Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/20/2010 r, vY , fir' z 7, 7 e '+Y,. ~� City of Tigard T gard Workshop Meeting - Agenda jj D TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: April 20, 2010 , — 6:30 p.m. -. Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 0 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. 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 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). 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 meeting by calling: 503- 639. 4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 30 • Every Sunday at 11 a.m. • Every Monday at 6 a.m. • Every Tuesday* at 2 pm (*Workshop meetings are not aired live. Tuesday broadcasts are a replay of the most recent workshop meeting.) • Every Thursday at 12 p.m. • Every Friday at 3 a.m. SEE A'FI'ACHED AGENDA TIGA'RD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — APRIL 20, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 1 of 2 a■ City of Tigard jj `3 : Tigard Workshop Meetin - A enda 6'; Tigard Workshop TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: April 20, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 • > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 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. REVIEW REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES • Staff Report: Community Development Department 3. DISCUSS TIGARD TOWN CENTER DESIGNATION • Staff Report: Community Development Department 4. DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA2010- 00001) TO EXTEND LAND USE APPROVALS • Staff Report: Community Development Department 5. UPDATE ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY /HALL /GREENBURG /MAIN CONSTRUCTION AND AMERICAN RECOVERY AND INVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) FUNDED PAVEMENT OVERLAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS • Staff Report: Public Works Department 6. ADJOURNMENT I: \ADM \CATI- IY \CCA \2010 \100420 p.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 20, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 20, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Review of Regional Transportation Planning Activities F -2 0 171 Prepared By: Judith Gray Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL There are numerous transportation planning activities going on around the region that affect the City of Tigard. Staff will provide updates on transportation activities (approximately quarterly) and seek Council feedback on how to best represent Tigard's interests on these issues. Council's last update on regional transportation planning activities was February 9, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information from staff updating regional transportation planning. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update has entered the final public comment period (March 22 through May 6). Final action by JPACT and the Metro Council is scheduled for June 10. Following adoption of the RIP, Metro will adopt the Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP) which outlines requirements for local Transportation System Plans (TSPs). Metro adoption is scheduled for December 2010. It will include measures that cities can use when amending Comp Plans in order to reduce trip generation estimates. This doesn't resolve all of the challenges we have regarding land use planning on state highways and the Transportation Planning Rule (I PR), but it's a step in the right direction. The TPR issues will be further addressed in the Southwest Corridor,Refinement Plan. Metro has included this in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for FY '10 -11 and is seeking a TGM grant from ODOT. One of the major outcomes of this work will be the development of alternative mobility standards for state highways. Other topics that may be updated include the Highway 217 Interchange Study and the West Bull Mountain Concept Planning transportation report. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Long -term goal: Continue pursuing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \4 -20 -10 AIS Reponal transportation plan.docx i z� iiik Air irk A _Imo .11 IN OR 21 7 INTERCHANGE MANAGEMENT STUDY Executive Summary for 3 `� OR217 I nterchange . . .� � Management_Stud ' _ ,.„.. .....,__ t A 1 r • T , Ameza Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation • Washington County �- City of Beaverton City of Tigard 1 f "" Metro • Prepared by DKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS April 2010 4 DKS Associates TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS F '. ff fP'`�N'�T • " • t.f. W., €om• - .• c «m!t <:: - .: . _.. _ _- .�,+w'." •+.vow "' - I. ec u iv e umm ' i ; Y ---- i + a.lwir TY k 1 : _ ' a. ,.,At^,, f m1 €i• P r-.. f, ... ; tin T. • .fir n - a 1 .z g a," 'e r; ; ;_� ' . . This effort is an innovative approach to transportation corridor BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES planning that utilizes least cost planning strategies to OR 217 connects I -5 and US -26, and is approximately seven investigate a range of potential improvements. The following miles in length. It is the primary access for two regional centers sections in this chapter provide an overview of the study and a town center (Washington Square Regional Center, objectives, process, key findings, and an implementation guide. Beaverton Regional Center, and Tigard Town Center) and carries up to 120,000 vehicles per day, yet the facility is one of The study was conducted in two phases as it sought to find low the least reliable freeways in the Portland Region. cost strategies that improve reliability, mobility, and safety on OR 217, primarily between US 26 and Greenburg Road (see Figure 1 for study area). 1 As documented by Portland State University using 2008 PORTAL data collected for all Portland area freeways (1 -5, 1 -84, US 26,1-405,1-205, and OR 217). During the p.m. peak the southbound direction is the second least m. reliable facility, and in the a.m. the southbound and northbound directions are the second and third least reliable, respectively. OR 2 t 7 INTERCHANGE MANAGEMENT STUDY j . sr 26 -42 '''''441'4'"%17 -*---'-'l Along OR 217 there are numerous safety and mobility ■ , T17' problems, including recurring bottlenecks, high crash rates, and unreliable travel times. Factors that lead to these problems �' / e include morning and evening g peak period demand that exceeds S .y' capacity, lack of shoulders, and short weaving areas that create ge speeds due to interchange spacing. erratic changes to traffic s P 8 ' "" �_ , Several interchanges are less than 'h -mile apart, which does not -10 j 1 ,° allow adequate space for the weaving that occurs between „M sr entering and exiting vehicles. There are approximately 200 - ` 1 crashes a year along OR 217, which equates to a crash occurring four out of every five weekdays. ,-- � N _�� \` • 5 \ A previous study addressed these mobility and safety problems with costly capital projects such as widening to six lanes, �k� braiding ramps, and adding collector - distributor roadways? �,L _ Braltzam These high -cost improvements total nearly $1 billion for the corridor, and are generally over $100 million at key ; 21w �, interchanges. Given existing and forecasted funding levels, 4 these projects are not likely to be funded in the foreseeable ,°"`"" `T I' future. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate 1 X the types of lower cost, fundable projects that could feasibly be 4 1, i constructed for OR 217 today to increase reliability, mobility, and safety. :4 This approach is consistent with ODOT's goal to improve W ' 2 +7 transportation operations by first addressing management ` ' my techniques prior to building additional capacity to a highway. \� / sa, \ P a� q a / \ STUDY AREA I i L DKS Associates 43 t I � 2 Highway 217 Corridor Study, Metro, 2005. Figure 1: Study Area Page 2 of 23 OR 217 � , ;: Management Interchange M ment Study Executive S umma ry— April 2010 PROCESS • System Management Projects • Ramp Management Projects with Associated Street This evaluation of OR 217 takes a new approach to find Improvements projects that benefit the highway and can be implemented now. • Surface Street Improvement Projects The OR 217 Interchange Management Study was divided into • Highway Interchange Modernization Projects two phases: Phase I being the concept exploration component, For each of the projects developed at the workshop, an initial and Phase II being the refined feasibility study. analysis was completed which involved a planning -level cost Phase I estimate and an investigation of the potential benefits each Phase I began with a full day workshop attended by project could create. The analysis was then reviewed with the representatives from public agencies (ODOT, Washington Technical Advisory y County, City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, and Metro), as well Committee (TAC), . _. - .; as several technical experts in freeway design, freeway with the results lans presented to elected de_ operations, and water resources. A background information r packet was developed prior to the workshop, incorporating data officials representing ""+�+ `'o' P P p p g the area served by°` ' and analysis describing the study area from readily available _-:: sources and past studies. The packet (which can be viewed in with the Working Imo wth the elected Appendix A) included information such as: — s: officials helped - "�""' determine whether - - /---',,,- .i:k • General roadway characteristics ; ,. • Traffic volumes any of the strategies offered enough • Traffic operations - potential benefit to • Speed -flow charts justify moving • Crash data Photograph of p.m. peak traffic conditions near forward for • Interchange characteristics additional Greenburg Road on OR 217. refinement, while still meeting the low cost objectives. Using the background information, the workshop served as a brainstorming session to create a list of possible projects that Based on the initial analysis, elected officials determined that may address reliability and safety issues along OR 217. select strategies from the systems management projects and the Approximately forty projects were developed as a result of the ramp management projects with associated street workshop, which were assigned into one of four categories: improvements best fulfilled the study criteria (low cost with OR 217 Interchange Management Study - Page 3 of 23 reliability and safety benefits). A select group of projects were Select ramp management projects did show potential to termed `Best in Class" and forwarded for further technical improve safety, reliability, and mobility within low cost analysis. definitions. The general findings for each project type are summarized ,Surface Street Improvement Projects below. The surface street improvement projects focus System Management Projects on increased capacity on surface streets to Systems management projects work to - improve conditions on OR 217. While each of these projects reduced delay on the surface optimize existing infrastructure. Projects . _� "` '` streets, the benefit to OR 217 was typically such as targeted shoulder widening, _ localized and minimal. The cost estimates for traveler information, and variable speed —� ( _ these projects ranged from about $20 million to systems, were explored. These options ✓- were typically some of the lowest cost`s over $100 million. projects, with potential to improve safety Many of these projects can achieve significant and reliability on OR 217. benefits to surface streets, and meet the objectives of mobility and safety as part of local Transportation System Plans (TSPs). However, Ramp Management Projects with since the objective of this study is to address Associated Street Improvements Photograph of the northbound on- problems on OR 217, and not surface streets, These projects target improving ramp at Allen Boulevard. these projects failed to meet the study goal of operations on OR 217 by reducing providing significant benefits on OR 217 at an conflict areas through the closure of ramps or interchanges affordable cost. with complementary off - highway street improvements. A variety of ramp closure combinations were investigated for Highway Interchange Modernization Projects these projects. As more ramps are closed, benefits to OR The highway interchange modernization projects did not 217 increase, but so do the negative impacts of increased meet the low cost criteria of this study. diverted traffic onto nearby surface streets and reduced access. The key to these projects was to identify options that Phase 11 balanced the benefit to OR 217 with the impact to adjacent Phase II focused on a refined assessment of the Best in Class surface streets, strategies. Those strategies consisted of three projects from the systems management category and four from the ramp Pa e:4of23 OR 217 Interchange Management Study Executive Summary — April 2010 management projects with associated street improvements Next Steps category (as shown in Table 1). To successfully implement any of these projects, local buy -in is critical. Therefore, the elected officials' support will help Table 1: OR 217 Interchange Management Study determine whether to forward any of these projects to the next "Best in Class" Projects steps. For most of the systems management projects the next Systems Management Projects Ramp Management Projects with steps consist of detailing the operation concepts and beginning Associated Street Improvements design. For the ramp management projects with associated street improvements, a public discussion and further analysis • Targeted Shoulder • Wilshire full interchange closure will be required before moving to the design phase. Widening • Denney full interchange closure • Traveler Information • Wilshire + Walker full KEY FINDINGS • Variable Speed System interchange closures • Wilshire +Walker +Denney full All of the projects that progressed to Phase II in this study interchange closures (meeting the project criteria of lower cost while improving reliability and safety) are consistent with ODOT's goal of first implementing operational projects to maximize the efficiency of a facility, before building additional capacity. These The refined analysis included a higher degree of cost estimate strategies offer high benefits on comparatively low cost certainty, as well as surface street traffic analysis for each of projects that optimize the performance of existing the ramp closure options. The goal of the traffic analysis was to infrastructure. These strategies each offer reliability and safety ensure appropriate surface street improvements were benefits to OR 217, and in general, individual projects could be considered with each ramp closure strategy. In some cases implemented for less than $10 million. The degree of benefit these associated street improvements are placeholders for more varies based on the strategy. refined projects to be developed later. The refinements to street improvements will emerge if a ramp management project The building blocks for preliminary project benefit assessment advances. For the systems management strategies, additional were obtained from ODOT. Table 2 shows the assumed costs system needs and requirements were further explored to serve for incidents and delay time commonly used that were applied as a preliminary concept of operations. to the estimates of delay and crash reductions associated with each project. The delay costs were increased slightly from the A public involvement component was also outlined as part of original ODOT "Value of Travel - Time" document to reflect Phase II. The public involvement effort will focus on informing gas price and general inflation increases. Savings achievable and educating the public about the nature of traffic problems on from reducing crashes and delay are a direct benefit the public. OR 217, current funding context, and near term project These savings do not go to ODOT. opportunities. OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 5 of 23 Exec , Table 2: Cost of Crashes and Delay shoulder is less than a lane wide (sometimes as narrow as three Crash Type or Vehicle Delay Cost of Single Crash Cost of Delay per to four feet wide). When an incident occurs in one of these Hour sections, the through capacity on the freeway is significantly Property Damage Only $15,000 — reduced. In a two lane section, a one lane blockage actually Minor Injury $47,900 — results in a 65 percent reduction to capacity, p ty, not 50 percent. Severe Injury or Fatality $840000 — This may seem counterintuitive, but the additional lost capacity is due to vehicles slowing down in the adjacent lane as they Passenger vehicle delay — $20 approach and pass the incident (gawking effect). Figure 2 Commercial vehicle delay — $31 shows that having an adequate shoulder can restore lost Source: The Value of Travel -Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time capacity during an incident by 35 to 45 percent. for Vehicles in Oregon 2007. ODOT Long Range Planning Unit, June 2008. Targeted Shoulder Widening F , Narrow shoulders hinder the performance of a freeway. The Y 111 � � 1 slow emergency responders from getting to incident scenes, provide no space for stopped vehicles to avoid blocking traffic, I % Restores Lost and allow no space for errant vehicles to avoid secondary rear a apaoity by Approximately: end collisions. With a Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue station Capaci 65% Cap�ei ° in the Washington Square Regional Center, less than 'A mile a, '� d ` a O11, i 19 /° 45%. from OR 217, the value of the close proximity of the station to OR 217 is lost when responders access the freeway and are forced into incident caused congestion with no alternate path 1 U ' , ' 11 (such as a shoulder). Every minute lost responding to an ' I II I I incident is costly, jeopardizing the health of those people involved in the accident as well as exacerbating congestion. A I I I ( Restores Lost Portland State University study determined that if all Portland Capacity by Approximately: area delay causing incidents increased by one minute, the extra capaelt ° y..4'..? '. cost to the public would be approximately $1.4 million due to eeaaanon 5 /° 411:1117% additional delay. In several locations along OR 217 the outside Figure 2: Illustration of lost capacity due to an incident P tY ent a Bertini, Robert L Michael Rose. Ahmed M EI- Geneidy. Using Archived Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Northwest, US DOT, Data to Measure Operational Benefits of ITS Investments: Region 1 and FHWA. June 2004. Incident Response Program. Portland State University. Sponsored by ° Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Page OR .F °:z 217 Interchan ge Management Study Executive Summary — April 2010 An innovative aspect of the targeted shoulder widening lane, emergency vehicles and passenger vehicles could safely strategy involves using a porous surface for the added shoulder travel on it during incidents. An annual maintenance area (see Figure 3). Porous asphalt has been used for vacuuming would be required to prevent the porous layers neighborhood streets and porous aggregate has been used on from becoming blocked with small sediment. coastal highway shoulders. However, porous surfaces have not yet been applied to an urban freeway shoulder in Oregon. A Financial benefits are associated with both reduced delay costs permeable surface reduces the water quality impacts by not and reduced crash costs. Six locations are being proposed for adding additional water run -off to the system. While the targeted shoulder widening (see Figure 16). In each travel shoulder would not be designed to operate as a regular travel direction, there is approximate one incident every other week within the six areas being considered ` for the targeted shoulder widening. r Peak period OR 217 travel times are i . already unreliable and incidents only �_ =. exacerbate this condition. Providing i, t , w" "` `�-� - . shoulders in these areas will improve ! reliability of the freeway. Based on a conservative estimate of restoring 30 .. .: is . „4 . percent of lost capacity and reducing „No five percent of crashes in the targeted ' VI --- .-_ . - - shoulder widening areas during an a `f ,. • `, incident, each segment of shoulder ,� Y- ' . " .. ' ?: _ widening (on average) could save r , , : PORO SUR - motorists up to $1 million in reduced Pt :47,....-..- ^ delay and accident damages over a i POROUS ��' �� b_ - five -year period. Providing shoulder r N:�TER ABSORPTION u,• widening at all six locations could achieve savings to the public of k _ _ .. nearly $6 million over the course of )000..- five years. Figure 3: Targeted shoulder widening with a porous surface OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 7 of 23 Executive Summary — April 2010 Additional benefit may be achieved once there is a continuous Traveler Information shoulder in place along OR 217. If the shoulder is continuous The traveler information strategy would provide travel time along OR 217, emergency vehicles would have a further reach information for OR 217 at key decision points (on arterials and of alternative access, improving incident response times and the freeway), allowing drivers make the choice to either use travel time reliability. OR 217 or an alternate route. Informing drivers of congested conditions before they decide to enter the freeway can improve the reliability of travel on OR 217, and can decrease primary and secondary incidents by reducing congestion. Figure 4 shows examples of travel time information signs. The greatest benefits of traveler information signs would be accrued during peak congestion periods. Previous studies show freeway daily traffic can decrease by 20 percent, and freeway delay time could improve by 50 percent during heavily congested periods.° Other studies show that up to 85 percent of • • travelers will change routes when en route delay information is --- -44141m. 4 " ! available.' Benefits as sizeable as these are unlikely for OR 217 given the limitations of the surrounding network. _ i s• a ; . However, even if delay is reduced by 20 percent during the p.m. peak period due to some drivers choosing alternate routes, modes, or trip times, five year savings of $8.1 million in cost of Photograph of an area on OR 217 with little or no delay could be achieved. shoulder (left side of the photo with the arrow). 5 Active Traffic Management: The Next Step in Congestion Management. FHWA in cooperation with AASHTO and NCHRP. July 2007. 6 Automated Work Zone Information System (AWIS) on Urban Freeway Rehabilitation: California Implementation. Lee, Eul -Bum, and Changmo Kim. TRB Publication. January 2006. ' Travel Time Messaging on Dynamic Message Signs — Houston, TX. Texas DOT and US DOT. May 2005. Pa8e8 of 23, OR 217 Interchange Management Study Executive Summary — April 2010 Variable Speed System A variable speed system proactively manages vehicle speeds "' �; to LSO ro; : y, based on real time traffic information. The primary benefit of a \. ! f I • ` l f variable speed system is to reduce rear end collisions, which t -►:: l ~' account for 70 percent of all collisions on OR 217 (which is _ :,.? Mx t t about two to three rear end collisions per week). In regions a where variable speed systems have been implemented, rear end s :. .,.;, collisions have decreased by 30 percent, overall crash rates decreased by 20 percent, and secondary crashes went down by 40 percent. Reducing rear -end collisions improves reliability, Bellevue TRAVEL TIME " safety, and mobility. For OR 217 that means two less crashes and associated travel delays per week. Variable speed limits can also directly improve performance " '" " "" and reliability. The use of variable speed control can achieve VIA 5 TO 90 MIN improved throughput on a freeway during recurring congestion by lowering the speed limit. The optimal freeway capacity VIA 405 ; MIN during congested operations is not achieved at 65, 60, or even 55 miles per hour. It is achieved at 40 to 45 miles per hour (as J noted in Figure 5). While this may seem counter intuitive, the Figure 4: Examples of signs showing travel time optimal volume of traffic served by a congested freeway is information. The top sign is an example of how typically achieved at speeds lower than free flow. The key to information could be displayed on arterials, such as improving throughput is to avoid unstable conditions that can Canyon Road (pictured). occur at higher speeds as flow rates approach 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. Breakdown conditions can be reduced by slowing traffic prior to the point of congestion to harmonize 8 ODOT crash data for 2004 -2008. Analyzed by DKS Associates. 9 Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe. Tignor, Samuel, et al. Office of International Programs, US DOT. August 1999. Website: http : / /www.benefitcost.4.dat.Rov /Its /benecost.nsf OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 9 of 23 Executive Summary . - _ - ry — April 2Q10 • . , . - . .. ., speeds in the congested environment. Recent studies on this swerves. The safety curve shows that flow decreases with topic have concluded that higher levels of throughput can be speed if vehicles maintain safe spacing (to avoid rear end obtained using variable speed control. collisions). The performance curve shows that flow increases with speed up to about 40 to 50 miles per hour and then falls Speed /Volume Relationship off with higher speeds in congested environments. At that 80 OR 217 at Denney Road w _ point, breakdown can occur and flow can become erratic (stop- ~ I and -go driving conditions). The crossing point of the two 70 — - -- - curves is around 40 mph, which maximizes flow rates without 60 r- ,_:_ . _ _' compromising safety. These speeds and flow rates can be obtained using variable speed limits. 50 ........„,,,itoftis\ 2 Q A variable speed system is an innovative technique that is E 40 - relatively new to the United States, but widely used in a 30 European countries with success. Recently, a variable speed co system was implemented on three freeways in the Seattle area 20 (I -5, I -90, and SR -520). Figure 7 shows two concepts for 10 implementation (post mounted and gantry mounted variable speed signs). A post mounted system would cost roughly $10 0 V , 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Performance /Safety Relationship Vehicles Per Hour per lane 2500 r Figure 5: Flow Rate on OR 217 by Denney Road (3 2000 ....... ft w -. 1500 '_ v _ Figure 6 shows the relationship between optimal flow rates (the - •.�..,, "performance" curve) and safe flow rates (the "safety" curve). *, 1000 r- CO The performance curve assumes that vehicles are traveling at ,_ 500 L Optimal flow rate - -- Performance the given speed limit. However, the distance between vehicles o and speed • Safety necessary to maintain a given flow rate may be too short to stop in time if the vehicle in front suddenly stops, slows, or 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Speed (mph) 10 Assessment of Variable Speed Limit Implementation Issues, Figure 6: Balancing safety and optimal flow rates Northwestern University Transportation Center. 2005. P. e.: _0 of 2,3 OR 21 M 7 Interchange Management Study > ;` Executive Summary — April 2010 to $15 million and offers greater flexibility in phasing options; Ramp Management Projects with Associated Street depending on available funding, one direction of the variable improvements speed system could be implemented before the other direction, These strategies offer significant potential to improve freeway further lowering the initial cost. operational performance in the near term. One of the main Conservative estimates of a 20 percent reduction in rear -end problems on OR 217 is the short spacing between interchanges. crashes and a 5 percent Interchanges are spaced approximately six - tenths of a mile reduction in delay on OR 217 apart, which creates even shorter weaving segments that range was used to estimate benefits from about a 'r ii ' (about one less crash on OR tenth of a mile to x - - �FE�, one -half of a i n'irr 217 every two weeks). Over a mile in length. 60 five -year period, savings of The close crashes and delay to the public spacing is due to "- . , .. , :. k .. I . would be approximately $6.6 the historical '_r 4 ' `" -''' mi llion." development of -.. - 4: ` - - , M - , 3,,,, OR 217 and its -,. access during ,=:•ti times when �=-r � ' rr �� .' .. •.. -.: - tizi.,_ ..,t... • a'/ traffic volumes were a fraction a a 73 ,1 543 ONE of what they are Photograph of southbound p.m. peak igi today. Standard congestion near Canyon Road. ° ^= > urban freeway construction, if it were built today, would place interchanges r - - f . - ,tc, -•-• — ;._� three miles apart with apart (no ramps) between every ` interchange. This short spacing creates bottlenecks and high crash locations Figure 7: Post mounted system (above) and gantry as drivers change lanes from entrance ramps to the mainline, mounted system (below) weaving with drivers moving from the mainline to exit lanes 11 Cost savings were estimated based on ODOT costs shown in Table 2 as 12 Oregon Highway Plan Including Amendments November 1999 through well as delay costs due to incidents. January 2006. Oregon Department of Transportation. Appendix C. OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 11 of 23 Executive Summary - April 2010 " - . . ; - - (Figure 8 illustrates a weaving area). In these locations vehicles increased when interchange spacing decreased. The level of come virtually to a halt. Each of the ramp management increase depended on the traffic volume and before and after strategies considered eliminates at least one weaving location. interchange spacing. Mainline • _ _____.<__ __ \\ . -- . 4#-, 4-7:":11 :fr:1,-, H" -*-tt '4".. . Entrance Weave Exit \ 7. .- Figure 8: Schematic of a weaving area y j ' � ? , .,- �` �`-� �. Closing ramps offers both performance and safety benefits, - A -,, -i — which improve flow rates for the highway. Comparing OR 217 I .--,, ' to the southern portion of I -205 (from I -5 to West Linn), which �� has more space between interchanges, I -205 can acco `. mmodate o,, 10 to 15 percent more traffic than OR 217. Figure 9 shows a = map that compares the interchange spacing on these two -- r l \ ffi facilities. Figure 10 shows the flow rate comparison between OR 217 in an area with 0.15 miles between interchanges, and I - 205 in an area with 2 miles between interchanges. Photograph of a short weaving segment on OR 217 ODOT's number one concern for freeway traffic is safety. Adequate spacing between interchanges has proven to increase safety benefits. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted studies regarding the relationship between interchange spacing and safety. FHWA investigated several locations where new interchanges were inserted between existing interchanges, thereby decreasing the spacing by about half the original distance. In all cases, fatal and injury crashes 13 FHWA -HRT- 07-031 Safety Assessment of Interchange Spacing on Urban Freeways. Joe Bared and Wei Zhang. Page 12 of 23 OR 217 Interchange Management Study Executive Summary - April 2010 .- Figure 11 shows the potential impacts of short 1 •._ • v , �.. �, . ` , v " r ar• ,t • interchange spacing. Based on an FHWA study, '..- " a new interchange was inserted on a a ` " after '• • facility (and interchange spacing reduced by - • half the original distance), fatal and injury crashes increased by about 1.5 times the - original amount. Working in reverse, this ', means that removing an interchange can decrease fatal and injury crashes by about 30 ii=' ; - percent. When safety data for OR 217 is compared to I -205, a crash rate reduction of 25 , percent could be achieved by providing better ;,;, interchange spacing on OR 217 (this ' • comparison was based on closing three '` interchanges north of Hall Boulevard). ` 5, *-• "- .1 " I 4 '"k f Removing interchanges is an innovative n � -s __ . .. 4 approach to improving the highway's safety -_ ., } . and performance. If interchanges are removed, - - Vo' ;� 3 Interchanges . _ it will be extremely important for drivers to ,� ., . t- t - sense that the highway's safety and • . 7.5 Miles X • performance improved. In addition to - - improvements to the highway, complementary .-.L • street improvements accompany each of the ramp closure options as appropriate to create a • .. " �i , ,' • " - ii...,,.. , ;d q balanced transportation system.�7y. • To arrive at a reasonable set of alternatives, all , 74. 't',', E, . i r . I interchanges were investigated on OR 217 in combinations of all -day closures for single Note:1 -205 was recently expanded to three lanes in each direction between 1 -5 and Stafford Road. ramps, multiple ramps, single interchanges, and However, the comparison data used in this study was based on data collected while 1 -205 was two lanes multiple interchange closures. Detailed in each direction. fmdings for all ramp management scenarios are Figure 9: Map comparing interchange spacing on OR 217 to 1 -205 OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 13 of 23 Executive Summary — April 2010 • included in Appendices B and C. 70 I '' OR 217 Four ramp management projects with associated street m 60 - �'� improvements appear to have an appropriate balance of Z � improving OR 217, while not creating too much of an impact fl"). 50- on the surface streets. These scenarios each offer varying degrees of benefits, depending on how many interchanges m 40- are closed. In general, each interchange closure option 0' 10 -15% 30 eliminates weaving sections, which improves safety. Traffic 7 Improved volumes are also reduced on segments of OR 217 (by up Traffic Flow p to d � 20- with Better 13 percent) reducing corridor delay (as well as traffic co ,I' ffi Interchange reductions on key cross streets). 10- If Spacing In cases where one full interchange is closed, five -year benefits to the public measured by reduced delay and 500 1000 1500 2000 2250 accident damages avoided range from $1.9 to $4.9 million. Flow (Vehicles Per Hour Per Lane) In cases where two or three interchanges are closed, five- Figure 10: Comparison of flow rates between two similar Portland year benefits range from $4.7 to $7.6 million. freeways, with different interchange spacing Associated street improvements for each scenario are listed in Table 4. These concept level cost estimates were J, identified initially based upon agency standards. More 11" detailed and refined costs will be developed during a future project development phase. Short Better Spacing Spacing The local street improvements that have been identified in " °" -- :; 7 ►m roved the ramp management projects are listed in local TSPs as - ~ 25% Crash Rate unfunded needs. Most of these improvements have also been identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 4, 11 'roved as needs for the local transportation system. , P Fatal Injury 30% Crashes s (FHWA) Figure 11: Safety improvements from better (shorter) interchange spacing Page14 of 23 OR 217 Interchange Management Study Executive Summary - April 2010 In addition, the ramp management scenarios have the potential Associated street improvements would mitigate impacts to to eliminate the need for expensive capital projects identified in surface streets (see Table 4). Expected five -year benefits to previous studies. For example, if the Denney and or Walker the public of $4.9 million could be achieved due to crash interchanges are closed, future braided ramps identified in the and delay reduction (that includes a reduction of 50 to 60 previous corridor plan would no longer be necessary. crashes per five year period, and a reduction of 115,000 to 125,000 hours of delay during the peak hours over a five The following paragraphs summarize the four scenarios r .A-:-( - year period). determined to best meet the criteria of this study. L -) !,; I� :, Ll) [ j i.' - Closing Wilshire Full lnterAmpge Close Denney Full lnterchang • Closing this interchange (shown in Figure 13) eliminates Closing the Denney two weaving locations and lessens the complexity of a ALLEN BLVD interchange (shown in Figure major bottleneck and 12) eliminates four weaving high crash location X 21 N locations through key system on OR 217 ,994, /��� bottlenecks and moderate to southbound between �, k. 4I "16 DENNEY RD Min high crash locations between US 26 and Walker 4v Atik 7 Allen Boulevard and Hall Road. Traffic It Boulevard. One of the worst volumes decrease by 217 weaving sections is eliminated about one to four / with this alternative: percent on OR 217 in 1q F- ii ti. southbound OR 217 between the southbound ° i ip `4 4 e`L� t■ Allen Boulevard and Denney direction through a Road (only 200 feet long). major bottleneck LEGEND Ramp Closed It i , Traffic vo reductions on area. Ramp Closed t NO SCALE OR 217 would range from No SCALE Figure 12: Denney about two to seven percent. There is a small shift Interchange Closure in traffic to surface Figure 13: Wilshire Interchange Closure During the p.m. peak hour, streets with this some traffic would shift to individual surface streets, mostly scenario. During the peak hour, streets such as Vista Drive south of Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, with an even and Scenic Drive (in neighborhoods east of OR 217) may distribution on the east and west side of OR 217 (Scholls see an additional one to two vehicles per minute. There are Ferry Road, Allen Boulevard, and Hall Boulevard). reductions of traffic on other neighborhood streets near the ramps. OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 15 of 23 _ . 1 L 7 ` Lt f-' :ti._. L' Further evaluation of the potential neighborhood impacts eliminates four -14 ** resulting from traffic diversion east of OR 217 would be weaving • conducted if this alternative advances to ro ect p locations. In _ ` � , ► development. This evaluation would identify needed the southbound A., • refinements to direction, three E the of the weaving T1 r transportation locations are at it` network in key bottleneck those areas. locations and 0 s.a Expected five high crash 1 -- 'ow.- year benefits to areas. Traffic . the public of volumes / i ` ----- ----- $1.9 million decrease by ;, LEGEND Ramp closed d t' could be about three to 43 SCALE achieved due to 11 percent on crash reduction OR 217, with Figure 14: Wilshire and Walker Full and delay up to a seven Interchange Closures Photograph of a neighborhood street near the reduction (that percent reduction of delay on OR 217. includes a Wilshire interchange. reduction of 20 During the p.m. peak hour, some traffic would shift to to 30 crashes individual surfaces streets, mostly east of OR 217 along per five year period, and a reduction of 40,000 to 50,000 110 Avenue, Walker Road, and Western Avenue. A series hours of delay during the peak hours over a five year of street improvements were identified to consider along period). with the closures to address this traffic shift (see Table 4). A frontage road concept was one example of the Clasing_Wilshire + Walker Full Interchanges improvements identified to reduce these impacts. Further For this alternative the decision was made to close not just evaluation of the potential neighborhood impacts resulting the Walker interchange by itself, but the Walker and from traffic diversion would be conducted if this concept Wilshire interchanges together. That was done to reduce advances to project development, to identify needed neighborhood cut through impacts associated with diverted refinements to the transportation network in those areas. Walker interchange trips using the neighborhood routes approaching the Wilshire interchange. Closing both the Associated surface street projects would mitigate impacts to Wilshire and Walker full interchanges (shown in Figure 14) surface streets. Expected five year benefits to the public of $4.7 million could be achieved due to crash and delay Page 16 of 23 OR 217 Interchange Management Study } t Executive Summary - April 2010 reduction (that includes a reduction of 40 -50 crashes per Associated street p �' `, five year period, and a reduction of 120,000 to 130,000 improvement projects A, h hours of delay during the peak hours over a five year would help mitigate / _ period). impacts to surface streets. ' . , Expected five year benefits . 1 Closing Wilshire + Walker + Denney Full to the public of $7.6 Interchanges million could be achieved Combining all three interchange closure concepts was also due to crash and delay it 3 considered. Closing three interchanges, shown in Figure 15 reduction (that includes a I N o '' 11 Wilshire, Walker, and Denney), eliminates eight weaving reduction of 100 to 110 RM •, ;, I1 -, , 8HHWY locations through key bottleneck and high crash areas. crashes per five year l I Traffic volumes decrease by about four to 13 percent on OR period, and a reduction of 21 . , 217 and delay improves by up to six percent. This scenario 140,000 to 150,000 hours has the heaviest shift in traffic to local surrounding streets of delay during the peak 8, BLVD \, out of the four ramp management scenarios that were hours over a five year \ advanced for detailed study. A list of street improvements period). was identified as possible enhancements to address this DENNEY A shift. The resulting interchange spacing is vastly improved compared to existing conditions. This concept provides ' about one mile between interchange ramps from US 26 to Canyon Road and Allen Boulevard to Hall /7,444. e • Boulevard/Scholls Ferry Road. A It During the p.m. peak, traffic would shift to individual surface streets. A series of street improvements were identified to consider along with the closures to address this �A\ traffic shift (see Table 4). If the concept advances to project �' development, further evaluation of the potential neighborhood impacts resulting from traffic diversion would LEGEND be conducted to identify needed refinements to the Ramp Closed a transportation network in those areas (including the concept of a frontage road northbound between Canyon Road and Figure 15: Wilshire, Walker Walker Road). and Denney Interchange Closures OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 17 of 23 Summary of Options Table 3 lists the menu of systems management options. The This study creates a menu of projects that benefit OR 217. All locations of these projects are shown in Figure 16. For a projects are compatible with each other. Depending on the complete discussion of each project (purpose, concept design, available funding and public's readiness for innovative proposed locations, cost estimates, and benefits), see Chapter 4. components, projects can advance in a one to three year timeframe. These projects can meet the objectives of safety, The targeted shoulder widening projects focus on locations performance, and reliability at a fundable cost. If selected for with high crash rates, locations that provide direct access for further study, public involvement, and design would be emergency vehicles, and locations that avoid structural and undertaken. wetland issues. Projects #5 and #6 have a higher degree of risk due to wetland and floodplain issues. Each location could be Table 3• System management project options implemented individually, or several of them could be grouped Project • together. ! Systems Management Cost Estimate* No. (millions) The traveler information projects are based on origin - TARGETED SHOULDER WIDENING destination data, focusing on trip combinations and sites 1 Southbound from Scholls Ferry Rd to Greenburg Rd $2.1 with the greatest number of trips. ODOT has several 2 Northbound from Scholls Ferry Rd to Denney Rd $5.0 traveler information sign projects in design for the I -5 3 Northbound from Greenburg Rd to Scholls Ferry Rd $2.5 and 99W area. The proposed projects would create a complete system for the OR217 corridor. Similar to the 4 Southbound from Denney Rd to Hall Blvd $2.4 6 targeted shoulder widening, these sign locations could 5 Southbound from Allen Blvd to Denney Rd $ 6 Southbound from Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy to Allen $8.2 be implemented individually, or grouped together All six locations depending on available funding. $22.8 TRAVELER INFORMATION 1 US 26 westbound —1 sign $1.0 2 1 -5 southbound —1 sign $1.0 3 Washington Square Regional Center — 5 signs $2.5 4 Beaver Regional Center — 3 signs $1.5 All 10 signs $6.0 VARIABLE SPEED SYSTEM n/a Post Mounted — Both sides of the roadway $10 to $15 Source: DKS Associates and HHPR *Cost estimate in 2010 dollars Page 18 Qf. .T OR 217 Interchange Management Study F_, n� . I L Executive Summary — Apr112010 217 Table 4 lists the ramp management projects with associated ,,, �; , - : PO , ..!,v.i M:u: v,;.„ street improvements. These projects are all compatible with the systems management projects shown in Figure 16. It should be noted that the cost of a ramp closure is a small j part of the overall cost of each ramp management strategy. 'i The rest of the cost is allocated to potential street a , , improvements. In nearly every case, the street improvements z. identified are already included as local needs in TSPs and ° the RIP that do not have funding allocated yet. c', l Photograph of the j existing ramp metering' system at all on -ramps ti for OR 217. ii yid HERE O I RED 1, • •' ; LEGEND .r' . F - - Existing or In Design Variable 1 r Message Signs 1 -Proposed Traveler Information Signs' (Approximate Location) ,,, i .- Q - Traveler Information Project « " s : - .g► - Proposed VSL Signs - Post Mounted Photograph of ` i (Approximate Location) 0? -- - Proposed Shoulder Widening the Denney _ ^. Segments ©° is �_ 0 - Shoulder Widening Road Project # overpass. . ' . ALL PROPOSED DNS 4socfates . SYSTEM MANAGEMENT '!r �;. PROJECTS Figure 16: Map of proposed systems management projects OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 19 of 23 Executive Summary — April 2010 0, } - L Table 4: Ramp Management Projects with Associated Street Improvements Project Location of Associated Improvement Part of a Cost Estimate* TSP or RTP? (millions) Close Denney Hall /OR 217 off -ramp — Add southbound right turn lane Yes $2.8 (full interchange) Scholls /Denney — optimize signal timing Yes $0.1 Scholls /Nimbus — add 2nd southbound left turn lane Yes $2.3 Add southbound auxiliary lane from Allen to Hall No $5.7 Denney Interchange closure No $0.4 Close Wilshire (full interchange) I Wilshire Interchange closure No I $0.4 Close Wilshire + Walker Hall /OR 217 off -ramp — Add southbound right turn lane Yes $2,g (full interchanges) Hall /Allen — Add 2nd northbound left turn lane Yes $4,g Northbound Frontage Road: Canyon to Walker No $5.9 Canyon at OR 217 — add a second dedicated northbound left turn lane No $1.5 Wilshire and Walker Interchange closures No $0.8 Close Wilshire + Walker + Denney Hall /OR 217 off -ramp — Add southbound right turn lane Yes $2,g (full interchanges) Scholls /Denney — optimize signal timing Yes $0.1 Scholls /Nimbus — add 2nd southbound left turn lane Yes $2.3 Add southbound auxiliary lane from Allen to Hall No $5.7 Hall /Allen —Add 2 northbound left turn lane Yes $4.9 BH /OR 217 NB ramp — add 2nd northbound left Yes $2.5 Farmington /Hall — optimize signal timing (Adaptive signal timing in- process) Yes $0.1 Scholls /OR 217 NB on -ramp —Add a 2nd northbound left turn lane (two Yes exclusive northbound left turn lanes) ** $3.9 Northbound Frontage Road: Canyon to Walker No $5.9 Canyon at OR 217 — add a second dedicated northbound left turn lane No $1.5 Wilshire, Walker, and Denney Interchange closures No $1.2 Source: DKS Associates and HHPR *Cost estimate in 2010 dollars * *Noted in the top 5 percent of SPIS (Safety Priority Index System) locations by ODOT. Page 20 of 23 Executive Summa ry — April 2010 OR 217 Interchange Management Study IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE '"`' -fi • ,� , Photograph of These projects can be implemented in two to three years, ``'"'°"" ' �+r� . ` ` " `. p.m. peak traffic, assuming funding is acquired and agency partners collaborate , together. In general, the systems management projects could be "°" *► '" looking implemented in 15 to 24 months, with the ramp management ^" northbound projects implemented over a longer timeframe of at least 18 to 4 from the Walker 36 months. Figures 17 and 18 show sample implementation _ ` w � Road overpass. 1111 111 timelines for each of the systems management projects. The, -- ramp management projects with associated street mam am , �' ,� improvements would have similar components, but a longer . timeframe to incorporate a public discussion during project development. Until the public involvement component is investigated, it is difficult to establish an accurate timeframe. Photograph looking` . �_ under the Cabot Road " Acquire Funding overpass for the In order to begin project implementation, additional project northbound traffic funding must be obtained. Approximately $413,000 in MTIP :... — funding is available, as well as an estimated $200,000 to shoulder. This is where the 1; : ,;. a , $300,000 in unused funds remaining from the $735,000 ., . earmark received for OR 217. Washington County has northbound frontage requested an additional $4 million in FFY2011 Appropriations road between Canyon - funding for OR 217 through Representative Wu, but receipt of and Walker would be these funds is uncertain. The $600,000 to $700,000 in projected constructed. ' zoos 4 available funds, would be sufficient to start, or perhaps complete design work on one of the proposed projects, but is not sufficient to actually construct any improvement. Additional funding would need to be pursued through some combination of federal, state, regional, and/or local funding sources. OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 21 of 23 Executive Summary — April 2010 x MONTHS TASK 5 10 75 20 written materials and online information, stakeholder 1. Acquire Funding/ DKS Associates interviews, open houses or meetings, and educational Concurrence 2. Public Outreach Education ear programs promoting correct use and compliance. 3. Concept of Operations The public involvement program would vary for each 4. Environmental Permitting iiiiikai of the project types, as shown in Table 5. The next 5. Design /Review /Bid S 6fontyvs step in this study process would identify barriers or 6. Construction A41.. concerns that community members may have regarding the projects. This would be advanced Figure 17: Implementation guide for targeted shoulder widening through stakeholder interviews or meetings with existing business and community groups. The project MONTHS management team can use that information to TASK 5 ! 10 151 20 develop outreach methods to refine the selected Project and build a public involvement strategy 1. Acquire Funding/ ■ DKS Associates Concurrence the possible options. In later project phases, 2. Public Involvement/ On On-Gm � public outreach would be used to educate system Outreach & Education ` `.---77— , 3. Concept of Operations users about the objectives of each project and how (includes vender iNovths each system operates. s specifications & material approval) It is important to note that a full public conversation 4. Environmental Permitting ! around ramp closures would be necessary before a s S. Desi n / Review /Bid 6 Months g . ramp closure scenario option advances. This 6. Test Equipment alialita particular scenario set would require significant 7. Construction ,k involvement of the community and key stakeholders in decision making around implementation to be successful. other sstems management proj Figure 18: Implementation guide for variable speed systems and traveler could likely be with a more limited ects information signs public involvement and outreach effort. Public Involvement/Outreach Concept of Operations To successfully implement these projects, community members The purpose of a concept of operations is to address system and other stakeholders will need to be involved during the expectations before moving to the design development and implementation of each project. Components outlining the system expectations, the concept of operations to of public outreach may include: public information through may also include vender specifications and material approval. Page 22 of 23 OR r . r ,; . 7Interchange Management Study Executive Summary — April 2010 Table 5: Likely Level of Public Involvement for Testing Implementation of Near -Term Strategies In some projects, product testing may be required when field Project Public Involvement Activities devices are being used. The testing can either be completed by Target Shoulder • Public information about costs and the manufacturer or the agency, but new devices would require Widening operations testing before being installed. Traveler Information • Public information about costs and Signs operations Construction Variable Speed System • Public information about costs and The construction phase includes mobilization and constructing operations the actual project. During this phase, additional engineering • Educate public before system opens may be required. For the costs provided in each option and Ramp Management • Extensive public involvement in prioritizing element, it was assumed they would be constructed With Associated Street ramp closures and local street individually; therefore, some cost efficiency would be gained Improvements improvements by packaging and pooling multiple options together. • Focus on key freight users of on- ramps, Furthermore, the sooner some of these elements could be put large employers, chambers, and into bid, the higher the likelihood that costs (bids) could be neighborhood groups lower due to current economic conditions. Given these Note: Any project would be supported by a public involvement plan that is conditions, improved mobility and construction jobs are consistent with federal and state policy. positive factors in economic development. A concept of operations would be required for each project before beginning the design phase. The concept of operation is a document that outlines the system expectations from each of the stakeholders. Stakeholders include users, agencies, owners, - "...... ,.,., :.- - " operators, maintainers, managers, and developers. Questions „.. Photograph regarding system capabilities and system concepts, as well as ,".. - r ,4 3 of current operational scenarios will be addressed in this document. _» t.., = construction �. —' - .,�;� ,. in the Design r -•c , - ---- _ Walker Road Each project would require a design phase. This phase includes of OR designing plans, reviewing plans, and releasing the project for ,,. area area bid. _ OR 217 Interchange Management Study Page 23 of 23 Executive Su ^, e ! t _ a _ • Agenda Item # 3 Meeting Date April 20, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Tigard Town Center Designation Prepared By: Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: & I r Cit M Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council direct staff to pursue an expansion of Tigard's town center boundary? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to present information to Metro Council and pursue expanding the town center boundary. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Metro Council has scheduled time during its May 4, 2010 meeting to hear proposals from local jurisdictions regarding requested changes to their centers (Attachments 1 and 2) on the 2040 Growth Concept Map (2040 Map). Tigard's centers hold important opportunities to help the City reach its aspirations to create development and redevelopment opportunities for more compact urban development, especially where high capacity transit will become available. The Tigard Triangle area is also identified as having important development potential and is another key component of reaching those aspirations. However, the Tigard Triangle is currently not included in a center on the 2040 Map and doesn't enjoy the same considerations. City staff has met with Metro staff to explore the possibility of expanding the current Downtown Tigard Town Center to include part or all of the Tigard Triangle. With the potential for future high capacity transit to link the two areas, staff feels this warrants exploration. Metro staff recommended using this opportunity to "test the waters" and get feedback on the probability of bringing either part or the entire Tigard Triangle area into the Tigard Town Center. The alternative to participating in this discussion, which is always available, is to submit a comprehensive plan map amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Metro would then provide comment on whether it supports the amendment. The time is ripe to participate in the discussion and get feedback as the request would fit into the high capacity transit commitment, provide alternatives to the limiting floor -to -area ratios currently in place, and capitalize on the high employment and housing potential of the area. In addition to the May 4, 2010 presentation, the requests will be reviewed with MPAC and MTAC in June 2010, before a Metro staff recommendation in late summer 2010. Metro Council will make the final decision in December 2010 as part of its capacity ordinance. If the expansion of the boundary doesn't happen, the City will still need to formally request an adjustment to the 2040 Map Tigard Town Center boundary (see Attachment 3) to coincide with the Tigard Urban Renewal District boundary. Staff is looking for Council input on expanding the Tigard Town Center Boundary and will provide a map at the meeting of the potential boundary expansion. I: \L.RPLN \Council Materials \2010 \4-20 -10 AIS Tigard Town Center Designation.docx 1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Direct staff to not explore possibility of expanding the town center boundary, but just submit request to adjust the boundary to coincide with the Tigard Urban Renewal District boundary. CITY COUNCIL GOALS 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan 2. Implement Downtown Urban Renewal ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Metro Regional Framework Plan Summary of 2040 Growth Concept Attachment 2: Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan design type boundaries requirement Attachment 3: Metro State of the Centers map of Tigard Town Center FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \420 -10 AIS Tigard Town Center llesignation.docx 2 ATTACHMENT I (J) 3 3 tk..< N.) • r-4° 0 • C) C) CD p METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF°2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97-715B RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT 1 Centers 2 The Central City 2 Regional Centers 3 Town Centers 3 Main Streets and Neighborhood Centers 3 Station Communities 4 Corridors 4 Regionally Significant Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas and Employment Areas 4 Neighborhoods 5 Transportation Facilities 5 Open Spaces and Trail Corridors 5 Neighbor Cities 6 Rural Reserves 6 Region 2040 Growth Concept Map 8 METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT -TABLE OF CONTENTS Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97 -715B RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C Summary of 2040 Growth Concept This section describes the 2040 Growth Concept, the unifying concept around which this Regional Framework Plan is based. This Growth Concept contains refinements to the original Growth Concept that was adopted in 1995. This Plan anticipates that the Growth Concept and the provisions of this Plan will continue to evolve. The Growth Concept states the preferred form of regional growth and development and includes the Growth Concept map. The preferred form is to contain growth within a carefully managed Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Growth occurs inside the UGB in the form of infill and redevelopment with higher density developed in areas where it is appropriate. Expansions of the UGB are done carefully to allow for the need for additional land. This concept is adopted for the long -term growth management of the region including a general approach to approximately where and how much the UGB should be ultimately expanded, what ranges of density are estimated to accommodate projected growth within the boundary, and which areas should be protected as open space. The basic philosophy of the Growth Concept is to preserve our access to nature and build better communities for the people who live here today and who will live here in the future. The Growth Concept is an integrated set of objectives, which guide all Regional Framework Plan policies. The Growth Concept sets the direction for development of implementing policies in Metro's existing functional plans and the Charter - required Regional Framework Plan. This direction will be refined, as well as implemented, in subsequent functional plan amendments and framework plan components. Additional planning will be done to test the Growth Concept and to determine implementation actions. Amendments to the Growth Concept and some Regional Framework Plan policies may be needed to reflect the results of additional planning to maintain the consistency of implementation actions with the stated policies. Fundamental to the Growth Concept are: • A hierarchy of mixed -use, pedestrian friendly centers that are well connected by high capacity transit and corridors • A multi -modal transportation system that ensures continued mobility of more people and goods throughout the region, consistent with transportation policies • Coordination of land uses and the transportation system, to embrace the region's existing locational advantage as a relatively uncongested hub for trade • A jobs- housing balance in centers and a jobs- housing balance by regional sub areas to account for the housing and employment outside of the Centers • An urban to rural transition to reduce sprawl, keeping a clear distinction between urban and rural lands and balancing re- development • Separation of urbanizable land from rural land by the UGB for the region's 20 -year projected need for urban land • Rural reserves that are intended to assure that Metro and neighboring cities remain separate Page 1 METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97 -715B RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C The result is a compact urban form for the region coordinated with nearby cities to retain the region's sense of place. There are a number of components that make up the building blocks of the Growth Concept. These building blocks are discussed below. Centers Mixed -use urban centers inside the UGB are one key to the Growth Concept. Creating higher density centers of employment and housing and transit service with compact development, retail, cultural and recreational activities in a walkable environment is intended to provide efficient access to goods and services, enhance multi -modal transportation and create vital, attractive neighborhoods and communities. The Growth Concept uses interrelated types of centers: • The central city is the largest market area, the region's employment and cultural hub and accessible to millions of people. • Regional centers serve large market areas outside the central city, connected to it by high- capacity transit and highways and are accessible by hundreds of thousands of people. • Connected to each regional center, by road and transit, are smaller town centers with local shopping and employment opportunities within a local market area and accessible to tens of thousands of people. Planning for all of these centers will seek a balance between jobs, housing and unique blends of urban amenities so that more transportation trips are likely to remain local and become more multi - modal. Creating higher density centers of employment and housing provides many advantages to communities. These centers provide citizens with access to a variety of goods and services in a relatively small geographic area, creating an intense business climate. Having centers also makes sense from a transportation perspective, since most centers have an accessibility level that is conducive to transit, bicycling and walking. Centers also act as social gathering places and community centers, where people would find the cultural and recreational activities and "small -town atmosphere" they cherish. The major benefits of centers in the marketplace are accessibility and the ability to concentrate goods and services in a relatively small area. The problem in developing centers, however, is that most of the existing centers are already developed and any increase in the density must be made through redeveloping existing land and buildings. Emphasizing redevelopment in centers over development of new areas of undeveloped land is a key strategy in the Growth Concept. The Central City Downtown Portland serves as the major regional center and functions well as an employment and cultural hub for the metropolitan area. It provides accessibility to the many businesses that require access to a large market area and also serves as the location for cultural and social functions that draw the region together. It is the center for local, regional, state and federal governments, financial institutions, commerce, the Page 2 METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97 -715B RFP Updated 8/15%05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C center for arts and culture, and for visitors to the region. In addition, downtown Portland has a high percentage of travel other than by car - three times higher than the next most successful area. Jobs and housing are readily available there, without the need for a car. Maintaining and improving upon the strengths of the regional downtown shall remain a high priority. Improvements to the transit system network, development of a multi -modal street system and maintenance of regional through routes (the highway system) would provide additional mobility to and from the city center. Regional Centers There are seven regional centers, serving four market areas (outside of the central city market area). Hillsboro serves the western portion of the region and Gresham the eastern. Gateway serves most of the Portland area outside the central city as a regional center. Downtown Beaverton and Washington Square serve the east Washington County area, and downtown Oregon City, Clackamas Town Center together serve Clackamas County and portions of outer southeast Portland. These regional centers are the focus of compact development, redevelopment and high - quality transit service, multi -modal street networks and act as major nodes along regional through- routes. Transit improvements will include light -rail connecting all regional centers to the central city. A dense network of multi -modal arterial and collector streets tie regional centers to surrounding neighborhoods and other centers. Regional through- routes are designed to connect regional centers and ensure that these centers are attractive places to conduct business. The relatively small number of centers reflects not only the limited market for new development at this density but also the limited transportation funding for the high - quality transit and roadway improvements envisioned in these areas. Town Centers Smaller than regional centers and serving populations of tens of thousands of people, town centers are the third type of center with compact development and transit service. Town centers provide local shopping, employment and cultural and recreational opportunities within a local market area. They are designed to provide local retail and services, at a minimum and vary greatly in character. Some will become traditional town centers, such as Lake Oswego, and Forest Grove, while others will change from an auto - oriented development into a more complete community, such as Hillsdale. Many also have regional specialties, such as office centers envisioned for the Cedar Mill town center. Several new town centers are designated, such as in Happy Valley and Damascus, to accommodate the retail and service needs of a growing population while reducing auto travel. Main Streets and Neighborhood Centers During the early decades of this century, main streets served by transit and characterized by a strong business and civic community were a major land -use pattern throughout the region. Examples remain in Hillsboro, Milwaukie, Oregon City and Gresham as well as the Westmoreland neighborhood and Hawthorne Boulevard. Today, Page 3 METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97-715B RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C • these areas are undergoing a revival and provide an efficient and effective land -use and transportation alternative. Main streets typically serve neighborhoods and may develop a regional specialization - such as antiques, fine dining, entertainment or specialty clothing - that draws people from other parts of the region. Station Communities Station communities are nodes of development centered around a light -rail or high - capacity transit station that feature a high - quality pedestrian environment. They provide for the highest density outside centers. Station communities encompass an area approximately one -half mile from a station stop. Corridors Corridors are not as dense as centers, but are located along good quality transit lines. They provide a place for increased densities and feature a high - quality pedestrian environment and convenient access to transit. Typical developments along corridors include rowhouses, duplexes and one- to three -story office and retail buildings While some corridors may be continuous, narrow bands of higher intensity development along arterial roads, others may be more nodal, that is, a series of smaller centers at major intersections or other locations along the arterial that have high quality pedestrian environments, good connections to adjacent neighborhoods and good transit service. As long as increased densities and a range of uses are allowed and encouraged along the corridor, many different development patterns - nodal or linear - may meet the corridor objective. Regionally Significant Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas and Employment Areas The Portland metropolitan area economy is heavily dependent upon wholesale trade and the flow of commodities to national and international markets. The high quality of the freight transportation system and, in particular, the inter -modal freight facilities is essential to continued growth in trade. The inter -modal facilities (air and marine terminals, freight rail yards and common carrier truck terminals) are areas of regional concern, and a functional plan will identify and protect lands needed to meet their current and projected space requirements. Regionally Significant Industrial Areas and Industrial areas are set aside primarily for industrial activities. Supporting uses, including some retail uses, may be allowed if limited to sizes and locations intended to serve the primary industrial uses. These areas include land- intensive employers, such as those around the Portland International Airport, the Hillsboro Airport and some areas along Highway 212/224. Areas of high agglomerative economic potential, such as the Sunset Corridor for electronics products and the Northwest industrial sanctuary for metal products, are supported with transportation planning and infrastructure development designed to meet their needs. Other employment centers are designated as employment areas, mixing various types of employment and including some residential development as well. These areas include limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of the people working or living in the immediate area. Page 4 METRO'S REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97 -715B RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C Neighborhoods Residential neighborhoods remain a key component of the Growth Concept and fall into two basic categories. Inner neighborhoods include areas such as Portland, Beaverton, Milwaukie and Lake Oswego, and include primarily residential areas that are accessible to employment. Lot sizes are smaller and provide better access to jobs and shopping. Outer neighborhoods are farther away from large employment centers and have larger lot sizes and lower densities. Examples include cities such as Forest Grove, Sherwood and Oregon City, and some additions to the UGB. Transportation Facilities Adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept established a new direction for planning in the region by linking urban form to transportation. This new direction reflects a commitment to develop a regional form that is based on efficient use of land and a safe, efficient and cost - effective transportation system that supports the land uses in the 2040 Growth Concept and accommodates all forms of travel. In this new relationship, the 2040 Growth Concept provides the desired urban form for the Regional Transportation Plan to support. The 2040 Growth Concept Map identifies one possible regional transportation system. Therefore, the 2040 Growth Concept Map does not prescribe or limit what the adopted regional transportation system will include. The Concept map shows some transportation facilities to illustrate new concepts, such as "green corridors," and how land -use areas, such as centers, may be served based on agreements with affected agencies and jurisdictions. Neither the current regional system nor final alignment choices for future facilities are intended to be represented on the Concept map. Open Spaces and Trail Corridors Recognition and protection of open spaces both inside the UGB and in rural reserves are reflected in the Growth Concept. The areas designated open space on the Concept map are parks, stream and trail corridors, wetlands and floodplains, largely undeveloped upland areas and areas of compatible very low- density residential development. Many of these natural features already have significant land set aside as open space. The Tualatin Mountains, for example, contain major parks such as Forest Park and Tryon Creek State Park and numerous smaller parks such as Gabriel Park in Portland and Wilderness Park in West Linn. Other areas are oriented toward wetlands and streams. Designating these areas as open spaces has several effects. First, it generally removes these lands from the category of urban land that is available for development. The capacity of the UGB then has to be calculated without these areas, and plans to accommodate housing and employment have to be made without them. Second, these natural areas, along with key rural reserve areas, receive a high priority for purchase as parks and open space, through programs such as Metro's Open Spaces Acquisition program. Finally, functional plan requirements have been developed to protect critical fish and wildlife habitat areas without conflicting with housing and economic goals. This will provide protection of environmentally critical areas, compatible development of sensitive areas, and allow transfer of development rights from protected natural areas to other lands better suited for development. Page 5 METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97-715B RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C • (RFP's Summary of Growth Concept, Open Spaces and Trail Corridors, updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05- 1077C, Exb. B, Amend. 1.) Neighbor Cities The Growth Concept recognizes that neighboring cities outside Metro's boundaries are likely to grow rapidly. There are several such cities proximate to the Metro region. Metro will pursue discussion of cooperative efforts with neighboring cities. Neighbor city coordination will be achieved with the completion of intergovernmental agreements concerning key concepts. Communities such as Sandy, Canby and Newberg will be affected by Metro, city and county decisions about managing growth within Metro. A significant number of people may be accommodated in these neighboring cities, and cooperation between Metro and these communities is necessary to coordinate planning to address common transportation and land -use issues. Cooperative planning between a city outside the region and Metro could also be initiated on a more limited basis. These cooperative efforts could be completed to minimize the impact of growth on surrounding agriculture and natural resource lands, maintain a separation between a city and the Metro UGB, minimize the impact on state transportation facilities, match population growth to rural resource job and local urban job growth and coordinate land -use policies. Communities such as North Plains and other communities adjacent to the region such as Estacada and Scappoose may find this more limited approach suitable to their local situation. Rural Reserves Some rural lands adjacent to and nearby the regional UGB may be designated as rural reserves. This designation is intended as a policy statement by Metro to not extend the UGB into these areas and to support neighboring cities' efforts not to expand their urban growth boundaries into these areas in order to keep adjacent urban areas separate. Rural reserves may be designated in areas that are most threatened by new development, in areas that separate communities, or in areas that exist as special resource areas. Rural reserves may also separate cities within the Metro boundary. Cornelius, Hillsboro, Tualatin, Sherwood and Wilsonville all have existing areas of rural land that provide a break in urban patterns. The objectives for rural land planning in the region are to: • Maintain the rural character of the landscape. • Support and maintain our agricultural economy. • Avoid or eliminate conflicts with farm and forest practices. • Help meet regional needs for open space and wildlife habitat. • Help to clearly separate urban from rural land. Rural reserves are further protected from development pressures by the rural zoning of the counties. New rural commercial or industrial development is restricted. The reserves may include some purchase of natural areas adjacent to rivers, streams and lakes to ensure that water quality is protected and wildlife habitat enhanced. Large natural features, such as hills and buttes, may be included as rural reserves because they buffer developed areas and are poor candidates for compact urban development. Page 6 METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original'RFP adopted 12111/97, Metro Ord. No. 97 -7158 RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C . The primary means of achieving rural reserves would be through the Regional Framework Plan for areas within the Metro boundary, and voluntary agreements among Metro, the counties, neighboring cities and the state for those areas outside the Metro boundary. Metro will seek agreements, which would prohibit extending urban growth into the rural reserves, and require that state agency actions be consistent with the rural reserve designation. • Page 7 METRO's REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN (RFP) Effective 12/28/05 SUMMARY OF 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT Original RFP adopted 12/11/97, Metro Ord. No. 97 -715B RFP Updated 8/15/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1086; updated 9/29/05, Metro Ord. 05 -1077C ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance No. 97 -715B, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 02 -972A, Sec. 1; Ordinance No. 02-969B, Sec. 1; Ordinance No. 07- 1137A, Sec. 1.) 3.07.130 Design Type Boundaries Requirement For each of the following 2040 Growth Concept design types, city and county comprehensive plans shall be amended to include the boundaries of each area, determined by the city or county consis- tent with the general locations shown on the 2040 Growth Concept Map or on maps adopted by ordinances adding territory to the UGB: Central City -- Downtown Portland is the Central City which serves as the major regional center, an employment and cultural center for the metropolitan area. Regional Centers- -Seven regional centers will become the focus of compact development, redevelopment and high - quality transit service and multimodal street networks. Station Communities -- Nodes of development centered approximately one - half mile around a light rail or high capacity transit station that feature a high - quality pedestrian environment. Town Centers - -Local retail and services will be provided in town centers with compact development and transit service. Main Streets -- Neighborhoods will be served by main streets with retail and service developments served by transit. Corridors- -Along good quality transit lines, corridors feature a high - quality pedestrian environment, convenient access to transit, and somewhat higher than current densities. Employment Areas -- Various types of employment and some residential development are encouraged in employment areas with limited commercial uses. Industrial Areas -- Industrial areas are set aside primarily for industrial activities with limited supporting uses. Regionally Significant Industrial Areas -- Industrial areas with site characteristics that are relatively rare in the region that render the especially suitable for industrial use. Inner Neighborhoods -- Residential areas accessible to jobs and neighborhood businesses with smaller lot sizes are inner neighborhoods. (Effective 4/25/07) 3.07 - 7 ATTACHMENT 3 of Ti g ; rd Town Center „.,4 ,*.,„..... .,,,.. ,. ..,, a y. 1� - .. 7.- � ' y { I ' ` ' ��` N Y om; ' Al I' 4 4 k 1 4.4 , € ; ° ' Y - '' ' � � �� ,� f;. .,� MF � �v J t � I f.�f `•s1Tl�t� w� b y . i . L C�•y �.7 � � 1� § � ; i r` c k 'x tl �� ' r a w, u . 1 1 , , Tn - , le r° a � e e il -g ye'; ;- ) K � + 4 �,:� fl -,d to `hH - fi x n a �N1•t4kll � r t...e -} �/ [$ s 4 j 1 {!'� 5 ' @"F l �, {b ' r � t- 1 14.`. R p �?�. : may _ —• L'�' .. ..f^� `+� '�R . .. L = aa fi r! ,+ '4 F' � _ , The Tigard Town Center is 128 acres located immediately adjacent A o : ,, B k ey - t-- to both Highway 99W and Highway 217. center is focused around ry ,,.� The • � � g �. � -_ �, historic main street that runs parallel to Highway 99W. The center is serviced its Bar ;,, 94?. by multiple bus lines and is home to a TriMet transit center and a WES f, ` „ nv: Bikeshop Commuter Rail station. The Tigard Town Center has a higher people per acre r -, • tt i. , . ratio than average reflecting its higher number of businesses per acre than o = � Bo ok S other centers. v Bre Pu 0 0- 4 . � � f e be wii Child fCare „� se � C` ne m a t ry ' . ` ' _ clothin sto e„ ,. ,, o a T Centers f • . ,, � B the numbe Tigard , Ave" 4, teo e S o�. :,4E t « �a r Caget lip ' 1 Jobs,�tohousing ratio � 4;1 3:1 a lp f , , . Dry ., leaner , ~a Median Househol size 2 . 3 2' Fas Fo ' # s • ' s r — od R t :N i " t& — 4 Median household income (2007) $48 ,899 $61;897 t it ; F ne s s . N i . .. .' ., k � , ' Median age 32 36 • , uli Service Restaurant 14' - F� x• Ga St - ;fi '..0t* '� Homeownership r 31 % 46%o : ` P - Groce '. �i ? mo, ry s or e > n 2g • 22 r ',lc, " P eople per acre INV Ltd Service Restaur s G • i ' Dwelling:Units per acre 4 . 5 • Music store * a, �,� `" - — — _ , . re B risaies a Total businesses per acre 2.5 1.3 • • _ Metro 92 ■ ..� 2 , 4 y ) y .� l '�L i �Z WPFAFFLE51 3 �3�+^i{ e 3 r a r , " °..u9 Lr° +�- 3 ,- f i .L 3 ,a 1 � i ` it5.,r - PIi $$�y , A , h Tigard `� -'•A � , SyY L E W15LN Lt k ^p. 1 1 • 'X.' 3h � Y :. 1 n K _ ,� i .,y 5 pP G4 y y' y� .� Town Center • k e . i . ` F� „' .Ei�{ Vt' f W p I . Y - i ,,, -. 7 ,�,.L�:g ATLANTA e4t: ST ^' , a V i • i ,-,-.4•."..1-,.,,f5,-.,.., '�. , T r iy, i% f s •. c . r Y.. 4 5W PI �. i•:,!-..',3.,5:7,': -: '? i. *�' A FF .•'.1k,';'-"".. +�'.�'R di {+ 1 .}' . i . _� ..a� ▪ � '4s. '` .. y F' �' a�r [ . fir 4t �' i lne ' } � u_• swTAN GFLACTi�h - •yam 1 ;�4 $ o S t }. •• . : ��, y, Rx 3 x o � , ��9 ; � + •. Center boundary . Fl r4 .,_ C k". t Fp ,r + g , - � y,,,,?,, ,t.� t ° r i' ;;: ,:'''''''''5''''.71 . . w 3 , - +,r te ,` a1ce a N ` nS � 'k �' �t ® Li ht rail sto $ k ' `£t �1v5 y� �� q' c `p -t 5 s r ; ¢' � 'Y 2 • t ,Vt -d ^, -,0 , .,� • <;* AL o -, s : 1 3Y' y .`' + Comm rail stops ,. r ." sy'c ` }' "�'t + � � Y �' ` � a �:8 ¢ a ! y � t- � � L � a '�' � • .n. � O p i - ' , ` `- Buss s irl.Yy f. h oM i ,p � a' : y : . . k p i } N . �k• �•� "L-L „ b ' p n'�t K 6� • r y 'S cF a Light rai o- A° > . • ,,,,. sr n q ix i� c f - < :: . P �� ^w .h �-"! L z ' ,i : , 00. Frequent service U �, 4 . '1' t'' ,�L ' 'P, s , . , ' 'a ,,'0 `Yr ` t ` , .y •'r �°" Standard service y ', r 3 G T 7 a s E F d x t) ° rt ,fix " • - a ; • ..,,,,j..-!,';'-';;.:-.•$;., Parks sh• � 9"�� Ri ,' , ,a,� - ° a 4 o � `R fi r � x i � � s+ � l;' � < ' v 4 )1:- ,e1;,.. +? K n '�� . i : ri > F>G � F' e ' s : t f` . ).: ' "x.. �' � - 4 1 it a" Q P {� ,x .. `�' s s � '' r,� rC °� � ��- � (,.:07-0, ��� Y ��„�� � yi 4t5 � 'u. � l y'' Ms A L 9, i9' '> '• ,, , ' s 4 4 �. ' " r ! �' > � ?'` +, r '` • # ' :,,,„.„4„.„,„*, , , p is . . A . , . 4,:;- P ' e ru ` . y 1' { p ®� 5'?•a ` ,..1 '¢...w q r ° . Vii* g,., v� ,. s , � , ,r. . ,, ,,.,� t: - • < '�, {i+ I V ` .. - -5 0 . � r � . • e`�.� f .. g Y` '�AiJ ' '. '. 4 y s' k51 •x.r -ssas a ' ... 3iw .s - _ z .. 1` a- < `a �. a .l �i uT '' Y 5 1 ' i W a, : , ��. a sY t ` f �l • , CRES S 4 :'&1 }y(5.{ ,. 'y� y . ; i f � cu1..P �� ' #3..k` �S d : 0'4; ' � �� `A '-'s . by i i " MC + i ,1 s r ` ' a 4 �' 4 � y p ya 8 L d� st � � ° 3 X P y � '' 4 `- '4 4 i 9 t if ,,'.i.' F . ' t � + • r• Y `•"+ ` . , a te ' e9 F• `8 g 4- ::. O ys t - e ... .. . k *` t , � ` i t L " ' ,? ': r red, ` i 4.4q • ,,, • 4 + , +', "' � i�." r 4 t , % 'iz 2t l ,a i k i tn a t ,' t y r g� �� ,y � �T t i •' i' ' , Trr x � F V ; -' e -!c r 0'21 Yf 't -- f a M ; N i i ' T i. �£-,�y, r te* 3 c , �: e +. ;. . y Y } a 1 " y' ' . 'r" „ :r a t � , � . 3i - 2� ''�i a•i.. 5 .; f .y r � ,flRf � r !,/".'f-'''. ..: 1// r ;',.. �. Yr � y „" nm . , a �.ed .. y ,� 'd W- x > " � +�-• y � : .` . Y �S( fi t• - e � , _ G r a „ �0, ' 41 .- 4 ,� '.. i s v ?' • a. i S. *: i € Fc , . � s i• e a +, Y 'MP _ s+e S . : . � 4 'i f �' ' • . r t y .4r y �' ` P n5:4 Sy :'4Snrt x . T • 'x L i 'n ' � p • r f %^ _ :+ A a ,�y� 1-' '' ...c. v-t . i a r r r . ` , ° r� � r ho a D O 00 z o�at �L 7 1 ��• +� f � 7 : ' i { �' v ""� ` k, . .- " . v4' • � w "5x 4;0„., a'," ' �' " ' ',, ,� t i 't, 1: 3' ,,, ` , •a rh ;p a• ' ]idr J a r + ...,..,,..,*7 P . `G : 7 f f , " r „3 • _ s � � 4 - i1 . , r ', y +� . ( .e l . t� c`ra `, sn_. f k• i '� � 1 " ♦` „,,,,v,!_.„.„ 't' m O ht- � r i h i E 7 ", a Q ILk: 4 d '` 3 e .}, _ , � r � + �. ` L � • ... it r ' _ �t 0 p A t ,., i '�r' n s - - t 4 .,< t 'qd .. x + t r 7 : - ,. , ;-” } Kt 1 , �� j t r ,. �.. . 4" is �' + 'i'� 0. S. + $ , r n1 s. '‘.4.177:0-, • 5 k t x t • b .r s a �a In s a , '. �s - a� . w a -e g +~ a �y x �' r f �' i - b L '' ,, ,t. , ., rx } ' q 3. a 1 °{ - t , n i Y u . a . ' \ • rY €-' , , 0 • ., x 4 - - +" .„, °° ` ' t'4 - ..-4-, , . - r ' -t x Sly / 4 - £ T :. — :, e z { x* � i' ` QPx -, ; . ,y ' , ,,, ii' ,' � j ( .ak .^ p a „ . „ S L } 1 i ' .e u T i e S c , ,t a >' -. ' # �l :PITY ' • F e. ' • c 4' fi r, '. a zs au. � • 7 n - Y d r'..:. g 1 M i r s'i' + 5` ( y ' '� y > =J{a r t �� �C. . Z • x.a�M"•re• 7+ t ... use ,� VVV + { � a�1 r� 0ia . 6 - 4 X� _Y'A .. � w& y ' s Y' 2 '*4Y i e i •'y, n to �' i • +f " ' o �S.'.�. -: xs "`j" j �f . ', r y . a *'� s "Q"., L h 'Sx 9" +`, ;. L• 2�$• { � _ « n4 f , , r q „ + 3 srfi.: kti SM 'i1iC� 3:, x-3 d} uCe "} O'LJS,r 1 � s e ,F v �C �n ± � n �� �, F .r Y o � * � i � t center Boundary pp��� i ' r�S 4 sa • ai„ ,._ Ap t x �'3; • ° •�' '`Z i � • r ` f •1 , ,+: ,¢� ®tl 0 O Mlles s.. .t 4 a ,i x� f ,. s.T rj,ur1 z ' 4 � Fi u is +. !, i 4t �'+ts. ',"- ''" , w- - =t# °,�"' - '.r 44,,,,,„'-:;04: a ti. 0' .!_....8 rv!m 4 'i. "l r3i" . . .4.. Town centers 93 i ,.LL t n , � —1 i i ,tr r( I .:I, , I i i I t • 1 L-.._ - , t - ii , 1 I i 1 I d� I 3; � L !;� _ t �� I - ( e rd own l _ 1 I Current Tigard T I C �1 r r E . r �� e r Boundary i -_ i _ C me - Bou a y fit �i , , L ■ ■ r l , I' Per Metro I - I :A,1° i L ''� �; City of Tigard :� ,; TL ,' Oregon It , j /J // L I r i nk / f 3 ♦ �.♦♦ 1 ,� .. 1 I r \ ;�'� ���� Tigard Town Center s ' Urban Renewal District ♦♦ ♦. C / (h-l� ; % � I I , Q Tigard City Boundary J' ♦ ♦ i - � i _ I Li ' i I - I : Comp Plan Designation iw y. ♦ j f II II_ I , I Community Commercial - i s ♦♦ t Mixed Use Central Business District ♦ ♦ I � I I Gen Commercial ♦ l I • - Neighborhood Commercial • = Professional Commercial • ♦♦ ! I — Heavy Industrial �r� ♦ . I . i � _ . . . Industrial ♦ � (� I Llght . _ 1 i i -� . _ � Low Density Residential a 1 • - I, t \ • + F i - 1 _ . ! � 1"I 1 i Medium Density Residential r ,. � I j r r I I ' Medium High Density Residential ti / _ � � 4,7 _ ( r+ _ . __ I I l r 1 L High Density Residential - --x Ili 1- __1 _ _ _� J � �I I 1 I I Mixed Use Commercial • i i Mixed Use Employment is I j! — I ! I _ Mixed Use Employment 1 • MI Mixed Use Employment 2 I �� I r _ r I ,__+ I Mixed Use Residential 1 ♦ *N■ I 17, Mixed Use Residential 2 i . Open Space y i Public Institution �- 1 i • r' ;: # �. I a. .,, 1I 4 1 P TIGAR pS ° a.=.. 13175 SW Holl Blvd I I a 1 _ - ........a T)gord. Oregon 97723 _ I 503 639. 4171 7I6ARlI www.tigord -or goy t '� I�f� -1 1 '� i t-- �� :iI _� 1' _ I "e !•, iL I ' 1 u - � f c 1 _, I 11 l � 1- '1 -I ��� I , �, 7`I1. � �� I. _f_ I�f - - 1 11 I I , - - Expanded .,. i �! T R w . I1 - - � - I - , ' , z ; - Tigard 10WI1 _ r C? � � � i �. -s I �: r I 1 � -tom �� a l �� � _ �i �T�I � g J C , .. __ �t i 1 I t K■ f_ t ary i F. _ C Ilt Ro uld w L ' fC Cl lr __,__ ' r u i f I 1 a 1 1 -_ 7 114 a ' rt s m 11 Ir , � i :1 . Of 11 110 �� 4 I r �, 1 j Oregon a - IL 4 , � = II i I[ } ' _ r ' _:.,._f_ I j t 7 1 I I � n �u I II 1 , ` 1 : { ,, i-' I i i; - r, t - r 1 r 1 f i_1 �' I ! i ll" 1 i. 1 1 _ Sri,, t 1� 1 _I' L 1 T w � ' ✓ l L. 1 �� t ! Tigard Town Center 1 _ l 1 1 I `„'' - l t. _ Urban Renewal District �� . O Tigard City Boundary •'`:Ns__ � i i i _ _f Comp Plan Designation I r �y „ ( i j Community Commercial A ��� ( _ f Mixed Use Central Business District • �' O � LL I - a 1 , . : \,'N. , • �' e ` ] 7 i ( ■ . ■ _ General Commercial • 1 I! I- `" ' 1 1 • - � - ` I 1 � ' \\ is Neighborhood Commercial / _ . �__ r. ... �' � _ Professional Commercial 1 �1 ■ � � I INN Heavy Industrial � I I ! . ■ ; _ Light Industrial I li ' - l 7 T lr I LI 1 Low Densty Residential iii ■ _� ' J i 1 L 14-11 1 1 l ll Medium Density Residential e• 1 II, 7 ' _ ■ . 04 or �■ ♦] 1 �� I IJ '- ■ Medium -High Density Residential 1���) i �� J I, __ I High Density Residential **- -----9 ( Mixed Use Commercial •• I _ J JI L Mi xed Use Employment I � 4 ��I I -Mixed Use Employment 1 • � *i *i■ ■.A °= _ __' ■ -Mixed Use Employment 2 Mixed Use Residential 1 II * I F � I M ixed U Residential 2 k 4/ Open Space se es ) ,, 1` I 1 f _, I Public Institution \, j J 13175 SW Holl Blvd II I .. -. \ � Tigard, Oregon 97773 /// � 503.639.41 71 I I(.AR1) ' !/ www •rrgord- or.gov .. . " ._ , \.. / , DATE CF.FAI ED. ?P F.IL n.2010 p t i ' 1 o _ i fl P 1 �- '-.— !.''j ,' r � r !I. _ r �' r � 1 ' i _' i. Expanded r � 1 I L '' i�i �< / __ - C enter Boundary . I J- 1 � ? ' fir €,P , ' 1 r � _, t F �� �� Cit)r of Tigard _ , - Oregon -It 1 .. i t Y , 1 I � ♦t--. 1‘ ♦ ti :' ♦ / t Tigard Town Center • ♦ ' ♦♦ 1 Urban Renewal District / r • • p ♦♦ ♦ y ♦ ♦ � j I r - Ti City Boundary .#0.0", s l°. . -- �'_ i ) � G 7 ` " ? Comp Plan Designation ■ � f f } ; Community Commercial ■' p ♦♦ ♦ I, : Mixed Use Central Business District • ♦♦ i General Commercial it ., Jll! I._, ♦♦ ` I ,_ i j El Neighborhood Commercial • I a Professional Commercial ♦ ♦♦ 1 = _ • e Industrial - P I .` ♦♦ - ' ' i R — Heavy • ` ♦ ♦� ••rte ♦r tJ _ 1 l Light Industrial C ! ' r - Low Density Residential ._t 1 (I . 1 1'i • I ' ( / I i ' • Medium Density Residential t I ) / l 1 ' 1 - { � i_ l - 1 Medium -High Density Residential . .� f �� I i. . i ■ High Density Residential • • \ ♦ -- -1 f !f, I -- • Mixed Use Commercial ' 1111 ' Mixed Use Employment • • ■ ) 1 — Mixed Use Employment t ♦ ` • ■ �♦ i �• : i ♦ ♦ ■' ♦ ♦ ♦ — Mixed Use Employment 2 Mixed Use Residential 1 ♦ , ' , . • • f...1 - Mixed Use Residential 2 • •• Open Space •• ■ Public Institution ��� - , •b •■.■ ..• r�, f X11 _ -- 'I TIGARD,411P5 i 13125 SW Han Blvd 1 _ �,„, Tigard. Oregon 97223 503.639 4171 O 71r',Ak _ vw.lrgard -or. gov Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 20, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Discussion of Development Code Amendment (DCA2010- 00001) to Extend Land Use Approvals Prepared By: Cheryl Caines Dept Head Approval: nt3,--- City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL What alternative approaches should be considered for a proposed code amendment extending previously approved land use decisions, lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011, until December 31, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Discuss alternative approaches to the proposed amendment considering public testimony and issues raised at the April 13, 2010 public hearing and the effect anticipated legislation may have on development standards, specifically land division applications (partitions and subdivisions). KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY e The City is considering a code amendment to extend land use approvals for Site Development Reviews, Subdivisions, and Minor Land Partitions (DCA2010- 00001). This amendment is proposed as a means to respond to the economy. ♦ Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, 2010 to discuss the amendment. No one testified in favor or opposition of the amendment. The Commission voted 9 -0 to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed. ♦ Staff briefed Council on March 30, 2010 about possible effects upcoming legislation may have upon development and subdivision regulation that was not anticipated when the Planning Commission heard this matter in early March. At the workshop City Council determined that more time was needed to discuss and review the topic, but the upcoming April 13t hearing could not be rescheduled at such a late date. City Council decided to hear the staff presentation and public testimony on the proposed amendment on April 13, 2010 and then follow up with a workshop on April 20t to discuss alternative approaches. These approaches will be considered and open for public testimony during a continuance of the public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 27, 2010. Council may deliberate /vote on the amendment or direct staff to draft an alternative ordinance to be voted upon at another date certain. More information can be provided in the Friday Council newsletter following the hearing on Tuesday (April 13th). OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None, but more information may be provided in the Friday Council newsletter. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Not directly applicable to current or long -term Council goals. ATTACHMENT LIST None at this time. Attachments may be provided in the Friday Council packet based upon issues raised and public testimony at the April 13, 2010 hearing. FISCAL NOTES By extending existing approvals, there is the potential for loss of fees from new submittals. Additional Land Use Extensions Other Jurisdictions City Extensions? Enact date Inclusion Date Extension Length Approval Types Extended only if approved between 1/1/2007 and Albany 1/27/2010 one year land use Y Y es 12/31/2008 Y undefined (up to 2 extensions may be Bend yes 2/4/2009 only if approval has not expired land use granted, not to exceed 2 years total) up to 2 years after expiration, must apply Newberg yes 5/18/2009 up to 1 year land use by 12/31/2010 I i final plat: to 365 days (from 180 days); final plat: only if submitted before land use, preliminary plan: through 12/31/09 and due to expire after 6/30/2012; pre -app: through final plat, land use, pre -app, Portland yes 5/27/2009 5/27/2006; land use, preliminary plan: 12/31/2010. (if held between 4/1/2007- preliminary plan 5/27/06- 12/31/08; pre -app: held between 4/1/2007- 12/31/2009 12/31/2008) or valid for 2 years (if held between 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009) land use, excluding those only if approved before 7/1/2009 and due to 7/1/2011, preserving eligibility for Redmond yes 8/11/2009 with time- regulated to expire after 1/1/2009 ordinary extension conditions Tualatin yes 10/26/2009 only if approved between 1/1/2007 and to 12/31/2012, replacing eligibility for architectural review 6/30/2009 ordinary extension Washington yes 8/6/2009 approvals expiring between 8/6/09 and one year • land use , County 8/6/10 4 /it, / a 0, as /o Land Use Extension Alternative Approaches • April 20, 2010 Council Workshop 9 �� / At City Council's request, Staff has outlined options to address concerns about the proposal to extend land use approvals permitting development to occur in the future using the current standards. A table outlining the pros and cons of each option is found below. Option 1: As recommended by Planning Commission, extend Partitions and Subdivisions (Land Divisions) and Site Development Reviews (SDR) until December 31, 2012. Option 2: Extend Land Divisions only until December 31, 2011 and SDRs until December 31, 2012. Option 3: Extend SDRs until December 31, 2012 and not extend Land Divisions. Option 4: Do not extend any land use approvals. Cases Included: Land Site Dev New Expiration Options Division Review Date Pros Cons o Allows applicants additional time -to secure 0 Extends approvals, based on current 1 ✓ ✓ Dec. 31, 2012 financing and develop as soon as the economy standards, which may be beyond improves. anticipated tree code amendments. O Land divisions will expire before anticipated tree 0 Extension may not be sufficient for code amendments. applicants to develop or: secure financing e Allows applicants additional time to develop. if the economy has not improved. 2 ✓ ✓ Dec. 31, 2011 — LD 0 Leaves City Council the option to revisit the Dec. 31, 2012 - SDR issue in the future to. assess whether additional • _ extensions are necessary and how code amendments are taking shape. O Allows applicants of Site Development Reviews 0 May put Tigard at a disadvantage to other to develop as soon as the economy improves. cities regarding the supply of buildable 3 ✓ Dec. 31 2012 single - family lots. 0 Does not address the economic concerns of-applicants seeking to divide their land. O All future development must meet standards in • May put Tigard at a disadvantage to other 4. _ None place at the time of application. cities in the region. • 4pil / ?.0 ..:) 0/e) Land Use Cases Lapsing Between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 20111 (as of 4/6/2010) File Number Name Location Expiration Date Extension Filed • Y 2006 SUB2006-00013 Cross Ridge Estates 14175 SW 103rd Ave. 12/2/2009 yes MLP2006-00003 Schenk Partition 9175 SW N. Dakota St. 12/6/2008 no 2007 SUB2007-00001 Fanno Ranch 14775 SW 76th Ave. 11/17/2008 no SUB2007-00003 Foster Estates 14259 SW 100th Ave. 3/17/2009 no SUB2007-00004 Samson Heights 14504 SW Fern St. 2/17/2009 no SUB2007-00006 Greco Estates 9350 SW Lehman St. 5/17/2010 yes SUB2007-00007 Nash Garden 10342 SW McDonald St. 6/7/2010 yes SUB2007-00008 Sunrise Lane 14825 SW Sunrise Ln. 7/11/2010 yes SUB2007-00009 Hunters Trail 13740 SW Ash Ave. 8/12/2009 no SUB2007-000.10 Aspen Gardens 12030 SW 135th Ave. 4/24/2009 no SUB2007-00011 Troy Park 12300 SW I3ull Mtn. Rd. 6/12/2010 yes SUB2007-00013 Gertz Homes II 8990 SW Edgewood St. 4/2/2011 yes MLP2007-00003 Westview Partition 10800 SW N. Dakota St. 3/23/2009 no MLP2007-00007 Anderson Partition 12330 SW 121st Ave. 1/10/2010 no MLP2007-00009 Fisher Partition 9240 SW O'Mara St. 5/6/2010 yes MLP2007-00012 Maxim Partition 10765 SW N. Dakota St 5/21/2009 no MLP2007-00015 Ajami Partition 10660 SW 71st Ave. - 9/15/2010 yes MLP2007-00017 Gavojdea Partition 12625 SW Grant Ave. 9/26/2009 no SDR2007-00003 One Dartmouth (Specht) 6860 SW Clinton St. 4/20/2010 yes SDR2007-00006 Dolan Commercial Bldg 12500 SW Main St. 7/31/2010 yes SDR2007-00007 Arnell Office Bldg 11725 SW 68th Ave. 9/11/2010 no SDR2007-00008 Amber Woods 11930 SW 70th Ave. 5/29/2010 yes SDR2007-00010 RCM Office Building 7050 SW Clinton St. 12/26/2009 no 2008 SUI32008-00001 Rosewood Court 14010 SW Ffall Blvd. 7/8/2010 no SUB2008-00002 Medallion Meadows 11760 SW Gaarde St. 2/20/2010 . no SUB2008-00003 Highland Hills WACO 9/10/2011 WACO SUB2008-00004 Jamestowne Village 122nd and.SW James St. 3/24/2010 no Land Use Cases Lapsing Between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 (as of 4/6/2010) MLP2008-00002 Fifth Avenue Investments 8876 SW Edgewood St. 11/21/2009 no MLP2008-00003 Jensen Partition 12660 SW 136th Ct. 10/18/2010 yes MLP2008-00004 Bean Partition 11400 SW Fonner St. 1/11/2011 yes MLP2008-00005 Repta Partition 11400 SW 90th Ave. 2/16/2011 yes MLP2008-00007 Agnesse Partition 11640 SW 95th Ave. 4/14/2010 no MLP2008-00008 Gilbert Partition 6816 SW Walnut Terr. 4/7/2011 no SDR2008-00003 Dartmouth Commons 11930 SW 72nd Ave. 6/24/2010 no SDR2008-00007 Lanphere Enterprises 10655 SW Greenburg Rd. 10/30/2010 no SDR2008-00008 Sylvan Industries 7404 SW Cherry St 4/8/2011 no 2009 MLP2009-00003 Sanders Partition 12390 SW 106th Ave. 1/8/2011 no MLP2009-00002 Cross Partition WACO 8/3/2011 WACO SDR2009-00003 Luke-Dorf 11895 SW Greenburg Rd. 6/2/2011 no SDR2009-00005 The Knoll at Tigard 112340 SW Hall Blvd. 9/6/2011 no SDR2009-00006 Dave & Busters 10125 SW Wash Sq. Rd. 9/11/2011 no SDR2009-00007 Auto Zone 13405 SW Pacific Hwy. TBD 2010 MLP2010-00001 Sonic Partition 15300 SW Pacific Hwy. TBD SDR2010-00001 Pittman/Brooks Addition 15255 SW 72nd Ave. 1BD L 1 WACO - Cases approved by Washington County and annexed into the City of Tigard. These cases will not be affected. , TBD - Cases still in review. Lapsing dates have not been determined. 1 , . • • Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 2072010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title: Update on the Pacific Hwy /Hall /Greenburg /Main Construction and ARRA-funded Pavement Overlay Construction Projects Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept - Head Approval: ( Y ' City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council will recieve an update on the construction work and public information efforts for the Pacific Hwy /Hall /Greenburg /Main and Pavement Overlay projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council accept the briefing. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Construction work will be starting soon on two construction projects, Pacific Hwy 99W /Hall /Greenburg Rd /Main Street intersection reconstruction project, and the ARRA - funded pavement overlays on 72n Ave, Durham Rd, and Bonita Rd. Pacific Hwy / Hall Blvd / Greenburg Rd / Main St . • Construction is scheduled to begin the first week of May. • Washington. County is managing the contract and inspecting construction in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement approved by Council. Tigard will reimburse Washington County for contractor bills and staff time on the project. • Kerr Contractors, Inc. is the contractor. • The Engineer's estimate was $2.91 million; the bid came in at $2.64 million. • Most of the work will be done at night to avoid lane closures during the day. • Business access and pedestrian connections will be maintained throughout construction. • County and City staff will use all available means (signage, websites, phone hotline, twitter, in- person meetings, Friday morning coffees, community television, etc.) to provide public information on this project. • A `Meet the Contractor' Open House is scheduled April 27 from 4:30 to 7:30, in the Public Works Auditorium at 8777 SW Burnham St. • The County Project Manager is Dan Erpenbach at 503 - 846 -7877. The City Project Manager is Mike McCarthy at 503 - 718 -2462. • The contractor anticipates completing the project in the spring of 2011. ARRA Stimulus - Funded Pavement Overlays • This is a combined project with Sherwood and Cornelius. • Tigard's share of the funding is approximately $1.1 million. • • • • • Work is planned on 72n Ave (Fir St to Upper Boones -Ferry Rd), Durham Rd (Upper Boones Ferry Rd to Hall Blvd) :and Bonita Rd (I -5 Bridge to Milton Ct). • Bids came in lower than expected, so staff is looking to ,add streets. • Typical work will be grinding along the curb line, placing 2 inches of asphalt on top of existing pavement, and adjusting valve covers, drains, and manholes to the new grade. • Construction in Tigard; is scheduled to start the first week of May, and is anticipated to last for a few weeks. • Work on 72 " Ave and Bonita.Rd •will be done at night to minimize traffic disruption. • The City Project Manager is Mike McCarthy at 503 -718 -2462. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Long Term — Continue pursuing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES The Pacific Hwy /Hall /Greenburg /Main project is budgeted in the amount of $5.6 million in Fiscal Years 2009, `10, and '11, this is $1 million less than previously estimated. The pavement overlays are funded with ARRA federal stimulus dollars. • t / 5 Tigard Transportation Construction Project Update /pi'27 so. .? April 20, 2010 Construction Anticipated Project Name Description Start Completion Activities in Next Few Weeks • Third through lane both directions on Pacific Hwy Pacific Hwy 99W / • Separate left, through, and right lanes on side streets Construction Start Hall Blvd / Late A / • Safety — turn radius, geometry, median Hall to 217 Utility Relocation Greenburg Rd / • Widened sidewalks, better crossings, and bike lanes Early May Spring, 2011 2010 Right-of-Way Acquisition Main St • Stormwater pollution- reduction treatment • Landscaping, trees, and aesthetic improvements • Full street reconstruction • Widened sidewalks, many pedestrian amenities Utility Undergrounding • Stormwater pollution - reduction treatment Stormwater system construction Burnham Street Fall, 2011 • Landscaping and aesthetic improvements 2009 Spring, Road base preparation • Dog park improvements Curb Installation • LED Streetlights Pavement overlays on: Construction Start 72nd Late April / Durham Road Closure May 8 -9 ARRA,Pavement • 72 Avenue Early May Summer Hall to Upper Boones Ferry Preservation • Durham Rd 2010 2010 • Bonita Rd Engineering for Additional Streets • Sidewalk along south side Garrett Street • Landscaping and Stormwater collection April, 2010 June, 2010 Construction Start • • Pavement overlay Flashing Yellow Install new left turn signal heads allowing permissive left Wiring connections Arrow Signals turns (turn left when you can) at 24 intersections March 2010 June, 2010 Timing and programming 'Flashing Arrow Activation •