Boulevard. Attached is a summary of our recommendations. The City plan collector begins at Tire Flat Road and directs traffic through the planning area, by Main Street, the new High School, and 175th, to the Barrows/Loon intersection on Scholls Ferry. This collector will connect to Loon Drive across from the Scholls Heights Elementary playground and athletic fields. Our residents are very concerned about the proximity of this connection to the school and how it will impact pedestrian access and bus routes. The residents are asking the city to veer the collector south just before the Churchill Forest Neighborhood to align with the River Terrace Blvd., creating a seamless collector and trail system for our two new communities. If the road alignment is not approved, we are asking the City of Beaverton to at least consider aligning the River Terrace Trail with a multi-use path on the Beaverton side and a pedestrian signal at Scholls Ferry. This provides a safe and convenient pedestrian crossing, especially to facilitate travel to and from the new High School as this trail would link to Beaverton's School to School Path. Not aligning these roads and trails would be a missed opportunity to connect our residents to schools, trails, and commercial districts. During the Planning Commission deliberations, the Commission asked staff to provide them with more information on River Terrace. They said it does not make sense to plan one side of the highway and they wanted to ensure our communities are working together. We hope this letter helps inform Tigard of the plans on the other side of the highway and the wishes of residents to align our communities. Sincerely, Andrea Bonard Attachment Resident recommendations provided to the City of Beaverton Planning Commission regarding the South Cooper Mountain (SCM) East-West Collector Road. \ 'N,.. ii 4,4., -- \ 11>, 0 I :,.._. .,nu .Doper Dun ain 0 t soum c.00perrvrouncain Elementary School Elementary School \ planning area. planning area. ovsrer;caicHi-e Lk orarea i,,,, \ :y / Proposed High r �i Proposed High •School Site Proposed Traffic Signal O School Site Proposed Traffic Signal O z r-- 1 r ii To the Westside Trail y To the Westsfde Trail m7Y IN 1-'j m VY'LN r i a• • u 1• q„J� _l 'J_,J�-yam s - ri a r iw I ry, r'� 1 o i- 1 -.I 0 I- II 1 s� School to School Trail ac 45 11 1 I6 SCM Nature Trail _ _ i ,. . a,,; r3, ® River Terrace Trail —— City Plan Proposed Residents Solution Create a three-lane east-west collector road directing traffic from South Cooper Create a collector road that directs traffic from SCM and 175th toward Scholls Ferry Mountain, starting at Tire Flat Road,crossing 175th,to Loon Drive, ending at and logically connects with River Terrace Boulevard. Connect the River Terrace Trail Scholls Heights Elementary School. to SCM Nature Trail,which improves connectivity to the School to School trail. Proposed Solution Benefits Q SAFETY:Will not result in unsafe school crossings for • CONNECTED COMMUNITIES: Seamless SCM and River Terrace collector and trail system. Scholls Heights children or impact school bus and school • MULTI-USE TRAILS: Facilitates safe walking and biking paths to schools,shops,and traffic routes;because there will not be increased traffic restaurants. Decreases traffic and parking burden. directly from arterial roads and the High School. • NATURAL RESOURCES:Decreased disruption to existing stream. Enhanced trail connectivity A SAFETY: The proposed collector would not connect to supports pedestrian and bike transportation. Loon across from the fire lane at the school playground. • HOME VALUES: No negative impact to home values on both Loon and Oystercatcher. Lina Chung Smith From: Knox, Daniel <DKnox @SCHWABE.com> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 10:08 AM To: Susan Shanks Cc: 'Jacobson, Barbara' Subject: River Terrace Planning Commission Susan: I ask that this note, along with the comments I posted on the River Terrace website,be included in the record for this evening's meeting of the Planning Commission. I regret that my wife and I will be unable to attend the public meeting, but we very much wish the Commission to consider our viewpoint. My wife, Pat, and I purchased our two-plus acres off 150th(it was being used as a pasture) in 1985. It was four long years before we were able to build our home, and move our young family into the house we'd spent years dreaming about. We're in our 26th year in the home, and have spent that entire time planting trees and shrubs, roses and hedges, enjoying the view across the Tualatin Valley, and welcoming the wildlife that visits us daily. Where once our children enjoyed the freedom and quiet of our home and surroundings, it's now our grandchildren who play in the trees, and feed the apples we grow to our neighbors' horses. We understand and appreciate that the Commission and the planning staff have a responsibility to look to the future, and to shape the development sure to occur in ways that will benefit all residents of this part of Bull Mountain. What we don't understand is why so little consideration is apparently given to those of us who already live here. The insistence that this trail will be carved only out of the lands that now bear our four homes makes little sense, not when alternatives are readily available which would work no violence to existing homes. Whether the Commission recognizes it or otherwise, adopting a plan which sets aside a significant portion of each of the four properties for a future trail is a "taking" right now. In the event any one of the four of us might wish one day to sell our homes, we'd need to disclose to prospective purchasers that the City of Tigard considers the strip along the southern side of our homes "theirs," and that at any time, the City may take it away. None of the four residents so affected by the location of this "linear park" have any intention of developing their properties. We simply wish to continue living here, enjoying our homes, our neighbors and our views. If a trail is believed by the Commission to be a crucial part of the development of River Terrace,then please locate it where the development is sure to occur, and where there is sufficient land mass to absorb conveniently the taking as a part of the development and permitting process. Don't locate it where it works maximum disruption to the people who already live here. Please respect our existing homes, as you plan for the residents yet to come. Most Sincerely, Dan and Pat Knox 15955 SW 150th Ave Tigard To comply with IRS regulations, we are required to inform you that this message, if it 1 contains advice relating to federal taxes, cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. Any tax advice that is expressed in this message is limited to the tax issues addressed in this message. If advice is required that satisfies applicable IRS regulations, for a tax opinion appropriate for avoidance of federal tax law penalties, please contact a Schwabe attorney to arrange a suitable engagement for that purpose. NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you. 2 POLYGON 121. NORTHWEST COMPANY November 15,2014 Planning Commission c/o Kenny Asher Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Nall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 RE: River Terrace Dear Planning Commission: We at Polygon Northwest are supportive of the City's efforts with regard to the planning of the River Terrace district in the City of Tigard. In my experience,the City has conducted one of the most extensive public outreach efforts that we have been involved in. The City's staff communication is unprecedented. They have been genuinely interested in receiving input and have been proactive in responding to concerns and technical questions. Not unlike your own responsibilities,they must balance the needs and concerns of all the members of the public,formulate balanced solutions and create sound public policy to be considered by the City Council. The result of the public outreach and planning process thus far has resulted in a great plan for the creation of a neighborhood that will be a sustainable,vibrant and will include parks,trails,a school and significant infrastructure improvements. The River Terrace district will become a positive addition to Bull Mountain and an integral part of the City. The Community Plan has received a great deal of scrutiny at the Stakeholder and Technical Group level. One of the most heavily debated issues was River Terrace Boulevard. One aspect of the debate over River Terrace Boulevard has been the width of the Right of way. In our Stakeholder Group meetings,the group requested that the width of the right of way allow for flexibility. We supported that notion. The Staff ensured the group that there would be flexibility. The illustrative contained in the Community Plan, in our view sets less than desirable expectations. In of r view the community would be better served by removing the illustrative and showing both the minimum and standard width sections. The components of the street,including the trail and the center median, need to be explained in detail and describe how flexibility will be determined. For example,the crossings of streams will not be constructed at the standard width. I'm certain that there will be similar arguments for other sections of River Terrace Boulevard that will require flexibility. 109 East 13th Strut,Vancouver,Washington 98660 (360)695-7703 • (503)221-1920 • Fax(360)693-4442 www.ioIv onh,;r:ue .com i'Lli#163.,13 The cost and financing of the public infrastructure will likewise continue to be discussed.', That subject will be covered in future meetings and public hearings. We are positive that those matters will be equitably resolved. River Terrace is deserving of a signature street to help set the framework for a community of its size and stature. We are supportive of the River Terrace boulevard concept. A well designed street, like other community amenities, including parks and trails,will serve to create a strong sense of place. The sense of place will establish a brand for the neighborhood and the City. These amenities,as we have experienced in similar communities we have had a significant role in, create lasting value We will be building a number of important segments of River Terrace Boulevard. We look forward tb that opportunity. The planning of River Terrace has been extensive,spanning approximately ten years. The result of the public outreach is a well-designed and balanced plan. Again,we are very supportive of the River Terrace Community Plan. We urge you to adopt a positive recommendation to City Council. Thank you for the commission's efforts and consideration of the River Terrace Community Plan. Sincerely POLYGON NORTHWEST i red Ga f Senior -Oregon Division President t I