Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/26/1994 MOM IBM i CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda Item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign in sheet Buslww agenda it+evras gan be hem in an 7:30 o m Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deat). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language Interpreters for persons with speech or hearing Impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside :service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeUng dale at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. SEE ATIAICHED AGENDA 01 COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 1 mom y, TIIGARD CITY COUNCIL. MEETING APRIL. 26, 1994 A a- IMM n A an Yi W. 0® v 6'6 • STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.) Review of Summeriake Park Plan Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review. Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSE.N . AGENDA: These items Cara considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 12, 1994 3.2 Solid Waste Rate Revision a. Receive and File: Yard Debris Exemption Program (Administrative Rule #94-1) b. Adopt New Solid Waste Rates - Resolution No. 94- Iq 3.3 Approve Amendme:-ts to the Intergovernmental Agreement to Participate in the Phase II Regional Water Study 3.4 Authorize Staff to Initiate the Summerlake Park Parking and Winterlake Drive Street Improvements to be Funded from Parks System Development Charges 3.5 Approve Intergovarri,-.lental Agreement - SMART System Radar Van 3.6 Approve Agreement for Services Portland Police Data Records System 3.7 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Bid for Pipeline Extension along S.W. North Dakota Street from 106th Avenue to 115th Avenue to U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company b. Award Bid for Wonderware Software for SCADA System to Central Point Controls 4. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - TRANSPORTATION RELATED AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS STATE OF OREGON MANDATES AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Open Public !"searing b. Staff Report C. Public Testimony d. Council Questions/Comments e. Close Public Hearing f. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94-0- . , COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 2 r I 5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - POLICY ON ANNEXATION do URBANIZATION - RESOLUTION NO. 94maP a. Staff Report - Community Development (Resolution of Intent to annex all unincorporated areas completely surrounded by the City using the "island method." Resolution also includes an outline of the Island Annexation Process.) G. COINISIDE:: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING . THE CITY ENGINEER TO - DESIGNATE CERTAIN AREAS /HERE PARKING IS PROHIBITED - ORDINANCE NO. 94-td-Z6 • Staff Report - Engineering Department 7. CONSIDER ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD MAKE IT A VIOLATION TO PROVIDE PREMISES FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY MINORS - ORDINANCE NO. 94-225 (ADDING SECTION TMC 7.36.060) Staff Report - Police Department 6. N ONlAGENDA ITEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council v%411 go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT ocaoaas.e4 COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 3 Council Agenda Item T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:35 by Mayor Jack Schwab. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jack Schwab; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, and Paul Hunt. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Summerlake Park Plan - Associate Planner Acker reviewed Summerlake Park Plan status. He advised that over the last two years the west end of the park had been developed with tennis courts, basketball courts, sidewalks, and a ballfield. Mr. Acker noted that the rest of the Master Plan calls for additional improvements such as a parking lot, one-third street improvements, curbs, sidewalks and street trees along the frontage of Winterlake Drive. (See Agenda Item 3.4 for additional information.) Funds from the park levy have been exhausted; staff is requesting Council consider the use of Parks Systems Development Charge (SDC) funds. (Councilor Hawley arrived at 5:40 p.m.) It was noted that the pedestrian bridge will be built by the City in the near future. City Administrator Reilly and Associate Planner Acker indicated that the pedestrian bridge could be located elsewhere in the park should the City want to move it from the site near 130th and Winterlake Drive. There was discussion by Council and request for clarification on what improvements were needed, whether adequate parking would be available, and timing of construction. City Engineer Wc_-ej advised that if the projects were apr?"oved as requested in consent Agenda Item 3.4, it would be fall before any construction would begin. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 3.994 PAGE 1- ONE Associate Planner Duane Roberts gave a short presentation on Systems Development Charges (SDC's) (also known as "impact fees,'). SDC's are charges by a government applied to. new development to offset the demand for services. Mr. Roberts distributed to Council information which illustrated the Parks SDC comparison for metro-area cities (this chart is on file with the Council packet material). Tigard charges are lower than other metro cities. SDC dollars must be used for capital improvement expenditures. Staff will be requesting a study of SDC charges to review Tigard's fee structure. The study will include the possibility of increasing fees, institute charges to non- residential (commercial and industrial) properties, and whether to expand the SDC collection area to the area of interest. The legal background and methodology for setting SDC fees was briefly reviewed with Council. It was noted that the fee is based on a formula which takes into account projected ® population, number of units, and the cost of improvements needed to accommodate the increased growth. City Administrator Reilly, in response to a question by Councilor Hunt, advised that other funds are not being reviewed at this time because the Park SDC fee structure appears to be the one most out of alignment. Currently the Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) are utilized for road improvements. Water SDC fees will be reviewed at a later date. SDC funds are regulated by State law. Projects must be included on a_capital improvement project list. Additional information and a request for direction will be befora the Council-at their May 10, 1994 meeting. It was noted that additional park levy funds may be available as delinquent taxes are collected by the County and then forwarded to the City. Agenda Review - Yard Debris & Combined Sewer/Water Hills Councilor Hunt advised council that he prepared a letter to Summerfield residents with regard to yard debris. He said this letter explained to the Summerfield residents the City of Tigard garbage and water charges so that they would be able to select the best option for their individual. circumstances. The April 20, 1994 letter was given to the City Recorder; she will distribute a copy of the letter to the Councilors for their information. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 2 i Management Analyst Edin advised that the haulers will provide a 20-gallon (mini can) container for customers. She referred to a recent article in the Chamber of Commerce newsletter which indicated that commercial rates were increasing. The Chamber was contacted and advised that no commercial rate increases had been approved. In addition, Ms. Edin advised that Metro was not sure if grant dollars would be available for the yard debris program. Ms. Edin reported that the haulers appear to be able to start the yard debris program close to July 1, 1994. If there are miscalculations in the rate, there will be a six-month experience period (through the end of the year) at which time the rates will be reviewed to determine whether an adjustment is needed. Annexation Policy (Agenda Item No. 5) - Councilor Fessler expressed her concerns about considering the Annexation Policy resolution at this council meeting. She related that her a primary concern was with the notification of people in the island areas. She noted the newspaper article appeared in today°s newspaper and the Council agenda advertisement was not as detailed as she would 'have liked to have seen. She advised that the Exhibit A to the resolution, which showed the sequencing of implementation of the island annexations, should also be advertised. Mayor Schwab commented that he recalled a similar conversation at the last Council meeting with regard to implementation of the Council policy on annexation. He noted the Council consensus, after the discussion April 19, was that there would be opportunities for public hearings on the annexation issue and that the Council would consider the policy question first with notification of process to occur later. The consensus at the last meeting was to proceed with the consideration of the resolution. Councilor Hunt advised he agreed with Mayor Schwab and also, it was his understanding, that there will be public hearings later in the process. Councilor Hawley also advised that it was her understanding that the Council consensus was to get the process started. Councilor Fessler noted her concerns was for the perception of those in the island areas. She said that it would be a "good partnerships' to wait for a couple of weeks to give better notice to the island residents. She advised she would not be able to support the resolution. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 3 Councilor Hunt noted he would prefer for further discussion on this item to take place during the business meeting portion of the agenda in order for the television audience and persons attending the business meeting to hear the Council discussion the annexation policy issue. Mayor Schwab agreed with Councilor Hunt"s comments; the meeting recessed. Council meeting recessed: 7:18 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 7:34 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITORS AGEN -A: • Mayor Schwab welcomed Boy Scout Troop 799 which was visiting the council meeting to earn credit toward their citizenship and community badges. • Jack Polans, 16000 S.W. Queen Victoria Place, King City, OR 97224 advised he did not wish to testify a: this time noting that his topic of interest would be addressed later in the agenda. ® Steve Abeling, 7619 S.W. Locust, Portland, OR, advised that he had read in the Cityscape Newsletter that bikelanes along 121st, Scholls Ferry and Walnut were to be constructed. He requested that the large plastic buttons not be used. He said this type of divider between bikelanes and the street keeps gravel and debris in the bike path and prevents street sweepers from being able to clear the lanes. City Engineer Wooley advised that the larger buttons were not planned to be used in this area; rather, smaller reflector markers would be used which would allow sweepers to access the bike lanes. • Bob Pavlukovich, 12345 S.W. 128th Avenue, Tigard, OR, distributed a letter to the City Council and read the letter as his testimony. (Letter is on file with the Council packet material.) This letter was on behalf of a-group known as The Neighbors for Better Neighborhoods who were in favor of the connection of Winterlake Drive to 130th Avenue. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 4 k k ccw~3 rs.x~aa :r= (The following visitors who signed in on the Visitors Agenda yielded their time to Mr. Pavlukovich: Cal Woolery, Gene McAdams, Jerry Welsh, Kathy Sample,, and Ron Wridge.~ LouAne Mortensen, 11160 S.W. Fonner Street, Tigard, OR was present to note her concerns with the Council policy position on Agenda Item No. 5 with regard to annexation. She advised that she had not been contacted by mail which was her understanding of what would happen should the Council decide to proceed with island annexation. She referred to the Walnut Island residents" approval of the Sheriff Enhan^ement Program and the Road Bond Measure which was passed by them to take care of their needs for service. V Chris Garsteck, 11774 S.W. 125th Court, Tigard, OR. Ms. Garsteck advised that she had been at the last council meeting at which time the Council was considering yard debris recycling. Ms. Garsteck advised of her technical expertise as an actuary. She disputed the methodology which was used to determine the yard debris recycling rates. In addition Ms. Garsteck advised that she was upset that the meeting had been continued after a medical emergency occurred during the public hearing, she advised she left the meeting. There was discussion among Council about the public hearing process. The Council members supported the process followed and subsequent decision made after that hearing. Mayor Schwab thanked Ms. Garsteck for her testimony. • Ed Richter., 10423 S.W. North Dakota, No. 7, Tigard, OR, commented on trust in government and the 25 mph speed limit posted on his street. Mr. Richter advised he had attended a recent CIT meeting. He requested the Council, at their next retreat, consider the issue of the lack in trust of government and what to do about it. He commented on the 25 mph speed limit and the "strictly enforced" sign which accompanied the speed sign. Rose Cicero, 11127 S.W. Eschman, Tigard, OR, distributed a pamphlet with regard to the 130th/Winterlake Drive extension. In addition, she had a listing of the number of signatures collected (sorted by street named which were gathered by the Friends of Summerlake. She advised that the Friends of Summerlake were concerned about the wetlands. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 5 In response to comments by Rose Cicero, Mayor Schwab asked staff to clarify what was happening with this pro j ect. City Engineer Wooley responded that the City is retaining a traffic consultant to determine the traffic impacts in the area. After the study is complete, the information will be made available to the Council for review. Staff will then request council direction as to wheCher to proceed with the design of the extension. In response to a question from Ms. Cicero, she was advised that the engineering document will be a public document. City Engineer also advised that the Engineering Department is maintaining a mailing list and that people on this list will be kept informed as to the process. Anyone interested in having their name placed on the mailing list, should contact the City Engineer. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 12, 1994 3.2 Solid Waste Rate Revision a. Receive-and File: Yard Debris Exemption Program (Administrative Rule #94-1) b. Adopt New Solid Waste Rates - Resolution No. 94-19 3.3 Approve Amendments' to the Intergovernmental Agreement to ?articipate in the Phase II Regional Water Study 3.4 Authorize Staff to Initiate the Summerlake Park Parking and Winterlake Drive Street Improvements to be Funded from Parks System Development Charges 3.5 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement - SMART System Radar Van 3.6 Approve Agreement for Services Portland Police Data Records System 3.7 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Bid for Pipeline Extension along S.W. North Dakota Street from 106th Avenue to 115th Avenue to U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company b. Award Bid for Wonderware Software for SCADA System to Central Point Controls The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley and Hunt voted ,'yes. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26,'1994 - PAGE 6 Ira 4. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - TRANSPORTATION RELATED AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS STATE OF OREGON MANDATES AND OTHER DEVELOPNENT STANDARDS a. Public hearing was opened. b. Senior Planner Landsman reviewed the Staff Report. She reviewed the DLCD concerns and advised a more extensive study of street classification definitions will performed. The issue before the Council was whether the City should amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code to allow the construction of narrower local streets and to improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Accessibility improvement amendments were mandated by LCDC. Local street standards respond to local concerns that Tigard needs greater flexibility in local street design to respond to changing transportation patterns. LCDC requires that Tigard adopt code amendments to improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to comply with the transportation planning rule by May 1994. The proposed changes have been subject to extensive public review, including at least three Planning Commission hearings, presentations to each of the former b-PO groups, a series of meetings with developers, and a Planning Commission sponsored panel discussion which was open to the public. Staff recommended two changes as proposed by the DLCD (see Staff report). The change recommended by DLCD requiring that all developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that minimizes travel distances within development were rejected by the Planning Commission. However, staff believed it was an important provision in order to assure transportation connectivity. Ms. Landsman reviewed selected areas of the proposed ordinance changes (see Exhibit A - a summary of the proposed ordinance changes related to transportation). C. Public Testimony O Joe Walsh, Tri Met, 4012 S.E. 17th Street, Portland, OR 97202, Manager of Transit Developer. Mr. Walsh noted that a letter was submitted to the Council with regard to the draft ordinance. (This letter is on file with the Council packet material.) For the most part, Tri Met is in agreement with the staff proposal. Other suggestions are contained in the Tri-Met specific comments in the letter submitted. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 7 z rM MMMOM • Steve Abeling, 7619 SW Locust, Tigard, OR 97223. Mr. Abeling read his testimony and submitted his written comments for the record. (Comments dated April 26, 1994 are on file with the Council packet material). Mr. Abeling advised he supported bike and pedestrian-friendly design in all new developments, including connecting streets (grid design instead of cul-de-sacs), safe street crossings, and sidewalk continuity. He stressed a bicycle-friendly design should not include curbing or plastic dots between car and bicycle lanes. These devices lead to gravel and other debris accumulating in the bicycle lane where it does not get cleaned out. Mr. Abeling advised that supporting the transportation planning rule is a step in the right direction to diminish dependance on automobiles. He concluded by saying it wasn't vitally important for the City to support passage of the transportation planning rule. . Meekie Blizzard advised she represented the STOP organization located in King City. Ms. Blizzard said she was in favor of the draft ordinance. She advised she was interested in continued efforts to reduce total vehicle miles traveled. Ms. B'l'izzard suggested that sidewalks on both sides of all culs- de-sac be :required. She also noted she was in favor of a connected street design network as required by DLCD. Ms. Blizzard referred to the LUTRAQ study which develops criteria for streets, including pedestrian factors and bikes. Ms. Blizzard also supported the narrowing of the streets in some neighborhoods. In response to a question from Mayor Schwab, she noted people will slow down in their own self-interest and this results in fewer accidents. • Nancy Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, Portland, Oregon. Ms. Tracy noted her agreement with Ms. Blizzard's testimony. She noted she is concerned about getting vehicles off the road and spoke to long- range vision. She advised there is so much concrete and black-top, which was detrimental; the world should be more "child-centered." , She referred to 0-traffic calming," and that neighbors should be able to influence the traffic design in their neighborhoods. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994'- PAGE S P • Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. McAdams requested Council consider the ordinance very carefully. He cautioned that if narrower streets were implemented, then the streets should be designed very carefully. He also advised that when an ordinance is adopted, the City Council should stick to the plan. He warned of future consequences Council may be faced with if the plan is not followed through. For example, narrower streets could possibly lead to the Council some day considering removing parking along the streets because of traffic flow difficulties. • Jerry Foy, Manager of Westwood Development Corporation. Mr. Foy noted he had been involved with other jurisdictions with regard to this issue. He advised people are generally interested in a public transit system and different modes of transportation. Mr. Foy expressed concerns with access from streets • to businesses and the connectivity issue. Mr. Foy talked about commercial centers and the number of cars per day which utilize these centers. He noted the access issue generally created problems and referred to the situation on Pacific Highway. Mr. Foy noted parking should be planned so competitors have enough parking for customers. He reviewed different types of commercial activities and the requirements needed. Mr. Foy noted he did not feel there was any rush on this issue and asked for more study to be given with regard to -commercial activity centers so the ordinance would not impede the success of local businesses. Mr. Foy listed .a series of issues he wanted considered, which included • A study of the type of use will this generate heavy auto or pedestrian usage: • Size of use; • Surrounding business inventory; • Availability of transit service; • Review of the transportation plan in place; and • Marketplace factors. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 9 FMMI It was his opinion the City, if they adopt this ordinance, would be the first to do so, and cautioned against rushing into adopting the ordinance. Mr. Foy discussed with Mayor Schwab specific concerns. He advised Pacific Highway could create problems and noted many jobs are associated with accsssing of businesses along Pacific Highway. • Mark Whitlow (Mr. Whitlow distributed a letter which is on file with the Council packet material). Mr. Whitlow reviewed some of his philosophical ideas with regard to transportation, and reviewed specific areas of the ordinance where he questioned the•requirements (these specifics are contained in his April 26, 1994 letter). d. Council Questions/Comments Councilor Hawley noted the deadline for passing an ordinance implementing the Transportation Planning Rule was May 1. She questioned what would happen if an ordinance was not passed. Senior Planner Landsman advised the City must then follow the State's rule; this would mean land use applications process would require more time (process). Discussion followed on issues raised during the public testimony, including the concerns of commercial centers, with regard to parking. Senior Planner Landsman noted the standards required are generally more than adequate for parking. Senior Planner Landsman reminded Council the street classification system definitions would be reviewed at a later time. e. Public Hearing was closed. f. Council Consideration Councilor Hunt referred to the several-year process of review for this item. He said he did not believe the City would be rushing the issue by adopting the ordinance at this meeting. He noted his concerns with providing adequate sidewalks and the increase of pedestrian traffic. He advised he was in favor of adopting the proposed ordinance. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 10 Agog moo= Councilor Hawley noted she would be concerned about delaying the ordinance. She referred to the process and advised she was in favor of the ordinance, with the two changes as noted in the staff report. Councilor Fessler commented on the process. She agreed Council should move ahead on consideration of the ordinance. Mayor Schwab referred to the proposed ordinance, including the narrower parking spaces. This was of concern to him, but commented that ultimately the market would determine whether the narrower spaces were acceptable to customers. He also supported a proposed amendment to require sidewalks on both sides of cols-de- sac. He advised the proposed ordinance was a well thought out, developed document. g. ORDINANCE NO. 94--07 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT (CPA 93-0004) TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, VOLUME I, TO ALLOW A GREATER VARIETY OF IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS (ZOA 92-0002) TO THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 38.98 (BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS: EXCEPTIONS; CHAPTER 18.106 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS); AND CHAPTER io .16-"s (STREET AND ?,TTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS) TO ADDRESS STATE OF OREGON MANDATES AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. h. Notion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt the ordinance, with the following amendments: Amendments to Exhibit E to the proposed ordinance 1. Chapter 18.164, add G(4) (Page F8) - All developments should provide an internal network connecting streets that minimizes travel distances within the development. 2. Chapter 18.164 G(2), add (Page F8) - A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint'is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why'the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU!fES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 11 . t 3. The last page was removed from the proposed ordinance, which was a "Draft of the Interim Design Standards to Minimum Local Residential Street Right-of-way Improvement Requirements." 4. Page F8, Section 18.164.070, (Sidewalks) Proposed amending language was not added so that Sidewalks were to be constructed, replaced or repaired to City design standards as set forth in the specifications manual and located as follows:... (Proposed language was removed so that sidewalks would be required on both sides of culs-de-sac and all rights-of-way.) Section 2 would read: "...on both sides of all other streets and in pedestrian easements and rights-of-way except as provided further in this section 5. Page F14, the word "restricted" would be changed to word "precluded" in Item 18.164.040, Section B, la: "where street location is I±xecluded by natural topography, wetlands oW other bodies of water, pre- existing development or; Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. (City Recorder Note: Ordinance No. 94-07 adopts Exhibit B; there is no Exhibit A for Ordinance No. 94-07 Exhibit A was used as an attachment for the Staff' Report only.) 5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - POLICY ON ANNEXATION & URBANIZATION - a Associate Planner Acker reviewed the staff report. A resolution was proposed for Council consideration as a resolution of intent to annex all unincorporated areas completely surrounded by the City, using the "island method." .The resolution also included an outline of the annexation process for the Council to follow. Associate Planner Acker advised the proposed resolution would formalize the policy of . the City Council with regard to Compaehensive Plan Amendment and to focus the City annexation policy. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 12 N112111:111 1~~! !I!, 1111,1111NI a i There was discussion on the island annexation, and the work needed to make information available to the citizens in the island areas. City staff requested Council adopt the proposed resolution and to direct staff to prepare a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to focus City annexation policy. It was noted public hearings will be held at a later time. (See comments with regard to this annexation issue which occurred during the Study Session and also during visitor's Agenda). RESOLUTION NO. 94-20 - A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ANNEX BY ISLAND METHOD AREAS OF UNINCORPORATED WASHINGTON COUNTY TKAT ARE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Resolution 94-20. Motion was approved by majority vote of Council present, 3 to 1. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Hawley and Hunt voted "yes"; Councilor Fessler voted "no.") Councilor Fessler explained her "no" vote, advising she felt the notification in the newspaper should have been more specific detailing what action was being considered by the City Council. She noted a desire to keep the people informed, as well as for the population to be able to review Exhibit A which detailed the island annexation process. In addition, she advised she would like to have the decision made with all members of City Council present. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to direct staff to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment changes for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council with regard to the change in policy. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present, 3 to 1. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Hawley and ;-cunt voted "yes"; Councilor Fessler voted "no.") 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE PARKING IS PROHIBITED - City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report. The issue before Council was whether authority should be delegated to the City Engineer to designate short sections of public roadway where parking is prohibited. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 13 The proposed ordinance provides that any parking restrictions involving less than 100 feet of street length could be reviewed and approved or disapproved by the City Engineer. in response to a question by Mayor Schwab, City Engineer responded that the 100 feet length was an arbitrary length. ORDINANCE NO. 94-08 - ' AN ORDINANCE CREATI.':G TMC SECTION 10.32.026 GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE AREAS [MERE PARKING IS PROHIBITED. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt ordinance No. 94-08. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted 7. CONSIDER ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD MAKE IT A VIOLATION TO PROVIDE PREMISES FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY MINORS (ADDING SECTION TMC 7.36.060) Chief Gocdpaster reviewed the staff report and provided additional testimony in support of this ordinance upon questioning by City Council. Currently the Police Department has no legal recourse to cite people who provide premises for the consumption of alcohol by minors. This, would be extremely useful in situations where the Police Department responds where an alcohol party is being held in a residence. Several other departments have this ordinance and have found it to be very effective. The ordinance does not prohibit parents or guardians from providing alcohol to their child in their house in their presence. ORDINANCE NO. 94-09 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER SEVEN OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING TMC SECTION 7.36.060, PROVIDING PREMISES FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY MINORS PROHIBITED. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt ordinance No. 94-09. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley and Hunt voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAGE 14 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Councilor Hunt commented on the condition of 'P r. Bob Parsons who suffered a heart attack during the April 12, 1994 Council meeting. He advised he and his wife were very complimentary of the action and follow-up by the City. Mr. Parsons is doing well. Mayor Schwab commented with regard to the complaint (Ms. Garsteck - Visitor°s Agenda) that the yard debris hearing was not delayed after the medical emergency during the April 12 meeting. He'noted that a number of people did stay for the continuation of the hearin.g.. He said he did not regret the process followed by Council. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:41 p.m. Attest: C the ine Wheatley, City Recorde i M , City of Tigar Date : ccaO42b.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1994 - PAIGE 15 All COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 654-0360 Notice TT 7862 BEAVEERTON, OREGON 97075 r N~tice Advertising 'City of Tigard 199 0 ~1. ❑ Tearsheet Notice a 13125 SW Fall Blvd JJD ®Tigard,Oregon 97223 - O~ ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ~ jjC BARING ® Thp following will,ba cunsc erect by to igatV City mod, oR j at 7 30 F , at Tigard; Civic Center, f1bWa.KaII R60-m- 13125 S. V. sIIar, ev Haat 13oaileyazd, Tigard, Oregon Ftirtlier, itt>oriiiation may: be csbtaiiaeQ . I'rnin the Ge~tnmianity IJevclopmentDirectarorCiiy i2~s'at the cu location or..by calling 639=4171 e Yogt ane invited>to submit written' AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION tingny iii ailvatice'of the public hearing, vvrit[en andoial fiiito ill be'oans><deirxl at the,ficaring., piibhc:iea eeig wilt lie ducD I STATE OF OREGON, ) eiadance evitit the applicable Ghaptert 18 32 of the Tigard 1l~Einicipal`COae . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. and any miles of procedure adopted by the Cgiiiipil arir'available ae City" I,_ ICathY GnE'dr~r ~ being first duly worn, depose and say that I am the Advertising COP+~1'RRiit~±1SIVE ~ N AMEND RI Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin Times ?.ONAtO=r~RD AATCE~ Z A94~ a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.016 TRAI~TS~RTA711 I I'L;AI~II~TING:RiJL, £y':~~ef,F~N1~a~tere A bn and 193.020; published at Tigard in the tton.ofreviewofastaffinitiatedamendmentpaclragekinteiid:toaddmss af'r~res2ir~ ou ttyy nct9sgat ; thha1 'he a State of Oregon mandates and otherzilevelo meet staiidazds gels . eariz?o7&A "3-0 Zone Ord. ZOA 94-0003 tedto spo lion facilities Prcposed;artaendmenb are an' j there- fore wilfnot belisted in detail Com' a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ptehensive Plae Yc~lnme I`(T ans~r tatbon InventoryReport} ~s proposed to be amendeato altaw_a greater entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and variety of standards anproveinent " fgr•local-stiieecs. Air►ieiidments also consecutive in the following issues: .:proposed to:tlie foilowing,Communiey >aevelopu~ent C , 6 ha tiers Chapter 18 36 (L,eg~slalive Decision Makin C- pter 18 SIB=( Bsp~6ding Hei p ) p . AAr i 1 14,",994 ght Limitations ,>rxce lions , Cha ter 18 `i06 (Off=street parking and L dmg Reilwrelnents), Chapter:18.108 Access; Egress, and ~irr;tilaUari), Q:hapter 18 12~ (Site I)eyelopnient RevieK): and Chapter 1$.164 -(Street and utility Improvement Staaidards}. - 1T7862 Pnbhsh Apn114,15'94 ~ . ` • - Subscribed and sworn "fore me this 14th day of A ri 1,19 OFFICIAL SEAL µs~ ROBIN. A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 024552 fa Nota blic for Oregon MY COMMISS!ON -EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 3 My Commission Expires: ~ AFFIDAVIT SEEN UMMM019M i i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. j Legal TT 7862 I, P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Gfig"al Noti IiL ce Advertising g *City of Tigard ~9 • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd ~Q i\UP~© •Tigard,Oregon 97223 Ci ® 13 Duplicate Affidavit PUBL,iCFiEARIN • , Tice following will be considered by the 4j9%, at 7:30 P M,i at mg W' Civ1o Ceantsr AIN Hafl B614 evard, Tigard, Oregon F..urther of from the Community D.eyetpprient Du liii•.ption or by calling 639=4171' You are ` _Te~it+ t~mtliiy ii#`advance of the public hearing;' Sts AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AFFIDAVIT considered at the: heanng'The public h STATE OF OREGON, I corclaiice wisli the a pplicable,t'hapter18:32 U~ COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' andaay rules of Pr&edum dopWd by the 1 , 34 I,~Sathy Gn~~Ar Halt 111111144 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising REF 11311APB AIviB A/dENi 1 ®e + Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin limes ~A ORD tAr A 10 a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 R A'il ILI IN, PLA19NiN .R g; . and 193.020; published at Tigard in the tioii ofre viewv of a sluff watated ' einmetiE aforesaid couttyyand9s at ; tpp~~a a State 0. Oregon mandates and otherAdvelo' Hearing C'P A -~OOGoning Ord. ZOA 94-0003 t~ansportatlbfi facilities oposed 4mendme a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the fore_will notbe tiSOki in de4ail Comprehensiv entire issue of said news a for ONE Cation Inventory Report) is:proposed to be artI Maio P P,er successive and variety of improveiient standards forlacaLs consecutive in the following issues: proposed to;a a following Community Devet Chapter 18.30 (LegislativeEDecision Making); April 14 ,19 9 4 Height Limitations -xcepipons), Chapter 11 Lead`quirements), Chapter 18103 Access, T Chapter 181?Q (Site Development Review); an c _ and t7tality Improvement Staztdards): r, Lam TT7862 Publish Apn114, 1994 r 1-4 s Subscribed and sworn "fore me thi 14th day of April,19 OFF.CIA.L SEAL J:.: ROBIN A. BURGESS i NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON V COMMIS310N NO. 024552 Note ubiic for Oregon AAY C)MMISS.ON EXPIRES MAY 16, 1007 My Commission Expires: -C AFFIDAVIT y. !!I IMF 1 l~lilliI IN! IM ~ypli i P COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. L® J O P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 604-0360 G `L TT, 7 8 6 6 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 ~ 519g1~ Legal Notice Adve7tising `City of Tigard a ❑ Tearsheet Notice OF 13125 SW Hall Blvd. '42igard,Oregon 97223 a 13 Duplicate Affidavit o ® I'mfollow1og mmdou h it}>ghta'r~re published fos.~o~:imfortr►~i# Full u agend may t e obtained fram'the City recorder, 13125 S.W. M111 Bculevd, Tig€rd, Oicon 97223, or by calling 639-4176.:: COLT CIL:' 1 USIPd SS NM1TlVQ Cm APRVL 26,1994: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION fiFtlz'D.C1Ta HALL TC ri ITAI1. STATE OF OREGON, ) 131 5 S:WY HAi'.L BO1JLr-,YARD, rlu •3x219, ORE!; Ow . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. Study Mwdng,(T6wP Hall Conference doom) (6:30 P.M.) 1, Kathy Snyder ~gens3aE3$vi~~Y being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of th gard-Tualatin Times -Bt!siness Meeting oran Hall (7.30 a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 Pudic Hewing and 193A20; Published at Tigard in the 0 I` r,sr* atioaPlanningRule-ComprehensivePla€►Aan=hent aesaid county e d state; that the City Counci.~ Business Mtg.April 26th Council Consldermion a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the o Ordinance and Resolution -Yard Debris and Scrap P'per recycling Progmm 1mpie=nta6on entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and ® Ir itia Anncxation Policy consecutive in the following issues: , Lei Contract Review Rb rd M"VI April 21,1994~ _ Executive S$S6lon: ` be Tigard City Council may go info'Executive Session tinder the.prcvisi as of ORS_192.660 (1)'(d),-(6), & (h) €o discuss laboriclations real Property uunsactioats, current and .pcnd g, lidga? issues Subscribed and sworn :;Lree this21st ay of Apri 1,1 OF.~~ ~.CI AL SEAL ROSIN A. BURGESS C!/Z NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary lic for Oregon C021113SION NO. 024552 MY COQ{`.tISS!ON EXPIRES MAY16,1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ CI'T'Y OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING in the (Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose a say: That I pos the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s~ a TZ 9 (4 - 0 T4 -09 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated. 67 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of AM& 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Nall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. West One Bank, 12260 SW Bain Street, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Nall Blvd., -Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon Qk 0J Subscribed and sworn to before me this ltd day of 19 0 Kota biic f r reg n OFFICIAL SEAL JANIESJ.6~1OLF My Commission Expires: cUVA&. CE) q 0l NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON MY COW SSONIEXPRESJUNE0T IV4 IoginUoeaNpost lmill~'millo~~ low RIM, END Ti (limited to 2 minutes or less, please) 0 Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from youo~n other Issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through sta. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME &,ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED k rc~ Cs 1' ff1~dt Gc~W 5o1J e T- R Q 'o Gof~ r Ce~~,et tl (L~ A 0 ~ -eta J~~ ~ Y 3420 &J- J2 rt t tau ha l~ L>Gt G~ G 1 S Ls fZ3 dot Yt ° C<~ (21 Cl+~=~- JOV Z3 Sw ~v D ~%~i ~S f- i~j CadJ'~4MC;XA~ t w, w ~4L ~rlk i~C hl oc•~ S 1G,~1'-U Gviai'-~ nG rGrr~~n~nc /tJ~wtL q i n s _ rs. o Depending on the number of person wishing to testily, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount f time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. #.:3t{r PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) -TRANSPORTATION RELATED AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS STATE OF OREGON MANDATES AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS r M UP. ..1 R4F~ aE YdeN,z: a.RS.m~Ka:: 'G LEASE P.BIH Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) opponent -(S-peaking Against) r®sa Addm~jV,Z_ S~ 17"r~~• OV JW 30339 Name reas6 tC( f W G O C Uri" D~~ X Y 72z 7 roes Name [ Name Address Address Name EAd me dress ro es Name Name dr®sa Addross Name Name IW Add rose ress Nacre Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name dress Address Name rasa Address Name Name Mdress Address 0 r ate: mmerfi4 Su.meeid Residents m~ om: Paul Hunt - SCA resident - Tigard City Counselor Subject: City of Tigard Garbage & Water Charges In the immediate future the City of Tigard will be sending you a bi-monthly bill for your sever and water on the same statement. Since the water and sewer will both be a charge for two months it may appear to be a large amount. There is no increase in cost. The City will save approximately ;2,500 a month in postage by the combine mailing. As well as saving money for the City it should be more convenient for you,to pay one bill instead of two. Some time between July and October the amount of your garbage charge will be increased. The DEQ has mandated the City start yard debris recycling pick up at curb side. This pick up will be in a bU gallon cart furnished by Schmidts. At the same time you will be furnished a container-to recycle waste paper. junk mail, cereal boxes, etc.. Currently.for a 32 gallon can you-are paying $13.10 a month. If you maintain the same service, plus yard debris and waste paper, this will increase to $16.50. Therr are a number of alternatives that you may want to consider. Following is a list of options available. OPTIONS - Monthly Cost WNGLE~FAMILY HOMES _ Choose to have no service ............................$-U- Full weekly service including 32 gallon garbage cart, red bin, waste paper bin, and yard debris recycling ...........................................$16.50 Same as above except 20 gallon garbage cart 14-25 ON-CALL service - no weekly service - Customer calls hauler and requests pick up. Pickup may include 32 gallon garbage can, red bin, waste paper bin, and yard debris cart- cost per call $ 8.50 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND CONDOMINIUMS Recycling only: red bins and waste paper only 4.5U yard debris only $ 2.90 red bins, waste paper, and yard debris $ 7.40 CONDOMINIUMS L Weekly service - 32 gallon garbage cart, d bin, waste paper bin, (no yard debris) 114.50 Same as above except,20 gallon garbage cart ................................................$12.25 ZEN le 11;~111 ii y! fl 40If single family residents choose to have garbage pick up they must have the red bin, waste paper bin, and 60 gallon yard debris cart for recycling. Condominiums do not have to have the 60 gallon yard debris carts. Red bins, waste paper bins, and garbage will be picked up on a once a week basis. Yard debris carts will be picked up e:•ery ether week on the same day as the regular pick up. I will be happy to try to answer any questions you may have (620-2969) or you r-y call Loreen Edin at the Tigard City Hall 639-4171. 'CA administrator, Jim Davis, and Loreen will be holding an informational meet at the Summerfield club house prior to the garbage change. You will be notified of the date. i f 1111 ill! INS ~~,d.ah.~ a2v PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMPARISON FOR METRO AREA CITIES (in ascending $ order) April.1994 Single Multi- City Family(/unit) Family unit) Other Beaverton (see note below) Tigard $500 $300 Manufactured homes: $250/unit in a park $500/unit on a single tax lot Forest Grove $500 $500 None Wilsonville $603 $603 None Gresham $630 $630 None Hillsboro $672 $672 Non-residential: $564 in PUD $112/parking space for commercial and industrial; $84/parking space for industrial and commercial in PUD Sherwood $865 $865 None Lake Oswego $1,164 $818 None Tualatin $1,400. $1,400 None West Linn $1,809 City $1,194 None $2,075 Active $1,370 Planning Area Note: Beaverton is located within the boundaries of the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, which is supported by an annual assessment on all (existing and new) residential development. The assessment on a $100,000 home is roughly $150. DR/sdc.uurvey KEN • - 5~ ~~s Adm.. City Council L4 lace i q City of Tigard 13125 SW Nall Blvd. Tigard, Or 97223 26 April 1994 Dear City Council Members Wei as neighbors of the Summer Lake area are deeply concerned about an issue that faces our neighborhood. As a result we have formed a "grass roots" organization to speak as one on this issue and appreciate this opportunity to convey our concern to you. Since 1983 the City's Comprehensive Plan has proposed improved access to the Summer Lake Park area with the connection of Winterlake Drive to 130th Avenue. The City realized back in 1983, that as the Park and its adjoining neighborhoods developed, improved access would become necessary. Those opposing this improvement have raised issues that when closely evaluated have little or no merit. It has been our collective experiences that when the facts are known, the vast majority of our neighbors strongly support this issue. Unfortunately, those gathering signatures on the petition opposing this project, felt the need to greatly distort the facts, so as to gather support. It is our belief that the primary driving force behind the opposition to this project, has been the desire of a relatively few homeowners, who presently live on dead-end streets, from realizing increased residential traffic past their homes. The following paragraphs address the most commonly u,;ed misinformation regarding this issue: 1. TAX INCREASES: The City is not planning on funding this project with increased tax revenues collected from the neighborhood. This is not a tax, issue. No new taxes will be assessed to pay for this project. Traffic Impact Fees collected by the City from new developments will be used to fund this work. 2. WETLANDS IMPACTS: This project will not devastate or do irreparable harm to the existing wildlife and wetlands. At most, only minimal, if any, long-term impacts to the wetlands and wildlife on Summer Creek will be realized. The bridge will cross Summer Creek and will not span or encroach on Summer Lake., The City is not proposing draining the wetlands, adding a significant amount of fill material, damming or altering the course of the creek. The City will mitigate for any environmental impacts, as required by State and Federal Laws. It should be noted that bridges already cross Summer Creek at 1?5th and 121st Avenues without adversely impacting wildlife there. 3. PARK IMPACTS: The proposed project will not adversely affect Summer Lake Park by cutting through or dividing it and will not reduce its current size. This proposed project will only connect the dead ends of Winterlake Drive and 130th Avenue. 4. TRAFFIC IMPACTS: Vehicular traffic into our neighborhoods should not appreciably increase. This connection will not provide a shortcut through our neighborhood to anywhere. For the most part, only those living in or visiting the area will use 130th to Winterlake Drive. An independent traffic study, currently authorized by the City, should verify this, as well as confirm the need for this connection. We, as neighbors from all of the Summer !Lake area neighborhoods, have banded together to support this project for the following reasons: 1. The connection of Winterlake Drive to 130th will result in enhanced access to the Summer Lake area for emergency services, such as fire, police and ambulance. 2. An additional outlet will result in traffic being redistributed and reduced on heavily traveled residential streets, such as Morning Hill, Falcon Rise, Brittany and 128th. Thus, it will provide a more equitable distribution of residential traffic through our neighborhoods. 3. The current access to Scholls Ferry Road, for many of our neighbors, is via Brittany Drive. Brittany Drive, with its curves and on-street parking, was never designed or intended to safely handle its current traffic load. It is unfair to our neighbors who live on that street to shoulder the burden of being a primary outlet from the Summer Lake area to Scholls Ferry Road. 4. Summer Lake Park is a city-wide community park, built and paid for by all the residents of Tigard. An improved and more convenient access to the park needs to be developed to promote its use. We do not unconditionally support this project. We request the City Council to consider and act on the following: 1. The connection of 130th .Avenue to Winterlake Drive should be a bridge designed and constructed to minimize impacts to Summer Creek and the surrounding wetlands. 2. The improvement of 130th Avenue to Scholls Ferry should be completed prior to or concurrent with the construction of the bridge connecting 130th Avenue to Winterlake Drive. 3. To relieve on-street parking on WinterLake Drive, the proposed parking lot serving visitors to the park should be built. 4. To provide a safer environment for our children while at the park, on-street. parking should not be permitted on the park side of Winterlake Drive. This parking restriction will improve driver visibility while driving on Winterlake Drive adjacent to the park. 5. The cost for construction of the bridge should be funded by Traffic Impact Fees or other City general funds. 6. Winterlake Drive should be widened and a sidewalk should be constructed on the park side of Winterlake drive, as per the recommendations of John Acker, Associate Planner with the City of Tigard. This improvement will eliminate the need for our children to walk in the street. 7. Appropriate pedestrian safety devices should be provided to assure safe access to the park. 8. Winterlake Drive and 130th Avenue should remain residential and the 25 MPH speed limit strictly enforced. 9. For safety and aesthetic reasons, park pedestrian traffic should not be forced to use a vehicular bridge as a connection between park pathways. For this reason we support a permanent foot bridge at the west end of the park. The City of Tigard has made a commitment to it residents since 1983 to construct this important link to Scholls Ferry Road from the Summer Lake area. Many of our fellow neighbors moved into this area with the full expectation that this connection would be built in the very near future. It was a well though-out and an appropriate plan in 1983, as it remains today. The future is now, the park has be developed and the neighborhoods built. Therefore, we ask the City of Tigard to honor their commitment to its citizens and construct this much need connection. Sincerely, Neighbors for Better Neighborhoods REM m svasa euso,smiov CP 71tic_ THE CITY OF TIGARD IS ClURRENTLY STUDYING THE FEASIBILITY OF EXTENDING 130Th FROM SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD TO WINTERLAKE DRIVE ACROSS THE WETLANDS. SOME OF US FEEL THAT THIS WOULD BE AN UNWISE DECISION FOR SEVERAL REASONS. 1. THIS ROAD EXTENSION WOULD DO IRREPARABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE WETLANDS AND IT'S WILDLIFE. 2. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC WOULD BE A DANGER TO OUR CHILDREN. 3. THERE WOULD BE NO ECONOMIC BENEFIT FOR THE CITY OR THE SURROUNDING (NEIGHBORHOODS. 4. THIS PLAN WOULD NEGATIVELY EFFECT THE SOLITUDE AND LIVABILITY OF THIS AREA. 5. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, PARTICULARLY DURING THE SUMMER, WOULD BE AN INCREASED HAZARD TO PEOPLE USING THE PARK. SOME OF US FEEL THAT THE CITY COULD SPEND THE MONEY MUCH MORE WISEL'Y' BY INSTALLING A FOOT BRIDGE AND NATURE TRAILS. IF YOU AGREE WITH OUR POSITION AND WOULD LIlKoE TO HELP US CONVINCE THE CITY THAT THIS IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS AREA., PLEASE CALL GREG GERKING AT 524-3520 OR CART. GIOIA AT 524-1720. 0 I,-ELF VIE P"SEI~ T A f rr 4/05/94 Page )1 FRI ENDS OF SLT~'s/1MRa L.A]K Number of Signatures Collected by Street Street Number of Signatures 121st Ave. 4 125th Ct. 6 125th Pl. 2 126th Ave. 1 126th P1. 5 127th Ct. 7 127th Pl. 7 128th Ave. 17 129th Pl. 6 130th 9 131st Ave. 6 131st Pl. 9 133rd Ave. 3 133rd P1. 7 134th Ct. 1 134th Pl. 2 134th Terrace 6 135th Ave. 22 Benish St. 1 Bouneff St. 6 Bridgeview Ct. 7 Brittany Dr. 12 Brook Ct. 1 Chicory Ct. 4 Chimney Ridge St. 3 Danbush Ct. 1 Edgewater Ct. 2 Eschman Way 22 Falcon Rise Dr. 27 Glacier Lilly Cir. 47 Hawks Beard U. 7 Hawks Beard St. 12 Katherine St. 1 Lakeview Terrace 6 Laurmont Ct. 3 Laurmont Dr. 3 Merestone Ct. 13 Millview Ct. 2 Morning Hill Dr. 20 N. Dakota St. 3 Outside 143 Scotts Bridge Dr. 24 Sheffield Cir. 13 Shore Dr. 32 Shoreview Pl. 5 Snowbush Ct. 7 Sorrel Dock Ct. 15 Spring Wood Dr. 12 Summer Crest Dr. 24 V-05/4,94 Page 2 VRI ENDS Off' SUMMER LAKE Number of Signatures Collected by Street Street Number of Signatures Summer Lake Dr. '23 Summer St. 3 Tamera Ln. 4 Tony Ct. 1 Walnut St. 2 Winter Lake Ct. 8 Winter Lake Dr. 26 TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURES COLLECTED AS OF 4/05/94 665 Note:. "Outside" indicates signatures obtained from addresses that were not within the area bounded by Scholls Ferry Road on the Northq 135th Avenue on the West, Walnut Street on the South, tab and 121st Avenue on the East. "Outside" signatures were obtained primarily in Summer Lake Park. 1 1161114 . AGEI`.DA ITEM A # 3. . For Agenda of APRIL 26, 1994 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Consent Agenda - Solid Waste Rate Revision - receive and file Yard Debris Exemption Program (Solid Waste Administrative Rule # 94-1) and approve Resolution adopting new Solid Waste Rates. PREPARED BY: L. Edin DEFT HEAD OK ~ CITY ADMIN OK ~==ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Ratify Council direction given at the April 12, 1994 public hearing by adopting new solid waste rates for adding residential yard debris and scrap paper recycling at curbside and confirming the residential exemption program for yard debris recycling at curbside. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to receive and file the Solid Waste Administrative Rule (#94-1) which sets out the Yard Debris Exemption Program and approve the resolution ratifying new solid waste rates to be effective no earlier than 7/1/94 and no later than 10/1194 upon yard debris and scrap paper recycling being made available to the customer. INFORMATION SUMMARY On 4/12/94, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing to consider implementation of a yard debris curbside collection program for recycling (DEO mandated) and a scrap paper recycling program for all residential solid waste customers. After receiving public testimony and considering the recommendation of the Council's Solid- Waste Consultant and City staff, Council directed staff prepare legislation to implement the following programs. Yard Debris Collection: • Bi-weekly collection of yard debris on the same day as garbage, year round; • Hauler-provided 60-gallon carts that work with mechanically assisted collection equipment; "nom rate increase of $2.9u per month Tor residential customers; • A class exemption for residential associations of 15 units or more with limited yard debris to be handled; with a rate increase of $.90 per month; • Aggressive promotion of the service, source reduction options, and opportunities to decrease refuse collection service levels; and • Full program roll-out between 7/1/94 and 9/30/94. • Class Exemption (as defined in Administrative Rule #94-1 (attached) Yard debris includes: grass clippings, leaves, branches (4" or less in diameter), shrubs, plants, prunings and weeds. • weekly collection of scrap paper on the same day as garbage, year round; • Second Hauler provided 14-gallon bin for manual collection; • A uniform rate increase of $.50 per month for residential customers; • Aggressive promotion of the service, source reduntion options, and opportunities to decrease refuse collection service levels; and • Full program roll-out between 7/1/94 and 9/30/94. Scrap paper includes: kraft bags (paper grocery bags), brochures, junk mail, envelopes (with or without windows), paper egg cartons, paper cores (from paper towels), paper labels (from tin cans), greeting cards, white and colored high grade paper, computer printouts, file folders, coupons, paperboard, chipboard (cereal boxes), and gift wrap. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A FISCAL NOTES No additional City staff will be needed to implement this program. The monthly rate for a 32-gallon can collected at curbside would be $16.50 and would include yard debris and scrap paper being added to the recycling program. Many citizens will be able to reduce the size of their garbage can and thereby offset a portion of the cost of the new programs. 4 21112!gi 111- F 11; 10,111111 !1 CITY OF TIGARD SOLD WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (TMC 11.04) Per Tigard Municipal Code Section 11.04.160, Administrative Rules are to be developed to assist with interpretation of the Solid Waste Management Ordinance. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 94-1 PROPOSED APRIL 12. 199° RESIDENTIAL. RECYCLING PROGRAM EFFECTIVE JULY 1. 1994 The purpose of this rule is to clarify the recycling services provided to residential customers under Section 11.04.040.1.5 (on-route recycling) of the Solid Waste Management Ordinance. No later than October 1, 1994, the following residential curbside recycling programs will be offered to the solid waste customers within the City of Tigard WEEKL Y PICKUP OF RED BIN RECYCLABLES - Service is provided same day as garbage, year round. Haulers provide two 14-gallon red bins for manual collection. Materials and preparation standards are as follows: • Commated cardboard & brown oaoer bags - Flatten and tie a manageable amount with twine. Corrugated cardboard has a wavy layer between two thinner layers. • Glass bottles & jars - Empty and wash out all food. Remove lids and sort by color - green, brown and clear. Labels do not need to be removed No light bulbs, window glass, mirrors, cookware or drinking glasses can be accepted, • ' Nevrspaver - Tie with twine or place in a grocery bag. Do not include magazines or, scrap paper. • Magazines - Tie with twine or place in a grocery bag. Magazines have a glossy cover and all inside pages are glossy. Glossy catalogues are accepted Do not include newspaper or scrap paper. • Scrag paper - Place in a grocery bag. Scrap paper includes: kraft bags (paper grocery bags), brochures, junk mail, envelopes (with or without windows), paper egg cartons, paper cores (from paper towels), paper labels (from tin cans), greeting cards, white and colored high grade paper, connputer pr into-i tc file folders, coupons, paperboard, chipboard (cereal boxes), and gift wrap. Do not include newspaper, corrugated cardboard or magazines. • Plastic milk iuas - Remove lids and wash out all milk residue. Flatten and tie together with twine or place in a grocery bag. !1!1''11 1 , - - MOM IL M. M=1 SEEN • Tin food cans - Empty and wash out all food. Remove paper labels, remove tops and bottoms and flatten. (Cans with rounded bottoms do not need to be flattened.) Tin food and beverage containers only, please. (A refrigerator magnet will stick to aluminum.) • Aluminum - Wash off all food. Separate from other metals. Food trays, foil and cans are accepted. (A refrigerator magnet will not stick to aluminum.) • Scrap metal - Scrap metal in manageable amounts, less than 30" long, no more than 40 lbs., and free of plastic, rubber or other materials. • Motor oil - Pour used motor oil into an unbreakable, leak-proof plastic or metal container. Milk jugs with screw-on lids are best. Snap on lids cannot be accepted because they do not seal tightly. BI-WEEKLY PICKUP OF YARD DEBRIS RECYCLABLES - Service is provided same day as. garbage, year round. Haulers provide one 60-gallon roll cart for mechanically assisted collection. A class exemption is offered to homeowners' associations with 15 households or more when certain condition; are met. (See attached class exemptions conditions.) Material and preparation standards follow. • Yard debris - includes grass clippings, leaves, branches (4" or less in diameter), shrubs, plants, prunings, weeds, and christmas trees. Dirt and rocks are not accepted AMA EXHIBIT "A" TO SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATIVE RULE # 34-~ "CLASS" EXEMPTION FOR RESIDEN77AL CURBSIDE COLLEC77ON OF YARD DEBRIS Existing neighborhood or homeowners' associations with at least 15 households as members should be provided with an opportunity to elect to exempt their members from the yard debrls collection service, if they have a contract for yard maintenance service whibh includes the hauling and recycling of all yard debris. Each hauler will administer the exemption program for their franchise area on duly 1st of each year according to the following conditions: i the associations' board must vote to request an exemption through fetter application to their hauler, • the association must demonstrate that all yard debris from common and individual yards is currently being diverted from landt!Iling and that yard debris is/will not be placed in trash containers; • all members of the association must be exempt (service can't be provided to some and not to others); • residents receiving regular trash service within the association should help pay a portion of the cost of the new program through a monthly increase in their refuse bill. The rate for this administrative support will be set by Tigard City Council by resolution; and any disputes regarding the exemption program between the hauler and customer will be brought to the City Administrator, or his designee, for determination. Before applying for the exemption, associations would be encouraged to talk with their landscaper to see whether the cost of yard maintenance service could be reduced if 60-gallon carts were provided for their use. Additionally, residents would be encouraged to consider maintaining the yard maintenance service for lawns while adding the 60-gallon cart service for trimmings from gardens in individual units. e AGENDA ITEM # 3.3 For Agenda of -1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement to participate in the Phase II Regional Water Study PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK yy~ CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement to Fund the Phase Two Regional Water Supply Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed amendments to the Phase II Regional Water Supply Plan Intergovernmental Agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Phase II Regional Water Supply Plan is a cooperative study to plan long- term water supply for the Portland metropolitan region. The study is funded by water providers throughout the region with contributions based on a proportional amount of future need. The Tigard Water District entered into an intergovernmental agreement to participate in the regional study. Since that time, all water system assets and water system management and operation functions have been assigned to the City of Tigard through intergovernmental agreements with King City, Durham, and the Tigard Water District. As part of its water system management obligations, the City has assumed the role of participant in the Phase II Regional Water Supply Study. Recently, participants in the regional study have agreed to amend the original IGA. The amendments would allow for alternates on the project steering committee and clarify and limit shared liability in the event of legal action. All of the participants have adopted the amendment wi*h the exception of Tigard and two other jurisdictions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED NONE FISCAL NOTES A- 1 o,c`v~ 0* 00 00 1993 AMENDMENTS TO PHASE -II REGIOffl L WATER SUPPLY TPJTFRGO~t~c~~'*';~,w►~'~'A.T ~,~C.RFE~1~*•n WHEREAS, a Phase II Regional [Mater Supply Study Agreement (IGA) has been entered into by many of the water suppliers in this region; and WHEREFiS, a few issues have arisen requiring clarification of the IGA; and WHEREAS, the parties to the IGA established a'subcommittee to review the clarification issue; aria AREAS, that subcommittee has met, reviewed and approved cleil:rificaition language; and WHEREAS, the nature of the clarifications are such that formal amendment to the IGA is appropriate; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that: 1. Section B, Role of the Steering Committee is amended to read: B. ROLE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE 1. The Steering Committee shall be made up of two primary Participants from each of the following areas: _ Multnomah County (one member of which must be from the City of Portland Water Bureau) - and one alternate. Washington County - and two alterxmates. Clackamas County - and two alternat,,. 2. JAI Members of the Steering committee and alternates shall be selected by the members of the Participants Committee from each of the listed geographic areas. IbI Alternates "Alternategg" 'are reureSentatives' of_P_aXticioants who and Steerina Co ttee metinas when the ori na Committee membernnot send a rex,re ~,ve . • Selected alrna _e Wram attend st _er a committee meetings even when the selected Steerina Cosh ee member is present, At those times the- alternate may participate in the Steering Commi teP discussion as--de . red by the Steerina Committee but may not vote. Alternates may. ho-wwever. _ represent a Participant as =ovided in Section B.7_ When a 7 sx~t add terna a is attendina a Steering Goy ttP~ mee_ina in the place of a primary Ste4 - a Coxpittee member then the alternate may participate fully on the Committee and may- vote. As used in this section. "member" shall mean "Participant_," 2. Section I, Shared Liability, of the ICA is hereby amended to read as follows: SHARED LIABILI.T - Except fox suit r1sincL out - willful and wanton acts or omissions of a PartciMat or its ovees ox agents or a Suit challenain the lea; authority of a Participant to enter into this Aar ement. all Participants agree to share any costs or damages (including reasonable attorney's fees) from third party actions (including any action by the consultant) against any Participant arising out of the contract with the consultant or, this Agreement. Payment obligations shall be proportional to each Participant's original contribution or such other proportion as is applicable if Participants have defaulted or other entities have joined as Participants pursuant to Paragraph G. Participants agree to assist and cooperate in the defense of such an action. -'Settlement of any action that would impose an obligation to pay upon the Participants under this provision must be approved by a majority of the Participants Committee mubi-ect to the ratificatian of individual Participants.ticipants- may only refuse to ratify a pro nrly approved settlement bDwever. if ratifi Lion would be contr v aw. As used in -this claus a term "law",does not j nc, ude municipal ordLna=e . _ Po.Ucies or ® er E xe"Iations voluntarily adopted by a 2articinant. 2 - ONE= r Participant believing that rat i a-ion would be Contrary to law_ as that term is defined in this se tion, shall make this assertion to the Participant's Committee in writing setting out the specific basis f its belief within 10 days of receiving notice of a proposed Pa_r_ticinants' vote on he settlement if such notice is sent_ ax within 10 daws of any Participants' vote ratifyin-a a se tlement. if no notice of a proposed vote is rer~ei Bred _ Any Particil who participates in payment ofhe settnt may challenge any such assertion in court. Whichever side is sustained in such suit shall be entitled to its costa % reasonable attorneys fees incurred in such action. A defaulting Participant shall be liable to the other Participants for its pro rata share of any liability covered by this `section. APPROVED AS TO FORM: C; 1-4 © t ~ Pub is B • y By: ICJ Title: 0f- - Date : By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: r ~ raih.e~aic~i.Ema~en3.Taov r _ 3 _ 111papip I III I; R April 7, 1994 Ms. Lorna Stickel, Project Manager Phase II Regional Water Study Bureau of Water Works City of Portland 1120 Sint ,th Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1974 RE: IGA Amendment Lorna: As you know, there have been some water service changes in the Tigard area. The City of Tigard has assuned responsibility for water service throughout the territory formerly served by the Tigard Water District. Tigard is operating this system under the provisions of 25 year intergovernmental agreements wh,.ch I sent to you previously. The area now served by the City of Tigard water department includes the City of Tigard, the City of King City, the City of Durham and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of the remaining Tigard Water District. As part of the change in water service provision, the City of Tigard will assume the role of participant in the Phase 2 Regional Water Study. Please update your records to include the City of Tigard as the participant of record-in the Regional Phase 2 study and a signatory to the IGA for this service area. On April 26, the Tigard City Council adopted the 1993 amendments to Phase II Regional Water Supply Intergovernmental Agreement. I have attached a copy of the amendments for your records. Future invoices for the Phase 2 study should be directed to the City of Tigard Water Department. Sincerely, Jack Schwab, Mayor Y MOORE_ 11113 1 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of L4 ato 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Summerlake Park parkincr and Winterlake Drive street im rovements PREPARED BY:DEPT BEAD OK CITY ADMIN O ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL - Should the City use Parks SDC funds to build a 30 space parking lot in Summerlake Park and complete 1/3 street improvements including curb, sidewalk and street trees along the park frontage of Winterlake Drive. - - - - - - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to initiate this project to be funded from parks SDCs. - INFORMATION SUMMARY Over the past three years the City has built many improvements in the west end of Summerlake Park including a picnic shelter, restrooms, ball field, L-ennis s courts, a basketball court and a playground. The new facilities, general growth and the fact that more people have discovered that Summerlake Park exists have resulted in an increased number of people using the park. On April 5, the West C.I.T. had over 150 people in attendance to discuss the connection of 130th/ Winterlake Drive near the northwest corner of the park. Many in attendance voiced a concern for children's safety caused by the lack of a curb next to the park and the fact that park users park on both sides of the narrow street. The proposed project should improve safety, and help parking and traffic conditions near the park as well as complete improvement of west Summerlake Park. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Build only the parking facility. FISCAL NOTES The proposed project is estimated to cost $218,000. The Parks SDC fund balance as of April 12, is $452,000. The remaining FY 93-94 budget SDC fund appropriation is $353,000. 3 WOR-A SUMMERLAKE PROJECT AND COST ESTIMATE The proposed project consists, of a parking lot, 1/3 street improvements, street trees, and'a pedestrian path. The proposed parking lot will provide 30 parking spaces in Summerlake Park. Summerlake Park is classified as a community park and.is intended to be used by citizens from throughout the City. The City has developed recreational facilities in this park to enhance its usefulness to the community. There is presently only on-street parking for those who drive to the park. Winterlake Drive will be improved along the frontage of the park between 128th Street and its current northern terminus. The street is presently 30 feet wide and has no curb or sidewalk on the park side. Winterlake Drive is designated as a minor collector with a full width standard of 40 feet with sidewalks on both sides. The project also includes a continuation of the pattern and species of trees that presently edge the park near the ball fields and restroom along the remainder of the Winterlake Drive frontage. The continuous row of tulip trees will provide shade and form an attractive appearance for the neighborhood and park users for many years to come. To provide more direct access to the picnic shelter and ball field, a pedestrian path is included. The path will connect the parking lot with the west end activity center. As part of this path a footbridge that the City owns will be placed to span a drainageway and wetland area. Summerlake Park 30 space parking lot $ 32,000 Winterlake Drive 10 foot pavement widening, curb & sidewalk......... $148,000 Street Trees 20 - 3 inch caliper Tulip Poplar $ 20,000 Pedestrian Path 200 feet - 8 foot wide asphalt path $ 12,000 Foot Bridge footings and placement of footbridge $ 6,000 (City owns the bridge) Total $218,.000 (cost estimates include a 20% contingency) ja/summpark.est April 14, 1994 t tiir ff r ~S SUMMERLAKE PARK DROVEMENTS CTTY OF TIGARD, OR ti N♦♦w.v e"I" ,rrl w,N...N ET IMpROVE140111 » `•,»»N„», ~ Gladei N ,,,,w...,.."I'"rrx I,,,,,.,r..... a♦....,,.w.. zooms _ ~d \ l1• ~:yar__ ~ ~,,,,N~N. N ~5 w.,M.,.,wr,`..,.."''.rw,.»w_N`v t♦. ~ ~ wN, »wwY.wv'a'wwww"w S N,lt 'Y~»NNN.Nw.w..nw.~y, a M nwN 'rN.Hyy l _ utw `n~.,.~.. ..r Aw"ea+waawx+MUORaa ~ (q t •,"~'.rJ~~"..♦ a • , 5".".a w' cR I w. R „....tt.~ y •,IRa. ~.....`•N".";I Yt♦.. {J~f~~JJyk( cL~t II r :i ';4 r • : aY 144R[nnnr~ll gKO0U18 .r~~f Yv , ~f 3 aRtp~~ LOT S"% 2W AMP COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4-26-94 DATE SUBMITTED: 4-15-94 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: LkRRroval of PREVIOUS ACTION: None Intergovgrnmental agreement = SMART- System Radar Van PREPARED BY: Ron Goodpaster DEPT DEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ron Goodpaster ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL Approve the I.G.A. that would split the cost of a $12,000 SMART System radar van with the cities of Lake Oswego, Tualatin, and West Linn. Each City would pay $3,127.50 of the cost and share the use of the equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY This trailer is equipped with a reader boars: and computer. When cars go by it, it flashes the vehiclefs speed on the reader board and the computer prints out the volume and speed of the traffic. It would be an excellent tool in our neighborhood traffic enforcement program. We have demonstrated the equipment in Tigard and received good response from the citizens. It would allow us to do more selective traffic enforcement and better address neighborhood speed complaints. Sharing the cost is an excellent use of resources. The agreement has been reviewed by our City Attorney. City Recorder has original agreement for Mayor to sign if approved. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Not approve. FISCAL NOTES Monies are available in the Police Department budget to purchase. Use of equipment will have minor impact in regards to increased revenue from citations issued as a result of the data. MEN& P `b POLICE DEPARTMENT February 16, 1994 Chief Ronald D. Goodpaster- Tigard Police Department .1.3125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Reference: SMART System Radar Dear Ron: Enclosed is a revised copy of the original Intergovernmental Agreement covering the SMART System radar which has already been purchased and is in our possession. Section 3 has been changed and Section 8 is an addition. These changes were recommended by your City Attorney. As I told you in my letter of November 22, Sergeant Beck will present you with the original document for signature by your mayor after approval has been obtained from your Council. You can reach her at 635-0250. Sincerely, s A-,) Les G. Youngbar Chief of Police LGY:av Enc. 380 "A" Avenue • Post Office Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Business Hours: (503) 635-0250 9 After Hours: (503) 635-0238 • FAY. (503) 635-0269 L INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF TIGARD, TUALATIN, WEST LINN, AND LAKE OSWEGO This agreement, made on this day of ' , 1991 is entered into by and between the Cities of Tigard, Tualatin, West Linn, and Lake Oswego, hereinafter referred to as "cities," pursuant to the provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, ORS 190.003-190.250. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the cities each have a police department and wish to act as one purchasing agency in obtaining the "Smart System" unit (described in the attached Exhibit A), hereinafter referred to as "the equipment," for joint use by each city. WHEREAS, prior to the use and disbursement of the equipment, each city must enter into an intergovernmental agreement with each other city to address the cost, use, maintenance, and final disposition of the equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, Cities mutually agree as follows: 1. Each city shall provide funds to purchase the equipment in the amount of $3,127.50. (See Exhibit A.) 2. To use the equipment on a mutually agreed upon rotating time frame approved by the police chiefs of the cities. 3. To contribute an equal share of the costs of any repairs or maintenance necessary to maintain the working order of the equipment. 4. Each city shall provide insurance coverage for the equipment while it is in its possession and during its period of use. 5. Each city shall be responsible for any damage resulting from misuse or improper care of the equipment while it is in its Page 1 - INTEROQVERNMENTAI. AGREEMENT r possession and during its period of use. In the event of damage, a representative from each city will meet and conduct an investigation to determine if misuse or improper care was the factor which caused the damage. 6. To dispose of the equipment when it is mutually agreed by all parties that the equipment has ceased to be useful for its intended purpose. 7. The City of Lake Oswego shall purchase the equipment following receipt of all the funds described in Clause 1 of this section. The City of Lake Oswego shall also be responsible for general maintenance of the unit. The City of Lake Oswego shall Submit a prorated bill for the cost of maintenance to all cities including the City of Lake Oswego. Such bills shall be paid from the funds established pursuant to Clause 3, above. 8. The City of Lake Oswego shall, within 90 days of execution, make written assurance to each other city to this agreement of the extent of warranty protection on the equipment while said equipment is in the custody of such other parties. HOLD HARMLESS Subject to the provisions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act and any provision of law, each party to this agreement agrees to hold each other party (including their officers, commissioners, councilors,'employees and agents) harmless from any and all claims which may arise in relation to this agreement. LAWS GOVERNING THIS AGREEMENT shall be construed and governed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. Should any portion of this Agreement Page 2 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT EWE I 17 or any amendment thereto be adjudged by a Court of appropriate final jurisdiction to be in violation of any local, state, or federal law, then such portion or portions shall become null and void, and the balance of this Agreement shall remain in effect. All parties agree to immediately renegotiate any part of this Agreement found to be in such violation by the court and to bring it into compliance with said laws. THIS AGREEMENT shall remain in effect until the end of the fiscal year in which all parties have signed and will be automatically renewed for successive one- (1) year periods effective on July 1 of each year unless written notice of cancellation is given by any party to the other at least thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year. Any city which cancels participation in the agreement prior to disposal of the equipment shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of funds. THIS AGREEMENT contains the entire Agreement between parties and supersedes any and all other agreements, written or oral, expressed or implied, pertaining to the subject matter thereof. THIS AGREEMENT is subject to all applicable public contracting laws and Constitution debt limitations of the cities and is subject to funds being appropriated therefor, if applicable. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers on the dates hereinafter written. CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF WEST L INN Date Date Page 3 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 0 CITY OF TUALATIN TTY OF LAKE OSWEGO Do s J. Schmitz City Manager Date Date Page 4 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT T'HE Y01JEOWIN"" MDOk-,u'N" IS OF POOR ORIGINAL Q-U AIL-t T~' LOPD R~CrJC~YiS , 1652 APR 14 94 i' 1 't „Y 3 s , 4 +a ! a NOW APR 14 194 16:55 LOPD RECORDS P03 System F--leatures SOLAR CELT S continuously recharge the maintenance-free batteries. An internal controller regulates the amount of current delivered to the hatteiies, and prevents overcharging. A fully-charged set of batteries powers the system for 72 hours"ot continuous operation. A batter charger allows for rechar.ng the batteries from a standard 110 1 source, k FOLDING RACK supports the solar f) n0.1 and provides for mounting a staildarspeed limit sign, which is secured kith a single lockable fastener. Q[rICK-Ri,LEASE - FASTENERS secure movable parts into place for quick set-tip and talcs-down, T'RA1LiiR CONSTRUCTION isa welded square tubular frame and 16 ptige steel outer panels. All metalwork is finished %vith a durable, graffiti-resistant powder coat paint. The closed trailer is well-scaled and weatherproof. INTERIOR provides storage for 5i ,n;, SECtI'f1' is Mic r` equipment, and accr._ssories. po cted by a lockiit access door on both `?Lx~ sides of the trailer and o}7tinnal alai nt. DIGITAL READOUT displays veluch, speeds on 12" high, reflective digits, i readable from a distance: of 100 yards. i r. miring pfrind.9 of low Lght, the ypeed I readout is autornatically illuminated h1' fluorescent lighting, SAFETY GLASS of the type used for windshields protects the radar anal display. , , :`g+ TOWING LIGlrfS include rear brake, turn AM 11 si als, and license plate. A standard "r~,r;' t Em connector for vehicle: hookup is includesi. TORSION-SPRING SUSPENSION wFtem provides for easy towing and minimizes the effects of road shock. LEVELING JA-CICS are provided on the front and rear, ensuring a firni standing on uneven terrain. TRAILER MTCH is removable fur safe storage inside the trailer, and prevents an • unattended trailer from being lowed away. (Trailer sliuivii with n{rtronnt striping and chrome wheels.) II 77 'I ' MEN APR 14 194 16:59 LOPD RECORDS P02 s _AtUZT System Speed onitorinp- Awareness Radar ibex 90 "I chcWt realize I was going the radar trailer. SM./,LRT cornes equipped with Kuustom Signals radar: either a Falcon handheld or a KR-IOSP two- ffiat piece with remote control. Both are suitable for unattended ppublic awareness campaiggnnss For enforcement purposes, K ztorn re ends the~Qt-10SP because the readout is inhere there is a speed limit, there axe mounted just inside the access door, easily seen for safe motorists not paying attention. Lay speed monitoring. Positioned on the cw-b side of the trailer an officer can monitor and lock speeds, then wave violators dreaming drivers are a danger in highrrisic over for their citation. accident locations. School zorit?5, CoTt- Forconductingtrafficsurveyswhile promotingspeedawarc- struction sites and hospital grounds could ness, hook up the optional Traffic Statistics Computer. use some help in promoting troltuitary SMART can record the results of its workday, providing compliance. valuable information that can be downloaded to a po.rsonnl compliance. That's why ICt~stv>lrl Signals computer for flusher use. offers the SMART system: the gentle reminder for motorists to slow down. A Smart Inveshnent However SNIAR'I' is used, studies show that the average Around--the-Clock- Duty speed tends toremainlowerforaperiod after SMAKZTmoves to another location. In short, SMART provides a greater SMART, which stands for Speed Mordtoring Awareness impact on a greater number of motorists, prornoting aware- Radar Trailer, is just that: a portable, self-contained speed Hess and good will. Put a SMART system on the payroll. ~ Anyunit. Designed to prt)rnt)tespeedawareness,SNfART Motorists' conuncnts might start sounding more like this: wed to a site that his experienced frequent speed-related 'Thank you. problems. Afterquicknnd easy set-up-lessthani0minutes, SMA.R'I' is left on the roadside where it quietly perfornLs its job: display the speeds; of oncoming vehicles, Speed Enforcement from flue natne you Mist. Mounted inside the locked, 16 ,u a steel trailer is a KustomuSt03n SYg116dlS, radar unit clocking speeds. Motorists see their speeds on the 12-inch tall giant digital display from up to 100 yyards away. The speed limit sign mounted above the display reminds them to pay attention and ease up on the gas pedal. Pub lic Acceptance Officers have returned to the trailer to find notes taped to it reading: "Please bring this to my neighborhood." Citizens are concerned that speed-related accidents will luit too clc to home. SMART brings results,. Speed awareness goes up and motoristw slow down, Collision rates go down. Citizens ~ i feel safer. After all, speed limit compliance is about ;safety. Eal Built-in Versatility 'E SMA11T can be used for public relations and to issue warn- inFs and citations. For public relations, agencies (.`an work with the media to advertise SNIARrs location. Interested motorists can drive by for a cost-free speedometer cheek. A , punitive attitude towards the posted speed limit is created. 0L u those who ignore S" t"'s warning, citations can be ed to get the point across. Speed enforcement can take place from a patrol vehicle down the street, or curbside from w APR 14 '94 16:59 LOPD RECORDS. P03 . SMART Unit Radar Unit Constructioru Welded sti'luare, tubular frame and 16 gauge Style Falcon ltandheld stationary; steel outer parr. All metalwork is finished or KR-10SP two-piece, with a durable, graffid-resistant powder coat moving/stationary with paint remote control. Battesy Power Supply: I ttJ b~u* of three, heavy-duty rnainle- 1V(Qasurru►enL Available in muee or kilometers per hour. nano :ee butteries with a total capacity of 300 "lPype True Doppler Radar. jim r- F+.ours. Frequency: 24.15 (;Hz (K-Band) ±100 y_-. r----o-- 110 VAC Charger. 10.0 amp output t4Hz• Solar panel output: 3.0 amp. Operating Temperature Display Sine: Two-digit display, 12" high. Range: -72OF to +140"F (-30°C: to Display I ighlazt Fluorescent lighting automadmily turns on +6(rC); 90% relative and off depending on ambient light humidity at +99°F (+37°0, Towing Requires Bass I hitch with 2" ba Electronic Components. 100% So d St ~ e, inteh-ratt d Tongue Weight: 125 lbs. circuit-, and transistors. Physical: Length: B' Power Requirewtnts: 10.8 to 16.5 VDC, negative W06,_ 6 ground. 13.6 VDC nominal; Height. l(Y2" with parted up. 1.0A ma)dmurn. 65' with panel down. Reverse Polarity Wert: 10% lbs. Pro on: No danukge will result, due to reversal of power supply. l .S Crystal Error Protection: No speed is displayed or locked should either crystal e Lock- Prevents rolling when trailer Ls parked on fail or drift off [recluen,j T an incline. RH lIxotection: No speed displayed or tx: k-d arnper Alarm: Movement-sensitive, sounds a loud, when radio fraltiency inter- piercing siren for several minutes before ft>rence is present. resetting. Initially activated via wireless Range ContxnL• Allows operator to select rang for target acquisition. rernote control with audible confirmation Accuracy: Stationary. 1 mptt. of alarm status. Target Speed Range: 35 to 90 mph (56 to 14s5 km/ h) Traffic Statistics within 10 dB sensitivity range; Computer. PC compatible computer provides hourly typ. readings from 15 to 191) tally of traffic counts and speeds, and an mph (24 to 320lan/h). analysis by percentile speed categories in Microwave Source: Gurm-Effect Diode. 5-mph or 1-mph groups, for speed surveys. PowesOutpuz: 15 MW t'P., 50 MW Max. Includes dedicated computer, proprietary Power Density: 39 rrcW/an'typ•,1.30 ni"'/ sofnvare, printer, and pneumatic tube to lay and max. (measured at face of antenna). across the roadway. Beaten Width: 60 from main axis to half Speed Sign Rack- Stores tip to six 24' x 30" speed limit signs. power point in any axis. Custom Striping: Consists of accent striping with either Side L.obcre 25 dB below main lxatn. j POLICE or SHERIFF nomenclature, and a Receiver. Low noise Schottky Barrier decal of the a ;ency ins. n. Diode (100 mW rating). Chrome WhecLs Replaces wlute powder coat painted wheeLs. Antemu Gaut 23 dBi approximately. as I L5'poiiccy~ofwntinuedrefrne►►rento it5products,theseWdfiruationsaresubjecttochatige 1nkeepir+gwi1hKus1om51 ' without notice. SMART a P Tr CJ product distributed by tone Signals. Kustom Signals' unrrant' incluar`es parts and !abor, and warrants all Wmporac►ats-without exception-a anst defects in ►r~.aternals and ruor) nuznship. SMAI2"isaxarrcantedforoneyear,theradariswarmntedfortzw rB.Servicecranbijxr(ormedbytlreKustomSt'twls naan acturrug (acilit. Unse/Purchase amilabld. For more in nnation, a quote, or to piece an order, oil) toff fire: 1-806-4KUSTt IMI (458-7866). Patent Pending. SIGNA 9325 Pfiurncrt * Leh xaxa, KS 662113347 0 q1 3/4,92-1400 » FAX 913/492-1703 1~~~~ ~1(48~i1lQtN! Ifg INC. Pnnkd in U.S.A. 492 P 14' 94 16:56 LIJD ~2FGORDS 4"y~UIV 1~'1J. C,UbtUii 51UIYiii. i rnA irv. uYJYVLI.IVJ P04 vUST SIGNALS, INC. QUOIAITION FORM 932® Pflumm, wna►xa, MGR 66215.3347 D*t:sa 10/04/93 913-4W- 14W FAX 913-442-1703 Phones... $03-635-0242 Fax 0.,, 303-636-4357 ra.. , SOT JIM WALKER C,/P 0... SCE OSWEGO POLICE DEPT Ref V.., 330 A AVENUE Quote 0. 1193071803 Option 0 01 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 Quote Expixes after 60 Days T~ A w rr r N%dvs.-aaa-WA• Re , , , Terms and Conditions: Unless otherwise rtatod all bents are IFI.. PURCHASE FOB Chanute, KS, SUBJECT TO acceptance by corporate oiitce. Payment Terms. Net aQ Days, SUBJECT TO prior credit approval, D k 110 I L SMART BASE SYSTEM 8595 , 00 8,295,90 2 1 AXLE LOCK FOR SHAttT SYSTEM 75.00 75.00 3 1 SPEED SIGN EAOR €OR -,MRT SYSTEM 50.00 90.00 4 1 TAMPER ALARM FOR 8MAR,T SYSTEM 200.00 200.00 5 1 CHROME WHEELS FOR SMART SYSTEM $0,00 50,00 6 1 CUSTOM STRIPINGY FOIL, SMART SYSTEM 300.00 300 , 00 7 1 TRAFFIC STATISTICS COMPUTER FOR SMART SYSTEM 3000.00 3,000.00 g 1 FREXIORT FOR. $HART SYSTEM (ESTIMATE) 500.00 500.00 AM. Total 12,51.0.00 i Quote does NOT knoluds any applicabl Sal Tax got; Sigantatu aye 'I Title InNea Toll Free, 800-4KUS TOM (800.458-7866) 1 1111 "1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4-26-94 DATE SUBMITTED: 4-15-94 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Agreement for PREVIOUS ACTION: None servic s - ort nd Police Data Records S.I$.te PREPARED BY: Ron Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ron Goodpaster ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approve agreement for services for computerized access to the Portland Police Data System (Records) for the fiscal year 1993/94. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval. INFORMATION SUMPIARY This agreement allows us to continue computer access of the Portland Police Bureau's computerized records system. This is a tremendous advantage to us and has assisted greatly in solving crimes and arresting responsible persons. The agreement has been reviewed by our City Attorney. Referenced contract is available for review if interested. Only signature of the Mayor is required. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Not approve. FISCAL NOTES Funds were budgeted in the FY 1993/94 budget and are available. Cost is $6,720. i AGENDA ITEM # 3,,17a, For Agenda of April 26, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE ntrchase of. material8_foriVse line pxtensie~~a _T PREPARED BY. Randy Volk DEPT HEAD OK. CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The issue before Council is approval of purchase of 3 , 600 feet of 12" ductile iron, Class 52, Tyton Joint water pipe with gaskets and lube. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to award bid to purchase pipe from U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company. INFORPRATION SPMK&RY The five year Capital Improvement Plan shows a need for a pipe line extension long SW North Dakota Street from 106th Avenue to 115th Avenue. Approval of the Council was granted on April 11th for this project. This purchase will reflect a cost savings for the project by our purchasing and providing the materials to the contractor for the pipe line extension. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award bids per staff recommendation. 2. Give further direction to staff. FISCAL NOTES Funding for this project were budgeted in the SDC funds and is budgeted project from the fiscal year 1993/94. kathy\councit.h2o L APR-14-194 08:01 ID:047 U S PIPE TEL NO.,503 657 1761 (#445 P01 .rJ UNITED STATES PIPE ANO Fout4DIRY UMPANY NIoZ(~ )Cl~~ POST OFF(CtC BOX 490 CLACKAMAS, OREGON 97016 (503) 241-9347 FAX (503) 657-1761 4-11-94 Mr. bke Miller Cwy of Tigard Water Department 13125 SW EW Blvd- ftard, Or. 97223 (503) 639-1554 We am pleased to submit a quotation on your requirements. 3600 if - 12" X 18' DI 0152 Tyton Joint Fipe, C/9_., W/ Gaskets and lame S 14.04 If Total $ T5t7,54~.41t? FOB: City of ri ;wd Shops, Cust+OSt16r to unload IDepivexy: I - 2 wwks, AX0 Thwk you for allowing us to quote you. Sincty 1m ~Saalc~s Piep~e-Qta~tivr , arc: ale 04r14e94 87:58 $ 1 593 297 7756 PSCIPCO PORT 0 01 FRED M, ✓ TOS NY t7~~B F~$s~ acrr3' IG,n,g~r CAt3a•E ZRCPN PIPE COMPA sub, 365 13FA N OP MGMlANF1 INC. 1622014 VW. Greenbrier Pwh,ny P.O. OOx 1219, PROVO, UTAH $4609 eeowson, 0-9.n 97006 TELEPHONE (AREA CODE 8011 379-6910 16001690.0949 FeA ISp3> 600-856 Apri.A 13, 1994 Quotation No. 30-400 City or Tigard Ppsa-t1" brand faX tranGmlltal memo 7671 E 9rPbyc. ► Water Department re ! 8777 S.W. Burnham St, S P'~"' Tigard, OR 97281 l!,. Attn: Mike ~9r 602. 1~~ `Z t Fax 4 c Subject PROPOSAL FOR FURNISHING DUCTILE IJW14 -elklb We are pleased to date you on materials set forth below confOrr►ing to specifications in our totaloo and subject to the terms and conditions as nnentioned on the bock of this sheet and hereby made a port hereof on this proposol, except as hereinafter modified. 3400 Ft. 12°xl8'1}1° Class 52 TYTON JT, C.L. DUCTILF. Iron Pipe. ANSI A21.51 14.50 Ft. Prices are t.-a.b. trucks, Tigard, Oregon„ based on shipment in 40,0000 truckload quantities. Customer to furnish labor and equipment to unload. Terms: Net cash 30 days. A service charge of ly2 per month is,made on past clue accounts. Prises are guaranteed for acceptance within thirty days and shipment within sixty days thereafter. 1Continued an Sheet No. 2) MANUFACTURERS OF DUCTILE IRON PRESSURE PIPE ism 'I illsi !I! !I J I,J 11,111111,111 r ~ 04~l4i94 0Te59 'g 1 503 297 7756 PSCIPCO PORT 0 Oa PACIF=IC STATES CAST IRON PIPE CO. Chlatettion No. 30-4Qa To City of Tigard Mte 4/13/94 9nat No. ? We will do the best we can to furnish material as indicated, but many things are not predictable, including our rate of production. Therefore. we will not accept penalty charges or back charges for delays in shipment or for other circumstances beyond our control. Shipments are made by common carriers, and we cannot guarantee an exact time of delivery. PUC regulations alloys two hours to unload each truek. Extra time to be charged to custo>nar's account. Shi&entt 1--2 weeks after receipt of an order. cs Therm are no ogreenvw- s or verbal understandings outside of this prod. The foregoing shoU become a as.)ntroct agreement only when it is accepted by you as pun how and ap roved in writing by an executive officer of our com- pany at our home office at Prom, Utah. And subject to the Terrrls oral Conditions printed on the bock of the first sheet of this quotation. PACIFIC STATES CAST' IRON PIPE COMPANY DIVISION of MCWANE CAPT IRON PIPE CO. By aA~4_ 64 Fred M. Boyles Sales Office District Manager To ttw PACIFIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE C:O.: Your pri 'as above is V'Var this doy of - 19 APPROVED AT PROVO, UTAH, this - any of - 1 8y. iTitla } BS (Title) IM lilly ii! i;j;11 111 r Nam Km 1 AGENDA ITEM # 3.~ b For Agenda of April 26. 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE PiTRCHASE OF WOHDERWARE SOFTWARE FOR THE SCADA SYSTEM PREPARED BY: Randy Volk. DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY ADMIN OK iSSUG! REFORM THE COUNCIL The issue before Council is the approval of the purchase of Wonderware Software application for the existing SCADA system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to award bid to Central Point Controls, the low bidder for the software application which will include equipment, set-Lap and :raining. IN3FORMATIO14 SUMMARY The Wonderware Software will not replace the existing SCADA system but instead enhance it"s operation. These enhancements will include: 1. Operators do not need extensive computer programming experience. 2. The ability to check status of the distribution system from home, office or multiple work stations. This also allows viewing from the field. 3. The ability to develop applications that are highly visual and powerful. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award bid per staff recommendation. 2. Continue to operate system under the Prosoft software. 3. Give further direction to staff. FISCAL NOTES By utilizing Wonderware InTouch we will see a savings in programming charges, as well as the ability to utilize the software for in house analysis on the distribution system and elimination of the need for outside engineering firm to perform these a_x:.*_`ysis. , savings will also be reflected through better management of water purchases from the City of Portland during the summer ftS S onths. The total bid of $22,835.00 is within the $80,000.00 budget for the CADA system and related software. - MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON To: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator From, Randy Volk and Mike Miller, Water Division Date: April 13, 1994 Subject: Justification for the Purchase of a Software Application for SCADA. Statement of the Subject: With bringing the city of Portland water meter and control valve on-line, in the second phase of the SCADA system, it is time to purchase software to interface betwee_, We raw data and the operator of the system. ° Recommendation: It is the Staffs recommendation that the LCRB authorize the purchase of "Wonderware InTouch" software for the low bid price of $22,835, which also includes equipment, setup and training by factory personnel. The $22,835 is within the budgeted amount for SCADA purchases during the 1993-94 fiscal year. Analysis: Currently the Water Division's SCADA program, Aquatrol Prosoft, has given us basic control and data gathering capabilities. However, the Aquatrol Prosoft system is cumbersome and difficult to manipulate. It is -labor intensive and takes a skilled professional programmer to use. Staff needs the ability to change set points immediately as distribution conditions or circumstances change, without having to pay for a Aquatrol Prosoft programmer to do the work. With the purchase of the Wonderware InTouch software, we could use our own staff to trouble shoot the system and change the conditions of the programming quickly and easily. This will allow us even better control over how we purchase water from our suppliers and the way our water rates are calculated. Bids for Wonderware Ifffouch software were received from two qualified contractors. Electronics Technology, Inc. presented a bid of $41,825, while Central Point Controls presented a bid of $22,835. Both of the bids entail the same amount of work and equipment. When the SCADA system was first installed, only basic Aquatrol Prosoft was available for the initial purchase. We .have been anticipating the release of the Wonderware InTouch software since the installation of our Aquatrol Prosoft system. The Wonderware Rol r InTouch software has been adequately tested both in the field and the laboratory. The release of the current version has quickly become industry standard. The Wonderware InTouch software is user friendly which makes the software easy to learn and use. This means that the operator does not need to be a highly trained programmer for Aquatrol Prosoft. The I., irchase of :~;le Wonderware InTouch software will riot replace the basic Aquatrol Prosoft program, but enhance it. Some of these enhancements are: • The abilityy, to do extensive analytical analvsis on the data. • The ability to share data with other users and applications. The ability to provide real time and historical trending. Correlation's between time of day, temperature, and rainfall. Data is automatically updated. Operators do not need extensive computer programming experience. The ability to check status of the distribution system from home, office or multiple work stations. This also allows viGwiii uGrim tii: cld. ® The ability to develop applications that are highly visual and powerful. As a regional water purveyor we are facing a changing world. Water sources have become more critical within the region. Therefore, we need the ability to better manage our sources of supply. We are seeing even more competition for available water supplies from other water purveyors. This is one of the reasons why we need to better manage our resources. Wonderware InTouch software will provide us with more flexibility and better management of our water resources. It gives us the ability to perform effective analysis of the information we are gathering with the SCADA system. Wonderware InTouch software is also compatible regionally with other water purveyors. Cities such as Sherwood and Tualatin along with Powell Valley Road Water District have installed or are about to install Wonderware InTouch software to gain more control over their distribution systems. These agencies are completely satisfied and highly recommend the purchase of Wonderware InTouch software. Although Lake Oswego- does not have Wonderware InTouch software, they will be able to monitor, as they currently do, our distribution system through the Aquatrol Prosoft program. Fill Impact: By utilizing Wonderware InTouch software to perform programming changes to the SCADA system, it is estimated that we would save approximately $5,000 in programming charges during the first year. Also by utilizing this software to perform our own in-house analysis on the distribution system, we could save $20,000 to $35,000 annually by eliminating the need for an outside engineering firm to perform ongoing analysis. The purchase costs of Wonderware InTouch software would be recovered in' 6.9 to 11.0 months. i III 111 11 1 . AGENDA ITEM # L For Agenda of qjX1.121 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Transportation related amendments to address State of Oroaon mandates and other development standards PREPARED BY: Carol A. Landsman DEPT HEAD OK 4~4v CITY ADMIN O ISSUE BEFORE THE CO NCIL Should the City amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code to allow the construction of narrower local streets and to improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility? The accessibility improvement amendments are mandated by LCDC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Council should adapt the - MlinnnrA arnrnrnvpH hu the Pianninn Commission with the following changes to Exhibit "B": EXHIBIT "B" . Ash, Chapter 18.164 Add G4 (paae f8~ Chapter 18.164 G2 St tctr:::t'<:xr tfiitl::>t;:>€e>::: Pt€:>tc►.t1:1: 20.0 MI.: - .r Ad a tiir:scl1~.;3;:<:.i::s:rrral:.•:p.: > `~'>i:: E~ ..k'~.°.:_~~'>~'i"isbti`~tE'sJ~`►a:~ INFORMATION SUMMARY As exhibit "A" shows,. the amendments pertain to a variety of transportation system improvements designed to improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and street connectivity, and to allow the construction of narrower, more appropriately sized local streets. LCDC requires that Tigard adopt code amendments to improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to comply with the transportation planning rule by May 1994. The local street standards respond to local concerns that Tigard needed greater flexibility in local street design to respond to changing transportation patterns. These two sets of changes were put together in one packet to insure that as Tigard improves access and connectivity it has the flexibility to allow the appropriate street design. 1-10 112 11111 1, 54""1 11 11 J'IGII S 1, !i These changes have been subject to extensive public review including at least three planning commission hearing, presentations to each NPO, a series of meetings with developers, and a planning commission sponsored panel discussion open to the public. After review of comments received, staff recommends two changes proposed by DLCD (defined in staff recommendation section above). The first of these changes was rejected by the Planning Commission but staff believes it is important to insure transportation network connectivity. The second clarifies when an exception is allowed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the amendments as proposed by Planning Commission. 2. Modify amendments and adopt. FISCAL NOTES No cost to City. H:\login\patty\tpr.sum April 14, 1994 ' r IN I EXHIBIT `H° y .t$..~+cue.~~.....aP...a~...a~ . SECTION A - CoMpreirensive P'lm Volume I (transportation chanter): • Disc*ssses access restrictions/prohibitions for different functional streets • Reduces right-of-way and pavement width for local streets. • Discusses (very generally) the City's desire, for greater F interconnectedness of local streets. SECTION E Community Devel2Rment Code, Chapter 18.98: • Eliminates the need for additional yard setback for tall buildings. SECTION C - Community IIlevelogment Code, Chapter 18.108: Requires consideration of connecting development sites with driveways and walkways. • Slight shrinkage of minimum parking space sizes. • Additional bike parking standards. e Carpool/vanpool requirements. ® Increases multi-family parking requirements some, eliminates covered parking requirement. • A few changes to minimum parking standards for &,-)me uses. Parking structures standards. ® Additional drive-in use stacking standards, spec stacking lengths, flexibility for reduced stacking length. SECTION D - Community Development Coder 1® 8.108: • Clearer walkway standards. • Narrower shared driveway widths for up to six dwelling units. Summary Page 1 of 2 MEN= SM ONE= Reduces number of access points required for large multi-family developments. + Cleans up a lot of mistakes on access variance application requirements. SECTION E - Community Development Come, Chapter 18.120: NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET - ) SECTION F - Communitv Development Code, Chaj2ter 18.164: + Reduced right-of-way and roadway widths for local streets. Sets limited ranges for residential access street improvements with list of factors to be considered in approving street design. + Allows exceptions (rather that variances) to mum road improvement standards based on pre-established list of considerations. Sets up design standards for roadways to provide detailed requirements in separate document from the Code, to be adopted by resolution. + Requires future street plans for areas next to proposed development. + Requires temporary turnarounds for temporary stub streets. + Requires interconnected streets within a development. + Establishes a maximum of 20 dwelling units on a cul de sac. Allows consideration of non-circular turn around designs. + Allows grades of up to 15% for limited length on local streets. Access limitations and design considerations along major collector streets (previously only along arterials.) + Requires that block perimeters be no greater than 1,800 feet unless prevented by certain exceptions. Reduces (not eliminates) sidewalk requirements on cul de sacs. Other minor changes and housekeeping (spelling, punctuation, clearer language.) nvrg is IM $uamsary Page 2 of 2 M1 sx~•~r.`~. ~+7'.t~il Qb„ t,Yr"v.5 :n~Y ^•F .•rvi~n; 14,: ,•T 1,a"ti'~,.~S,r .V,':, r i rf- •V - q^',w";nw,,r,#~Xi}.ML'~~`~~,,~~.. wx, k~: ^„i', fJra ;~rSS ~1 r• M, 4'~v:2xi';,•. i.4' r t` ; I I J.~t;~rt.~i"Y } ✓'~(Pt~ k i,lq ~ n ~ t1{;? t r .f l r~r a,r ar x rTl~r aJ4 r<;~ ~ ~ n '2 ~ a! 1 ! ~Sh4A~.~! t"3c ~~+'lr+as "t. n~rJy t71 afY(S r 5 x 7~ rt t ~ } "r 5!ifi t✓`f r c,{' Mot ~ 5 t ~K~r t 5~ ~ r t W ,d; f~.P't~- c r • ' m., _ . "t r ' " • ri ' r 3~• ~I;~•~F:`~ ~."•°r..s nuit : l~rxx'~~xtat~~~ t ' Y xt '1 t s f ' yt✓E- ~ Ta• ~ jxx F y } ,o.t~ ry■± . Q ~ 1, 5~'tc i 1•aNS'~ 1r,r '~1,. 't rv z'' f s ~~?Yl~~ , " „!}i 4t f~L.~, }V. ild >t 1t TiJ~.. ! M t f 'd ` 1, $A c ~i°{evt Y ~+tk t~ a ~ ~ T Ff ' { ~ H t ~ r r i„ r x s,, rd >!h" 2 ~ ~ t rot- " r n Ti4 `h - d r j x 1 r , C ~ 1q ' M 7y n, 4' 1 r ~ k ~ ri t t f„Y„i f ,s.,hti~ •ca„ ~ r L,~.. ' r' ~..aa.w...i....nir~s r{r ~~'a.m .u swFErenMILD"9 a•'~ ~ ~3 JI ~ + ' "3~P~7il~,I. Q/,t bd 8~~i~$~66~6 ~dz7G~.~dvm>~ f ~tr<t' yyJ + 1 t ~ E W r 4I ~ 4 'c + to 'aS r M1 ~Y i'I ~~J~ t" ` + M t J pp y u ~r Vb"ti,Y L tt trT _ 1 J E y y ly ~ Yy r ~ yi ~r'Yi a' ~r C .a It. rr 4t yore., T,fs t'= - im A iU*' ~'i', Ltb r" 'r` 4 1 J 1, t - xc d y" T t t., L b iq .'~'~^W .241' P "]t i t r 7 t 1 r F5 J d j .r' t p 'fit, SS S' j '3 y r' J 1: 1 ~ < r 1 Y+ '7, Y k Y 1 ' n 4 F.?*^rCv ''S"• _'::-Ze ..`i,:r :•tF': C ..1~, - .-'J~' ~ lbw ^•''W'II ~ _ yni ~f ;nom •'^!r xCr ~ ~ I }t ~j 4' ✓ I f ' Y - _ j t t rc t F F ` k'sS Jt j J - t t' 1 'S J3y~lS'~.wN.k?~F L Z 5 1~ T. '~Zyt C-~ 2 _ @ - t 1 r f ~Y j 'Y s y * j tf ~ l- r ~ 1'4 t I t 1F F r t, ~P ~~d`Yd~~QP' t , 5,' Y r n1,1 _ d x~ t ,n -r r ' ' i vet ,t ((M1''''~1' ' m•~~~~+ r~,,•`~,~ J r f;^~1"hF 4 ~ r C ,151 nl i~r~ 1 yj Syy < .r ~ r ~ y wt {J' `IQ W7 ~-,~q *D*n { Agr~D°"" Y)"1' r r'.. ,'!i { 'f'~ •4'{}- Yr 't~ 1~ ~ t7 -Kl k i,A`' `'R~.x~^~ 6~AII,se } 4i~'tl ~ `~*<51r ,,r ;r tl' r 'r. x t 't 3 t a~5'', 1~ t A~', q/~g ry"~} i 5'' 7,'4b~' 1 t:'r-" ':J„'i ~ kl• aut,: ~i~'•an,,.,:c;*iy 4~4,+.i k.t ~ .4a»~~:~,~ ~}TM,+'c An61Yt tr c :n•0.: )~`~';~,4ivlt.rr'"'Y:a;.._.^r?~;i;:ti..s a Yf'•~. .,,7',,,<-„r `:r J. c,i'~c~. ~".;1' "1.'r- ''x yy~~ yq~4,R,o'2`~+ 1:,`YS.T nJ ~:S[w 3:: i.t~ ':hJC'~+a, r! "}»'f !'}~"r F 4T',"t is f y'"',~~yFrt: ~'r ,Y: '4., 4".Ii, 1: "'.~"'R':!"r ..,4 JY ;'1,' .~r' el tf Al .•',,.`n .ca1':} ~:fi, y'4w' S° wt •b • iw t ;YSrt •«I Yte••'.x; 'P'~; 41. ,ri«.. ':.w,.r., . rA~;''rX'^{ .dr_Pt J y ~.yiM~.+ Mcir ,ltp °„'~+r,.11,:'; `T;>r~t~U, r~aF,+,l ^A.s~1,r: - ^y" :.•k c2.,~2jft'2 '"rrt•~'~-i .:~'~'n 4i~;~'?:`; >,i r^., 4 -t, a~7.t 1'?ate t .~rv,.. ,~ir,'7. vd~rK• J~~ ~&;.,y r,.~'t .;.~.'tet'•ir , 4., 4:: 4'' ~r rhr,}s, y>: 3 1++' .~v :.n..,...µ~. , 's ' nF ~~in. r. tk,.d 'N },,~^r:;C2rtk„w';''tt..,'1~v~i}~?rA. ~~'pa?4 '°fi• xS-;1'tMc~:'AY3rtS ,~,;;:f~",~111 r.1;`r, Ft. }I ?C._ 3~,^.<'r~s e?":.,+.., ..t s..5' ,a~'1.: 7, +-"S .t,d' e T►mP~~s'~e ' on pla g ~elmes 'Transpo ati e o al6Uid ion ,gionat Discuss p~ntcd an r~`~~®tent patter. Nis= TRANSPORTATION MANNING RULE EWLEMENTATION REGIONAL GUIDELINES TABLE OF CON'rENTS Y. REGIONAL DISCUSSION ON TPR BWLEMENTATION ~ . A. Introduction 1 C. Summary of Process 4 D. Case Studies 5 E. Use of These Guidelines 7 F. For Further Information 7 H. TPR IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES A. Fundamental Principles 8 B. Common Guidelines 11 C. Guidelines for Speck TPR Requirements 13 APPENDIX A. CASE STUDIES Introduction " Case Studies 1. Suburban Single-Family Development, Pfeiffer Farms A-2 a. Background b. Lessons Learned C. Sketches 2. Urban Multi-Family Development Frank Estate A-7 a. Background b. Lessons Learned C.- Sketches 3-5 Urban Retail Development Safeway, McDonald's/Burgerville . A-13 a. Background b. Lessons Learned C. Sketches 6-7 Suburban Retail Development Fred Meyer, Home Depot A-21 a. Background b. Lessons Learned C. Sketches . 8. Suburban Office Development Gresham Corporate. Center A-30 a. Background b. Lessons Learned REHM C. Sketches . 9-10 Suburban Industrial Development Tyco, Columbia Pacific A-34 a. Background b. Lessons Learned . C. Sketches . B. Regional Discussion Participants C. Status of Local Government TPR Planning, September 1993 TS Irr nerxantntinn Mannino Div is MAD aSFIl_171 • 0 n Y, mom 17 OEM I. REGIONAL DISCUSSION ON TPR ?R4HP~T NTI ATION A. Introduction When the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted the Transportation Planning Rule ('I?R) in April 1991, local governments in the region were presented with both a tremendous opportunity and a daunting challenge. The main thrust of the TPR is to develop a multi-modal transportation system and reduce reliance upon the single-occupant automobile. "M- ➢..o:..~..~. .s .,f #S%n D.v.U i•e *1.e wsnl:..aa:..w •1.,. + 416- sa .o &+....8.......-.a~9 . nano a`6.~VduuVaa4ly rimaa v. wwr v wv a.aaa..a.sv.. saw. suvav auuaaaau6uKLL Wnnecaon between land use and transportation modes. Through measures designed to reduce reliance on e the automobile, thv TPR "intends to assure that the plauned transportation system supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas which will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other areas of the country" (OAR 660-12-000). The first task required by the TPR for local governments is to revise comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to make new development more pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly. The idea behind these requirements is to provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders in order to help reduce the current reliance on the automobile. Local governments are required to adopt appropriate implementing ordinances by May 1994. In response to requests from the Metropolitan Area Planning Directors, the Retail Task Force and other business groups, Metro initiated a Regional Discussion on TPR Implementation in September 1993. The purpose of the Regional Discussion was to develop a consensus among local government planners, the business sector and transportation interest groups on guidelines for use by local jurisdictions in developing comprehensive plan and zoning code provisions to implement TPR requirements. A Working Group subcommittee of those parties invited to participate in the Regional Discussion met from October 1993 to January 1994 to review case studies on application of TPk- requirements to a variety of land use situations and to develop Guidelines on TPR Implementation. • This is a report on the' results of the Regional Discussion and represents a general consensus among participants on Guidelines to meet TPR requirements. It is not intended to represent the opinions of any individual participant or representative organization nor does it represent Metro's recommendations or requirements. No Metro Council action was taken, to adopt these guidelines. This is a report on the results of a regional discussion coordinated by Metro to assist local governments. The guidelines are, intended as a. resource, not a, model to guarantee compliance with the TPR. It provides basic guidelines to satisfying the requirements of the TPR; specific plan and code requirements will vary based upon local circumstances. i 1 r fl This project was voluntarily undertaken by Metro in its role as regional coordinator on AIL transportation and land use planning in an effort to assist lsr-31 govermments and the development Y community in the preparation of workable approaches to TPR implementation. Other efforts, such as the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association's. Recommendations for Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit-Friendly Development ordinances and the Oregon Department of Transportation's Best Management Practices Handbook have previously identified the major issues associated with and recommended approaches to TPR implementation. Perhaps the most valuable product to evolve from this Regional Discussion has been the opportunity for the private sector, local jurisdictions and public interest groups to learn and benefit from each other's perspectives on ways to best meet the requirement of the 1'YK. As. noted -in the Working Croup's recommendations: "Such proactive discussion bn-tween the public and private sectors before final governmental policies are placed into effect should be the norm rather_ than the exception." This process has lead to a good exchange of ideas; resulting in consensus on fundamental principles and guidelines for TPR implementation, and in a better understanding of various perspectives where consensus could not be reached. B. Background The TPR (OAR 660-12) was adopted by LCDC on April 26, 1991. The TPR is intended to implement State Land Use Planning Coal 12, Transportation, which was adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 1974 as part of an effort to preserve Oregon's unique qualities and renowned livability. Among other things, Coal 12 requires state and local transportation plans to consider all modes of transportation, energy conservation and to avoid principal reliance on any one mode to meet transportation needs. The TPR requires that city and county comprehensive plans provide for a network of transportation improvements sufficient to meet identified local, regional and state transportation needs. It attempts to do this by clarifying how the Statewide Planning Coals and other planning laws affect transportation planning. It provides for: ♦ Coordination between ODOT, Metro, counties and cities to better provide for state and regional transportation needs. ♦ Amendments to comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances to facilitate planned transportation improvements, including streamlined procedures for siting transportation projects. e ♦ ,surm$ t 16- .t the transportation system is adequate to support planner land uses and that land uses are, in turn, consistent with the functions and capacities of planned transportation systems. ♦ Planning for alternative modes of transportation: ♦ Tailoring transportation improvements on rural lands to :void pressure for urbanization.' The TPR requires a ten percent reduction in VMT (vehicle miles traveled) per capita in the Portland metropolitan area during the next 20 years and a 20 percent reduction in 30 years. . 2 , L.CDC stipulated that local government comprehensive plans and ordinances be brought into compliance with most elements of the TPR by 1996. However, Section 660-12-055(3) requires cities and counties in metropolitan areas (i.e., 25,000 persons or more) to implement certain changes by May. 1993. Specifically, the TPR requires local governments to:. "adopt land use and subdivision ordinances or amendments required by 660-12-045(3),(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d)." There are nine discrete requirements in this section of the TPR: 1. Bicycle parking in multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and transit facility development; 2. Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access in all types of new development; 3. Interu:.l pedestrian circulation in commercial developments; 4. Design and provision of transit facilities; 5. Preferential access to transit in commercial and institutional development; 6. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools in industrial and commercial development; 7. Opportunities for redevelopment of surface parking for transit-oriented uses; 8. Road systems that facilitate pedestrian and transit access; and 9. Transit stops for major commercial, industrial and institutional development. The TPR stipulates that if ordinance amendments are not adopted by the specked deadline, then the relevant provisions of the Rule are applicable to individual land use decisions (see ORS 197.646(3)). The TPR also requires Metro to adopt a Regional Transportation System Plan (TSP) consistent with the PR by May 1995. The Regional TSP will be followed in one year by new local government TSPs that implement the Regional TSP. Concerned about inconsistent interpretations and degas of implementation, a variety of business organizations approached L.CDC in April 1993 for an extension of Lip o two years for implementation of the initial TPR requirements by local governments. These groups requested the delay to allow local jurisdictions to develop empirical data and to provide for public and industry input into the drafting of TPR regulations. They also requested that L.CDC and local governments participate with the business community in a joint public/private partnership to fund development of this data through case studies that analyze application of potential regulations to a variety of land use and subdivision activities. In a survey conducted by L.CDC, affected local • g wernrnents overwhelmingly supported an extension of the deadline, most favoring a six-month extension. LCDC responded by extending by one year (until May 6, 1994) the requirement for development of the TPR iNuirements cited above. s ' This report addresses TPR requirements for pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and for p av= development '.o c:.^tr z- thad O..~P aauiii Allodal ucc : ' ,:u ~ manner - aisY~n7iln a -l' L1Q11jgR7A1f1llVlIR system. Reducing reliance on the automobile is a major goal of the TPR. Providing a positive environment for pedestrian, bicycle and transit users in new development is the major goal of the elements of the Rule to be implemented by May 6, 1994. These requirements primarily 3 5i i affect code regulations, though amendments to comprehensive plans may be needed in some cases. C. Sunimary of Process As previously, noted, Metro initiated the Regional Discussion on TPR Implementation in September 1993, at the request of the Metropolitan Area Planning Directors, the Retail Task Force and other business groups. • A subcommittee of members from the Metropolitan Area Plannina Diretnrc- Retail Thek Force and fi nsaoatation interest groups was estaNish(A to develop a general work program and process for the Regional Discussion. Cogan Owens Cogan, a Portland consulting firm, was retained to assist in developing a process and facilitating the Regional Discussion meetings. Approximately EO representatives of metropolitan area local governments, business associations and transportation interest groups were invited to participate in the initial Regional Discussion meeting on September 28, 1993. At this meeting, participants agreed to the following as the objectives for the Regional Discussion: ® To understand specific TPR requirements for new development by examining various case studies of different development types; To explore different approaches to meeting the TPR requirements for new development; and ® To distill the "Lessons Learned" from case studies and group discussions into guidelines that can be, used by local jurisdictions to write ordinances that meet TPR requirements. A Working Group subcommittee of the larger group was established to develop a program for conducting and evaluating case studies of how TPR requirements would be applied to existing developed sites and what general guidelines could then be applied to similar new development. (See below for more details on the case study process.) The Working Group was charged with developing recommendations on "Lessons Learned" from the rase studies for periodic presentation to the larger Regional Discussion group. A target date for completion of the Working Group's recommendations was set for January 15, 1994. It was agreed that while the Working Group should address all applicable TPR requirements, the primary focus would be on building orientation, connectivity, pedestrian and bicycle access, and transit orientation. The Working Group met 12 times between September 1993 and January 1994 to review and evaluate ten case studies, with monthly reporting to the larger group on "Lessons Learned" from the case studies. At each meeting of the larger group, the case studies completed since the le--I---ac-O - A.!-M ~ ~ addidonnl hgnut on "Ussons Learned" and on Guidelines a~riav naa~a.cau~ esvam. sas- and a - solicited through both group discussion and individual questionnaires. At the conclusion of the case study process, the Working Group devoted three meetings to develop Guidelines for TPR Implementation (see Section H of this report). These Guidelines Aft, 4 r- represent general consensus among the Working Group members on approaches to implementing TPR requirements at the local level. They were presented by the Working Group to the larger group of participants in the Regional Discussion on February 15, 1994. D. Case Studies As part of the Regional Discussion on TPR Implementation, a series of case studies were conducted by the Working Group between September, 1993 and January, 1994. These case studies were intended to: Assess how implementation of TPR requirements would be applied to existing, developed sites; ® Assess how implementation of TPR requirements may support or hinder development; Identify situations where TPR implementation might conflict with other state and local requirements and identify recommendations to resolve such conflicts; and ® Identify guidelines for TPR implementation that could be applied to similar land uses. A Working Group of 17 members, representative of the interests participating in the Regional Discussion, was- selected to conduct the case studies and to identify "Lessons Learned" and Guidelines on TPR Implementation. Working Group meetings were open to all interested parties. Members of the Working Group included: Keith Bartholomew, 1000 Friends of Oregon Meeky Blizzard, Sensible Transportation Options for People Rex Burkholder, Bicycle Transportation Alliance . Drake Bustch/Jon Chandler, Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland Steve Cogan, Fred Meyer Maggie Collins, City of Milwaukee Jerry Foy, Westwood Corp. Steve Gerber/Jeanne Harrison, City of Portland Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin Tom Kloster, Metro Kim Knox, Tri-Inlet Roger Millar, Columbia Corridor Association Greg Specht, Portland Pacific Properties Dick Van Ingen, Clackamas County Mark Whitiow, Bogle & Gates Mary Weber, Metro Jim Owens, Cogan Owens Cogan, Facilitator Criteria for selection of case studies were developed by the Working Group to ensure a representative mix of sites, bath in terms of types of uses (e.g., residential, commercial and industrial) and geographical locations (e.g:, urban and suburban). Criteria included: i IN; 0 A representative mix, both in types of uses and geographical locations; ® A limited number of sites per type of use; ® Projects completed within the last several years; 0 Projects built to reflect the current development mentality; ® Office case studies should be multi-tenant buildings; Residential case studies should include urban infill and a master-planned site. Tune and resource limitations were also major factors considered. For example, the Working Group decided that it would not pursue case studies of institutional uses. Based upon these aavvixo, ute. avarvwring 16L We once- were s alecmd aVi ease arudy -a11aly515: CASE STUDIES, REGIONAL, DISCUSSION ON TPR IMPLEMENTATION TY0 of Use Site r MaNnn Single-Family Residential Suburban Pfeiffer Farms Lake Oswego Multi-Family Residential Urban Frank Estate Washington County Retail Urban Safeway (NE 68th & Sandy) McDonald's SE 82nd/SE Ellis & Reedway Sts. Burgerville SE Hawthorne/SE 12th & Clay Suburban Fred Meyer SE 82nd/Johnz-on Creek Blvd. Home Depot Victorville, CA Office Suburban Gresham Corporate Gresham Center Industrial Suburban Tyco Rivergate, Portland Columbia Pacific Airport Way, Portland •e The case studies, specific site designs and alternative TPR designs were developed by Retail Task Force members and their consultants. Criteria with which to examine the application of M?, requirements awd to evaluate each of the case studies were also adopted by the Working Group. These included:. .6 10 ® Lhtent of the Transportation Planning Rule ® Does the TPR Plan for the site reduce reliance can the automobile? ® Does the TPR Plan for the site encourage the use of transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes? , ® Is there an appreciable difference between the TPR Plan and the TPR Modified Plan? - Market Viability ® Are development costs (total cosy, unit cost) of the TPR Plan more or less than the Existing Plan? ® Would the di ferances between ire &[i~urag Pl.a:...: A thp- I'M 'Plan affil-t h:- -economic viability of and/or to finance the project? ® Is there an appreciable difference between the TPR Plan and the Modified Plan? ® Other Public Policy ® Is the project affected by other significant public policy initiatives (ADA, Water Quality, Workforce Development, etc.)? If so, what are the impacts? a Compared to the Existing Plan, does the TPR Plan support these other publicly funded policy initiatives? 0 Is there an appreciable difference between the TPR Plan and the TPR Modified Plan? ® Portland standards would be used as representative TPR code requirements Background information and "Lessons Learned" for each of the case studies are provided in Appendix A. E. Use Of These Guidelines This. report outlines fundamental principles and guidelines that cities and counties can use to meet the requirements of TPR. These TPR Implementation Guidelines are intended as a starting point for local efforts to implement the requirements of the TPR that must be complied with by May 6, 1994. These Guidelines should be evaluated, adapted and refined to. fit local. " circumstances. For convenience, the Guidelines have been outlined around the nine specific requirements of the TPR. P ' F. For Further Infonmflon Additional information about the TPR and advice on developing ordinances to implement the Rule are available from several sources. These include: 7 e~ ® Gregon Chapter of the American Planning Association APA has developed Recommendations for Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit-Friendly Development Ordinances that provides model code provisions for TPR implementation. Contact David Siegel at (503) 588-6211. ® Oregon Department of Transportation ODOT has developed a "Best Management Practices Handbook" which illustrates how • UIRM various requirements in the TPR can be carried out. ODOT also maintains an extensive literature collection of material -related to the Rule. Fred Eberle is ODOT's principal contact at 373-1541. Information is also available from ODOT's Regional Planning Representative, Ludwien Rahman at (503) 653-3259. Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development (DL.CD) DL.CD has overall responsibility for Goal 12 and the TPR. Contact Bob Cortright at (503) 373-0084. Local jurisdictions are also an excellent resource for information on the TPR and specific implementation approaches. Most jurisdictions in the region have at least initiated the process of amending their ordinances to implement TPR requirements. Appendix C provides a status report on local government TPR planning in the metropolitan area as of September 1993. II. TFR 154PLENEENTATION GUIDELD[ES, This section presents recommended TPR Implementation Guidelines for use by local jurisdictions in developing comprehensive plan and zoning code provisions to implement TPR requirements. It identifies both "Common Guidelines", which are generally applicable to all of the cited TPR requirements and to all land uses, and Guidelines for each of the specific TPR requirements in OAR 660,-12-045. Within each of the sections on specific TPR requirements, "Common Guidelines" applicable to all land uses and "Guidelines for Specific Land Uses" are also P identified. These Guidelines represent areas of general consensus among members of the Case Study Working Group, appointed to represent a larger group of persons participating in the 177. Regional Discussion. They are not intended to represent the opinions of any individual Work Group member or representative organization, nor Metro recommendations or requirements. No Metro Council action was taken to adopt the§e guidelines. This is a report on the results of a regional discussion coordinated by Metro to aszist local governments. The Guidelines are intended as a resource, not a model to guarantee compliance with the TPR. 8 RAN REMEMEMN-WIN A variety of. sources serve as the basis for the Guidelines, with the primary source being the Lessons F.eamed from case studies. Other sources include: Large group discussions; ® Questionnaire .responses; 0 APA's Recommendations for Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit- Friendly Development Ordinances; ® Recommendations for MR Code Amendments, pr ate for the 1fid-Wi lwamette V7- ley COG by Tashman Associates; Clackamas County draft TPR code amendments; enIalat-an Developmen-- t rode. 2nr8 -r-- - ® Portland Planning Commission recommendations for TPR compliance e Recommendations for TPR Code .amendments, prepared for the Mid-Wallamette Valley COG by Tashman Associates, served as the basis for some of the background information on the Guidelines for Implementation under. each of the applicable requirements. The Working Group incorporated some sections of that report directly into its background information on the specific 6^76b1dGllll6J. While the Guidelines address all nine applicable requirements of OAR 660-12-045, most of the Regional Discussion focused on the elements of bicycle parking, connectivity, pedestrian and bicycle access, and building orientation. Other TPR elements, e.g., preferential carpool/vanpool parking, design of transit routes and facilities, and transit stops, were not discussed at the same level of detail. A. FUND AL PRINCIPLM 1. As evidenced by Metro's regional discussion process, the private sector, local jurisdictions and public interest groups can learn and benefit from each other's perspective on ways to best meet the requirements of the TPR. Such proactive discussions between the public and private sectors before final governmental policies are placed into effect should be the norm rather than the exception. This process should be automatic, and it should include both working sessions and a public hearing process. 2. The purpose oa these TPR requirements is to provide safe and. convenient access for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders in order to help reduce the current aeliance on the automobile. A decrease in automotive use and an increase in alternative modes, such as walking, bicycling and taking transit, will benefit the Portland region. Walking, bicycling and transit are valid modes of transportation and should be made as safe and convenient as automotive travel for an increasing number of destinations. The TPR supports a multi-modal split between automobiles and other modes of ' transportation. The purpose of the TPR is to reduce reliance upon the automobile, not 9 ip~ !I i AN A MEN M to prohibit auto access. 'Lhe rule requires a 10 percent reduction in N',MT per capita in the Portland metropolitan area during the next 20 years and a 20 percent reduction in 30 years. Thus, even with full TPR implementation, it is assumed that. many people will continue to choose to use the automobile. Implementing ordinances consequently need to accommodate multi-modal choices. 3. `..'-flu ^c ation yr amenda~°'a ent of the de liIIil~tilus of "tlilsit stops", "transit streets", "transit ways" in the TPR is needed. These definitions should be referenced to objective, measurable levels of frequent and sustained bus or light rail service, either existing or planned. ` The TPR should be amended to link building orientation to transit streets, rather than transit stops. From time to time, transit stops are moved to either increase efficiency, enhance access or preserve safety in response to changing conditions. In addition, requiring a development to orient to a specific transit stop may be too restrictive in terms of site development. As part of this amendment, the term "transit street" would need to be defined, as there is no common definition of transit street within the Portland region. 4. Successful implementation of TWIRL regula-dors is a shared responsibility between the - private and public sectors, including state, regional and local jurisdictions. Marketplace factors need.to be acknowledged in implementing the TPR. Implementing regulations should be drafted to allow transit-oriented development to be phased in over time to match public investment in and provision of frequent and sustained transit service and facilities. 1,ocal governments should provide incentives to induce transit-oriented development by the private sector. Because the TPR requires significant departures from current development and planning practices, public education is critical to successful implementing many of these requirements. Public interest groups should assist the public and private sectors in educating the public on the requirements and benefits of the TPR. 5. TPR regulations should acknowledge the continued need for diversity in the type and scale of developments in locations having different population densities, land use patterns and levels of transit service.. The intent of the TPR is to provide minimum standards for r preferential access to transit, bicycles and pedestrians in all types of development, with more stringent standards applied to development at or near frequent and sustained transit service and high population densities. It is assumed that it is the intent of the TPR. to provide local governments the flexibility to establish a range of transit, bicycle and pedestrian orientation regulations to address situations such as different ty rs and scales of, developments within various Zoning districts having different population densities, land use patterns and levels of transit service. Clarification of this flexibility by DLCD is needed as soon as possible. 10 r 6. Statewide: Planning Goal 12, Transportation, has equal status with other Goals, e.g., Goal 5 resource protection and Goal 9 economic development planning. Flexibility is needed to weigh sometimes conflicting goals and regulations. 7. Jurisdictions in the region will have different approaches to integration of TPR: requirements into their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Since most communities do not have discretionary development site review procedures, they will be inclined. to attempt to develop "clear and objective -standards" (as required by R 2261). However, it is clear that the implementation of TPR requirements will, in many • cases, necessitate discretion and that development of clear and objective standards that aie simple and worxabie Will iuc difficult. Clear and dbjed[ivC j-w-nud t-MIS WILD discretionary adjustment or other review procedures would provide the most flexibility. B. COMMON GUEDFIMMS Ceneralty applicable io all land rases and all TPR requirements. 1. Site-specific TPR implementation needs to be guided by an area-wide Transportation System Flan (TSP) or circulation plan, if available, that addresses how a site fits into a wider streetscape and/or master plan. In the interim, it is recommended that arterials and collectors designated as transit corridors be utilized, to the extent feasible, for TPR implementation purposes. For most effective TPR implementation, TSP's or area circulation plans should designate future transit corridors. Street plans should specify required street alignments and connections. r 2. Clear and objective standards, coupled with optional discretionary adjustment or other review procedures, would provide the most flexibility to "fit" TPR requirements to speck development circumstances. Examples include: ® A standard, e.g., a maximum distance for building setbacks from transit streets, with administrative discretion to adjust it up to a certain distance. Additional adjustment would require a public review process. a A standard, i.e., the same maximum distance as above, with the developer's option to seek adjustments or other review. Such a process would be. applied only to those elements not in compliance (limited design review). ® A menu. approach offering several clear and objective standards with the developer's option to comply with, for example, any 4 out of 5, or 5 out of 7 standards. 3. A flexible apps.-ach should be taken to TPR implementation. A minimum level of tricycle, pedestrian and transit access should be established in all developments. Areas that do not have planned transit service should not be required to provide transit 11 facilities. Areas planned for auto-dominated uses should not require the same pedestrian and bicycle facilities as areas planned for a high degree of pedestrian, bicycle and transit activity, but must stir: support these modes of travel. As alternative modes of travel increase, public and private accommodation for these modes should increase as well. 4.' A matrix of regulations should be utilized to accommodate a range of situations, m;n;m;z;ng the need for adjustments. Different uses ,Ad in a single zone may have different standards (e.g., manufacturing vs. supporting commercial uses within industrial zones, fast food vs. office in commercial zones). Different uses within a single zone may also have different standards based upon location (e.g., adjacent to transit street vs. no planned service. 5. The following factors should be considered in applying TFR requirements, while stall • encouraging the use of alternative mods of travel: 0 Existing and planned (per TSP's) transit service, level of frequency; ® Existing and planned (per comprehensive plans) adjacent uses and densities; 0 Proximity to nearby activity centers; a Topography; ® Size and scale of development; a Specific requirements of the intended use; and ® Financial and social impacts of TPR implementation. 6. Mixed use urban examples will generally be the most difficult to develop. TPR implementation should encourage (and not discourage) mixed uses with site redevelopment and provide incentives to do so (e.g., . shared parking and, increases in allowable density). Clear and objective standards with discretionary adjustment or other review procedures may be the best mechanism to deal with complex mixed use urban examples. 7. Suburban sites tend to be characterized by low densities in surrounding areas, thus site design and regulations need to be flexible to both serve existing uses and accommodate future development. With changes in mode splits, there may be more opportunities for redevelopment with a mix of uses and for greater .pedestran/bicycle/transit uses. P 8. Overly restrictive, overlapping or uncoordinated requirements can impede TPR implementation. Flexibility is needed to weigh sometimes conflicting purposes found within the TPR. For example, stringent ODOT/local access regulations may impede implementing pedestrian access provisions of the TPR. ODOT/local code requirements for access need to IM coordin:.ted, and `lest le, aid in some uses reconsidered, to better promote pedestian environmente/wc: ss. Roadway standards, including road widths, on-swat parking restrictions and landscaping requirements, need to be flexible (in some cases revise]) to support TPR goals. 12 ME; 0=1 mum= 9. Both the public and private sectors need to encourage public education and land use changes over time to foster TPR implementation. The public (e.g. surrounding neighborhoods) need to be particularly educated about the need to accommodate connectivity in future development/redevelopment. Shared knowledge and familial with local concerns and issues can play a role in- reducing resistance to proposals or appeal of approvals. Front-end public involvement in site design/planning is critical to a project's success. • Complete information on area-specific TPR requirements, including the presence or absence of local TSP's or area circulation plans, should be readily available to the community from a single, local, public source. C. GI>137EI.lIiM FOR SPECMC TPR REQILJMMENTS The specific sections of the TPR that follow establish both internal and external requirements for pedestrian, bicycle and transit considerations in new development. Because these requirements are interrelated, and in some cases duplicative, an Mega-d-W-1 and ioenpfreda5usive approach to implementation, based upon the recommended Guidelines, should be utilized. 1. Bicycle parking in multi-family midential, commercial, institutional and transit facility development. Requirement Bicycle parking facilities as part of new multi-family residential developments of four units or more, new retail, office and institutional developrnen*_s, and all transit transfer stations and park and aide lots. (660-12-045 (3)(a)) Applicability Applicable to all new development, except single-family residential, multi-family residential with less than four units, and industrial. In terms of transit transfer stations", the focus should be transit centers and light rail stations. Guidelines for Implementation Bicycle parking can serve to benefit inf ll and transit-related development by increasing access options for residents, patrons and employees. For many developments, bicycle parking is an amenity that increases the attractiveness and- marketability of the project. The level of actual benefits will depend on the use and the location. 13 E Multi-family residential projects will generally benefit from bicycle parking, as multi-family . housing residents are more likely to use bicycles thaun-residents of single family houses. For most commercial uses, bicycle parking will also generally be an amenity. However, certain large retail uses, especially the warehouse or "big box" retail stores, will benefit less from bike parldng as customers generally need their automobiles to carry home their purchases. Projects located in areas that have 'safe and conver,! . t bicycle access and good connections between residential and commercial districts will bens g¢ from bicycle parking more than projects in more isolated locations. Bicycle parking represents a development cost. Bicycle parking uses space on the site that might • otherwise be developed, and the paving, striping, lighting and covering of spaces is a construction expense. However, costs can be minimized by locating bicycle parking in unutillzed or underutilized areas. Common 6uiddWes 1. Requirements for both short-term and long-term bicycle parking should be accommodated; separate short- and long-term parking facilities are not necessarily F uiaYxa, ho- W Ver. Long--term parking should generally be designed to accommodate residents and employees; short-term parking should be designed to accommodate primarily customers and visitors. The ratio of short- to long-term parking varies from use to use. Long-term parking needs to be more secure and protected than short-term parking. Proximity to a building's entrance is more important for short-term bicycle parking than it is for long-term bicycle parking. 2. Clear and objective standards should be utilized to determine the amount of required bicycle parking, such as a table which considers type of use, building square footage or number of units. With the TPR mandate to reduce overall auto use, the methods for determining the amount of required bicycle parking should not be directly tied to the amount of required auto paining. 3. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in a variety of ways, depending upon whether short- or long-term parking is being accommodated. For example: ® Storage space (lockers or racks) inside a building; ® Locker or racks in a parking structure or outside the building; and ® ' In a covered space at a transit center, light rail station or park and ride lot if within a specked distance of the public right-of-way and the main building entr=___. 4. Bicycle pawing spaces located outside a building should be located no further from the principal entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking spaces (excluding designated 14 AMMA handicapped spaces). Parking at a transit center, light rail station, or park -and ride lot should be located within a specified distance of the passenger platform. 5. The TPR does not require covered bicycle parking. However, if required by local governments, covered bicycle parking rcquirements should be greater for long-term than for short-terra p ldng and should not be tied to whether or not auto parking is covered. Cover for bicycle parking can be accommodated by buildings or roof 'overhangs, awnings, bicycle lockers, bicycle storage within buildings, free standing shelters or other methods. o. Required bicycle parking should be illuminated. Separate lighting should not be required if existing lighting adequately illuminates bicycle parking areas. 7. If bicycle parking areas are not visible from the street or main building entrance, then clearly visible signage should be provided to indicate the location 'of the parking facilities. 8. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking should be clearly marked, reserved for bicycle parking only, and separated from motor vehicle parking to prevent damage to parked bicycles (e.g., extruded curb). 9. Bicycle parking for multiple uses may be accommodated through clustering in one or several locations meeting all other requirements for bicycle parking. 10. The public right-of-way for bicycle parking should be utilized when parking cannot reasonably be provided on-site and the location is most convenient to the building's front entrance (e.g., SE Hawthorne Boulevard). Guidelines For Specific Uses RETAIL 11. Short-terra bicycle parking requirements for retail uses should be tied to the specific type of retail use. For example, warehouse uses should be subject to lower bicycle parking requirements than other types of retail. CO CIAL AND INSTY'1°ttJTYONAL 12. For facilities with multiple buildings, bicycle parking should be located in areas of greatest use and convenience to bicyclists: 13. For a building with multiple entrances, short-term parking should be distributed at the various entrances. 15 UMUSTRIAL 14. The. TPR does not require bicycle parking for industrial uses. However, bicycle parking could be accommodated in buildings or in covered areas on-site. 2. Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access in all types of new development. Requirement £'TCrilLrCiS p1[UVl(ililg HiIG 811111' 6:VilVe6 MIL pOLMDU 11 AUU VAUY 1G AL46 sa VV A"xx" aixas ...'M nC subdivisions, planned developments, shopping centers and industrial parks to nearby residential areas, transit stops and neighborhood activity centers, such as schools, parks and shopping. This shall inclilde: (A) Sidewalks along arterials and collectors in urban areas; (B) Bikeways along arterials and major collectors; (C) Where appropriate, separate bike or pedestrian ways to minimize travel distances within and between the areas and developments listed above. (660-12-045 (3)(b)) Applicability Applicable to new single and multi-family subdivisions, retail shopping centers and industrial larks. Guidelines for Implementation Equal accessibility and convenience within and from sites should be provided to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. In its "Recommendations for Pedestrian, Bicycle and 't'ransit Friendly Development Ordinances", APA states the principle that, "A well connoted street network is recommended as the primary means of providing safe, direct and convenient routes for bicycles and pedestrians." Though separate pedestrian and bicycle. paths may be required in certain situations, they should be the approach of last resort. Safe and convenient access and connections for pedestrians and bicycles will be at a different scale than for autos. Pedestrians are very sensitive to out-off-direction travel and the quality of the pedestrian environment. Bikeways and sidewalks are generally required on collectors and arterials. Local streets can generally accommodate bicycle traffic within normal travel lanes. Though streets may provide adequate bike and pedestrian facilities, if they do not connect in a direct manner, out-of-direction travel distances will. be excessive and discourage pedestrian and bicycle use. . 16 a low The residential subdivision generally does not provide a well connected street network. Cul-de- sacs are a common feature of residential subdivisions. Homeowners prefer the privacy, lower traffic levels and de facto play areas that cul-de-sacs provide. Subdivisions are commonly built with a large number of cul-de-sacs to meet this preference. However, street plans using a large number of cul-de-sacs do not provide direct access for pedestfians/bicyclists or for motorists, Subdivisions built on some form of grid street paftm were the standard model until the last 30 or 40 years. Recently, most models of neo-traditional neighborhoods incorporate a highly connected street pattern, either through a traditional rectangular grid or through curvilinear but connected local streets. Traffic studies of such neo-traditional development have shown that they e DrY/l7liQnwor de %,a,-~µaviiuvu uiau ui3 GlaaVU wi`uiau iuc ubuivifiivu `wau uv'~a a WORM &YFILVM subdivision. • Connectivity between one subdivision and adjacent subdivisions is essential to a convenient and efficient pedestrian and bicycle "system." Due to market demand, local regulation and planning practice, subdivisions are commonly built as self-contained entities which connect to a collector or arterial, but not to adjacent properties. The pen;epdcn is that connections to adjacent subdivisions increase traffic impacts and that connections from subdivisions to adjacent commercial development result in noise and security problems. Lacking an adequate arterial system and interconnected local street system, residents are frequently concerned that connected streets will attract through traffic. The higher the level of public visitation to commercial and industrial sites, the more important connectivity and pedestrian and transit access become. The public, and specifically surrounding neighborhoods, needs to be educated by both the public and private sectors about the need to accommodate connectivity in future development/redevelopment. Neighborhoods need to be brought into the planning process on the front end. Common Guidelines GENERAL CQNNECTI= 1. Ensuring connectivity is a shared responsibility between the private and public sectors. The public (e.g., surrounding neighborhoods) needs to be educated about the benefits of connectivity in future development/redevelopment. r 2. To decrease the threat of appeals and uncertainty for developers, local governments should require street connections as a matter of public policy. Connectivity should be a mandatory, non-discretionary standard, with exceptions required for instances where there is adjacent vacant or redevelopable land or when such connections have been pre- identified in a TSP, area circuladon plan or other adopted measure. 17 a ' 71 Connectivity utilizing public streets and sidewalks should be mandatory for projects in the vicinity of activity centers that people would typically walk to if given the opportunity (e.g., stores, schools, recreational facilities, restaurants and theaters within walking distance of employment and residential uses). Consideration of public concerns about inappropriate auto (through) traffic should be considered in requirements for connectivity. 3. Decisions on where to have street connections should be part of a TSP or circulation plan for an area, rather than made site-by-site. Prior to completing a plan that outlines street connection locations, local jurisdictions will need to identify and apply likely grid natternc_ A minimum TSP or area circulation plan would at least describe how often local streets should occur (perhaps some suggested spacing requirements), and when they must be , convected to existing area streets. More frequent spacing standards should be established for local street connections to arterials. 'A better plan would specify where local streets are to be located, with allowance for new information and special circumstances. TSP or area. circulation planning for larger infill parcels should be the first priority. 4. Sidewalks for pedestrians should be buffered from high traffic volume streets through wider sidewalks, street trees, planting strips, bollards or other techniques. Landscaping requirements need to be flexible (in some cases revised) to promote buffers between high traffic volume streets and pedestrian connections. Although the first priority r 1^dscap ng should be pedestrian/bicycle connections, both landscaping of pedea,'Aan connections and parking areas needs to be accommodated. Perimeter landscaping requirements between a sidewalk and a property can discourage pedestrian use because they are designed to screen parking lots rather than to accommodate pedestrian circulation. It may be preferable to allocate landscaping to the buffer between the sidewalk and the street. This buffer is not intended to be in addition to already required standards, but should be considered in allocating the required landscaping area. One landscaping requirement vs. several potentially competing requirements is needed to address both pedestrian access and screening of parking. Requirements/conflicts between landscaping in public rights-of-way vs. on private properties need to be addressed. Incentives should be provided for landscaping which promotes pedestrian environments. Courtyards/plazas should be considered toward meeting landscaping requirements ° when they would provide an enhanced pedestrian environment. 5. Connectivity in mixed use areas is particularly important in increasing pedestrian and bicycle activities and decreasing reliance on automobiles.. Mixed use developments are seldom connected to adjacent single-use developments, requiring people to use their cars to, move from one to the other. The result is not only increased V M T, but severe 18 gall EM mm I congestion in these areas. Safe and convenient connectivity for pedestrian and bicycles provide., an easy, attractive option to driving in these instances. Such connectivity should utilize public streets and sidewalks to the fullest extent possible. STREET CCONNECTIVUY 6. Safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access should be achieved primarily by requiring an interconnected street system. Sidewalks should be constructed along the' frontage of all public, streets. Access ways should be required only when specific site conelit!nns or oe emOonal considerations prevent direct street connections. To minimize rout- of-direction travel, st mets or stmt extensions should be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit streets and other neighborhood Wlivity centers, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 7. Through streets should be required whenever possible as a matter of public policy. Cut- de-sacs, hammerheads and other dead end streets should be permitted only when site conditions do not allow for direct street connections. Such conditions would include topography, presence of natural barriers, such as creeks and wetlands, or barriers such as railroads, limited access highways, existing conditions on adjacent developed properties that preclude connections, etc. If it is not possible to build the through-street because, of these constraints, a pedesbian/bicycle link should be required within a specified distance. 8. The layout of public streets should provide for connections to and from adjoining developments. To the extent practical, streets other than local streets should be in alignment with existing streets. For traffic calming purposes, local streets should be conneuW, but not necessarily aligned. Street stubs should be provided to allow for future access to adjacent undeveloped properties. 9. Road-Mated regulations need to be flexible and, in some cases reconsidered, to facilitate TPR implementation. Local regulations requiring a hierarchy of streets may inhibit effective street connectivity. Flexibility is needed in requirements for access, street widths, curve radius, common driveways, intersection spacing, on-street parking, streets built to current standards that are connecting to streets built to older standards, etc. Loading/unlob ng requirements should be flexible to allow off-site (on-street) loading and unloading in cases where TPR implementation is enhanced. Incentives should be provided to encourage skinny streets and other traffic calming mechanisms, alleyways, on-street parking on narrow streets, etc. 19 M MEER= PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE ACCESS 10. Sidewalks and bike lanes along streets are preferred over separate pathways or access ways in most situations. Separate facilities or connections should be provided only when Ore& connecdons are ine aacible or inappropriate. 11. Pedestrian/bicycle connections should be developed as public rights-of-way. 12. Where an access way connecting to an adjacent commercial, multi-family, office and institutionafl. development is not currently feasible, provision for a future connection should be made through dedication of an easement for a future connection, where reasonably related to the expected access needs of the proposed development. Buildings, landscaping, fences and other improvements should be located so as not to preclude eventual site-to-site walkway connections. Pedestrian and bicycle access between such developments should rely upon public sidewalks and bike lanes along abutting public streets. 13. Effective, safe pedestrian connections are a function of perceived distance, out-of- direction travel, convenience, attractiveness, and security. As distance and ou*-of- direction travel increase, amenities may be needed to offset these factors. Pedestrian connections need to be designed both to encourage their use and to foster their perception as being safe. For safety and to reduce trip length, pedestrian connections should be as straight as practicable. Narrow walkways are often perceived as unsafe places. Pedestrian connections should be illuminated. Separate lighting should not be required if existing lighting adequately illuminates the connection. Where fences are permitted along pedestrian connections, height and other siting requirements should be designed to prevent the creation of unattractive, unsafe or otherwise undesirable pedestrian corridors while recognizing adjacent owner concerns regarding privacy and safety. Guidelines For smific Uses r MUSTRIAL 14. Due to the nature of industrial activities and security concerns, public access within i,:ndusuial panics will often be limited by fencing, end gu -ds, and otheor m=ns. Pedestrian linkages between neighboring industrial uses should be oriented to the public right-of-way along abutting stmts. I 20 mom 0 YI 15. Access and connectivity requirements should be more extensive for non-industrial uses locating within industrial areas, e.g. supporting commercial. 16. Industrial buildings within industrial parks may be designed to accommodate multiple tenants with multiple business entrances interspersed with garage/loading doors. This l often creates a conflict between pedestrians and truck circulation on the site. For WWI, pedesw eonnewetions to public transitways or sidewalks should be protected where possible from automotive and truck traffic. Examples include: signage, paint striping, alternating materials, bollards and/or landscaping features. V 17. Amenities required by code (landscaping, pedestrian features, etc.) should be focused on the building's entrance and connection to the public ROW. 3. Internal pedestrian circulation in commercial developments. Requirement Provision of internal pedestrian circulation in new office par'its and commercial developments through clustering of buildings, construction of pedestrian ways, skywalks, where appropriate, and similar techniques. (660-12-045 (3)(d)) Applicability Applicable to new office parks 'and commercial development. Also recommended for institutional development. Guidelines for Implementation Internal pedestrian connections of commercial developments to streets, transit stops and adjacent development are critical to reducing auto trips. Although the majority of customers, employees or patrons may rely upon autos to access a commercial site, good internal pedestrian circulation is critical to both transit and bicycle users and to pedestrian circulation from.parking areas to buildings. 1 It is especially important to require adequate pedestrian connections from the street to building entrances, and to encourage pedestrian connections between adjacent commercial developments where feasible. The ease with which'a transit rider can walk between a work place and an adjacent restaurant or other retril service facility will have a great impact on his or her uvrllingness to Lrw Visit. Dire~t Connections tme-tweeri adjacont uses will dramatically shorten pedestrian travel distances -and encourage pedestrian trips even by those who have commuted to work by car. Adequate connections for pedesWan access from building entrances to transit streets and public sidewalks should be . located so that they interconnect with adjacent developments at or near transit stops. Even in areas not served by transit, these connections 21 would be expected to encourage pedestrian activity between commercial developments areas that often have the most traffic congestion in suburban areas because people currently cannot walk easily and safely from one commercial area to. another. There will always be conflicts among autos, pedestrians and bicyclists. The challenge is how to improve pedestrian connections, not preclude auto access. Sites need to be designed to crate an equal welcome for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Common Guideline. V 1. The required spacing and number of pedestrian connections should be judged on a site- specific.. basis, taking into account TSPs or circulation planning for tht area, site characteristics, adjacent uses, current or planned availability of transit, redevelopment potential and other relevant factors. A maximum out-of-direction standard is a good way to quantify the spacing of such connections, but should be keyed to the type of -development. Retail customers, for example, are particularly convenience-oriented and do not generally tolemae long out-of-direction travel distances. 2. Pedestrian walkways should be designed to minimize walking distances between public entrances and sidewalks, and to avoid unnecessary meandering. 3. Walkways should connect at least one public entrance of each building accessible to the public to the nearest sidewalk or other walkway leading to a sidewalk. Walkways should also connect to outdoor activity areas, such as parking lots, transit stops, children's play areas and plazas. Particularly for multiple-entrance retail uses, safe pedestrian access should be provided to each entrance from all parking areas. 4. Building access for employees should also be safe and convenient. Separate walkways will often be needed. Frequently, employee access will be through a controlled entry. 5. A walkway should be provided to each stre et abutting the property, where practicable. A walkway should also be provided to any public bikeway or walkway along a frontage of the site which is not bordered by a street. 6. New walkways or walkway connections should not be required where another sidewalk ` or walkway route provides a reasonably dirt route. Walkways should not be required between buildings or portions of a site which are not intended for or likely to be used by pedestrians, including truck loading docks, automobile sales lots, outdoor 'storage areas, etc. 7. Internal parking lot circulation and design should maintain ease of access for pedestrians frown streets and transit stops. Pedestri Dui war'.:ways crossing driveways, parking areas and loading areas should be clearly identifiable through use obi' techniques such as i 22 'Jil ill! striping, raised elevations, warning signs, different paving materials or other similar methods. Where walkways are, adjacent to driveways, they should be separated by a raised curb, bollards, landscaping or other physical barrier. If a raised walkway is used, the ends of the, raised portions should be equipped with curb ramps. 8. Walkways should be illuminated. Separate lighting should not be required if existing lighting ade.-uately illuminates the walkway. Y Guidelines For smi& -U MS RETAIL 9. Fast food restaurants and other types of drive-through businesses need special design considerations to make them both pedestrian and auto-friendly. With drive-throughs, the competing needs of two types of traffic autos driving through and pedestrians, including persons parking and walking to the buildings - - need to be accommodated. The safest point of pedestrian access will often be across the drive-through lane after pick-up window. Using contrasting paving materials or heavy duty stripes is an adequate way to mark the pedestrian crossing. Landscaping can also be used to augment the pedestrian crossing for more amenity and safety. 10. Loading/unloading requirements should be flexible to allow ofd site (on-street) loading and unloading in cases where TPR implementation is enhanced. t 4. Design and provision of transit facilities.. Requirement Design of transit routes and transit facilities to support transit use through provision of bus stops, pullouts and shelters, optimum road geometries, on-road parking restrictions and similar facilities, as appropriate. (660-12-045 (4)(a)) h Applicability Applicable to new commercial and institutional development. ~^'a S,al.H;s.... Raw g,~ Oes,v.~mes6o8inst ~ ~ahitsciraasv ava Fc6ys~.awaaa.....sr.r.~ Ii trip-generating developments are commonly required to provide off-site transportation improvements, including street improvements and intersection improvements such as traffic signals and turning lanes. These are often an extremely costly component of development. In 23 this context, the requirement to provide transit stops as a condition,of development approval is not likely to be seen as overly burdensome. In many cases, providing transit improvements are less expensive than alternative street improvements. mammon ~asidelines . 1. Tri-Met, in cooperation with Metro and other metropolitan area governments, should date its transit service plan, and designate a "Ridhmuaa- jil Network." route designation will provide a critical basis for the transit facility improvement requirements imposed under the TPR. 2. The placement of transit stops by Tri-Met is a • corridor-wide issue, and should not be specifically tied to the Ievel of demand generated by a specific project unless the corridor-wide evaluation of all transit stop improvements needed has been conducted and funding secured for these improvements. Stop improvements are required by AIWA and should be. tied to the projects on specific properties where transit stops are located or where required by Tri-Met to improve operations. In locations of high ridership, a passenger shelter may also be warranted. 3. The extent of the transit improvements that are exacted from a development should relate to the transit demand generated and to the degree of service available for the site. Transit improvements should be a first priority for sites that are abutting existing or planned transit routes, as designated in the transit service plan. 4. Where transit service is not currently provided along a designated or planned transit street, development requirements should include dedication of site area needed for transit facilities identified in a local transit corridor plan. 5. The design of transit facilities needs to respond to the type of service to be provided. For example, for shuttle service, a drop-off area at a building's primary entrance will generally be adequate. The local government review should ensure that pedestrian/bikeway amenities and other transit supportive features, such as shelters, turn bays, park-and-ride spaces, and signing are provided according to minimum standards developed by Tri-Met. 5. ]Preferential access to transit in commercial and institutional development. Requirement New retail, . office and institutional buildings at or near existing or planned transit stops to provide preferential access to transit through the following measures: (A) Orienting building entrances tc the transit stop or station;' 24 (13) Clustering buildings around transit stops; and, (C) Locating buildings as close as possible to transit stops. (660-12-045 (4)(b)) Applicability Applicable to new retail, office and institutional development adjacent to or near existing or planned transit stops. Guidelines for bnpl a tion u 17he intern of this *neiguirement is to sn_"vide VbfM~~s:ot ®n,~aee rNn, t.'~aw.e..t v" l~a~v.N EvVIiriiina entrances at a direct, safe, and convenient distance from the transit street, and by removing other barriers to pedestrian access. Building entrances should be located in a way that allows a direct, safe and convenient pedestrian link between the development and the transit stop. Different development types and different locations result in different functional building orientation requirements. Convenience is a major determinant of shopping behavior, regardless of the transportation mode. Retail experience has demonstrated that under current patterns, people in autos choose to shop at locations in which parking is accessible, visible from the street and conveniently located to the main building entrance. Different types of retail uses also have different parking and visibility requirements. Supermarkets, discount department stores and other "big box" or large building retailers require more parking (per unit of floor space) at the building entrance than do small retail shops. Current locational requirements are based on current transportation patterns, in which most people travel by car. In other American cities, as auto travel has become more expensive and less convenient, and as feasible transit alternative have been provided, the mode split has shifted in favor of transit. The key question is where, when and to what extent will this shift occur. Common Guidelines 1. Requirements for preferential access to transit can be met in a variety of ways and will vary among different development sizes and types and within different locations. Factors that should be considered in developing building orientation requirements include existing and. planned population density, other types and sizes of existing and planned development along the street, frequency and levels of current and planned transit service and auto use, and general neighborhood character. 2. Now retail, office and institutional buildings located on transit streets should have at least one public entrance facing the transit street' or, if not facing, be within a specified distance of. the transit route. A combination of building orientation, distance and 25 M pedestrian amenities can work together to display and direct a person to an entrance, and to make the journey pleasant, logical and obvious. Included are such features as: Entrance location(s). ® Building shape/configurationlarticulation. 0 Distance (to street or transit stop from enhance). ® Visibility of entrance and/or pedestrian path. b Amenities such as width, landscaping. lighting; use of different materials, walls, benches, weather protection, signage, plazas, porticos, awnings, etc. ravavvuabac a\VGbs ~V ufiaaou. 3. Commercial districts should contain minimum standards fop pr `m sst The TPR requirement of "as close as possible" should be a reasonable distance related to size and type of use, and current or planned availability of transit. 4. On deep sites, setbacks should allow for parking now and redevelopment of the site in the future. 5. Caningus-type development often has internal orientation. Flexibility is needed to balance these inter.-W-1 orientation needs with the operational needs of the transit operator to serve 4t. ew... such developments on.the street as opposed to on-site. In either case, the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists should be accommodated. In commercial and institutional developments with multiple buildings, buildings should be clustered around designated transit stops. Requirements for any particular building, Aft or all buildings, to be oriented to the transit service are unnecessary. Requirements for some buildings/activities to orient 'to the transit service can provide the pedestrian- ffriendly environment sought (i.e., the "anchor" store need not be the most "prominent" store). However, direct, safe and convenient pedestrian connections need to be provided between other buildings not oriented to the transit street. 6. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpooLs; in industrial and commercial development. Requirement New industrial and commercial developments to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. (660-12-045 (4)(c)) . Ap,-I! -,bL. Applicable to new commercial and industrial development. 2f 11~1111111111 low Imp rMM Guidelines for Implementation Carpools and vanpools for employees are a means to reduce vehicular trips and miles traveled and should be encouraged for commercial and industrial uses and particularly institutional uses. Common guMboa 1. "Preferential" paeans reserved on-site, not necessarily the parking area closest to a building's main entrance. 2. A minimum percentage of the required parking spaces should be reserved and sign- Cad J'LUJ-L use as employee carpool/vanpool spaces. 7. Opportunities for redevelopment of surface parking for transit-oriented uses. Requirement Af PY1s~1Y14tft ' E>°lci.ng areas for .a.:s.. eeiSsiua...g.. de.oaao.e.llop afoe.,. t....at to redevelop nY6 fL'11-'P-i An o 1A..41_ s vrpol uuu..j for transit-oriented uses, including bus stops and pullouts, bus shelters, park and ride stations, transit-oriented developments and similar facilities, where appropriate. (660-12-045 (4)(d)) Applicability Applicable to all existing development. Guidelines for Implementation The amount of on-site parking provided in a development is a direct function of the requirements of the users and tenants of the development, and it is common for commercial developments to provide parking in higher ratios than required by code. Developers will not be inclined to reduce parking on site b°"sow what they feel is required to adequately serve tenants or visitors. For this reason, there may be few instances of developers seeking to redevelop surface parking until parking demand actually drops below existing levels. T It, is assumed that redevelopment of surface parking will help encourage transit, bicycle and pedestrian trips because the intensity of development, ease of access and perhaps, the mix of uses will be increased. It is also assumed that redevelopment of surface parking under relevant TPR standards will increase the use of alternative modes of transportation. Common Guide g 1. When evaluating site development proposals, the redevelopment potential of parking lots should be considered (i.e., location, size, relationship to transit street). 27 f F Y 2. A performance standard approach for redevelopment of surface parking is recommended. If a site review process is used, standards for redevelopment should be applied at the site review stage as opposed to a conditional use process. 3. WdAg requirements, whether minimum or maximum, need to be flexible based upon type of use, area, transit availability, etc. If utilized, minimum parking requirements should be periodically reviewed to determine if they should be adjusted. 8. Road, systems that facilitate pedestrian and transit access. ` Requirement Road systems for new development which can be adequately served by transit, including provision of pedestrian access to existing and identified future transit routes. This shall include, where appropriate, separate bicycle and pedestrian ways to minimize travel distances. (660-12- 045 (4) (e)) Ap.a~:: Applicable to all new development. Guidelines for Implementation Note., These Guidelines duplicate those for the TPR requirement (#2) for safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access in all types of new development. It is recommended that DLCD be advised that this section of the TRIR is redundant. Common Guidelines 1. Safe and convenient bicycle, pedestrian and transit access should be achieved p:simarily through an interconnected street system. Separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities or connections should be required only when street connection's are infeasible or inappropriate. , 2. Proposed streets or street extensions should be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit struts and other neighborhood activity centers, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 3. Flexibility is needed in ODOT/local code requirements for access to better promote TPR implementation, particularly in requirements for alignment of intersections and limits on where/how many entrances to a site. 29 SIMI 9. Transit stops for major commercial, industrial and institutional development. Requirement Require all major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments to provide either a• transit stop on site or connection to a transit stop along a transit trunk route when the transit operator requires such an improvement. (660-12-045 (5)(d)) Applicability 1 ' yG °::"al indnct 61 and institutional development. . AplDliCtlvd to majux GR13ns an Hrow %"VY Guidelines for Implementation Common Guidelines 1. Off-street transit stops are only appropriate in very rare circumstances. Bus passenger landing pads and connecting sidewalks are AIWA requirements which should be included in any project on a transit street. Guidelines por Specific Uses INDUSTRIAL 2. Manufacturing and distribution are typically low-intensity and have many off-peak employee demands which do not support a high level of fixed-route transit service. Alternati.-. transit modes (e.g., vanpools and shuttles) may more effectively match the demand. e 29 Igloo= APPENDIX rA: TPR EMWLEbEEMATION CASE STUDIES IIVTRODUC Y ION As part of the Regional Discussion on TPR Implementation sponsors by Metro from September 1993 to February 1994, ten case studies were conducted. These case studies were intended to: Assess how TPR requirements would be applied to existing, developed sites; Assess how implementation of TPR requirements may support or hinder development; 0 Identify situations where TPR implementation might conflict with other state and local _rmuisrsnentc and identify rft-nmms-nslatinnc to ngcnlve such conflicts: and Identify guidelines for TPR implementation that could be applied to similar land uses. A Working Group of 17 members, representative of the interests participating in the Regional Discussion, was selected to conduct the case studies and to identify "Lessons Learned" and Guidelines on TPR Implementation. Members of the Working Group included: Keith Bartholomew, 1000 Friends of Oregon Meeky Blizzard, STOP Ilex Burkholder, Bicycle Transportation Alliancc Drake Bustch/John Chandler, Homebuilders Association Steve Cogan, Fred Meyer Maggie Collins, City of Milwaukee Jerry Foy, Westwood Corp. Steve Gerber/Jean Harrison, City of Portland Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin Tom Kloster, Metro Kim Knox, Tri-Met Roger Millar; Columbia Corridor Association Greg. Specht, Portland Pacific Properties Dick Van Ingen, Clackamas County Mark Whitlow, Bogle &i Gates Mary Weber, Metro Jim Owens, Cogan Owens Cogan; Facilitator Criteria for selection and evaluation of the case studies was explained in Chapter I of this report. The case studies were prepared by consultants to the Retail Task Force who provided site plans of the developments as constructed and as modified to meet TPR requirements. These site plans and presentations by the consultants on issues related to TPR implementation served as the basis for the Working Group discussions. A-1 own= CASE STUDIES Summary information on the ten case studies reviewed by the T'PR Working Group is .provided in this soon, followed by the "Lessons Learned". The summary information was provided by Retail Task Fon;z consultants and is not intended to reflect the opinions of the Working Group. The Lessons Learned include: (1) those developed by the Working Group, (2) additional input from the large group meetings, and (3) individual questionnaire responses. 1. SUBURBAN SINGLE-F Y RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PFEEFFER ! + !U lg a. 1ackgrround Location: Lake Oswego, North of Kruse Way, East of 13oones Ferry Road Developer: Heritage Development Co. Zoning: Single-Family R-5 (5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) Site Area: 13.1 acres Maximum Density: 93 units Approved Density: 48 units Transit: Tri-Met #38 runs (commuter hours) on Boons Ferry Road and Kruse Way, approximately 1/3 mile to south and east. Key Issues During the Land Use Review: ® : Preservation of existing historic structures. Whether planned measures for adding school capacity were adequate. 0 Neighborhood opposition to traffic and pedestrian infiltration into adjacent areas. ® Fire Marshall requirement for two emergency services access points. TFR Compliance Issues: The applicant provosel a street connection to the north. This was opposed by neighbors and deleted in favor of a vehicle access. The applicant had adequate access for his property, and therefore no incentive to push the connection to the north. For TPR compliance, the original plan is modified to include a mid-block pedway. This is a better choice than connecting the cul-de-sac bulbs because it link:, the areas north and south of the property. A street is shown connecting to the north. Minimum compliance with TPR 045(3) would require a pedestrian/bike connection as was approved by the City of Lake swego. A-2 Moo b. Lessons Learned mom Working Group: ® Connectivity Opposition from neighbors often requires obtaining connections "where you can". Terrain and the existing development pattern can limit potential connections. To the extent possible, connections should be to open spaces. Require the connection but provide flexibility on site-specific locations. ® Decisions on where to have street connections should be pant of a larger framework plan for an area, rather than made site-by-site. Require framework planning for larger, remaining infilll parcels. Need to consider both current and future development patterns for the area. Ensure that what is done on small, site-specific scale works with big picture. Neighborhoods need to be brought into the planning process on the front end. ® Pedestrian connections/walkways need to be designed so that they are perceived to' be amenities. Narrow walkways are often perceived as negative. When possible, fence walkways only where they encounter rear yards. Be sensitive to desires for security. - Make design inviting through landscaping, artwork, other amenities. ® If connections provide a public benefit, they should be developed as public rights-of-way. Homeowner associations cannot be expected to build and manage public spaces. ® Street connections should be required under most circumstances. If cul-de-sacs are allowed, pedestrian/bike accessways should be required. Don't require for the sake of connectivity only, need to be viable connections. 0 Cul-de-sacs versus loops versus grid-street patterns. - Loops may reduce densities but tend to provide better connections. - Loop connections may require reductions in lot sues. - Cul-de-sacs are highly desired by consumers. - Cul-de-sacs require sidewalks only on one side. - Education is needed on the effects of cul-de-sacs. - Through streets should be required whenever possible as a matter of public policy. ® Housing affordability can become a factor in the cost of connectivity. Y - Need to assess whether the increased cost is being offset by general public benefits. Credit the private sector for efforts to reduce VMT, e.g. increased developer investment in local streets could be offset by reduced TEFs. ® Overlapping, uncoordinated requirements can make TPR implementation difficult. Convicting state and local requirements. Conflicting land uses on adjacent sites. Conflicting local government standards with sites abutting another jurisdiction or in overlapping jurisdictions. A-3 c . ® Road-related regulations in subdivision ordinances need flexibility. A&L Street: widths, curve radius, common driveways, intersection spacing, etc. Alleyways, pedestrian paths, eliminate setbacks, on-street parking on narrow streets, other incentives should be allowed. ® Promoting mixed use, e.g. neighborhood commercial, makes connectivity more of an issue. • Connectivity requires a workable arterial/connector system. Need neighborhood feel; connecting local streets need to be ' trafffiv-calming streets. ® Pedestrian linkages, connectivity, other TPR elements are as important as open space, - historic resources; solar access, etc. ® Providing connectivity is a shared responsibility between private sector development requirements and public sector development planning commitments. , - Developers should be required to provide a conceptual plan for street connections. - Local government should require street connections despite neighborhood opposition - make connections a mandatory, non-discretionary standard, but be flexible. Large Group: ® Local government limitation of one access to a site is onerous. Individual Comments: ® Street connection should be made between subdivision& when possible. The jurisdiction should bear the burden for the requirement, even if it is objected to by residents of neighboring subdivisions. Developers should include in their application a conceptual plan for how neighboring properties could be developed to continue street connections. 0 Street connections are preferable and should be required uerder most circumstances. If an exception is made to street connections, allowing cul-de-sacs, pedestdmi/bicycle acc;essways should connect through, if possible. The ante. is raised if the street or accessway connection readies a transit stop, neighborhood commercial, daycare or similar. However, even residential to residential connections should be made. Ownership of the accessway should be worked out on a case-by-case method. Concerns again raised about who will maintain rights-of-way with nonstandard improvements, typically necessary only when a standard right-of-way improvement is denied or stopped because of irrational and unsubstantiated fears, although there have been enough of the former,situations to create other sites where connectivity has become legitimately difficult. Some feel that if a path, walkway or roadway is providing for public access (public good), that the public should accept responsibility for maintenance, liability and any other expense incurred (public a ® While no minimum density is required, the "market" (usually the .developer's predisposition) will, determine the type and density of housing up to,the maximum density allowed. Given the current market perceptions, comprehensive plan densities, without A-4 y a minimum density requirement, are misleading at best, and very likely outrightly supercilious in many cases. a The need for accessways depends upon how aggressive a jurisdiction is about requiring street connecti®nsiv ohibiting cul-de-sacs. Terrain and the existing d-,velopment pattern can provide obstacles to both street connections and accessways. 0 Jurisdictions • need to be mwe proactive when it comes to street patterns (except, I suppose) when the developer has a better idea?), so that connectivity can be achieved. Jurisdictions should develop street plans, including plans for local streets. A minimum plan Would at least describe how often local streets should occur (perhaps some suggested .a t__ ae._.. er 1o nnc+npntnsi tn ja%iefino arm stn^tc A spacing nquHulftUI.B) , "Ru wuGU "ZV'Y a% w w.s........... e -a better plan would show where local streets are to be located, with allowance for new information, special circumstances and, of course, when the developer has a better idea. ® Jurisdictions can supply street pattern pLznning only * after an extensive citizen involvement process, also requiring extensive survey and engineering work. However, local jurisdictions should havi at least criteria, if not specific plans, to determine minimum local street spacing/location/connectivity. ® Public ownership of public accessways is not going to please everyone, but it may be the only way to assure some measure of standardization and familiarity. Local jurisdictions should assume ownership/responsibility for all public accessways (streets, walkways, pathways for auto, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes). A-5 21 I POP' c. Sloes pfeiffer Farms As built ra;; _ • nas=WWRI TpROption I r` elm - - ' - M, Tpp. option IS A6 gan 2. URBAN MULTI-1FANMY RESMENTIAL SUBDIVISION - FRANK ESTATE a. Background) Project Name: Garden Dome Ana of Washington County Developer: GSL Properties, Inc. Zoning: R-9 (9 units/acre) Significant Natural Resource and Wetland Area historic and Cultural Resource Overlay Citp. Arne; 'AA 17 acrr_c Maximum Density: 309 units Approved Density: 309 units Transit: Tri-met #45 runs on Garden Home Road, approximately 1/8th mile south of the Frank entrance. Key Issues During the Land Use Review: ® Preservation of significant trees. ® One wetland crossing allowed (DSL position). Preservation of historic home, grounds and access road. Neighborhood opposition to traffic and pedestrian infiltration into adjacent areas. ® Fire Marshall . requirement for two emergency services access points. ARA ® Adjacent private school opposed pedestrian connection to their property. 'g PR Compliance Issues: No bicycle bike parking is provided at the Frank Estate, except at the Recreation Center. Residents carry their bikes into their apartments. For "long terns" bike parting, security is an important issue. Bike lockers or closets would add both installation and maintenance costs, and may only be used by a few residents with upstairs units. If this assumption is correct, then the bike parking standard of 1 space per unit proposed by the City of Portland (with half under cover) appears excessive. The snore practical need is probably for a short-term parking that is conveniently located near each group of buildings. A future transit stop at the project entrance could be accommodated on the approved plan or any of the TPR options. Significant trees would have to be cut, and the historic character of the entrance to this property would be significantly changed.. Orienting and clustering buildings toward the bus stcp would result in even greater impact to the mature trees within the Significant Natural Resource Area. b. Lessons Learned Working Group: A-7 all ® At a minimum pedestrian access to adjacent development, street access is preferable. ® Pedestrian connections should be wide, very minimal landscaping. ® Need educational outreach to neighbors about the benefits of connections isolation does not ensure safety. 0 For safety, keep pedestrian connections straight. 01 Coni sides alternative design standards street connections can be made more acceptable to neighbors by reducing width standards so that the connection accommodates pedestrian, bicycles and autos but is not built for speed or extensive use skinny streets concept- --,:A- V.tiv. t:::LFfi~ n~ltnino nnrv►v4nnifiac - avv ava ...-.-..r.~ ..jt...-._......~.. ® Connections to adjacent uses should be the expectation in ordinances a variance should be required not to connect. ® ]Need to consider both short-term and long-term options for bicycle parking. Long-term parking variety of options: - large/wide interior closets with bike. hooks - decks - extra secure storage spaces - satellite locations are not good (not perceived as secure or accessible) - accommodate longterm parking as close to entrances of buildings as possible under stairwells Short-term parking options: does not need to be high security area ® Impossible for developer to "impose" street layout local government should plat streets in advance of. development; at a minimum identify connections. ® Community-level plans need physical/policy planning to address connectivity. Pedestrian pathways are not as safe for the pedestrian as streets. Infill development connections at a higher development, standard; they become significant connections width, sidewalks vs. just a connection to accommodate pedestrian/bicycle and local access. issue is connecting new developments to older, existing developments. Large Croup: ® How to require connections without them becoming impediments to development? Issue of neighborhood resistance ® More community education needed public sector responsibility. 0 Need to work with fire departments educate them. a Flexibility in bicycle storage requirements. ® Need to balance T PR with other regulations, e.g., Coal 5 resource protection. ® Front-end involvement by community in site design/planning. . ® Local government needs to take leadership role in connectivity (avoid developer vs. neighborhood). 0 Education is responsibility of local governments and development community. With residential infill, connectivity will be primary TPR issue. 0 Site-specific T PR planning needs to be guided by area-wide framework plan. A-8 Education is needed dual responsibility, with government taking lead. Individual Comments: ® Fire equipment access is an issue with skinny streets. ® Connectivity is key issue. a Wetlands are linear, connections amiss them are always a problem; suggestion use a half culvert. ® Residents of existing/neighboring homes need to feel that new development benefits them in some way more options, less (fast) traffic. ® Local jurisdictions need to take the lead and provide adeauatE ROW and infractn,chrre for all modes, so individual developments have proper framework/support for connectivity, investment to further other modes. ® There are certain "common" problems experienced by both the public and private development sectors which present opporatinities to builld working relationships between these two elements of the development equation. Issues such as street, pedestrian and/or bikeway connections; minimum density (whether required by regulation' or to make ;project feasible); and dealing with misconceptions and fears, such as. renters being somehow "undesirable", can be common grounds of interest where the public and private sectors should be working together. b Infill development often results in issues or concerns not common to development of vacant or largely undeveloped areas (:i.e. character of area, traffic, security). ® Shard knowledge and familiarity with these or other local concerns and issues can play a role in reducing resistance to proposals, or appeal of approvals; early contact for early dialogue can be absolutely crucial to the success or failure of a development proposal. Developer carries a heavy burden (too heavy) if he is expected to grid streets through, connecting to existing dead-ends, without government pre-planning what the local (as well as arterial) system should look fake. Streets (shinny streets) provide' the best multi-modal connections through and between neighborhoods. If streets are impossible or impracticable, pedestdan/bikeway connections are better than nothing. Pedestrian/bikeway connections should be straight for police surveillance from a public street. Right-of-way dedications are of paramount importance even if the neighbors resist paving improvements for pedestrian/bike access. 0 Flexibility is needed to weigh sometimes conflicting goals such as historic or wetland preservation, major vegetation, market changes. ® The more direction the jurisdiction can give (or requirements), the lower the burden on the developer. Require connections up front, just like environmental standards. ® Neighborhood opposition is a fact of life. The jurisdiction needs to be there with the developer instcad of maldng the developer bear the entire burden. ® Need to make the need for connections part of the neighborhood and/or community planning process and not defer it to the individual development project. 0 Neighborhood circulation plans: I'm concerned about recommending that comprebensive, specific neighborhood circulation planning be undertaken as part of the 14-9 TSP's due in 1996. A plan that shows all future local streets would be a very major MAL undertaking, requiring immense planning resources and will be very difficult to accomplish given the timeline of local TSPs in relationship to the TPR timeline. Additionally, such neighborhood plans may result in "over-planning" - creating the need for legislative amendments as part of land development decisions in order to modify local street patterns. Instead, as part of the May 1994 implementation requirements, I'd recommend that developers consider neighborhood circulation issues as part of their projects. _ Land Use Ordinances could include guidelines to: provide a generally direct and uncircuitous pattern of streets, provide connections to existing, approved or future , a :A- ego-.. •x,... a..e....+s „ ~nla~tiF Sh1ittin-o mmnerty front nroViding a auwLS, Mu pvviuc a kiaawau L""4, aawuu & D r- *-r--v c generally direct and uncircuitous pattern of stmts. ® Public streets in multi-family developments: While I fully support the notion that pedestrian pathways are not as safe for the pedestrians as streets, I wonder if this means we're moving towards requiring a series of public right-of-ways through multi-family developments? I'm worried that this issue hasn't been adequately discussed. These developments have traditionally been dominated by private streets or a series of driveways. Requiring public rights of way would seem to drastically change the way these developments occur. Does the TPR require elimination of "the guarded gate community" or traditional garden apartments? While I'm not advocating any one position on this issue, I do think there needs to be some more specific discussion before this concept is accepted. Right or wrong, internal orientation and "isolation from external influences" has been a marketing direction for many such developments. Public streets are more expensive to construct than the series of driveways typically incorporated into suburban multi-family developments. Obviously, dedicating right of way to the public also means the public has to figure out a way to pay for maintenance of such right of ways. ® Community plans versus the TPR: Does the TPR require re-examination of community plans that may preclude implementation of the TPR? For example, if a community plan policy was created specifically to restrict access to a neighborhood (as in the Frank Estate case), does the TPR require that this policy be re-examined? Often such policies are included in plans because the local government dad a good fob of involving citizens in the plan development process. Citizen involvement is an important and mandated part of plan preparation. Another way to pose the question would be: Is Goal 12 - transportation more important than Goal 1- citizen involvement? ® The gray area of making pedestrian connections: It clearly makes sense to connect one public right-of way to another. However, private property is often surrounded by private property and these an tough calls in the connectivity game. How are these connections _ made? If an abutting property is already developed, when does it make sense to require connections? For example, a multi-family development may be required to connect to an migkg commercial development, how' does the connection on the commercial property come about? Alternately, if development "A" was required to connect to a 'v street of an abutting residential development "B", what precludes residential development "B" from putting up a fence at the end of the connection if they don't want A-10 Room= it. Technically, people would be trespassing if they walked from development "A." through "B". 0 Connectivity needs to include all modes. ® Street connections to existing adjacent/abutting/stub}red off streets, and street stubs to adjacent undeveloped (or underdeveloped) properties should be required. Any lack of such connectivity should be an exception and require an exception process. In other words, it is possible for there to be valid masons = to connect to an adjacent street, but we should be. operating from the principle of "it is required, MaLqa you can show valid reasons why it should not." (Particularly where connections to existing sitfeets can result in usable connections to schools or community centers, parks or recreational facilities, ' shoppbg or employment areas, such connections are a "must" to be able to comply with the intent Qrr the letter of the !YR.) ® Reliance on pedestrian only, bicycle only or even combined pedestrian-bicycle ways, in lieu of multi-modal designed streets, should only be considered as a last resort. Streets that accommodate bicycles and pedestrians are saft.!- and less likely to result in nuisance activities than special pathways. e Isolated, "walled" fortress-style developments should not be allowed. They &,connect neighborhoods, and they encourage increased VMT. ® Private streets should not be allowed as a means to avoid the goals of the TPR. ® Education may be a way to change neighborhoods' provincial attitudes towards having new neighbors and accepting density and change. 0 Developers need a certain degree of certainty that they can move forward with a project when they put their option money down. Delay can kill a project. a Focus on connections on getting to activity centers such as schools, community centers. Less emphasis should be placed on connections just for the sake of connections. 0 , Make standar.O?s as objective as possible. ® Always require at least for future streets and always require pedestrian connections. ® Covered, secure bicycle parking can be accommodated in multi-family developments in a variety of ways and should be a requirement, just as auto paeking is now (e.g., one of each per unit). ® Build . in traffic calming to minimize traffic speed, volume, eul-thru when street connections are made. Skinny streets are one way, other are: corners, bumps, diverters, etc. A-11 Wma A. 7 :~~i1.. `3 ~CL{ 1 wr.•. err, • ~ ~ • t ` rtti r~+s'~'~ i„~ra,.j •~i ly" V1 i 4~ MW L gyp. V7'.'~ a •..60~f U' ~ ' . I. '~t\ a>„ V~•e t._ , N~ ~•,..L ' ~ Lam:: Sri ~ 1 L~i~:. J ~ ~ ~ ti , a ~ n, • ~ 'l.~rty ~ ~ ~ r1,:% Lit nt ~ 4saa%;a-::~ ~~C •11 t~ ~ 9 S_ !B4 6¢ R✓' L~ • Y.1'^F, .it C! ' 'U . igr111 . l~ 'ki~~ ~t }4J ' Pb ~ • Lin 1 ' iill~ rf. j . Vol, ''.•.~t•i~~e~~; ' I ~ ` ~ cy~La '~i ~ FRKi:e'" Q~9 !fir t1. ~.pK 10, O F i 3-5 URBAN RETAIL, aS9t7►tcLVAYO MCDOdVIY: D'S, BURGER ALLE n. Backgmund SAFEWA.Y Location: NE Sandy Blvd., Portland Cost: $6 million Sales: $7/sq. ft. Parking: ' 50+ spaces within 250-300 feet of the main entrance Sq. Pt.: 50,000+ dictated by customer demand • Key Issues: ® Density is a key issue in determining where to locate stores ® Orientation to major transit street effects on available parking turning back of store to neighborhood ® Single vs multiple entrances ® Building to status quo vs. 20 years in futures ® Eliminating barriers to pedestrians/bicyclists vs. eliminating autos ® Flexibility in maximum setback requirements to promote pedestrian activities/access Consider the general effect the site plan has on the str+eetscape (i.e.. creation of walls) - streetscage in both public right-of-way and private property (curb line versus property line for sidewalk) Development standards should be linked to the level of ti-ansit service ® The location decision for bus stop takes into consideration minimizing the loss of off- street parking. The best location for a bus stop is on the far side of a driveway. Link level of development standards with level of transit service ® Parking issues include: access, safety, adjacent uses, and adequate width 110% including drive aisle widths MCDONALD'S Location: SE 82nd, between SE Ellis do sway Streets, Portland Key Issues: ® Number of parking stalls ® Ability to locate play area in front of store ® Access/egress points ® Expansion of building in future ® Delivery truck access/conflicts with pedestrian and drive-through traffic ® Trash enclosure access ® Side-loading A-13 goligpos ENE= 10 cars at a time is ideal design for drive-through; want to avoid stacking onto public streets Very pronounced peaks and valleys of service; need to design. for these peaks Pedestrian use dependent upon surrounding neighborhood; generally, less than 2-3% pedestrian 0 Trade area analysis determines design/function of store Signage, rather than building location, determines visibility ® Separating drive-through from walk-in BLIRGERVILLE Locatica~: SE Hawthorne at SE 12th and Clay, Portland Usage: 76 % automobile 43 % drive-through and 33 % park; 21 % pedestrian; 3% bus; 0.2% bike Ivey issues: ® PedMstriia„n/automobile conflicts ® Litter/vandalism typical problems of bus customers ® high maintenance because of buses M A-14 f b. Lessons Learned SAFEWAY Working Group: ® Mixed use urban examples are the most complex to apply the umisportation planning rule. Site review may be the best mechanism to deal with complex mixed use urban examples. 0 Varh cite will have ctrenothc and umnkYL-as ?c for nedestrian; bicycle and auto access. _p_ e The duality of the pedestrian connection is a function of distance and pedestrian-oriented amenities. a The orientation of the building to the transit street is a function of distance and pedestrian-oriented amenities. ® Must consider the pedestrian, bicycle, transit issues relative to the.site in context of the larger neighborhood issue of connectivity. a Need "safe harbor" standards. ® Bus stops can move building orieY!tation should be to the transit street,not the transit MEN= stop a When evaluating a retail site proposal, consider the redevelopment potential of parking lots (i.e. location, size, relationship to transit street). ® Provide incentives for good pedestrian/transit/bicycle, access (i.e. reduce TIF fee). ® 'Planning for off--site pedestrian access will most likely also meet transit and bicycle access requirements. ® Provide incentives for structural building changes to allow for redevelopment and bicycle access requirements. ® Provide incentives for site designs which have less than minimum number of parking. spaces (as specified in industry requirements, per sq. feet of retail space). MCDGNALD' S/BURGERV1I.Ti.E Working Group: 0 TPR regulations need to be general enough to address a broad array of commercial uses. TPR implementation issues arise primarily with drive-through-type uses. Different approaches are needed for auto-oriented vs. pedestrian-oriented businesses. ® Differentiate between transit/auto-oriented streets and transit/pedestrian-oriented streets. Being; transit-friendly doesn't make a site pedestrian-friendly. ® Location of site and surrounding uses dictates practicality of applying'TPR requirements. 0 Both the public and private roles heed to encourage land use changes over time to foster the types of environments where TPR can work. A-15 ® Apply TPR in a step-by-stet, approach that recognizes viable pedestrian envircnments/creates more viable environments. Autos and pedestrians do not need to be mutually exclusive. Issue is how to improve pedestrian connections, not prelude auto-oriented uses. Pedestrian access from/through parking areas is a critical issue. ® Requirements to protect neighbors (no local street access) can discourage effective TPR implementation. ® Vehicle connections may be as important as pedestrian/bicycle connections. Several access points better than one. * For fast-food retail. B uHd''irig ®rieniadOniiaVnungg L['auSit rffV % is "die major issue. "As close as possible"• does not necessarily mean on street; do not want to preclude efficient circulation. ' ® Pedestrian ways need to be provided on-site to/from surrounding neighborhoods. ® Conflicting access requirements. Local vs. state, as well as internally at local level, e.g. curb cuts. ® Flexibility is needed in orientation. Trade-off of orientation to neighborhood. 1nere will always be conflicts among autos, pedestrians and uicyclists. - Challenge is to reduce these conflicts, ensure safety/provide amenities to create safe environments. - Use alternating materials to reduce conflicts - Design features to create equal welcome to pedestrian/bicyclist as to auto. - First priority for landscaping should be pedestrian/bicycle connections. - Channel pedestrians like cars are channeled. Urge Group: • Need for flexibility in ordinances to allow off-site (on-street) loading/unloading. ® Safest point of pedestrian access is across drive-through lane after pick-up window. ® Alternating paving materials are better than striping. ® With drive-throughs, need to accommodate the competing needs of two types of traffic - - autos driving through and pedestrians, including persons parking and entering building. Individual Comments: 0 Among all the types of commercial development, fast food restaurants and ether types of businesses with drive-through windows need.special consideration for design to make them pedestrian friendly and allow them to address the vast majority of their business . that arrives by the automobile. 0 A. drive=hrumigh queuing rI be*~een the b': ilding and sidewAlk isn'± bad for crossing pedestrians. Using contrasting paving materials or heavy duty stripes is an adequate way to mark the pedestrian crossing. Landscaping can also be used to augment the pedestrian crossing for more aw.enity and safety. A-16 r ® For systems planning - designation of "transit" streets may be better done by designating "transit/pedestrian" street; and "transitlauto" streets with orientation and setback requirements for commercial uses being diffferent along the two types of stmts. d Site design needs to address who gets priority in access car or pedestrians ® Sometimes with.property size and shape constraints, and access constraints imposed by the jurisdiction, there aren't many options for site design, parking lot layout, and drive- through lane design. ® N we are not going to outlaw drive-throughs, we need to find rules that allow them to work and implement the purpose of the TPR. p If TFR is to reduce VMT, it must include requirements that make pedestrian, bike and u'eauurs vw Hsu°v Favavaic i utvdG iv aa..ooo tau°vu°v vwi++aw 3, uVi ;urt vuG uaasta~ a+uv►as many. ' People who drive should respond to. site design and building layout with conclusion that they should have walked, biked, or rode the bus. A-17 c. Sketches Safeway &.40. 6® . awAt~ ass,N,T „ N, C. &a$ ~ ~qr MV6~OVV/ 4/~O~V~ Dn 14 A- M' pns.s 4aMrb+u., t . M s MY.w~ en Auc.Ym ' 7R~a /p/q~p.sarme u vi \ g.~a5g .m... ! ~ ~a..e. vw ®mw n faar..a~ ~1 ~ I ..sr r ,sweu.r i • ..rte~~ w w E • I.a ~-a.w✓.r .ra./+sr .~ra,..yw..w.wa~. . ~ ®.wvr ~..X /SoT/NPP ~/Y~ ~~✓~L~bP~rl~r• ,.i 'l7'~'/ ~wmauO.u.~r.,ro.~r~'.ar'r ~ Existing 'I?R !Option A-18 - c. Sketches Burgerville ON a€ 'TPR option 1 , x>y: J- I larm may- ® :•:ii T: 1 ~MH y.,'x•. yyJA J• SE 12aWAv* D Mye4boeph Im cak aY -ter flow of talft SE 9 avkhom / St. NMI _ New Bulling •.~,.::I ) ! < TPR Option H . r. SE CMV SL A-19 c. Sketches McDonalds COMPROMISE WITH T.P.R. • eawcea. 38 r N ssoae n,eer ~ - -_3,E, RLE:>r~3ir5EEt._._„ _ affn _ALAM , - lG.~/S-r/✓f J~b~MH4I l~ Existing McDonald's TPR Compromise I CC "LANCE WITH T.P.R. oww: v J I• I I 1 _ I 1 I. _ - mwv ut Yj I I _4f gl I TPR Compromise H A-20 'AN MFMM 6-7 SUBURBAN RETAIL - FRED MEYER, HOME DEPOT a. Background FRED MEYER Location: SE 82nd and Johnson Creek Boulevard, Portland Key Issues: ® TI'.s+w cutian: 5 are a unique feature of F ® Each entrance necessitates an access control mechanism, e.g. check-out stands 40-50% of all activity is at the food section enhance ® A limited number of complementary small retail outlets, e.g. Starbucks, dry cleaners, are typical ® Parking is designed to serve the three separate entrances, with varying amounts targeted to the type of entrance A wide mix of goods differentiates Fred Meyer from other retailers ® The configuration of this site, as with any site, presents a design challenge HOME DEPOT Location: Bear Valley & Locust Road - Victorville, CA (Northeast of L.A.) Gross Site Area: 14.17 acres Parking: 826 spaces = 5.47 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. Key Issues: 0 Off full highway interchange, on full commercial strip, no zone change required 0 Required parking by The Dome Depot 5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. for customer parking and retail pads 0 10 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. for restaurant pads 0 Parking in front of entry visible to incoming customers for orientation and convenience 0 Primary parking within 300 feet of The' Home Depot building. 0 Visibility for all pads, tenants, and The Home Depot entry. A Truck circulation uncrossed by customer circulation. TPR Compliance Issues: An auto-oriented shag must eve visual knowledge of how to get to the front door once leaving the public, way. Locating parking in the rear eliminates the understanding of the entry' sequence'and therefore becomes uninviting and uncomfortable and eventually unused. Locating piing behind the building hides the lot from visual surveillance andcontrol from passing police and the general public. An inviting pedestrian way can co-exist with parking in front of a building. A-21 i a Orienting an entry means directing the focus of the whole entry sequence to the transit stop, not the entry must be "at" the transit stop. Locating an entry a,. close as possible to transit stops or the main frontage is what retailers do now. Retailers have learned that five parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail space and other retail planning rules of thumb are required, or what makes a project possible or feasible. Separating auto and pedestrian entries per TPR proposed orientation would cause major problems for retail floor plan layouts and internal security problems. Most large retailers concentrate check-out and entry in one zone of the building for a more efficient use of the large circulation areas. The new code would encourage the narrow end of the building to face the street and rear yard. The long "backsides" of a typical retail box screens the public from more than just the loading docks. There are emergency generators, propane tank storage, fire controls, and trash compactors. The existing plan allows for longer, less severe grading solutions separate from customer parking and main street elevations, which is now limited by the ADA laws to 2% slopes. The variety of arrangements of transit stops, parking and access drives and site factors of site size and existing street conditions in retail projects make quantification of distances impossible. A bus pull-out lane is 60' long plus the turning radius which creates an 80' out-of-direction situation just getting off the bus. ba Uwns Learned FRED M EYER Working Group: ® Parking needs to be designed to serve multiple entrances, with clearly defined, safe pedestrian access from each parking area. ® Building orientation is primarily an issue of what type of retail and where entrances are. most retailers do not have multiple entrances ® Creativity and flexibility in implementing the TPR, by both the public and private sectors, is needed for each site. How best to merit TPR requirements will vary by site. Each site represents a design challenge. 0 Suburban sites tend to be characterized by low densities in surrounding areas, thus site to be flexible to both serve ex, s*tkgg usess and accommodate fdwre build-out. With changes in mode splits, there will be more opportunities for redevelopment with a mix of uses and for greater pedestrian uses. 0 Flexibility is needed in ODOT/local code requirements for access to better promote pedestri-an A-22' s r MCI= i 0 Landscaping requirements need to be flexible (in some cases revised) to promote buffers between arterials and pedestrian connections. - Requirements/conflicts between landscaping in public rights-of-way vs. on private properties need to be addressed. - Safety issues for both pedestrians and autos need to be addressed., - Bonuses could be provided for landscaping which promotes pedestrian environments. - Need to accommodate both landscaping cf pedestrian connections and parking areas. Reverse landscape buffer to be between street and sidewalk. 0 Resigning for TPR implementation requires a pubuciprivate partnership, e.g. accommodating future street connections. Need to avoid overdesigning based on current conditions. Connections need to look like public streets. Site redevelopment opportunities are directly related to the development of adjacent public streets. There is a symbiotic relationship between development/redevelopment of adjacent sites and design for TPR implementation. Avoid precluding future redesign and connections through design review requirements. ® Effective, safe pedestrian connections are a function of attractiveness/security, not distance. ® There is a trade-off between up-front design for TPR purposes and increased, ongoing operational costs. ® Need to identify future transit corridors for most effective TPR implementation. 0 Future c .-mectivity opportunities may be more important than requiring a stop; to front on an arterial. 0 The public, e.g. surrounding neighborhoods, need to be educated about the need to accommodate connectivity in future development/redevelopment. Large Group: a For building orientation purposes, consider moving closer versus totally to street. ® Lack of definition of what constitutes a good pedestrian environment. - LUT RAQ will provide standards for urban areas. Individual Comments: ® Multiple door designs don't necessarily make for a pedestrian-friendly design if all doors are distant fr®w the street, across a parking lot. ® Freddy's by virtue of its "one-stop shopping" concept decreases trips by any mode. This can also be said of shopping malls where you can park once to patronize many stores. ® Parking to the rear is seen by the designers as a serious problem. This leads to parking to the front or sidle near doors. ® Truck delivery bays, placed at, the rear, are seen as a conflict with customer entry if r parking and an entry are forced to be at the rear. lam= A-23 ® Uses specifically geared to move their customers' cars rapidly and efficiently in and out of their parking lots are finding it difficult to accommodate. pedestrians in a safe and convenient manner. Any preference shown to pedestrian access is resisted on the basis of interfering with auto access, which at this time (and for the foreseeable future) is the mode of choice for 85 to 95 % (or more) of their customers. Existing uses that have been developed in a manner more accommodating to pedestrian access are often felt to be less competitive, despite their continued operation. ® The state mandate. to show a preference in new developments, for the pedestrian and transit user, when development is close to existing or planned transit service (OAR 660- 12-045(4)(b)). It is not acceptable, given 'such a clear mandate, to continue rejecting pedestrian-friendly development aspects because they are perceive to interfere with auto circulation or access. Existing state and local regulations (and/or policy) can, in some cases, limit the opportunities for the creation of a pedestrian-friendly site. (For example, State Highway access policy) ® Large sites often have the flexibility to accommodate more pedestrian-friendly development on rental pads or at "some point in the future" through re-development of parking areas. Accessway evaluation is often done after buildings are cite. One of the fast questions that needs to be asked is: "What modes must be accommodated?" Second question: "What level of accommodation?" ® Connectivity of all modes is difficult without systems plan. in place. ® Less parking per 1000# is needed as density increases ® Preservation of portions of sites for future development may justify larger setbacks for short run. Perceived vs. real parking needs Parking needs change with surrounding development/redevelopment Density increases lead to parking decreases Loading docks need to be separated from customer access. - Loading is scheduled to reduce customer conflicts. ® ODOT/local codes. require alignment of inter sections. Limits where/how many entrances.. - GDOT/local codes are becoming more flexible due to directives to integrate land use acid transportation planning. ® Pedestrian access would be improved by direct connections from arterials to the store's front (food section) entrance. - Enhancing pedestrian connections promotes their use. ® Landscaping requirements can discourage pedestrian use because they are designed more to screen parking lots than provide a pedestrian environment. Requiscme;ris need to be reverse to serve pedestrians. Need to provide buffers between the street and pedestrian connections. One landscaping requirement, .vs. several potentially competing, is needed to address both pedestrian access and screening of parking. A-24 f MAINE= ® Requirements to keep access points to pawing lot away from the signalized intersection to prevent jam-up of the arterial restrict options for designing internal circulation within the site. ® Where large sites can accommodate secondary uses or multiple buildings, requirements for any particular building, or all buildings, to be oriented to the transit service (street) are unnecessary. Requirements for some buildings/activities to orient to the transit service can provide the pe&strian-friendly environment sought (i.e. the "anchor" store need not be the most "prominent" stone). ® At a minimum, walkways for pedestrians and reasonable bikeway access must be assured, both within the site and connected to adjacent public access. ® Deed to buffer pedestrian from high traffic volume streets wider sidewalks, street trees, bollards are preferable; still need to buffer and. separate pedestrians from parking with more than landscaping a Need very strong pedestrian connections for existing and future multifamily and single family areas. ® Good pedestrian connections are safe (separated, raised, etc.), direct (straight line), and convenient (short). ® Some setback may be appropriate on deep sites to allow for parking now and devek::liment on the street in the future. (The site plan should show future building pads.) m Both public and private sectors need to be assured (,guaranteed?) that the other partners will provide his/her contributions -perhaps we need stronger voices/commitments from ODOT, Tri-Met, other jurisdictions. HOME DEPOT Working Group: o There are gradations of application of the TPR to commercial development. There is a shop, highly continuum of commercial development with a NW 23;A Avenue retail pedestrian-oriented at one end, and a Home Repot "big box" retailer, very auto-oriented at the other end. These different types of development should be treated differently when applying the rule. Consider mixing uses, over time, on the site provide incentives and parking maximums/minimums. Different uses have different parking demands - Shared parking opportunities should be considered ® Exterior bike parking can be accommodated there is an internal issue of space for showers and lockers for employees. ® pedestrian wind bike connections to existing or planned neighborhoods are essential. Also connections for oMce users in a mixed-use industrial zone. ® This type of use, 'a "big box" retailer, should be treated differently than if it were an iniui project in an existtmg neiCh"bo cWtef. Adak A-25 lDesign internal circulation of site into a smaller block pattern. Design the pedestrian linkages/landscaping in this fashion. This better positions the site for redevelopment and transforms it to a pedestrian scale. o Need to define what is an "auto-oriented" area. Large Group: Maximum parking requirements need to be considered in terms of effects on surrounding neighborhoods. Evolutionary vs sudden process to change from minimum to maximum. Tie to surrounding densities and actual transit usage. * Parking requirements, whether minimum or maximum, need to be flexible based upon type of use, area, transit availability, etc. ® The neighborhood should dictate the site development standards vs the use dictating the development of the site. Individual Comments: 0 Regulations need to take into account the level of transit service, proximity of residences or other uses, existing deyeltrpment patterns including type(s) of uses, planned improvements/changes, etc., while still encouraging the use of alternative modes of travel. A matrix or gradation of regulations can accommodate different uses in different areas, minimizing the need for adjustments. Pedestrian/transit requirements should be less demanding, but not absent, in areas and/or for uses which are more auto-oriented and less supportive of alternate travel modes; more demanding as the area and/or use becomes more supportive of the use of alternative modes of transportation. Multi-building developments present opportunities for on-site circulation and orientations, that do not present themselves to single user sites. However, even multi-building sites should not turn their back to transit streets, unless transit service is "captured" and brought into the site. In the case of retail development, anchor stores do not necessarily need to be brought to the front of the site, in the case of "big box" users, it may not even be a good idea ("big box" uses, by their own definitions, should not be sited in areas where alternative modes of transportation are more likely possible or needed, i.e. intensely' developed areas, in or near higher density residential, areas already experiencing traffic inadequacies, or areas that cannot accommodate more traffic). • Larger multi-building sites will also better accommodate alternatives modes of transportation and redevelopment, when internal site circulation is planned and built, connecting to adjacent sites when possible. The use of fronting streets, or parking lot drives that look and function like streets, can benefit both the on-site accommodation of alternative travel modes and redevelopment potential. ® Regulations affecting multi-building ("campus") sites should not require the anchor or other 9, _ h'r'-UrUn to be oriented to ° =n°'t `•r-=, but Si ould require orientation to •a v..wvw crane transit street of some amount of building (some x% of frontage, some x% of square footage, or?). A campus-type development may more appropriately have an internal orientation, but only if transit activities have bated "on" campus: and taking cane not to disregard the needs of pedestrians or ➢ri yefistc who mz- ~..4 have aalsYbd by- r _ aaavv 61 LL-drlSil. A-26 1 Ism ® TPR should not have same requirements for all areas industrial, commercial, community commercial. ® We have to be careful not to let current auto orientation continue to "drive" building orientation and location , * TPR may. requh-e retailers to rethink their building layout and size in order to be more pedestrian-oriented. * Linking shared garbing and allowable parking spaces is a valid technique for determining # of parking spaces. ® Rig box retailers may not meet TP'R requirements. t A-27 OEM in I WE c. Sketches 'Fred Meyer. WWI" =nr uTmffmmm.rmmli I ( lu; i L cf tfssss . L fHAtHHSf ,,A =1 L I . i o - c2c2kl22tii2~ki I! ,•Eff9Ew/OfH OWN" fffC4XfJfif<ffNHSfS ` ff~ iNHSHSf~fKN4JSSg x stzat~ttx'a?oki , ~~rk~ ~I ~ BfA~JOF'~4lS~sNfflK9 I O = ~ ~ ~ - ~sss~sns~,. r - tt I Existing TPR Option I HUM "woo KffHfGSfw~ . L 00#930" - i :-L~'tklZt22~3?~tk9 ~ ~ l~`-~ c~2ktk?221~i222t~ _ ~fHffff9 - - j ~ ( ~ tl ~a~ ~ r--• 3' . i~ . ° fsrffsfsffsfsss~?fsfl r . ' i t ~rRTlPSOPOlJK Ip1y ONR ' ~ m I~ TPR Option II TPR Option III A-2S C. bxetcneS Home Depot ~ &CO/SA • I TT T T e,:f not I r ~I fl~ ~F10PC ' 1 i I L SHOPS .BIOME DEPOT - ' j y~Li Y ~tQAD- i. SEAR VMJLEY ROAM TPR Option I TPR Option II A-29 8. SUBURBAN OIMCE G DAM CORPORATE CENTER a. Bizckground, Location: Gresham Corporee Center, Gresham Building Description: 2 stories; 36,000, sq. ft. Design Issues: u This building was designed to meet suburban Ci A - office standards. To stay within this quality and price level, it was designed to be very efficient. This meant a simple-, shape, an efficient structural span, regular, repetitive column spacing, maximum space utilization, and maximum leasing features. This led to an 80' wide, long building with an entry and stairs at each end, one elevator and al four corners preserved as leasable space. Keeping controls on costs was critical. This site is close to a Max transit stop and thus was classified as within a Transit -District under the Gresham zoning ordinance. This had several impacts on the building, with several of the requirements being very similar to the requirements of the TPM For example, the Transit District calls for convenient pedestrian access, enhanced pedestrian spaces, and windows and storefront oriented to the transit station. For these reasons and also for improved leasability, the building was located close to the street. A central plaza and green space was connected to the public sidewk3k by a gravel path. T?ee entries were located on the north and south sides because of proximity to on-site parking, orientation to the transit station (the south side entry) and to avoid the east side with exposure to cold winter winds. TPR Compliance Issues: In the modified plan, the entries have been relocated to the east and west ends of the building in order to address the stmt. These entries are on the comers so that they also address on-site parking and the central plaza yard. The path to the street from the plaza has been paved, and the pedestrian/bicycle paths have been extended to connect with the adjacent neighborhood circulation systems. Ten more bicycle parking spaces have been added anu some of these have been placed at the public end of the building. Car and van pool parking has been designated. All other requirements of the TPR have already been met in the original design. Although these adjustments are not significant, they would have an impact on the construction ' cost and leasability of the building. Additional bicycle parking and sidewalks would add construction cost. Revised entry locations would take half of the highly desirable corner spaces and m.kke them into public to ;'vies. Till would decrease the marketability of the piloject. In the revised plan, the original building design has been shown, but placed parallel to the street. One entry faces Eastman and the other faces the parking. All of the parking is behind the building and the same number of spaces as in the original have been shown. Pedestrian and A-30 -ism bicycle walkways are similar to the modified scheme. The site, however, is wider in order to accommodate the building placement, and therefore, not as efficiently used. This scheme has. three disadvantages from an urban design perspective: 1- The building is quite long and it is probably not desirable to have it parallel to the street. 2. The large landscaped area is behind the building, out of view for the public. 3. the high use entry faces east and the strong,. east .winter winds, reducing the energy efficiency of the building. From s marl sCl!: a paraiamve__ this w-lipm b hoe cco v:rrl r4i~~ariya~saoP~• 1. Ralf of the offices would face Eastman Parkway. We feel this is less desirable than the orientation of the original scheme. .2. The larger site obviously would cost more money- by Lmoals lAarned Working Group: ® There can be flexibility in how building. entrances are oriented to the street. - "As close as, possible" should consider specific building purpose, and design and economic impacts, e.g. loss of corner offices. - The entrance need not front the street as long as friendly, convenient pedestrian access is prwrided. - Plazas or other architectural features can be used to create false entrances. - Fronting a building on the street without a setback or landscaping can create tenant distractions. - establish some type of limit on the distance from the street., e.g. # of feet or % of building square footage. ® Orientation should be to transit streets vs transit stops, as the latter tend to move. ® Courtyards/plazas can be more pedestrian friendly than landscaped areas. Allow connections, plazas to be part of required landscaped areas. Pedestrian streetscape should be a higher priority Than landscaping encourage use of landscaping to promote pedestrian environment. o Generally, there is a direct relationship between distance from stwA and need for pedestrian amenities. ® Application of TPR requirements to specific sites needs to consider how the site fits into a wider streetscape and/or master plan. e it is the re ?sebllity of for ll govem a is to: Adopt clear and objective standards with menu or laundry list approach that allows flexibility, e.g. design review for only those elements not in compliance vs whole development (limited design review). Adopt standards for nedestrian-fciendiv anvimnm its A-31 Give guidance so that future redevelopment meets the intent of TPR, e.g. connections to adjacent sites. TPR implementation should encourage (and not discourage) mixed uses with site redevelopment. Individual Comments: ® "Orientation" does not necessarily mean any one thing, in terms of providing a building or entrance orientation to a transit rtop or transit street. A combination of building orientation, distance, features and accessories can work together (or not) to display and direct a person to an entrance, and to make the journey pleasant, logical and obvious (or not). Including in such features are: ` entrance location(s) building shape/configuration/articulation distance (to street or transit stop from entrance) ' visibility of entrance and/or pedestrian path amenities (path separation, width, clear widths, landscaping, lighting, use of different materials, walls, benches, weather protection, signage, plazas, porticos, awnings, etc.) surrounding text. ® Minor investments in building articulation, building features or accessories can achieve the desired "convenient and safe" access dictated by the TPR. In general terms, a building with a significant setback will need to use more (or more obvious) building features, and accessories to psychologically "shorten" the distance between street (or transit stop) and entrance. Generally, a building entrance that is not otherwise immediate to or visible from the street or transit stop will need to be enhanced to show where the entrance is and how to get there, through various means or "clues." o Regulations may best be set for particular streets or types of streets, sections of streets, rather than by zone or type of zone. In terms of objective standards, the above concept is fairly convoluted, the concept lends itself better to site review. However, a "laundry list" or "menu" of items or features could be used; the greater the distance to an entrance or the less visible an entrance, then the larger the number of amenities required. However, in designated pedestrian districts or areas that are highly evolved in, terms of transit service and/or pedestrian-oriented development, maximum setbacks and restrictions . on location of parking are still appropriate considerations. , A-32 I OEM km c. Sketches .71 Gresham C®rp®r to Center ~~.••~:c~"<'~,.~~,A.~-.IYT~~I i lei T}'!' (~T { T? f~("I`Y~l I'1}'•7`~...•?r• L~:,. v k CO B n . E7dsting !}:tiFy'.:S'}}:;+ii::'r,✓A~.1gP:±,:t,.ti :t tat` 5Le(orfQ~robu6diq W J 1llJ J111~ t T'PR Option I • molt®Bad9aEng • t. //yy,~•r ta~.b~~a~~~ -------------------------f-•-•--------------- t• +v'•••••n:~;': t}:::C+} t .•k uy~ .•{:uVF~'.; is BWIdWq J\ N1 a +~..i,....y!.i,;: -;.:x:{:t..•.'. TPR Option II i%ti.};t;r` y\ %:;%k:,:\:?•. ~R- ~'v n':tFiY..txi•tify. :::t Ell ivw•Y>a ~'ry ir. A-33 9-10 SUBURBAN INDUSTRIAL TYCO, COLUMBIA PACIFIC 3. Background Location: Rivergate Industrial Park, Portland Type of Use: Mtribution Features: 50-60 containers/day 50-70 trucks loading/unloading per day shared maneuvering space COLLYTABIA PACIFIC Location: Airport. Way, Columbia South Shore Type of Use:. Combination warehouse/distribution Size: Z buildings; 151,000 sq. ft. Key Issues (both sites): ® There are two general types of industrial buildings: warehousing and manufacturing. Many manufacturing buildings include warehousing. Some warehousing include "manufacturing- like" activities (picking and sorting). The vast majority of the buildings in either type have very similar needs. Industrial sites and buildings are planned for the safe and efficient handling and flow of goods. Vehicle and personnel access, circulation and traffic control are critical to these types of operations. ® Warehousing and die dbution facilities are almost always configured as "single-loaded buildings", The office and the.required shipping and receiving doors are in the close vicinity of each other. on the front of the building. Security, product-flow, personnel support services all need to be in close proximity. 0 Manufacturing buildings come in a much larger variety of configurations. Sometimes the shipping and receiving activities are separated from each other and often separated from the office area. Usually there is a raw material staging area, manufacturing area, and a finished goods storage area. Manufacturing activities often use outside areas. They have larger office spaces and have a higher employment density requiring much greater parking area and employee support facilities (restrooms, lunchrooms, etc.). Building and site configurations are always customized for the speck activities in the , building. ® Industrial facilities have comparatively few employees and seldom allow public access. Restricted access is required 'to minimize safety concerns associated with equipment operations and truck and forklift traffic. b+. Lessons Learned Working Group: AMIN, A-34 -MANOM TPR implementation will vary between distribution and manufacturing uses. ® Recognize variety of techniques to ensure pedestrian safety, for instance: alternating materials such as concrete and brick striping of the pedestrian walkway is not sufficient; s - need to include other materials for instance bollards, landscaping and signage. to extent possible, separate pedestrian facilities from traffic. ® Connectivity among sites Infrastructure should be ROW-criented Plan for safe connections to supportive commercial uses. ® Focus site amenities on direct pedestrian connections, e.g. landscaping, lighting. • 0 Level of development within area will determine how best to design transit connections. Assess how best to support needed transit. ® It is easy to accommodate bicycle parking for employees. • ® Access to high security locations need to accommodate links to site. - Pedestrian connections from interior of site to transit/pedestrian facilities. ® For safety, need to separate pedestrian facilities from truck access routes to extent possible. ® Assume pedestrian amenities at street level because public transit will generally be provided to but. not on-site. Need to encourage variety of approaches. a To determine how best to accommodate transit/pedestrian connections, need to access level of build-out and design to varying needs. ® Need to plan for pedestrian access/connections to non-industrial uses locating within industrial areas. Consider full mix of services. Support commercial will promote/support pedestrian uses. 0 Connections from site to site Infrastructure should be RAW-oriented in terms of connectivity. Large Group: • . With associated retail (on-site) uses, more attention to pedestrians needed. ® Issue of VMT reduction and location of retail out of central business cores. ® Truck turning/parking is an essential design element. ® Focus pedestrian/transit improvements on the public right-of-way as the primary connection. ® Protect future connection options. ® Bicycle parking requirements should reflect the number of employees per square foot. a In industrial areas, full transit service probably not justified; serve with alternative transit means. Individual Comments: ® Security concerns often lead to fencing of industrial sites, entry guards, and desire not to have pedestrian linkage with neighboring developments. A-35 ® Modern site design is sophisticated, and designed for efficiency in circulating trucks. Circulation of goods is addressed in the TPR and needs to be addressed in the development of regional guidelines. a Theme are few employees per acre, few car trips per acre, little auto parking is needed. Bikes can be accommodated. Generally, employee comfort doesn't get much attention. A Larger sitestbuildings are more efficient, even if they are built to accommodate multiple small tenants. In the future, this is the type more likely to be built. However, there are lots of different existing uses that locate on industrial zones. ® Industrial development does not share the evolution toward intensity/density that Is seen in residential and commercial areas. Therefore, fixed route, high-volume transit may never be supported in typical, low density industrial parks. a The scale of industrial building facades to pedestrians is grossly disproportionate difficult to personalize. a Many industrial uses have legitimate reasons for controlling access to sites. 0 Lenders consider multiple uses of sites and structures. a Development does not typically occur for smaller industrial users; smaller industrial users/shops go to multi-tenant facilities. a Industrial buildings, whether single or multi-tenant, will have minimal if any impact on reducing VMT's due to the. reduced employment requirements of the industrial/distribution user. Building orientation is not a factor with industrial buildings due to the unique requirements of truck access to the distribution or manufacturing user. Pedestrian connections between public transitway-. or sidewalks should be emphasized with paint striping, bollards and/or landscaping features. Alternate paving materials will not be required. A vanpool drop-off location should be identified in the parking area. All pedestrian infrastructure will be ROW-oriented. No turn-out will be required in the ROW for busses or shuttles due to traffic flow and safety concerns. a Manufacturing has a high security concern and requires guarded access to site/buildings (a single security point for an entire site is more economical than requiring several security/access points). a The buildings are typically designed to accommodate multiple tenants with multiple business entrances interspersed with garage/loading doors. This sets up a conflict between pedestrians and truck circulation on the site. a Manufacturing/distribution is often a 24-hour activity, requiring buffers from nearby housing. They are typically separated by distance and physical barriers. a These types of buildings have a relatively low parking-to-building ratio and the buildings are quite large. Large expanses of surface parking between the building and the street is not as big of an issue (1-bay maximum). a The large scale of the buildings (1,000 feet in length) is not very pedestrian-friendly and may not be appropriately. sited immediately adjacent to the sidewalk unless they provide breaks in the facade or buffers. a Manufacturing and distribution are typically low-intensity and have many off-peak employee demands which cannot support a high level of fixed-route transit service. Alternative transit modes would more effectively match the demand. ` A-36 ® Requiring transit vehicles (busses, shuttle vans) t- divert from the main arterial reduces the quality and viability of the service. Accommodating bicycle parking on-site is no problem. Bicycle parking can be easily accommodated in buildings. ® Off-site bicycle path improvements are ceded *to link these facilities with nearby residential areas. ® Manufacturing/distribution facilities are typically isolated in single-use districts. ® On-site circulation is most important constraint due to truck movement. Pedestrian circulation can be accommodated safely with signage, landscaping, painted crosswalks. ® 7bere are differing levels of employment depending on use. • • 0 Given that commercial or office uses do late in industrial zones- linkage renuirements and perhaps other rules, should go with the use more than everything being treated the same within the zone. ® Visual/landscaping amenities should be clustered around pedestrian areas of an industrial site rather than so much attention paid to perimeter "buffering." ® Any amenities required by code (landscaping, pedestrian features, facade treatments, etc.) should be focused on the building's entrance and connection to he. public ROW. ® Future supporting uses in industrial areas should be viewed as a given; Tankages to the public ROW for all modes must be considered now in anticipation of these support uses. 0 Open sites (free access) or site-to-site pzdestrian connections may not be desirable for reason of safety and security; industry-to-industry connections not necessary little interaction. Connections* between industrial and commercial/retail sites may be of benefit. ® Multi-tenant facilities may (and probably will) change in terms of use. Development regulations should take into account the potential for change in multi-tenant facilities. Perhaps such facilities should not be regulated in terms of original tenants, but develop regulations just for their development. ® Connnon sense should prevail when analyzing potential restrictions on all gees of developments in response to the 7PR requirements. Public transit to building connectivity issues should become a factor only if the frontage street has public transit available, or is targeted for public transit in the foreseeable future. ® Pedestrian access to the site should be oriented to the public right-of-way and not require site-to-site links between manufacturing/distribution businesses. ® Require pedestrian circulation designs that provide adequate pedestrian safety without disrupting truck circulation on-site. Avoid speed bumps and limited turning radii. Encourage bollards, special lighting and signage along pedestrian mutes where they overlap with truck circulation. Encourage a change in materials at these overlap points where maintenance would not be a major concern. Evaluate and improve off-site conditions on a district-wide basis to encourage alternative access. 0 Establish maximum building srAbrcks to allow for one bay of parking in front of the building if adequate pedestrian linkages to the street are incorporated. A=k A-37 0 Igo not require manufacturing/distribution facilities greater than _ feet in length to be located immediately adjacent to the sidewalk unless they provide a buffer or facade changes that break down the scale of the building. ® Organize district-wide employer-sponsored shuttles that meet the demand of the employment area. Investigate the option to eliminate transit-related employer taxes for businesses that participate in this program. ® Provide passenger waiting areas on the arterial at the entrances to the projects which provide direct connections to the building entrances. ® Require covered bicycle parking on-site. ® Allow for support retail uses with strong pedestrian links to nearby businesses in manufacturing/distribution areas. 1--his must be controlled, however, to avoid oinLi ni,ail uses that draw their markets outside the manufacturing/disWbutioz or nearby housing. a Pedestrian connections can be made but there are different considerations e.g., safety from trucks. Require clear pedestrian markings and enhanced features - landscaping, bollards, signage, etc. ® Some setback (25-110') with good landscaping is a way of softening irnpact of blank walls. This setback could accommodate car pa king, but loading areas should not be there. ® Require employee bike parking - it., can easily be put inside buildings. 0 Allow for transit service either now or in future, e.g., a pad for a shelter. ® The higher the level of employment on-site if the public comes to the site (e.g., Danner Boots), the more important accommodation and access to transit for pedestrians is. 0 For high-tech manufacturing (or any other industries with a high employment density), AML is it appropriate for buildings to be sited close to the stmt? Is "high tech" manufacturing more like "office" or "industrial"? ® If pedestrian/bike path connections are desired through an industrial site: a) Should they be dedicated to the public and fenced off from the industrial site? b) Should the industrial developer be required to build and dedicate the path? c) In order to be required, should the path show up specifically on an adopted bike/pedestrian system plan? v a A-3S c. Sketches Airport Way AIRPORT YAY - ( i I f i, 1 ' ' •t it VWX , d9xY Nea N~YK i q! p auvC } 6IfsE' Ii t t --Dom ! i arna i 0"m 1 ~ ~ I 1 i to i.t R I A T AIRPORT WAY f 1 .arrKs f 1 A i TPR Option 17 1 • i. I 1 ~ i + 61•J - D I A r A-39 c. Sketches C® ~ ~ O n ~ ]I II 1 I 'I 71 . i { --1 OI a. o °a Ill 1. Jill I 4 4. i. -1 7 I LA.°eR°_ DISTRIBlTIOM V"FA ljOUSE FACILITY Rr,ARGE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACIll ravam ATE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IRfIDWAT4 SIOUSTRAL DMM1CT Existing TPR Option I NORTH LOMPARD STREET NORTH'LO4OARD OTREET 1-~ inalfflum .~tcnN I :I P If' I>'!• A I+j .j: i. u.. A..fl :r I. {P n •~1 i -4 --I-4-4 1100' 1 1 I ( 1 ~ , 1 •O 0 w LARGE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY LARGE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE FACILITY IMMMOATE INDUSTRML MSTRICT twvwmT@ MmUO7MAL DaTRICT . 1PR Option II S'I'R Option III A-4 Jill jill: APPENDIX B: REGIONAL DISCUSSION PARTICHFANTS Pamela Alegfia Willamette Pedestrian Coalition Stan Amy Natures Fresh Northwest Joe Angel QPmtwt2mn4 MannnAman4 WArthmPet Tnn Don Arambula Fletcher, Farr, Ayotte Andy Back Washington County Keith Barftlonaew 1000 lric.,ds of Oregon Berry Baysinger JCS Architects Jim Benson Metro Meeky Blizzard Sensible Transportation Options for People Terry Brandt T.L. Brandt Company, Inc. Wink Brooks City of Hillsboro Ron Bunch City of Lake Oswego Rex Burkholder j3ioycle Transportation A lance - Drake But=h Homebudders Association of Metropolitan Portland Sandy Cater Jon Chandler Common Ground Steve Cogan Fred Meyer, Inc. Maggie Collins City of Milwaukee Steve Collinson McDonald's Cozporation Richard Cooley Portland Planning Commission Bob Cortright Department of Land Conservation and Development Brent Curtis Washington County Ken Diener The Home Depot Sandra Doubleday City of Gresham Jerry Foy Westwood Corporation John Fregonese Metro Steve Gerber City of Portland Jeanne Harrison City of Portland Jinn Hendryx City of Beaverton. Jim Jacks City of Tualatin B-2 OEM= Elm Tom Kloster Metro Kim Knox TA-Met Carol Landsman City of Tigard Connie Liver 7a__a7~~~ T1~..~1 ow! rnmefin@f n77 rCiDllSllY LV~'VaVYaasvaaa waaauaa.auavsa . Roger Millar OTAK, Inc. Jam Owens Cogan Owens Cogan Richard Ross City of Gresham Steve Routon OTAK, Inc. Diane Schneider Safeway, Inc. Brian Scott Oregon Downtown Development Association Marty Sevier Wayne Sorensen City of Wilsonville Grog Sueaht Portland Pacific Properties Tara Starr P.~cDo:rald'S Cva~r:a vat Jeff Tashman Tashman Associates Mary Tobias I tin Valley Em. nomic Development Corporation B-3 '111 NEW Pic County Wry Weber Memo dow Gates TOM ~g fight ~ ~ta APp°MDIX C: STATUS OF LOCAL GOVFXNM NT TPR PLANNING, S ER 1993 A SFO DIA-TWE PLA G I-M STATUS DYE' I DCAL pD G Update 9/93 CITM v - The City has not ini'dated the process for ammiding their ordinances to' meet the requirements of the TPR, and wily most likely not. meet the deadline. Comfgius They have reviewed their ordinances and have4dentified areas for cede modification, but it is still in the design review process because they have not developed a consensus on what language to use. An initial trwisportadon analysis has also begun. While TPR plans are being studied, Cornelius wants to focus on their community vision, which will coincide with the TPR, but still allow Cornelius to maintain its singularity. FoMt Grove As of now there have been no implementing ordinances drafted to meet the requirements of the TPR. The process was started in March, and they have had two meetings with developers, but haven't had time to do anything since. Code changes were adopted and submitted to DLCD by the I&y 9, 1993 deadline. TAMy have de deice as name of Rule 12 "ndards for next year. Staff is taidng it through the • Citizesn's Advisory Committee this Fall, and is lool&g for Council adoption by the 1994 deadline. They have a draft of some material which miWA be adopted, but they are going to wait and see what happens with the isvae of the private sector. There should be a draft on some language at the end of September. C-1 e Oswego staff has drafted changes to their ordinances to meet the TPR requirements. The changes need to go the Planning Commission for public hearings and then to the City Council for consideration. PoWand Most of worts sections at the pt -nning Commission am on building orientation a9d bicycle paths. 7 be Home Builders Association are promising some comment on.the building orientation issue. , Ore og_n City Change in staffing has put this project on hold. They are drafting the implementing ordinance language, and are developing plans to create skinnier streets (1300 linear blocks). ney have not yet touched on the issue of building orientation. The bike-ways egad pedestrian issues are going to be dealt with in early October. Ttoutdalr, Because of staff changes they have not begun planning to meet the TPR requirements. 71hey will most likely need a deadline extension. Tualatin Tialatin has adopted and implemented most of the 1993 requirements. Tualatin has relied on a Design Review Proem which creates specific objectives to be met for the TPR (i.e. orientation, linkages, wetlands conservation). west Linn The fl-ra part rv~q rding transit, pedestrian aoeess, and bih-e-ways was donee nine monthq ago. Assuming that all other jurisdictions were behind, Wcst Linn is moving slowly, but feels that since the first phase was complete they are ahead of the game. Wilsonville I'hi a staff will probably take the bike-way plan to the City Council in October or November. Staff believes that because they have adopted a: sunilar bike-way plan in June-July of 1991, they are ahead of most jurisdictions on this issue. C-2 I COUNTM They suspended activity this summer to allow Metro, to move fforward on the regional TPR discussion. Zae County is experiencing a lot of resistance to the walkways and orientation rules. By the tc : may g vvtryd ing else approved in November, they asp hopeful the rest of the region will have a consensus on how and what to implement. ne U =Y `Unag `Uku UWA igcv them fora mowng Uic deaatino i5 Um &eparamig iuc as-auca of orientation (etc.) from the Committee submissions. r lViuhnomala County Tht County is hoping that Portland will deal with most of the remaining urban areas through anne•,xation. There have been no changes in their ordinances at this time. Washiit n County County staff filed ordinance changes in larch of 1993. The process is continuing with a general Board meeting on_ September 24, 1993. Ite Board has not reached any formal decision on the Retail Task Force request to halt staff work until after their ease study work is done. The Board is still. continuing to receive testimony on the pros and cons relating to site orientation. Infornuden pmvided by Metz September 1993 C-3 APPENDIX D: nAIINSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (GOAL 12 AD TRATIVE RULE, OAR 660-12) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE 3 660-12-000 Purpose 4 The purpose of this division is to implemnt Statewide PLgndng COW 12 (Transportation). 3 It is also the purpose of this division to explain how kxm.l governments abd state agencies b responsible for transportation planning demonsu= compliance with other suwwi& planning 7 goals and to identify how tnsp'rrtatio€a facilities are provided on rural lands consistent with r a the goals. The division sets requirements tor coordination among affected levels of government 9 for preparation, adoption, refineatn4 implemenmdon and amendment of taans 'on system to plans. Transporiation system plans adopted pursuant to this division fulfill the requirements for t l public facilities planning required under ORS 197.712(2Xe), Oral 11 and OAR Chapter 660, 12 Division 11, as they relate to transportation facilities. Thiough measures designed to reduce. 13 reliance on the automobile, the rule is also intended to asme that the planned transportation. 14 system supports a pattern of travel and land use mi urban which will avoid the air 15 pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other meas of the country. The rules in this 6 Division ate not intended to make local g t tiaras "land use decisions" under 17 ORS 197.015(10). The rules aecogaiae, however, that, unda existing statutory- and case law, tt3 many de ions relating to the adoption and implementation of muportation plans will 19 be land use decisions. • 20 21 v®u-a`-vv~ ~eee~nauvooa 22 For the purposes of dds division, the ni ' in OILS 197.0.15, the Statewide Planning 'l and OAR. CLap= 660 ch0ls apTly. Ln- aAidea the fiiieeftictrle deter boje 9, shalt apply 23 2~ (1) Access Management: amns measum mg°jk dng access. to streets, roads and 25 highways fi-om public roads and private driveways. Measures may include but are not limited 2S to restrictions on the siting of interchanges., restrictions on the type and amount of access, to • Page 1 Transl►ortation Planning Rule (Adopted 412601) roadways, acid use of physical controls, such as signals and channelization including raised medians, to reduce impacts of approach road traffic on the main facility. 3 (2) Affected local government .means a city, county or metropolitan service district : 4 that IS d =dy iMpacted by a proposed traim 'on facility or'impmvennent. 3 (3) 'tted'T 'on Facilities: wawuns dme proposed , UwL tion facilities and icrtpro nests which ' tent with the adnowledged comprehensive plan and have 7 approvod_ _ ~asng foi -at ue'do t in a public facilities plan or the Six-Year FUghway or ` 8 Transportation Improvement Program. 9 (4) Demand Management: means actions which am designed to change travel behavior 10 is order to improve performance of transportation facilities and to reduce need for additional 11 road capacity. Methods may include but are not limited to the use of alternative nudes, ride- 52 sharing and vanpool programs, and trip-reduction onlinances. 13 (5) Major. means, in general, those facilities or developments which, considering the 14 size of the urban or rural area and the range of sire, capacity or service level of similar u facilities or developments in the area, art either larger than average, serve mom than 1e neighborhood needs or have sign fk*nt laced use or traffic irnpacu on rases than the immediate 17 neighborhood. 18 "Major" as it WSAiffics transit dOaridors, stops, transfer* stations and new mnspoi-tation 19 facilities means those fades 'which. a.*e most nt to tt fhncti ring of the seem 20 or which provide a high level, volume or frequency of service. 21 "Major" as it modifies industrial, institutional aced retail development means such 22 developtnents which are larger ffiI= avmge, s va. more dam; a'wagffibe h :'mac or 23 which have traffic irapacts on more than tyre immedim neighborhood. 24 AppiicaticNn of the wim "rarajor will vary from area a depending upt lase sca3ie c„ 25 transportation improvemehts, transit facilities and development which. occur in the area. 26 A facility considered to be major in a smalldw or less. densely developed area may, 2 - Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26/31) I because of the relative significance and impact of the facility or development, not be considered a major facility in a larger or more densely developed area with larger or more 3 intense development or facilities. d (6) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): an organization located within the S State of Oregon and designated by the Governor to coordinate transportation planning in an 6 urbanized area of the state including such designations made subsequent to the adoption of this 7 rule. The Longview-Kelso-Rainier ALPO is not considered an UFO for the purposes of this rule. 8 (7) ODOM err=s the Oregon Department of Transportation. 9 (8) Parking spaces: means on. and off street spaces designated for automobile parking to in areas planned for industdal, commercial. institutional or public uses. the following are not t t considered parking spaces for the purposes of 660-12-045(5xc): paw and rise lots, handicapped 12 parlartg, and parking spaces for carpools and vanpools. 13 (9) Planning Period: means the twenty year period beemning; with the date of 14 adoption of a TSP to meet the requirtmealts of this rule. 15 (10) Preliminary Design: means an engineering design which specifies in detail the 16 location and alignment of a planned transportation facility or im L 17 (11) Refinement Plan:. an amendment to the umuportation system plan, which resolves, at a systems level, determinations on function, erode or general location which were deferred 19 during transportation system planning because detailed information ceded to make those 20 determinations could not reasonably, be obtained during that process. 21 (12) Roads: ream streets, roads and highways. (ia) aiwai-~rasGil t 22 0--yel p a=iAL kavLX weans -9 m-- Of EositAential, retail and office . 23 uses and a supporting =twork of roads, bicycle-and pedestrian ways focused on a major transit 24 slop designed to saia~ea a 1;;gli k;:..l o. tray t cw:. Ta Imy €e=-. as t:°.rs'tt orient 25 developrr=t include: ' 26 age 3 - Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4I26191) I (a) a mixed use center at the transit stop, oriented principally to transit riders and pedestrian and bicycle travel from the surrounding area: 3 (b) high density of residential development.proximate to the transit stop sufficient to 4 support transit op=tion and neighborhood commercial uses within the TOD. 3 (c) a network of wads, and bide and pedestrian. paths.to support high levels of 6 pedestrian mess within the 'POD and high levels of transit use. 7 (14) T'on facilities: means any physical facility that moves or assists in the - a movement of people and goods including facilities identified in 660-12-024 but excluding Q electricity, sewage and water systems. tm (15) Transportation system management measures: mans techniques for increasing the t t efficiency, safety, capacity or level of service of a trans ' 'on facility without increasing its 12 see. Examples include, but are not lied to, traffic signal improvements, traffic' control 13 devices including installing medians and ' parkmg removaL cha t orr, access gernertt, 14 raml* metering, and restriping for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lames. .15 (16) Transportation Needs: means estimates of the movement of people and goods 16 consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plan aitd the requirements of this rule. Needs are 17 typs~U >v -%ed on pmJections of future travel demand resulting from a continuation of current ys trends as modified by policy objectives, including those exp=sed in CkW 12 rn d this rule, 19 y, those for avoiding principal reliance on any one modc'of tra •on. 20 (17) T'tansportation Needs, Locak means needs for movement of people and gods t within communities and portions of counties and the need to proves amass to local destinations. 23 (18) Transportation Deeds, Regional: weans ne e& for move.raent of people and goods $4 between and through communities and accessibility to regional destinations widda a Zs metropolitan area, county or associated group of counties. 26 P28c 4 - Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4n6i'9i) ° (19) Transportation NeAs, State: means needs for movement of people and goods between and Through regions of the state and between the state and other states. 3 (20) Transportation Project Development: n=nsimplementing the transportation system 4 plan (TSP) by determining the precise location, alignment, and preliminary design of s improvements included in the TSP based on site-specific enginaning and environtmriml studies. (21) Transportation Service: mnw a service for moving people and goods, such as intercity bus service and passenger.rail service. (22) Transportation System Plan (Z SP): ffieans a plan for one or more transportation 9 facilities)hat are planned, developed, operated and maintained in a coordinated manner to supply to continuity of movement between modm and within and between geographic and jurisdictional ii areas. . 12 (23) Urban 'Area: means lands within an earban growth boundary or two or more 13 contiguous urban growth boundaries. to 1S 660-12-010 Transportation Planning g 16 (1) As described in this division, tr=portation planning shall be divided into two 17 phases:. triinsportation system planning and = 'on project development. Transportation 1g system planning establishes lanai use-contr+ols and a network of facilities and services to meet 19 overall transportation needs. Transportation project development implements the TSP by 20 determining the precise location. alignment. and preliminaty design of improvements included 21 in the TSP. 22 (2) It is not the purpose of this division t6 cause duplication of m' to supplant existing .23 applicable transportation pl= and pro . _ Where all -or part of an acknowledged 24 comprehensive plan, ISP either of the local goverrunent or appropriate district, capital 25 improvement program, regional1unctional pasn, or dmilar'plan or combination of plans meets 2e all or some of she requirements of this division, those plans or ptos;ams may be incotporatcd Page 5 - `r1 ansportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26/91) Elm= .1 by reference into the TSP required by this division. Only those referenced portions of such documents shall be considered to be a part of the TSp and shall be subject to the administrative 3 procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197. a S 660-I.1. IS FE M t;on and C:owdins+iion ®f Teansportation System Plans e (1) ODOT, shall pmpare, adopt and amend a< state *MP in accordance with ORS 7 154.615, its program for state agency coordination certified trader ORS 197.150, and OAR 660- 8 12-030, 035, 050, 065 and 070. The state TSP shall identify a system of transportation 9 facilities and services equate to meet identified state transportation needs. so (a) The state TSP shall include the state transportation policy plan, rxdal systems 1v plans and transpmtation facility planes as set forth in OAR 731, Division 15. 12 (b) State nansportation project plans shall be compatible with acknowledged 13 comprehensive plans as provided for in OAR 731, Division 15. Disagreements; between ODOT 14 and affectel local governments shall be resolved in the manner established in that division. 1 s (2) MPOs and counties shall prepare and amend regionalTSPs in compliance with this 16 division. MPOs shat! prepare regional 'g SPs for facilities of regional significance, within their 17. jurisdiction. Counties shall prep regional TSPs for all other areas and facilities. sg (a) Regional TSPs shall establish a system of transportation facilities and services 19 adequate to meet identified regional transportation needs and shall be consistent with adopted 20 elements of the state TSP. 21 (b) V&= elements of the state TSP have not been adopted, the W PO or county shall ' 22 coordinate the preparation of the regional TSP with ODOT to assure that state transportation 23 needs are ted. 24 (c) Regional TSPs prepared by MPOs other than metropolitan save districts shall 23 be adopted by the countries and cities within the juisdiction of the MM. Meugmlitme service 26 . 'districts shall adopt a regional TSP for areas within their jurisdiction. Page 6 Transportation Planning.Rule (Adopted 4126/91) 1 (d) Regional TSPs prepared by counties shall be adopted by the county. (3) Cities and counties shall prepare, adopt and amend local TSPs for lands within 3 their plaming jurisdiction in compliance -with this division. 4 (a) Local '1SPs shall establish a system of transportation facilities and services 5 adequate to net identified local transportation creeds and shall be consistent with regional TSPs 6 and adopted elements of-the state TSP. 7 (b) Where the 7egional TSP or elements of the state TSP. have not been adopted, the t3 city or county shall coordinate the preparation of the local TSP with the regional transportadon 9 planning body and O DOT • toassure that regional and state transportation needs are Ill accommodated. r 1 (4) Cities and counties shall adopt regional and local TSPs required by this division 12 as part of their comprehensive pleats. TMsportation financing piogtams required by OAR 6606 13 12-040 may be adopted as a supporting document to the comprehensive plan. 14 `S) The preparation of TSPs shall be com*nated with affected state and federal 1.5 agencies, local governments, spacial districts, and private providers of transportation services. 16 (6) Mass trunsi% transpormtion, akport and port districts shall. participate in the 17 development of TSPs for those transportation facilities and services they provide. These dwicts shall prepare and adopt plans for amportation facilides. and services they provide. 1 19 Such plans shall be consistent writlt and adequate to carry out relevant potions of applicable 20 regional and -local 7SPs. Cooperative agreements executod, under ORS 197.185(2) shall include 21 the roq" t that mass transit, transportation. airport and goat districts adopt a plan 22 consistent with the requirements of dais =ction. 23 (7) Where conflicu are identified betwo= dpaposed regional TSPs and admowledged 24. comprehensive plans, representatives of affected local governments shall tweet to discuss means 2s to resolve the conflicts. These ~aay include: to elimbiate Ask 26 (a) Changing the draft T SP the conflicts; or e 7 -9 Transportation Planting Rule (Adopted 4126NI) I (b) Amending acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to eliminate the conflicts; 2 For MPOs which are not metropolitan service districts, if conflicts persist between 3 regional TSPs and acknowledged comprehensive plans after efforts to achieve compatibility, an 4 affected local govermtient tray petition the Commission to resolve the dispute. s 6 660.12.020 Elements of Trmportation System FUns 7 (1) A TSP*shall establish a coordinated network of aspos 'on facilities equate 8 to sery* state, regional and local transportation needs. 9 (2) The TSP shall include the following elements: to (a) A determination of transportation needs as provided in 660-12-030. 11 (b) . A road plant fer a network of aerials and collectors. Functional classifications 12 of roads in regional and local TSPs shall be consistent with functional classifications of roads 13 in s and regional TSPs and shall prnvide for continuity between adjacent jurisdictions. 14 (c) A public won plan which: Is (A) Describes-public umportation services for the cra on dis.-Avantaged and 16 identifies service inadequacies. 17 (11) Describes intercity bus and passenger rail service and identifies the location of rs teiniaals. 19' (C' For areas within an urban growth bout;dary which have public transit service, 20 identifies existing and planned travAt trunk routes, exclusive transit ways. umminals and major . 21 transfer =lions, and park a nd--side stations. 22 (D) For areas within an W= area containing a population greater than 25,000 persons, 23 not currently served by tran.,;i% evaluates the feasibility of developing a public transit system ` 24 at buildout. Where. a vansit system is determined to be feasible, plan shall meet the 25 requirements of subsection 2(c)(C) of this soon. 26 e 8 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/2691) (4) A bicycle and pedestrian plant fo a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes 2 throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements shall be consistent 3 with the requirements of ORS 366.514. 4.- (e) An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan which identifies where public 5 use airports, mainline and b uchline raihtsads and railroad facilities, port facilities, and major r _ 6 regional pipelines and.Wminals are located or planned vAthin the planning area. For airports, 7 the planning area shall include all arew within airport imaginary surfaces and other areas 8 covered by state or federal regulations. 9 (f) For areas within an uttan area containing a population greater than 25.0OD persons 10 a plan for transportation system management and demand management. I t (g), A parking plan in MPO areas as provided in 660-12-045(5)(c). F 12 (h) Policies and land use regulations for implementing the TSP as provided. 13 in 660-12-045. 14 (i) For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 1!; 3500 persons, a transportation financing program as provided in 660-12-040. 16 •(3) Each element identified in subsection (2)(b)-(d) of this section shall contain: try (a) . An inventory and general assessment of existhig and committed transportation es facilities and services by function, type, capacity and condition. 19 (A) The transportation capacity. analysis shall include Wormation on: e 2e (i) 7 be capacities of existing aid committed facilities; 21 (ii) The degmee• to which those capacities have been reached or surpassed on existing 22 facilities; and, 23 (iii) The assumptions upon which' these capacities are based. 24 (E) For state. and regional facilities, the umpmution rapacity analysis shall be 25 consistent with standards of facility performance considered acceptable by the afected state or 26 regional transportation agency. . Pagc 9 7<nmsportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/261-91) t (C) The transportation facility condition analysis shall describe the general physical and operational condition of each transportation facility (e.. very good, gocid. fail. poor, very 3 poor) 4 (b) A system of planned transportation facilities. services and major ampro:~.IXnts. 3 The system shall . include a description 'of the type or functional classification of planned b facilities and services and their phnned ftpacities and levels of service.- 7 (c) description of the location of planned fatalities. services . and major a improvements, establishing the general corridor v4zhin which the facilities, services or. q improvements may be sited This shall include a map showing the general location of proposed to motion improvements. a description of facility parameters ' such as minimum and t t maximum road right of way width and the number and size of lanes, and any other additional 12 description that is appropriate. 13 (d) Identification of the provider of each. transportation fatality or service. 14 t3 660.IM2S. Complying with the Goals in Preparing Transportation System Plans; 16 Refinement Plans 17 (1) Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, adoption of a T3P shall tg constitute the land use decision regarding the need for transportation facilities, services and r9 ma or in provements and their function, mode, and general location. 20 (2) landings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals and 21 acknowledged com;=hensive plan policies and land use regulmtions s:~. ba -etop- in 22 conjunction with the adoption of the TSP. 23 (3) A local government or may, defer decisions regarding function. general 24 location and mode of a ref n t piUM if findings arc adopted which: 2$ (a) Identty the traimPortation need for which decisions regarding function, general 26 location or mode are being deferred, Agbk pft' 10 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4,26191) (b) Demonstrate why information required to make final determinations regarding 2 function, general location, or mode cannot reasonably be trade available within the time 3 allowed for preparation of the TSP; TSP is 4 (t:) u rLXpiain new 6ir~;f6I3d~t iacs r" i~i'val'edatr ~i'i~ &s.iSwairuvrs typo't . • ".,;~rw "h the sv. is 3 based or preclude implementation of the remainder of the 7SP; 6. (d) Describe the nature of the findings which will be needed to resolve issues deferred 7 to a refinement plan; and s (e) Demonstrate that the refinement effort will be completed within du+ee years or ,prior to initiation of the periodic review fol'_owing adoption of the TSP. to (4) Where a Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared pursuant to t t the requirements of the National Environtgtental Policy Act of 1969, the developinertt of the j2- refinement plan shall be coordinated with the 'oft of die Corridor EIS. The refinement 13 plan shall be adopted prior to the issuance *of the Final EIS. 14 15 660-MO30 Determination of Tmnsportation Needs 16 (1) The TSP shall identify transportation needs relevant to the planning area and the 17 scale of the transportation network being planned including: 18 (a) State. regional, and local transportation needs. 19 (b) Needs of the transportation disadvantaged. 20 (c) Needs for movement of goods and services to support indw ial and commercial 21 development planned for pursuant to OAR 660.0 and Goal 9 (Economic Development). 22 (2) Counties or MPOs preparing regional TSPs shall rely on the analysis of state 23 don needs in adopted elements of ihe'state TSP. Kcal governments preparing local 24 TSF's shall rely on the anayses of state and regional transportation needs in adopted elements .25 of the state TSP and adopted regional TSPs. 26 Psae 11 » Tmnspot don Planning Mule (Adopted 4P26/91) t (3) Within urban growth boundaries, the determination' of local and regional transportation needs shall be based upon: 3 (a) Population and employment forecasts and distributions which are consistent with 4 y:e ac mowledged ow-mm.mehen-sive plant: including those policies which implement Goal 14. s including Coal 14's requirement to encourage urban development on.urban lands prior to 6 conversion of urbaninble lands. Forecasts and distributions shall "be for 20 years and, if v 7 desired. for longer periods. . ` (b) Measures adopted pursuant to 660-12-045 to encourage reduced reliance on the 9 ,automobile. to (4) In MM areas, calculation of local and regional transportation needs also shall be t t based upon accomplishment of the requirement in 660-12-035(4) to reduce reliance on the 12 automobile. 13 14 660°12.035 Evaluation and Selection of Transportation Syslern Alternatives is (1) The TSP shall be based upon evaluation of potential impacts of system alttnatives t6 that can reasonably be expected to meet the identified transportation needs in a safe manner and 17 at a reasonable cost with available technology: The following shall be evaluated as components r is of system alternatives: 19 (a) Improvements to existing facilities or services; 20 (b) New facilities and services, including differ+ene modes or combinations of modes 21 that could reasonably meet identified transportation needs; . (c) Transportation system management measures, 23 (d) Demand management measures; and 24 (e) A no-build system alter native required by the National Environmental Policy Act Ys of 1969 or other laws. 26 12 Trannsporeadon Planning Rule (Ado ted 4/26/91) I' AIL (2) Local governments in MPO areas of larger than 1,000,000 population shall and 3 other governtrtents may also evaluate alternative la,: d use designations, densities and design 3 standards to meet local and regional transportation needs. Local govemtnents preparing such .4 a strategy shall consider: S (a) Increasing residential densities and establishing minfm residential densities b 0 with& one quarter male of transit lines, major regional employment areas and major regional 7 retail shopping areas; 8 (b) Increasing densities (i.e. rninimum floor area ratios) in new commercial office and 9 retail developments; to (c) Designating lands for neighborhood shopping centers within convenient walld.*tg i i and cycling distance of zesidentisl areas; 12 (d) designating land uses to provide a better balance between jobs and housing 13 considering: 14 (A) The total number of jobs and total of number of housing units expected in the area i s or subarea; " ib (B) The availability of affordable housing in the area oi' subarea-, and, t? (C Provision of housing oplwtunides in close proximity to employment areas. to (e) Establishing m=mum parUng 'waits for office and !nstitutional developments 19 consistent with 660-12-045(5)(c) which reduce the atnount of parking available at V 20 such developtr nts. 21 (3) The following standards shall lie used to evaluavA and select alternatives: 22 (a) The transpartawn slrstam shall mvport urban and rural development by providing 23 types and levels of transpamon fscilittees and setvu= appropriat o to serve the land uses 2$ identified in the acknowledged compreheasive plan. ' 23 ' 26 Pagc 13 - Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 426/'91) t (b) The transportation system shall be consistent with state and federal standards for = protection of air, land and water quality including the State Implementation plan under the 3 Federal Clean Air Act and the State Water Quality Managerrent•Plan; (c) `l'ire trap . _ _'on system sMU minimize adverse economic, social, environmental 3 and energy consequences. (d)' The transportation system shall minimize conflicts and facilitate connections 7 between mgdes of transportation. (e) The transportation system shall avoid principal reliance on any one mode of 9 transportation. and shall reduce principal reliance on the automobile. In MP® areas this shall to be accomplished by selecting transportation alternatives which meet the requirements in 660-12- 1 t 035(4). - 12 (4) In MPO agues, regional and local TSPs shall be designed to achieve the following 13 objectives for reducing automobile vehicle miles ravelled (N%M t' capita for the MPO area: 14. (a) . No increase within 10 years' of adoption of a plan as required by OAR 14 660-12-055(1); 16 (b) A 10%. reduction within 20 years of adoption of a plan as required by OAR 17 660-12-055(1); and, 113 (c) Through subsequent planning efforts, a 20% reduction within 30 years of adoption 19 of a plan as required by OAR 660-12-055(1)., 20 (5) :Regional TSPs shall spceify'measumble objectives for each of the following and 21 demonstrate how the combination selected will accomplish the objectives in subsection 4: 22 (a) An increase in the modal shags of non-automobile trips (Le. transit, bicycle, pedestrian); for / 23 eaataple, a doubling of the modal sham Qf non-autotnsabile'erips; 24 (b) An increase in average automobile occupancy (Le. persons per vehicle) during, for 25 example, an increase to as average of 1.5 persons per vehicle, and, 4 2e Page 14 Transportation Planning Mule (Adopted 4/26/91) 1 (c) Where appropriate, a decrease in the number or length of automobile vehicle trips per capita due to demand management programs, rearranging of land uses or other means. 3 (6) - Regional and local TSPs shall include interim benchmarks to assure satisfactorv 4 p.ass towards meeting the requirements of this section at five year. intervals over the s planning period. IVlPC7s and local governments shall evaluate progress m meeting interim 6 benchmarks at five year intervals from adoption of the regional and local TSPs. Where interim 7 benchmarks are not met, the relevant TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts 8 adequate to meet the requirements of this section. 9 The Commission shall, at Ave year intervals from the adoption of this rule, 10 evaluate the results of efforts to achieve the reduction in V MT and the effectiveness of the 11 standard in achieving the objective of reducing rcHance on the automobile. 12 (S) Where existing and committed transportation facilities and services have adequate 13 capacity to support the land rases in the acknowledged coaaprehensive plan, the local i4 government shall not be required to evaluate alternatives as provided in this section. 1s . 16 660-12-040 Transportation Financing Program 17 (1) For areas within an urban growth boundary containing, a population greater than 18 2,500 persons, the TSP shall include a vansportation financing program. 19 (2) A transportation financing program shall include: 20 (a) A Un of planned transportation facilities and major improvements; 21 (b) A general estimate of the timing for planned lion facilities and major 22 irmprovetrrents- 23 (0) legation of rough cosy estimtes for tes Lion facilities and major 24 imprr~vetrlents identified in the TSP. 25 (3) 'The deterrninatiorr of rough cost estimates is intended to provide an estimate of 26 the fiscal requirements to support the land uses in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and PIge 15 Transportation Planning Rule (Adk)pted 4/26/3"1) Emil allow jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of existing and possible alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates for each transportation facility, and 3 major improvement; the transportation financing plan shall include a discussion of the facility "4 provider's existing funding isms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms .5 to fund the development-of each transportation facility and nrJor improvement. Bh.se funding 6 mechanisms may also be dwcribed in tet4rrs of general guidelines or local policies. 7 (4) Anticipated tinning and financing provisions in the transportation financing program 8 are not considered lanes use decisions as specified in ORBS 197.712(2Xc) and, therefore, cannot 9 be the basis of appeal under OILS 197.610(1) and (2) or ORS 191.835(4). to (S) The transportation financing program shall implement comprehensive plan policies t t which provide for phasing of major improvements to chcoumge infill and redevelopment of 12 urban lands prior to facilities which would cause premature development of urbanizable areas 13 or conversion of rural lands to urban uses. . 14 us . 660-12-04S Implementation of the Transportation System Plan 16 (1) Each local government shall amend its land use regulations to implement the 15P. 17 (a) The following transportation facilities, swAces and improvements need not be is subject to land use regulations except as necessary to implement the TSP and, under ordinary 19 circumstances do not have a sigcant impact on land use: 26 (.A) Operation. maintenance, and repair of existing, wansportation facilities identified 21 in the TSP, such as read. bicycle, pedestrian, port. airport and n fl facilities, and major regional 22 Pipelines and terminals,; 23 (B) Dedication of right-of-way, authorization of con on and the construction of 24 facilities and improvements, where the improvements an consistent with clear and objective 23 dimensional standards; ' 26 pft"I 16 Thnsporution Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26/91) I (C) Uses permitted outright under ORS 215.213(1)(m) through <p) and ORS 215.283(1)(k) through (n), consistent with the provisions of 660-12-065; and, 3 (17) Changes in the frequency of transit. rail and airport services. . 4 (b) To the extent, if any, that a transportation facility, service or improvement 3 concerns the application of a comprehensive plan prommWon or land use regulation. it may be i 6 allowed without further land use review if it is permitted outright or if it is subject to standards v that do not rewire interpretation or the exercise of factual, policy or legal judgment. 8 (c) In the event that a transportation facility, service or improvetnent is determined . 9 to have a significant impact on land use or to concern the application of a comprehensive plan 10 or land use regulation and to be subject to standards that require interpretation or the exercise t t of factual, policy or legal judgment, the local government shall provide a review and approval 12 process that is consistent with 660-12-050. -To facilitate implementation of the TSP, each local 13 government shall amend its land use regulations to provide for consolidated review of land use 14 decisions required zo permit a transportation project. 1s (2) Local governments shall adopt land use or subdivision ordinance regulations, 16 consistent with applicable federal and state rest ' ts, to protect transportation facilities, 17 corridors and ' sites for their identified functions. Such regulations shall include: 18 (a) Access control measures, for example, driveway and public road spacing, median 19 control and signal spacing standards, which acre consistent with the functional classification of 20 roads and consistent with limiting development on rural lands to rural uses and densities; 21 (b) Standards to protect future operation of goads, transitways and major transit 22 corridors; 23 (c) Measures to protect public use ahp= by controlling land uses within airport 24 noise corridors and imaginary surfaces, and by limiting physical hazards to cur navigation. as (d) A process for coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting 26 transponation facilities, corridors or sites; Pe 17 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26/91) I (e) A process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts and.protect transportation facilities, corridors or sites. 3 (f) Regulations to provide notice to public agencies providing transportation facilities 4 and services, MpOS, and ODOT of.. 5 (A) LAnd use applications that require public hearings; (B) Subdivision and partition applications; T (C) Other applications which affect private asCss to roads; and (1)) Other applications within airport noise corridors and imaginary surfaces which t 9 affect airport -pemdons. to (g) Regulations assuring that amendm=ts to bnd use designations, densities. and if design standards a~ consistent with the functions, capacities and levels of servica of facilities 12 identified in the TSP. 13 (3) Local governments-shall adopt land use or subdivision regulations for urban areas 14 and rural communities to require: t3 (a) Bicycle parking facilities as part of new could family residential developments of 16 four units or mom, new retail, office and institutional developm Citts, and all transit wansfer 17. stations and park and ride lots. to (b) Facilities providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within and 19 from new, subdivisions, planned developmenm shopping centers and industrial parks to nearby 20 residential areas, transit stops, and neighborhood' activity centers, such as schools, park's and 21 shopping. This shall include: 22 (A) Sidewalks along arterials and collects in Lubin areas; 23 (B) Bikeways along arterials and major collectors; 24 (C) Where appropriate, separate bike or pedestrian ways to minimize travel distances 25 within and between the areas and developments listed above. 26 PIP 18 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/2E191) ME: I (c) For purposes of subsection (b) "safe, convenient and adequate" means bicycle and pedestrian routes, facilities Ynd improvements. which: 3 (A) Are reasonably free from hazards, palydcularly types or levels of automobile trafric 4 which would interfere with or discourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips. S (B) Provide a direct route of travel between destinations such as between a transit stop and a store; and, - a T (C) Meet travel needs of cyclists and pedestrians considering destination and length 8 of trip; 9 (d) Provision of internal pedestrian circulation in new office parks and come nercial Bo • developments through clustering of buildings, construction of pedestrian ways, skywalks; where. 11 appropriate; and similar techniques. 12 (4) To support transit in urban 'areas containing a•population greater than 25,000, 13 where the area is already served by a public transit system or where a determination has been 14 made that a public, transit system is feasible, local governments shall adopt land use and 15 subdivision regulations to require: - 16 (a) Design of transit routes and transit facilities to support aansit use through 17 provision of bus stops, pullouts acid shelters, optimum road goometrks, on-road parking 18 restrictions and similar hcilities, as appropriate. 19 (b) New retail, office and institutional buildings at or tear existing or planned transit 20 stops to provide preferential access to transit through the. following measures: 21 (A) Orienting building entrance to the transit strip or station; 22 (B) Clustering buildings around transit stops; and, 23 (C) Loca&g buildings as close as possible to F ie stops. . - 24 (c) itJus-cLal and ~ a-c-Ad daWlopmem to pmvi pra&rgntial, parking for 25 carpools and vanpools- . 26 Page 19 -n Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4f26/91) . I (d) An opportunity for existing development to redevelop a portion of existing parking areas for transit oriented uses. including bus. stops and pullouts, bus shelters. park and ride 3 stations, transit oriented developments, and similar facilities, where appropriate. 4 , (e) Road systems for new development which can be adequately served by transit, s. including provision of pedestrian access to existing and identified fumm transit routes. This 6 shall include, where appropriate. separate b1c y- cle and eaftn ways to minimize tm-vel 7 distances.: g (f) Along existing or planned transit routes, designation of types and densities of land 9 uses -adequate to support transit. to (5) In WO areas, local governments shall adopt land use and subdivision regulations t 1 to reduce reliance on the automobile which: 12 (als Allow transit oriented developments (TODs) on lands. along transit routes; 13 (b)-.-! Implements a demand management program to meet the measurable standards set .14 in the TSP in rtiesponse to 660-12-0135(4). Aim 15 (c) Implements a parking plan which: 16 (A) Achieves a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita in the MPO 17 area over the planning perm. This way be accomplished through a combination of resarictions 1g on development of new parldng spaces and requirements that existing puking spaces be 19 mdeveloped to to other uses; 20' (13) Aids in achieving the measurable standards set in the TSP in response to 660-12- 21 035(4); 22 (C) Includes land use and subdivision regulations seeing 1Q ' uum and maximum r 23 parking requirements; and, 24 Is consistent witb demand merge nient progaatns, transit-oriented development 2s requirements and planned transit service. 26 ANk Page 20 Transportation Planning Rule (adopted 4/26/'91) OEM (d) Require all major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments to provide 2 either a transit stop on site or connection to a transit stop along a transit trunk route when the 3 transit "operator requires such art improvement. . (6) In s developing a bicycle and pedestrian circulation playa as, requfred by 5 660-12-020(2)(d), loW &ore;eu;sents shall ideentify imprwierne ets to facilitate bicycle and. 6 pedestrian trips to meet local travel needs in developed areas. Appropriate improvements 7 should provide for mom direct, convenient and safer bicycle or pedestrian travel within and t; between residential areas and neighborhood Activity centers (Le. schools, shopping, transit 9 stops). Specific measures include, for example, constructing wWkways between cul-&-sacs and to adjacent roads, providing walkways between buildings, and providing direct access between t t adjacent uses. 12 13 660-12-050 't'ransportation Project Development 14 (1) For projects identified by ODOT pursuant to OAR 731, Division 15, project 1!; development shall occur in the meaner set forth in that Division. 16 (2) Regional TSPs shall provide for coordinated project development among affected 17 local governments. The process shall include: 18 (a) Designati on of a lead agency to prepare and cooWinate project development; 19 (b) A. pis for citizen involvement, includbig public notice and hearing, if project Y 20 developme-tit involves land use decision- g. The process shall include notice to affected 21 transportation facility and service providers, and ODOT 22 (c) A Focess for developing and adopting findings of amip ° with applicable ® 23 statewide platming goals, if any. i7lsis shall dude a* allow - e;~~ to 24 acknowledged comprehensive plans where such amsendnients ate necessary to at~mttiodate the 25 p%lect; '6 Page 21 Transportation Planning Ride (Adopted 4/26/91) (d) A process for developing and adopting findings of compliance with applicable acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations of individual local 3.. governrrsents. if any. 'This shall include a process to allow amendments to acknnowledged 4 comprehensive plans or land use regulations where such arnenements are necessary to S accommmodate the project. 6 (3) Project development involves l rase decision-asking to the extent that issues 7 of compliance with _ applicable requirements retrain outstanding at the project development S phase. Issues may include, but are not limited to, compliance with regulations lir+otecting or 9 regulating development within floodways and other hazard areas, ident~ed Goal 5 resource 10 areas, estuarine and coastal shoreland area, and the Willama= River Greenway. Where project 11 development involves land use decisiomnaking, all unresolved issues of compliance with 1Z applicable acknowledged ensive plan policies and land Lase regulations shall be 13 addressed and findings of compliance adopted prior to project approval. To the extent 14 compliance has already been determined during transportation system planning, including 15 adoption of a refinement plate, affected lorel governments may rely on and reference the earlier 1e f ndings of compliance with applicable s . 17 (4) Vdhere an Environmental Impact Sae m*nt (EIS) is prepared pursuant to the 18 • National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9, project development shall be coordinated with the 19 preparation of. the EIS. All unresolved issues of ©ompliance with applicable acknowledged 20 s aprrhensive plan policies and land am regulations shall be addressed and findings of 21 compUmice ad opted -Fiava to 1m-- IW us.. u.e sal t. a. r 22 (5) If a local government not to build a pwject authorized by ft TSP, it waist g3 evaluate whether the needs that the project serve ~rld otherwise be satisfied in a manner ga consistent with the - P. i<f identified its cannot be rim consistent with the TSP, the local as government shall initiate a plan amendment to change the TSP or the comprehensive plan to 2~s a.sssure that there.is an adequate tion systern.to t transportation needs. 22 --'Trans station Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26,191) 1~ 1,111, 1,1,11,1111111 1 1,11, 1, 11111111 iiii 1 (6) Transportation pmject development may be done concurrently with preparation of the TSP or a refinement plan. 3 4 660.11-055 Tithing of Adoption and Update of Transportation System-Mans; Exemptions 5 (1) Will shall complete regional TSPs for their planting areas within four years 6 following the effective date of this division. For those areas within an hM, cities and 7 counties shall adopt local TSPs and implementing treasures within one year following 8 completion of the regional TSP. Urban areas designated as MiPOs subsequent to the adoption 9 of this vale shall adopt TSPs in compHanoe with applicable requirements of this rule within to . three years of. designation. 11 (2) For areas outside an MPO, cities and counties shall complete and adopt regional 12 and local TSPs and implementing measures within live years of the effective date of this 13. division. . 14 (3) W"i ti two years of adoption of this rule affected cities and counties shall, for 14 urban areas of 25,000 or mom, adopi• land use and subdivision ordinances or amendments 1g required by 664-12-045(3),(4)(a)-(e) and (5Md). 17 (4) Cities and counties shall update their TSPs and implemen ing measures as 18 necessary to comply with this division at each periodic revicr subsequent to initial compliance 19 with this division. This shall include a reevaluation of t land use designations, densities and deskm standards in the following ces: .t (a) If the interim benahrnarlcs established pursuant to 660-12-035(6) have not been 2i tacheived; or,. 23 (b) if a re ment plan has not been adopted consisient with the requirements of 660- 24 12-025(3). 25 (5) The director may at a whole or partial exemption from the requir =trots of this 26 division to cities under 2.5030 Impulatibn outside MdPO areas and counties under 25,004 Page 23 Transpcmation Planning Rule (Adopted Q26J91) r I population. Eligible jurisdictions may, within five years following the adoption of this rule or at subsequent periodic.seviews, request that the director approve an exemption from all or pan 3 of the requirements in this division until the jurisdiction's next periodic review. 4 (a) The director's decision to 'approve an exemption shall be based upon the following 3 factors: (A) Whether the existing and committed transportation system is generally adequate 7 to met likely transportation needs; I (E) Whether the new development or population growth is anticipated in the planning ' 9 area over the next five years; to (C) 'ether major new transportation facilities are proposed which would affect the r 1 planning areas; 12 (D) Whether deferral of planning requirements would 60:dlict with accosting 13 state or regional transportation needs; and, 14 (E) Consultation with the Oregon bepartmemt of Transportation on the need for 15 transportation planning in the area, including measum needed to protect existing transportation 16' facilities. 17 (b) 'The director's decision to grant an exemption under this section is appealable to IS: the Commission as provided in OAR 660-02-020 (Delegation of Authority Mule). 19 (6) Portions of ISPs and implementing measures adopted as part of comprehensive ,o plans prior to the responsible jurisdiction's. periodic review shall be reviewed pursuant to 21 OAR 660, Division 18, Post Aclcnowledgernent Pmeedures. 22 23 660-12-060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 24 - (1) Amendments .to f inctional plans. acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use 25 regulations which significantly mdf6m _ transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses 26 24 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26/91) 11 Ilk I are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either. 3 (a) Limiting allowed land usos to be consistent with the pienned function, capacity and ' level of service of the transportation facility; s (b) Amending the TSP to provide tratasportatioa facilities adequate to support the 6 proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; or, 7 (c) Altering land use designations, densities, gr design requirements to reduce demand S for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other des. 9 (2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a u=portatioh 10 facility if it: s t (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation 12 facility; 13 (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; 14 (c) Allows types or levels of lard uses which would result in levels of travel or access is which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or 16 (d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility beow the minimum ace eptable 17 level identified in the TSP as (3) Determinations under subsections (1) and (2) of this section slAall be coordinated 19 with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. b 20 (4) The presence of a trattspc tion facility cr iartprovement shall not be a basis for 21 an exception toallow residential, commucial, institaational or industrial development on rural 22 lairds under this division -or OAR 022 and 02$. 23 24. 6606112465 Transportation IIrmpr ove is on Rural Lands s 25 (1) This section identifies transportation facilities, services and improvements which 26 may be permitted on ttrral lands cone".stent with Goals 3, 4911 and 14 without a goal-exception. Pe Be 25 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 462691) (2) For the purposes of this section. the following definitions apply: (a) Access roads: means lour volume public or private roads that provide access to 3 property and travel within a built and committed area. 4 (b) Local service roads: means collectors and arterials, but doll ncr. include state S highways of regional or statewide significance. b (c) Local travel: means gravel witlill a built and committed area. or between resource 7 lands or a built and cotrrrrtitted area and a netdrby urban am or rural community. a (d) State highways of regional or statewide significance: means highways identified 9 in ®1OT's Highway Pli as interstate highways, Access Oregon highways, and highways of so regional or statewide significance. 11 (e) Major road imp ves rent: means a major walignmenr, addition of travel lanes; and 12 new interchanges and intemections. Major load improvements do not include replacement of 13 an existing intersection with an interchange. the replacement of one or more int tions with 14- another intersection to correct a safety deficiency, or the creation of an intersection for a log u haul road. ;6 (f) Major rwillignrnent: means a realignment where the center line of the roadway 17 shifts outside of the existing right of way for a distance of one half mite or more. 18 (g) Realignment means replacement of an existing road segment where tn'te replaced 0 19 road segment is either abandoned or is modified to function as an access road. New road 20 segments which do not meet this definition are considered new roads for purposes of this Y 21 section. 22 (3) the following transportation facilities and improvements are consistent with Goals • .23 3 and 4 and may be sited on rural agricultural and forest land: 24 (a) On land zoned for agricultural use, transportation facilities and improvements 25 ' permitted outright or conditionally under ORS 215.213 (1) or (2) or ORS 215.253 (1) or (2); 26 and, P= 26 Transportation Planning Mule (Adopieri 4P26i91) t (b) On land zoned for forest use, transportation facilities and improvements permitted outright or conditionally under OAR 660, Division 6. 3 (4) The following transparmtion facilities and improvements are consistent with, Goals 4. 1.1 and 14 and may be located on rural lands: .5 (a) Maintenance or' replair of an existing transportation facility. 6 (b) Reconstruction, surfacing, minor widening or realigninent of an existing road, but not including the addition of travel lanes; ' 6 (c) Replacement of bridges; r 9 (d) Replacement of stocks, and other facilities without significantly increasing the to capacity of those facilities; . .11 (e) Climbing and passing lanes; 12 (f) Now access roads in built and cmamitted. exception alters; 13 (g) Temporary impravetr3ents in association with construction projects, such as 14 temporary roads and detours; 15 (h) . Bikeways, footpaths, and recreation trails; 16 (i) Turn refuges at existing street intersections; 17 6) Transportation systern managenmt meastrr+es, including medians which limit or 18 prevent turning movemonts, but not including the creation cif additional travel lanes or median 19 turn lanes- 20 (k) Streets and bridges on farm or forest lands for the purpose of managing land for 21 farm or forest uses; 22 (1) Railroad mainlines and branchlines; 23 (M) ; °a (n) Navioadon , channels; 25 (o) Personal.use aiqmm and expansions or alterations of public use airports that do 26 not permit service to a larger class of Urplanw. e '27 - Tmsportation Planning Rule (Adopted M&91) I (p) Accessory uses to transportation facilities, such as weigh stations, maintenance stations. stockpile sites, and safety rest areas. 3 (q) New local service roads and extensions 6f existing local service roads on farm and a forest lands as provided in subsection (5) of this mcdon; S (r) Major road impnoveoaents to stave highways of,regional and statewide significance b as provided in subsection (6) of this section; 7 (s) Other transportation facilities, services and improvements serving local needs as e Frovided in subsection (7) of this section.' v (5) New local service roads including extensions of existing local service roads shall 10 'comply with the following standards: I t (a) Only two lanes of traffic shall be modated. 12 (b) Intersections and private accesses shall be limited tp be consistent with rural uses 13 and densities. 14 (c) Major realignments shall not be permitted. 1s (d) • New local service roads shall be permitted only to cennect built and committed 16 yeas onto mduce local access to and local traffic on a 'state highway. Access to farm and forest 17 lands shall be limited. to (6) Major road improvements to state highways of regional or statewide significance 19 shall comply with the following standards: 20 (a) Accesses shall be reduced to the minimum practicable and shall not-exceed that Y 21 which would be consistent with the function and operadoh of the highway considering traffic 22 at buildout of nearby rural lands. . 23 (b) Local travel may be accotr to the extent that it is not feasible to meet such 24 needs on other existing roads or through ' tents to other existing roads, including I " 25 consumcdon of local access roads in built and committed areas. 26 PaV 28 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26/91) R19Ima1RaaExifRIRR~IRkIGM7@~1 - I (c) New interchanges or, intersections may be allowed only in the following circumstances: 3 (A) To connect to other state highways of regional or statewide significance; (l3) To. replace existing interchanges or intersections; or (G) To reduce and consolidate dirmt road accesses consistent with (a) and (b) above. (d) Direct private access to new facilities shall not be permitted. 7 (e) Median turn lanes snail comply ~ &u% uz fbHowbag tac-'ar&: r s (A) The median !urn lane is needed to correct a safety problem which cannot 9 practicably be corrected through outer measures such as: to (i) limited left turn refuges; - 11 (ii) Construction or.extension of kx l service roads as otherwise permitted by this 12 section; 13 (iii) Median barriers; and 14 (iv) Reconstruction of existing mad accesses Cr purchase of access rights. 14 (B3) The Sian turn lane is consistent with the function and operation of the facility 1e considering-traffic on affected roads and accesses at buildout of nearby rural lands and 17 (f) Realignments shall not create new pa=ls of land that are provided direct access is to the highway. 19 (g) A bypass of all or part of an urban growth boundary shall be permitted only it 20 planned, designed and operated to limit use for trips between locations within the urban growth 21 boundary to be less than a third of the average daily traffic aura the bypass. 22 (7) Baer transportation flicilides, suvicas or improvements serve local nears if 23 (a) The facility,, service or wgmvemm saves the aural land uses idan 'rafted in, the 24 Waiowledged comprehensive plan; and 25 (b) . The facility, servile or improvement provides travel capacity and a level of service 26 which is adequate but which aloes not exceed that wquhrd w serve travel needs in the rural area page 29 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/266/991) . 2 I over the planning period. Travel needs in the rural area includes travel that would result from HEM development otherwise anticipated to occur in the rural area consistent with plan policies 3 including those which encourage new development to locate within urban growth boundaries. 4 S 660-12470, Exceptions for Transportation Improvenwnts on Rural' Mad 6 (1) - Transportation facilities and improvements which do not meet the requirements t 7 of 650-12-065 require an exception to be sited on rural lands. 8 (2) Where an exception to Goals 3, 4. 11. or 14 is required, the exception shall be 9 taken pursuant to ORS 197.732(1)(c), Goal 2. OAR 660. Division 4 and this division. to (3) An exception adopted as part of a TSP or runt plan shall, at a minimum, 11 decide need, mode, function and general location for the proposed facility or improvement. 12 (a) The general location shall be specified as a corridor within which the proposed 13 facility or improvement is to be located, including the outer limits of the proposed location. 14 Specific sites or areas within the corridor may be excluded from the exception to avoid or is lessen likely adverse impacts. 16 (b) Trite sim design and capacity of the proposed facility or improvement shall be 1q described generally, but in sufficient detail to allow a general understanding of the lumly 1s impacts of the proposed facility or improvement. Measures limiting the size, c':esign or capacity 19 may be specified in the description of the proposed use in order to simplify the analysis of the o effects of the proposed use. 21 (c) The adopted exception shall include a process and standards to guide selection of r 22 the prec-ise design and location within the corridor and consistent ,with the general description 23 of the proposed facility or improis For fle, when a general location or corridor 24 crosses a river. the exception would specify that a bridge crossing would be built but would 25 defer to project development decisions about precise location and design of the bridge within 26 e 30 Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/226/91) I the selected corridor subject to requirements to minimize impacts on npanan vegetation, habitat values, etc. 3 (d) Land use regulations implementing the exception may include standards for 4 specific mitigation measures to offset unavoidable environmental, economic, social or energy S impacts of the proposed facility or improvement or the assure compatibility with adjacent uses. .6 (4) To address Goal a, part H(c)(1) the exception shall demonstrate that there is a • 7 transportation need identified consistent with the mquirt meats of 660-12-030 which cannot r 8 reasonably be accommodated* through one or a combination of the following measures not 9 requiring an exception: , to (a) Alternative modes of transportation; 11 (b) 'rmffic management measures; and 12 (c) . Improvements to existing transportation facilities. ° E3 (3) To address Goal 2, Part II(c)(2), the exception shall demonstrate :hat non-exception 14 locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation improvement or facility. tS (6) To determine the reasonableness of alternatives to an exception under subsections j6 (4) and (5) of this section, cost, operational feasibility, economic dislocation and other relevant 17 factors shall be addressed. The thresholds chosen to judge whether an alternative method or lt; location cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation need or facility must be 19 justified in the exception. 20 (7) To address Goal 2, Pant II(c)(3), the exception shall: 21 (a) Compare the economic, social, environwrital and energy consequences of the 22 proposed location and other alternative locations requiring exceptions. 23 (b) Determine whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception 24 site are significantly more adverse than the net ° is fits other locations which would also 25 require an exception. A proposed exception locution would fail to met this requirement only 26 P28c 31 Transportation Planning Rule (Adapted 4/26/91) MMES I if the affected local government concludes that the impacts associated with it arc significantly more adverse than the'other identifcd exception sites. 3 (c) The evaluation 'of the concegaienees of general locations or corridors need not be 4 site specific. but may be generalized consistent with the requirements of 660-12-070(3). s (8) To address God 2, Part H(c)(4), the exception shall: e (a) Describe the adverse effects that the pwposed teansportataoa improv nt is likely . 1 7 to have on the surrounding rural lainds•and land rases, including increased traffic and pressure 8 for nonfarm or highway oriented development ' on was made mom accessible by the 9 w=a portation improvement. to (b) Adopt as pant of the exception, facility 'design and land use measures which I minimize accessibility of numl. lands from the proposed transportation facility or improvement 12 and support continued rural use of :surrounding lands. 13 14 15 16 17 18 - 19 20 21 22 23 - 24 23 26 t'age 32 - Transportation Planning Rule (Adopted 4/26/91) Z 1000 FRIENDS ~ Al fa Co (q y OF OREGON mom April 5, 1994 Tigard City Council coo Carol Ate. Landsman Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Proposed Transportation Ordinance Changes to Implement LCDC's Transportation Planning Rule. City Councilors: I am, writing on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon regarding the proposed transportation ordinance changes to implement the LCDC Transportation Planning Rule ("the Rule"). Please include this letter in the record before the Council and please notify me of any action taken by the City in this matter. The set of proposed ordinance changes is an excellent piece of work. The City should be commended for developing such forwarding lool-.ing policies that will work over time to reduce traffic congestion and provide for livable communities. We have just a few suggestions on how to make. the current draft even better. Comprehensive Plan - Volume II The proposed amendment to the definition of "arterials" seemingly seeks to improve the efficiency of arterials to handle car traffic by prohibiting direct access from surrounding properties. In addition, we believe this will also help to create a better built environment by promoting better interconnectedness between land uses that front onto arterials. Hence, we support the proposed amendment. We do, however, recommend some additional improvements. First, while it is desireable to limit the number of driveway connections to arterials, we believe that other.public streets, including local streets and collectors, should be encouraged to connect to arterials.' In a recent study by 1000 Friends titled "The Pedestrian Environment,"' we discovered that people living in the portions of the Portland region that have good interconnected street networks walk and bicycle four times as much, and ride transit three times as much, as people living in areas with disconnected streets. This is primarily due to the shorter travel distances that are possible with frequent street connections; as connections become more scarce, the 1 A copy of "The Pedestrian Environment" has been submitted to the city for the record. 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, Oregon 97204-2597 Phone: (503) 497-1000 Fax: (503) 223.0073 E-Mail: inmail@friends.rain.com i Tigard City Council April 5, 1994 Page 2 distance one must travel to complete a typical trip (e.g., to the grocery store) increases substantially, thereby making walking/bicycling less attractive. In addition, well- connected street systems tend to suffer less congestion because traffic is dispersed, rather than concentrated at a few choke points. See Kulash, Anglin & Marks, "Traditional Neighborhood Development: Will The Traffic Work?" (American Society of Civil Engineers, March 1990) (excerpts attached). Consequently, we recommend the addition of the following language to the end of the "arterial" definition: "Connections to other public streets, however, shall be encouraged." Second, arterials provide direct through routes for bicyclists, as well as cars. This is particularly so in the southwestern portions of our metro area where very few of the streets connect. We recommend that the definition of "arterial" recognize this through the following amendments to the definition's first sentence: "The primary functions of an arterial route are to serve through vehicle and iryc clO trips entering the urban area (metropolitan area)[;] [and-.re] to provide a high level of mobility for travel with the entire metropolitan region." Streets - 18.164.0302 For many of the reasons listed above, we are concerned about the proposed addition of major collectors to the list of street types that must be screened off from future development. Currently, section 18.164.030.P requires development abutting an arterial to isolate itself from the arterial by screening, large setbacks, limited access, etc. The proposed ordinance would require the same treatment for development abutting major collectors as well. As noted above, when development is further isolated from the street and from other development, distances between trip origins and destinations increase substantially, thereby making walking and bicycling infeasible. We are concerned that the proposed addition of major collectors to section 18.164.030.P would have this effect of further isolating new development, making it much less pedestrian friendly. Certainly, Tigard has its share of unsightly (in many cases, State controlled) arterials. The remedy, however, is not to isolate those facilities by having development turn its back on them, but to revamp such roadways so that they are miore iiiiiy integrated iitto the cornniunity. We feel that the transportation system planning process required by the Transportation Planning Rule to be complete by May 1996 is an excellent opportunity to address these issues. We recommend that "major collectors" not be added to section 18.164.030.P. In fact, we would support eliminating the section altogether. 01 Tigard City Council April 5, 1994 Page 3 Conclusion We support the balance of the proposed ordinance amendments. The sections on street alignments and connections, caul-de-sacs, and block sizes are all brill iantly stated and amply supported by the research contained in "The Pedestrian Environment." R Thank you for your consideration. Very trul o rs, C `Keith A. olome , LUTR.AQ roject Director cc: Dick Benner, DLCD Mary Weber, Metro Bob Cortright, DLCD Bob Stacey, Governor's Office John Fregonese, Metro Kim Knox, Tri-Met The Transformers 1''21111111,11 1-112 11: ii April 7, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF Carol Landsman LAND City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard CONSERVATION Tigard, OR 97223 AND RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 93-0004 DEVELOPMENT Dear Ms. Landsman: The Department appreciates and supports the city's efforts to amend its ordinances to make new development more bike, pedestrian and transit friendly. We have several comments and suggestions on how the city's proposed amendments should be revised to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. A major objective of the TPR is that new development be laid out in a way which provides direct convenient routes for walking, cycling and access to transit. Tigard, like most other cities, has chosen to accomplish this objective by setting some minimum requirements for street connections, limiting use of cul-de-sacs, and in some cases requiring separate walkways. This approach can meet the TPR if ordinance standards are clear enough and do not include too many exemptions. While the city's ordinance comes close, several parts of the ordinance appear to result in loopholes which will result in inadequate connections bike, pedestrian and transit access. Street Connections Section G on Street Alignment and Connections appears to be intended to meet the rule's requirements to provide direct and convenient routes within neighborhoods for walking, cycling and access to transit. Language should be added to state this as one of the purposes of this requirement. Adding it will help guide implementing decisions. Section G2, which requires a connected network of local streets, is critical and should be retained. Deleting this requirement, in combination with the proposed exemptions to block perimeter requirements and allowance of cul-de-sacs, makes it difficult to understand how the city's ordinances will result in safe, direct and convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists and transit patrons. Section G3 should be revised to clarify when environmental, topographic and other constraints "preclude" extending or connecting streets through a proposed development. We recommend adding something like the following: A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required Barbara Roberts extensions. In the case of environmental or topographic constraints, the Govemor mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possrale. The applicant must show why the constraint 1175 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97310-0590 (503) 373-0050 + FAX (503) 362-6705 Carol Landsman -2- April 7, 1994 precludes some reasonable street connection. This includes considering alternative street designs and reasonable variances to other street standards. Existing development patterns are considered to preclude a street connection only when the reviewing body determines that the adjacent properties could not reasonably be redeveloped in a way which would allow, a street connection. Block Size Requirements We support the city's proposed block design and size provisions with three exceptions. First, the block design requirements should include a statement that one of the objectives for block layout is the provision of safe, direct and convenient routes of travel within and through the neighborhood for cyclists and pedestrians and for access to transit. Second, the exemption where street location is "restricted" by the presence of topographic or other constraints is too broad. The presence of topographic or environmental constraints is not by itself sufficient to justify not meeting the block size requirement. "Restricted" should be changed to "precluded" or "prevented." The city should indicate that the presence of one of these constraints prevents or precludes meeting the block size standard only when it is not possible to reconfigure the layout of streets and blocks in a way which would meet the standard and there is no reasonable variance to street design or other standards which could allow meeting the block standard. For example, small wetlands or streams can be bridged and variances to slope standards for street standards can be considered. Also, where exemptions are justified the city should require that (1) the exemption be the minimum necessary to overcome the constraint and (2) that mitigating measures in the form of separate bike-pedestrian ways be provided. Third, the exemption of blocks which border arterial streets and major collectors is not appropriate and should be deleted. Connections to arterials and collectors are critical to providing direct and convenient routes for bikes and pedestrians. Local street connections to arterials are especially important for good access to transit because most transit routes are on arterials and collectors. By exempting these connections from the block requirements, the draft ordinance would seriously limit access to transit from neighboring residential areas. We understand that a major reason for limiting street connections to arterials and major collectors is to preserve the traffic carrying function of these higher order streets and to protect neighborhoods from cut through traffic. We think these goals can be met without eliminating local street connections. First, spacing local streets every 450 feet the average spacing using the city's proposed 1800 foot block perimeter is usually considered adequate for local collector and arterial streets. Second, where left turns would conflict with the function of arterials or collectors other design solutions are available. For example, medians or "right in/right out" designs can be used. Such designs would prevent left turns and still provide a street connection for bikes, pedestrians and transit access. Cul-de-Sacs e The city's policies allowing cul-de-sacs need to be revised to provide safe, adequate and convenient routes for cyclists, pedestrians and access to transit. The city should retain the language in policy Kl requiring cul-de-sacs to be as short as possible. Deleting this requirement allows subdivisions to~be laid out to with cul-de-sacs when an alternative arrangement which provides connected streets would be both possible and reasonable. Policy K2 should be amended to require connecting accessways from the ends of cul-de-sacs ' to higher order streets (arterials and collectors) and as necessary to provide direct, convenient Carol Landsman -3- April 7, 1994 routes to important neighborhood destinations, such as schools, parks shopping or transit stops. The current language which says the city "may" require such a connection, is not sufficient to assure that adequate routes will be provided. Sidewalks on Cul-de-Sacs The city needs to revise its exempting cul-de-saco in certain residential zones from the requirement to construct sidewalks. Sidewalks way be unnecessary in ,iery short cul-de-sacs that serve only four or five homes. However, sidewalks are needed even in these short cul-de-sacs where the cul-de-sac includes an accessway which connects it to a higher order street or some neighborhood destination, such as a school or a park. A continuous sidewalk within the cul-de-sac connecting other streets to the accessway is needed to provide pedestrians, cyclists and transit users with a safe and convenient route. These streets provide an important connection for pedestrians which necessitates a continuous sidewalk i.e. to a higher order street or some important neighborhood destination. At a minimum, the city needs to amend the ordinance to require provision of sidewalks on cul-de-sacs that are required to have accessways. In addition, we recommend that the city require sidewalks on cul-de-sacs that are more than 100 feet long or that serve more than five dwelling units. Connecting Walkways The provision of the ordinance requiring walkways between developments and neighboring developments is potentially weakened by preface that such walkways are required "unless impractical". The ordinance should elaborate on what the city considers to be practical. A walkway is impractical only if there is some insurmountable physical obstacle a freeway interchange, a river or wetland which is unlikely to be bridged or a heavy industrial which should not be connected. It is appropriate to provide for a walkway even if it does not connect immediately to allow development of such walkways as property is developed or redeveloped in the future. Building Orientation to Transit The city's proposed ordinances appear to only partially address the requirements for orientation of b=uildings to transit. We understand from discussions with you that the city is not intending to address these portions of the rule at this time. We recommend that the city's findings adopting these amendments make it clear which portion; of the rule the city is addressing at this time and which the city is deferring for future consideration. I hope that you find these comments usefiil. Please pass them along to the City Council for their consideration. Please keep us advised of council action on these amendments. If you have any questions, please contact me at 373-0084. Sincerely, Robert Cortright Senior Policy Specialist RC:bc <trans>tpr.tigard II IDIOM ti S a ' I`~ IBM .1 S V oI~I' . ~-~mvv~C~ / lo~Cl ~L ~2~~ C ~ ,•Y1,U.~7~ , D R A F T 12-29-93 t-w`B$ Y i t 1 t t t 1 t t i t i 0 i A& . CA/v7 INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS 1,11Q(01i- MINIMUM LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND C, tioktatb'i IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS Cj J:.}:::3.,rA.}:{.:::.:......r r:.:..:::::::{::n..:.::.}~~i4Y:{a:.:{.:.Y:.:4}}:.Y.}:.J}:i.}'•:::::.:::. >J+,tkb ,.r ~•:'•}:.}.,{.u,{.,s.; :;,.Ja..;;. ...::.L ...,:a{J•: . : J.n J.:..; }kn:.;a•.Y.+a:• v }.J:$,:}•J.::s;:,....: .::.~...,.:::.kv.,.,,{.;>?~4 . ~ry w, . ,l, . k{ JN}.: v'? s u{y.;: • : % r. . .Y~ J}u.: }r:'J.++h$.. r:rknvY 03'33.. r. n~ i :::::.v: n:+... .1i ~v. i t:6' iJ.{• •u. . Ji :x...... a: •}r.•:.v.r,.,. n.^{... n `{::ki$$:...•.. }t ":$a:$. ,vS. RBoth iry: nF r > 500 ADT 50 32 Both Sides Sides a• 46 28 One Side > 500 ADT Both Sides < 500 ADT 46 28 Both Sides Loth Sides < 500 ADT 42 24 One Side Both Sides }.#:s•.r::f` is ?:i<%':ci2E::j::::::;G+rr{::n: r;..,;{..:.; >::;:kJ. a...•.k_:.k :};k:: > 100 ADT 46 28 Both Sides Both Sides ^ ` 'h"` ` or rester than 30 ft. i ( 9 in length) S"M ti:v n >..>>z < 100 ADT 40 24 Both Sides One Side < 200 ADT 36 22 (no curbs ~`~n Y•:3•:>{<::;:::i::::::;::.>{$:>ik?3: ) One Side None (Permitted in only -1 R R-2 and R-3.5 zoning district MOM oil NOTE: ~k Average Daily Trips H4bpinSp&UATPR2.Tb1 May 26, 1993 ills ° J vl ~PS47'1L)wj ou.E & GATES 4 L(' LAW OFFICES 1400 KOIN Center Seattle 222 S.W. Columbia Anchorage Portland, Oregon 97201 Bellerie Olympic hMK D. WHITLOW Main Office: (503) 222-1515 Tacoma Facsimile: (503) 721-3666 Vancouver, B.C. Direct Dial: (503) 721-3647 Washington, D.C. April 26, 1994 VIA TELEFAX Telefax No.: 684-7297 Mayor Jack Schwab and City Council City of '11gard 13125 SW Fall Blvd. 'Tigard, OR Re: Proposed Ordinance Changes Relating to Transportation Dear Mayor and Council Members: This office is a member of Common Ground. This letter is written on behalf of Common Ground and our client, the Retail Task Force (RTF), regarding the City's proposed zoning ordinance amendments regarding transportation. The RTF is a business association consisting of real estate owners, users, and developers, together with related industry and community associations. The RTF was an active participant in Metro's work sessions which were conducted in 1993 and 1994 regarding the implementation of Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The written product of Metro's work sessions was a set of TPR guidelines for utilization by local jurisdictions in adopting their implementive ordinances (Transportation Planning Rule Regional Implementation Guidelines - "Guidelines"). A copy of Metro's Guidelines will be submitted at the time of the hearing. The RTF is principally interested in the issues of connectivity and building location regulations under the TPR. We understand that the proposed ordinance changes before you do not address the issue of building location regulations. Accordingly, the comments in this letter will be limited to the issues of connectivity requirements among and between commercial uses, as well as some concern regarding proposed regulations for drive-through uses. The business community has concern regarding requirements for pedestrian and bigrcle connections between commercial uses which are not in the same ownership nor part of the same development. Such connections create insurance and lending problems regarding potential liabilities for injuries, as well as practical problems regarding ownership and maintenance. Further, such connections can allow the "cannibalization" of existing parking lots by newly developed adjacent uses having no parking or inadequate parking. The Metro' Guidelines address these connectivity issues at pages 20-28. The following excerpts are germane: • "Pedestrian and bicycle connection should be developed as public rights-of- way." (page 20, paragraph 11). "Pedestrian and bicycle access between such developments should rely upon public sidewalks and bike lanes along abutting public streets." (Page 20, paragraph 12). We also express concern over the proposed on-site vehicle stacking requirements in Section 18.106.060 for drive-in uses. We are unaware of industry or business community input on these proposed regulations. We would urge that you defer decision on the proposed ordinance amendments to allow further opportunity for broader input from the business community. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Very truly yours, BOGLE & GATES ~L`Kn Mark D. Whitlow MDW:rgm cc: Common Ground Retail Task Force C44/RTF/nGARD/C0NN.-L.00! 1 BOGGLE & GATES OEM! !01111 TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN L TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON L~ ( (If 0~`L TRA/ypT ~ oc QrAAR ~L 2 TRI_Mg 989.1 M10 4012 S.E. 17TH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 April 25, 1994 Mayor Schwab and Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re; Proposed Ordinance Changes Relating to Transportation, Apa:l 4, 994 Draft Bear Mayor Schwab and City Council Members: Tri-Met appreciates the opportunity to review your ordinance amendments which have been drafted to implement the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). A major objective of the TPR is to lay out new development and streets to provide direct and convenient routes for walking, cycling and access to transit. In reviewing proposed ordinances throughout our service area,. Tri-Met has focused comments on the "preferential access to transit" portions of the 1PR (Section 045(4)(b)). The April 4 Draft does not include provisions to address "preferential access to transit." We understand that the City of Tigard will address this issue following adoption of this group of amendments. If specific local ordinance standards regarding building orientation are not adopted by May 1994, the '?PR must be applied on a case-by-case basis to new retail, office and institutional buildings at or near existing or planned transit stops. As part of this process, Tri-Met will continue to comment on site design elements which provide for "preferential access to transit" for major projects along transit routes. Tri-Met staff would also appreciate the opportunity to meet with City of Tigard planners to help develop potential approaches to the "preferential access to transit" requirements and share amendments which have been proposed by other jurisdictions in the region as well as other key points raised as part of Metro's Discussion Group on the Transportation Planning Rule. We hope that these comments are helpful. Please do not hesitate to call Kim Knox at 239-6716 if you have questions or need additional information or assistance. Sin ly, \ d 2~ ohn R. Post Deputy General Manager NAM Tri--Met Specific Comments Tigard Transportation Planning Rule Amendments Our specific comments are organized to correspond to the format in your April 4, 1994 Draft. Suggested new language is underlined wile language to be deleted is strikeout/bracketed. Section A - Comprehensive Plan, Volume I (transportation chapter) 1. Arterial Streets Tri-Met transit service-is focused on the arterial and major collector system. These roadways also provide the main system for regional bicycle corridors. The TPR places a new emphasis on a multi- modal transportation system. Therefore, we recommend: The primary functions of an arterial route are to serve through vehicle, transit and bicycle trips entering the urban area.... (page A-2) 4. Local Streets Tri-Met supports the emphasis of this section on a well-connected local street system which will facilitate and provide for pedestrian and bike travel and also enhance access to transit. However, we question the wording of the sentence on cul-de-sacs and we propose the following language: "In order to provide for greater interconnectedness of residential neighborhoods, cut-de-sacs are discouraged." (page A-4) Note: Specific exceptions are provided later in the ordinance for cul-de-sacs where site circumstances dictate flexibility. Section C - Community Development Code, Chapter 15.105 Tri-Met supports the amendments proposed for shared parking in commercial areas. Additionally, the sections proposed for bicycle parking and carpool/vanpool parking appear to meet the requirements of the TPR. We are also supportive of the new provisions relating to parking reduction near transit facilities and allowing a conversion of existing parking for transit supportive facilities (page C-13, I4). Section D - Community Development Cede, Chapter 15.105 Tri-Met supports the provisions which state that walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments (page D-3). On smaller sites (less than 1 acre), if new buildings are located close to the street (e.g. within 20 feet), then the public sidewalk along the street provides the best opportunity for connections aid minimizes the need for off-street walkways. Tri-Met supports the design standards specified for walkways which cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots (page D-4). We also support the provisions requiring coordination of access and efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections between parking lots on adjacent properties (page D-8). This requirement will significantly reduce travel distances between pedestrian destinations. These provisions represent a major change in current site-by-site design and development practices. In order to make the code more clear and objective, however, we recommend the following (page D-8): B. In order to eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties [iiiiless fief - The Director shall require acess easements between properties [wher-e-neeessar-y] to provide for parking area connections. C. In order to. facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, f-a&4easilA4. between neighboring developments or land uses. Section F - Community Development Code, Chapter 18.164 Tri-Met supports the section requiring a Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. We also appreciate the requirement that the street plan identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or transit facilities within 500 feet of the site (page F-7). The provision requiring street connections to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops and other neighborhood activity centers, such as schools, shopping areas and parks is excellent (page F-8). Given the TPR and ordinance emphasis ort the importance of a well-connected local street system, we do not understand the provisions on cul-de-sac streets. Section K only states that cul-de-sacs shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. We would suggest the following language: K.1. Cul-de-sacs maybe provided o* when no opportunity exists for creating a through street connection. In no instances shall a cul-de-sac street exceed 400 feet in length or provide nca.cSs 6V 11V1G t116f1 LV LLVYGlllll gyUf1AW. _ Additionally, we recommend that the ordinance require connecting accessways from the ends of cul- de-sacs to higher order streets and to important neighborhood destinations such as schools, parks, transit streets and neighborhood commercial areas. The present language which states that such accessways "may" be required is too flexible (page F-9). K.2. If a cul-de-sac is ] permitted and located in proximity .to a possible pedestrian linkage or destination, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street or other destination [may-be] _Ls required to be provided and dedicated to the City. Provisions requiring a separation and buffering of residential areas and arterials and major collectors are presented on page F-11. Transit service is typically provided along arterial and major collector streets For this reason, we are concerned that these provisions may result in barriers for transit customers travelling between residential areas and transit streets. The issue of access to arterials and major collectors may be more appropriately addressed through transportation system planning or corridor design plans. Tri-Viet supports the requirement for sidewalks along both sides of arterial and collector streets (page F-17). However, we are concerned that sidewalks may be omitted entirely along cul-de-sac streets in the R-1, R-2 and R3.5 zoning districts. Connectivity of sidewalks is critical to provide convenient and direct access for pedestrians and transit users. New provisions in the ordinance emphasise walkway connections from the end of cul-de-sac streets to neighborhood activity centers. Such walkways should be linked with sidewalks along the cul-de-sac to enhance their utility. We recommend the following: ]E.2. On both sides of all other through streets and dead end streets serving commercial uses or more than ten dwelling units; on one side c7 lead end streets serving less than ten dwelling units; (sidewalks may be omitted along cul-de-sac streets in the R-1, R-2 and R-3.5 zoning districts if no access-way is required at the end of the cul-de-sac) . u 'Y _PUMC -A'PK 0A 41 April 26, 1994 My name is Steve Abeling. I am a citizen of Washington Cty.,, residing in (currently) unincorporated Metzger. My testimony today regards the Transportation Planning Rule requirements for safe and convenient pedestrian (and bicycle) access in all new development. I am here supporting bike and ped. friendly design in all new developments,'including connecting streets (grid design instead of cul- de-sacs), safe street crossings and sidewalk: continuity. Without these requirements, it seems certain that future development will continue the practices that discourage all non-automotive movement. While .implemen- tation of the TPR won't deal with deficiencies in construction already done, it is one way to further rationalize our people movement structure. Older sections that only accomodated cars would then stand Out as needing correction. If connecting streets threaten local traffic safety, control devices such as islands could be required from the start, rather than costing more to put in later. One item -that bicycle -friendly design should absolutely rndt include is any curbing or plastic dots between car and bicycle lanes. These devices lead to gravel and other debris accumulating in the bicycle lane, where,it doesn't get cleaned out. The separate lane is then not usable for bicycles. An example of -this is Walnut west of 121st. In recent years, we have seen how behaviors than once were thought to be ",just: the way things are" have been dramatically turned around. These include; drinking and driving, cigarette smoking, not wearing seat belts, and sending all our solid waste -to a landfill instead of recycling.. EIREEMM Supporting the Transportation Planning Rule is a step in the right direction of diminishing our dependence on the automobile. It will aid ANIL in meeting the mandate of reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita in the next twenty years. To conclude, it is vitally important -for you to support passago of the Transpor•Cation Planning Rule. . DORMAN & CamPRNY ~►~ytts 1 Ei'G 5 17 i lqApril 2S, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Tigard City Council - C/o Carol bandsman Region 1 Community Development Department 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 FILE CODE: Re: Proposed Transportation Planning Rule Amendments Dear City Council: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) appreciates the opportunity to review your ordinance amendments which have been drafted to address the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). A major objective of the TPR is to encourage a well-connected local street system which provides direct and convenient routes for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users and reduces reliance on the auto for all trips. In general, ODOT supports the amendments proposed in your April 4 Draft. Implementation of the amendments should result in development patterns in Tigard that are more pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly and which work over time to reduce reliance on the automobile. The April 4 Draft does not include provisions to address the "preferential access to transit" portions of the TPR. We understand that the City of Tigard will apply the rule directly to site plan review for new commercial, industrial and institutional development along transit streets in the interim until standards are adopted to address Section - 045(4)(b) of the TPR. ODOT will defer to Tri-Met's recommendations on "preferential access to transit" elements of the Rule. Our specific comments are organized to follow the format of your April 4 Draft, Section A - Comprehensive Plan Arterial Streets Arterial and collector roadways provide the main framework for regional bicycle corridors. Given the emphasis of the TPR on a multi-modal transportation system, we recommend that you amend the description of the function of arterial roadways to . include throu b bicycle trips in addition to through vehicle trips- 9002 SE McLoughlin N4ilwaukie. OR 97222 (503) 653-3090 AN (1503) 653-3267 i DORMAN & COMPANY ~b 6tii155<6 , pA Tigard City Council April 25, 1994 Page 2 Local Streets ®DOT supports the new language which -emphasizes the importance of a ;.weil-connected local street system. ®DC'T agrees vdith the position of DLCD that a good local transportation system requires strategic.* placed connections to streets of higher classification. Such connections, however,. should be located and desi(gneA to ensure that they do not undermine the primary purpose of the arterial to serve through trips. Sectlon C - Community Development Cade Bicycle Par:Vna and Carpool/Vanpool_Pam ®DOT supports the provisions relating to bicycle: parking and carpool/vanpool panting. We also support the provisions allowing a reduction, of parking requirements near transit facilities and allowing a conversion of :existing required parking to transit supportive facilities. Walkways ODOT supports the amendments proposed td require walkways for on-site. and off-site circulation. ODOT supports the position of the Metro working group that the public street system, with bikeways and sidewalks, provides the best option for convenient and direct circulation. Extension of Streets ODOT supports the amendments requiring a Future Street Plan and extension of streets in conjunction with a partition or subdivision. application, The provision requiring street connections to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops and other neighborhood activity centers (parks, schools,. neighborhood shopping) is excellent and should reduce dependence on the auto and arterials for neighborhood trips. Accesswavs We support the position oa D LCD that accessways should be re aired from the ends of cul-de-sacs and to higher order streets and to important neighborhood destinations- Tice present language which states that such accessways may be required is;too flexible, particularly when no standards are provided for an exception. f + DORMAN & COMPANY 5®32818523 P.02 Tigard City Council April 25, 1994 Page 3 ASMas Management Provisions requiring the separation, and buffering of residential areas and arterials 'and major.collectors are presented%on.page, F-11. ODOT uses the Access Management Policy of the 1991 Oregon I,~~ghwa~► Plan to make decAsAoas regarding street and driveway . spacing to state facilities, based on the. classification of she facility. TIRo purpose of the access management policy is to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system so that state and local jurisdictions do* not have to build more apd bigger. roads to accommodate travel demands. In other terms, the. access management policy Provides a tool to accomplish one of the objectives-of the Transportation PlalkwAg Mule. ODOT recommends that the City of Tigard consider deferriug the issue of. access to .arterials and major coilectors until the local transportation system plan. is developed and/or dudug the corridor planning process. Sidewalks and Bikeways ODOT supports the requirement for sidewalks along Wh sides of arterial . and collector streets. Sidewalks are also critical along local streets, including at least one side of cul- de-sac streets, to provide for a continuous and well-connected pedestrian system. We also note that your ordinance specifies a 5 foot width for bikeways. A major planning principle of the 1992 Oregon.Bicycle Plan states: "Direct acid continuous: bikeways must be provided along all arterial and major collector routes: to accommodate commuting and other bicyclists." The standard width, for shoulder bikeways and bike lanes is 6 feet. ODOT recommends that you adopt the 6 foot standard''In the Oregon Bicycle Plan rather thaw the 5 foot width in your Draft. We hope that these comments are helpful. Please do not hesitate to call me at 731-8230 if you have questions or need additional information. F Sincerely, too Poo /),Ic Robin McArthur-Phillips, AICP Planning/Land Use Manager ODOT Region 1 r 01 Ems, 11'. in 1 11,2111 11101 R 111 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda, of 2094 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM S NMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Urbanization Policy PREPARED BY : DEPT HEAD OK 1 /1 d CITY ADMIN OK, . ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City consider revising its urbanization/annexation policies and should staff be directed to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment for consideration by the planning commission and City Council? Also, should the City Council direct staff to begin the process to annex unincorporated islands within the City? STAFF RECOMMENDATION, Adopt the attach resolution that directs staff to begin the process to annex all unincorporated islands within Tigard. Also, Direct staff to prepare a comprehensive plan amendment to focus City annexation policy as desired. INFORMATION SUMMARY Recently, the City Council discussed the possibility of changing City policy regarding urbanization/annexation. Possible policies are: 1. Actively seek to annex islands 2. Eliminate irregular boundaries by creating islands wherever possible 3. Actively seek to manage new urban level development through annexation within Tigard's urban planning area. 4. Actively seek to annex areas with existing urban level development within Tigard's urban planning area by any means available. The underlying assumption is that what occurs throughout the entire urban planning area affects the City and its inhabitants. The City is in the business of providing many urban services including parks and open space. The City is therefore seeking to exert maximum control of growth within the urban planning area. FISCAL NOTES Executing these policies-would require that staff and resources be assigned to implementation tasks. Nam- M AGENDA ITEM # - RP For Agenda of April 26, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorize City Engineer to designate certain area where parking is rohibited. Ild .4 PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall authority be delegated to the City Engineer to designate short sections of public roadway where parking is prohibited. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently, Council action is required to designate areas where parking is prohibited on City streets. Parking restrictions are adopted by an ordinance amending the appropriate section of TMC 10.28. Lately, we have received a number of requests to prohibit parking along very short sections of street. Typically, the reason is to improve sight distance near a driveway or street intersection. The standard procedure of amending the Municipal Code presents a very cumbersome process for dealing with these very short areas. It is proposed that the Council delegate to the City Engineer the authority to establish parking restrictions for short sections of City streets. The attached ordinance would provide this authority. Any parking restrictions involving more than 100 feet of street length would still require City Council approval. Police chief and attorneys have reviewed and had no objections. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES rw/rep-park 5 Mimi COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4-26-94 DATE SUBMITTED: 4-15-94 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: New ordinance: PREVIOUS ACTION: None providing premises for the consumption of alcohol PREPARED BY: Ron Good„paster DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ron Goodnaster ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL To approve this new ordinance which would make it a violation to provide premises for the consumption of alcohol by minors. ` STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY Currently the Police Department has no legal recourse to cite people who provide premises for the consumption of alcohol by minors. This would be extremely useful in situations we respond to in which an alcohol party,is being held in a house. Several other departments have this ordinance and have found it to be very effective. It does not prohibit parents (guardians) from providing alcohol to their child in their house and in their presence. This agreement has been reviewed by our City Attorney. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Not approve. - FISCAL NOTES Minor fiscal impact depending on fines collected by municipal court.