12/15/1981 - Packet •
DOWNTOWN TIGARD
TIGARD DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
MEETING PLACE: Durham Waste Water Treatment Plant
TIME : 7 : 30 PM, Tuesday, December 150, 1981
MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15 , 1981 4 7 : 30 PM
1. Review of Report and Plan as approved ( ? ) Monday evening ,
December 14, 1981 , by the City Council---------------------
2. Presentation of projects , priorities and goals for immediate
future and first year of operation as an Urban Renewal Agency ( ? ) .
• 3. Review next meeting time schedule.
4. Adjournment!
i-I,
0
-' 14 DECEMBER 1981
`rrr
rrr DOWNTOWN PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS �r
THE FOLLOWING CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROVIDED TO ASSIST IN THE
DETAILED PLANNING ACTIVITIES THAT MUST PRECEDE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES CONTAINED IN THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. MOST OF THE RECOMMENDA-
TIONS CONTAINED HEREIN WILL ALSO REQUIRE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION BY THE
CITY AS WELL AS THE RENEWAL AGENCY.
1. A LAND USE PLAN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF
THE DOWNTOWN PLAN SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.
PLANNED LAND USES AND ZONED LAND USES ARE PRESENTLY IN CONFLICT
WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA SHOULD BE REANALYZED TO
REFLECT THE LAND USE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURED AND THE CHANGES
NECESSARY TO SUPPORT DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.
2. THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
THERE IS PRESENTLY 26.82 ACRES DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL BY THE CITY.
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES SHOULD BE PERMITTED UNTIL SUCH USE IS DIS-
*Aw CONTINUED. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL USES SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED; HOWEVER,
CERTAIN COMPATIBLE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
PERMITTED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LABOR INTENSIVE
MANUFACTURING OR ASSEMBLY PROCESSING ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ELECTRONICS
OPERATIONS.
3. WHOLESALE WAREHOUSING IS A COMMERCIALLY RELATED USE THAT MAY ALSO HAVE
LIMITED APPLICATION IN THE AREA. PUBLIC STORE AND LOCK ACTIVITIES
SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
4. INDUSTRIAL OR WAREHOUSING ACTIVITIES SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED FOR THE
AREA BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND BURNHAM STREETS ADJACENT TO HALL BOULEVARD
IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL LANDS
CANNOT BE SUPPORTED IN THIS AREA.
COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENTAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES SHOULD PREDOMINATE WITHIN
THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
5. MAIN STREET SHOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL. COMMERCIAL AND BURNHAM
STREETS SHOULD ALSO BE COMMERCIAL IN THE VICINITY OF MAIN STREET.
'err
DOWNTOWN PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS - 2
.fir►
6. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PRESENTLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO HALL BOULEVARD.
IF THE DOWNTOWN AREA CANNOT ATTAIN FULL COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL
UTILIZATION, ADDITIONAL HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WOULD BE THE MOST APPRO-
PRIATE SUPPORTING ACTIVITY FOR THE AREA. FUTURE HOUSING SHOULD ALSO
BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO HALL BOULEVARD.
RESIDENTIAL EXTENSION TOWARD MAIN STREET SHOULD BE LIMITED AND DEPEND-
ENT UPON THE BALANCE OF COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED IN THE DETAILED PLANNING STUDIES TO FOLLOW.
7. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BURNHAM
STREET ADJACENT TO THE FANNO CREEK PARK.
8. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PARK SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO COORDINATE AND INTEGRATE THEIR PROPOSALS WITH THE PLANNED
PARK DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS.
9. LANCSCAPED PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FROM MAIN,
BURNHAM, ASH AND HALL BOULEVARD TO THE FANNO CREEK PARK.
10. VEHICULAR SERVICE AND REPAIR BUSINESSES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO LOCATE
OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. SERVICE STATIONS, TIRE STORES AND REPAIR
SHOPS BELONG IN THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS OF THE CITY. THIS TYPE OF
ACTIVITY IN -THE DOWNTOWN AREA CREATES PEDESTRIANNEHICULAR CONFLICTS
AND CAUSES TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND CONGESTION ON DOWNTOWN STREETS.
11. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SHOULD ALSO BE PREPARED AND ADOPTED FOR THE
DOWNTOWN AREA. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE DOWNTOWN BE DIVIDED INTO AREAS
OF COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OR CONCERNS. EACH STREET HAS A UNIQUE CHARAC-
TER AND SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT. CONCERNS. EACH BLOCK DEFINED BY THE STREET
SYSTEM ALSO HAS SPECIALIZED CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS THAT SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED.
THE FOLLOWING COMMERCIAL SUBAREAS ARE HEREBY IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER
STUDY AND REFINEMENT RELATIVE TO APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. MAIN STREET
1) THE NORTHWESTERN BLOCKS OF MAIN STREET
2) THE SOUTHEASTERN BLOCK AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH MAIN STREET
B. BURNHAM STREET
1) THE SOUTHWESTERN AREA BETWEEN BURNHAM AND FANNO CREEK
l%w
DOWNTOWN PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS - 3
err
2) THE NORTHEASTERN BLOCK BETWEEN BURNHAM AND THE RAILROADS
C. COMMERCIAL0STREET
1) THE SOUTHWESTERN AREA BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND THE RAILROADS
2) THE NORTHEASTERN AREA ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL STREET
D. THE COMMERCIAL AREA OF SCOFFINS STREET
E. PACIFIC HIGHWAY - NORTH AND SOUTH OF MAIN STREET
F. HALL BOULEVARD IMPACTS AND RELATIONSHIPS
EACH OF THESE SUBAREAS MAY REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF DEFERRING DEVELOP-
MENT STANDARDS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC ISSUES AND CONCERNS
ASSOCIATED WITH EACH AREA. APPLICATION OF CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT
.STANDARDS SHOULD ASSIST IN CREATING A COORDINATED AND UNIFIED DEVELOP-
MENT PATTERN AND IMAGE WHILE ALSO PREVENTING ACTIONS THAT WOULD
DETRACT FROM A COORDINATED PLANNING EFFORT.
12. BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RAILROADS TO DETERMINE TRACK CONSOLIDATION
AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION POTENTIALS; POSSIBLY IN COOPERATION WITH
THE CITY OF BEAVERTON.
13. BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH TRI=MET CONCERNING THE PROPOSED TRANSIT CENTER
FOR TIGARD. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AND IMPACT ANALYSIS SHOULD BE JOINTLY
INVESTIGATED.
14. REVIEW AND EVALUATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS FOR DOWNTOWN STREETS. INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NEEDS, OPPORTUNITIES OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.
EVALUATE TRAFFIC NEEDS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED PLANS FOR DOWNTOWN
IMPROVEMENT AND COORDINATE FINDINGS INTO A PRIORITY LISTING OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE RENEWAL AGENCY.
PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO INTERSECTION CONTROLS AND PEDES-
"TRI.AN CROSSWALKS. THE DOWNTOWN HAS NO CROSS INTERSECTIONS. ALL INTER-
SECTIONS ARE OF THE "T" TYPE.
MAIN STREET POSES THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEM. MAIN STREET HAS FIVE
"T" INTERSECTIONS IN ADDITION TO THE TWO INTERSECTIONS WITH PACIFIC
HIGHWAY. CROSS LANE TURNS CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND CONGESTION.
LEFT-HAND TURN LANES WITH A CENTER MEDIAN ISLAND SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED .
FOR MAIN STREET.
15. CURB CUTS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED ON MAIN STREET. CURB CUTS ONLY INTENSIFY
wrr�`
DOWNTOWN PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS - 4
THE TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND CONGESTION PROBLEMS. MAIN STREET SHOULD
MAINTAIN A DENSE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHOUT INTERVENING
PARKING LOTS. PARKING ACCESS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FROM THE OTHER INTER-
SECTING STREETS.
16. PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ARE MINIMAL IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. SIDEWALKS
SHOULD BE WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMODATE MOVEMENT, TREES AND LANDSCAPING,
BENCHES AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND CONVENIENCES.
17. SIDEWALK EXTENSIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT ALL CROSSWALKS TO MINIMIZE
THE EXTENT OF STREET CROSSING.
18. LANDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN WAYS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FROM ALL PARKING LOTS
TO STREET SIDEWALKS AND BUILDINGS.
19. LANDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE WAYS SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED FROM
MAIN, BURNHAM, ASH AND HALL BOULEVARD TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE FANNO
CREEK PARK AREA.
20. BEGIN COORDINATION WITH CIVIC CENTER COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE EXISTING
AND FUTURE FACILITY AND LOCATIONAL NEEDS. COORDINATE PUBLIC FACILITY
NEEDS WITH DOWNTOWN PLAN.
THE CIVIC CENTER SHOULD BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED FANNO CREEK
PARK. A BURNHAM STREET LOCATION IN THE VICINITY OF ASH STREET TO MAIN
STREET IS RECOMMENDED.
A NEW CIVIC CENTER BUILDING LOCATED AT MAIN AND BURNHAM WOULD BE A
HIGHLY VISIBLE LOCATION AND WOULD PROVIDE A FOCAL POINT FOR MAIN STREET
WHILE ALSO PROVIDING A GATEWAY TO THE PARK FROM MAIN.
A CENTRAL LOCATION IN THE VICINITY OF ASH STREET WOULD ENCOURAGE
REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN MAIN AND ASH AND BETWEEN ASH AND HALL BOULEVARD.
THE CIVIC CENTER IN COMBINATION WITH THE FANNO CREEK PARK DEVELOPMENT
WILL HAVE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AND
DAN BECOME THE PRIMARY GENERATOR FOR REVITALIZATION OF THE BURNHAM
STREET AREA.
1
• TAX IMPACT STUDY
FOR PROPOSED U.R. AREA
prepared by
Chamber of Commerce
Public Affairs Committee
This projection is based upon the following assupptions:
1. That all properties will increase in value by 10%. This is a
conservative 'estimate based upon the post 10 years of valuation
increases in Washington County, Sao Addendum #1.
'2. That each taxing district will increase its levy (expressed in
dollars)by the statutorily allowed 6%. No now voter approved
levies are embraced within this assumption.
The purpose of this study is to determine what impact the proposed Urban
Renewal Project will have on the taxing districts and therefore the
taxpayer. The projection contained heroin is for tax year 1982-83.
Summary of Findings:
• Given the two assumptions listed above, there is a minor negative impact
upon the taxpayer in that the tax rate will decrease lase than it would
without the tax increment finding of the Urban Renewal Project in place.
Specifically, the 1982-83 cumulative tax rate, with urban renewal, is
projected to be V. per f1 higher than without urban renewal, as
shown here.
Current 1981-82 cumulative tax rate S 23.12/• M
Projected 1982-83 cumulative tax rate without U.R. f 22.27/ M
Projected 1982-83 cumulative tax rate with U.R. : 22.31% M
For illustrative purposes, a home assessed for tax purposes at 670,000
will be affected as followst
1981-82 (current) : 1,618 total property tax
..,1982-83 without U.R. f 1,556 total property tax
1982-83 with U.R. : 1,56Z tots 1 property tax
Therefor•i the impact on the homeowner used in this example is SV00 for
the year. Expressed as s percentage, the impact represents .0000004% of
the property tax bill.
• The following table, an excerpt from Addendum #2, displays the projected
tax rate, by district, for each district impacting upon the U.R. areas
Current Projected 1982-83 Projected 1982-83
Tax Rate Tax Rate without U.R.* Tax Rate With U.R.•
r
Tigard School
District f 12.46 i 12.01 = 12.03 +34
TRF PD 3.21 3.09 3.10 "t 4
Washington
County 4.23 4.08 4.08 a Ww
U.S.A. .35 .34 .34
M.S.0 .20 .18 .18
Washington
County E.5.0. .26 .25 .25
Port of Portland .19 .18 .18
Portland
Community College .58 .56 .56
Tigard Water .45 .43 .44 .+#
City of Tigard 1.19 1.15 1.15
• 23.12/ 22.27/,M - f 22.31/ M
• Rounded to Nearest Full Cent
It is the view of the Chamber of Commerce's Public Affairs Committee that .
the creation of an Urban Renewal Project in the downtown should be eoneidered
analogous With an investment that Will produce value in excess of its cost.
At the end of the program (10 years) the Urban Renewal Project should release
beck to all affected taxing districts, valuation in excess of that which
Would have accrued if there had been no Urban Renewal Project. It is the
duty of the Urban Renewal Board to assure that monies investedwill result
in the creation of significant valuation increases.
1�ddcnd�m *� 1,
10-YEAR HISTORY OF COUNTY TAX RATE
% of Val ue R ate/ Tax 'X of
Total Value Increase $1,000 Produced Tax Roll
1981-82 $6,954,888,980 11.9% $4.23 $29,419,180.39 15.70%
1980-81 $6,212,503,908 11.1% $1.65 $10,250,631.45 7.73%
1979-80 $5,591,171,583 31.9% $1.04 S 5,697,222.49 5.70%
1978-79 $4,237,752,963 19.1% $1.18 S 4,908,737.50 5.47%
1977-78 $3,558,601,710 16.2% $1.36 $ 4,750,003.81 5.62%
1976-77 $3,062,787,237 14.9% $1.52 $ 4,586,254.53 5.66%
1975-76 $2,664,803,506 17.1% $1.34 S 3,534,966.88 4.96%
1974-75 $2,275,491,538 16.9% $1.51 $ 3,418,401 .38 5.59%
1973-74 $1,946,247,904 12.2% $1.66 $ 3,209.,096.78 6.32%
1972-73 $1,734,245,514 11.5% $1.83 $ 3,163,672.57 6.46%
1971-72 $1,554,417,025 10.5% $2.23 $ 3,466,349.97 - 7.64%
Vii I : _ .! I■IN ■I 1
VAI I� I I®■■I ■■I®■■I ■■
a■■i I I ■■I�®■I�■■I■N■■I�■■
VAI — Ill::: -:•I 1�1 �� . • -- ■N� • •••I■Illit:'�I�
• VAI I ►
IMS®■IMONS ®■
f I I
OM
NMI
1 I I I ■■I ■■
��I I •• � ■■I ■■I�11N■I�■■1
I � Imo: : -:.I - � ! ,. . ...I®■�I ■
1 ! !
NMI®■■I®NMI
i I •I i ■■I ■■I®■■I
I I I ■■1 ■ I®■■ ■■I�1■■
I � , .:. ■gam � - .i�. , ...!®■�!®® -.
-_ 1�
IMESVAI ■ ®NINNIES ■■!
ISI II®■I®■■I®■■I®NMI
®®■I®■■1
I �
MIS
I®I � : :. Com, �I®■■I®®■I®■■1
1®I I I ■■I ■
■■I ■I®®■IAB
1�1 • . ■Qi ■I■■®■IMM■■1
I® IMill�I I—�I�■■I®®■
•
,,� :: •• -• I �I SIS ■■1