The URL can be used to link to this page

03/05/2007 - Packet • I TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 5, 2007 7:00 p.m. TIGARD TIGARD CIVIC CENTER-TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL - 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - 7:05 p.m. 4. APPROVE MINUTES - 7:10 p.m. 5. FORM-BASED DESIGN FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION OF FEBRUARY 26 MEETING - 7:15 p.m. 6. LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRAINING - 7:45 p.m. 7. 07-12 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM WORKSHOP - 8:15 p.m. 8. OTHER BUSINESS - 8:45 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT - 9:00 p.m. • • Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call Hearing Date: -' 5 -O 7 Starting Time: 7 :OD COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President) r/ Tom Anderson Rex Caffall V Margaret Doherty t/ Jeremy Vermilyea 1 David Walsh STAFF PRESENT: CC/ Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee C4fPfl z„rill Gary Pagenstecher Ron Bunch p r,3, Cheryl Caines 7 / Emily Eng Duane Roberts h Kim McMillan Beth St. Amand L , Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar Sean Farrelly • • 'CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 5, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Vice President Walsh; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, and Vermilyea. Also in attendance was Councilor Gretchen Buehner, liaison to the Planning Commission. Commissioners Absent: President Inman Staff Present: Tom Coffee,Director of Community Development; Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager; Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Caffall reported on the Commjttee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). He advised that the committee is working on web pages for neighborhoods. He noted that Tigard's website was voted as one of the nation's best websites for small cities for its usability and readability. The Committee co-sponsored a drug awareness program at the Library. They were disappointed with the amount of community involvement, so they hope to do it again in the spring. Councilor Buehner reported that the Intergovernmental Water Board will probably be doing some transfers of property titles. It will involve some permitting issues that may come before the Planning Commission. Councilor Buehner advised that she will be attending hearings on annexation bills this week in Salem. She also noted that the ordinance for the City's annexation policy will be coming back to Council next week. Vice-President Walsh reported that the Tree Board will meet Wednesday night. They will be picking up with the new endorsement from the Council on the role and scope to develop an expanded tree code. It will be complementary to the Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page I • • 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the January 29,2007 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded to approve the February 5, 2007 meeting minutes as submitted. • The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Vermilyea abstained. 5. FORM-BASED DESIGN FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION OF FEBRUARY 26 MEETING City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) members in attendance: Roger Pothoff, Carolyn Barkley,Alexander Craghead,Alice Ellis-Gaut, Lily Lilly Planning Manager Ron Bunch advised that when he attended a CCAC meeting last fall, the CCAC expressed a desire to have a consultant provide background on form-based code (FBC). They wanted a neutral overview of FBC with the possibility of FBC being used in the Downtown. Staff arranged for a consultant to give a presentation at a joint meeting of the CCAC and the Planning Commission on February 26th. Although the presentation wasn't as good as it could have been because of technical problems, the Commissioners were able to ask questions and discuss some of the issues surrounding FBC. Mr. Bunch noted that he received emails from some CCAC members expressing concern that they are being pushed out of the process. He reassured everyone that this will be an ongoing collaborative process - the Planning Commission and City Center Advisory Commission will decide together where to go with FBC from this point forward. Planning Commissioners and City Center Advisory Commissioners provided the following comments concerning FBC: > Do we want to go anywhere with l- BC? Do we explore it further or should we table it and look for other things? Is FBC permissible under current statute? Is it going to accomplish what we want? > Some people don't care one way or the other between form-based and fact-based code, but they're interested in developing design standards. > Whatever the two Commissions decide,it's going to be irrelevant unless Council is up to speed and understands what's going on. It was recommended to schedule the last hour of the Council workshop meeting every month to talk about this issue—to give it to them in "bite size"pieces. > The CCAC already knew more than the presentation, so they expected more information from the presentation than they received. They have not come to the conclusion that FBC is something they want to do;but it's a potential idea. They still do not have the necessary information to say it's really going to work. > There is concern about design standards and aesthetics with the redevelopment. Existing code may not be able to convey this information in an accurate way. Fact- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 2 • • based code leaves a lot more open to interpretation—there may be too much flexibility in some situations. There's a potential that P'I3C might be able to more accurately portray what the Downtown Improvement Plan envisions for the Downtown. The CCAC isn't at the point to be able to make a decision; they need more information. ➢ It would be useful to have some actual code to see how I-BC looks when it's reduced to paper. There are probably many variations for how that can be accomplished. That's the next step. There's an urgency to look at this now because of upcoming development and the Comp Plan update. We need more in-depth information before we can go forward. If we have an arrangement that's easily understood,we'll spend less staff time and money on attorney fees—we need to spend the money up front to have it done right. > The presentation was helpful to those who have never heard the term form-based code. > Will the r'BC process fit in with our small Downtown,with a major thoroughfare running through the center of the Downtown? We need more information before we can make a decision. > What kinds of information do we need to make a decision about exploring N73C more? The legality issue could be one item. > The discussion with the consultants was useful. We're still in a fact-finding mode, so it's a good idea for the CCAC and the Planning Commission to be in a parallel mode. We should "begin with the end in mind". How does this apply to what we're trying to create in the urban renewal district? > We need to come to a consensus about the role of Tigard City government in overseeing design. We need to have a discussion about the proper level of control we can recommend for Tigard City government to have in design control. > In the past, there has been a bias against design review. We have an opportunity now to look at design review again to see if it's appropriate for Tigard. ➢ It would be helpful to see what actual code looks like. We need samples from cities that use I-13C—maybe put similar codes next to each other so we can compare them. > The Commissioners asked staff to provide examples of I-BC from other cities and to get an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether N'BC will pass muster under Oregon's current land use statues. > Developers need to be involved in the discussion as soon as possible. Staff said that to get developers involved, they need to know what standards we considering the properties we're looking at, and what it's supposed to look like. We need to do more work first. > The City needs to make it easier for developers. If FBC could help speed up the process and we could convince developers that it would be more efficient,it would be a good selling point. Staff believes that Downtown development standards won't make life easier or quicker for developers. The Downtown is more complex than any single issue project or parcel in Tigard. In the absence of eminent domain and the ability to acquire land, it's going to be more difficult. We shouldn't say that P BC is one of benefits of Downtown design standards. > We need a consensus regarding the level of control the City should have regarding design review,whether it's form-based or traditional. Everything will come to a grinding halt if Council isn't on board with design review. Having worksessions with Council is a good idea. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 3 • • > It was reported that at a recent Council meeting, design review was mentioned and at least 2 Councilors were very receptive to it. > It was noted that a decision that needs to be made up front is whether we want design review or not. The CCAC thinks design review is critical. > It's easy to say yes or no about having design review;it's harder to say what it means. > Would it apply just to the Downtown or should it be citywide? Maybe we could start with the Downtown. Ron Bunch advised that staff is anxious to start to work rather than to continue to bring in consultants. We need to formulate goals,policies, and actions measures to have a foundation to begin with. Staff will bring in resources and code samples so the Commissions can take a look at Main Street and begin to draft out what we want the Downtown to look like. Tom Coffee advised that the Planning Commission, by City ordinance,is the body that passes on recommendations for land use regulations. Design review would be considered a land use regulation. The CCAC is the body set up to specifically advise the Redevelopment Agency on redevelopment of the Downtown. How that is regulated impacts them. There is a need for both groups to work together. He advised both groups to concentrate more on the outcome (what's it going to look like and how it's going to function) rather than worrying about the method. We may find that FBC works for some aspects and the traditional code works for others. He agrees that it's important to know what level of design review the Council will support. He also agrees that we need to get legal advice on the parameters of the code. Ron Bunch estimates a 10-12 month process for the Downtown land use program,but that stop gap measures should to be in place to prevent"something awful" from happening in the meantime. This should be rolled into the CCAC/Planning Commission process. The overall 10-12 month process can have milestones, e.g.,land use part, design part, downtown circulation part, and administration part. It was suggested to have a sub-committee of both Commissions to work together. It was decided that each Commission would identify 2 people at their next regular meeting to serve on the sub-committee. The sub-committee will work on a recommendation to bring forward to the Commissions. It will be necessary to have the answers to the questions already asked before the sub-committee can begin. The Commissions would like to see codes with a PBC element from other cities and also see what infrastructure they have in place. Do they have design review boards; do we need it? Is it something we can obviate by having r'BC or do we still have to have it? What does it look like; how does it work? These are some of the things that will be charged to the sub-committee. There was consensus for the groups to forward 2 names for the sub-committee. Staff was asked to draft an outline of what the sub-committee's charge would be and load it with questions—what is the exact charge;what is the timeline? It was suggested that we may just want to set a timeline for the first report back to the Commissions. Staff was asked to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 4 • • concurrently get answers to the questions raised and maybe take a "fatal flaw" approach—is there any reason this will not work (legally/Council buy-in, etc.). Staff can create a timeline for the sub-committee to consider. 7. 07-12 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN WORKSHOP This item was taken out of order. Tom Coffee discussed the 07-12 Community Investment Plan (CIP) and the new 5-year format. In the past, the Planning Commission would get a list of projects that were primarily focused on the following year. Other projects would be listed,but they weren't programmed for the subsequent 4 years. The idea is to do an inventory of all the capital needs of the City for the next 5 years and program them so that 1) coordinating projects are identified; 2) the master plan shows the sequence of projects; and 3) the costs are identified so projects can be prioritized. He noted that the draft 07-12 CIP project book was distributed a few weeks ago, along with a funding matrix. Staff has refined project estimates and descriptions and developed a revised matrix (Exhibit A). The CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For the Planning Commission, the CIP is an exercise for keeping the Commission informed and allowing them to comment and make recommendations on it. The Planning Commission had the following comments/questions: > For projects that say"funded",is that 100% rock solid based upon levels of income or tax revenue? Coffee answered that some projects might rely on a grant and some projects are only partially funded. The newly passed gas tax is targeted to do the Greenburg/99W intersection. The money will come in over a 4 to 5yearperiod;however, we will want to build it in 2years. To accomplish this, we will have to get a bond or borrow money from another fund and then repay it. This matrix will change again before it is adopted by Council, to show the entire expenditures in 08-09 and 09-10, but the revenue won't show until the 4th or 5th year. > Will this cause confusion for the tax payer? To avoid that, we will borrow the money to build the improvements early (in 08-09 and 09-10). The money will be repaid after we receive the revenue share. Another example is the Traffic Impact Fee (111-0. Over the next 5years, we have identified street projects that total over 324 million;however, we will only receive an estimated 36 million from '1Th. > It was advised that Larry Galizio, a School Board member, and County Commissioner Roy Rogers recently met with CPO members to discuss a school SDC proposal. They also discussed streets and TIF. When asked if the County planned to increase the TIF, Commissioner Rogers said he did not see anything happening within the next 5 years. > Where does TIF revenue come from? It comes_firm people getting building permits for new development. Thy pay a 11F based on the impact their development will have on the street rystem (or some percentage thereof). When the County implemented the.1 iF severalyears ago, thy did an estimate of what all the road costs would be Countywide for the next 20 years+/-and came up with a cost recovery of only 35%of that amount. From the beginning, thy were 65%in the hole in covering the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 5 costs for roads in Washington County. Over time, because l'll hasn't been raised, the cost recovey is only about 25%. As a result, the backlog of needed road improvements is climbing. Recently, the Transportation Financing Strategy Committee discussed the possibility of the City having its own SDC for transportation. The problem is that a lot of revenue potential has been lost because so much development has already occurred. > Is there a consensus among cities in Washington County that TIF needs to increase and, if so,how can we get all the cities together to approach the County Commission? There is talk of that, but what effect it will have remains to be seen. They tend to look at the next election instead of the 20 year road plan. > There is another problem now because all the people who live in urbanized, unincorporated Washington County now outnumber all the people living in the cities and the rural areas. They don't want to see any fee increases. > One Commissioner believes that we saw too much detail in the past CIPs, but would like to see major themes identified in the new format (e.g., 3 years of sewer improvement projects, 4 years of street projects, etc.). That would help in terms of policy and planning. Coffee advised that staff will have a workshop with Council on March 20 and will come back to the Planning Commission maybe in the beginning of April with that kind of format. > It would be nice to have a list of prior years'priorities. > For the water-related projects,it would be helpful to have more break out of the detail (location of the reservoirs and more specificity in the timelines). 6. LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRAINING Ron Bunch distributed copies of An Introductory Guide to Land Use Planning for Small Cities and Counties in Oregon (Exhibit B). He noted that it could be germane to land use decisions the Planning Commission makes—quasi-judicial,legislative, or administrative. He also provided copies of a document detailing the different types of land use decisions (Exhibit C). He advised that the Planning Commission would be working on goals,policies, and action measures for the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Commission will be doing code work for the Downtown. Legislative land use decisions are created and adopted as law; the Planning Commission recommends the adoption of laws to the City Council. Quasi-judicial decisions apply the law. It also takes into account things we use the Comp Plan as criteria for, such as individual zone change and Comp Plan map amendments. Bunch referred to a matrix on page 2 of Exhibit C showing the notification, hearings, findings, and appeal requirements for the different types of land use decisions. He noted that, as the Commissioners review the goals,policies, and action measures, they should always ask staff to make sure there's an adequate factual base for the decisions. Once criteria have been established for a legislative decision, anyone can bring up new information at the Council meeting as long as it addresses the criteria. It's good for staff to write a complete and "bullet-proof" staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 6 • • Bunch advised that we will have some difficulty as we begin with goals,policies, and action measures because we have to use the old Comprehensive Plan as the criteria to justify the adoption of the new policies. The Commission will see this at the public hearing on March 19th. Bunch reported that DLCD [Department of Land Conservation and Development],LCDC [Land Conservation and Development Commission], and Metro are all very involved in legislative land use decisions. He detailed the steps that staff have to take with notifying these agencies. He advised that DLCD and Metro can appeal decisions if statewide planning goals are involved. Regarding hearings for legislative decisions,Bunch advised that the Planning Commission holds an initial hearing and sends a recommendation to Council. Council holds a second hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation. Council can accept,reject, or modify the recommendation. If Council rejects the recommendation, they may remand the work back to staff and the Planning Commission for further work,which then means beginning the hearing process again. Vice-President Walsh advised that, for controversial projects in the past, the Planning Commission has sent a representative to the Council meeting to speak for the Planning Commission. We may want to consider doing this again. Bunch said that during the Comp Plan update, staff will hold worksessions with the Commission. It is alright for the Planning Commission to have a higher level of ex-parte contact on these issues. The Comprehensive Plan will be arranged in goals,policies, and action measures. They identify the intent of the City to do certain things. Goals are most general;policies and action measures are more specific. Essentially,goals and policies are laws, enumerated in the Plan. They are used for decision making, legislative land use hearings,quasi-judicial hearings involving Plan map and zoning map changes, and sometimes for conditional use applications. Bunch noted that once the Comprehensive Plan is developed, the next step is to implement it. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Ron Bunch asked the Commission about training and how staff can support them more. The Commissioners made the following suggestions: > Some staff reports are very large—having an executive summary, broken down with bullet points or 2-3 sentence paragraphs,would be helpful in letting the Commission know what they need to focus on. > It would also be helpful if one of the planners could walk the Commission through a staff report and show the Commission what they need to concentrate on. > The Commission could use some feedback on how they can be better prepared for meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 7 • • > If a Commissioner has questions ahead of time about an application,what is the process that staff prefers for asking those questions? The Commissioners can contact staff directly with questions. > To what extent are the Commissioners bound by the open meeting law? If there is a quorum present during any discussion, the meeting must be open to the public. The Commission can meet before a public hearing but the public has to be invited to hear the discussion. The Commission can ask questions, but cannot deliberate among themselves in private. > The Commissioners talked about having weekend training sessions and bringing in a trainer. It would give the Commissioners an opportunity to get to know each other better and would help to make the group more cohesive and productive. > It was decided to discuss the role of the Downtown subgroup at a future meeting. Ron Bunch said that once the decision is made about FBC, staff would like direction regarding who they will be directly working with—the Planning Commission or the CCAC—to come up with a proposal. Commissioner Vermilyea doesn't think that we should jump into code writing until it is decided what type of code to use. Once the decision has been made,we can brief Council. > The Commission would like to have a"play book" of acronyms. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. I Jerree e 's, Planning Co 'ssion Secretary ATTEST: Vi :-Pr-sident l avid Wal PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 5,2007—Page 8 System 1 Fund 1 FY 2007-08 1 FY 2008-091 FY 2009-10 1 FY 2010-11 1 FY 2011-12 1 Total I Facilities Facility Expenditure $1,774,486 $167,000 $5,110,000 $4,750,000 $14,500,000 $26,301,486 Resources 1,307,486 167,000 0 0 0 1,474,486 Grants 467,000 0 0 0 0 467,000 Difference $0 $0 ($5,110,000) ($4,750,000) ($14,500,000) ($24,360,000) Parks Parks Capital Expenditure $3,356,320 $2,120,400 $4,358,511 $933,000 $340,000 $11,108,231 Resources 3,356,300 2,030,400 2,106,511 933,000 340,000 8,766,211 Difference ($20) ($90,000) ($2,252,000) $0 $0 ($2,342,020) Streets City Gas Tax • Expenditure $500,000 $1,150,000 $975,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000 . Resources $500,000 $1,150,000 $975,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000 Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Expenditure $2,940,000 $6,855,000 $5,217,000 $3,425,000 $6,925,000 $25,362,000 Resources 2,900,000 655,000 500,000 618,000 600,000 5,273,000 Grants 0 2,090,000 0 292,000 1,825,000 4,207,000 Difference ($40,000) ($4,110,000) ($4,717,000) ($2,515,000) ($4,500,000) ($15,882,000) Street Maintenance Fee Expenditure $1,200,000 $1,220,000 $1,246,000 • $1,263,000 $1,286,200 $6,215,200 Resources 800,000 750,000 700,000 690,000 690,000 3,630,000 Difference ($400,000) ($470,000) ($546,000) ($573,000) ($596,200) ($2,585,200) Traffic Impact Fee Expenditure $2,235,000 $1,600,000 $5,900,000 $6,450,000 $8,548,000 $24,733,000 Resources 1,990,000 2,225,000 575,000 575,000 575,000 5,940,000 Difference ($245,000) $625,000 ($5,325,000) ($5,875,000) ($7,973,000) ($18,793,000) • TIF-Urban Services Expenditure $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000 Resources 240,000 0 0 0 0 240,000 Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tigard Triangle LID#1 Expenditure $2,300,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 Resources 2,300,000 100,000 0 0 0 2,400,000 Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Underground Utility Expenditure $200,000 $150,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $850,000 Resources 200,000 0 300,000 0 100,000 600,000 Difference $0 ($150,000) $300,000 ($500,000) $100,000 ($250,000) Revised 3/5/2007 1:10 PM I System ( Fund 1 FY 2007-08 1 FY 2008-091 FY 2009-10 1 FY 2010-11 1 FY 2011-12 1 Total 1 Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer Expenditure $2,450,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,100,000 $100,000 $6,850,000 Resources 2,290,000 1,850,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 100,000 6,940,000 Difference ($160,000) $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 Storm Drainage Stormwater Expenditure $360,000 $485,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $1,175,000 Resources 360,000 0 0 0 0 360,000 Difference $0 ($485,000) ($110,000) ($110,000) ($110,000) ($815,000) Water Quality/Quantity Expenditure $480,000 $535,000 $325,000 $325,000 $345,000 $2,010,000 • Resources 480,000 535,000 325,000 325,000 275,000 1,940,000 Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 ($70,000) ($70,000) Water Water Expenditure $769,000 $714,400 $656,800 $758,400 $243,700 $3,142,300 Resources 594,000 689,400 656,800 758,400 243,700 2,942,300 Difference ($175,000) ($25,000) $0 $0 $0 ($200,000) Water CIP Expenditure $6,235,000 $10,078,000 $5,457,112 $6,986,112 $5,000,000 $33,756,224 Resources 6,235,000 10,078,000 5,457,112 6,986,112 5,000,000 33,756,224 Difference $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Water SDC Expenditure $377,000 $290,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $892,000 Resources 552,000 190,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 967,000 Difference $175,000 ($100,000) $0 $0 $0 $75,000 Urban Renewal • Urban Renewal Expenditure $5,000 $0 $2,461,000 $782,000 $0 $3,248,000 Resources 57,398 0 0 0 0 57,398 Difference $52,398 $0 ($2,461,000) ($782,000) $0 ($3,190,602) • Revised 3/5/2007 1:10 PM City Gas Tax Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Status Greenburg Fund Balance: Funded $500,000 $1,150,000 $975,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000 Road/Highway $1,750,000 99W/Main Street Intersection Improvements Totals: $500,000 $1,150,000 $975,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000 Resources available: $900,000 $925,000 $950,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 • • • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM • Facility Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Status Commuter Rail Fund Balance: Funded $105,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,000 Enhancements $105,000 Library Parking Lot Fund Balance: Funded $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 Expansion $250,000 Library Projects- Fund Balance: Funded $417,486 $0 $0 , $0 $0 $417,486 Houghton-Root $417,486 • Donations Senior Center Remodel Fund Balance: Funded $757,000 $167,000 $0 $0 $0 $924,000 and Seismic Upgrade $375,000 Community Development Block • Grant(CDBG): $307,000 Other Revenue:$75,000 • Transit Center MTIP Grant:$160,000 Funded $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Redesign Fund Balance:$40,000 Water Building UST Transfer in from Funded $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 Decommission General Fund:$45,000 New Police Unidentified Revenue Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $11,000,000 Department Source:$1,000,000 New Public Works Unidentified Revenue Unfunded $0 $0 $5,110,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $12,610,000 Facility Source:$5,110,000 • RFID Technology Unidentified Revenue Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000 Source:$750,000 Totals: $1,774,486 $167,000 $5,110,000 $4,750,000 $14,500,000 $26,301,486 Resources available: $2,267,486 $570,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Parks Capital Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding , , FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 '` FY 2009.-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Status , Brown Property Trail Park SDC:$5,750 Funded $0 $25,000 • $225,000 $0 ' ': $0 •', $250,000 Construction Metro Greenspace ; Revenues:$19,250 , Cach Park Park SDC:$265,000 Funded $0 $0' $0 $0 , $265,000 $265,000 Development , Canterbury Park Park SDC:$440,000 Funded $1,100,000 $0 " $0 •• • - $0 • V'$0 $1,100,000• Development Transfer in GF: $660,000 , . _ .. ,, City Entryway Transfer in from Funded $35,000 $36,400 $38,000 $0 $0 $109,400• Monuments General Fund:$35,000 Clute Property Park Park SDC.:$36,000 Funded $0 $0 $0 : • $15,000 ' $75,000 $90,000 • Development Transfer in GF: . $54,000 • ' Cook Park Bathroom Transfer in from Funded ' , ' $0 $70,000 - • $0 $0 ' • ' ' :$0' ' ' •'$70,000 &Shelter Replacement General Fund:$70,000 Downtown Park Land. Park SDC:$115,000 Funded $1+15,000 $0 •, '' _$0 '. ' : $0,; ' .• . so $115,000 Acquisition • Downtown Urban Park SDC $80,000 • Funded • $0 $80,000' • . $0 ' $0 ' •$0 $80,000 Corridor-Master Plan Elizabeth Price Park Park SDC:$100,000 Funded $100,000 . • . ' $0 $0 '• - $0 • $100,000 Development v Fanno Creek Park ' Park SDC,:'$250,000 Funded , $170,000 $1,000,000 ' $0 $0 . $0 " ,$1,170;000 Fanno Creek Park/ Park SDC:$60,000 Funded $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $60,000 Plaza Master Plan Fanno Creek Park Park SDC':$30,000 Funded ,, ` $0 - • $30,000 $225,000 $0 .+$0 .,t $255,000 • Gateway at Main St. . Fanno Creek Trail(Hall Park SDC:$35,880 Funded - $156,000 ' $0 $0' $0 $0 $156,000 Boulevard to Fanno Transfer in from • Creek) General Fund: $120,120 . Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM ;Parks capital Fuund' . s;:'., . „:, ,. . ... , ;Ran w)k ng;; ,:,Pro e t Ac co u.n?t ':Rev e e;l S oure::%:Fundin�g <FY.2.7007-0'8`.:"�' "FY-2008-09i,:' -FY 20910` '.'FY 201011., ':FY 2,0 1 1.,12';, ,; ; Total . '''.'''''1:''''''' ''r. S .y, t :;!.:1,1:M. 1144(14 n<^" yfa ; P. }., .�.. ;i , Fanno Creek Trail Park SDC `$150;000 Funded $115,000 $0 $0 $ $0 . $115;000• .. (Main,St.to' ':`` „ Jack Park Extension Park SDC:$275,700 : Funded .• • ' $600,000 ',$0 '. $0 $0 $0 • "$600,000 . Metro`Greenspace: •• Transfer in from GFi . Land Acquisition : Metro Greenspace: Funded' $329,000" $674,000 $781,511 $0 $0 $1,784,511 $1,070,717'; •:..'• :, , . Park SDC:$713794 : •• • Park SDC ' " ' Park SDC:$15,000 Funded $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Methodology'Update, Park System Master Park SDC:$50,000 Funded $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Plan Update Skate Park Park SDC:$111,300 Funded $326,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $326,300 Development& Oregon Recreation Construction Parks Grant:$150,000 Donation:$65,000 , • Washington Square . MTIP Grant:$179,349 Funded $300,020 $90,000 $0 $0 , $0 $390,020 Regional Center Trail MSTIP 3 Bike/Ped ' , Funds:_$120,651 • • Fanno Creek Plaza Park SDC:$837,000 Funded $0 $0 $837,000 $918,000 $0' $1,755,000 Urban Creek Corridor Park SDC:$2,052,000 Unfunded $0 $0 $2,252,000 $0 $0 $2,252,000 Urban Renewal: • $1,748,000 Totals: $3,356,320 $2,120,400 $4,358,511 $933,000 $340,000 $11,108,231 Total Funded ,83,356,320 $2,120,400 $2,106,511 $933,000 $340,000 Resources available: $3,273,570 $2,942,210 $106,511 $918,000 $1,600,000 Grants MTIP 179,349 179,349 MSTIP 120,651 120,651 Park SDC 1,637,165 2,412,155 1,516,050 918,000 465,000 6,948,370 General Fund 932,000 106,400 38,000 1,076,400 Metro Greenspace 404,405 423,655 577,655 1,405,715 Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Gas Tax Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Status 100th Ave Fund Balance: Funded $0 SO $0 $300,000 $300,000 $600,000 Improvements(Sattlei $300,000 to Murdock St) 121st Ave Crosswalk Fund Balance: Funded 8200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Improvements(at S200,000 Springwood Dr& Katherine St) 72nd Ave/Dartmouth Fund Balance: Funded $125,000 SO 50 SO $0 $125,000 St.Intersection $125,000 Signaliration Ash Ave Extension Fund Balance: Funded $300,000 5400,000 SO SO SO $700,000 (Burnham St to $300,000 • Railroad'Tracks) Commercial St Fund Balance: Funded $700,000 $0 80 $0 $0 $700,000 Improvements(Lincoln$608,700 Ave to Mnin St) Community Development Block • Grant(CDBG): 891,30(1 Hall Blvd&'l'igard St Fund Balance: Funded 8100,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Crosswalks(at Fanno $100,000 Creek Pathway) I fall Blvd and Highway Fund Balance: Funded SO $200,00(1 50 $0 SO $200,000 99W Gnteway 82(10,000 Treatments Hall Boulevard Fund Balance:575,000 Funded $75,000 SO $0 $0 $0 $75,000 Sidewalk(Spruce St to 850'south) Mnin St.Green Street Funded $570,000 $2,470,000 $0 8400,000 $2,500,000 $5,940,000 Retrofit-Phase 1 MTIP Grant:$450,000 • Fund Balance $120,000 Main Street Safety Fund Balance:825,000 Funded S25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Improvements Upper Booms Ferry Fund Balance:820,000 Funded 820,000 SO 5O 80 $0 $20,000 Rd.Traffic Signal Interconnection Upgrade(at Sequoia Parkway) Collector&Arterial Fund Balance:$35,000 Funded $35,1100 535,000 835,000 535,000 835,00(1 $175,000 ROW Enhancements Main St Traffic Light Fund Balance: Funded SO $160,110)) SO 80 $01 $160,000 (at Tigard St) $160,000 Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Gas Tax Fund , Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total , Status Burnham St Fund Balance: Partially $500,000 $1,425,000 SO SO 50 $1,925,001 Improvements $1,010,000 Funded Pavement Major Fund Balance: Partially $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,001 Maintenance Program $150,000 Funded (PMMP) Pedestrian/Bicycle Fund Balance: Partially $140,000 $140,000 S140,000 S140,000 S140,000 $700,001 Paths $140,000 Funded 121st Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 SO $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,001 Improvements $500,000 (Whistler to Tippitt St) 121st St Improvements Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $300,000 $500,000 $300,000 $2,000,000 $3,100,001 (Walnut to North $300,000 Dakota St) • 92nd Ave Sidewalk Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $450,001 (Durham Rd to Cook $450,000 Park) Ash Ave Extension Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $300,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $1,300,001 (Fanno Creek to $300,000 Scoffins St) Burnham St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $3,092,000 $0 $0 $3,092,001 Improvements $3,092,000 • Commercial St(Main Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $600,001 to Hall) $600,000 Main St at Highway Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,001 99W Intersection $225,000 Gateway Treatment Murdock St . Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,001 Improvements(103rd $200,000 to 97th Ave) North Dakota St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $400,000 $700,001 Improvements $300,000 (Greenburg to 95th • Ave) North Dakota St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $300,000 $100,000 $0 $400,001 Pedestrian Bridge $300,000 Totals: $2,940,000 $6,855,000 $5,217,000 $3,425,000 $6,925,000 $25,362,001 Includes$450,000 Includes$2,090,00 Includes$292,000 Includes$1,825,000 grant for Main St grant for Main St grant for Main St grant for Main St Project and$91,300 Project Project Project grant for Commercial • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 M7 Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status Pavement Major Fund Funded $800,000 $750,000 $700,000 $690,000 $690,000 $3,630,000 Maintenance Program Balance: (PMMP) $800,000 Totals: $800,000 $750,000 $700,000 $690,000 $690,000 $3,630,000 Pavement Major Fund Unfunded $400,000 $470,000 $546,000 $573,000 $596,200 $2,585,200 Maintenance Program Balance: (PMMP) $400,000 Totals: $400,000 $470,000 $546,000 $573,000 $596,200 $2,585,200 • Resources available: $800,000 $750,000 $700,000 $690,000 $690,000 • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Traffic Impact Fee Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Status McDonald Street Fund Balance: Funded $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 Traffic Median (at $40,000 Hwy 99W) Durham Rd/108th Fund Balance: Funded $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Ave Signalization $200,000 Hall Blvd/Wall St Fund Balance: Funded $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 Intersection-Phase 2 $1,200,000 Burnham St Fund Balance: Funded $510,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $510,000 Improvements $510,000 • Hall Blvd Half-street Fund Balance: Funded $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 Improvements(Fanno $275,000 Creek to 450 feet north) Hall Boulevard(at Fund Balance: Funded $0 $100,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $400,000 McDonald Street) $400,000 Right-turn Lane Widening Traffic Improvement Fund Balance: Funded $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 Analysis-Greenburg $10,000 Rd/Tiedeman Ave/North Dakota St/Tigard St Area 72nd Ave Fund Balance: Partially $0 $0 $1,000,000 $600,000 $600,000 $2,200,000 Improvements $1,000,000 Funded • (Dartmouth St to Hwy 99W) 72nd Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $1,000,000 $1,450,000 Improvements (Bonita $450,000 Rd to Hunziker St) 72nd Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $0 $448,000 $448,000 Improvements $448,000 (Dartmouth St to Hwy 99W) Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Traffic Impact Fee Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Status 72nd Ave Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $800,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $4,200,000 Improvements $800,000 (Hunziker to Dartmouth St) Dartmouth St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $300,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $2,800,000 Improvements (72nd $300,000 to 68th Ave) Greenburg/Tiedeman Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $200,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,700,000 /N. Dakota/Tigard St $200,000 • Scoffms/Hall/Hunzik Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $300,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $0 $4,800,000 er Re-alignment $300,000 Walnut St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $2,500,000 Improvements (116th $1,000,000 to Tiedeman Avenue) Totals: $2,235,000 $1,600,000 $5,900,000 $6,450,000 $8,548,000 $24,733,000 Resources available: $1,990,000 $2,225,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Traffic Impact Fee Fund—Urban Services • Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 'Total Source Status Bull Mountain Rd Fund Balance Funded $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000 (at Hwy 99W)Right-: $240,000 Turn Lane Widening Totals: $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000 Resources available: $240,000 • • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Tigard Triangle LID•#0 Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status Tigard Triangle Street Fund Balance Funded $2,300,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 Improvements LID : $2,300,000 No.1 Totals: $2,300,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 I-Iave to sell a BAN to pay for this project. • • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM • Underground Utility Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 -FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 'FY 2011-12 Total: Source Status Burnham St Fund Balance: Partially $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Improvements $200,000 Funded . Walnut St Improvements Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 (116th to Tiedeman $150,000 Avenue) 121st Ave Improvements Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 (Whistler to Tippitt St) $150,000 • Dartmouth St Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 Improvements (72nd to $150,000 68th Ave) Scoffins/Hall/Hunziker Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $200,000 Re-alignment $200,000 Totals: $200,000 $150,000 $0 $500,000_ $0_ $850,000 Resources available: $200,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $100,000 • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Sanitary Sewer Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Status Bonita Road at Fund Balance: Funded $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Fanno Creek Pipe $20,000 Removal Citywide Sanitary Fund Balance: Funded $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 $5,000,000 Sewer Extension $2,000,000 Program Commercial St Fund Balance: Funded $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Sanitary Sewer $20,000 Upgrades(Lincoln to Main St) • Highway 217 Fund Balance: Funded $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 , $500,000 Sanitary Sewer $500,000 Upgrade Hunziker Sanitary Fund Balance: Funded $0 $0 $0 $500,000 • $0 $500,000 Sewer Upgrade $500,000 • McDonald St(at Fund Balance: Funded $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 Hall Boulevard) $50,000 Sanitary Sewer Connection Red Rock Creek Fund Balance: Funded $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Sanitary Sewer $100,000 Repair Sanitary Sewer Fund Balance: Funded $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $70,000 Master Plan $70,000 • Sanitary Sewer Major Fund Balance: Funded $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 Maintenance $100,000 Program Totals: $2,450,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,100,000 $100,000 $6,850,000 Have plenty of resources to fund all these projects. Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Storm Water Fund • • Ranking Project/Account Revenue Source Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 ,FY 2011-12 Total Status Durham Rd Stream Fund Balance: Funded $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Bank Stabilization (at$150,000 108th Ave) Derry Dell Creek Fund Balance: Partially $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Slope Stabilization $200,000 Funded (at 118th Ave) Storm Drainage Fund Balance: Partially $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 Major Maintenance $50,000 Funded Program • Pedestrian/Bicycle Fund Balance: Partially $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000 Paths $60,000 Funded Cascade Ave Storm Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Drain Overflow $100,000 Greens Way& Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 Highland Drive $125,000 Storm Drainage Improvements Storm Drainage Fund Balance: Unfunded $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Master Plan $50,000 Totals: $360,000 $485,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $1,175,000 Resources available: $360,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 • ■ Unfunded Projects Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Water Quality/Quantity Fund -- Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding, FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status 72nd Fund Funded $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Ave/Dartmouth St Balance: Culvert Replacement $20,000 Commercial St Fund Funded $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 Improvements Balance: (Lincoln Ave to Main $120,000 St) • Community Tree Fund Funded $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 • $150,000 Planting Balance: . $50,000 Culvert Replacement Fund Funded $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 Balance $150,000 Derry Dell Creek Fund Funded $50,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 Culvert Balance: Improvements (at $50,000 Fanno Creek& Walnut St) Derry Dell Creek Fund Funded $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Tree Planting Balance : $25,000 Hiteon Creek Fund Funded $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 Riparian Balance: Enhancement- $80,000 • Phase 2 Construction Riparian Restoration Fund Funded $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $70,000 and Enhancement Balance: $10,000 Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Water Quality/Quantity Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status Stormwater Outfall Fund Funded $0 $150,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $420,000 Retrofits Balance: $150,000 Water Quality Fund Funded $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000 Enhancement Balance: . $25,000 Commercial Street Fund Funded $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Regional Detention Balance: Facility $150,000 • Totals: $480,000 $535,000 $325,000 $325,000 $345,000_ $2,010,000 • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Water Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status ASR 1 Rehabilitation Fund Funded $0 $0 $0 $170,000 $0 $170,000 Balance: $170,000 Burnham St Fund Funded $350,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $525,000 Improvements Balance: $425,000 Cathodic Protection Fund Funded $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 of Steel Reservoirs Balance: $60,000 Defective Meter Fund Funded $50,000 $52,000 $54,000 $56,300 $58,500 $270,800 • Replacements Balance: $50,000 • Meter Installations Fund Funded $60,000 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $230,000 Balance : $60,000 Reservoir Seismic Fund Funded $0 $300,000 $312,000 $325,000 $0 $937,000 Upgrades Balance: $300,000 Walnut Street(116th Fund Funded $0 $0 $127,000 $43,000 $0 $170,000 to Tiedeman): Balance: Relocate 12-inch $127,000 Waterline Water Main Fund Funded $50,000 $75,000 $54,000 $56,300 $80,000 $315,300 Replacements Balance: • $50,000 Water Reservoir Fund Funded $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 Seismic Upgrade Balance: Evaluation $70,000 Water Service Fund Funded $10,000 $10,400 $10,800 $11,300 $11,700 $54,200 Installations Balance: $10,000 Water Site Security Fund Funded $50,000 $52,000 $54,000 $56,500 $58,500 $271,000 Upgrades Balance : $50,000 Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Water Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total • Source Status Fund 'Unfunded $84,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,000 550' Zone Beaverton Balance: Connection $84,000 Totals: $769,000 $714,400 $656,800 $758,400 $243,700 $3,142,300 Resources available: $594,000 $689,400 $656,800 $758,400 $243,700 *Can afford these project,but cannot maintain the$1 million desired fund balance in the Water Fund. FY 07-08 $901,689 • FY 08-09 $667,622 FY 09-10 $514,388 FY 10-11 $33,688 FY 11-12 $393,215 • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Water CIP Fund ■ Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status 550' Zone Reservoir Fund Funded $4,400,000 $1,560,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,960,000 No.2 and Supply Balance: Piping $4,400,000 ASR 3 Fund Funded $300,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,800,000 Balance $300,000 ASR Expansion Fund Funded $810,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $810,000 Studies Balance: $650,000 Commercial St. Fund Funded $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,000 Improvements Balance: • (Lincoln to Main) $135,000 10 MG Transfer Fund Partially $50,000 $2,860,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,910,000 Pump Station Balance: Funded Upgrade $50,000 550'Reservoir No. 1 Fund Unfunded $0 $0 $200,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,200,000 Balance: $200,000 550'Zone 12" Fund Unfunded $0 $789,000 $41,000 $0 $0 $830,000 Canterbury Loop Balance: $789,000 550' Zone 18" Fund Unfunded $0 $1,169,000 $246,000 $0 $0 $1,415,000 Canterbury Supply Balance: Line $1,169,000 ASR 4 Fund Unfunded $0 $0 $300,000 $1,000,000 $0 $1,300,000 Balance: • $300,000 High Tor Pump Fund Unfunded $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Station Rebuild Balance: $1,000,000 ]WC Raw Water Fund Unfunded $90,000 $1,500,000 $2,970,112 $2,970,112 $0 $7,530,224 Pipeline Balance: $90000 Scoggins Fund Unfunded $400,000 $700,000 $700,000 $1,016,000 $3,000,000 $5,816,000 Dam/Tualatin Balance: Water Supply $400,000 r Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM • Water CIP Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status Water Building: Fund Unfunded $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Water Conservation Balance: Demonstration $50,000 Garden Totals: $6,235,000 $10,078,000 $5,457,112 $6,986,112 $5,000,000 $33,756,224 Resources available: $6,235,000 $1,078,000 $5,457,112 $6,986,112 $5,000,000 Assumes a revenue bond sale of$16 million in FY08/09 • and a revenue bond sale of$15 million in FY10/11 Note in CIP Plan for each project. • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Water SDC Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 • Total Source Status . Water Main Fund Funded $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $425,000 Oversizing Balance: $75,000 Ash Ave.Extension Fund Funded $6,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $46,000 Waterline Balance: $6,000 Burnham St. Fund Partially $0 $175,000 $0 $0 .$0 $175,000 Improvements Balance: Funded $175,000 Water Distribution Fund Funded $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 • System Hydraulic Balance: Study Update $100,000 Water SDC Fund Funded $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 Methodology Balance: Update $30,000 Fund Funded $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116,000 550' Zone Beaverton Balance: • Connection 116,000 Totals: $377,000 $290,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $892,000 Resources available: $552,000 $190,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Can afford these projects and maintain the desired$100,000 fund balance. • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM Urban Renewal Fund Ranking Project/Account Revenue Funding FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Total Source Status • Downtown Park Land Urban Funded $5,000' $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Acquisition Renewal Revenue: $5,000 Fanno Creek Plaza Urban Funded $0 $0 $713,000 $782,000 '$0 $1,495,000 Renewal Revenue: $713,000 Urban Creek Corridor Urban Unfunded $0 $0 $1,748,000 $0 $0 $1,748,000 • Renewal Revenue: $1,748,000 Totals: _ $5,000i $0 $2,461,000 $782,000 $0 $3,248,000 Resources available: 57,398 Revenues acquired through property taxes in FY07-08. There is not enough revenue to support these projects. Bonds must be sold to pay for these projects and there won't be enough of a revenue stream to pay dept service on the bonds needed. • Revised 3/5/2007 9:23 AM • • Ev 13 An Introducto ry Guide to Land Use Planning for Small Cities and Counties in Oregon ,,, 00,...--„„.„.,,,,,-- , • .r ,,(.- .;#04. ..'- .1%. ..:.. , ' it i . ' -.., ...,, . .., ,........0...1;, • - 7-: .. 7:4:::,17%; s. . ma y. ' �� . n .i lia'% `, .r 'mo t, r . .. !Ft! i ' .. ., - -,, , . T S 3 T 1 i Produced by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development January 2007 • • ACKNOWLEDGMENT This guide is an update of City Recorder's Guide to Land Use Planning: The Basics prepared for the Department of Land Conservation and Development by Daniel Meader of Tenneson Engineering Corporation in 1993. • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Overview of the Land Use Planning Program 2 Chapter 3 Land Use Planning Documents 3-5 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 4 Typical Land Use Actions 6-7 Building Permits Land Use Permits Partitions and Subdivisions Chapter 5 Variances 8-9 Chapter 6 Conditional Use Permits 10-11 Chapter 7 Zoning Map Amendments 12-13 Chapter 8 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments 14 Chapter 9 Partitions and Subdivisions 15-16 Chapter 10 Other Land Use Considerations 17-18 Nonconforming Uses Floodplain Development Overlay Zones Land Use Compatibility Statements Chapter 11 Types of Public Hearings 19-22 Legislative Hearings Quasi-judicial Hearing Findings Tips on Running Public Hearings Final Decision Notice of Decision Appeals Chapter 12 Public Notice 23-24 Legislative Hearings Quasi-judicial Hearing ii • Glossary 25-28 Exhibits A: Sample Forms B: ORS 197.763 —Conduct of Local Quasi-Judicial Land Use Hearings; Notice Requirements; Hearing Procedures C: Planning Documents Index iii • Chapter 1 Introduction The purpose of this guide is to provide descriptions of various land use actions, basic information regarding the land use from the simplest building permit planning process in Oregon. It is meant signoff to planning commission hearings for land use planners and government to comprehensive plan and zoning officials in small cities or counties who ordinance amendments. are new to land use planning or who rarely process land use applications. The Other available resources include: guide offers a step-by-step explanation of the various land use actions that take • Department of Land Conservation place in small cities and counties. and Development(DLCD), www.oregon.gov/lcd(503) 373-0050. For those who have been around the land • League of Oregon Cities (LOC), use planning process for some time, this www.orcities.org(503) 588-6550. guide may appear oversimplified. • Association of Oregon Counties However,there should be some tips that (AOC), www.aocweb.org (503) 585- will help even the seasoned planner with 8351. day-to-day work. The guide includes 1 • • Chapter 2 Overview of the Land Use Planning Program In the late 1960s and early 1970s, compliance with the statewide planning Oregonians became increasingly goals. concerned about the effects of Cities and counties adopt comprehensive population growth and the threat to the plans that meet the applicable statewide quality of life and resources that make planning goals. Local governments make Oregon a special place to live. day-to-day land use decisions in conformance with their state-approved In response, the Legislature enacted a plans. series of laws to help shape development throughout the state, including the Beach The 19 Statewide Planning Goals Bill, Senate Bill 100(creating statewide The statewide planning goals are land use planning), and others. These Oregon's standards for comprehensive laws have resulted in land use plans and planning. Goals set requirements for the state regulations that guide how and content of land use plans. Goals 1-14 where new development occurs. apply to the entire state, while Goals 15- 19 focus on specific geographic areas. Today, every city and Statewide Planning Goals county has a 1. Citizen Involvement For example, the goals comprehensive land use 2. Land Use Planning require that local plan that has been 3. Agricultural Lands governments provide acknowledged by the 4. Forest Lands opportunities for citizen state. Each plan 5. Natural Resources involvement. They also 6. Air, Water and Land Quality represents years of effort 7. Natural Hazards set standards for how and a consensus by 8. Recreational Needs certain types of land are citizens and officials 9. Economic Development planned and zoned. The about the future of their 10. Housing goals also apply to other community. 11. Public Facilities state agencies when 12. Transportation 13. Energy Conservation they make decisions Day-to-day Decisions 14. Urbanization affecting land use. at the Local Level 15. Willamette Greenway In Oregon, state and local 16. Estuarine Resources LCDC meets regularly governments share the 17. Coastal Shore Lands (about every six weeks) 18. Beaches and Dunes job of planning. The 19. Ocean Resources and is responsible for state,through the Land adopting rules to Conservation and Development interpret the goals and some land-use Commission(LCDC), sets overall rules planning statutes. LCDC has adopted for planning decisions. DLCD provides rules interpreting most of the statewide technical assistance and grants, and planning goals. DLCD carries out LCDC reviews local plan amendments for decisions and administers other parts of the state's land use laws. 2 • • Chapter 3 Land Use Planning Documents Each city and county in the state is sections on farm and forest land required to have a comprehensive land resources. Background documents may use plan and implementing regulations. also discuss the adequacy of community The regulations may be contained in a services such as education and law zoning ordinance and a subdivision enforcement; ordinance or in a combined development code. There may also be supplemental • Goal and policy statements, which ordinances — for example, a mobile indicate, in a general way, the objectives home park development ordinance, a of the jurisdiction over a specific sign ordinance, a floodplain ordinance, planning period—normally 20 years or a nuisance abatement ordinance— from the date of adoption of the plan— which may be administered by the and provide guidance on how to achieve planning department or planning those objectives; and commission as a part of the land use process. • A comprehensive plan map, which depicts, in a site-specific nature(i.e.,to A brief discussion of the three most individual property lines),the desired common land use planning documents arrangement of uses for the entire follows. See also Exhibit C, a summary jurisdiction. The designations may be of common planning documents. very general, such as residential, forest, and industrial, or they may be specific, Comprehensive Land Use Plan such as low- or medium-density The controlling land use document in all residential,neighborhood or downtown Oregon jurisdictions is the commercial, and light or heavy comprehensive land use plan, or simply, industrial; the comprehensive plan (or even more simply, the "comp plan"). The The comprehensive plan map is the comprehensive plan generally includes controlling instrument, directing the the following three elements: future of land use in the jurisdiction. The zoning map must be subordinate to the • An inventory or a"background" comprehensive plan map. That is,the document, which includes inventories zoning map cannot allow a more and descriptions of existing land uses, intensive land use than is shown on the natural resources, natural hazards, comprehensive plan map for the same recreational facilities, transportation area. To take that a step further, if a plan facilities, and economics. City plans will designates a certain area as residential, also include inventories of housing the zoning map cannot designate the stock, developable lands, and public same area as commercial—a more facilities such as water, sewer, and storm intensive land use. Some jurisdictions drainage. County plans will also include may have only one map that serves as 3 • S both the comprehensive plan and zoning • Definitions.A word or phrase will map. have a specific meaning that is not quite the same as in ordinary conversation. The goals and policies are generally designed to provide guidance to elected • Uses.These will include descriptions and appointed officials over the use of of what land uses may occur in each land. They are important when zone. Some uses will be permitted(often reviewing proposed zone changes, referred to as an"outright permitted comprehensive plan amendments, and use"), which means that the approval of sometimes, conditional use permits. the use is not subject to approval- subjective criteria. Other uses will be The inventories, while significant, do not listed as "conditional"or"special"uses. play a major role in the , These are subject to day-to-day Note: A comprehensive plan discretionary criteria administration of the policy can only be used as an and a local government planning program of a approval criterion for a zone may deny the land use city or county. The change or permit if it is worded or place conditions on inventories are most to be mandatory. If the policy approval of the use. uses such terms as "should," important when The zoning developing the goals "encourage," or "consider," it is classifications may also and policies. The not to be used as a basis for include overlay making a land use decision. On inventories are the other hand, if the policy uses zones,which add normally updated "shall" or "must," then you will provisions to the during major plan want to make sure that requests "base"zone, such as updates, and the for land use changes comply. special considerations updated inventories for floodplains,historic may lead to changes in sites, or airports. An policies within the plan. For example, if overlay zone does not replace the a policy was adopted in 1988 to provide requirements of the base zoning district. additional tourist-related housing to further an economic development goal, • Development Standards. and by 2005 the city found it had an Requirements such as minimum lot overabundance of tourist-related housing sizes, yard setbacks, and height that had been constructed in the requirements are often included in the intervening years, it would probably be individual zone chapter. In a county, prudent to consider revising that these would also include standards for particular policy. development in farm and forest zones. Other types of standards such as natural Zoning Ordinance resource protection, off-street parking The zoning ordinance is the most and landscaping requirements are often important tool in the day-to-day found in their own chapter. planning effort. It is used in conjunction with the zoning map. The typical zoning • Procedures. Several sections of the ordinance includes: zoning ordinance deal with the procedures for processing applications for variances, conditional use permits, 4 • • zoning ordinance or map amendments, such as sewerage, street development, and the administrative provisions, water system improvements, and a host including enforcement. of other design standards. It includes requirements regarding whether and how Subdivision Ordinance a new lot must be surveyed. The The subdivision or land division subdivision ordinance sets forth ordinance deals with a different aspect of procedures for approving all types of land use—the division of land. The development actions, including subdivision ordinance provides the partitions and subdivisions. There is process for subdividing or partitioning additional information on land divisions lands within the jurisdiction. in Chapter 10. In a small jurisdiction that has not faced There may also be supplemental many requests to divide land,the ordinances—for example, a mobile subdivision ordinance, adopted many home park development ordinance, a years ago, may be difficult to implement. sign ordinance, a floodplain ordinance, Generally, in small cities, it is wise to or a nuisance abatement ordinance— take even a minor partition request to the which may be administered by the city planning commission (if there is planning department or planning one)or the city council. In many small commission as a part of the land use communities,the elected or appointed process. officials want to be informed of all land use decisions, even the most mundane. The subdivision ordinance provides the standards for providing infrastructure 5 • • Chapter 4 Typical Land Use Actions This chapter provides a brief summary structural plans, which will be reviewed of the procedures for processing the by the local building official. most common types of land use applications. You should also consult the The site plan will show the property line specific regulations contained in the configurations, the exterior dimensions zoning and subdivision ordinances or of the building, and the distance in feet development code. from the property lines to the proposed structure. If there are other structures, Building Permits subsurface facilities such as water lines The simplest land use action is approval or a septic tank, or easements on the of a building permit for a home or an property,these should also be identified accessory building(i.e., a garage or in the site plan. shed). Before issuing a building permit, be sure to answer the following Using the site plan, determine whether questions: the setbacks from the exterior property lines are adequate to satisfy the zoning • What is the zoning of the property? ordinance standards. If off-street parking • Is the proposed use of the building is required,the number of off-street allowed within that zone? parking spaces must be shown on the • Is the use a conditional use?(See site plan. A key element not always conditional use permits below and in shown on the site plan is the proposed Chapter 6.) height of the structure,particularly of • Does the proposed building and site accessory structures. Almost all plan comply with all of the development jurisdictions have height limitations on regulations such as setback,height limit, single-family dwellings. If this and parking? (Some of these regulations information is not specifically required will apply citywide or countywide, some on the site plan, it should be requested will apply in specific zones, and some from the applicant. will apply to specific types of buildings.) • Does the proposed building require Remember to keep on file a copy of the any special review such as site plan site plan with the building permit. If review, floodplain review, hillside there are subsequent questions review, or historic review? concerning the completed structure,that site plan will be the key in determining The building permit applicant must whether the applicant has followed include with the permit application a site through with the development as plan showing the tentative location of proposed. the proposed structure. The building permit application will also include 6 • Land Use Permits map to change the designation on a Even the smallest communities are faced specific tract. The process is more with land use actions, including detailed than for the other types of variances, conditional uses, zone permits described here, and requires changes, comprehensive plan map several steps, which are discussed later amendments,partitions, and in this guide. A comprehensive plan map subdivisions. amendment often accompanies a zone change. (See Chapters 7 and 8 for A variance is simply a process to allow additional information.) an applicant to vary from development standards required by the zoning Partitions and Subdivisions ordinance—normally setbacks, These applications deal with property building height, or other physical division rather than how the property dimension(See Chapter 5 for additional will be used. These procedures allow information.) parcels to be divided into smaller lots or parcels. The subdivision ordinance is Most zoning ordinances list uses used to process these applications. permitted outright and uses that may be permitted(usually called"conditional The subdivision ordinance outlines the uses") in each zone if certain criteria are process to be followed and in most satisfied. A conditional use permit is cases, prescribes specific infrastructure issued by the city or county when the standards such as street width,water, applicant has shown the criteria have and sewer system requirements, and in been met. (See Chapter 6 for additional some cases, curb, gutter, and sidewalk information.) standards. (See Chapter 9 for additional information.) A zone change, also known as a zoning map amendment, is a process by which the applicant seeks to amend the zoning 7 • • Chapter 5 Variances A variance is a planning term that refers Variance Procedures to a permit that allows some deviation Normally the process requires the from a development standard. An applicant to fill out a variance example of the common use of the term application form provided by the city or is: "You need to get a variance to place county, and accompany it with a site your single-family dwelling within 10 plan showing the proposed development feet of the easterly property line instead including the exterior boundaries of the of the 15 feet required structures,distance by the zoning TIP: Dealing with the general public from the property ordinance." over property rights is not always lines, access, and an easy task. Planning staff may be other information The zoning ordinance inclined to tell a potential necessary to support contains approval applicant that it is a waste of the request. The criteria against which money to undergo a particular applicant must an application is process that is likely to be denied describe the nature of evaluated. A variance and to take "no" for an answer. the variance sought is generally applicable However, the applicant has the and explain how it right to be heard by the only to physical, satisfies the approval appropriate appointed or elected measurable body on a given land use issue. You criteria in the zoning requirements such as should be as tactful as possible, ordinance. setbacks, height indicating that while the request limitations, or lot may not be practical and obtaining In small jurisdictions, width-to-depth ratios. approval may be difficult, the a variance request is applicant has the right to go before often reviewed in a A variance is the planning commission or city public hearing before generally not used to council. the planning allow a land use that commission or elected is not a permitted or conditional use in a officials; however, cities and counties given zone. For example, if a zone may choose to have planning staff allows only dwellings, churches, and administratively make decisions on parks,the jurisdiction would not approve variances. There are certain procedural a variance to allow a grocery store. This steps that must be taken in any case. is particularly important in farm and (See Chapters 11 and 12 on notice forest zones because permitted uses are procedure and quasi-judicial hearings.) prescribed by state regulations; a county cannot approve a variance to allow a use A request for a variance will be not permitted by state provisions. evaluated against the criteria established by the individual city or county. A variance that does not satisfy all of the criteria should not be approved. 8 • • There are generally four criteria for welfare, or injurious to other property; approval of a variance. The criteria and usually read something like this: • The hardship is not self-imposed, • Exceptional or extraordinary and the variance is the minimum that circumstances that apply to the property will alleviate the hardship. but do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. As these criteria imply, a variance These circumstances result from lot size should be approved for unusual or shape,topography, or other conditions circumstances. If you find that your city that the property owners cannot control; or county receives a significant number of variance applications for a particular • The variance is necessary so that the standard—the side setback in the R-1 applicant can enjoy a property right,the zone, for example—it may be a good nature of which owners of properties in idea to consider whether the requirement the same zone or vicinity possess; is too stringent and needs to be amended. • The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public safety, health, or 9 • • Chapter 6 Conditional Use Permits A conditional use permit is probably best Through the review process, the decision described as a process rather than a maker can assess neighborhood permit. It is a process by which the comments as well as comments from jurisdiction reviews a proposed land use other parties of record(those who that is listed in the zoning ordinance as a respond to the notice or participate in a conditional use in a given zone. public hearing). The decision maker can approve the request, deny it, or approve A conditional use permit allows the local it with conditions,based on criteria in government to (1)determine whether the the zoning ordinance. proposed use is appropriate for the site and neighborhood, and(2)attach The city or county will often place conditions to an approval to assist in conditions in order to reduce or offset reducing the impact the impact of a use on of the proposed use TIP: Always require a site plan for adjoining properties on the surrounding any structure involved in the or the general conditional use permit request, and area. Typical attach the plan to the findings of neighborhood. conditional use fact. For commercial enterprises Common conditions permits in a city are such as a home occupation or public placed by a city for multi-family or semi-public uses, it is normal include: dwellings and public procedure to ask for a "Statement of and semi-public Operations." Most ordinances do not • Limiting the structures, including require it, but a Statement of hours of operation; churches. In a county, Operations is very helpful in setting • Limiting the size common conditional the parameters of the use. A of the use; uses include certain Statement of Operations is simply an • Requiring dwellings in farm and applicant's written statement landscaping or forest zones, home detailing how the proposed use will be conducted. fencing to screen the occupations, and proposed use; temporary dwellings • Requiring for medical hardship situations. lighting to be directed away from adjoining properties; and In small jurisdictions, conditional use • Setting a time limit to establish the permit requests are often taken to the use. If the use is not established within planning commission or elected officials the time limit, the conditional use permit in a hearing process. A jurisdiction may expires. choose, however, for staff or a hearings officer to make decisions on conditional use permits. 10 • • In a county,the above conditions may be section of the zoning ordinance as the appropriate for some uses. Other conditional use review procedures. conditions include: Typically,the criteria will provide that: • Increasing setbacks to reduce • The proposal be consistent with the conflicts with farm use; comprehensive plan and the objectives • Signing an agreement not to object to of the zoning ordinance and other farm or forest practices on adjacent land; applicable policies of the city or county; and • The proposal have a minimal adverse • Renewing the permit annually or impact on abutting properties and the biennially. surrounding area compared to the impact of development that is permitted The procedure for processing a outright, taking into account location, conditional use permit varies among size, design, and operation communities, but it will generally follow characteristics of the proposed use; the procedures described in Chapters 11 • The proposal preserves assets of and 12. An application, including a site particular interest to the community; and plan and frequently, a public hearing, is • The applicant has a bona fide intent required. and capability to develop, use the land as proposed and has some appropriate Conditional use criteria also vary from purpose for submitting the proposal. city to city and county to county, but they are normally contained in the same 11 • • Chapter 7 Zoning Map Amendments This chapter could also be titled"zone A zone change begins when a property changes."Zone changes involve owner/applicant submits a completed redesignating property from one zone to application(sample in Exhibits)together another(for example,residential to with a map showing the subject commercial)on the zoning map. property. It is important that a legal Frequently, a request for a zone change description of the property be provided. will also involve a comprehensive plan map change, which is described in the Once city or county staff determines the next chapter. The zoning map application is complete, a hearing is amendment and comprehensive plan scheduled before the planning amendment are generally combined for commission and the city council. As review and dealt with at the same noted previously, the city or county hearings. provides DLCD with a notice of the proposal at least 45 days before the A zone change is normally a two-hearing hearing. The hearing process is process, the first before the planning discussed in greater detail in Chapter 11. commission and the second before the city council, board of county Approval criteria for a zone change are commissioners, or county court. It provided in the zoning ordinance. requires that post-acknowledgement plan Typical criteria include: amendment rules be applied, including notifying DLCD at least 45 days before • A demonstration that the proposed the first public hearing on the zone will be compatible with application. This gives DLCD the surrounding property uses; opportunity to evaluate the proposal and • Public services are adequate to serve participate in the process. The notice of the proposed use; and proposed action must include a form • The change will comply with the provided by DLCD, the text of the goals and policies of the comprehensive proposed amendment and a map of the plan. affected area. Forms are available online at: www.oregon.gov/LCD/forms.shtml, For the last criterion listed, a review of or may be obtained by contacting relevant provisions of the plan is needed. DLCD. Be aware that different sections of the plan may seem to conflict with each The remainder of this chapter addresses other. This requires the decision makers quasi-judicial zone changes. (To to balance the policies with the unique understand the difference between quasi- circumstances of the request in question. judicial and legislative hearings, see Chapter 11, Types of Public Hearings.) Note that state rules may apply to a zone change as well. A prime example is the 12 • • Transportation Planning Rule,which conform to the comprehensive plan map. requires a demonstration that the effects If not, a comprehensive plan map of the zone change on the transportation amendment will be necessary(see network have been adequately Chapter 8). considered. • Don't generally rezone lands to There are many nuances to a zone create islands of a special designation in change. Here are a few"dos" and the middle of a different zone. This "don'ts:" practice is commonly called"spot zoning."For example, don't drop a • Do notify DLCD at least 45 days in single-lot residential rezone in the advance of the first hearing at which the middle of the downtown commercial public can testify. This is usually the district. hearing before the planning commission. It will generally take two or three days A specific application for a zone change from mailing for DLCD to receive the should not be processed without notice. Add 45 days to the date DLCD signatures from all property owners will receive the notice. Sending a notice involved in the subject area. In other late is better than sending an incomplete words,those whose property is being notice. Be sure to include the rezoned should be in favor of the information about the requested zone proposed action. However, it is not change. necessary to have all adjoining property owners support the proposed zone map • Don't, as a general rule, rezone a change. portion of a piece of property without rezoning the whole parcel. This is not You must also send DLCD notice of an always possible because the parcel may adopted zone change decision within cross jurisdiction boundaries. five days of the decision becoming final. DLCD will provide the appropriate • Do always look at the form. comprehensive plan map before accepting the zone change application to ensure that the proposed zone will 13 • • • Chapter 8 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments A comprehensive plan map amendment For cities, an important consideration is generally reviewed using the same will be whether the amendment would process as for a zoning map amendment. result in a deficit of land of the . In most cases, a request for a zone designation currently applied to the change will require a comprehensive property. For example, if the application plan amendment as well. Many is to change the plan designation and comprehensive plans do not include an zone from industrial to residential, will amendment procedure within the plan there continue to be an adequate supply document itself. Therefore, many small of industrial land in the city, according cities and counties rely on the to what the comprehensive plan says is amendment process outlined in the needed? zoning ordinance. TIP: Unlike a zone change, Plan amendments in The comprehensive plan which is reviewed primarily counties often include an map amendment is for compliance with the local "exception"to a generally a two-hearing comprehensive plan, a plan statewide planning goal. process: the first before amendment must be shown An exception is governed the planning commission to be consistent with the by Goal 2, statutes, and and the second before the statewide planning goals. rules, not just local city council, board of The application should criteria. include an explanation of commissioners, or how the request complies county court. This is with the goals. As with zone changes, do because the not re-designate a portion comprehensive plan and zoning of private property without including the ordinance must be adopted by ordinance, entire property, unless the owner is also and therefore, can only be amended by partitioning his or her property. Small the elected officials. cities are especially susceptible to"spot zoning"—creating a commercial island Comprehensive plan and zoning map in the middle of residentially planned amendments can run concurrently, with. property. While circumstances combined notice to the public and sometimes warrant a spot zone, it is DLCD, one public hearing before the usually not a desirable situation. planning commission, and one public hearing before city or county elected As is done for a zone change, remember officials. The same set of rules that was to send DLCD notice of an adopted plan addressed for zone changes applies to amendment decision within five days of comprehensive plan map amendments. the decision becoming final—usually a signed ordinance. DLCD will provide the appropriate form. 14 Chapter 9 Partitions and Subdivisions Partitions and subdivisions are governed Who to involve Why to involve by the subdivision ordinance or them subdivision chapter of the code. The Public works Adequacy of subdivision ordinance primarily does director, existing public three things: city/county infrastructure and engineer necessary • Provides a set of standards for improvements improvements to public infrastructure, Private utilities Adequacy of such as streets (including sidewalks), existing water, sewer, and drainage system; infrastructure and • Provides procedures for processing necessary applications; and improvements • Provides criteria for reviewing Oregon If a state highway applications. Department of adjoins the site Transportation Some ordinances may still include both County road If a city Major and Minor Partitions,but department subdivision adjoins currently there is no distinction in state a county road law. Similarly, some jurisdictions may County sanitarian Wastewater still require that partitions and or Oregon disposal in rural subdivisions go before a public hearing. Department of areas However, changes to the statutes now Environmental allow administrative approval of Quality partitions and subdivisions by staff. This Fire department Hydrant locations is being done with increasing regularity Postal service Mail box locations in the larger jurisdictions of the state. County surveyor Name of the subdivision, The elected officials, especially in small preparation of the cities and counties, should be aware of final plat any development being considered. A Oregon If site includes public hearing process on a partition or Department of wetlands (or subdivision, although not required, State Lands potential wetlands) might be beneficial for local decision makers in understanding the proposed Applications also need to be reviewed by development in their community. the planner. Some of the criteria for a land division are included in the zoning When processing a land division ordinance. For example, minimum lot proposal, there are a number of other size, street frontage, and lot width-to- departments, agencies, and organizations depth ratio requirements vary from zone that may need to be involved. to zone and are usually included in the 15 • Planning Commission Workshop Ron Bunch x2427 March 5, 2007 WHY ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT LEGISLATIVE LAND DECISIONS? • Planning Commission and community groups will be holding work sessions on goals, policies and action measures • Upcoming public hearings top be held Comprehensive Plan goals policies and action measures; • Consideration of Future public Downtown land use program, plan and zoning map, land use design standards and regulations. LEGISLATIVE LAND USE DECISIONS DEFINED • Legislative - create and adopt as law general policies and regulations for future land use within a jurisdiction. Examples include the adoption or revision of a comprehensive plan, zoning regulations, or a subdivision ordinance. LCDC goals must be considered for legislative land-use decisions. Adoption of regulatory maps (Plan or Zoning Maps) is a legislative decision OTHER TYPES LAND USE DECISIONS • Quasi-Judicial - apply the law to specific land development or use proposals. Examples of quasi-judicial decisions include small-tract zoning designations, conditional use permits, and major land divisions. They typically involve the exercise of discretion by the decision-making official or body in applying general criteria of the plan or ordinance to the facts of a land development application. Quasi-judicial decisions always involve the property rights of specific persons. • Ministerial or Administrative - apply "clear and objective standards" for which the local government provides no right to a hearing. These decisions are delegated to staff with the appropriate safeguards for the rights and interests of the affected parties. Examples include partitions or certain minor variances from standards. 1 , • • Planning Commission Workshop Ron Bunch x2427 March 5, 2007 Summary of Decision Requirements Type of Notification Hearings Findings Appeal Decision Legislative Notice must be All local Goal 2 requires Land use provided legislative land land-use decisions are consistent with -use actions are decisions have subject to appeal local policies--but , required to be an "adequate only to LUBA. also to specific taken after a factual base". The scope of groups, agencies public hearing. These decisions review only and LCDC if Not subject to must be includes a ' application of , the 120 day supported by determination of goals is involved rule. written findings. consistency with LCDC goals and the local comprehensive plan Quasi-Judicial Must identify the Parties are Decisions are not The law requires type of land use i entitled to final until written that a notice of a decision to be made ! present and findings have quasi-judicial and the time and ' rebut evidence been adopted by decision be sent to place of the , presented by i the decision- j all parties of the hearings others. The making body. preceding. proponent has ! Failure to prepare Decisions can be ' the burden of and adopt appealed directly proof. Evidence "adequate" to LUBA, but that is not findings can result jurisdictions can included in in reversal or , provide more than testimony or as remand of a ' one level of part of the record decision. , appeal. may not be cited as a basis for the decision. Ministerial or No required, but Not required. Not required. Can be appealed Administrative generally provided to the appropriate decision-making body. 2 • • • Planning Commission Workshop Ron Bunch x2427 March 5, 2007 STATE AND METRO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF LOCAL LEGISLATIVE LAND-USE DECISIONS • State post-acknowledgment plan amendment (PAPA) process requires a 45 day notice to DLCD of proposed legislative changes • Metro reviews to determine Functional Plan Compliance • Both agencies can appeal • Other agencies can appeal if Statewide goals or administrative rules are violated HEARINGS • Planning Commission holds an initial hearing to make recommendation to Council; • City Council holds hearing to consider Planning Commission recommendation and may accept, modify or reject the recommendation. Council may remand recommendations back to the Commission and staff for further work. GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTION MEASURES • Comprehensive Plan will be arranged in Goals, Policies and Action Measures • Goals and Policies are the "laws" enumerated in the Comprehensive Plan. They can be used as decision-making criteria for: I. Legislative land use decisions; II. Quasi-judicial decisions involving plan map and zoning map amendments of an individual or small number of properties; III. Some types of conditional use applications IV. The intent of goals must be incorporated into Development Code language to be used for decision-making and most quasi-judicial decisions. Development Code changes are evaluated to ensure they comply with the local Plan, Metro Functional and Statewide Planning Goals. Definitions and Obligations of Goals, Policies and Action Measures • Goals policies and action measures identify the intent of the city to accomplish certain results • Goals are the most general; Policies and action measures are the most specific 3 • • Planning Commission Workshop Ron Bunch x2427 March 5, 2007 • Each goal is supported by policies I. Goal • Definition: a general statement indicating the desired end or the direction the city will follow to achieve that end • Obligation: The city cannot take actions which violate a goal statement unless action is being taken which clearly supports another goal, and there are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedent (in the particular case) over another. Example: Protect and enhance the environmental and aesthetic contribution of trees and other vegetation II. Policy • Definition: A Statement identifying Tigard's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are more specific than goals. They often identify the city's position in regard to implementing goals. However they are not the only actions the city can take to accomplish goals. • Obligation: The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive Plan or developing other plans or ordinances. An existing Comprehensive Plan must be amended in order to adopt new standards, plans or codes that are not consistent with its goals and policies. In instances where specific plan policies appear to conflict, the city shall seek solutions which maximize each applicable policy objective within the overall context of the Comprehensive Plan. Example: The City shall require tree planting and other landscaping within an adjacent to parking lots to provide shade, aesthetic enhancement and buffering and screening of parking areas from dissimilar land uses III. Action Measures Definition: An action measure is a statement that outlines a specific City project or standard, which if executed will implement goals and policies Action measures can also refer to specific projects or courses of action the city desires other jurisdictions to take. 4 • • • Planning Commission Workshop Ron Bunch x2427 March 5, 2007 Obligation: Implementation of action measures depends on a number of factors such as citizen priorities; financing; staff availability etc. Action measures are guidelines and are not mandatory to be observed. However the City can encourage their implementation. Example: Evaluate streets that have inadequately sized plantar strips to determine if street trees can be planted elsewhere in the right-of-way or on private property. Guidelines for drafting Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goals • Should be short, broad based and began with a verb • Goals can be based on Tigard Beyond Tomorrow/visioning, community surveys, City of Tigard community information and other documentation / data. Goals can also be based on the community's intuitive knowledge of and experience with the City and its local conditions and circumstances but should ultimately be tied to factual conditions. Policies • Policies are criteria to be used for evaluating legislative and some quasi-judicial decisions. They are the foundation for land uses rules and laws. Policies are promises between the city and its citizens. They obligate future planning commissioners, staff and City Councilors to definitive courses of action unless amended. • When writing policies avoid equivocal statements; use concrete language (subject, verb and outcome); use words like "shall" or "ensure" to make certain a policy is implementable; keep verbs measurable and easily quantifiable; avoid words like encourage or consider. • Make sure there is a goal/policy agreement; policies support goals. Legislative land use decisions.doc 5 • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Tigard Planning Commission, City Center Advisory Commission FROM: Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner RE: March 5th Planning Commission Meeting DA'Z'E: March 1, 2007 The February 26, 2007 joint Planning Commission /City Center Advisory Commission meeting raised a number of issues that will have to be addressed in the process of updating the Development Code for the Downtown Urban Renewal District. 1) Staff will follow up with the City Attorney and seek advice on the particulars of how a form-based code would meet the requirements of ORS 197 and how it could be integrated with the procedural requirements for land use decisions, such as noticing and appeal. 2) Whether or not a "pure" form-based code is legal under Oregon statutes,it seems clear that aspects of such codes could be incorporated into traditional design regulations. The emphasis on the public realm can be addressed with traditional design standards or guidelines. Using detailed graphical standards is user-friendly for developers, and also informs the public of what future development will look like. Instituting building design prototypes based on the function of the street could also be integrated with traditional codes. 3) An important consideration is the administrative requirements of new design regulations. New processes would require amendments to the Development Code. Depending on the type of process chosen, training or additional staffing may be required. For example, a Design Review Board would require staff to administer it. The adoption of discretionary design guidelines and/or a form- based code could require specialized training for staff or the hiring of new staff. Next steps: 1) Staff will ask the City Attorney to evaluate issues related to form based codes and Oregon statutes. • 2) Because the adoption of a form based code has policy, program, and procedural implications, a discussion will be arranged with the City Council to obtain direction. Oh • • ARM BASED CODE Presentation for the City of Tigard INTRODUCTION Section I • What constitutes high quality and functional urban design for small downtowns? Principles for high quality downtowns: . > s. • . ,,..,,.��' {_• •:, - r .�. c ;� r,'^�.` .'� 1. 1 Cpl ,a , :.,;.,...\:.,�. •` ;1•'y; •` 10------- /� C I• 1 ��1 ♦, l 1 �, t I1 i ~w•.rte ` T -`_:t.7� ' . �_,'','_ )rP r v� - mac''. {r�'I['(4��,[ 4 t4} L 'TL-`. . . � 1. t . i ...... •max K } �f�,''Ib 1_,` ; , I :.•''k.. ,.i___.,,....1 L I- . ,, ,: , : MI 1.: t u j \',, $ ! `7 H I sir, _ 1 Section II Explanation of Form Based Code n3----- LI bil H .... k.' _ Overview of form based code (FBC) concepts _ o ..s -- _• Characteristics of form based code, t/A I I . to I Y�l 7111"" Elements of FBC t. j _ How FBC Works - Examples of Matrix Organizing Principles • III • • t . 1 ection III • • How design review occurs under Oregon's fact-based land use process: Fmaimpammilmowsom Procedural aspects that must be • observed in the development review -� process .� tr • -. -,., , Why use FBC with current zoning codes 39.1i and design standards? - ititX • Section IV --- -- .• • Implementation of FBC . 4 1 1 Y` • Mechanics of Implementation .. � . . ;_ L . I i i 1:„,. .s, re -1. . r,.. .: t„ .... ,,, .fj.,4 , .... 4 ` FY - ,,,,,-.4....;l Y ,.s-� Saf .P7/x' , V • II • • section I • • What constitutes high quality and functional urban desi • n for small downtowns? ;t. , , . • „\��v = } ',+ , �*�';, Al■ .tPrinciples for high quality downtowns: m , ' r ` v a'. t Pedestrian Scale organization, rather than automobile :3 . scale organization t ' '‘ : • iii. -i:. 1 • Small block structure with active uses fosters variety �,. ,, '.�'''\-,', ,. and intensity) - t .:.• .... 'i•''k Sufficient housing density in close proximity (walking .� . : , •; distance) supports active street life and retail that �`)., \j', 1 provides daily and long term needs y .° p Y g �! , LI A balance of work, living, retail and entertainment . tL. �� __ .�1 ; a(a mix of uses) so residents consider the downtown a =� - ,, s a destination for short and long term needs - Quality design and construction - is a symbol of local i �_' values ,,, ;� � :II i ; �' r , 1 r:z 'LI-J.; 1- 1,- ,, _..,, __ .1 ,-. ill I 1 . , ., ;tr.) :WI 111 I 1%.Eli I. _ __�.' •r.�. � . ••. �.. , `1 as Signage focused on pedestrian scale observation Public places (parks, streets and squares) that - `� ' encourage public usage \, 1 - An actively and imaginatively managed public realm .,: \.\ {'t `ia. ' it with places that encourage events and public 1 \i4'i . �_'f involvement ':' i" �' ivv.III 114, ; . . . • Activities and elements that safely bring children, � � people of all ages and physical abilities into the new �,:,�`�� ;a►=`..,t public spaces " r, :/: .1;;1' Opportunities for a variety of scales of businesses, i `' including live/work, street vendors, incubators, L artists Plan and build for a balance of community interests for variety of economic and age, constituents - ' -- fil ��fi„ Ifft44-1,��' ! �.� „ � . y��II4 I ,TT -® . •.mJ { r — .2 III 0 • •affic calming principles to ensure thatee ,s� -1.4 0 automobile is accessible but not intrusive ' -.-' . ,- -.-°f`'; -" Vii;- i Develop A variety of accessible transportation modes ► " . STOP Ensure that buildings support public life in form ; III _.'. 41411; l d.,4 4Fi, t and configuration, letting sunlight into public = -� '' -- � `,_. places and not overshadowing ....1,�. { ik� Take the best urban ideas from history and use them in a way that fits the local context . • Ni. ' i 1 Q t "':., `1 it ;es 1Y ' I�IIIIi,YI i t I Tii�ii�,Eii • Provide for an ongoing public process in a specific place that encourages dialogue between decision makers, residents and stakeholders. The dialogue will examine values, opportunities, issues and aspirations, the bases of a three dimensional plan and form based code How do urban design decisions and developer investment follow principles? Development of form based standards to ensure that investment is protected by quality design and construction Section II Overview of form based code (FBC) concepts: Definition of FBC: A predictable method of regulating the quality and configuration of development directed toward the goal of improving the public realm. 40 This is accomplished by unifying a three dimensional plan and regulations that graphically emphasize improving the economic viability and physical quality of cities. FBC is a land development regulatory tool that emphasizes the physical form of the built environment (public realm). Its end goal is to produce a type of place that addresses relationships among and between buildings and the public realm. It does this without • eliminating land use regulations. By understanding what future development will be like, communities can make better decisions about what will be built • • Goals of Form- Based Code (FBC) Improve the quality of the built environment - (buildings and public places) Improve the certainty of the quality and configuration of what is built (fewer surprises) • More community control over the quality and configuration of what is built Transparency for developer (two tier system) acceptance of FBC vs. more ambiguous Design Standards/Commission Greater certainty for developer - Projects can be planned with more knowledge of outcome FBC improves the quality of public realm and its buildings: • Based on visual district standards provided by an area master plan and matrix They are visual and written rules for the form of buildings and public places They emphasize mixed use development and a variety of typologies for divergent needs and densities Based on a public participation process Integrate form based codes into a legally defensible design review and land use program that provides economic incentives to developers. Clear and objective standards • Place based land use process - tied to local values Provide Findings Time Frames within process • • • 11 • • • Characteristics of form based code: FBC is a statement of community development goals. FBC will achieve a more predictable built result than zoning, because it is based on a plan that proposes specific physical qualities/attributes • Elements controlled by FBC are those most important to shaping a quality public realm FBC provides physical examples and guidance for implementation with community support The process of developing a plan offers communities opportunities to consider the physical character of the community Community members will have easier access to FBC, because of its physical • descriptions and stated goals of the code Less open to legal challenge, because failure to comply would diminish the good that comes from the community adopting a specific plan and code Elements of FBC: Regulating Plan: providing a coherent strategy based on community intentions to implement the agreed confi uration 'Physical ical character and quality of future development. The plan will show building sites, street types, build-to lines and nd design features. • Urban Regulations: standards organized by district and building type, presented in the form of a matrix and diagrams that address bulk, height, coverage Public Space/Street Standards: width and dimensions of streets, sidewalks, paths, curb heights, parking requirements etc. Building Form Standards: regulations controlling building and landscape configuration, character and a range of functions, including walls, windows, fences, roofs and species, sizes, locations of trees and plantings. • Administration: clearly defined application and project review process Definitions: glossary to ensure understanding technical terms Annotation: text and illustrations explaining intent of specific code provisions. • • . • Sw FBC Works - Examples of Matries • II Seaside urban code ZOICCatircAtisi:•01 JIM a • 6 P. • ir a 6 4 • • • a/kg I 11114..••••fral,a wow, CIA4:3 1•••••4 6+4. ,,',...61%.a :a .......■1 re1"1-cg smitk L army n;...a? ',.f 4•10•1 a 14••• v.s."..)* ••■ Ilbaillat r.L A.:\U 1664E4 f.XMILY11 McMinn; --,..L...1...--51.-...--. •.7.7.7=1,71.."7.:'" • • • • • • • 6 16 4 e•IMI 01100 laid 1......er• 7.6.46.am r•..711 rellti . ..-. .. ....- ••••,•••■••...... •0 ..9717;.C.Lr . •f--0---:- • ... iv.. .1: • ...i -6,6 e. ..,.,t■.•••■ ......,........6,6,.6 116111114416 It le• • a ”.7.1.-,—,..otr•6 • Y. 11 V • a * 6 • .......0 a•mb me ma. rit.Ckl ■ . -- ...........,..i...i.i........ 11.711Ci 1. 1r, 8 . - ....••—. 1 • : 1 116 t ■•••••■•■•••••IMIN WV. MOO•MIMI AA OA IN e••WM.. -•■ .- a.,•1 a altr..■ :,. .. .•....,r't• .! TS:2 • a 1 4P...4 I 1-' '. I • 11 ••••.1'......••.••••••...• •ton",6■■•••6• 110••••••■1•11 4/0... CM.AM I 00•11/0 02 NM WO 4.0.IS•as ta, • ti • 4 16 • • • • A 1 . • . ,- 01 I . , • - 01 I. . ....., 101111::341 r........r.OM. 16,1.0.11.1 NM • i Te 1.i.1 I • j1111111110 1 • * • ..,.:v.. • ••IMO:IN • Ai•••••• • 0 • .... • ■••■.■•... • • - : :i ■••Va-.. . . I ! i -",•^1% -, t , * i • ,• - • ..tr.la. ',- ., 11 g.---7-7.1: ; i L jaunt 1 I i--- .•:1 6.110•••••••••••••• 01.41 MY.MB.1.•0 I, Alt 1 • : . I i . :i111.1...: 1. 04.•■•••••■•T. i I '. ' .••■■•• • oi. to a 4 4 4, I • • 4 .............4•■•■•••••■• 711491Nrr 7•''''" ...MS MEM 11 I -: 1.... .".• 1 s. E ,•• - ;707{..977:714r•. F'• t''' [-•1 I ,■..... FE, ,. 4 ........:..,..4,4.. _____.1...4.7...•• —...L. ..; ..0.-4 —,- --•.,--- 1 ; . ..L•••.6 ' . ......./.74-::-.• • .41 _...0 .,I._, r.,...6.6....I*4.••■•• . •mr..":::".7:::.7-1=6 .16, 4, 6 6 • • 6 • • FBC Matrix Arlington VA D. BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS: LOCAL SITES 1491cht Sped,Icadatts tiaar 11.042 3," .4“......44 ••••..' 1 IA•in..INS her.A NM•b.■K.Sta .......441.1•••4.40 CO rats...,a* bafttelicsat ....— '"•••""-, ' an. ■ I Parr..* ,.a..•...a.rt...... , ,.. ................ ..... ''t,...tat cic S. W.b7•7r41,41 be benftea 3.0 3 Ina In la.27te......n II Rd ''-'"" '''''..--r'''' WC.'An stic a ta....•4 fent OP•r.... ...... ..g..y. Mr%Jaw.*ea.....way wpm Itoeca.n.ta etwoc a.I.tac 7 tt,a Mr I ••• ' men I awe LI het R....de Rit.*a Rd Cu taw rt LAM be on..ra a MI •_I 1... ...1....'. I :11 cc a bat-c.taw has ay.rm.. amt WIC,tla V<met batat.C2....calf=t1aX5 1:,v2tLf2i1;71-:,,LLefIDE---M7'"ZAZ Th.tall atm Insert•10417.,be••7 an":•ORI•,1,117.1.7........■....NC NC •••••■••■•••..••••• .........•............Pb..•4.7.,... ..................•e...7.......r.. dz.ve Ve fm.t.7%tack Mae,.••••• . ...,......,“....,.....,........4..., a. San■...t•Otal Ca Ittestwred WS.19 • ...A...A an..00....'..s........anyksrwt t.:,....'"".____„,'''''''''' I.te mum.0,,U..ad If.c....CO.,.We ''''''"'",.-- ......•........14 1•••■IN.4 11,141 4 OW cc, 5.01_C a..•113 d n a•cefeRacut I0 RR env.lb a.a s......S.,........05*.., IA to.n.....in unto;9.99.tant.Ulf S. lt.m.o..,ko,la No yaw...•••.rte kr atom ce mutat.Pecht kr•••ac.late te•.....a.•I•cat en C.drorn d or Au A It Re to efe........ • 1 At SMALLS vet h...Um 9 hat 4 ode. ....”. ....•.0.0*•Inc 20 prot y ow.•••• f t . ...dre.5.•••twee.Or.wow,the t ........crer 0.1 t.tart••ea...artery I I 1 ,,.-. n3 at•-acal att.b•cad,...... ..... ,,,,,...t,...........,....,,„.....1 ...=an.0,99tdoth Cd win., t.MO tale.avo be tevr.b4e reas a.at ..— 16.......... whs1 erenow.coro...at Me ea........ r„...- • f .2=74;611; . 1 1 ft-,,,,,,,„,'".,`",,"°..,...**,„,,th"...7,,„,.""".,_ Grp.ace.sr.ra two Ma a on a..be '.2.1°.21'"b"" 0. ,• • • 'i '="4"st 1 CO L. ••fec....cattcranp..... ......0.4.OW..boa TN AI%a MC a b.....RR.t•It.......A..9 le,.....; weet. r''.....044."."'"'"...••7."'"2"'"" _..,.... . • , ..... .....• ,71 ta..ycycas3 aan,aa tam,orfos MI sfUS JRI1 :.....--• ... :.."..:i.4:•',..•' '•1 1,011,0411,p(814...I)11,4 0,33.0,114 ,...",..............2..........i......................-1-:.:,----1-4 rm.*, nesio...4,444 ame..... 5..4 ' I.• • i I re tas`O ander it*ea 196 ct de Mu C.S.444.......!Ca,11.4n IAA.•12 ..........ao4 Pan.1,4-414 44.4.4.14.own. 4.4“.4.47 444 1■4........to.4 ; t•••&arca As•CI Cy art SA..Sw•atketRo. 1......41... tass..,...... Orr.P1%Pd 4 Rem es,•1•R•en• that tre ea caw.ca taCcas anic.tcwal ..........t.s.,,...„.,.......,......, Siting SpecflitatIons 4414••art!,4^,W.Ort....a*AM•4 II tot , •4240•441.414 1141.0 1.19.41 1.61.9.2911 W...r•Pr.-.tn...., ........M,I 46.2e,444 to.be.....111.le.Awl I Pb.5.4•11•14...Wed.'MS I.310.414•••TS POC.44#0. 1, 6,1.m.etttr......./(....sok, P h''' 5.11,011.'.."be the Co.C.' Om.I,%IL anasn at tht u........•.Ma.d Mt Caw ,.........)......„,„.................... Oa.Cad P..Oar 104.et....1. A ...toe,'4.0.1...Gam*are.......Awe me wows....no,end.................. "teAttet,.'...".I."9.(....•••.. Paws..•rale et Wt.wt.Carat Inket,en t s RV.. 7.4-7 tt.,.........7,...pp*.,.... 70....)....b..••••••••••••••:.•t••,7.0 Iowa 9.1.-0 tr.*tattarty SA t nit We 0*044 ”..........0 n.4•4•14401).4•4•4 2 111.1.CaO..be.,.....,,...,......,.....pa ...h.t5.e.d.K0.(a.so.f a Pew., .....*b....* oat b.=word 0•sot.Ow.f Cm..potty:.5C nz. ..,..3 art...............am•.....1,•.... C. ... • - - , ,. .... -............ 110 ..';..." ifilit; .: "...L. :am Cloment.gpeallea tlea• .... ...1:.. •. -4, V.:Z... •,.......•.... c a tart red C.War Amt..,tante;4.•Wact Cc.... cat•tac a0 tar 4..0)Re......6...:" I.,,••6..64..............h............• ted..............64.,...........rd.est. ....••........... •vft, iv'''. ''',..,..., N'Atir' 55.?01.0 e{4*a aW ttarb Vaal WO,• attarat IC be tua•fratal.0,.1136)e,a heel b....... \ • ,,,,,,, sec...Ora..I Ma ant:1.fat Cep ad.• 0,..,....,,,,,,......,Pt...,..c_C i 1 ....1....la.tO..taati C4`•at.•••••tr Ptro.0 4M...op Rat.... ..7.1.I .11,4 .09‘ht WM.0 ha..$C.=t'. nu..as a tart..,be.....•std. . f.,,..•..............44./••41•..........04 ...a...V Rob taw.•..1 aim.re ::,1,,-te,i.-- '1",,w,g—v-Z-Ify.ttnwo,v&m, '....r-...-A.- kla..c.a a......sa•Al ay..hat... A 4,1•7 0...44.••■,10 la+amass n hava... dd.... p.m..aro.de................op r. -•••••••■14/44311114.6•4 -.... - 4...0%.....4.....4.........440e....4v 44..4 Oat apn4Ik.t(on. - 00,5.4 c.....th... r war.;no cam...ca(c.m.taSt •tar..c.cat rare'ca...tr.Sc,.. 0)se.Paarad 0 rte batarta Ma C -,"'''■. , •aWt a . . .v•i t" .14.v•M*, . .a •■.art .. tout Carnarav•Wet.6.0,0 1.0..bald arc C.RARRIRRI= L - i „......... or."..."V.•$•771.r.res•pawl.rat[Ye n...„....,y.,nos(.,a,...,„ to.bran Cr Lam 1.3•33 01 Ot ..Tata.at Nest 23 bc•cc. I•••••••• ...0.11 ). labli.S.. I.....k%0.1...0.0 me,.pwapn I mak:-*.-4•,... 1011111111'''"" ......,„.,.........,„... radu............u............ 1.1.0.saattaSto F 4:4'-''...Wtaitttir,,WIZ:WLVW* ''''''''P'"'"e''''h'. ''' AN.,•A..•............1 1...•••• .. , .....„..........,.................• 4.....c...1,4 weslxv,..••no,nn m•a•■ 7 7'.••••■••I,is.■•■•Neoc,......., 4.•coanCirchars cad mfr...treats 1 C.a...tr..trat.frebrocarrICAt a Carew 0 Ant la can arta at ittaaa sOcrt•rat.,tnc tat......•,•...vat ace L tra:a0.0 t•tat-at r••a arr•••..V.,• A C.bare a batman 13.0 19 Plat oart•...cat C..4.4 dtalvet Crul.o• III • III • • Three Dimensional Examples WEOT PALM BEACH MASTER PLAN UPDATE . . • Additional Height.Y.1) R■$! s t OR AoclitsOnal'Iciont P.c:Idcn taAl Ito IRIP) Bose Height • • "•••• \■ • • \• • 11. • r' • Norased Metsino -•. • t■.\ .•• • . Exc t.> . Lined P.mv■loq Po31/1M rietan 4/• r.7-- NC: • / 1.-n.tv Landcaster, CA 5.4 BUILDING TYPES AND REGULATING PLANS BUILDING TYPES A building typo tufcis to a gwuup of buildir t7 that slimy couunon chhatactoustics,such as lot ptacranrrrt,mass and scale.,and errhiree tural elements. Examples of different building types include skyscrapers,warehouses, detached homes,rowhnrses,and commercial block buildings. Within Downtown Lancaster,the following building types ant alloy/L.71 . • Commercial Block Buildings • "Main Sttuut'Counusdial Lilock Duildingi • Live-Work Lofts • Courtyard Buildings • Rrwhntses • Stacked Flat Duildirga • Detached h-louses • Garage/Accessory Building Exhibit S-2.shrews unulrpiou1 illrutr:Aim is of HIE al m wu bualrinrg typs. Exhibit 5-2:Conceptual illustrations of Alloxed Building Types Courtyard Building Rrnvhouse (Forecourt) with rear yard end detached garage • r • Garage! • Cnnxrl • ld a w1 Block ' For Detached - House Main Street •`" • Commercial Block . live-Work Lofts with Courtyard Rowhnuse .' Tuck-Under Parking or Building with Tuck- Underground Parking (Center Court) Under Parking Stacked Flat Detached Howse • 0 • • III Site Specifications: Facade Specifications: Exhibit S-12: Interior Lots: O Corner Lots: 0 _-- -- Foca&S t'1rllalitn.: Development Live W Specifications mall _, q,dytonllLxaJ:.11wuRanw•lint!: for LIVEWOf{LLofts • O 0 ' C 0 �_ Description: /� 1 .4i - ■o-■ la��• any■ �' •L.( II 0 Ls) _ .-�"` -� O O ■® ■� e� O ANadu;thalmnLainImat.4wnollum that artdenontd 111)11l111 In XMMOCI alt Imlh rtadnlal h.,ng and...Out weal 0(:)7 ilholimnit ■!! im mil■ 0 ^O 0 Example Photos: p .. .� .1' Ude.wall 11 .\Ik. o It: Iluildan•LIne I IITL)TIN lInnl laUdt dull he Intl l: Lot\1idth::WM 1+11, .111 tide)end proved)Iintl Mall vp �•e�a ar.wheeernU.i ti,i to S•M'OW lrnntpropen)I.11. ne(Vrj41+d.<ule 11 the!beet. .4. 11.1.1.1mlap.Nml'Tli tn(.nl thel4Lrde:lull he delind h) ei ♦,M14� ∎.; • • nutldm5 entrance:and 1rp.er neat Mlcnniet nu.tie It Minimum LM Urlah'11.1 • • ,, '-"V. me lied,nIn du Wrade. It Se Marl/aloe Seihacla lino tladl and doh a art nen 1cap,.ae.l.1144.4 Mamnl y- •�, If: I;lyall'M.n1.l acaa •. _ j. '(. (: hl.o■lnun hwldins depth nr2ti a measured Own die required .15•;that{,t reymred Imo all nth.e.lemal (;.. I hound I Into I Made J' lJ _ }}r 1 °•f1• • IrrL. pnt[11)urea nl tea entire de.etfyane01 t; The U, l:m+nd I'Inne and frond l Iwo t\ildnw t'MtMa4mr;data.In V 1 t _1 1, jr, ;+ . IJ Ilutldmp lime:IlNt�.nl'Ni temeaball 11.4 o n t d l') :rihatl eme+11411 M landacaltd, has NI ptdttlrian :10:-nil each emus floor MM./pi/et Me.UCade 11.1 lmnt.11 .,i -,t, s -, ,¢ meMm�re Auildingt.Toe width dl the Moe nu) wll wa..are alkwM.1 me tMMtl rrx r. are:hall he ralcupied M.•.I.1Nm.opeoutgt Tsit do:t1lill ti rpmlaerla l where 61e dn.e.ra.l nr 1. .ISe it In pailful nlra het d,all he prow idt44)11;111.). r-41114.dnr+..M appq In ty+l'e.lint with dnmin .a .,, I.tdeth.wall wit.1 W tutelar. %%here..ally..a nn itr.eni no an,nueri.NI,11.14.11 IA wind... f r1 Id IItar Md4.1..KI.MW Zinc lone nu;M n-Npied Iq m puling(1140. a Mall he prn..ded 14 1 mt-wa. I, I:nir,Un a l:uh gmundna.will aa11111ve o tat+)deem m .i e•an•nl al Me.rain Molding,a detached 4uddhng w411 11.4'.' incited alms Me Me pmpM)lint Whet do me Gilt facade midi tadtlns rt'-t.l'-i4f.1F,a r~��i,• i��p1 addnierrh.o-..t*.Ind 1,acl+mnm eoun.arn)anl,a alLe,,+lint p;tnima comer kn.asst h In part Ind ;Tai . Nil mg minuet are,or 111.4(1:.4 part inn II Inn-weal unto Ixd,I.e..hall he prm,ded h)a dr..ewa.Iran the ride ` are pmI Led,n III tune.,pede+vita toot;tram the tweet t �t I. - 4deaalltnlhenni11thall1uepm.ide4. -T `i' Prohibited Facade Elements: _ i Mass/Height Specifications: A' I:.unai<himnn:and s.lrinalsl;me let ln upper lMtttare . promoted no the Mont latdt ()eat mil-up dinge dean are rr t Allowed Roof Forms: aur..ee ' r O ' ' 0 _0 Q Use Specifications: 0 � �� ` I1....„.„..,0 Re Required O hall∎onlllIIII IF.IIII(111 Projecting Facade Element: ■WWII. WWWW MEM 0 4) .111M IIIII or' (....;1 y--.. (3712, o QQ 0 Q O 0 O A, 1:41.111Ile,gmnrltn++nd Flom Lon(!i11:In'in2a' O I O O I1: (.0lma I1441111ol Uwe.Ilnfrl)411 Ii,In 211'. 1' ;i Ina'C11wa14.Iminthe L`© `© E�® O l:: hleeiamne I Mot'II pm.u/ed m a Ng un,,the MUeanine Nnnr 11u11 he n;e�m..t Non.M a.Hein.ue Mhcalyd Nlhe llrerrllMah'd, ue allo.ed A' VIone.with%reel 1'mmidr In 1111111.44011M11e 12t ceiling 1 l.,ch1.l111.ta,d.1.,Ua h1Umanine MOW 6'Minimum, 11: Ilu.Idtn s Width.311'ntntmum and netala4S-Intl(Il.dtt mint;l 11rie l:+tt e t limn tied (4 Maintop"hi/miser nlllalec2.TA AtlnvliI*No4 na.ilhian 1urlUrr n1' nrma.imma. In Tete 4l an ilithWid Partnog..[WA. ,6I,lntlt0 noon,reit to1:.MM14-11.Antrvantr.t lln.il Con tidered d loo.wiser L• I tap Anal with partial ex(Wain A: .4wine1 Muyutel"I reject 3'in n'Imin the facade. It: IIonet..illnul`men I4nolanr.LnNL1nil.and l Inoue • cakulahltanu.,munl lw14,501tigl11. M: Ili Pont oCN(a4nn+11It X10.144 lnnael Mice l:aeaaiirniiUa P N: Ilakm.4 UKl+nu)Itn 14110 In M1'Inlnry Ut.(41, in Taxer-I ate allowed hut;n(l it allowed 1'' .a Intl lrmhnseuval,oet,ihee/e.slim nl the gmuld slat!hall htal Ma 1.; /:teat NMI' (: I4)w.Mow/nu.ptryect yl to 2'Inn lot raede, l.: 14..tirttnl'111(m6 aid anode lea m-ldeuln art grade nl the adjacent idewall. 1); tall Atanard Rita U' 1'mleu,nn Wen aa.pwyed 5(1 to a'11001 the laeadr The arm (2 Mul1.L.elha;men1.are allnwta r: Lamurt aln.ed. 111 the tin:milt Iwt heed In:quart kit U: l l,l,q meter{d hint. i tpnaal are1{mime.put mg II' mittade•.m•Chtdmg rem earan wylal are pmuMltd I(eNcluttr Nmlland It: tilted Knot Vaulted le ti'minimum Wanner. IMr,and lMdi egad...thud Ile laeiititttan he irwaled taeame0e.1ld all a.Near and 1idnard)meta'walle(.spading lit 14n•tI...lielRoot .A:61041,1 laelaam or 111111.roar.tide n1 Me la,ldm 0Aa.n151 wa111/dull hale a na.maael Aeight 111 72' .lente wa11 rn«l dull s: ,lppmr.r.a;<11n1h:IahN.t lit IM g lie.! In n-Liner than the Ina«.all 5110-!Tool Imni and than Ii.Mend IrMn roldtc.hew, I: Upper.llnt unlit nu)he aellpa Mgt Irma the Latta-IMine. I:: 1mw!kuaea lint Fart.npitpemiMluu,n the hoot Organizing Principles: Graphic codes may be organized in several ways (based on which part can fit into the Oregon land use system). Coding (organizing the elements of the plan) by a hierarchy of street types: Boulevard Main streets • Squares Secondary downtown streets Residential streets Lanes Pedestrian walks Alleys Coding by Location: Town center Neighborhood center Neighborhood general • Neighborhood edge Coding by building type: Mixed-use buildings - commercial and housing Loft buildings/workshops Apartment houses, boarding houses, hotels Town houses/duplexes (0 lot line houses) • • • 0 Section III How design review occurs under Oregon's fact-based land use process How design review must occur under Oregon's fact based land use process FBC is a refinement plan / overlay and subject to the statutes • Procedural aspects that must be observed by the development review process, in order to provide a clear understanding of what constitutes legally defensible design regulations and procedures under the Oregon land use system. (Oregon's revised statutes in general and specifically ORS 197's) Development of quantifiable regulations (administrative decision) or clear, objective interpretation of standards by a quasi legal process (Design Commission) (b) The approval or denial of an application, based on discretionary standards designed to regulate the physical characteristics of a use permitted outright, including but not limited to site review and design review, 197.195 • Are form based land use regulations the best way to expedite the land use/design review process that results in quality buildings and public spaces? Yes Can FBC be combined with other types of standards/regulations now being used in a number of cities includin g Beaverton, Portland, Bend, Lake Oswego and Hillsboro? Yes Why use FBC with Current Zoning Codes and design standards? Shortfalls of zoning (a blunt instrument for achieving community development goals) Based on land use, rather than the quality of the buildings and the public realm 0 Height - usually maximum only, rather than minimum and maximum Density - units / acre and FAR (floor area ratio) Overly complex and difficult to understand Open to uncertainty - unable to demonstrate the result of zoning Not related to quality Focused on protecting adjacent uses from impediments • Design standards can be difficult to interpret and enforce, because they are ambiguous and usually unrelated to plans or examples • • 0 • • • Section IV Mechanics of Implementation (general): Existing conditions analysis and inventory Develop a participatory plan to ensure an open process; prepare an urban design • plan. Develop an urban design plan together with stakeholders, public, Planning Commission and City Council (completed in Tigard) Present urban design plan to participants, stakeholders, Planning Commission and City Council Revise to more nearly fit the chosen vision for the urban design plan Develop FBC matrix (graphics and words) designed to implement the agreed urban • design plan Present the FBC matrix to participants in the urban design process Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Legal Issues: Discretion - manner in which regulations are written: FBC must also contain sufficiently detailed and meaningful standards to alert applicants to what is expected of them, while allowing sufficient discretion in the • decision making body to ensure approval of an application. Delegation - manner in which regulations are administered: Local government will need to administer and interpret the FBC. Local government can be advised by an architectural review board or a town architect. However, neither can be a proxy for the decision-making body. "The • determination must be made of the appropriate balance between the degree of prescription required to create the desired physical result and the amount of discretion necessary to find solutions to problems that could not be anticipated when regulations were drafted." Measure 37 — poses a question mark for all newly imposed design regulations • • • • 410 • Often Heard Objections to FBC Too prescriptive based on a particular style of architecture • Too arbitrary in implementation and subject to abuse Does not allow for creative solutions • • III i B. BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS: MAIN-STREET SITES Special Conditions: Height Specifications • Within 100 FT of MAIN-STREET RBL: -Wakefield In 4 Mile Run,MAX 4 STORIES loner Stories Height Building Height 1. The maximum floor-to-floor mom MGM"'knit • MAX 6 _ a s r�ae�` 1. Principal building height's measured in STORIES. STORIES ti .MAX 32 FT EAVES n PARAPET'apt These parameters preserve appropriate risen-space for SiotB other than the GRaam Srom is 14 feel wu15 and allow for greater variety in building height 2. At least 80 percent of the upper Smelts shall MIN 3 Peaked m I E.,a„d each have at least 9 feet 4 inches dear(floor to STORIES - • COCOMMON TOT IINB 2. Each building shall be between 3 and 6 sraOEs -rr in height,except where otherwise noted here or in ceiling)height. HOov the RLZUArnNG PLAN. d Mezzanines and Podiums hlDN Parking Structure Height Mezzanines and podiums greater than 2/3 of the \�\ No parking structure within the mock shall exceed floor area footprint shall be counted as full moms. \�\\\\\\\ \\ the A E height offan parking building 2002) STxFET WAS Height Height Specifications 1. Any unbuilt ALLEY and/or COMMON Lar LINE GROUND SrD=Height frontage shall have a STREET WAU built along It, 7 1. The GROUND mom floor elevation shall be feet in height. between 6 inches below and 24 inches above the 2. Srnurr wou heights are measured relative to sidewalk elevation at the front of the building. the adjacent sidewalk or to the ground elevation The maximum floor-to-floor srom Newer limit for the when not fronting a sidewalk. CROWD FLOOR is 24 feet 2. The GROUND aoeR shall have at least 15 feet Other • clear(floor to ceiling)height for at least 1/3 of its Where a Mau-s-nrrr site is within 40 feet of a area contiguous to RBL frontage. Lau Scm,Nue-eoRNOOo Sot or a single-family hone,the maximum height for that portion is 32 feet to the EAVES or PARAPET Siting Specifications OM- — -REQUIRED BUILDING LINE ALLEY or \\�� iDN�E 1�Fande Garage agd parking entrances LOT a 1.The Sneer facade shall be built to not less than 1. Garage/parking entrances shall be no corer 75 percent of the overall RBL. However,the GROUND than 50 feet from any BUILDING coearrn or 100 feet POOR portions of the STREET facade within 7 feet of a from any mock comet(except where otherwise ss FT Setback Blow Cowen are exempt from this requirement in designated on the REGULATING PLAN). IeN 75% N —o- EXISTS order to allow special corner treatments in these are \\\\COROCU m AM areas. 2. Designated GARAGE emus and ALLEYS shall be BLDG LRED \\\\ the sole means of automobile access to a site. i� 2. The STREET facade shall be composed as a simple 3. Garage doom shall not face(be at an angle of \ \ plane(limited jogs less than 24 inches are \ considered a simple plane within this requirement) less than 90 degrees from the RBL or right of way) \\\\\\\\\\\� D P the RBL Vehicle parking areas(except where a interrupted only by porches,craws,ear WINDOWS, suquroED REQUIRED BjRDDNG LINE shopfronts,and BALCONIES. ancillary WALL exists or parking Is enclosed property shall within an BLDG UVE -OWL) ancillary building)on private property shall not be —_ BUILDABIF AREA located within 25 feet of the RBL These require- Siting Specifications Buildings shall occupy only the area of the Lai its are not applicable to on-street parallel Parking. specified in the siting specifications of the BUILDING • ENVELOPE srANDaRDs as buildable area. No part of any Aura excepting overhanging EAVES and BES permitted BALCONIES,B WINDOWS,STOOPS,and On sites with no alum access,there shall be a 25- shopfronts shall encroach into the srnsrr beyond the foot setback from the rear Lm line. RBL. No part of any building(excepting overhanging EAVES,BALCONIES,woods,and small and Comer Lars unroofed garden structures)shall occupy the Corner Lars shall be treated as having sOEEr remaining Lar area. The minimum open contiguous FRONTAGE on both the front and side streets(or area shall comprise at least 15%of the total RBLS), BUILDABLE AREA and can be located anywhere within the BUILDABLE AREA of the site. Unbuilt RBL and COMMON Lar Lae Treatment Side I m I ine Any unbuilt RBL shall have a sOErr mu.along it, between 6 feet and 10 feet in height.Srnrsr WAILS There are no required side LOT line setbacks unless may also be constructed along any unbuilt COMMON shared with an existing single family house where LOT LINE. an 8-foot setback is required. Elements Specifications Gr, inn STDm-feima=.oci Ulmer Stodes=aNESTPATIoN I The cameo sroar facade shall have between 60 Upper story facades shall have between 30 percent and 90 percent FENESTRATION(measured as a percent and 70 percent FeNESTRATm N(measured for LIVER WADS I percentage of the facade that is between 2 and 10 each maw as a percentage of the facade that is FEeamtATboo _ feet above the fronting sidewalk). AWNINGS and between 3 and 9 feet above the finished floor). A Ea overhangs are encouraged(except where otherwise STREET WADE designated on the REGULAi1NG PLAN). FERESTRATNIN MAX 90% Elements Specifications Use Specifications 1. Th STD= use and with direct Columbia Pike frontage). 1. me GROUND smen shall house retail uses as Second cram restaurants do not violate this rule. — defined on page 17-18 as well as lobby and access Business and professional offices including for upper story uses. medical,legal,insurance,philanthropic,real — 2. There shall be functioning entry door(s)eking estate,eht o the and anger offices which with a the street facade at intervals not greater than 60 feet 1 of the Zom the Administrator with e • reknrnre of the n from the al character REV�w within any site TEAM are of the same general character as those RETAIL a fisted above max be located on all floors of Mar OK:f ce Upper Stories linen sites. � permitted on the upper mons N\ (except those of less than 900 square feet and/or second srauB as an extension of the GROUND mom . Use Specifications • • • C. BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS: AVENUE SITES Height Specifications Building Height ;Inner. The e Story maximum Height MAxs 1. Principal budding height is measured in STORIES. for The maximum 14 STORY HEIGHT limit smaiES for upper floors is 14 feet. 2. Buildings shall be between 2 and 5 sroium in • PRIVACY WA.REQD height,except where otherwise noted here or in the 2. At least 80 percent of each upper STORY shall ss,,ONaziEs-- REawco.uN Lou REGULATING RAN. have at least 9 feet 4 inches clear(floor to ceiling) [EMI UNES s To TO Fr height. MGM READ .. GARDEN WALL REQD IN Parking StrucRre Height ON ANY UNBUILT R 36 IN 12 FT Mezzanines and Pmdllrrpi BI 2 TO 3 Fr REQD ., f MIN 'aEur No parking structure within the ssoac shall exceed Mezzanines and podiums greater than 1/3 of the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ within the v5 height of any building r (built after 2002) floor area footprint shall be counted as a full wi 50 feet of the parking structure. STORY GROUND STORY Height Other Height Specifications 1. The GROUND scorn finished floor elevation of any Where any part of an AVENUE site is within 40 feet residential unit shall be no less than 36 inches above of a I nry STREET(or lesser)site or an existing the fronting sidewalk. single family use dwelling,the maximum height 2. The maximum floor-to-floor may rmarr limit for for that portion is 32 feet to the EAVES or PARAPET. the GROUND ADO'sran is 24 feet. 3. No less than 80 percent of the GROUND POOR =my shall have at least 12 feet in dear height I located in an ancillary structure,enclosed In a Row— LRBU—o RREQUIRED L.—STREET BUILDINGLINE Siting Specifications rear-loading town-house garage,or in a below —•— INTERIOR grade garage-on private property shall not be I LOT NE $REEr Facade located within 25 feet from any RBL and shall be 1. The mei facade shall be built-to the RBL not screened from the STREET by a STREET WALL. GAILORrALIRRIVACI WALL PAS less than 10 percent of the overall RBL 2. Parking access shall be from an alley where 7###f 2. That rtion of a facade that is required to be present. Designated GARAGE ENTRIES and AIEVS shall AS be the sole means of automobile access to a site wawa built to the RBL shall be composed as a simple MIN 1M6 unless othise approved by the Zoning BIDG OF ANY plane(limited jogs less than 18 inches are Administrator with a recommendation from the ALONG ! i�,,,; .r GRAND considered a simple plane within this requirement) ADMIN2STRATIVE REVIEW TEAT. Bowe UNE , %yr„�!�. FLOOR interrupted only by porches,scoops,BAY WINDOWS, ;_�,�„/-_/ re y y or less Garage doors shall not face(be or an angle of shopfronts,and BALCONIES. less than 90 degrees from the RBL or right of GA'•EN WAU RUVACY WALL s-�a>• BNLDABIF AREA way)the RBL. �.—-—. 4. These requirements are not applicable to on- I REQUIRED Buildings shall occupy only the area of the LOT street parallel parking. I STREET BUILDING USE specified in the siting specifications of the BUILDING ----- ---v1 (RBL) ENVELOPE STANDARD as buildable area. The diagram to'''' above provides a sample building footprint. No part On sites with no ALLEY access,there shall be a 25- Siting Specifications of any building excepting overhanging EAVES and BES foot setback from the rear LOT line. permitted BALCONIES,Ea WINDOWS,STOOPS,and [oaNm Lars shopfronts shall encroach into the srnEEr beyond the RBL. No part of any building(excepting Corner Lars shall be treated as having slyer overhanging EAVES,Becomes,scoops,and small and FRONTAGE on both the front and side streets(or unroofed garden structures)shall occupy the RBLS). • remaining LOT area. The minimum open contiguous Unbrlilt RN.Rear and/or I or I Jaw area shall comprise at least 30%of the total Treatment •1 ' BUILDABLE AREA and can be located anywhere within Any unbuilt RBL shall have a GARDEN WALL along it, the BUILDABLE AREA of the site. between 2 feet and 3 feet in height. Any unbuilt rear or COMMON LOT LINE that is located more than Side I m I ine 15 feet behind the RBL may have a parvacv FENCE There are no required side setbacks unless shared along it that is 7 feet in height. with an existing single family house where an 8-foot setback is required. Other The BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS for LOCAL SITES may Garage and Parking Entrances be utilized on AVENUE SrrEs. 1. Any garage and/or parking areas for vehides (autos,trailers,boats,etc.)-except where parking is BFr L BALCONY Elements Specifications WIDTH SPEC. MIN A s FT MIN �_ FF N�,PSrmo-ioN 13eLen provided,Palermo-ion ESTAA770N shall be between 30 percent and 70 When provided,BA CON ES are required to be a BALCONY RED percent of all RBL building facades(when measured minimum of 5 feet deep and 8 feet wide(except Fortin. ,— as a percentage of the area of each facade and where the RBL is within 8 feet of a right of way). Over noon. , sway between 3 and 9 feet above the finished floor). Blank lengths of wall along any RBL facade FACADE FENESTRATION 1111 ••- of more than 20 linear feet are prohibited. MAX 70% Elements Specifications Use Specifications =` GRONND STORY A have GROUND m small professional may final office,residential uses and medical,legal,Insurance,philanthropic,real have small professional office,building lobby,or estate,banking and other offices which in the I— building manager's/maintenance offices(each less judgement of the Zoning Administrator with a ,NON-RETAIL than 1,000 square feet).[Retail uses are permitted recommendation from the AowwsTRamE REVIEW ONLY on a GROUND aoou where the underlying zoning is TEAM are of the same general character as those zoned commercial"C”or where properties are listed above may be located on the second floor. III zoned"CP-FBC".] and OFFIC13 uwrm Lam Ironer Stories \\\ �� Retail uses are not permitted on upper srowES. However business and professional offices including Use Specifications 5 • • 4. A" f • • 5.4 BUILDING TYPES AND REGULATING PLANS BUILDING TYPES A building type refers to a group of buildings that share common characteristics,such as lot placement,mass and scale,and architectural elements. Examples of different building types include skyscrapers,warehouses, detached homes,rowhouses,and commercial block buildings. Within Downtown Lancaster,the following building types are allowed: • Commercial Block Buildings • "Main Street"Commercial Block Buildings • Live-Work Lofts • Courtyard Buildings • Rowhouses • Stacked Flat Buildings • Detached Houses • Garage/Accessory Building Exhibit 5-2 shows conceptual illustrations of the above building types. Exhibit 5-2:Conceptual illustrations of Allowed Building Types Courtyard Building - • Rowhouse (Forecourt) , with rear yard and detached garage • 1' • r: i" Garage/ — -.., / Accessory •;3 _ Building Commercial _ • Block for Detached House Main Street . Commercial ' Block 4 Live-Work Lofts with Courtyard Rowhouse 4- Tuck-Under Parking or Building with Tuck- !'' Underground Parking (Center Court) Under Parking Stacked Flat 4 Detached — House Draft name-Date 5-6 c • • • • Site Specifications: Facade Specifications: Exhibit 5-12: Interior Lots: Corner Lots: ---� Q Development Specifications m&m ___� Facade Sp.dRcnlisas apply to all Ihr.Adex that rnml a.n.a: for Live Work Lofts 3 a t , 1 rTh.'' ��`� �?I Description: O• O 0 _ 0 0 ■ ■ o.1 im�.r �� 0' 0 �L., 0 O ■ . e Ahui ldi no that con Lain:indi.id Mal loll units that are de:igned s ° *' . , r • ■11111111 ■11111111 macdmmodalr both rdeidntial Iii ing and,aliou+work © �O 0 c ' D Example Photos: + O •. �+ • A: Sidewalk I': :Vary O r / _._._„ , n: Build-to-Line 111TL):The lain facade than he built (:: Lot'at Width:5i I'In l at All silie and pmlen)I let shall am where within u'In 3'of the'Mill lm rt Inc he a ndicul ar M the AU•xL :W. - at;f,,.S,`-:t)r i�,;�- I Ix.� 1 Ti ,C 13uildinGCap or llnnE The loth rl'lhe facade ilia II he defined h) ✓ +jL3 Iluilddlgrn trances and upper'Poor Iailennies may he II: Minimum LM Depth:Su' 1 V. =,�- . -,-,..."-.2 a cap such a A a cornice or a tool. f1 race,•iced into the laude. 1: Setback/one:Setbacks Boni streett and alleys are not l '� it •)!d; '�'�— +L' ' R: Upper PION•Facade - � A; r+� I+ C: Minimum hail ding depth of 20r at uYasured from the required.A Ssrlliact it required from all other etternal i '�T T/" p �'1 �' (:. Gmund floor and Se 1 .1 - tI I r—R I1TL. propene I lea of the enI ledhdnlhltxln tile.The l Ground floor and Second l Innr'at Window lentapa/inn:411"a to . •1 G .. I L C'� !•":y;.._14."1 I) Iuilding Z one:lnla.of this zone:tall he occupied by aethaet zone shall he landscaped. Payed pedestrian �..r�._I•_._..r..• I. ft -1 811`::.nfrachgmwhd floor and upper hoar laude that lio11.aa — one or nanre bwldings.The width of the znleltar walkways are allowed in the setback mile. Wert shall he occupied by windlawa openings.Thi a decrease incircantdancea where aiide chi.aca)+or J: Amen tnlaitinggaraget shall be provided by the alley. aped ligtinn dots not apply mupper llnnl•a with dnnner pededrlau wal k way a art necessary. %lure an able)is nnl preaenl Mh an interior lot,access to w•indnws. _ s I 1:: Remy Atulti-Puncli anal%toe:Inca ma)henceupied by an larking garages shall he pm.ided by a one-way II: lair)Door Each grnundllnnr unit shall hair an entry door on a' .. ••��~lop' 'TO i e.tenainnat III e main t Id'na,adetachedlraidinswith dri.a ay located along the Aide pt.,pert.line. 'Al tare an •11.'a' 'i4Y� �)y)yL Iht Ilnnt facade nl'the huildi no. Ky+ 1•addition tnM,M'k loll 1,adnlnlrfnn cnurlrard'yard,a alley is net lNetenlnnacM,xr lol,aaess to parking .,i;t t a larkingdmctae,or surface larking.Iflii.r-wad,'units utilities shall he pro.ided nJ a driaeway Boni the aide - are pm.ided in till s zone,pedeatni an access fmm the atraY( ' _ N I Sae„glk to tare atilt,tau he pm.iaed. Prohibited Facade Elements: -• '�' .j�.' Y Mass/Height Specifications: A: I:.aemal chimney;and external staircases la upper floors air _ _ prohibited on the Boo I facade. (lass roll-up parker dohrt arc - ' _ , Allowed Roof Forms: allowed. ' Q-;'; 0 © e Q Use Specifications: O 0 O = p O Required and Allowed - c �� >m O Projecting Facade Element: i 1 © O !iiluuluul o rt® n A t . �p7 0 n n n y5 i• A: Ceiling llrighl of Ground Flom:Loft Unit:In'm 24. A O O' �- O Il: (aifind lfriGhUMI!plxr hlnM•L!NU':Nim2o'. J: m4'calwalLa from the O 0 C: Mezzanine Ilanr.II'pmwided in a Inn nail,the Att'zanine floor chatI he mezzanine floor ton halcony are �`© `© E.© located In the rear M'the unit, are allowed. :A: accan with Strttl Fmnlaer:Loll Lhl its and at per I. Ceiling Iteignts ahn.e and below the Aleszaine I-lonr.8'Minimum. K: Building Width::w•mi nimwn and occupaiin-Iarelllowedl tome Ullite U set at permitted I:: Minimum l'anther of Flom:2.To determine the lm.lmum:water nl gar ma.imum. by Table 5-1 are allowed. Parking is roll'bitted. Boom,refer to l:.hibil 5-18.A mezzanine lionr is crwaidered a floor when L: flat final with 191 al or Cornice D: hoop without Street Emplace•.Loll Unita and home al :A: .b.•ningsrl2eckamnay project 5' 46fmmthecade.t. occu fonLVtlAI St udioll Writ(Bike 11 1nt enni lied calculating na.hnum hulls,the tis height. At: flip llnnl' It: Ilalcnnira:Vrdkt nay pinjxl up In b'Lon tax facade. 1 l F: .Al tuerllmnligg entrances,the Ne.aGnn at the ground Slone shall heal the N: Gabled Roof by Table S-I are allowed.Parking is allowed. C: Dar wimdm.•s may project up l0 2'front the facade. Grade of the adjacent aldewal1. Ii: full Mallaard Hoof 1): I`mjectina Sipes may prnjec,up M4'from the facade.The area (:: Dn anent:I`arking and droage fnroo-aile arts are (it Multi-le,el tasexnl s are allowed. I': Darters allowed. • II: I'ence:'walls e.eluding retaining walls are hi led in helween Isom and 01 the sign doll r n hero to square feel. D: Utility toted,Garbage des say areas,surface ad,ing 1 J encei II: Shed l Vaulted It: 8'Minimum clearance. Pn P. lade facades and streets.Rear and rich and leces'walla(e.dading II: Darrel Vaulted Ilnnf Io+,and loading eaher l l th nearnri aide ni the touted retaining walla)shall hair a na.iamm Sleight of`2'. 1'ehceiwalI pout shall S: Appmpriale combinations of the within the Iaazlnaed I an the rear Aide of the building, he4”to b'taller than the fenuiw•al I. aho.e roof form; and Alan he tcleened from public•hew I: Upper-floor units nw)he atepped hack froth the build-lo-line. It: Prod Ittihad.%one•.Patting is pmhi billed in the Jinni ...- :.•0.. ,. .A) ,r•'' ^..70.7544,,,,,......1;t4;?..- _.. trllack MU, ':Dr'aft,'ntime�Dl 4.A:) ... ,47/104,41-721:- • • • 5 March 2007 Memo to: Carl Switzer, Chair, City Center Advisory Commission Sean Farrelly, Associate Long-Range Planner From: Alice D. Ellis Gaut, City Center Advisory Commissioner Re: Codes, Roles, and Rabbit Holes: Thoughts on the Process I have been away from email for several days, but just prior to logging off I opened and printed Sean's Memo of 1 March, which delineates several perceived issues and proposes Next Steps in the process of evaluating Form Based Code. While I appreciate the effort to sum up and move forward, I am troubled by certain implicit assumptions and/or inferences which are ripe for drawing. First is the suggestion that from this point forward the role of the CCAC in the discussion of FBC is that of audience, albeit an audience that occasionally may be invited • backstage. I do not share this view. I believe we have been charged with fully evaluating a broad array of tools, strategies, and options relating to the Urban Renewal District, and with making informed and appropriate recommendations to the City Center Development Agency. I fully appreciate that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction of the application and administration of the Development Code, and traditionally has the primary role in formally recommending amendments and/or alternatives; however, this does not obviate the obligation of the CCAC to fulfill its own unique charge on this subject. Frankly, it has been my expectation that the CCAC would work jointly with the PC on this topic which is germane to the missions of both bodies. I envision vigorous dialogue, . not hierarchy. Moreover, irrespective of whether the Planning Commission chooses to recommend for or against the adoption of Form based Code, or ultimately declines to consider the question, the CCAC has an entirely separate obligation to pursue the matter to its own conclusion and recommendation. There may be numerous efficiencies and overall quality points to be gained by the flexing of multiple mental muscles, and I would certainly favor working with the PC rather than parallel to it; but either way, the CCAC is nowhere near finished with its active consideration of this critically important topic. Second is what appears to be an unwarranted degree of hand-wringing over the potential legality of such a code, particularly where there are no examples in hand. Granted I am not a land use lawyer, but I have seen nothing in the ORS that dictates an exclusive • format, and if such statutory prohibitions exist I would appreciate having the citations. • • Besides, what is the City Attorney going to look at? (See Carroll, Lewis, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass). It seems far more productive and appropriate to provide a variety of samples to the CCAC and the PC for their consideration and deliberation, and to simultaneously seek the input and counsel of development professionals who are potential end users, before making general pronouncements that may be short-sighted and inaccurate, to the possible detriment of the citizens who voted to improve the downtown and, by extension, all of Tigard. Third is the notion that the drafting and implementation of FBC or conventional design standards will cost money. Of course it will! Relative to what has been done in this area in the past, which is: NOTHING, the City undoubtedly will be required to part with a few bucks to get ANY code in place that addresses the requirements of the Urban Renewal we voted for and envision; or for that matter, a Comprehensive Plan that—finally, it is to be hoped!—requires that future development be of lasting quality, human-scaled, and easy on the eyes and the planet. It will always seem costly to do for the first time ever what should have been done long ago; all the more reason to do it right, rather than merely cheaply. Experience in many areas of life teaches that you do indeed get what you pay for. Moreover, the potential savings of a code that is easily applied and does not invite litigation over details should be neither overlooked nor understated, and warrants serious analysis. Fourth is the present need for"direction" from City Council. I submit that both the CCAC and the PC are quite capable of discussing these matters pursuant to the existing charges to our respective Commissions. More helpful would be an inclusive forum in • which all three bodies—CCAC, PC, and City Council/CCDA—equally briefed and well- informed, could explore these concepts in a collegial exchange of ideas and critiques. Then Council might be better disposed to issue additional, specific direction which would be helpful to the ongoing work of the Commissions. Thank you all for your time and attention. • ROGER POTTHOFF P.O. Box 23968 Portland, OR 97281 (503) 989-3846 direct MEMO (503) 213-5878 fax rog.potthoff@verizon.net To: Sean Farrelly, Tigard Assoc. Planner From: Roger Potthoff Subject: Design Standards and Other Sinister Plots Date: March 2, 2007 Thank you for your March 1 memo regarding the private consultants' design standards presentation on February 26, as attended by members of the CCAC and the Planning Commission. Please note that I have deliberately characterized the February 26 event as a "private consultants' presentation" rather than a "joint Planning Commission / City Center Advisory Commission meeting". The distinction that I am making is not based on a semantic preference. Rather, the presentation on Feb. 26 did not, nor was it intended to, include any collaboration, beyond bodies in a room, as to policy consideration, discussion/debate of the important considerations related to this topic. This is not to say that the presentation was not of value. Those members of both groups who were in attendance no doubt came away better informed individually. But nonetheless, I submit that the event was not a joint meeting. It was instead an efficient way to enable the consultants to make the same presentation to two different groups, which is fine. I have additional comments in regard to points outlined in your memo. Which are as follows: 1. You state that, "Staff will follow up with the City Attorney and seek advice on the particulars of how a form-based code would meet the requirements of ORS 197 and how it could be integrated with the procedural requirements for land use decisions, such as noticing and appeal." Comment/Questions: a. How can the City Attorney advise as to the "particulars" of how/whether a form-based code would pass muster under ORS 197, etc. without having a draft or detailed example of the what the "particular" form-based code provides. I mean, how do you get a legal opinion on the "particulars" of any kind of code, without providing the articulation of the provisions, however general, embodied in the proposed code, regardless of whether it is form-based or traditional? How do you think the City Attorney will respond to such a hypothetical? (One Answer - very conservatively, if at all.) Will the City Attorney assume correctly what the text and graphics of a Tigard form based code will ultimately provide? (One More Answer - how could he or she?) Does your suggestion to submit the matter hypothetically to the City Attorney assume or imply that there is but • • • Memo to Sean Farrelly Design Standards and Other Sinister Plots Page 2 one form-based code in existence (ala The Ten Commandments) upon which the City Attorney can opine as to compliance with ORS 197, etc? b. Would it not be proper for Staff to present to the CCAC and Planning Commission, for their JOINT consideration and discussion, samples of form-based codes that are in existence in other comparably sized cities in America? This suggestion contemplates the CCAC and Planning Commissions would, prior to any request being submitted to the City Attorney, meet and jointly reach consensus as to a particular example/sample of a form-based code that in their consensus opinion holds some potential merit in application to Tigard. Is it not probable that such a process could serve to enlighten the commissioners as to what a form-based code actually looks like? And would it not also allow the several commissioners to explore their respective positions on design regulation generally, its application to Tigard, as well as the preferred format of articulating such regulations - if at all? Does this process allow us to provide the City Attorney with better input upon which to respond, i.e. those "particulars" - those details in which the devil is so often found? 2. You write in your second numbered point that, "The emphasis on the public realm can be addressed with traditional design standards or guidelines." Comments/Questions: (Thank you, your perspective is duly noted.) a. Notwithstanding your view, isn't the question as to whether the "emphasis on the public realm" should be addressed via traditional design standards or guidelines the very kind of citizen advisory decision that the CCAC, in re the URD, and the Planning Commission generally, are responsible for making and reporting to the City Council? b. Furthermore, if as you state in this same paragraph of your memo, that "using detailed graphical standards [as commonly found in form-based design] is user-friendly for developers, and also informs the public of what future development will look like", then why wouldn't we want this same advantage, that presumably attaches to form-based design, applied to the "public realm" improvements as well? 3. In your third paragraph you point out that "an important consideration is the administrative requirements of new design regulations. New processes would require amendments to the Development Code. . . . [A] Design Review Board would require staff to administer it. The adoption of . . . a form-based code could require specialized training for staff or the hiring of new staff." • • Memo to Sean Farrelly Design Standards and Other Sinister Plots Page 3 Comments/Questions: a. Let's remember, if_it is not obvious, that Tigard apparently_does not have ANY(!) design standards , much less regulations. (I'm thinking Main Street here, along with the various pole barns that are found throughout. the .URD.) So, are you presuming that the decision we/Tigard is facing is one between a form-based design code, and in the alternative - a continuation of status quo. REMEMBER, TIGARD CURRENTLY HAS NO APPARENT DESIGN STANDARDS/REGS! b. Are you suggesting that only a form-based code with corresponding design standards/regs would result in a need/cost for additional city staff, and that only form-based_design creates the need/cost_for such staff to be specially trained to know what they were doing? If you are, then _please explain why there would not be comparable staff_and training needs associated with an approach based on traditional design regulation - REMEMBER, TIGARD CURRENTLY HAS NO APPARENT DESIGN STANDARDS/REGS! 4. In your last paragraph labeled "Next steps: 2", you suggest that, "Because the adoption of a form based code has policy, program, and procedural implications, a discussion will be arranged with the City Council to obtain direction." Comments/Questions: a. Given that Tigard currently has no apparent design standards/regs, is it not equally likely that the adoption of design standards/regs in a non-form-based format, that is in the traditional format of "words & numbers plus more words & numbers", will also hold "policy, program and procedural implications" for Tigard. (REMEMBER, TIGARD CURRENTLY HAS NO APPARENT DESIGN STANDARDS/REGS!) b. Lastly, in regard to your words "a discussion will be arranged with the City Council to obtain direction", the obvious question that arises is, who are you contemplating to be parties to this discussion with City Council? Needless to say based upon my stated comments/questions and the related concerns regarding your perceptions of form-based design, I - for one- am not comfortable with Staff carrying the ball for the citizens of Tigard in a discussion about one of the most crucial topics we face in this Urban Renewal initiative. Remember now, the Downtown Improvement Plan was citizen initiated and citizen driven - all the way to the ballot box. The fact that Tigard does not have design standards in place already, and it is 2007(!) tells me all that I • _ • Memo to Sean Farrelly Design Standards and Other Sinister Plots Page 4 need to know about the Staff's ability to discuss this subject with Tigard's elected officials. I mean really, don't you think that if the CCAC and Planning_Commission members were not included in_a joint discussion with City Council on this crucial topic, it would be an affront to the very concept of citizen involvement and participation. Certainly you don't think that the City. Council believes that it is beneath.them, or above us, to discuss the implications, of "policy, program and procedural changes" related to the matter of establishing design standards, do you? So again, . who were you thinking would be included in this discussion with City Council? Again, thank you for your memo - it obviously gave me a lot to think about! RP ..: , A' : Si 4, k aI i" „,,,..,0,,,,,y,A1/4,,,v. 4} t' R 5' 4,:E . rk. e r ' . ,.'.;,.°ts , 4 t 1'i •A• a '':t*. 't l S':,rr. Y iM G .i c , -,h ! dam. �` �*°�" ,; '. } t t ,,2,.," ,i'r, Y w „' P; fix' ._ t ft• cCt' t-+/. ,rte i,•:, ,`,. .,,,..i` 1 `, r.�,..-+,•• 0 c)6v1)1.4 kid, ) .s ' ',77 ;mow da7'1,; ',• • 11111.14 118 °;.5':y.9' N :..: v t`i�l G �. 0 /�� "Au .::',3,::%‘..1',':• ..-t. ;:ii .pig 1 ." ip• —...`„i, '.., Y.. ■ 'DVS -• t y.}>4G.rte ;.1.' 14 { \` ♦ '.'.-..,.. rt:.;rte ,m M }. .• p i 4. � :rot'``1_..--- ) ,a, .. r• It II •1 l r: U • i P,, ,iiiriet. 'N r3"'�'n rk':''r Si`-,i`,". +h'`_ 1_"4,' % 1 • 1 1 1 1 2007 - 2012 Community Investment Plan 1 1 1 ' Pivpanrl By CIP Project Team 1 i Tom Coffee, Community Development Director 1 Carissa Collins, Management Analyst Michelle Wareing, Management Analyst 1 Gus Duenas, City Engineer Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director Vannie Nguyen, Engineering Manager 1 Bob Sesnon, Finance Director 1 i 1 1 1 TatIe iLnts System 1-9 Parks System- - -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' '- -' -' -' '- -' -' -~'' 10-31 Sanitary SewerSystem-- -' -' -' -' -' _ -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -- 32-41 Storm Drainage - ... -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -. -' -' -' -' -- .,42-56 Water~y~~~_- - -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' -' --- -' ,-~ -_- I • • IProject # 107-0773 Commuter Rail Enhancements IProject Description This project upgrades the Commuter Rail Shelter from the revised design provided by TriMet to Itheir original and more traditional shelter design. The upgrade also includes two additional foundations for expansion of the shelter to up to 24 feet. I Location: Commercial St. &Main St. Intersection Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I ^3, . w-$ • _ Funding Sources: I t ; Facility Fund $105.000_ ,,1• f, - ., , Total Funding Sources $105,000 Station Elevation I MI I . gr IStation Bench Trash Receptacle Station Light Ftlure I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- I of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering Construction $105,000 IContingency I IProject Manager. Phil Nachbar 1 ' • • ' Project # 107-0774 Transit Center Redesign ' Project Description This project (MTIP Grant proposal) is to develop a master plan for the joint City/TriMet redevelopment of the 0.81 acre Tigard Transit Center site including surrounding properties.This tproject is intended to serve multiple downtown objectives; 1) upgrade the transit facility 2) connect future open space on either side of the rail, and 3) activate a key location and encourage new ' investment in the downtown. The Transit Center would be redesigned to be more functional for TriMet bus use,provide improved pedestrian connections to the Commuter Rail Station, and potentially include public plaza space and new development depending on space availability. ' Funding for this project is subject to change due to MTIP Grant proposal finalization in March 2006. Location: 8900 SW Commercial St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: MTIP Grant $160,000 ' Facility Fund $ 40.000 Total Funding Sources $200,000 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& $200,000 Engineering ' Construction Contingency ' Project Manager. Phil Nachbar 2 1 • • ' Project # 107-0741 Library Parking Lot Expansion Project Description The library parking lot is almost always full, especially during events that draw a crowd to the library. This project expands the existing parking lot to provide additional parking spaces for library patrons. The expansion of the parking lot is contingent upon the construction of a joint access,whose ' alignment coincides with the proposed Wall Street, from its intersection with Hall Boulevard to a point 360 feet east of the intersection. The main entry to the library will be relocated to line up with ' the book return and the existing driveway will be removed. The area for expansion is between the existing parking lot and the northerly right-of-way of the joint access. Included in the construction are minor reconfiguration of the existing parking lot,installation of parking lot lights,landscaping, and retaining walls if necessary. Location: 13500 SW Hall Blvd. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 ' Funded Funding Sources: Facility Fund }' s $250,000 Total Funding Sources $250,000 t 1 • T r y } +• ,sjek, 11 1 J { tit./F� • Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering Construction $250,000 Contingency 1 Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 3 I 0 . IProject # 106-0648 Library Projects — Houghton— Root Donation IProject Description Library projects that are to be funded by donations received from Grace Tigard Houghton and INeva Root. Location: 13500 SW Hall Blvd. Status: Adopted FY 2006-07; I Carried over to FY 2007-08 Funded I f ;t ,' n - :� ; r e Yak,.. t y1,-I ,..7; "��'' Funding Sources: Fy ' , ;" . ` ste4� > r Facility Fund $417.486 F { { Total Funding Sources $417,486 r �' xu• I H :_ flfw .. I ��l -. �� .� .'. '� ._ .cwt !. I . I - IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design IDesign& Engineering I Construction $417,486 Contingency I I Project Manager. Margaret Barnes 1 III 4 I • • IProject # 107-0417 Senior Center Remodel and Seismic Upgrade IProject Description Remodel/expand Senior Center to meet increased service demands from senior community in I Tigard. Contingency has been included in total Construction costs. The remodel of the facility will be conducted in two phases with the first phase being completed in FY 2007-08,and the second phase during FY 2008-09. 1 Location: 8815 SW O'Mara St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 IFunded i c Funding Sources: rx� }' ` 't '+r „ F Facility Fund $446,000 ; ` N� xu ; ,� Community Development s ;r J Block Grant $378,000• r ° r,' • ' ; Other Revenue $100,000 Iy , -- Total Funding Sources $924,000 I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ILand/Right- of-Way I Pre-Design Design& $75,000 $15,000 Engineering IConstruction $682,000 $152,000 Contingency I IProject Manager. Dan Plaza 5 I I • • I Project # 107-0617 Water Building UST Decommission IProject Description This project will decommission the two existing underground fuel storage tanks at the Water IBuilding and add a 2000 gallon,above-ground emergency tank. Location: Tigard Water Building Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 IFunded tCt; li.;r.n l' �`' Funding Sources: - , ,,I Transfer in from General Fund $45,000 1 '' - if-3c, -' Total Funding Sources $45,000 << ;r _ +`' : 6 �s 4 •ri _'""a -•• I144'"I'01:0 7 I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- Iof-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $45,000 IContingency I pProject Manager: Dennis Koellermeier 6 1 I • • I Project # 107-0785 New Public Works Facility Project Description IThe City of Tigard Public Works Department Facility Needs Analysis,dated March 29, 2006, indicated the Public Works Department would need a site size of approximately 8.0 acres. The U department is currently located on two separate sites:The Water Building site at 8777 SW Burnham Street and the Public Works Operations yard,located at 12800 SW Ash Avenue. Neither site is of sufficient size to consolidate the department. In addition,the Operations yard site is flagged for I future development related to the downtown improvements,which points toward the need to find a new site for the department. I Location: 8777 SW Burnham St. Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Unfunded I Funding Sources: I Facility Fund $12,610,000 Total Funding Sources $12,610,000 I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way $4,000,000 Pre-Design I Design& Engineering $1,100,000 Construction $3,750,000 $3,750,000 ' Contingency I Project Manager: Brian Rager 1 7 I • • IProject # 110-0817 New Police Department Project Description IThe Tigard Police Department's facility is too small and the situation will continue to deteriorate as we expand our staff to meet the needs of the community. The current police facility was occupied in I 1986 with 5300 sq. ft. It was expanded in 1996,adding 3000 sq. ft.At the time of the expansion, the facility was projected to be sufficient for the Police Department's needs until 2005. The projection was accurate; the building is no longer sufficient to meet our needs and has not met them for the I past five years. At the time of our 1996 expansion the PD had 61 FTEs.There are now 80 F1'Es, eight part-time employees, up to seventeen volunteers and frequently one intern. Because we have outgrown our current facility we are storing more equipment and evidence offsite. We also have I filled a modular building behind the PD with eight workspaces, equipment and files we are required to maintain. Due to overcrowding, the Police Department uses shared workspaces for sergeants, background investigators,patrol officers and others whenever possible. In addition, due to lack of I space,we are renting three offsite storage units at approximately$25,000 per year.The last ten years has cost the City of Tigard over$250,000 in rental fees.As stated above, the PD is currently a facility that does not meet our needs and the usefulness of the current space will only deteriorate as Iwe add additional staffing and the space/storage needs. Now is the time to plan for a new facility. Location: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 Unfunded I IFunding Sources: Facility Fund $11.000.000 ITotal Funding Sources $11,000,000 I I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- I of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering $1,000,000 Construction $10,000,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Dennis Koellermeier 8 • • 1 ' Project # 110-0843 RFID Technology Project Description The RFID Technology is an automated materials handling system that will be used by Circulation staff within the City's Library.This system is designed to improve the efficiency of the return of Library materials. Location: Tigard Library Status: Proposed FY 2011-12 ' Unfunded Funding Sources: Facility Fund $750.000 ' Total Funding Sources $750,000 ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 Fiscal Years 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction $750,000 ' Contingency ' Project Manager. Margaret Barnes 9 1 ' • • ' Project # 208-0753 Brown Property Trail Construction ' Project Description This will be a 1500 foot segment of the Fanno Creek Trail connecting the Tigard Library to Bonita Park. It will be a 10 foot wide, concrete trail and will include one bridge to cross Fanno Creek. ' Location: Tigard Libra ry to Bonita Park Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded Funding Sources: Metro Greenspace Revenues $192,500 ' Park SDC $ 57.500 Total Funding Sources $250,000 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& $25,000 Engineering Construction $225,000 ' Contingency Project Manager. Dan Plaza 10 1 ' • • ' Project #211-0760 Cach Park Development Project Description ' This park will contain playgrounds, swing sets,basketball court, picnic shelter,pathways,and open play fields, restrooms, drinking fountains, and benches. ' Location: Cach Property Status: Proposed FY 2011-12 Funded Funding Sources: ' Park SDC $265,000 Total Funding Sources $265,000 1 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $15,000 Engineering ' Construction $250,000 Contingency ' Project Manager. Dan Plaza 11 I • • iProject # 207-0739 Canterbury Park Purchase and Development IProject Description The City will purchase a portion of the Tigard Water District reservoir property to develop a I neighborhood park. The park development project will include a playground structure,picnic shelter,basketball court, portable restroom, picnic tables,benches,garbage cans,and soft and hard surface trails. This site is located at the intersection of 103rd Ave. and Canterbury Lane. ILocation: 103rd Ave. &Canterbury Lane Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I : Funding Sources: -- , �� , 'It ,� Transfer in from General Fund $ 660,000 . `'t �''h Park SDC $ 440,000 I •:...a -, „:-°,,...A.-: �� c 'r Total Funding Sources $1,100,000 I 7- K.x a9 I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way $1,000,000 Pre-Design $15,000 I Design& Engineering Construction $85,000 IContingency I IProject Manager. Dan Plaza 12 I • • IProject # 207-0823 City Entryway Monuments IProject Description This project ties with a Council goal to establish custom entryway monument signs at key entry I points into the City.A landscape architect was hired to develop detailed designs for these monuments and signs, and it is anticipated that for the next three fiscal years, two monuments will be installed per year. ILocation: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: Transfer in from General Fund $109.400 ITotal Funding Sources $109,400 I I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $35,000 $36,400 $38,000 I Contingency I IProject Manager. Dennis Koellermeier I 13 1 I • • IProject # 207-0738 Clute Property Park Development IProject Description This park development project will include a playground structure, picnic shelter,basketball court, Iportable restroom, picnic tables,benches,garbage cans, and soft and hard surface trails. Location: Bull Mountain Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 1 Funded ,r"; If0 k11�. t .,. E Funding Sources: '1" Itg t.i,,•. - _- Park SDC $36,000 if d1a.L;E if + ;' I Transfer in from General Fund $54,000%• t.-+1(_:!. Total Funding Sources $90,000 i • ! 1 _{_.i. I I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- 1 of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering Construction $15,000 $75,000 IContingency I - Project Manager. Dan Plaza 1 14 1 • • tProject # 208-0846 Cook Park Bathroom & Shelter Replacement Project Description Replace bathroom at shelter number one in Cook Park. ' Location: Cook Park Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded Funding Sources: ' Transfer in from General Fund $70,000 Total Funding Sources $70,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $70,000 Contingency 1 ' Project Manager. Dan Plaza 15 ' • • Project # 208-0752 Elizabeth Price Park Development Project Description ' This park will, located on Bull Mountain Road across the street from Alberta Rider School,will contain a tot lot, climbing structure,pathways, drinking fountains,benches, and picnic tables. ' Location: Bull Mountain Rd. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded Funding Sources: ' Park SDC $100,000 Total Funding Sources $100,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $10,000 Engineering ' Construction $90,000 Contingency I Project Manager: Dan Plaza 16 I • • iProject # 207-0746 Fanno Creek Trail (Hall Blvd. to Fanno Creek) IProject Description The new trail will begin on the east side of Hall Boulevard, then southward to north of Fanno Creek I and connect to the terminus of the existing trail behind the Library through a wooden bridge. The final alignment of the new trail is contingent upon the level of impacts to the sensitive lands located in the trail's vicinity. Bridge materials have been purchased by the City and installation of the new I bridge awaits final determination of the trail's alignment. Funding provided for this project is for construction and design of the trail and the bridge's abutments. Location: East of Hall Blvd. &North of Fanno Cr. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 I Funded I ��' , < Funding Sources: =r_;' -- - .. `:,"' 't'':'+i;. Transfer in from General Fund $120,120 S11 = ` )'�+ : Park SDC $ 35,880 I �;,1 °. �'�� \` + '- Total Funding Sources $156,000 � -• a A Y , 1 II , 9` .2^~ —,..,.,,,—,:,L-4: . .t—l 4 1 i, , 0+ ., te 4;.7, II I Fiscal Years I2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $156,000 IContingency L\ Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 17 I • • iProject # 207-0844 Jack Park Extension Project Description IPurchase and develop approximately 2 acres adjacent to Jack Park in conjunction with the new TVF&R fire station. ILocation: Near 12420 SW 127th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded y r r ,S V i1 $' ] ! J �� i j .. 3 !I, Funding Sources: t a /'•''' Park SDC $275,700 I <•'t , .Y ._.,. , Metro Greenspaces Revenue $207,000 4° " 71 `.. - Transfer in from General Fund $117,300 `` 'i. .c : . Total Funding Sources $600,000 it h 'L t i tI' ' t 1 :"101.• it y t r L.:7., Y ■ -= _ r f`n 1! .. :.1 l 1. .. +._ %' 1 _ [ILA: I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way $345,000 Pre-Design I' Design& $25,500 Engineering I Construction $229,500 Contingency I IProject Manager: Dan Plaza 18 I • • I Project # 207-0751 Land Acquisition IProject Description This program is designed to purchase open space property and "active" park property. tLocation: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I I Funding Sources: Metro Greenspace Revenues $1,070,717 Park SDC $ 713,794 Total Funding Sources $1,784,511 I I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right-$329,000 $674,000 $781,511 I of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering Construction UContingency I IProject Manager: Dan Plaza I 19 • • Project #205-0754 Park SDC Methodology Update Project Description The current Park SDC Methodology was adopted in December 2004. This update will analyze land costs in the Tigard area and adjust the Park SDC Methodology accordingly. Location: n/a Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 ' Funded Funding Sources: Park SDC $15,000 Total Funding Sources $15,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $15,000 ' Engineering Construction Contingency Project Manager: Dan Plaza 1 20 I • • IProject # 207-0744 Park System Master Plan Update Project Description IThe current Park System Master Plan was approved in 1999. Although only 8-years have passed since it was approved,it is staff's belief that an update at this time is in the City's best interest I because it will coincide with the City's Comprehensive Plan process currently underway.The plan will address land acquisition and park development projects for the next ten years. I Location: n/a Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded IFunding Sources: Park SDC $50,000 Total Funding Sources $50,000 I I I I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& $50,000 Engineering IConstruction Contingency I IProject Manager. Dan Plaza I 21 1 I • • IProject # 207-0853 Skate Park Development & Construction Project Description IThis project constructs a 15,000 square foot,in-ground skate park in the area of the City Hall parking lot approved by City Council.Primary funding for this project will come from private I donations,grants,and system development charges. Private donations are expected to raise approximately$105,000. Grants are expected to account for$150,000 and the balance will come from the Parks SDC fund.All these funding sources will be consolidated and transferred into the IPark Capital Fund. Location: Burnham St. &Hall Blvd. Status: Proposes FY 2007-08 Funded 1 I Funding Sources: Park SDC $111,300 Oregon Recreation Parks I DonatiDon epartment Grant $150,000 $ 65.000 Total Funding Sources $326,300 I I I I Fiscal Years I2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/R.ight- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering Construction $326,300 IContingency IProject Manager: Dan Plaza 22 • • ' Project # 207-0747 Washington Square Regional Center Trail Project Description This project provides funding for right-of-way acquisition and construction of a trail on the south side of Ash Creek between 95th Avenue and Hall Boulevard. The trail will be approximately 3,000 ' feet long by 10 feet wide and will be a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path. By providing this trail, pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to bypass the traffic on Hall Boulevard,Greenburg Road, Scholls Ferry Road,and Nimbus Avenue. The project is funded through Washington County's MSTIP 3 Bike/Ped funds in the amount of $250,671,and through the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) in the ' amount of$179,349. The County's MSTIP 3 funding($250,671) will be used for design and right-of- way acquisition and the MTIP funds ($179,349) will be used to construct the project. The total project budget from both sources is $430,020. In FY06-07, $130,020 will be utilized for partial ' acquisition of right-of-way, preliminary design,and final design. Remaining right-of-way acquisition and construction are scheduled to be completed in FY 2007-08. ' Location: Between 95th Ave. & Hall Blvd. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded '' ' Funding Sources: ,�14MTIP Grant $179,349 `"' MSTIP 3 Bike/Peds Funds $120,651 F . ` Total Funding Sources $300,000 tt 1 • - mac;_=-R='-= r1=� Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way $120,651 Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering ' Construction $179,349 Contingency Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 23 • • Project # 207-0779 Downtown Urban Corridor - Master Plan Project Description The Urban Creek Corridor is a"catalyst" project identified in the Downtown Plan,and is a series of ' proposed park blocks spanning the Downtown from north to south,ending in Fanno Creek Park. Pending a determination of feasibility in FY 06-07, the project is scheduled to be master planned in ' FY 07-08. Location: Downtown Tigard Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded ' Funding Sources: Park SDC $80,000 ' Total Funding Sources $80,000 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& $80,000 Engineering Construction ' Contingency 1 Project Manager. Phil Nachbar 24 • • Project # 207-0863 Downtown Park Land Acquisition ' Project Description This project consists of the acquisition of land as part of the development of Downtown. Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded 1 ' Funding Sources: Park SDC $115,000 Urban Renewal Fund $ 5.000 Total Funding Sources $120,000 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- $120,000 of-Way Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction Contingency Project Manager: Phil Nachbar 25 1 I • • IProject # 209-0811 Fanno Creek Park Gateway at Main St. IProject Description I A formal,public entryway into Fanno Creek Park from Main Street including a cantilevered deck / overlook and pathway into the park. Specific improvements include hard-scaped pathway,lighting, deck and railing for overlook,signage, bollards, and decorative monuments on the bridge. ILocation: Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 IFunded IFunding Sources: Park SDC $255,000 ITotal Funding Sources $255,000 I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& $30,000 Engineering Construction $225,000 IContingency I I IProject Manager. Phil Nachbar 26 I ' • ' Project # 207-0780 Fanno Creek Trail (Main St. to Grant St.) ' Project Description Project includes the installation of a trail from Main Street to Grant Street.This trail is a key part of ' the larger Fanno Creek Regional Trail System from Portland to Tualatin,and will connect with the trail into Fanno Creek Park. Funding for this project is subject to change based on changes made to the Fanno Creek Master Plan. Location: Main St. to Grant St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: ' Park SDC $115.000 Total Funding Sources $115,000 1 1 t ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 Fiscal Years 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $115,000 Contingency Project Manager. Phil Nachbar I 27 1 ' • • Project # 207-0820 Fanno Creek Park ' Project Description Park-Land Acquisition: Fanno Creek Park near the Burnham St. / Main St. area of the Park that are ' scheduled for purchase to expand the park area. These properties will be restored to their natural state and support the Fanno Creek watershed, and provide additional park land area as a buffer to development in an area programmed for the public use area of the Park. Park Design/Construction: Phase I construction will include restoration and improvements to the core area of the park from Hall Blvd. to Main Street.Anticipated specific improvements will include ' removal of invasive species, native plant installation, trails, establishing views, and improved access. Location: Burnham St. / Main St. Area Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Park SDC $1,170,000 Total Funding Sources $1,170,000 1 I Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& $170,000 Engineering ' Construction $1,000,000 Contingency Project Manager: Phil Nachbar 28 ' • • ' Project # 207-0776 Fanno Creek Park / Plaza Master Plan ' Project Description Fanno Creek Park and the Public Use Area is a major Downtown project and considered a ' "catalyst" project.This project is to develop a new Master Plan for the Park. The project will provide an overall master plan to the schematic design level, direction for park improvements including restoration,view points,access, creek improvements, and a public use area. It will also address access to the park from Downtown streets, and design parameters for adjoining development. ' Location: Burnham St. / Main St. Area Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Park SDC $60,000 Total Funding Sources $60,000 1 1 1 ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 Fiscal Years 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& $60,000 ' Engineering Construction ' Contingency ' Project Manager: Phil Nachbar 29 1 ' • • • Project # 209-0848 Fanno Creek Plaza Project Description ' This project is the central public use area to be located adjoining Fanno Creek Park, and in the vicinity of Main St and Burnham St.The project will be designed as a multi-use plaza and include a range of improvements appropriate for its use. ' Location: Vicinity of Main&Burnham Streets Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Funded ' Funding Sources: Park SDC $1,755,000 Urban Renewal Fund $1,495.000 Total Funding Sources $3,250,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- $813,000 ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& $737,000 ' Engineering Construction $1,700,000 Contingency Project Manager: Phil Nachbar 1 30 I ' • • Project # 209-0855 Urban Creek Corridor Project Description A series of park blocks from Burnham St. on the south to Scoffins St. on the north,aligning with ' the proposed Fanno Creek Plaza. Design of the open space corridor will incorporate sustainable design,potential water features, and public art depending on community preferences. Location: Between Burnham St. &Scoffins St. Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Unfunded Funding Sources: Park SDC $2,252,000 ' Urban Renewal Fund $1.748.000 Total Funding Sources $4,000,000 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- !! of-Way $3,800,000 Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering $200,000 Construction ' Contingency 1 Project Manager. Phil Nachbar 31 I • • IProject # 307-0763 Bonita Road at Fanno Creek Pipe Removal Project Description IIn FY 2002-03 the City installed approximately 250 feet of an 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe to replace an existing pipe that has low spots and poor grade.This segment of the line is located at the Fanno I Creek crossing west of the Bonita Road/Milton Court intersection.At the time of construction, the City decided to abandon the existing pipe in place with the intention of removing it at a later time. Due to other project priorities, the project has been delayed. Preliminary design and wetland permits I have been obtained. Funding is provided for removal of the pipe crossing Fanno Creek at this location. I Location: West of Bonita Rd. / Milton Ct. Intersection Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I Ni • : ' Funding Sources: ;• . i Sanitary Sewer $20,000 �'`.: \ Total Funding Sources $20,000 , 1Ai � s ,' 1.+; l" ref IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design IDesign& Engineering I Construction $20,000 Contingency IProject Manager: Eric Hand Il �e 32 I ' • • Project # 305-0217 Citywide Sanitary Sewer Extension Program Project Description The Citywide Sewer Extension Program is a 5-year program,which began in FY 2001-02, to extend sewers to all developed but un-served residential areas Citywide. The City uses the formation of reimbursement districts to construct the sewers.The program has been extended due to the number of districts that can be constructed each fiscal year. ' The Commercial Area Sewer Extension Program is also funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund and offers commercial entities the opportunity to participate in reimbursement districts for extension of sewer service to commercial areas. The current incentive programs for early connection in residential ' neighborhoods are not offered to the commercial sector. Funding is provided to accommodate potential projects that may surface during the fiscal year from the commercial sector. ' Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Sanitary Sewer $5.000,000 Total Funding Sources $5,000,000 I ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 Construction $1,800,000 $1,350,000 $900,000 $450,000 Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen & Greg Berry g rY 33 I . • • I Project # 307-0612 Commercial St. Sanitary Sewer Upgrades (Lincoln to Main St.) IProject Description This project replaces approximately 50 feet of a severe damaged pipe on Commercial Street between I Lincoln and Main Street that has caused frequent infiltration.This project will be designed and constructed in coordination with the Commercial Street Improvements project between Lincoln and Main Street. ILocation: Between Lincoln&Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I • Funding Sources: Sanitary Sewer $20,000• I `"�: F,'; ° Total Funding Sources $24,000 ' T ��f r _ I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ILand/Right- of-Way I Pre-Design Design& Engineering IConstruction $20,000 Contingency I Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 34 I I • • IProject # 308-0624 Grant St. Sanitary Sewer Project Description I I Location: Grant St. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded I Funding Sources: I Sanitary Sewer $250,000 Total Funding Sources $250,000 I I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $250,000 IContingency I I I I IProject Manager. Dennis Koellermeier 35 I • • ' Project # 309-0625 Highway 217 Sanitary Sewer Upgrade Project Description ' There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line that carries flow from the area near the intersection of 72nd Avenue/Hampton Street westerly toward Highway 217, then north along Highway 217 to a ' point where the line increases in size and crosses under the freeway. The 8-inch section shows signs of reaching capacity and with further development taking place in the Tigard Triangle, the City anticipates a need to upsize this section to at least 12 inches. ' The City is working with Clean Water Services (CWS) toward a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan that will analyze these kinds of issues throughout the City. Staff anticipates the Master Plan will confirm that the line should be upsized, and estimates this large project will be designed and constructed in FY 09/10. t The length of sewer line to replace is approximately 2,250 feet. Methods of replacement will need to be reviewed during the design phase,but could include in-place pipe bursting. ' Location: 72nd Ave./Hampton West toward Hwy 217 Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 Funded ' Funding Sources: Sanitary Sewer $500,000 Total Funding Sources $500,000 1 ' - Fiscal Ycars 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering $75,000 Construction $425,000 ' Contingency ' Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen & Eric Hand 36 1 I • • IProject # 310-0626 Hunziker Sanitary Sewer Upgrade Project Description IThis project will upgrade the existing sanitary sewer line that is expected to be over capacity due to the additional development planned for the Tigard Triangle. ILocation: 7920 to 8001 Hunziker St. Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 Funded I I Funding Sources: Sanitary Sewer $500,000 Total Funding Sources $500,000 I I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- Iof-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $500,000 IContingency I I I IProject Manager: Dennis Koellermeier 37 I ' • • ' Project # 307-0769 McDonald St. at Hall Blvd. Sanitary Sewer Connection ' Project Description This project connects a previously built but unconnected sanitary sewer on McDonald Street to the ' existing sanitary sewer system located on Merlyne Ct.This project includes installation of 230 feet of 8-inch sewer main and 5 manholes. The project will be constructed concurrently with the 87th Avenue Citywide Sanitary Sewer Extension District scheduled to be completed in the summer of ' 2007. Location: McDonald& Hall Blvd. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 ' Funded ' Funding Sources: Sanitary Sewer $140,000 Total Funding Sources $140,000 1 ' a!d I • ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $140,000 Contingency ' Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 38 I • • IProject # 307-0768 Red Rock Creek Sanitary Sewer Repair IProject Description Red Rock Creek has eroded away the soil and base rock from a sanitary sewer manhole and I approximately 20 feet of the 8-inch main just downstream of the manhole. The manhole and pipe are at risk of collapse due to this erosion problem. Preliminary design for the project, located behind the property at 6900 SW Atlanta Street, has been completed. Funding provided is for the Iconstruction scheduled for the summer of 2007. Location: 6900 SW Atlanta St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 IFunded I Funding Sources: Sanitary Sewer $100.000 + ✓. ' �, ,. � Total Funding Sources $100,000 \..... I.I..v; ; ', .:ir, / • . -7,.._ r < f : obi4?,, z^ ‘ '2 ',' " ,4* y y J r:i 4*--fc rte , -1 - H I Fiscal Years I2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- I of-Way Pre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $100,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Greg Berry 39 I • • iProject # 307-0228 Sanitary Sewer Major Maintenance Program Project Description IThe Sanitary Sewer Fund will be used to contract out sewer repair projects that are beyond the repair capabilities of the City's Public Works Department This program is intended to be a I continuing program of preventative maintenance. This program will avoid restoration costs that could be several times higher.The Sanitary Sewer Major Maintenance Program will include sewer repair projects located at various locations in the City. ILocation: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I F }j 3 ` r il �'�� '' Funding Sources: 0 - - -- Sanitary Sewer $500,000 - 'A' '- - ., Total Funding Sources $500,000 - - 7_ Al itpS ' `" -_--.-.`3 Iii+l r. I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of--Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 IContingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen I 40 ' . • ' Project # 306-0605 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Project Description ' Sanitary sewers in some areas receive an excessive amount of storm water through unauthorized connections or deteriorated lines.The storm water causes overloading of sewers and increases the ' cost of operating the treatment plant. The proposed project provides funding to analyze and identify the sources of the storm water entering the sewers and prepare a plan to reduce the sources. ' The project also identifies lines of inadequate capacity by conducting flow monitoring of existing lines to determine the extent of the capacity deficiency. A prioritized list of capacity improvement projects will be prepared as part of this project. Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Sanitary Sewer $70.000 Total Funding Sources $70,000 Fiscal Years t 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& $70,000 Engineering Construction ' Contingency Project Manager: Gus Duenas 41 • • ' Project # 44)7-0765 72nd Ave. / Dartmouth St. Culvert Replacement Project Description The project upgrades an existing culvert located at the 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street intersection to provide additional culvert capacity to relieve flooding. Implementation of the project also ' addresses the culvert replacement goal of the Healthy Streams Plan initiated by Clean Water Services. The design for the upgrade will be combined with the 72nd/Dartmouth Intersection design already budgeted. Location: 72"d Ave. &Dartmouth St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: Water Quality / Quantity $20,000 Total Funding Sources $20,000 1 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $20,000 Engineering ' Construction Contingency Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen& Carla Staedter 1 snag �Y 42 ' • • ' Project # 407-0618 Cascade Ave. Storm Drain Overflow Project Description The project constructs 375 feet of overflow storm pipe to eliminate localized flooding in the area surrounding 10840 SW Cascade Ave. Location: 10840 SW Cascade Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded Funding Sources: Storm Water $100,000 Total Funding Sources $100,000 I 1 1 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $100,000 ' Contingency I 1 Project Manager. Eric Hand 43 • • ' Project # 407-0837 Commercial St. Regional Detention Facility Project Description This project constructs a regional storm water detention facility that would treat approximately 40 acres of storm water in and around the downtown Tigard area. Project design and permitting are ' scheduled to be completed in FY 2006-07.The construction of the facility will be combined with the Commercial Street improvements. The project will accomplish the outfall retrofit goal of the Healthy Streams Plan initiated by Clean Water Services. Location: Commercial St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Water Quality / Quantity $150,000 Total Funding Sources $150,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& Engineering ' Construction $150,000 Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen& Carla Staedter 44 I • • IProject # 409-0669 Community Tree Planting Project Description IThe City of Tigard will plant native trees and shrubs along creeks and streams in the city to meet the "Community Tree Planting" goals identified in the Healthy Streams Plan. ILocation: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Funded -,4 7 w Qf� . �,� Funding Sources: s''�, { ` "7.....1.4,„?' Water Quality / Quantity $150,000 * Total Funding Sources $150,000 - i d 5 t z a"+_ 1 '- _V 1 -. }r !h n � v u: �, :!� 7 Y . `rte , Ft \Y‘ r t N,.;� :. F { L G I I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- I of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering Construction $50,000 $50 000 IContingency I IProject Manager: Carla Staedter I 45 I • • IProject #409-0670 Culvert Replacement Project Description Modify Culvert (11975 SW Rose Vista Dr.) —The stream bank is eroded at this location due to high I flows from culvert. This project will modify the downstream end of culvert that crosses underneath SW Gaarde to eliminate future erosion of stream bank and repair existing stream bank.This project will accomplish the outfall retrofit goal identified in Clean Water Services Healthy Streams Plan. t Location: 11975 SW Rose Vista Dr. Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 tFunded I Funding Sources: I Water Quality / Quantity $450.000 Total Funding Sources $450,000 I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ILand/Right- of-Way I Pre-Design Design& Engineering IConstruction $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Contingency I I Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen& Carla Staedler I 46 I , • Project # 407-0555 Derry Dell Creek Culvert Improvements (Fanno Cr. I & Walnut St.) IProject Description This project will complete design and permitting to upgrade the existing Derry Dell Creek culverts Iunder Walnut Street and at Fanno Creek that was initiated in FY 06/07. The existing culverts will be replaced to increase capacity,provide fish passage,and address flooding and maintenance issues. The project will also accomplish the culvert replacement goal identified in Clean Water Services IHealthy Streams Plan. ILocation: Fanno Creek&Walnut St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I - _• ; .. . i `s Funding Sources: I y Water Quality / Quantity $400,000 ', r� Total Funding Sources $400,000 r J s '. i ' -.=.4‘,.'a.= :'.z.r2 -,-;:,,,.,..=v c,'K " A � sir• 4--,,--.,. ! \Q v_- r j� I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design IDesign& $50,000 Engineering IConstruction $350,000 Contingency I tProject Manager: Vannie Nguyen & Carla Staedter 47 I I • • I Project # 407-0759 Derry Dell Creek Slope Stabilization (at 118th Ave.) Project Description IIn September 2006, the City discovered slope erosion and bank stability-related issues occurring at two locations in the vicinity of Deny Dell Creek and 118th Avenue.A geotechnical study has been I conducted to determine reasons for the erosion and recommend slope stabilization techniques that would help keeping the slope from continuing to erode. The funding provided is utilized for final design and repair of the problems that will take place in two fiscal years,beginning 2007-08. ILocation: 118th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Partially Funded I I Funding Sources: Storm Water $100,000 Unfunded Portion $100.000 ITotal Funding Sources $200,000 I I i I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering $20,000 $20,000 Construction $80,000 $80,000 IContingency I IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen 48 I Ill • I Project # 407-0677 Derry Dell Creek Tree Planting Project Description IThis project includes site preparation and installation of 4,000 native trees and shrubs on 1.9 acres of riparian corridor. The sites are located upstream of Eden Court and downstream of 118th Court. The project will meet a"Community Tree Planting"goal identified in the Healthy Streams Plan. ILocation: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 I Funded ;.';,;,.., �?: = r;,;" Funded Sources: } " � '' :t Water Quality Quantity $25,000 I :sr � r'. Q � / Q -=- ,' .ir77?-�_ °: :, `: ; :::<-= Total Funding Sources $25,000 e ",, -_ K`� : 1-!,-----_,-ms t :fi . < t , - r n ti t t t r . t i r?r : .• I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering I Construction $25,000 Contingency I IProject Manager Carla Staedter I1 � 49 I • • IProject # 407-0749 Durham Rd. Stream Bank Stabilization (at 108th Ave.) Project Description IThe creek bank and a portion of the segmental-block retaining wall south of Durham Road have been eroded and undermined due to high stream flow out falling from a 36-inch culvert under the I street.The contributing factors to the problems are a large boulder,which was placed in the middle of the stream, and the culvert alignment,which does not line up with the creek. The original scope of work proposed in FY 2006-07,which included restoration of a portion of the retaining wall and I extension of the culvert for proper alignment with the creek,has been revised to add bank stabilization. Necessary easements have been obtained for the construction. Environmental permits and final Idesign are scheduled to be completed in FY 2006-07. The fund will be used to construct the project, which is scheduled for the in-water work window of July 1 to September 30,2007. ILocation: Durham Rd. & 108th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded �e ' + ,t,. f;" Funding Sources: , '` — .,:-.k:„,;i,� , Storm Water $150,000 I -) . i 1 Total Funding Sources $150,000 1 :__ ' f j' ' dam• IF •-yj �-'f i 'Av...*- ...: I . ,.k I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& Engineering I Construction $150,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen 50 • • Project # 408-0854 Greens Way Storm Drainage Improvements ' Project Description This project installs approximately 900 feet of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe, five manholes and seven catch basins between Highland and Summerfield Drive.The existing aluminized steel pipe has been gradually corroded,which has resulted in increased maintenance costs.The existing pipe will be abandoned in place to avoid extensive roadway excavation,which will help to protect the structure integrity of the street. The new pipe is expected to have a longer service life and adequate capacity to serve the neighborhood. ' Location: Highland&Summerfield Dr. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 'g P Funded Funding Sources: Storm Water $125.000 Total Funding Sources $125,000 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& Engineering ' Construction $125,000 Contingency Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 1 51 I • • I Project # 407-0766 Hiteon Creek Riparian Enhancement —Phase II Construction IProject Description This project constructs riparian enhancement features,including modifications of riparian buffer I areas, to promote the treatment of high flows. It also includes removal of culverts and repair of the stream channel associated with an asphalt pedestrian path. In FY 2006-07 permitting was completed for the project. The proposed funding is to complete construction of the project. The project will I accomplish culvert replacement,outfall retrofit,and community tree planting goals identified in Clean Water Services Healthy Streams Plan. I Location: Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I :n I, • la !r4r. .`-"r'r q A to ---10( .1 ~� ` t 5 + t ; ,' , Funding Sources: $� * 'w° .1,.)..':;.''',..-r. _ , i , '` fi Water Quality Quantity $80.000 [Ii, l —:': ,:, }' - '" ' ;<@ f`= - 1.,;:,1:, Total Funding Sources $80,000 v.v -7.,',4 , ' °4< i I 7_:.,...:,, 1 i t -tai( , �£! 1:!-,' 1,..1_ J ' ' I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $80,000 Contingency 1 IProject Manager. Carla Staedter 52 I • • Project # 407-0796 Riparian Restoration and Enhancement IProject Description This fund will be available for urban forestry projects within riparian corridors.The fund will also support any supplemental planting or site work needed in the event of an unforeseen failure to past riparian restoration projects. ILocation: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I It.,,,:.1, '�Ir:�4 ,1 ' Pt e r/ ' y Funding Sources: ` `' ,n'�1, - "- ; '': Water Quality / Quantity $70.000 !14.1 4O.1 {t �` r `rata , 31 Y\�I'tA r � •,Z••, !Pi- �`' A ;_ 'Or y�;�, ,-c , Total Funding Sources $70,000 t1 �,r rr 1 ..,. • .• .,k s.,.-- ■ ,,'., , :tr-t-za■A 4 a. 'Ai ,...! 1~I, ' r : ' ,,,,,,:,-.7.,.;r4..„.4........>-r 500-1-,0,47,-., 'mss r I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Contingency I IProject Manager: Carla Staedter I 53 I • • Project # 408-0646 Stormwater Outfall Retrofits I Project Description 1 IOutfall from Water Quality Facility #058 (12435 SW Hollow Ln.) —The outfall has severely incised/eroded stream bank at this location. The funding will be used to conduct a geotechnical study to and determine recommended repair method and effect repairs. This project will accomplish Ithe outfall retrofit goal for identified in Clean Water Services Healthy Streams Plan. Location: 12435 SW Hollow Ln. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded I IFunding Sources: Water Quality / Quantity $420.000 Total Funding Sources $420,000 1 I 1 I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design $75,000 I Design& $75,000 Engineering Construction $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 IContingency I Project Manager: Eric Hand I 54 ' • • Project # 407-0762 Water Quality Enhancement ' Project Description Water Quality Facility#030 (SW Steve St.)—This unnamed tributary to Ash Creek at this location is severely incised and threatening abutting properties. The project installs 150 feet of pipe in the most severely eroded areas and improves remaining area by re-grading and replanting as a storm water ' quality swale. Necessary permits and final design are scheduled to be completed in FY 2006-07. Construction of the project will occur between July and October to meet the in-water work window requirement. Water Quality Facility#012 (8865 SW Greensward)—This pilot project will install storm water infiltration system, fill and re-grade in preparation for neighborhood pocket park to be installed as funding allows. This project is expected to begin construction in FY 2008-09. ' Water Quality Facility#007 (NW corner of intersection SW Walnut& 135th Ave)—Enhance aesthetics of water quality facility and improve storm water treatment by installing irrigation and, native plants &shrubs. This project is expected to begin construction in FY 2009-10. ' Location: SW Steve St.,SW Greensward,SW Walnut& 135th Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Water Quality / Quantity $125,000 Total Funding Sources $125,000 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Contingency ' Project Manager. Eric Hand 55 I • • Project # 407-0248 Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program IProject Description I This yearly program addresses minor storm drainage problems requiring more than normal maintenance effort by the City's Public Works department. The Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program includes projects located at various locations in the City. tLocation: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Partially Funded I . 1: ,b,,,.- � ... 1% . M ,� ,°,,,-. ,- ; Funding Sources: ~ p '�' f z �y.. Storm Water $250,000 I - f _ f Total Funding Sources $250,000 I {t, r, -.„ J - r•. I I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& , IEngineering $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen I 56 ' • • ' Project # 507-0721 Ash Avenue Extension Project Description Ash Avenue is a new street, approximately 400 feet long, to be constructed between Burnham Street and the existing railroad tracks. The new street will provide a second entrance and exit to the proposed Commuter Rail station and parking lot identified in the Downtown Improvement Plan. ' The project involves the design and construction of a half-street improvement,which consists of a 24-foot paved width and a 14-foot wide sidewalk and landscape area on one side of the street.The street will tie into a modern roundabout at the intersection of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue, ' which is included in the Burnham Street Improvement project. The design and right-of-way acquisition for Ash Ave is anticipated to be completed in FY 2007-08 and the construction is tprogrammed for FY 2008-09. Location: Burnham St. to Railroad Tracks Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: Gas Tax $700.000 ' Total Funding Sources $700,000 1 1 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way $280,000 Pre-Design Design& $20,000 Engineering Construction $400,000 _ ' Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 57 1 I • • IProject # 507-0335 Burnham St. Improvements Project Description IThis project provides funding to complete the design for Burnham Street improvements and acquire necessary rights-of-way for the improvements. Based on current design standards for a collector street, the street requires a minimum paved width of 44 feet with landscaped strips shielding the Isidewalks from traffic on the street. However,these elements have been modified to incorporate design concepts recommended by the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape plan. These concepts include widening Burnham Street between Main Street and Ash Avenue to a paved width Iof 38 feet and between Ash Avenue and Hall Boulevard to 50 feet. Sidewalks,landscaped strips and on-street parking will be provided as part of the widening. In addition,a roundabout will be installed at the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Ash Avenue and green street storm water management Iconcept will be applied for water quality enhancement. The final design and right-of-way acquisition for Burnham Street are scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2007. Construction is anticipated to begin in late summer or fall of 2007. ILocation: Burnham St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Partially Funded 1 lir%,;:i..- _; Funding Sources: I Gas Tax $2,435,000 -1; y Underground Utility Fund $ 200,000 Water Fund $ 425,000 I - ` .- Unfunded Portion $3.092,000 _-- Total Funding Sources $6,152,000 I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- $500,000 of-Way Pre-Design I Design& $170,000 Engineering Construction $890,000 $4,592,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Gus Duenas &Vannie Nguyen 58 I I • . Project # 507-0723 Commercial St. Improvements IProject Description I Commercial Street is located in the downtown area of Tigard.The improvements involve re- construction of the existing pavement and base and construction of sidewalk on the north side of the street to provide a safe walk for the neighborhood to the proposed Commuter station,bus stops I and businesses on Main Street The total paved width of Commercial Street after completion is 28 feet,which will accommodate two travel lanes, one in each direction. Parking on the street will be permitted between the highway 99W over-crossing and Main Street. Streetscape improvements for 111 the project will incorporate design concepts recommended by the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Plan. The construction was originally scheduled for the spring of 2006. However, this schedule has been delayed to the spring of 2007 to allow additional time for I acquisition of rights-of-way from Tri-Met. Completion of the project will provide a safe and convenient pedestrian route to downtown services and the planned commuter rail station. This project has been approved for Community Development Block Grant in the amount of$91,300 I with local matching funds of$608,700 coming from the Gas Tax Fund, and$135,000 from the Water Fund. The project's storm water treatment facility will also be enlarged to provide treatment for a significant portion of the downtown Tigard area (approximately 20 acres) and another 20 acres I of an older developed area just west of Hwy 99W over-crossing. The additional treatment is funded through the Water Quality/Quantity Fund. I Location: Lincoln Ave. to Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded 1 ' . ? P .-_ Funding Sources: � f _ -� Gas Tax $608,700 '� -- �' Community Development • ,G' t, 4 "'� Block Grant $ 91,300 "°°�, �N y .,_ Water Quality / Quantity $120,000 Total Funding Sources $820,000 I '� . t:j- i 7 _ .. IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering IConstruction $820,000 Contingency IProject Manager: Vannie Nguyen 59 • • Project #507-0859 Greenburg Rd./Highway 99W/Main St. Intersection Improvements Project Description The existing intersection of Highway 99W with Greenburg Road and Main Street and the Highway 99W intersection with Hall Boulevard are the most highly-congested intersections in the City. Capacity improvements to the Highway 99W/Hall Boulevard intersection are funded through Washington County's MSTIP 3 program and the project is in the design stage for construction sometime in 2008.The improvements to the Hall Boulevard/Highway 99W intersection will not be fully effective in improving circulation and relieving traffic congestion as long as the bottleneck at the Greenburg Road intersection remains. A corresponding improvement to the Greenburg Road intersection is needed to complement the Hall/99W project and improve traffic circulation across and along Highway 99W north of the viaduct to the Highway 217 interchange. The specific capacity improvements will include: • Separating the through and left-turn movements by adding dedicated left-turn lanes on Greenburg Road and Main Street, ' • Providing dedicated through movements across the intersection from both side streets and retain the dedicated right-turn lanes on both streets and, • Constructing an additional eastbound through lane on Highway 99W from the viaduct east through the intersection to connect to the new eastbound through lane planned for the Highway 99W/Hall Boulevard intersection. ' Location: Greenburg Rd./Hwy 99W/Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: City Gas Tax $4,600,000 Total Funding Sources $4,600,000 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right $1,000,000 of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $500,000 Engineering ' Construction $150,000 $975,000 $975,000 $1,000,000 Contingency ' Prroject Manager: Gus Duenas 60 1 I • • IProject # 507-0724 Hall Blvd. & Highway 99W Gateway Treatments Project Description IThis project designs and constructs landscape and streetscape improvements at the intersection of Highway 99W and Hall Blvd. The improvements will incorporate the design concept established by the Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Plan and will coordinate with the MSTIP3 Hall I Boulevard at Highway 99W Right-Turn Lane Widening project managed by Washington County. Location: Hwy 99W&Hall Blvd. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 I Funded r �+. P'_ i i '' - .,' - - Funding Sources: Gas Tax $200,000 ..j ,. Total Funding Sources X200,000 p I s 1 - � - i l FT Sr-. T #r' -111C - 1 . I I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- I of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering Construction $200,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Gus Duenas I 61 ' • • ' Project # 507-0715 Main St. Traffic Light (at Tigard St.) Project Description A traffic signal warrant analysis for installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Main Street and Tigard Street is prepared in FY 2006-07. This project provides funding to design and construct the light at the intersection if feasible. The design will be coordinated with the signalized crossing gates for the Main Street railroad crossing to be installed as part of the Commuter Rail project. ' Location: Main St. &Tigard St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: Gas Tax $160,000 Total Funding Sources $160,000 t 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $40,000 Engineering ' Construction $120,000 Contingency Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 62 I • • Project # 507-0771 Main Street Green Street Retrofit — Phase 1 I Project Description 1 P tThe Main Street project is multi-year and includes comprehensive redesign and construction of the full length of Main Street.This phase of the project (MTIP Grant proposal) is to reconstruct the street in accordance with Green Street Standards for 1400 lineal feet of Main Street, from the ICommuter Rail entrance to the south entrance at 99W. It encompasses the entire,public right-of- way (ROW) and includes streets, curbs, sidewalks, landscape,and drainage improvements. Design will be based on concept plans as approved in the Downtown Streetscape Plan. ILocation: Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I 7.. ,.{_ �Q:= 7,;.i`$:? ' ; ' Funding Sources: — _ _ __ ___ :"Z MTIP Grant $4,370,100 - - _ -��:- Gas Tax $1.569.900 I Total Funding Sources $5,940,000 -...„...N. N, , .. I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& I Engineering $570,000 $400,000 Construction $2,470,000 $2,500,000 IContingency I IProject Manager: Vannie Nguyen 63 I • • Project # 507-0728 Main Street Safety Improvements IProject Description IThe project continues minor safety enhancements on Main Street including installation of streetlights, light fixtures and stop signs,relocation of marked crosswalks,re-painting crosswalk markings, reconfiguration of the existing parking on the street, etc. The scope of work developed for Ieach location was based on field observations and evaluation of public input regarding traffic movements on Main Street and its intersecting streets. It also incorporates alternative safety improvements recommended in the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed Commuter Rail and Iassociated park and ride facility in downtown Tigard. The funding provided is for completion of the improvements,which began in FY 2006-07. I Location: Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: Gas Tax $25,000 d Total Funding Sources $25,000 1 F _ r ' 1 • , y. / 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design IDesign& Engineering IConstruction $25,000 Contingency I Project Manager Gus Due nas &Vannie N guy en I 64 • • ' Project # 508-0856 Ash Ave. Extension (Fanno Creek to Scoffins St.) Project Description ' A corridor study was completed to determine a feasible alignment for Ash Avenue extension between Fanno Creek and Scoffins Street.This project proposes to design and acquire necessary ' rights-of-way for future construction of the extension.The design will incorporate improvement concepts developed by the Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape plan. Location: Fanno Creek&Scoffins St. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded Funding Sources: Gas Tax $1,300.000 Total Funding Sources $1,300,000 Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right of Way $500,000 $500,000 ' Pre-Design • Design& Engineering $300,000 ' Construction Contingency Project Manager: Gus Duenas 65 ' • • Project # 507-0807 Commercial St. (Main to Hall) Project Description Redesign and construction of Commercial Street in accordance with design parameters in the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. Improvements will include sidewalks,landscaping,lighting, a new paving overlay,and crossing improvements. Location: Commercial from Main to Hall Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded Funding Sources: Gas Tax $600,000 Total Funding Sources $600,000 1 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design iDesign& Engineering ' Construction $600,000 Contingency Project Manager. Gus Duenas 66 • • ' Project # 508-0819 Main St. at Highway 99W Intersection Gateway Treatment ' Project Description This project includes construction of a key gateway to the Downtown at the south end of Main ' Street,including site demolition, and entryway features such as monumentation,landscaping, lighting, signage,and furnishings. ' Location: Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded • Funding Sources: Gas Tax $225,000 ' Total Funding Sources $225,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction $225,000 Contingency Project Manager: Gus Duenas 67 • • ' Project # 509-0802 Scoffins/Hall/Hunziker Realignment Project Description This project corrects the unusual four-leg intersection of Hall Blvd/Scoffins/Hunziker Street. Hunziker and Scoffins Street intersect Hall Boulevard at an acute angle and at two separate locations t creating inadequate corner sight distance at four quadrants. The closely spaced offset between the two intersecting streets creates a sub-standard queue-storage distance on Hall Blvd, one of the most heavily traveled streets in Tigard. The proposed funding,if available,is for preparation of a traffic ' study including alternative resolutions of the problems, conceptual design, final design,right-of-way acquisition and construction. ' Location: Hall/Scoffins/Hunziker Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded Funding Sources: Traffic Impact Fees $4,800,000 ' Underground Utility $ 200,000 Total Funding Sources $5,000,000 1 ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 Fiscal Years 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- . $1,500,000 ' of-Way Pre-Design t Design& $300,000 Engineering Construction $3,200,000 ' Contingency ' Project Manager. Gus Duenas 68 1 ' • • Project # 507-0740 121St Ave. Crosswalk Improvements ' Project Description In FY 1999-2000, the City started a pilot program to install embedded crosswalk lighting systems at various locations in the City. The first system was installed on 121st Ave at Katherine/Lynn Street, followed by two additional systems on Walnut Street (at Grant Ave) and Main Street(at the bridge). The lighted crosswalk on 121st Ave (at Springwood Drive) was installed in October 2001. The most recent crosswalk lighting system was constructed on Bonita Road (at Milton Court) in October 2002. All lighting systems, except the ones on 121st Avenue,have performed properly in protecting pedestrians from on-coming traffic while crossing the streets. The light fixtures that are recessed below the pavement surface on 121st Avenue at Springwood Drive and Katherine/Lynn Street require frequent replacement. In addition, the road surface needs to be continually cleaned in order for the lamps to project beam that is clearly visible in daylight and under the worst weather conditions. Maintenance of the light fixtures has been difficult,replacement parts have not been readily available, and continued maintenance of the existing lighting system is not cost effective. ' This project provides funding to remove or modify the crosswalk lights on 121st Avenue at the two locations and replace them with a more efficient traffic lighting system that minimizes maintenance costs while enhancing safe crossings for pedestrians. ' Location: Springwood Dr. &Katherine St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Gas Tax $200,000 Total Funding Sources $200,000 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $30,000 Engineering Construction $170,000 Contingency ' Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 69 1 • • Project #510-0804 100th Ave. Improvements (Sattler to Murdock St.) Project Description 100th Avenue between Sattler and Murdock Street is approximately 20 feet wide and is drained by ' deep ditches along the west side of the street. The two travel lanes of 10 feet each take up all street space leaving no area for roadway shoulders. This condition creates a risk for motorists traveling the street especially during night times.The proposed improvements,which include backfilling the ' ditches for street widening, installing storm drain pipes and curbs,will provide wider travel lanes (up to 12 feet wide) and some spaces on the street for emergency parking if feasible. Location: Between Sattler&Murdock St. Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 Funded 1 ' Funding Sources: Gas Tax $600,000 Total Funding Sources $600,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right of Way $150,000 $300,000 ' Pre-Design Design& $150,000 ' Engineering Construction Contingency Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 70 I • • Project # 507-0851 72°d Ave. / Dartmouth St. Intersection Signalization Project Description IThe 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street intersection is un-signalized. It is configured as an "all-way stop" and is one of the most heavily traveled intersections in Tigard. The multiple lanes on both I streets are not conducive to the orderly movement of traffic. Both 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street in the vicinity of the intersection are virtually at capacity. The intersection operating conditions are poor and show significant delays in the AM and PM peaks. In addition, the traffic I volumes will most likely increase as large vacant properties in the Tigard Triangle are developed. Increased traffic volumes would make the intersection unsafe and even more difficult for orderly movement of traffic. I This project provides funding to complete the design of a traffic signal and necessary roadway improvements to improve the traffic handling capacity of the intersection. The design was originally budgeted for FY 2006-07 and is scheduled to be completed in the summer I of 2007. The design will be used during the Site Development Review process requiring developers to construct the improvements to meet conditional land use approvals. I Location: 72nd Ave. &Dartmouth St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I `" �" '.-1-1 �' ='t t' Funding Sources: =' :._`_ Gas Tax $125,000 Total Funding Sources $125,000 ix_ rI_ - 1 1 H Fiscal Years I2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& $125,000 IEngineering Construction IContingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen I 71 • s Project # 510-0830 72nd Ave. Improvements (Bonita Rd. to Hunziker St.) Project Description This project continues the improvements for 72nd Avenue from south of the 72nd Ave/Dartmouth Street intersection to Hunziker Street.The improvements involve street widening, utility underground, storm drainage and sanitary sewer upgrades. One travel lane will be provided in each direction. A center-turn lane will also be added to allow for safe left turn movements. Full-width sidewalks and bike lanes will also be installed as part of the improvements. Location: 72nd /Dartmouth to Hunziker Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 Funded 1 Funding Sources: Traffic Impact Fee $1,450.000 Total Funding Sources $1,450,000 1 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way $1,000,000 Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering $450,000 Construction Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 72 I . • Project # 507-0742 Bull Mountain Rd. at Hwy 99W Right-Turn Lane I Widening Project Description IThis project widens the right-turn lane on Bull Mountain Road at Highway 99W. The current eastbound lane from Bull Mountain Road to southbound Highway 99W is not wide enough to I accommodate truck turning movements and other large-sized vehicles. In addition, the turning radius is substandard,which makes it difficult for vehicles to stay within the lane while maintaining the traveling speeds. The outfall of the storm drain pipe that runs underneath the road is also broken I off and is in need of repair. This project provides funding to relocate an existing planter strip to provide space for widening of the right-turn lane and repair the existing storm drain outfall. It also enlarges the curb return radius for safe turning movements. I Location of the improvements is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Design review and approval from ODOT are required prior to construction. Construction management and inspection will be performed by Washington County I identified in an Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and the City,which is under progress. The funding provided is for completion of the project,which is expected to begin in late FY 2006-07. ILocation: Bull Mountain Rd. &Hwy 99W Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded # ----- "' V Funding Sources: -/ Traffic Impact Fees—Urban Services I $240,000 Total Funding Sources $240,000 f F -*ter- -° ,, s - I z� IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $240,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen 73 ' • • ' Project # 507-0847 Collector & Arterial ROW Enhancements Project Description This project is an annual effort to retrofit and upgrade landscaping in the collector and arterial rights of way. Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: tGas Tax $175.000 Total Funding Sources $175,000 1 Fiscal Years t2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design & Engineering Construction $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 Contingency 1 ' Project Manager: Dennis Koellermeier 1 74 I • • Project # 506-0729 Durham Rd. / 108th Ave. Signalization IProject Description IThis project was funded in FY 2006-07 for installation of a traffic signal at the Durham Road/108th Avenue intersection. Traffic volumes on Durham Road have steadily increased since the mid 80's and will continue to increase as the street provides a direct connection between two state highways, IHighway 99W and Hall Boulevard. Due to the increase in traffic volumes on Durham Road, traffic attempting to turn left from 108th Avenue onto the street experiences excessive delay. The problem has become worse as the residential developments along 108th Avenue are completed and generate Iimpacts on the operations of traffic movements at this intersection.A traffic analysis conducted in March 2005 indicates installation of a traffic control signal on or about 2006 will enhance traffic safety at the intersection. IThe design of the signal is scheduled to be completed in FY 2006-07. Funding provided for this project is for the construction of the signal, including necessary roadway improvements, to provide Isafe and controlled turning movements for traffic at the intersection. Location: Durham Rd. & 108th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 IFunded I '�i�!, Funding Sources: .�;` `;`` Traffic Impact Fee $200,000 3.'d':�- %fit: i `. f, Total Funding Sources $200,000 I .,,, ---'1 \'. - - i - - . 1 I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& IEngineering Construction $200,000 IContingency Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen I 75 ' • Project # 507-0725 Hall Blvd. & Tigard St. Crosswalks ' Project Description The Hall Boulevard crosswalk project is carried over from FY 2006-07 for installation of a crosswalk on Hall Blvd to provide a safe connection between an existing and a new Fanno Creek trail for trail users. The new trail will begin on the east side of Hall Boulevard,proceed southward to just north of Fanno Creek, then cross the creek with a timber bridge,and connect to the terminus of the existing trail behind the Library. The final alignment of the new trail is contingent upon the level of impacts to the sensitive lands situated in the trail's vicinity. Since Hall Boulevard is a state route, construction of the crosswalk requires approval from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Upon completion of the project, the crosswalk will provide a mid-block crossing on a heavily-traveled, two-lane state route with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Flashing beacons may be installed prior to the crossing to alert the on-coming two-way traffic of pedestrians crossing the street. Students using the Fanno Creek trail to ride bicycles to and from Fowler Middle School have been observed occasionally entering Tigard Street without stopping. Motorists,bicyclists and pedestrians all need to be aware of the street crossing and the hazards inherent at that location. The funding provided will also be used to evaluate the feasibility of installing a mid-block crosswalk together with additional traffic control measures and signs on both Tigard Street and on the trail approaches to that street. Location: at Fanno Creek pathway Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: ' Gas Tax $100,000 Total Funding Sources $100,000 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design $20,000 ' Design& Engineering Construction $80,000 ' Contingency ' Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 76 I • r I Project # 507-0726 Hall Blvd. Sidewalk (Spruce St. to 850' South) Project Description IThis project is carried over from FY 2006-07. It enhances pedestrian movements along Flail Blvd south of Spruce Street by installing sidewalk on the west side of the street for approximately 850 feet. Hall Boulevard at this location is a narrow two-lane roadway without sidewalks forcing Ipedestrians to use the existing bike lane and occasionally encroach into the travel lane. The close proximity of existing homes,landscape and limited right-of-way on this state route preclude placement of planter strips at some locations. The project was advertised for bids in June 2006. IHowever, the City did not award a construction contract due to a single high bid received. The project was re-bid in October 2006. IThis project has been approved for Community Development Grant (CDBG) in the amount of $136,725 with local matching funds of$150,000 coming from the Gas Tax Fund in FY 2006-07. The construction is scheduled to be substantially completed in April 2007. The funding provided is Ifor full completion of the project,which will extend to FY 2007-08 to construct in-stream items between July 1 and September 30, 2007 as required by the Corps of Engineers permit. ILocation: Hall Blvd. South of Spruce St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I Funding Sources: t _ Gas Tax $75,000 f / Total Funding Sources $75,000 \ ----- ,,,,,.. :---.,... ._ `.. I I1:1514 Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $75,000 II Contingency IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen 77 ' • • Project # 507-0399 Hall Blvd. - Wall St. Intersection Extension Phase 2 ' Project Description 1 P This project constructs a common access to Hall Boulevard for the Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums as required by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).To ensure the project is constructed expeditiously for safe crossings at the entrance to the Library, the City divided the project in two phases: Phase 1 is the installation of a traffic signal at the entrance to the Library, which was completed in December 2005. Phase 2 is the construction of approximately 360 feet of the common access,which has the same alignment with the proposed Wall Street, connecting Hall ' Boulevard to Hunziker Street. The Library parking lot expansion,which is located immediately north of the access,will be ' constructed concurrently with the project to minimize traffic impacts to library patrons. Both projects were first advertised for bids in June 2006. However,due to the single bid submitted at the bid opening that was substantially higher than that expected for the scope of work, the City rejected ' the bid. Both projects will be re-bid in the spring of 2007. Location: Hall Blvd. &Wall St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: ' Traffic Impact Fees $1.200.000 Total Funding Sources $1,200,000 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $1,200,000 Contingency 1 Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 78 ' • • Project # 507-0781 McDonald St. Traffic Median (at Highway 99W) ' Project Description In 2005, the City improved McDonald Street at the intersection with Highway 99W to add capacity and to enhance traffic flow at the intersection. The improvements provided a dedicated westbound right-turn lane onto the state highway and lengthened the stacking capacity for the left-turn on ' McDonald Street. New sidewalks were also constructed and storm pipes were installed to replace an existing drainage ditch that was under-capacity. As a result, McDonald Street at Highway 99W has a dedicated left-turn lane, a through lane in each direction, and a westbound right-turn lane. Because the intersection approach on McDonald Street to Highway 99w has been widened,left-turn movements to and from the street to driveways near the intersection are hazardous,are causing significant delays to through traffic, and are currently impairing the orderly flow of traffic movements at the intersection. A raised median is needed to eliminate the left turns and improve traffic flow at the intersection. ' This project installs a raised traffic median on McDonald Street to eliminate left turns that are causing traffic flow disruptions at, or on the approach to, the Highway 99W intersection.The installation may include guideposts,raised concrete curbs, buttons and other traffic devices. ' Location: McDonald St. at Hwy 99W Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Traffic Impact Fee $40,000 Total Funding Sources $40,000 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction $40,000 Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 79 I • • IProject # 505-0184 Pedestrian / Bicycle Paths Project Description IThis project constructs pathways to improve pedestrian safety and access between bus stops, schools and adjacent residential developments. Pathways can either be concrete sidewalks or I paved/gravel paths. Landscaped strips are not included in the scope of work as the need for the improvement is to fill in gaps between existing sidewalks within limited rights-of-way, or to enhance pedestrian access to transit stops. I Paved/gravel pathways may also be off-street(but within the street right-of-way) to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists. To construct the pathways,existing ditches that convey storm water will be replaced with pipes and backfilled with clean rock. Locations of the improvements will be at U various locations in the City. The project is also funded through the Storm Water Fund that will be used for installation of new pipes and related drainage work required for construction of pathways. The Gas Tax Fund may also I be used to prepare,in partnership with the school district, a master plan for sidewalk,bicycle and traffic safety related improvements within two miles of schools in Tigard. Improvements identified in the master plan will be used to request for grants from federal and state programs. Grants,if I obtainable,will help to expand local funding sources to make school routes safe for children to walk and bike. I Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I Funding Sources: Gas Tax $700,000 Stormwater Fund $300.000 ITotal Funding Sources $1,000,000 I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 I Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 80 I I • • I Project # 507-0852 Upper Boones Ferry Road Traffic Signal Interconnection Upgrade (at Sequoia Parkway) IProject Description This project upgrades the traffic signal connection at the intersection of Upper Boones Ferry Road I and Sequoia Parkway to improve rail crossing safety and comply with ODOT's Traffic Signal guidelines. The upgraded signal interconnection will provide train pre-emption of traffic signal phases to permit vehicular traffic to clear the tracks before a train enters the crossing. In order to I complete the alteration, the City has agreed to upgrade the traffic signal connection while Portland &Western Railroad will upgrade the existing train detection equipment circuitry. All work performed by the City will be reimbursed by ODOT. ILocation: Upper Boones Ferry&Sequoia Parkway Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded IFunding Sources: Gas Tax $20,000 ITotal Funding Sources $20,000 I I I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& $5,000 Engineering IConstruction $15,000 Contingency I I Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 1 81 • • 1 Project # 508-0828 72nd Ave. Improvements (Dartmouth St. to Hwy 99W) Project Description The vertical alignment of 72nd Avenue between Dartmouth Street and Highway 99W requires corrections to meet sight distance standards. In addition, the street is narrow and the pavement ' surface is in poor condition.This project widens the street, corrects the vertical sight distance, upgrades the existing storm drain, extends the sanitary sewer,and undergrounds the existing utilities to provide a three-lane roadway section with bike lanes and sidewalks both sides. Rights-of-way will be obtained as part of the project for the ultimate street cross section of five lanes. Location: 72nd Ave. between Dartmouth St. & Hwy 99W Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 ' Partially Funded ' Funding Sources: Traffic Impact Fee $1,652,000 Unfunded Portion $1,048,000 ' Total Funding Sources $2,700,000 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way $800,000 Pre-Design Design& $400,000 Engineering ' Construction $452,000 $1,048,000 Contingency ' Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen guY en 82 • • 1 Project # 503-0017 Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) ' Project Description The City has been active in implementing the yearly Pavement Major Maintenance Program of corrective and preventative maintenance on streets in Tigard. The program,which includes rehabilitation alternatives, performs the following 1) restores the wearing course and thereby ' protects the pavement's structural integrity,2) reconstructs the structural section on those streets that require total replacement of structural section, 3) improves ride ability,and 4) enhances traffic safety. Through this program, the City is able to perform timely maintenance on City streets to avoid the much more costly reconstruction costs that result when streets are allowed to significantly deteriorate. Streets scheduled to be included in this year's program are at various locations • throughout the City. The number of streets proposed to be rehabilitated is subject to change depending upon actual bid proposals received. The streets to be rehabilitated will be selected to conform to the funding availability. Those that need rehabilitation but cannot be performed in the current fiscal year will be moved to the next fiscal year.The Gas Tax fund will provide funding for improvements of the areas outside the existing edges of pavement if needed. Rehabilitation of the streets, including reconstruction if necessary within the existing edges of pavement will be funded through the Street Maintenance Fee Fund. Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Partially Funded Funding Sources: Street Maintenance Fee $3,630,000 Gas Tax $ 750,000 Total Funding Sources $4,380,000 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering Construction $950,000 $900,000 $850,000 $840,000 $840,000 ' Contingency ' Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 83 ' • • Project # 507-0857 Pavement Major Maintenance Program Enhancement Project Description This funding will be used to address more of the street maintenance backlog and ensure timely maintenance of all the streets in the City. Acceleration of the program beyond the annual funding ' level of$800,000 annually will increase the average remaining service life of the street network and avoid costly reconstruction on those streets that can still be rejuvenated with timely maintenance. If made available, the funding provided will be used accelerate the pace of the program by ' supplementing the Gas Tax Fund of$150,000 and the Street Maintenance Fee Fund of$800,000. Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 ' Unfunded Funding Sources: Street Maintenance Fee $2,585200 Total Funding Sources $2,585,200 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction $400,000 $470,000 $546,000 $573,000 $596,200 Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 1 84 • Project # 508-0825 121" St. Improvements (Walnut to North Dakota St.) Project Description This project widens 121st Avenue between Walnut and North Dakota Street to a three-lane roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. Planter strips are also installed wherever feasible.Water, storm drainage, and sanitary sewer improvements and utility under-grounding are also included in the project. Replacement of the existing bridge on this street will be done under a separate project as costs associated with the replacement may be substantial and could possibly be funded through ' different funding sources (i.e. federal grants). Location: Between Walnut&North Dakota Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded Funding Sources: Gas Tax $3,100,000 Total Funding Sources $3,100,000 Fiscal Years ' Land/Right- 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 of-Way $500,000 $300,000 ' Pre-Design Design& $300,000 Engineering ' Construction $2,000,000 Contingency ' Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 85 I • • iProject # 509-0800 121"Ave. Improvements (Whistler to Tippitt St.) Project Description The design for the project,which began in FY 2001-02, consists of roadway, storm drainage,water, streetlight improvements and utility underground.The design was completed in FY 2003-04 and I partial right-of-way has been acquired from two properties. Remaining rights-of-way are programmed for FY 2009-10 and the construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2010-11. Upon completion of the construction, the street will have a paved width of 44 feet,which consists of two Itravel lanes,a center-turn lane and two bike lanes. Sidewalks will also be provided. Location: 1215`Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Unfunded i :^:- ','''_t;(' := `• .• Funding Sources: ,i`. :,10:- ..:: Gas Tax $2,500,000 { '.' �' f ' Underground Utility $ 150.000 I ,.1 `.r Total Funding Sources $2,650,000 :vas, . , rr Vrg i r ac I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- $500,000 of-Way Pre-Design IDesign& Engineering ' Construction $1,150,000 $1,000,000 Contingency I Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 86 I I • • IProject #509-0829 72°d Ave. Improvements (Hunziker to Dartmouth St.) IProject Description I This project widens 72nd Avenue to a three-lane roadway,which includes a center-turn lane and one travel lane in each direction. Sidewalk will be installed at a location where it can be retained for the ultimate improvements for a five-lane roadway section as specified by the Tigard Transportation ISystem plan. Right-of-way acquisition is included in the project. Location: Hunziker to Dartmouth St. Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Unfunded IFunding Sources: Traffic Impact Fee $4,200,000 ITotal Funding Sources $4,200,000 I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way $400,000 $400,000 Pre-Design I Design& $400,000 Engineering Construction $3,000,000 IContingency I IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen I 87 I • ' Project # 508-0816 92nd Ave. Sidewalk (Durham Rd. to Cook Park) Project Description This project will rebuild existing street sections and add curbs, drainage facilities and sidewalks adjacent to Cook Park to provide a safe pedestrian travel during the Balloon Festival and other ' regional activities at Cook Park. Location: Durham Rd. to Cook Park Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded ' Funding Sources: Gas Tax $450,000 Total Funding Sources $450,000 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way of-Way Pre-Design 1 Design& Engineering Construction $375,000 Contingency 1 Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 88 ' • • Project #508-0827 Dartmouth St. Improvements (72nd to 68`h Ave.) Project Description ' This project proposes to reconstruct Dartmouth Street between 72nd and 68th Avenue. The street from east of Highway 99W to 72nd Avenue has been improved by the City and surrounding developments in the past few years. The intersection of Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue is under ' design for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection.This project expands the improvements from east of the intersection to 68th Avenue. The street section after construction will have two travel lanes,one in each direction, a center-turn lane and bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. ' Location: 72"d to 68th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Unfunded I Funding Sources: ' Traffic Impact Fee $2,800,000 Underground Utility Fund $ 150,000 Total Funding Sources $2,950,000 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way $500,000 Pre-Design ' Design& $300,000 Engineering Construction $150,000 $2,000,000 Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 89 I ' • • ' Project # 508-0795 Greenburg/Tiedeman/N. Dakota/Tigard St. Project Description In FY 2006-07, a traffic improvement study was prepared to assess alternative solutions for improvements of the Greenburg/Tiedeman/North Dakota/Tigard Street intersection configuration. ' This project provides funding to design,acquire rights-of-way and construct some of the improvements recommended in the study. Improvements may include constructing a new connection from North Dakota to Tigard Street,widening the Tiedeman Avenue and Tigard Street ' intersection, and closing on of the rail crossings on Tiedeman Avenue and other necessary road re- alignments. ' Location: Greenburg/Tiedeman/North Dakota/Tigard Street Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded Funding Sources: ' Traffic Impact Fee $3,700,000 Total Funding Sources $3,700,000 1 I 1 1 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way $500,000 Pre-Design Design& $200,000 ' Engineering Construction $1,500,000 $2,500,000 ' Contingency • ' Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen 90 1 • • 1 Project # 508-0733 Hall Boulevard (at McDonald St.) Right-Turn Lane Widening 1 Project Description This project involves the design,acquisition of necessary right-of-way and construction of a 1 southbound right-turn lane on Hall Boulevard at McDonald Street. In addition to the turn-lane,curb and sidewalk will also be installed to improve pedestrian safety and the existing signal timing at the intersection will be modified to improve traffic circulation at the intersection. 1 Location: Hall Blvd. &McDonald St. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded 1 1 Funding Sources: Traffic Impact Fee $400,000 Total Funding Sources $400,000 1 i 1 1 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 1 Land/Right- of-Way $100,000 Pre-Design 1 Design& Engineering 1 Construction $300,000 Contingency Project Manager Vannie Nguyen 1 91 i U • • IProject # 507-0533 Hall Blvd. Half Street Improvements Project Description IHall Blvd is a state-owned highway and is classified as arterial,which consists of five travel lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. This project widens Hall Blvd on the east side of the I street from the existing Fanno Creek Bridge to approximately 450 feet north. The current northbound travel lane,which is less than 12 feet,will be widened to 12 feet.The narrow roadway shoulder will be widened to provide space for a 6-foot bike lane.The new sidewalk will be placed at I the ultimate location where it can be retained for future street improvements. Mitigation of the storm water generated by the additional impervious area will also be addressed in the design. The existing bridge will not be widened as part of this project. ILocation: Fanno Creek to 450 ft. North Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded I F ;t Funding Sources: II s Traffic Impact Fee $275,000 _ PO...-N' - ''-,-,.. ' ' - • . Total Funding Sources $275,000 i i ._ - I . I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design $10,000 Design& I Engineering Construction $265,000 IContingency IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen 92 I • • IProject #510-0805 Murdock St. Improvements (103rd to 97th Ave.) IProject Description Children walking to Twality Jr. High School and James Templeton School are forced to walk along Ithe edges of Murdock Street as the street is narrow and has no shoulders.The proposed improvements include backfilling existing ditches to provide space for street widening, installing storm drain pipes, and constructing curbs and sidewalks at least on one side of the street. IAcquisition of right-of-way may be required for the widening. Location: 103rd to 97th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 IUnfunded I Funding Sources: I Gas Tax $600,000 Total Funding Sources $600,000 I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- $100,000 of-Way I Pre-Design Design& Engineering IConstruction $100,000 $400,000 Contingency I I Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen I 93 • S Project # 509-0801 North Dakota St. Pedestrian Bridge Project Description The North Dakota Street Bridge is too narrow to safely pass pedestrian and vehicular traffic simultaneously. A feasibility study for installation of a pedestrian bridge was conducted by a bridge ' consultant in 2005. The study presents an option to build the bridge in two phases: the first phase is to build a separated 8-foot wide pre-cast pre-stressed concrete bridge on the south side of the existing bridge. The second phase is to salvage the bridge and widen it to a full width to be used by pedestrians,bicyclists and vehicular traffic. This project addresses work for the first phase. Location: North Dakota Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Unfunded ' Funding Sources: Gas Tax $400,000 Total Funding Sources $400,000 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design tDesign& $150,000 Engineering ' Construction $150,000 $100,000 Contingency 1 t Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 94 • • ' Project #510-0824 North Dakota Street Improvements (Greenburg to 95th Ave.) ' Project Description ' North Dakota Street between Greenburg Road and 95th Avenue is currently unimproved.The existing drainage system is under capacity and a major portion of the street is narrow and does not ' have curb and sidewalk. Improvements of the street will be in accordance with the design standards required for a Neighborhood route,which include one travel lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the street. Curbs and sidewalks will also be included. ' Location: Greenburg Rd. to 95th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 Unfunded ' Funding Sources: Gas Tax $700,000 Total Funding Sources $700,000 ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 Fiscal Years 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- $200,000 of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering $100,000 Construction $400,000 Contingency 1 Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 95 ' • • Project # 506-0727 Tigard Triangle Street Improvements LID No. 1 Project Description The Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) identifies the Tigard Triangle as an area where the street infrastructure needs to be significantly upgraded to meet the City's established standards. ' Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition requesting the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to improve certain streets within the Tigard Triangle. The proposed improvements ' include street and utility improvements to 68th Ave, 69th Ave and 70th Ave between Dartmouth and Baylor Street and Dartmouth Street and Clinton Street between 68th and 70th Ave, all within the Tigard Triangle. In the Council meeting of February 28, 2006,City Council agreed to consider establishment of the proposed LID and directed staff to proceed with the Preliminary Engineer's Report,which has been completed. If formation of the district is approved by. Council,the construction plans will be: finalized by the end of FY 2006-07. This project provides funding to construct the improvements in FY 2007-08 if needed. ' • Location: 68th Ave., 69th Ave., 70th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded Funding Sources: Tigard Triangle LID #1 $2,400,000 Total Funding Sources $2,400,000 ' Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $2,300,000 $100,000 Contingency Project Manager. Gus Duenas & Greg Berry 96 • • ' Project # 509-0803 Walnut St. Improvements (116th to Tiedeman Ave.) Project Description The design of Walnut Street between 121st and Tiedeman Avenue was completed in 2001.A majority of the rights-of-way needed for the widening have been purchased. Completion of the ' acquisition is anticipated to be completed by the end of FY 2006-07. Construction of the improvements is scheduled for two years beginning FY 2008-09,with the first year reserved for utility under-grounding. ' Location: 116th to Tiedeman Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded Funding Sources: ' Traffic Impact Fees $2,500,000 Underground Utility $ 150.000 Total Funding Sources $2,650,000 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering ' Construction $1,150,000 $1,500,000 Contingency Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen 97 1 I • • iProject # 607-0812 Ash Avenue Extension Waterline IProject Description This project would be in conjunction with the Ash Avenue extension from Burnham to the railroad I tracks. Since this would be a new extension of a public street,it is anticipated that a new 8-inch public water line would be needed. Funds for the water system would include design and construction costs. ILocation: Burnham St. to Railroad Tracks Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I I Funding Sources: I Water SDC $46,000 Total Funding Sources $46,000 I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ILand/Right- of-Way I Pre-Design Design& $6,000 Engineering IConstruction $40,000 Contingency I IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen& Rob Murchison 98 I . • I Project # 607-0311 Burnham St. — 16 inch Waterline Replacement (Tie to Street Project) ' Project Description Burnham Street is a major collector and is subject for reconstruction in FY 07/08. The installation I of a 16" water line is needed for transmission through the city and will be constructed in conjunction with the street improvement. I Location: Burnham St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I �� .;. -� -171;-. Funding Sources: 1 Water Fund $225,000 $225,000 Water SDC Total Funding Sources $450,000 I - __ - - _ - I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $300,000 $150,000 Contingency IProject Manager. Vannie Nguyen& Rob Murchison I 99 I • • iProject # 607-0821 Pipe Replacement (Commercial St.) Project Description IThis project replaces approximately 50 feet of a severe damaged pipe on Commercial Street between Lincoln and Main Street that has caused frequent infiltration.This project will be designed and I constructed in coordination with the Commercial Street Improvements project between Lincoln and Main Street. I Location: Between Lincoln&Main St. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded I ; Funding Sources: Water CIP $135.000 I 'Y' : =r Total Funding Sources $135,000 I . = -. Funding contingent upon revenue bond.tale in FY 2007-08 and •,z_ ��,,. -- c FY 2010-11. 7. I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& $15,500 Engineering IConstruction $119,500 Contingency I Project Manager. Vannie Nguyen& Rob Murchison I 100 ' • • Project # 607-0782 550' Zone Reservoir No. 2 and Supply Piping Project Description This reservoir will be located on Bull Mountain and will serve the south and eastern portions of the 550-foot pressure zone. Constructing this reservoir will eliminate some of the demand currently ' supplied by the 713-Foot pressure zone. Supply to the reservoir will be provided through the transfer pump station upgrade. ' This project will also include the supply piping necessary between the transfer pump station and the new reservoir, as well as the supply piping from the reservoir to the existing 550-foot pressure zone to the south. Location: Bull Mountain Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: Water CIP $5,960,000 Total Funding Sources $5,960,000 Funding contingent upon revenue bond sale in FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $400,000 Engineering tConstruction $4,000,000 $1,560,000 Contingency ' Project Manager: Rob Murchison 101 I • • I Project # 610-0835 ASR 1 Rehabilitation Project Description I Rehabilitation of ASR wells is recommended every six years.Typical work involved may include �' sx Y YP Y removal of the pump and reconditioning of the well. In the case of ASR 1,it is also anticipated that Ia down-hole control valve will be installed,which will likely help eliminate air entrapment in the well due to the cascade effect during the recharge period. ILocation: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2010-11 Funded `c.A � ` ' Funding Sources: I t r i. . _ '� , ' ' ; " -� -,..:•;. Water Fund $170,000 Total Funding Sources $170,000 a'i i - -t i :, ,'I 1,::'".5 -, v' : . }} II !•imp 1 F� wool L t �f�f I 1. i _ 4- JN � I I ∎ 1 , 1 I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& Engineering $20,000 IConstruction $150,000 IContingency I IProject Manager. Rob Murchison 102 I • • I Project # 607-0584 ASR 3 IProject Description The City will continue to expand its aquifer storage and recovery well system. It is anticipated that a i production well will be drilled and well head improvements installed at a location where testing has Ioccurred and have proven positive. Location: Bull Mountain Rd. & 125th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 IFunded tJ ":-.=-'1.f.-:'::::•:,'-:,!.; ;-- ,,:f07:1-.:,7.-.;,67, :; Funding Sources: 1 t=;- ;; Water CIP $1,800,000 _ Total Funding Sources $1,800,000 �— .-- r -yet, Funding contingent upon revenue bond tale in FY 2007-08 and ,'� r,;f r FY 2010-11. f�{ , 1 I I I Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& $300,000 Engineering Construction $1,500,000 IContingency I Project Manager. Rob Murchison I 103 ' • • Project # 607-0514 ASR Expansion Studies Project Description ' The City's hydro geologist of record will assist Staff in locatin g potential sites for additional aquifer ' storage and recovery (ASR) wells. In addition, test wells must be drilled by a qualified well driller in order for the hydro geologist to determine suitability of the well for ASR purposes. Therefore, these studies will include both consulting services and drilling services. For budgeting purposes, Staff assumes that each test well site will be deemed as good ASR well sites. When this occurs, it is most economical to have the driller remain on site and ream the well to the larger production well diameter. The funds projected in this line item assume this to be the case. ' Staff g P anticipates completing a new well to be located at the 550-foot Zone Reservoir No. 2 site at the beginning of 07/08, and potentially exploring an additional well site with drilling for the remainder of the fiscal year. Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Water CIP $810,000 Total Funding Sources $810,000 j4("" ) Funding contingent upon revenue bond tale in FY 2007-08 and ' FY 2010-11. i ` 1' I ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& $100,000 Engineering ' Construction $710,000 Contingency ' Project Manager. Rob Murchison& Brian Rager 104 • • Project # 607-0770 Defective Meter Replacements Project Description This has been one of the long-term projects for the Public Works Department. The meter replacement program covers two size ranges of meters. First, the program covers systematic testing, ' repair and/or replacement of all 1 1/2-inch and larger water meters. Meters of this size have developed problems where actual water flows are inaccurately measured;most of the time, the volume of water is under-reported. The result is that water customers could be using more water ' than they are being assessed.Testing and or replacement of these water meters have proven to make financial sense in that the investment is recouped by the additional revenues received due to accurate meters. The second part of the program covers meters of less than 1 1/2-inch in size. These are replaced as needed when problems are noted. ' Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ' Funding Sources: Water Fund $270,800 Total Funding Sources $270,800 i Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $50,000 $52,000 $54,000 $56,300 $58,500 Contingency Project Manager. Sam Morrison 105 I III • IProject # 607-0306 Meter Installations Project Description This on-going program ties in with the Water Service Installations program. When new water customers, or existing customers who need an additional water service,apply for a new service, IPublic Works staff install the service line and will set the new meter. Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 uFunded R,9 I Funding Sources: I ., 4 : .__ Water Fund $230,000 ,� ,, `k '<•:,.,-- ��'" � Total Funding Sources $230,000 ' ; ��;r:,. �l c1 ; 2006/10/-10 1 I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $60,000 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 IContingency Project Manager: Sam Morrison I 106 • • Project # 608-0834 Reservoir Seismic Upgrades Project Description tIn FY 07/08,a Reservoir Seismic Upgrade Evaluation will be completed to determine what upgrades should be completed at existing reservoirs. Staff anticipates the actual improvements will need to be constructed over a three-year period,beginning FY 09/09. Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Funded Funding Sources: Water Fund $937,000 Total Funding Sources $937,000 1 Fiscal Years ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction $300,000 $312,000 $325,000 Contingency • Project Manager. Rob Murchison 1 107 I ' Project # 609-0578 Walnut Street (116th to Tiedeman): Relocate 12-inch Waterline ' Project Description ' In conjunction with the Street Program reconstruction project, the existing 12-inch main waterline will need to be relocated.This project will include design/engineering and construction costs. ' Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Funded Funding Sources: ' Water Fund $170,000 Total Funding Sources $170,000 1 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering $22,000 Construction $105,000 $43,000 ' Contingency Project Manager: Vannie Nguyen& Rob Murchison 108 1 I • • IProject # 607-0312 Water Main Oversizing Project Description IDuring the course of the year the City may find the need to upsize a planned pipeline through a new development, thus accomplishing an identified capital improvement as listed in the"Water IDistribution System Hydraulic Study—May 2000." Location: Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 IFunded I Funding Sources: Water SDC $425,000 Total Funding Sources $425,000 I I I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way I Pre-Design Design& Engineering IConstruction $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Contingency I I I IProject Manager. Rob Murchison I 109 ' • S ' Project # 607-0308 Water Main Replacements Project Description This on-going program is based on the needs identified in the'Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study—May 2000",and is for the routine replacement of leaking,damaged and older water mains ' throughout the water system. In most cases the existing mains have adequate capacity and will be replaced with the same diameter water mains. This program is also for the completion of loops in the system to maintain hydraulic efficiencies. ' NOTE: Larger amounts shown in FY 08/09 and 11/12 due to anticipated main replacements related to the proposed Main Street reconstruction projects. Location: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: Water Fund $315300 Total Funding Sources $315,300 1 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& Engineering Construction $50,000 $75,000 $54,000 $56,300 $80,000 Contingency 1 ' Project Manager. Sam Morrison 110 1 ' • • Project # 606-0597 Water Reservoir Seismic Upgrade Evaluation Project Description This is the second year of a two-year program that will review all of Tigard's water reservoirs for conformity to current seismic standards and recommend upgrades where needed. ' Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: ' Water Fund $70,000 Total Funding Sources $70,000 1 t 1 ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 Fiscal Years 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& ' Engineering Construction $70,000 ' Contingency Project Manager. Rob Murchison 111 1 I • • IProject # 607-0303 Water Service Installations Project Description IThis is a long-term program for the department. Each year the City adds new customers to the system through individual building permits or additional water services. Customers apply for a new I water service, and Public Works staff installs the service line and will set the meter (see Meter Installations line item). ILocation: Various Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded Funding Sources: I Water Fund $54200 Total Funding Sources $54,200 I I I IFiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 I Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design I Design& Engineering Construction $10,000 $10,400 $10,800 $11,300 $11,700 IContingency I I IProject Manager. Sam Morrison I 112 I I • • IProject # 607-0595 Water Site Security Upgrades Project Description IThis project will accomplish the water site security upgrades that were identified in the PW Vulnerability Assessment and Emergency Response Plan. The security upgrades will include I improvements to such things as access, fencing,intrusion alarms, and monitoring. The implementation of these improvements is estimated to take place over a 20-year period. ILocation: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Funded ` _-o < Funding Sources: _ , . ,1 == < ",- F` = Water Fund $271,000 U = Total Funding Sources $271,000 i 4 • r { 1 ' f ' ( - - t _ 1 .. —. _. — l .. . i , i1,, i, t i i P t� dSt''}Lt��'i�IIN?i� iV , , t, / f ! f I Fiscal Years I2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way I Pre-Design Design& I Engineering Construction $50,000 $52,000 $54,000 $56,500 $58,500 IContingency IProject Manager. John Goodrich I 113 • • Project # 606-0786 10MG Transfer Pump Station Upgrade 1 Project Description The existing transfer pump station,located on the 10 MG reservoir site at Bull Mountain Road/125th Avenue, serves both the 550-foot and 713-foot service zones.The Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study identified a need to replace this pump station with one that would provide a ' higher pumping capacity to both service zones. Construction of this improvement increases pumping capacity from 2,000 gpm to 3,300 gpm for the 713-foot service zone.The pump station will also provide 3,900 gpm to the 550-foot zone Reservoir No. 2. Along with the piping 1 improvements, the existing pump station at the Canterbury site (Pump Station No. 1) will be abandoned. Location: Bull Mountain Rd. & 125th Ave. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Partially Funded _ t '' Funding Sources: 1 `.2 Water CIP $2,910,000 Total Funding Sources $2,910,000 1 ti \ Funding contingent upon revenue bond tale in FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. • • • 1 1 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design 1 Design& $50,000 Engineering Construction $2,860,000 Contingency Project Manager: Rob Murchison 1 114 1 I • • I Project # 609-0590 550' Reservoir No. 1 IProject Description The City's Water System Hydraulic Master Plan calls for a 550' Zone reservoir on the north side of Bull Mountain to serve that section of the pressure zone. Location: Northside of Bull Mountain Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 IUnfunded I IWater CIP $4.200.000 Total Funding Sources $4,200,000 IFunding contingent upon revenue bond sale in FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. I I I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way I Pre-Design Design& Engineering $200,000 IConstruction $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Contingency I I Project Manager. Rob Murchison I 115 I • Project #606-0296 550' Zone Beaverton Connection ' Project Description The City's water system is currently connected with the City of Beaverton (Joint Water Commission) in the 410' elevation zone.This project will create a second connection to serve the 550' elevation ' zone. This project may also allow the City to delay construction of a 550' zone reservoir on the north side of Bull Mountain for several years. ' Location: n/a Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded t Funding Sources: Water SDC $116,000 Water Fund $ 84,000 Total Funding Sources $200,000 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering Construction $200,000 tContingency Project Manager: Dennis Koellermeier t 116 1 I • • iProject # 608-0681 550' Zone 12" Canterbury Loop Project Description IThis project will involve upsizing of existing water lines to a 12" supply line to feed the Canterbury hill neighborhood in the 550' zone. ILocation: Canterbury Hill Neighborhood Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded I I Funding Sources: I Water CIP $830,000 Total Funding Sources $830,000 Funding contingent upon revenue bond rale in FY 2007-08 and IFY 2010-11. I I I I Fiscal Years I 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way IPre-Design Design& $125,000 Engineering IConstruction $664,000 $41,000 Contingency I I IProject Manager. Rob Murchison 117 • • ' Project # 608-0679 550' Zone 18" Canterbury Supply Line Project Description This project will construct a transmission line from the 10 MG Transfer Pump Station area to the 550' zone around Canterbury hill and will involve crossing Highway 99W. ' Location: Canterbury Hill Neighborhood Status: Proposed FY 2008-09 Unfunded Water CIP $1,415,000 Total Funding Sources $1,415,000. ' Funding contingent upon revenue bond sak in FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way ' Pre-Design Design& $185,000 Engineering Construction $984,000 $246,000 Contingency 1 ' Project Manager. Dennis Koellermeier 118 1 • • Project # 609-0588 ASR 4 Project Description 1 The City will continue to expand its aquifer storage and recovery�well system. It is anticipated that a production well will be drilled and well head improvements installed at a location where testing has occurred and have proven positive. Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2009-10 Unfunded Funding Sources: Water CIP $1,300,000 1 Total Funding Sources $1,300,000 Funding contingent upon avenue bond sale in FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. 1 1 i 1 1 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design 1 Design& $300,000 Engineering Construction $1,000,000 Contingency 1 Project Manager: Rob Murchison 1 119 1 ' • Project # 607-0833 Cathodic Protection of Steel Reservoirs Project Description ' Steel reservoirs are vulnerable to corrosion over time due to exposure to the elements. Installation of impressed (DC voltage) cathodic protection should extend the life of the interior coating of the ' tank up to 15 years. This would defer re-coating of the tank interior until that time. Cathodic Protection Systems are widely used and considered industry standard regarding corrosion control of steel interior water storage tanks. ' Location: TBD Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded = 4 ' ;? Funding Sources: Water Fund $45,000 Total Funding Sources $45,000 - ' .u- '• try � • � ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& Engineering ' Construction $45,000 Contingency Project Manager: John Goodrich 120 • • ' Project # 607-0314 JWC Raw Water Pipeline Project Description This project will include a pipe connection between the JWC treatment plant and the headwork at Scoggins Dam. At present,water from Hagg Lake makes its way to the treatment plant via an open ' channel waterway and the Tualatin River. There are two problems with the existing system. First, the JWC treatment plant must submit a request to the Scoggins Dam control authority to release more water into the open channel system as the demand rises. But the treatment plant can only handle a ' certain volume of water at the intake;any extra water bypasses the plant and continues down the river.Therefore, there is a loss in efficiency. Second,it is estimated that 20%of the water from Scoggins Dam is lost to evaporation prior to reaching the treatment plant. This raw water pipeline ' will allow the JWC to control how much water is released from the dam into the pipe so that only the flow rate needed by the treatment plant will be released. In addition, the pipeline will eliminate the water loss due to evaporation and will provide more capacity to the JWC system. ' Location: Hagg Lake Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded Fundin g Sources: ' Water CIP $7,530,224 tt _ Total Funding Sources $7,530,224 ' Funding contingent upon revenue bond sale in FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. 1 1 ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& $90,000 ' Engineering Construction $1,500,000 $2,970,112 $2,970,112 Contingency ' Project Manager. Brian Rager 121 1 0•I IProject # 607-0439 Scoggins Dam / Tualatin Water Supply Project Description IAs part of obtaining a long term water source for the Tigard service area, the City is partnering with other Joint Water Commission QWC) owners for the Scoggins Dam Raise feasibility report. Raising I the dam would increase the storage volume of Hagg Lake and would therefore provide more capacity for JWC member cities. I Location: Hagg Lake Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded IFunding Sources: Water CIP $5,816,000 r I Total Funding Sources $5,816,000 i.!,'' P- � •~w - Funding contingent upon avenue bond.rate in FY 2007-08 and IFY 2010-11. I I I I Fiscal Years I2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- I of-Way Pre-Design $400,000 $700,000 Design& I Engineering $700,000 Construction $1,016,000 $3,000,000 IContingency I Project Manager: Dennis Koellermeier I 122 • I Ill • I Project # 607-0822 Water Building: Water Conservation Demonstration Garden IProject Description The Water Building,located at the northwest corner of Burnham Street/Hall Boulevard,will be I remodeled on the interior in FY 06/07 to accommodate a temporary and partial consolidation of Public Works.The adjacent street intersection is also a location designated as a downtown entryway. As Tigard continues to support regional water conservation efforts, one way of providing public I education is in the area of landscaping. Tigard currently provides incentives to customers who demonstrate they have installed water-saving elements into their irrigation design. I Another excellent way of providing education to customers is by establishing a demonstration garden that would incorporate a variety of water-saving irrigation features, creative plant selection and layout. Such a demonstration garden located at this City building would provide good access to Ipedestrians who will be visiting the downtown area. Location: Burnham St. and Hall Blvd. Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 IUnfunded I Funding Sources: Water CIP $50.000 Total Funding Sources $50,000 IFunding contingent upon revenue bond sale in FY 2007-08 and FY 2010-11. I I I Fiscal Years I2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- ' of-Way Pre-Design Design& $6,500 I Engineering Construction $43,500 Contingency IProject Manager: Rob Murchison 123 • ' Project # 607-0831 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study Update Project Description The last update for this study was in the Year 2000. Ideally,water system master plans should be updated every five years. However,with Tigard in the process of making a decision for a long-term ' water source, and the selection of the source impacts how the master plan is assembled,it made sense to delay the update until the source decision was made. Staff anticipates a source decision will be made in FY 06/07, so it will be timely to update the master plan in FY 07/08. Location: n/a Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded Funding Sources: Water SDC $100,000 Total Funding Sources $100,000 Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design ' Design& $100,000 Engineering Construction ' Contingency Project Manager: Rob Murchison 124 ' . • ' Project # 607-0832 Water SDC Methodology Update Project Description The methodology for computing water System Development Charges (SDC's) has not been updated since the Year 2000,after the last Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study update.The ' methodology is based upon the anticipated capital improvement needs for the system over a 20-year period. ' When the City makes a long-term water source decision in FY 06/07,it will trigger the need for an update of the water system hydraulic study. Once this effort is completed, the methodology for the SDC's must be updated. ' Location: n/a Status: Proposed FY 2007-08 Unfunded Funding Sources: Water SDC $30.000 Total Funding Sources $30,000 I ' Fiscal Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' Land/Right- of-Way Pre-Design Design& $30,000 Engineering Construction ' Contingency I Project Manager: Dennis Koellermeier 125 1