06/09/2010 - Packet City of Tigard
r
r .
City Center Advisory Commission ❑ Agenda
MEETING DATE: Wednesday,June 9, 2010 — 6:30-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library- 2nd Floor Conference Room
13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. Welcome and Introductions......................................................................................................6:30— 6:35
2. Review / Approve May Minutes ............................................................................................. 6:35 — 6:40
3. Downtown Circulation Plan..................................................................................................... 6:40—7:15
Discussion of Plan with Tigard Senior Transportation Planner Judith Gray
Qudith Gray and Sean Farrelly)
4. 2010 Goals Quarterly Check-in...............................................................................................7:15 —7:30
(Sean Farrelly)
5. Parks Bond Discussion............................................................................................................7:30 — 8:05
Discussion of potential parks bond and CCAC's role
(Chair Craghead and Vice-Chair Murphy)
6. Updates ........................................................................................................................................ 8:05 — 8:25
A. Main Street Green Street
B. Facade Improvement Program
C. Expansion of Metro Town Center designation to include Tigard Triangle
(Sean Farrelly)
7. Other Business............................................................................................................................. 8:25 — 8:30
8. Adjourn......................................................................................................................................... 8:30 p.m.
Upcoming meetings of note:
6/7: Planning Commission- discussion of Downtown Design Review Board and Pacific Hwy Vision (7:00,Town Hall)
6/8: Council/CCDA- Study Session:Temp Use Fee and CCDA Relocation Policy;Business Meeting: CCDA Budget
Adoption and Downtown Work Plan Review
6/15: Council/PRAB joint meeting- to discuss potential parks,open space, and trails bond
6/21: Planning Commission-public hearing Transportation System Plan (7:00,Town Hall)
6/21:PRAB-regular meeting(7:00,PW Auditorium)
6/22: Council-Consider resolution to authorize parks, open space,and trails bond
7/14: Regular CCAC Meeting(6:30, Red Rock Creek Conference Room)
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA—June 9, 2010
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: June 9, 2010
Location: Tigard Library, 2°d Floor Conference Room
Called to order by: Chair Alexander Craghead
Time Started: 6:30 p.m.
Time Ended: 8:35 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alexander Craghead;Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph
Hughes; Peter Louw;Vice Chair Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer;Martha Wong; Linh Pao
(alternate); Philip Thornburg (alternate)
Commissioners Absent: Kevin Kutcher
Others Present: Chris Myron and Darren Wooley from Tigard High School
Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager;Judith Gray, Senior Transportation
Planner;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant
AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions «-ere made.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
AGENDA ITEM #2: _approve Minutes
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Motion by Vice Chair Murphy, seconded by
Commissioner Wong, that the May 12, 2010 minutes be adopted as written.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The motion passed with a vote of 5-0. Commissioners Ellis
Gaut and Louw abstained. Commissioner Shearer arrived after the vote was taken.
AGENDA ITEM #3: Downtown Circulation Plan
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner, talked
with the Commissioners about the Downtown Circulation Plan. She said that an efficient grid
system will provide maximum development opportunity, great pedestrian circulation, and efficient
CC.3C Meeting Minutes for June 9,2010 Page 1 of 7
motor vehicle circulation. She noted that Portland's block sizes are about 200',which makes it easy
to get around.
As a transportation planner, when Judith looks at a plan, she is interested in the effect it has on the
place—is it good for people or not good for people. She also looks to see if it's working for the
economic development and growth objectives. As far as a transportation circulation plan, the
Downtown plan is very good. With regard to economic development, there are concerns about
growth and development. [Detailed information is included in Exhibit A-1.1 She reviewed some
potential strategies for flexibility—new site access streets, roadway scale, and super block options.
She noted that we're not starting with a blank slate. Since we already have some infrastructure, we
have to work with what we have and can't make it so expensive that we can't afford to have it.
City of Tigard standards for roadway connections is a maximum of 530'. Pedestrian and bicycle
connections are 330'. If we don't provide connections with at least that spacing, we would not be
meeting our standards.
Judith reviewed a diagram of potential streets in the Downtown (Exhibit A-2). The streets
highlighted in blue are primary circulation streets (existing or proposed). Streets highlighted in
orange are proposed secondary streets. Streets highlighted in purple are proposed access streets
which are development-need based.
The primary circulation streets are considered essential; they are the major circulation system
through the Downtown and aren't open for a lot of negotiation. The secondary streets are
important to the development pattern for Downtown. The access streets are streets that are tied to
development. They don't have to be built unless development occurs.
Judith looked at how we can get some flexibility in the Circulation Plan. One possibility is to
reduce the scale of roads. We need to keep in mind access for freight loading and ped/bike access
and circulation. If we lose the secondary streets, freight loading would have to occur on the more
important streets. The secondary street between Scoffins and Commercial could be scaled down,
however, to reduce the cost and preserve some development area.
Another thing to consider is pedestrian access. The pedestrian crossing requirement is 330' before
they have an opportunity to cut to the next street, but meeting the requirement can be flexible. For
example, it could be on private property.
Another option for flexibility could be a super block. Certain standards could be developed to
allow a super block if a developer has a good idea for a high quality product that would support the
vision for the Downtown.
Commissioner Louw disagrees that the alley running parallel to Main Street should be considered as
primary. Sean said the alley is considered as primary because of its importance in servicing the
storefronts on Main Street (garbage pickup, deliveries, parking). We would just be formalizing the
broken pathway that's already there.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 9,2010 Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Barkley observed that there are some sections along the proposed Festival Street that
don't meet the pedestrian access requirement. She did note if that area develops, then pedestrian
access could be a requirement of development. Since the access roads will be driven more by
development, Commissioner Craghead wonders if we should allow more flexibility for whatever the
developer's vision may be. Sean said there has to be some kind of circulation plan, but it could end
up meandering.
Commissioner Shearer asked if we would want homes facing the park, or if we would rather have a
street along the front of the park. Commissioner Louw believes having a street would allow more
access for citizens. Sean said there are arguments both ways. We would want to keep it open to the
public, even if there is private development next to it.
Vice Chair Murphy asked Judith which 2 or 3 changes she would choose as priorities. Judith said
she doesn't really have a take on this. She likes the Circulation Plan, but is pointing out some
opportunities for flexibility. Commissioner Hughes said it's more of a question on how to show
flexibility on paper. Commissioner Barkley said there's a concern that once the lines are drawn, it
might preclude development. She likes the chance to be flexible, but once we have the plan, what
would flexible mean?
Sean advised that he will be sending out a memo from Leland Consulting on how to adjust the
Circulation Plan from a development perspective. Commissioner Pao asked if the super block idea
would be advertised at the upcoming developer's forum. She asked if developers like this kind of
framework set up so they know what the City will expect of them or do they prefer just having an
unconstrained piece of land. Sean said developers like certainty, but they also like flexibility. It was
also noted that developers like to have development standards to be very clear and they want their
plans to be approved quickly. Some of parcels may become more valuable by having a new street
connection;while others may be hurt by a new connection. Having the streets run along property
lines makes a lot of sense, so the cost can be shared.
Chair Craghead noted that the Ash Avenue railroad crossing is a primary circulator. If we can't get
it, what does it do to us? Judith answered that Ash Avenue doesn't make the Downtown, but it
makes it easier to get around Downtown and it's very important. As for critical connections that
don't currently exist, she thinks it's the most significant one. It was noted that the CCAC had
talked earlier about going north on Commercial and Burnham to go under the viaduct. Sean will
have Judith look at those connections.
Commissioner Barkley remarked that the alley behind Main Street goes through the Crown Carpet
building. Sean advised that the alley is totally predicated on redevelopment. After Leland is
finished with their analysis, we'll look at the parcel lines again.
Sean asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable with developing more flexible standards
and categorizing primary circulation versus things that are needed if there's development.
Commissioner Barkley said she's in favor of having SERA Architects complete their work and then
having Judith come back to help us look at it again.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 9,2010 Page 3 of
Commissioner Louw asked about the areas to the north and west of Pacific Hwy. The large
residential areas have a poor pedestrian connection to Downtown. Judith said that issue wasn't
addressed with the TSP. Commercial Street and Tigard Street sidewalks are high priorities, but
there aren't any additional connections. Chair Craghead thinks the U of O study had something like
that in one of their drawings.
Commissioner Thornburg asked if it would be prudent to say, as a group, that we like the blue lines
in general, except for the alleys. Maybe they could be orange. That could at least help to make a
guide with what we're thinking. Chair Craghead suggested waiting until we hear from Leland before
we make any decisions about that.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None
AGENDA ITEM #4: 2010 Goals Quarterly Check-in
Important Discussion and/or Comment: Sean went over the 2nd quarter update of the 2010
goals with the Commissioners (Exhibit B). With the Main Street green street project, there is a
parking study that will be conducted over the next 3 days. They'll be looking at on-street and off-
street sites. The study will provide details on turnover on Main Street and the level of utilization for
private lots. The parking study is important because some of the design decisions for the green
street project could affect the number of on-street parking spaces on Main Street. The study should
be presented to the CCAC in July or August.
Sean advised that Clean Water Services is ready to do the Fanno Creek re-meander project, but the
City will have to replace the bridges and trails as a result of the project. There's no money in the
budget to do that at this time.
Staff will be bringing the results of 2 development opportunity studies to the CCAC next month.
Sean advised there are 2 potential grants that the Facade Improvement Committee will be looking
at by the end of the month, the Underwater Works and the stationery store. The facade
improvement program will be expanded next year—up to 7 businesses.
Sean reported that Council agreed with the CCAC's position on the temporary use fee issue. The
first temporary use permit fee will be full price, but subsequent permits will be less.
The new CCAC web page has been completed.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): It was suggested that those neighborhoods immediately
affected by Downtown improvements could be linked to our web page.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 9,2010 Page 4 of 7
AGENDA ITEM #5: Parks Bond Discussion
Disc-ussion of potential parks bond and CCAC's mle
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Craghead advised there is a potential parks
bond measure that will be on the November ballot. It's unknown if there will be any money for
Downtown parks on that ballot. Vice Chair Murphy reported that the sentiment of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) is to go to City Council with a recommendation to go on the
November ballot with a parks bond measure. The dollar amount is fluctuating somewhere between
$15-25 million. There is thought to divide the City into quadrants with money from the bond
measure going to each quadrant; the Downtown may be treated as a 5th quadrant or a special
district. The money will be divided among the 4 geographic districts (25%, 25%, 20%, and 20%,
with the remaining 10% going to the Downtown). Depending on the final amount of the bond
measure, that could represent between $1.5-2.5 million for the Downtown Urban Renewal District.
Chair Craghead advised that the PRAB is scheduled to go to Council on June 15th with an initial
proposal. They will meet again on June 21st to finalize their proposal and present it to Council on
June 22nd. He suggested that if we feel this is a good proposal,we might want to attend the Council
meetings to show support and be a part of the discussion if questions come up. For this bond
measure, the PRAB will identify the kinds of things the money will be used for without specifying
exact properties. It is expected that about 50% of the bond measure will go property acquisition,
30°'o going to development, and 20% to improvement.
It was noted that the axes for the quadrants are Hwy. 99W and Fanno Creek.
Commissioner Barkley is concerned that if we go to Council,we're not prepared to answer any
questions as to what we think should be done with our share of the money because the CCAC
hasn't discussed it yet. Since each of the allocated percentages will be further earmarked for
acquisition, development, and improvement, Commissioner Ellis Gaut wonders if those amounts
would apply to the Downtown and, if so,if the numbers could be flexible. Chair Craghead thinks
the only issue on the 15th that we might want to have a say in is if we're OK with the 10% allocation
or if we want a different amount.
Commissioner Barkley thinks that people may feel they will be paying twice for the plaza—once
through Urban Renewal funding and again with a parks bond. Maybe there are other things we
could consider for parks within the district than just the plaza. Other Commissioners agreed.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Vice Chair Murphy, seconded by Commissioner
Ellis Gaut, that the CCAC support the concept, as we understand it, of the PRAB of going to the
November 2010 ballot with a bond measure of between $15 million and $25 million, with 10%
earmarked for park purposes in the Urban Renewal District. Commissioner Louw brought up the
negative effect of extra taxes for Tigard citizens. Commissioner Barkley noted that citizens would
make that decision with their votes. The motion passed by a vote of 6-2. Commissioners Barkley,
Craghead, Ellis Gaut, Murphy, Shearer, and Wong voted in favor; Commissioners Hughes and
Louw voted against the motion.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 9,2010 Page 5 of 7
Chair Craghead will try to attend the June 15th Council meeting and report back to the CCAC. He
will see if we need to attend the June 22nd meeting as well.
AGENDA ITEM #6: Updates
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
A. Main Street Green Street
This item was discussed earlier.
B. Facade Improvement Program
This item was discussed earlier.
C. Expansion of Metro Town Center designation to include Tigard Triangle
Sean reported on the Town Center boundary expansion (Exhibit C). This issue initiated with City
Council wanting to propose a boundary expansion to Metro that included both the Urban Renewal
District and the Tigard Triangle. The current Town Center boundary isn't the same as the Urban
Renewal District boundary.
As background, Sean advised that Metro has a 2040 Growth Concept to identify different types of
centers around the region. Town Centers have a large array of services and people living in the
same area; Regional Centers are on a bigger scale, such as the Washington Square Regional Center.
These are planning designations.
Currently, the Triangle is limited in the amount of development it can take, because it is surrounded
by ODOT facilities (I-5, Hwy. 217, Pacific Hwy.). When the plans for the Triangle were formed to
have mixed-use office/residential areas, ODOT said we could re-zone it, but the amount of
development had to be capped at .4 floor area ratio (FAR). More intense development would
impact ODOT facilities too much and tie up traffic.
When someone is doing an analysis of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), they need to show
how the development or land use change will affect the transportation system. If it puts more
traffic onto a road, they need to mediate that or reduce their development. If the development is in
a Town Center, there's a break in that requirement. They're allowed about 25%more traffic than in
a non-Town Center designation. With that in mind, Council and the Planning Commission
recommended re-zoning the boundaries to include the Tigard Triangle in the Town Center
designation. It won't affect Urban Renewal.
The resolution states that the Tigard Triangle has been identified as a preferred area to
accommodate higher density and mixed use development. Commissioner Shearer wonders if this
will send a message to potential developers that the Triangle is a higher priority for development
than the Downtown. Sean said this could be a possibility; however, he doesn't think that
designating an area as a Town Center will change a developer's desire to build somewhere. As far
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 9,2010 Page 6 of 7
as the City is concerned, we're only spending urban renewal dollars in the Downtown. We're trying
to help the Triangle to get more density than was originally envisioned. There has been some
discussion about revisiting the design regulations in the Triangle.
Sean noted that having the Triangle as a Town Center could prioritize it as a place for a station
community with the southwest corridor light rail. The Downtown is already a natural for a station
community.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): '_done
AGENDA ITEM #7: Other Business
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Craghead advised that City Council just
removed a Planning Commissioner for various misconduct related items, as a result of a
disagreement about extending Ash Avenue over Fanno Creek. The Ash Avenue neighbors were
copied on his emails, so the next time the Ash Avenue crossing is on our agenda, it's possible that
the neighbors may attend the meeting. Sean noted that the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on the Transportation System Plan on June 21s'.
Commissioner Louw would like to discuss the City's sign ordinance at a future meeting.
Commissioner Shearer noted that the City of Tigard was mentioned on the Spokane news for its
planning and growth.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None
AGENDA ITEM #8: Adjournment
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Jerree Lewis, CCAC Secretary
ATTEST: qlLn 4
_�a C, Chair Alexandir Craghead
CC AC Meeting Minutes for June 9,2010 Page 7 of 7
City of Tigard
. . & Memorandum
To: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
From: Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner
Re: Downtown Circulation Plan
Date: June 7, 2010
At your request, I reviewed the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan to determine whether the
consultant recommendation is a good match of the City of Tigard Downtown. This was
followed by consideration of potential adjustments that might better support economic
development.
Transportation Evaluation
From a transportation perspective, the main considerations are: the capacity to accommodate
travel demand; the function of the roadway network in providing mobility, circulation, and
access; and, the spacing between cross streets. In general, the plan does a good job on all of
these counts.
Traffic Capacity
The hourly travel demand estimates indicate that upon build out of downtown, most streets
would have between 100 and 500 peak hour vehicles in either direction. At this level of traffic,
the planned circulation system would have sufficient capacity to accommodate travel demand.
As long as general connectivity is retained, it may be possible to remove one or more of the
lower volume streets and accommodate travel on parallel connections.
General Circulation
A balanced and efficient circulation system should include alternative routes to each
origin/destination, and should minimize the travel distance from any given origin/destination
pair. This is achieved in the proposed plan, with roadways serving varied needs along a range of
Mobility and Access functions. While primary access and circulation routes (Main, Burnham,
etc.) are essential to the overall system, others would largely be triggered by development of
adjacent properties and would primarily serve as access roads.
Connectivity Spacing
Multi-modal connectivity describes the frequency of and distance between connections for
travelways (i.e., streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails). A well-connected network minimizes the
need for out-of-direction travel and supports efficient distribution of travel demand among
multiple parallel travel ways. In Tigard, street connections are required at 530-foot or less
spacing; bicycle/pedestrian connections should be provided at no more than 330-foot spacing.
It appears that the proposed circulation plan would meet all of these standards, except for
connections across the railroad tracks, which are a reasonable exception due to their high cost
and other issues.
Economic Development Considerations
While the proposed circulation plan .achieves the desired outcomes for transportation, some
concerns have been raised that the extensive nature of the plan will hinder growth and
development in downtown due primarily to high costs to both public and private sectors. The
plan was reviewed to identify potential opportunities for flexibility that would not undermine
the circulation goals. Some potential strategies were identified for further consideration:
Nese Site Access Streets
It should be noted that certain streets would be needed primarily to serve the adjacent
properties and would only be developed if there were land uses that would benefit directly from
their development. Such is the case of the roadway southwest and parallel to Burnham Street; or
the Ash Avenue connection between Scoffins and Garden Place. These streets would only be
constructed if warranted by development, and development options would be significantly
limited without their construction. As such, these streets should not be considered a barrier to
economic development.
Roadway Scale
Some roadways could be reduced in scale. For example, the roadway parallel to Scoffins and
Commercial is shown as an Urban Residential street, requiring 52 to 56 feet of right of way and
includes sidewalks and landscaping. It may be possible to create a smaller scale street, such as an
alley, or a private street (with a public easement) in order to maintain the circulation and loading
function while reducing the overall cross section. However, there would still be a need for a
pedestrian connection in order to meet connectivity standards. Design standards could be
developed to assure such issues as lighting and safety are met.
Super Block Options
It is possible that the City could provide for "super blocks" which would remove certain street
connections. If the City is amenable to consolidating parcels in this way, there should be specific
standards and requirements that ensure that any resulting development support the vision and
principles for downtown. This might include provision of private streets or pedestrian/bicycle
connections in lieu of streets built to fully public standards.
I hope this brief summary of my review is helpful. I would be glad to meet with you and the
CCAC to discuss these or other ideas related to the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan.
Ex. ^?
Cown!owr.Tgsrt(7 a4bm oran 2X9
rw
•sem"
6�
.8
GAF\ �` �►�r!
1
Y
P,
F
sT ! . _ II
�e
eG9 ti� Pyli
r �
!! 4
a
s
S
1
c
Y ,
2050 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TIGARD,OR
KITTELSON$ASSOCIATES,INC.
R.�MPORT�T9Y E,i?EERW
-A-
34 TIGARD.OREGON
City Center Advisory Commission 2010 Goals —2"d Quarter Update
I. Project Infrastructure
a. Monitor,review, and provide input on the following key projects:
I. Main Street/Green Street Phase 1
ii. Main Street/Green Street Phase 2 (north end)
iii. Plaza site
iv. Burnham Street completion
v. Pacific Hwy./Greenburg/Hall
vi. Lower Fanno Creek
vii. Transit Center redevelopment
2"d Q Update:
a.i. Main Street Green Street project design starts in June 2010.
a.iv. Burnham construction in progress
a.v. Pac Hwy. intersection construction in progress
a.vi. Fanno Creek project delayed in CIP until 2014
II. Development
a. Explore incentives that may stimulate private development with a focus on
residential including:
i. Outreach to developers
ii. Financial incentives
iii. Land assembly and direct development options
b. Advise CCDA on our exploratory findings of incentives
c. Improve our knowledge of the "built" environment including demographics and geography of
Downtown
2"d Q Update
a. Development opportunity studies performed on two properties
III. Facade Improvement Program
a. Implementation of Phase 1 (approved businesses)
b. Continue to promote, expand, and refine program
2"d Q. Update:
a. First matching grant awarded and two other grant applications under consideration.
b.Applications received for FY 2010-11.
Program budget increased to $75,000 for FY 2010-11
IV. Circulation Plan
a. Review for final adoption
b. Engage in regular communication with Transportation Advisory Committee to ensure
transportation plan meets needs and values of the community
2"d Q. Update:
a. Plan currenth• under review
b. CCAC members have attended TTAC meetings
V. Branding/Marketing of Downtown
Determine role of CCAC in branding and marketing of Downtown, including:
a. Encourage the development of a Brand ID for Downtown Tigard
b. Determine role regarding marketing, advertising, and promotion of Downtown
c. Liaise with COT Event Coordinator to develop appropriate event strategy
2"d Q Update:
c. COT Event Coordinator position eliminated in budget cuts.
VI. Communication
a. Determine effective wav to liaise with other COT boards and commissions
b. Engage in on-going communication with Council and staff
i. Regular attendance at Council meetings
ii. Periodic attendance at Friday morning meetings on Burnham project
in. Representation from CCAC at CCDA meetings
iv. Periodically invite Councilor Webb to our meetings
c. Engage in on-going communication with hired consultants
d. Engage in on-going communication with neighborhoods
e. Develop talking points for CCAC in Urban Renewal District
2nd Q Update:
a. CCAC members have attended Transportation Advisory Committee and Parks and
Recreation Board meetings
b.i. CCAC members have attended Council/CCDA meetings
b.iii. Annual CCAC/CCDA meeting held in February
d. CCAC member attended Neighborhood Network Open House
VII. Long-term Goals
a. Continually improve CCAC processes and procedures including, but not limited to:
i. Annual calendar development
u. Continue to evolve meeting efficiency and agendas
b. Increase awareness of the impact our work has on the community,
i. On-going outreach to businesses and local community-
u. Continually work to increase transparency with citizens
w. Continually work to improve communication with Council and staff
c. Perform other duties as assigned by CCD A
2"d Q Update:
b.ii. CCAC improved web page in progress
Agenda item 6 .0
Agenda Item#
Meeting Date Mav 25,2010
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard,Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Resolution Directing Staff to Submit Tigard Town Center Boundary Expansion
Prepared By: Susan Hartnett/Ron Bunch Dept Head Approvak City NIgrApproval:
IssuE BEFORE THE CoUNaL
Should Council direct staff to pursue an expansion of the Tigard Town Center boundary?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to formally submit a proposal to Metro to expand the Tigard Town Center boundary.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At its April 20, 2010 meeting, the Tigard City Council held a work session to discuss potential changes to the
Tigard Town Center boundary.The purpose of the work session was to review a proposed boundary change map
and direct staff on whether to pursue it. After discussion, the Council directed staff to propose boundarl,
expansion that includes the Tigard Urban Renewal District and the Tigard Triangle and present it to Metro Council
for feedback. On '.Mav 5, 2010,Mayor Dirksen and the Community Development Director received favorable
feedback from Metro Council on this proposal.
This discussion with Metro Council was for comment and "buy-in" because the Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan allows jurisdictions to expand town center boundaries without Metro approval.
However,it is recommended to make Tigard's proposal part of the ongoing Metro process. This will raise the
regional profile of Tigard's intentions and the Tigard Triangle. Metro's process will also require less work from the
City d-ian the alternative of doing it independently.
The next step in the process is to submit a formal proposal to be reviewed by 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.
At its May 25,2010 meeting, Council is being asked to formally support submitting the proposal by passing a
resolution (Attachment 1). The proposal would:
■ support the community's commitment to the Tigard Urban Renewal District
• support the City's aspirations for more compact urban development
■ support die region's commitment to high capacity transit
■ support development potential in the Tigard Triangle
l:\LRPI_N\Council\laterials\2011\5-25-101-ig3rd Town Center ULailmtion:IS.drx�
1
The map included as Exhibit A to the resolution depicts the boundaries as proposed by Council at the April 20,
2010 work session,with minor changes recommended by the City Manager that include more of the Hwy. 217
ramps. This meeting will provide Council another opportunity to make adjustments to the boundary before die
proposal is submitted. A large printout of the map will be available for marking any further boundary changes.
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: Resolution directing staff to submit boundary change proposal
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
lc\1,RP1_\\Council\latenaL+\_'OlU\� 'S 10'1'igard Torn Center Designation alS.does
7
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SUBMITTAL OF A BOUND-ARY CHANGE PROPOSAL TO
METRO FOR THE TIGARD TOWN CENTER.
WHERE AS,the Metro Urban Growth Boundary Functional Plan adopted policies to implement regional goals
and objectives,including the Metro 2040 Growth Concept;and
WHEREAS, section 3.07.130 of the Metro Urban Growth Bound:u-y Functional Plan regtures cities and
counties to adopt the Metro 2040 Growth Concept design type boundaries into its comprehensive plan;and
WHERE-AS, the purpose of regional and town center design types are to promote compact, ini-]xed use
development served by multi-modal transportation options;and
WHEREAS, tlhe City of Tigard fonned the Tigard Urban Renewal District through a vote of its citizens in
2006;and
WHEREAS, die purpose of the Tigard Urban Renewal District is to support redevelopment of the downtown
into a compact,mixed use urban village;and
WHEREAS, the ?Metro mapped Tigard Town Center boundary is currently not coincident with the Tigard
Urban Renewal District;and
WHEREAS, the"Tigard Planning Commission and the Tigard City Council have identified the Tigard Triangle
as a preferred area to accommodate higher density, mired use development that would support Southwest
Corridor High Capacity-Transit;and
WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council directed staff on April 20,2010 to include both the Tigard Urban Renewal
District and the Tigard Triangle area in the proposed Tigard Town Center boundary change;and
WHEREAS,on May 5,2010 the City of Tigard received favorable feedback from Metro Council on submitting
such a proposal;and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Town Center botndaiy change is consistent with Tigard City Council 2010 Goal 1,
Implement die Comprehensive Plan and Goal 2, Implement Downtown Urban Renewal.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Cite Council hereby expresses its support for the preparation and subnussion of a Tigard
Town Center boundary change as depicted in Exhibit A.
SECTION 2: This resolution is effective urunediately upon passage.
RESOLUTION NO. 10 -
Page 1
PASSED: This day of 2010.
Mayor-City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder-City of Tigard
RESOLI.rITON NO. 10-
Page
`J O p O - c .G 3 II x u o N
�.•' v ^ _ O F� tO m A o u FE E E E m m
a O y
Z�J QS W ~m E U _ = O C o Ev. o m
v . y c C1 U E E E
O O 2 o
L) -C
o °' w n d su, N ❑ G
E o ° - ❑ a v 0 . o m . a a c
~ J d O V "V x x x x x
a d
CL U 0 Z 2 ::+ f E E O
a _All oil m
Li
00
�� �+a+aqua+aaaasuua+assauuuuaauauua+au•
•••
rif
-T 6 I LL
0
-
_
- .� - _. ..._.— - __ ♦• 000 ❑ ■ +
- '- _. -_ - ___ ♦♦ 0000 '/� C�+f CCC
_•- - - — Gni ■ -
r
c WIN
°
. _
°i
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
From: Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner
Re: Downtown Circulation Plan
Date: June 7, 2010
At your request, I reviewed the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan to determine whether the
consultant recommendation is a good match of the City of Tigard Downtown. This was
followed by consideration of potential adjustments that might better support economic
development.
Transportation Evaluation
From a transportation perspective, the main considerations are: the capacity to accommodate
travel demand; the function of the roadway network in providing mobility, circulation, and
access; and, the spacing between cross streets. In general, the plan does a good job on all of
these counts.
Traffic Capacity
The hourly travel demand estimates indicate that upon build out of downtown, most streets
would have between 100 and 500 peak hour vehicles in either direction. At this level of traffic,
the planned circulation system would have sufficient capacity to accommodate travel demand.
As long as general connectivity is retained, it may be possible to remove one or more of the
lower volume streets and accommodate travel on parallel connections.
General Circulation
A balanced and efficient circulation system should include alternative routes to each
origin/destination, and should minimize the travel distance from any given origin/destination
pair. This is achieved in the proposed plan, with roadways serving varied needs along a range of
Mobility and Access functions. While primary access and circulation routes (Main, Burnham,
etc.) are essential to the overall system, others would largely be triggered by development of
adjacent properties and would primarily serve as access roads.
Connectivity Spacing
Multi-modal connectivity describes the frequency of and distance between connections for
travelways (i.e., streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails). A well-connected network minimizes the
need for out-of-direction travel and supports efficient distribution of travel demand among
multiple parallel travel ways. In Tigard, street connections are required at 530-foot or less
spacing; bicycle/pedestrian connections should be provided at no more than 330-foot spacing.
It appears that the proposed circulation plan would meet all of these standards, except for
connections across the railroad tracks, which are a reasonable exception due to their high cost
and other issues.
Economic Development Considerations
While the proposed circulation plan achieves the desired outcomes for transportation, some
concerns have been raised that the extensive nature of the plan will hinder growth and
development in downtown due primarily to high costs to both public and private sectors. The
plan was reviewed to identify potential opportunities for flexibility that would not undermine
the circulation goals. Some potential strategies were identified for further consideration:
New Site Access Streets
It should be noted that certain streets would be needed primarily to serve the adjacent
properties and would only be developed if there were land uses that would benefit directly from
their development. Such is the case of the roadway southwest and parallel to Burnham Street; or
the Ash Avenue connection between Scoffins and Garden Place. These streets would only be
constructed if warranted by development, and development options would be significantly
limited without their construction. As such, these streets should not be considered a barrier to
economic development.
Roadway Scale
Some roadways could be reduced in scale. For example, the roadway parallel to Scoffins and
Commercial is shown as an Urban Residential street, requiring 52 to 56 feet of right of way and
includes sidewalks and landscaping. It may be possible to create a smaller scale street, such as an
alley, or a private street (with a public easement) in order to maintain the circulation and loading
function while reducing the overall cross section. However, there would still be a need for a
pedestrian connection in order to meet connectivity standards. Design standards could be
developed to assure such issues as lighting and safety are met.
Super Block Options
It is possible that the City could provide for "super blocks" which would remove certain street
connections. If the City is amenable to consolidating parcels in this way, there should be specific
standards and requirements that ensure that any resulting development support the vision and
principles for downtown. This might include provision of private streets or pedestrian/bicycle
connections in lieu of streets built to fully public standards.
I hope this brief summary of my review is helpful. I would be glad to meet with you and the
CCAC to discuss these or other ideas related to the Downton Tigard Circulation Plan.
r
J !}---1+.� � I �i�•�,CL• �` Q♦® ap o° o° 7��,----I�F r--�- ,�-�- .._,11 ,rl r-, _V
AY
Lj L7:
ape, l`� _ ��!I� 01
-�----I - ---1r iii�ruuu °fie♦ �✓.,�,. >�/'/.! J �� .` I � rf�-;
�'7t
LT
Ei,
�,�T —
"'T7
7 1__); �_j ♦♦ J-i FT IT
T ♦ 1 �e
,
1- � {•----_ � ' -_{i=ce�r--•--.
°®r■■ru ■d■rurr■rr■rr■riru■rr■■�r■�rraui■ �t�� � �'
_
LM
i e"= Lr
S v Z G] t7 G4mo
c
_ A M c v x x` `x= x x m m m m ,-o m 3 S ° 9 (D
=, O. S n c v ma 3 (O fD C fp rtn rtlye Lid
<q v c m aC, a a m 3 3 a o m m 3 N .7i.
m m m mmil m m 2 W N o m ,g O -� (p O
m w 5. t7 a 3 . o y n � O 0,
a _ > > •mc m c a m 3 3 �. m 3 3IS, '� CCC —1 O O 'J Q+
m m m m m 0 0 m J w `J O �.+ 1"h
c L� 0) h
N
a v m rL z
Completeness Review
for Boards, Commissions
Is and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
City Center Advisory Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
June 9, 2010
Date of Meeting
I have verified that to the best of my knowledge, these documents are a complete copy of
the official record. I was not the original administrator for this meeting.
C�� M - L2, Rat cc-e
Print Name
Signature
S aC1 /cam
Date 1