Loading...
Downtown Tigard Revitalization Plan - 12/01/1981 REPORT DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION PLAN - n C rl iMMINIE V UW A al 'N =I' . i kt Mil im .,.. .. P WM I 11,-p .11 ::'� t._ ■ � ©v im 'v4t. -l 0 ' 4 -' 'Ilk t • . sI 40 " * A .. 'IlL VII - '''S‘ V," N 1 „. 4 , 44 ,, „ N _,,,,, IP#Va • \, # 4 \ 4744%. i i . , ' 4 ZW A v ....... \ _. i ,. , - , 4-# 4 sA, % . ) '. N .40 SA. # ...! \ j ■ Al : IN A .. . e , , , t'Sv VA. t": ilt In . 0 r i m I lam ep„. otto ## \ -0 So ,e.- - 1 1 I , __I 1 , T Yr :AA -- CITYOFTIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION PLAN AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AND THE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY DANIELSON DRISCOLL HESS 1 ARCHITECTS ONE EAST BROADWAY MALL WALK EUGENE. OREGON 97401 484 -5757 DECEMBER 1, 1981 I THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD COMMITTEE, AND THE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BY DANIELSON, DRISCOLL, HESS, ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS FUNDING PROVIDED BY WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - PROJECT NUMBER 3003 FUNDED UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 PUB. L. 93 -383 AS AMENDED UNDER REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AT 24 CFR AT. 570. TIGARD DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE J. ALLAN PATERSON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBER ROGER BROWN NPO 41 MEMBER PHIL HIRL PARK BOARD MEMBER MADALYN UTZ LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER PAT FURRER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBER DON HANSON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBER BILL MCMONAGLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBER CHERYL BESHEARS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MANAGER PETE TAYLOR SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER ELDON JOHNSON FIRE DISTRICT MEMBER JAMES L. HENDERSON WATER DISTRICT MEMBER CAROL JONES MEMBER -AT -LARGE LOU KRUPNICK MEMBER -AT -LARGE LARRY BARNUM MEMBER -AT -LARGE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY WILBUR BISHOP, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TOM BRIAN CITY COUNCIL JOHN COOK CITY COUNCIL NANCIE STIMLER CITY COUNCIL KENNETH SCHECKLA CITY COUNCIL (I) REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION A. A DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS OF THE PLAN AND THE EXPECTED IMPACT 1. AREA AND ASSESSED VALUE QUALIFICATIONS 2. EXISTING LAND USE 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USES INCLUDED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA 4. THE VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS 5. AFFECTED TAXING BODIES 6. SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA 7. CONDITION OF THE AREA'S INFRASTRUCTURE o STREETS AND ALLEYS o SANITARY SEWERS o STORM SEWERS o WATER AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS o TELEPHONE SYSTEM 8. BUILDINGS OF HISTORIC MERIT 9. CONDITION OF STRUCTURES B. FISCAL IMPACT OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN IN LIGHT OF ADDED SERVICES OR INCREASED POPULATION C. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE PLAN D. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EACH PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE PLAN AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA E. THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF EACH PROJECT AND THE SOURCES OF MONEYS TO PAY SUCH COSTS F. THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE FOR EACH PROJECT G. THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT MONEY REQUIRED IN EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA UNDER ORS 457.420 TO 457.440 AND THE ANTICIPATED YEAR IN WHICH INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE RETIRED OR OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR UNDER ORS 457.440 H. A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY I. A RELOCATION REPORT EXHIBITS A BLOCK DIAGRAM B EXISTING LAND USE MAP C LAND USE BY BLOCK D PLAN DESIGNATIONS BY BLOCK E LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS, ASSESSED VALUE BY BLOCK (II) 1 INTRODUCTION THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION AREA INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 187 ACRES LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1 - ASH AVENUE DOWNTOWN AREA. PRIMARY BOUNDARIES ARE PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND S.W. HALL BOULEVARD WHILE THE SOUTHERN LIMIT IS S.W. HILL STREET AND S.W. O'MARA STREET. THE BOUNDARY OF THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION AREA AND OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN IS SHOWN ON THE BLOCK DIAGRAM MAP -- EXHIBIT A OF THIS REPORT. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVES OF THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION PLAN ARE TO IMPROVE THE FUNCTION, CONDITION AND APPEARANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND TO ELIMINATE EXISTING BLIGHT AND BLIGHTING INFLUENCES IN ORDER TO STRENGTHEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. THE PLAN CONCENTRATES ON PROVIDING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE NEEDED BEFORE DOWNTOWN TIGARD CAN BE DEVELOPED TO ITS FULL POTENTIAL. THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF THE PLAN IS THAT WITH THE NECESSARY INFRA- STRUCTURE IN PLACE, THE DOWNTOWN WILL DRAW TO IT SOME OF THE RAPID GROWTH WHICH IS NOW OCCURING IN TIGARD. THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL RETAIN THE ROLE OF IMPROVING AND REDEVELOPING PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALL BUILDINGS AND LAND IN THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION AREA ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE CONTROLS, CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF TIGARD'S ADOPTED PLANS, CODES AND ORDINANCES AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING THE USE OF PROPERTY IN THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION AREA. THE PLAN AND REPORT HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD COMMITTEE ACTING AS THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE SHALL CONTINUE TO COORDINATE THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROCESS TO ASSURE THAT THE IMPLEMEN- TATION OF THE PLAN IS RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS OF TIGARD. SECTION 457.095(3) OF THE STATE URBAN RENEWAL LAW REQUIRES THAT THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A REPORT. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE THE REQUIRED REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION AREA. THE CAPITALIZED HEADINGS, AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH LETTERED DIVISION, ARE EXTRACTED FROM STATE LAW AND DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT MATTER WHICH THE REPORT SHALL INCLUDE. -1- A. A DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS OF THE PLAN AND THE EXPECTED IMPACT. 1. AREA AND ASSESSED VALUE QUALIFICATIONS. LAND AREA. THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA INCLUDES 187.19 ACRES. THE TOTAL INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY OF TIGARD IS 4,314.71 ACRES. THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA IS 4.3 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL CITY AREA. THIS IS FAR BELOW THE MAXIMUM 25 PERCENT, ALLOWED BY ORS 457.420. ASSESSED VALUE. THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA IS ESTIMATED BELOW: REAL PROPERTY 26,519,990 MOBILE HOMES 240,000 PERSONAL PROPERTY 2,758,000 UTILITIES 2,213,000 TOTAL 1981 -82 $31,730,990 THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD ON THE 1981 -82 TAX ROLL IS SHOWN BELOW: REAL PROPERTY 578,225,900 MOBILE HOMES 787,400 PERSONAL PROPERTY 27,581,700 PUBLIC UTILITIES 22,172,600 TOTAL 1981 -82 $628,767,600 THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA IS 5 PERCENT OF THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE ENTIRE CITY. THIS IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMIT OF 25 PERCENT SET BY ORS 457.420. 2. EXISTING LAND USE. THE ATTACHED TABLE, LAND USE BY BLOCK (UPDATED FROM 1977) NET ACRES, SHOWS THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND USES BY BLOCK. THIS DATA IS SUMMA- RIZED FOR THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA AS A WHOLE BELOW: -2- LAND USE ACRES PERCENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 13.94 7.4 MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL 9.52 5.1 APARTMENTS 7.53 4.0 COMMERCIAL 31.74 17.0 INDUSTRIAL 22.29 11.9 PUBLIC /OPEN SPACE 15.69 8.4 VACANT 49.19 26.3 RIGHT -OF -WAY 37.28 19.9 TOTAL 187.19 100.0 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE ATTACHED TABLE, PLAN DESIGNATIONS BY BLOCK - NET ACRES, SHOWS THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND USES PLANNED BY BLOCK. THIS DATA IS SUMMA- RIZED FOR THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA AS A WHOLE BELOW: ACRES PERCENT RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY 5.61 3.0 RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY 15.32 8.2 RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY 6.40 3.4 COMMERCIAL, RETAIL 54.31 29.0 COMMERCIAL, HIGHWAY 1.61 0.9 INDUSTRIAL 26.82 14.3 OPEN SPACE 39.84 21.3 RIGHT -OF -WAY 37.28 19.9 TOTAL 187.19 100.0 COMPARING WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE SHOWN IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE, APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF VACANT LAND IS PROJECTED TO BE DEVELOPED, ALMOST HALF OF WHICH IN COMMERCIAL USE. 4. VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS. THE ATTACHED TABLE, LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS - ASSESSED VALUE BY BLOCK, SUMMARIZES THE 1981 -82 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR THE DOWN- TOWN REVITALIZATION AREA. ASSESSED VALUE IS SUMMARIZED BELOW: -3- ASSESSED VALUE LAND 10, 068, 245 IMPROVEMENTS 16,451,745 TOTAL $26,519,990 THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS MANDATED THAT FOR TAXING PURPOSES, TRUE CASH VALUES BE REDUCED SO THAT, STATEWIDE, ASSESSED VALUES DO NOT INCREASE ANNUALLY BY MORE THAN 5 PERCENT. FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981 -82, THE STATEWIDE RATIOS ARE: HOMESTEAD PROPERTY - 81.6% OF TRUE CASH VALUE NON - HOMESTEAD PROPERTY - 84.4% OF TRUE CASH VALUE THE TRUE CASH VALUE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE RENEWAL AREA IS ESTIMATED AS FOLLOWS: ASSESSED VALUE TRUE CASH VALUE HOMESTEAD 847,872 1,039,059 NON- HOMESTEAD 25,672,118 30,417,201 TOTAL $26,519,990 $31,456,260 5. AFFECTED TAXING BODIES THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES LEVY TAXES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA: WASHINGTON COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY ESD PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE JT. SCHOOL DISTRICT #23 JT. TIGARD WATER DISTRICT UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY TUALATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT JT. PORT OF PORTLAND JT. METRO SERVICE DISTRICT METZGER WATER DISTRICT 6. SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE. DOWNTOWN TIGARD IS PRIMARILY A COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL -4- CENTER, ALTHOUGH HOUSING PLAYS A MINOR ROLE. THE TABLE BELOW SHOWS THE PERCENTAGE OF DOWNTOWN LAND AREA EXISTING AND PLANNED FOR HOUSING: % EXISTING % PLANNED SINGLE FAMILY (LOW DENSITY) 12.5 3.0 APARTMENTS (MEDIUM DENSITY) 4.0 8.2 APARTMENTS (HIGH DENSITY) - 'i.4 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 16.5% 14.6% DETAILED HOUSING DATA IS NOT YET AVAILABLE FROM THE 1980 CENSUS. AVAILABLE DATA FROM THE 1970 CENSUS AND THE 1978 HOUSING SURVEY IS PRESENTED BELOW. THE FOLLOWING TABLE SUMMARIZES DATA FROM THE 1970 CENSUS FOR BLOCKS ENTIRELY INCLUDED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN REVITA- LIZATION AREA; BLOCK 308 -105 IS NOT INCLUDED SINCE A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSING UNITS ARE NOT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA. IN 1970, THERE WERE 7 UNITS LACKING SOME OR ALL PLUMBING FACILITIES AND 5 UNITS WITH MORE THAN 1.01 PERSONS PER ROOM. POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1970 SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS 307 308 TOTAL BLOCKS 130 202 203 102 POPULATION: 126 233 1 37 397 % NEGRO - - - - - % GROUP QUARTERS - - - - - % UNDER 18 YEARS 25 23 - 24 - % 62 YEARS & OVER 7 18 - 22 - YEAR -ROUND HOUSING UNITS 61 124 1 16 202 UNITS LACKING SOME OR ALL PLUMBING FACILITIES - 3 - 4 7 ONE -UNIT STRUCTURES 18 - 32 12 62 UNITS IN TEN OR MORE UNIT STRUCTURES 42 53 - - 95 LACKING SOME OR ALL PLUMBING FACILITIES: OWNER - 1 - 1 2 RENTER - 2 - 3 5 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 1 3 - 1 5 -5- THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE CITY OF TIGARD 1978 HOUSING SURVEY. DATA IS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION NUMBER 1, AN AREA APPROXIMATELY TWICE THE SIZE OF THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA. ALSO, A MAJORITY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ARE NOT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. DUE TO THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE DATA, IT IS DIFFICULT TO DRAW FIRM CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HOUSING PROBLEMS IN THE DOWNTOWN ARA. THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDES ADDITIONAL LAND FOR NEW MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. PROJECT ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN WILL IMPROVE PUBLIC SERVICES TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, INCLUDING PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE WAYS. IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE UPGRADING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND UPGRADING OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIES. -6- • NPO #1 I. DEMOGRAPHICS MARITAL STATUS AND SEX OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY MOBILE HOME Single .20 (1) .50 (17) -- Married .80 (4) .50 (17) 1.00 (2) Male .80 (4) .68 (23) 1.00 (2) Female .20 (1) .35 (12) -- RESPONSE TOTAL 5 35* 2 * Due to multiple response , Eighty percent (80%) of the single family head of households are married and male. Thirty -five percent (35 %) of the multifamily head of households are female. Age of Head of Household - N PO 1 Single Family n =5 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20 or 21 --25 26 -30 31 -35 36 -40 41 -45 46 -50 51 -55 56 -60 61 -65 65 and under over 26% 235 Multifamily n =34 9% 6% I 6% I 6% l I 3% I 6% l 3% I 3% 9% , r I 20 or 21 -25 26 -30 31 -35 36 -40 41 -45 46 -50 51 -55 56 -60 61 -65 65 and undo r over Slightly more than one -half (52%) of the multi- family households have lived in their homes for one year or less. -7- Fifty -eight percent (58%) of multifamily residents are thirty years or younger in age. Only limited conclusions should be drawn for single family households because of the small sample size. Length of Residence - N P O 1 Single Family n =5 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 61oss 6 -12 13 -24 25 -36 37 -48 49 -60 61 -72 73 -84 85 -96 97 -108 10oror (months) 32% Multifamily n =34 20% 15% 15% 3% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% l 3% 1, 6-12 13 -24 25 -36 37 -..4 49 -60 61 -72 73 -84 65 -96 97 -108 109 or (months) Slightly more than one -half (52%) of the multifamily households have lived in their homes for one year or less. -8- Annual Household Income - NPO 1 Single Family n.5 ■■■ 2094 20% 20% 20% under 2 -4 4 -6 6 -8 8 -10 10 -12 12 -14 14 -16 16 -15 16 -20 '0 -22 22 -24 24 -26 26 -28 25 -30 30 -32 32 -34 3L u 2 more (dollars x 1000) Multifamily n =34 ( 91 no response) 18% 12% 12% 12% 9% 6% I 6% 6% 3% _ 3% 1 3% I M. ( under 2 2 -4 4 -6 6 -8 8 -10 10 -12 12 -14 14 -16 16 -18 18 -20 20 -22 22 -24 24 -26 26 -28 28 -30 30 -32 32 -34 34 or more (dollars x 1000) Average annual income in NPO #1 for single family households is approximately $25,500, approximately $13,000 for multifamily house- holds. II. GENERAL HOUSING STATISTICS OWNERSHIP OF UNIT SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOME OWN .80 (4) -- 1.00 (2) RENT .20 (1) 1.00 (34) -- TYPE OF HOME House 1.00 (5) -- -- Apartment -- .94 (32) -- Duplex -- .03 ( 1) -- Triplex -- .03 (1) -- Mobile Home -- -- 1.00 (2) -9- ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY MOBILE HOME 800 or less -- .06 (2) 1.00 (2) 801 - 900 -- .20 (7) 901 - 1000 -- .12 (4) 1001 - 1100 -- .03 (1) 1101 - 1200 -- 1201 - 1300 -- .06 (2) 1301 - 1400 -- . 1401 - 1500 .40 (2) 1501 - 1600 -- 1601 - 1700 -- 1701 - 1800 -- 1801 - 1900 .20 (1) 1901 - 2000 .20 (1) 2001 - 2100 -- 2101 or More -- NO RESPONSE .20 (1) .53 (18) -- SAMPLE SIZE 5 34 2 Number of Persons in Household - N PO 1 Single Family n.5 60% 20% 20% 1 2 3 4 3 5 Multifamily n.34 mo. 2 U a•n•.. /.a....W 56% 245. 1 6% 12% 1 3% 2 S 4 5 Average number of persons in single family households is 3.80 , multifamily households have a mean of 2.15 persons per household. -10- Total Monthly Housing Costs N PO 1 Single Family n:5 „ r 20% 20% 2.0% . . 5 -1 1 -1 5 1 5 -2 2 -2 5 2 5 -5 1 -3 5 5 -46 -4 5 4 5 -55 -5 5 5 5 -66- 6 77 -7 7 5 -9R -6 5 9 5 -9 9 -9 5 9 , 10 or more (dollar, x 100) Multifamily n:34 44$6 20% 18% 7_ _ 3 3 5 -1 11 5 1 5 -2 2 -2 5 2 5 -3 J -) 5 7 5 -4 4 -4 5 4 5 -5 5_15 , 5 5 -6 6 _ 6 5 6 5 -7 7 -7 5 7 ) -9 j 5 9 5 -9 9 _4 9 5- 1010for mor( (dollars x 100) None of the single family households surveyed had housing costs greater than one - fourth of their income; forty -five percent (45%) of multi - family residences exceeded this guideline. • • -11- 7. CONDITION OF THE AREA'S INFRASTRUCTURE. A) STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY. A PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE STREET DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY HAS INVENTORIES NEEDS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF COLLECTOR STREETS. COLLECTOR STREETS IN THE DOWN- TOWN AREA ARE MAIN, BURNHAM, ASH, HALL, COMMERCIAL AND TIGARD. SCOFFINS AND THE PORTION OF COMMERCIAL WEST OF MAIN ARE DESIG- NATED LOCAL STREETS. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WERE INVENTORIED AND COMPARED WITH CITY STANDARDS: RIGHT -OF -WAY, PAVEMENT WIDTH, PARKING, CURB, GUTTER, STORM DRAINS, SIDEWALKS, AND STREET LIGHTS. IN GENERAL, STREETS ADJACENT TO VACANT OR UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES HAVE NOT BEEN IMPROVED BEYOND A MINIMAL PAVEMENT WIDTH. STREETS REQUIRING WIDENING WILL ALSO REQUIRE THE MOVEMENT OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC AND TELEPHONE LINES. BURNHAM STREET, ESPECIALLY, WILL REQUIRE THAT UTILITY POLES ON EITHER SIDE BE MOVED, AND IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO PLACE THEM UNDERGROUND. IN ADDITION, THE INTERSECTIONS OF BURNHAM AND MAIN AND COMMERCIAL AND MAIN MAY REQUIRE SIGNALIZATION DUE TO INCREASED TRAFFIC. B) STORM SEWER TRUNK LINES. THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE AREA HAS AN INADEQUATE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND IN STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY CREATES AN URGENT NEED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MAJOR TRUNK LINE TO DRAIN THE AREA INTO FANNO CREEK. THIS IMPROVEMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. C) PARKS. THERE ARE NO DEVELOPED PARKS IN THE AREA. THE CITY IS ACQUIRING LAND IN THE FANNO CREEK FLOOD PLAIN FOR A PARK. CON- STRUCTION OF THE PARK IN ADDITION TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS WILL MAKE PARKS ACCESSIBLE TO THE AREAS DESIGNATED FOR MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. (SEE PLAN EXHIBIT 5). D) PARKING IMPROVEMENTS. MUCH OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA HAS INADEQUATE PARKING. THE BLOCKS BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND PACIFIC HIGHWAY HAVE A VERY LOW RATIO OF PARKING TO BUILDING AREA. SEVERAL PARCELS ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAIN NORTH OF BURNHAM HAVE PARKING ON THE REAR PORTIONS OF THEIR LOTS; ACCESS TO PARKING IS ACROSS SEVERAL ADJACENT LOTS. E) UTILITIES. WATER, ELECTRICAL, GAS AND TELEPHONE SERVICE ARE GENERALLY ADEQUATE. HOWEVER, SOME OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE LINES WILL HAVE TO BE MOVED TO ACCOMMODATE STREET WIDENING AND SHOULD BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. 8. BUILDINGS OF HISTORIC MERIT. NO BUILDINGS OF HISTORIC MERIT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREA. -12- CONDITION OF STRUCTURES. THERE IS NO BUILDING BY BUILDING SURVEY OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, THE 1970 CENSUS INDICATED THAT APPROXI- MATELY 3.5 PERCENT WERE LACKING IN SOME OR ALL PLUMBING FACILITIES. THIS SMALL PROPORTION SUGGESTS THAT SUBSTANDARD HOUSING IS NOT A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM AND THAT HOUSING CAN BE PROVIDED THROUGH PRIVATE INVESTMENT. FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES, THE AREA NORTHEAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS IS NEWER AND IN BETTER CONDITION THAN THE AREA SOUTHWEST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. A VISUAL SURVEY BY THE CONSULTANT INDICATES THAT, GENERALLY, STRUCTURES ARE IN GOOD CONDITION; THERE ARE NO DELAPI- DATED OR ABANDONED STRUCTURES IN THE AREA. THE CONDITION OF STRUCTURES, FROM THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE, IS GENERALLY GOOD AND THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES WHICH ARE BY THEMSELVES A BLIGHTING INFLUENCE. DETAILED INFORMATION ON EACH BUILDING WILL BE COMPILED FROM THE FIRE DISTRICT, CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND AN ON -SITE INVENTORY AS A PART OF THE PLANNING ADMINISTRATION PROJECT ACTIVITY INCLUDED IN THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN. -13- B. FISCAL IMPACT OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN IN LIGHT OF ADDED SERVICES OR INCREASED POPULATION. THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN SHOULD HAVE ONLY A SMALL IMPACT DUE TO ADDED SERVICES OR INCREASED POPULATION. SINCE THE PROJECT ACTIVITIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT NEW DEVELOPMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT. IN FACT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS SHOULD BE REDUCED AS A RESULT OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS. FANNO CREEK PARK, IF COMPLETELY DEVELOPED, HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE ORB ORGANIZATION TO COST $13,400 PER YEAR FOR MAINTENANCE (IN 1980 DOLLARS). TWO PARCELS DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ARE LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED WITH ELDERLY HOUSING. THE IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, FANNO CREEK PARK, AND A SENIOR CENTER NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION WILL PROVIDE NEEDED SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY. THERE IS LITTLE OR NO LAND AVAILABLE FOR NEW FAMILY HOUSING, SO NO INCREASE IN SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS IS PROJECTED. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE ASSESSED VALUE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA MAY REACH 50 MILLION DOLLARS BY 1992. THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON A PROJECTED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION OF 3 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR IN 1982 DOLLARS. CONSTRUCTION COST IS ASSUMED TO INCREASE 8 PERCENT PER YEAR, AND ASSESSED VALUE OF COMPLETED STRUCTURES IS ASSUMED TO INCREASE AT A RATE OF 5 PERCENT PER YEAR. AT THE END OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, THIS ASSESSED VALUE WOULD BE ADDED TO THE TAX ROLLS. IF TAX LEVIES REMAIN CONSTANT, TAX RATES WILL BE REDUCED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE CITY'S ASSESSED VALUE INCREASED 8 PERCENT PER YEAR COMPOUNDED, THE TOTAL 1991/92 VALUE WOULD BE 1,358 MILLION DOLLARS. IF THE CITY TAX LEVY WERE HELD CONSTANT AT $1,629,600 (1,358,000 TIMES $1.20 PER 1,000), THE TAX RATE WOULD BE REDUCED BY 4 CENTS WHEN THE ADDITIONAL ASSESSED VALUE WAS ADDED TO THE TAX ROLLS. C. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE PLAN. THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD AREA IS A SINGLE, CONTIGUOUS AREA EXHIBITING CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT AS DEFINED ON ORS CHAPTER 457. THE AREA CONSISTS OF A ROUGH TRIANGLE WITH PACIFIC HIGHWAY (U.S. 99), HALL BOULEVARD (A STATE HIGHWAY), AND PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO FANNO CREEK FORMING THE THREE SIDES. OF THE AREA'S STREETS, ONLY MAIN STREET IS IMPROVED TO CITY STANDARDS. SIDEWALKS AND DRAINAGE ARE DISCONTINUOUS. A SEWER TRUNK LINE SERVING THE AREA IS SUBSTANDARD (SEE PLAN, EXHIBITS 3 AND 4). FANNO CREEK FLOODS ADJA- CENT LAND; ALTHOUGH THE CREEK IS A POTENTIALLY VALUABLE AMENITY, IT HAS BEEN A DETRIMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THERE IS A LACK OF SUFFICIENT PARKING ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF MAIN STREET AND THE -14- EAST SIDE OF MAIN BETWEEN THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND BURNHAM STREET. THE TWO RAILROADS CUT MAIN STREET IN HALF, CUTTING OFF CIRCULATION AND PRODUCING NOISE, SMOKE AND VIBRATION. THE MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING ON SCOFFINS, COMMERCIAL, ASH AND HALL IS NOT ADEQUATELY SERVED WITH SIDEWALKS OR PARKS. HIGH DENSITY HOUSING SITES ADJACENT TO FANNO CREEK ARE NOT ADEQUATELY SERVED WITH SIDEWALKS. THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION PLAN IS INTENDED TO CORRECT OR MITIGATE THESE PROBLEMS. D. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EACH PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE PLAN AND EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA. THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION AREA IS A SINGLE, CONTIGUOUS AREA AND PROJECT WITH A VARIETY OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO CORRECT OR MITI- GATE THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN SECTION A OF THIS REPORT. E. THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF EACH PROJECT AND THE SOURCES OF MONEYS TO PAY SUCH COSTS. THE TABLE BELOW, PROJECT ACTIVITY COST ESTIMATES, SHOWS THE ESTIMATED COST OF EACH PROJECT ACTIVITY IN 1982 DOLLARS. OF THE PROJECT TOTAL COST, APPROXIMATELY HALF IS PLANNED AS DIRECT EXPENDITURES AND HALF AS INTERIM FINANCING. INTERIM FINANCING MEANS THAT COSTS ARE TO BE PAID BACK TO THE AGENCY FROM OTHER SOURCES, INCLUDING LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AND SPECIAL PURPOSE CITY FUNDS. -15- PROJECT ACTIVITY COST ESTIMATES (IN 198L DOLLARS) DIRECT INTERIM EXPENDITURE FINANCING TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS: TO LOCAL STANDARDS - 491,000 491,000 FOR EXTRA CAPACITY 422,000 - 422,000 STORM DRAIN TRUNK LINES - 362,000 362,000 SANITARY SEWERS - 159,000 159,000 FANNO CREEK CHANNEL - 50,000 50,000 FANNO CREEK PARKS 175,000 75,000 250,000 OFF- STREET PARKING - 1,075,000 1,075,000 RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS 500,000 - 500,000 PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION 850,000 - 850,000 PROJECT TOTAL $1,947,000 $2,212,000 $4,159,000 THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ARE COMPARED WITH PROJECTED REVENUES IN 1982 DOLLARS SHOWN IN THE TABLE BELOW: PROJECT REVENUES (IN 1982 DOLLARS) TAX INCREMENT REVENUE 3,580,000 ASSESSMENTS FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS RETURNED TO AGENCY 579,000 TOTAL REVENUE $4,159,000 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTED IN SECTION G BELOW, HAS BEEN DIVIDED BY AN INFLATION INDEX AND EXPRESSED IN 1982 DOLLARS FOR COMPARISON WITH PROJECT COST. IN ADDITION TO THE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE, AN AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS ASSESSMENTS FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS RETURNED TO AGENCY. THE MONEY RETURNED TO THE AGENCY IS INTERIM FINANCING MONEY USED AS A REVOLVING FUND. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT EXPECTED THAT MORE THAN 35 PERCENT OF THE INTERIM MONEY WILL BE -16- RETURNED TO THE AGENCY DURING THE TEN YEAR PROJECT PERIOD. ANY SURPLUS MONEY GENERATED DURING THE RENEWAL PROJECT OR AFTER WILL BE ALLOCATED ACCORDING TO SECTION 700 -C OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. F. THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE OF EACH PROJECT. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT ALL PROJECT ACTIVITIES WILL BE COMPLETED IN 1992. , G. THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF MONEY REQUIRED AND THE ANTICIPATED YEAR IN WHICH INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE RETIRED OR OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR UNDER ORS 457.440. THE TABLE BELOW SHOWS ESTIMATED TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BY FISCAL YEAR IN COLUMNS ONE AND TWO. THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE TABLE SHOWS ALL URBAN RENEWAL REVENUES IN 1982 DOLLARS FOR COMPARISON WITH PROJECT COSTS IN SECTION E ABOVE. A TOTAL OF $5,680,000 IN TAX INCREMENT REVENUE IS ESTIMATED TO BE REQUIRED DURING THE PROJECT PERIOD. -17- CURRENT VALUE LOCAL ESTIMATED OF TAX INCREMENT ASSESSMENT TAX INCREMENT PROCEEDS IN RETURNED TOTAL INCOME FISCAL YEAR REVENUE 1982 DOLLARS TO AGENCY IN 1982 DOLLARS 1982 -83 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 1983 -84 170,000 160,000 - 160,000 1984 -85 270,000 230,000 - 230,000 1985 -86 370,000 290,000 - 290,000 1986 -87 480,000 350,000 - 350,000 1987 -88 590,000 400,000 115,800 515,000 1988 -89 720,000 450,000 115,800 565,800 1989 -90 850,000 500,000 115,800 615,800 1990 -91 1,000,000 540,000 115,800 655,800 1991 -92 1,150,000 580,000 115,800 695,800 TOTAL $5,680,000 $3,580,000 + S579, 000 = $4,159,000 H. A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY. THE PROJECT COSTS SHOWN IN SECTION E AND THE ESTIMATED REVENUES IN 1982 DOLLARS ARE EQUAL. TEN YEARS OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR THE PROJECT ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. I. A RELOCATION REPORT. ANTICIPATED PROPERTY ACQUISITION IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 700 -B OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. NO SPECIFIC PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE RELOCATION OF A RESIDENCE OR BUSINESS. CONDITIONS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION REQUIRING A PLAN AMENDMENT ARE DESCRIBED -18- IN SECTION (00 -B -3. SHOULD RELOCATION ASSISTANCE BE REQUIRED FOR AGENCY ACQUISITION OF OCCUPIED PROPERTY, THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 700 -3 OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN SHALL APPLY. • -19- EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A BLOCK DIAGRAM B EXISTING LAND USE MAP C LAND USE BY BLOCK D PLAN DESIGNATIONS BY BLOCK E LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE BY BLOCK N . -sT. NEM 'MIA El l ...7 s„ dik . ri,,,,, _ 407 ,. „..k, ! Ms Mall Ilk' b`. 4 4 '0* i s. ME NV *4* 4...ig d • N ' ELM ide a Ir , 4V 40 0111 E 3 6 i :4■4104,441,4974 v 47 Irk 1 / 4- wIl i& .4 l* ,:: 4 , 1 tk 1 I I I I r 4r --- w ixes , r,i, - , - ' 41L #.0, 4 low „., K � > N < * / s 4 st ,,,, • � � 744■ • , 4 %, e/. 40 4 ,i '--., . 7 / - / • 44, 8 A , • 0 . 0 A vA \ _ 1. #o o, 4 ,- lr A**, vot 6 • t • 4 4,A" L , , -- iN • A k vx ( of ) *1 4 •V■ ........ 4. V , Aab 0 _ Ilk STREET * 1 4 0 i . 4. 01 MAIA I 1 I - 1 , _ t %V* ./ - - - I 1 I I \* / ------ ' - ' , \Ii 1 i 1 1 , BLOCK DIAGRAM Zs —i /.• , > 1-1 :;r r i DOWNTOWN T �; CITY OF TIGARD DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN - -- t LEM Pt BAN HIM — V .21 11111 . riE rn � � V� S° `t i J • .■ //r * e I ' r 1 I I WA Pi lair 0.1 r. . a: ...o. , . . . . . . • , ia W8g - 36 1141 ;# 9 0 N I P F 4 , . 1tW • . 1 I i p ■ lies - 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 11*. ... . . .. ..: . r . ______ ir ■ ix+ • , , .s ., ...=.:. • ess Is . r z \ 440 ,... . .1„ Sp l . t4s, />, . \\"\ ..::.10A !!!!!! .1 `4-- / / - . : :vi: . :.* iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I* h * * t,r , . - .. . ..::.::-:::' °;.? .. 4‘1°. .:." ' "::: :::::::::: a II I . . . 0 \ : :ii.. .: , .4 . A NOP II 4 ■ 0 ‘'/•• .1" ■ , - . . - ';i *::. • r ‘.. %::- : e, 4* ' 4 . . .. • • . : ':::::ItAkt . • . . • .. . ... . . 444*- ::: ! :::::::::::: 84 , 7 ,, . ;;t. 4 <1114 " 4 . # . : • \/- • -., . • . i ) ‘1S1* ■fr..4 . • „ ....., -.• • ......., :: ......._.. , 1 1 4‘ t4 4 ' 4 • - \ ' 4 ,_ 4 ,,._ . 4 . , , #46 . 4, _ , 4* , 1 AO A 4 (-NAL.. .." ' - I c ' . 4 N . 414#4,4*/ " L/11 • 4 ' * Aw ' of ('s 4 ,.„ 1 ■1 4 %* 04 ..... • J _ •.... . - , ... ."1 ' 41r > _ J ■ --„. .....: . -. - •• .,, #` . A 1 e ***- 111 0' MARA rim 1 , ' x 1, •*$,,t. t 1 1 1 1 , , , 1 q EX ISTING LAND USE 5 I I 9 MIY ...... fN DU6T RI AL � MO 1NGLE DILE HO I � . •���� :: ( pUBUG/5EM1•RIDLIL^ F•���:T: -�4 M ULTIFAMILY I I VACANT CO MINIM GoM M ERG IAL ', DOWNTOWN TIGARD _; CITY OF TIGARD DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN -- °° 9/17/81 LAND USE BY BLOCK (UPDATED FROM 1977) NET ACRES SINGLE FAMILY MOBILE HOME BLOCK RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC /OPEN VACANT TOTAL 1 2.30 - 2.56 8.11 - - 1.94 14.91 2 1.21 - 4.23 0.15 - - 0.35 5.94 3 2.20 1.73 0.74 3.36 - 2.80 - 10.84 4 - - - 2.87 0.80 - 0.58 4.25 5 1.48 - - 1.11 10.00 0.75 2.43 15.77 X 6 1.93 4.80 - - 9.69 8.76 14.41 39.59 i 7 1.35 2.08 - 6.47 - 3.38 7.40 20.68 -I 8 3.35 0.91 - 5.99 1.80 - 22.08 34.13 9 0.12 - - 2.26 - - - 2.38 10 - - - 1.42 - - - 1.42 TOTAL 13.94 9.52 7.53 31.74 22.29 15.69 49.19 149.91 STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY - 27.09 RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY 10.19 TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY 37.28 TOTAL AREA - 187.19 ■ 9/17/81 PLAN DESIGNATIONS BY BLOCK - NET ACRES RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL: COMMERCIAL: BLOCK LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY HIGH DENSITY RETAIL HIGHWAY INDUSTRIAL OPEN SPACE TOTAL 1 - 3.61 - 11.30 - - - 14.91 2 - 5.94 - - - - - 5.94 3 - - - 10.84 - - - 10.84 4 - - - 4.25 - - - 4.25 5 - - - 8.04 - 7.73 - 15.77 X 6 5.61 - 6.40 - - 8.70 18.88 39.59 co 7 - 3.03 - - - 10.39 7.26 20.68 0 8 - 2.74 - 16.60 1.61 - 13.18 34.13 9 - - - 1.86 - - 0.52 2.38 10 - - - 1.42 - - - 1.42 TOTAL 5.61 15.32 6.40 54.31 1.61 26.82 39.84 149.91 9/17/81 LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE BY BLOCK ASSESSED VALUE PER ACRE ADJUSTED:::: BLOCK LAND BUILDING TOTAL ACRES ACREAGE LAND IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL 1 $ 2,036,600 $ 3,958,700 $ 5,995,399 14.91 14.91 $136,593 $265,506 $402,099 2 446,100 1,765,400 2,211,500 5.94 5.94 75,101 297,205 372,306 3 1,010,445 1,755,045 2,765,490 10.84 7.65 132,084 229,418 361,500 4 549,200 1,003,700 1,552,900 4.25 4.25 129,223 236,165 365,288 rn x 5 1,672,4m 1,479,4m 3,151, 800 15.77 15.48 108,036 95,568 203,605 1 m 6 846,500 819,200 1,665,700 39.59 9.59 88,269 85,422 173,691 7 796,200 2,088,100 2,884,300 20.68 17.30 46,023 120,699 166,723 rn 8 2,072,500 2,428,000 _ 4,500,500 34.13 32.41 63,946 74,915 138,861 9 335,300 589,100 924,400 2.38 2.38 140,882 247,521 388,403 10 303,000 565,100 868,100 1.42 1.42 213,380 397,958 611,338 TOTAL 510, 068, 245 $16,451,745 $26,519,990 149.91 111.33 :; $90,436 ;; $147,777 ;; $238,211 PUBLIC LAND SUBTRACTED FROM TOTAL ACREAGE AVERAGE ASSESSED VALUE PER ADJUSTED ACRE