The URL can be used to link to this page

10/15/2012 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes October 15, 2012 CALL TO ORDER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Walsh Vice President Anderson Commissioner Doherty Commissioner Fitzgerald Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Shavey Absent: Commissioner Ryan; Alt. Commissioner Miller; Alt. Commissioner Armstrong Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Interim Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Marissa Daniels,Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner COMMUNICATIONS This agenda item was moved by President Walsh to the end of the meeting. CONSIDER MINUTES June 4, 2012 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the June 4 minutes; there being none,Walsh declared the minutes approved as submitted. WORKSHOP RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN Associate Planner Marissa Daniels gave an update on the public involvement plan for River Terrace. She covered the following three items and then opened it up for discussion: ❑❑Th Involvement. ❑❑ Details about the River Terrace Community Plan. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 1 of 10 ❑❑ Described the contents of the public involvement plan. She advised the commissioners that Sr. Planner, Darren Wyss,would be back in November to give a comprehensive overview of the project. She noted that there would be Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) meetings and that a Planning Commission member would be invited to participate in that.The committee will act as an advisory body to staff and provide a venue for citizen involvement opportunities in planning for River Terrace. The first message was sent . Daniels noted that one of the benefits of following from Washington County is that they passed to Tigard a list of over a 100 contacts for this project. She added that the commissioners were welcome to join that listsery online at the City website and noted that the first kick-off meeting for the project would be held Wednesday, October 24th near the general River Terrace area at Deer Creek Elementary School. She invited the Commissioners to attend and left postcards at the podium for them to pick up if they wanted more information on that and wanted to attend. Questions from the Commissioners of Daniels What is the role of the River Terrace Community Plan as a whole? they come through the legislative adoption process. Th (Exhibit A). You can see there that different topics will come through at different times to the Commission before the final adoption of the plan. Staff will keep the Commission updated and engaged throughout so that they will be prepared for that process at those different points. Questions of Interim CD Director, Tom McGuire Referring to the current staff issues-where does this pr jectfat in your priorities with everything else you have going on with planning staff right now?This project is one of the and one of their top priorities. We have Darren Wyss as the project manager and he will be moving this forward. In addition, we hired a local land use consultant,John Spencer,who will primarily help to manage the long range projects and assist me. So this project will move forward. Darren will be here in November to update the Commission on the processes and where this is going. At this point, President Walsh took a quick poll of the audience and noted that a majority of the people present were there for the Connectivity Agenda item. He decided to change the agenda order and moved the public hearing on connectivity to the next order of business. President Walsh opened the public hearing: PUBLIC HEARING - CPA2012-00001/DCA2012-00002 TIGARD DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS REQUEST:To amend the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan to add background and figures and to amend the Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters 18.370, 18.610 and 18.810 to implement new street connections. The complete text of the http://www.tigard- or.gov/connectivity LOCATION: Downtown District. ZONE: MU-CBD. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 2 of 10 STAFF REPORT Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager introduced himself and also introduced Cathy Corliss who was there as a consultant with Angelo Planning Group and had worked on developing some of the code language for this amendment. Farrelly went over a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (Exhibit B). He turned the presentation regarding the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.610 over to Ms. Corliss. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this request for a Comp Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendments meets the necessary approval criteria according to the findings found in Section IV of the staff report. Staff recommends approval of CPA2012-00001 and DCA2012-00002. PUBLIC COMMENT TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Blvd Tigard 97223 Mr. Craghead is the chair of the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and present on behalf of the CCAC. He noted they had reviewed this quite thoroughly over several meetings (and stated that that was an understatement). represent an accumulation of over five years of effort on behalf of the CCAC to carve the future transportation systems for downtown Tigard. The CCAC believes this plan achieves connectivity goals and that the right amount of flexibility is built into the plan. He had participated in the outreach of the property owners and heard the various concerns. He said he saw response from staff addressing those concerns while still achieving the goals. In closing, Craghead said the CCAC recommends the Planning Commission approve these amendments. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Cecilia Thompson 1847 N. 150 E Centerville, UT She and her husband own a 67 unit apartment building in the area. They are concerned about the safety and security of the tenants if they have to have paths going through the area. They do not want to provide pedestrian and bike paths through the property. She said this is private property. If the plan goes through, she believes the property would be worth less. nts regarding connectivity and requests that her whole lot be exempt from this. dream. Russ Little PO Box 1006 Tualatin, OR 97062 He is one of the property owners in the Rite Aid center. His property currently houses Woodcraft. oncerned that dividing his property into three pieces would decrease the value of his property. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 3 of 10 David Wilson 12375 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard 97223 Spoke in favor of the Scoffins collector. He said you should actually call it the Hunziker collector because it would be part of Hunziker. He believes it would reduce some of the cross traffic in front of Rite Aid and Woodcrafters. Owen Snyder 15400 SW Alderbrook Drive, Tigard Mr. Snyder stated he owns some properties in the Scoffins realignment in area map #4 where it shows the connector being made with Hunziker. He had the following clarification question: During that realignment, - what is the intended use of the existing street?Farrelly answered him. No final decision has been made because we - but a possible idea is that when that property is purchased from the owner of that apartment building to purchase the entire property and that abandoned ROW could be consolidated with the remaining property to present a parcel big enough to redevelop. icular usage intended at this time? Nothing definite has been decided, but a good viable option would be to swap that ROW with that property owner to have a parcel that can be redeveloped. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY President Walsh then opened the meeting up for questions by the commissioners. One of the commissioners commented that,if it goes through, she would like to see that there will be some sort of help from the City for the owners of businesses to plan for redevelopment. She believes the owners have some legitimate concerns. Cathy Corliss said that all property owners would have to agree on whether the connections through the Rite- Aid block takes place. not quite the same as the way we would do in the viaduct. There were some questions regarding the near term redevelopment problems that could be created. The hope was that flexibility is built in of what could be done. Farrelly noted this is a discretionary process and that there is flexibility for line adjustments. There was a question of CCAC Chair Craghead as to whether he believes there is flexibility built into the plan. Craghead said what the CCAC is looking for is clarity because a lot of developers are not going to because not a benefit. In this e noted there appears to be no concern about having flexibility. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATIONS President Walsh asked the commissioners their thoughts on this. Commissioner Doherty noted that this is not a connectivity plan that has just been thrown together. She mentioned that Chair Craghead had noted the five years of planning and discussions that had gone on. She is confident the City would work with the people who I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 4 of 10 brought up concerns down the road if, indeed, it gets to the point that the connectivity had a tremendous amount of input. But again I would want the City to work with people who have issues. Commissioner Shavey believes this vision is a pretty strong picture of what can and may very well happen in downtown and thinks the Commission should make this recommendation to Council. Commissioner Muldoon recommends a change on the Rite-Aid block simply list the end points and let that connectivity be determined as the redevelopment happens. Commissioner Anderson believes this is a good plan overall. There are no priorities listed on the streets and, if there were, he believes the two pieces that were talked about tonight would be low priority and probably among the last to be implemented. He believes that certainly the ones on Main Street and connecting some of the alleys are obvious and should be written in stone. He thinks putting end points would be good let the developer work with the City to determine the street lines. Commissioner Rogers is generally happy with this but is a bit concerned about the Woodcraft building. He thinks it affects that particular owner on two sides of their building Commissioner Schmidt would hate to burden any property owner with a condition like that that would affect their current value much less what it would be 20 or 30 years down the road. Commissioner Fitzgerald appreciates the 5 years of work getting to this point. She thinks this could energize Tigard and put it on the path to having a really livable downtown community. She has two exceptions: she would like a piece of language to be readjusted a little differently. She would also like Tom McGuire to be a little more specific on how the code language could be addressed. That code language piece would help the Woodcraft out affecting the overall draft. President Walsh likes the plan overall but has near term concerns. Are we creating a burden for the existing landowners? He hopes there is flexibility and thinks there is. He would like to see a softer line across the Rite Aid area and not having as defined a pathway as now and he also has concerns in that large block where the Thompson property is. President Walsh said he would reopen the hearing so he can hear from Tom McGuire and get some guidance on how to do that. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED President Walsh asked Tom McGuire Is it possible to amend the language and pass this tonight McGuire said i be a challenge to have the exact language as an amendment tonight. President Walsh suggested that they take a recess from this hearing so McGuire and Cathy Corliss can get together and talk about this while the next public hearing takes place. They would then bring it back to the Commissioners at which time they would reopen the I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 5 of 10 hearing. McGuire and the Commissioners agreed this was a good idea. President Walsh also decided that they would take a six minute break before the next public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (to be reopened following the next public hearing.) SIX MINUTE RECESS PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROJECTIONS OPENED PUBLIC HEARING DCA2012-00001 PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARDS REQUEST: Amend Chapter 18.730.050.D of the Community Development Code to allow, in the R-12 Zone, bay windows and pop outs with floor area to project into required side yards by one foot provided they do not: a) exceed 12 feet in length, b) contain over 30% of the dwelling unit side elevation square footage, and c) the width of the approved side yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R-12. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Walsh read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: None; No challenges of the jurisdiction of the commission; no conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner,presented the staff report. [The staff report is available one week before the hearing.] STAFF ANALYSIS: As demonstrated in the application and the findings in the staff report, the proposed amendment complies with the applicable state planning goals, City Comprehensive Plan The code amendment anticipates narrow lot subdivisions in the R-12 zone while maintaining BLI there are 30 lots over 10,000 square feet in size totaling 35.46 acres. The West Bull Mt. Community Plan designates approximately 70 gross acres as medium density residential, which includes the R-7, 12, and 25 zones, some portion of which will likely be zoned R-12 under the River Terrace planning process. The Exceptions to Development Standards chapter already allows projections into required yards. However, the proposed amendment would dramatically expand the potential impact of those projections from minor architectural features to up to 30% of the side elevation. Whereas these impacts may be acceptable to buyers of new homes on narrow lots, the impact to existing residents on adjacent properties may be perceived as more adverse. To limit potential adverse impacts, staff recommends projections be limited to yards interior to the subdivision. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 6 of 10 The purpose of the Exceptions to Development Standards is to provide more flexible setback standards designed to allow for the maximum use of land and to allow for a varied building layout pattern while ensuring there will be adequate open space, light, air and distance between buildings to protect public health and safety. The 2011 Oregon Residential Specialty Code requires a minimum fire separation distance of three feet from the property line. The proposed code amendment would limit projections with floor area into required yards to this minimum. Staff recommends the following amended language (page 6, staff report): 5. In the R-12 Zone, bay windows and pop-eats projections with floor area may project into required interior side and street side yards by one foot provided they do not: a) exceed 12 feet in length, b) contain over 30% of the dwelling unit side elevation square footage, and c) the width of the approved interior side yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet. APPLICANT TESTIMONY Ryan 0 rien 1862 NE Estate Drive, Hillsboro, OR believes R12 is the zone he City of Hillsboro allows it in all zones. It helps the interior of the houses look much better. Also the elevations of street side corner lots look a lot better with the pop-outs and bay windows. 0 rien mentioned that Mark Dane was planning on being there to testify on behalf of this, . He will submit his testimony of support in writing at a later time. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS Would this add sales value to these designs? President Walsh added that he believed the application package was outstanding and that it was very helpful to the commissioners. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Katie Patterson, 2005 NW 119th, Portland 97029 represents two different builders, Sage Built Homes and Greenwood Homes. Ms. Patterson stated that Sage Built has an ownership at the Everett Terrace Subdivision which is 14 lots on 96th and Greenburg right across from the Everett Homes Subdivision of Solera, and that Solera did build with these popouts even though they were not technically approved - and all of those houses were approved by the City of Tigard. She stated that she thinks the standard has already been set and that this is something that aesthetically looked fine. Ms. Patterson is in favor in large part because she believes that what looks to be a very small change (1 foot) on the outside of the house, can make a huge difference with regard to livability on the inside. She stated that areas like dining rooms may have a 6 8 foot table that typically fit a smaller room - so the pop outs can make a big difference in that regard. The interior really makes a difference. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None TESTIMONY CLOSED I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 7 of 10 MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Shavey. I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for application DCA2012-00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and based on the testimony The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson; Commissioner Doherty; Commissioner Fitzgerald; Commissioner Muldoon; Commissioner Rogers; Commissioner Schmidt; Commissioner Shavey, and President Walsh NAYS: None. ABSTAINERS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ryan PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED AT 9:37pm Tom McGuire, Sean Farrelly, and Cathy Corliss had been discussing possible solutions to the issues the Commission had wanted them to talk about. Farrelly addressed the Rite-Aid property solution; the solution being a redrawing of the line to be more curved so the property would be affected on one side only. There was lengthy discussion about the other issues which President Walsh summarized at the end as follows: ❑❑The ADA is needs to be addressed as specified by staff. ❑❑Come up with a different concept for the line in front of Rite-Aid and how it finishes off on the far side around the Woodcraft property. ❑❑Staff will draft some language and add it so that it would handle any catastrophic ❑❑Leave the pedestrian/bicycle access alone. Leave as is. At this point, Sean Farrelly reminded the Commission that they would also need to address the things that had come up at the Council workshop that had been outlined in his PowerPoint presentation. Farrelly reminded them of the four suggestions: An alley along the park and ride that connects to new street through Public Works For Tigard/Burnham connection, straighten out. Put into a different classification (desired connection if the viaduct is reconstructed). I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 8 of 10 Footnote to allow flexible design standards for the street near Fanno Creek park. Reduced ROW, pervious pavers. (This would have to be fleshed out at Council the question would be are you, in concept, okay with that suggestion.) Curve new street that goes through City Hall and Verizon. Farrelly said in concept if the Commission is comfortable with those suggestions they would be fleshed out at Council. None of the Commissioners had issue with those suggestions so they were ready to make a motion. MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald: City Council of application CPA2012-00001 & DCA2012-00002 as amended with four amendments: first, where staff will add catastrophic event language addressing fire and similar issues; second, that the line in the designated property [Woodcraft] be adjusted as projected by staff; third, that the ADA language be addressed as specified by staff; and last, that four adjustments be fleshed out with staff with the Council and that would otherwise be approved as contained in the staff report and based on the testimony provided tonight. The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson; Commissioner Doherty; Commissioner Fitzgerald; Commissioner Muldoon; Commissioner Rogers; Commissioner Schmidt; Commissioner Shavey, and President Walsh NAYS: None. ABSTAINERS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ryan President Walsh asked staff to send an email out to the Commission when the language is drafted. This will go to City Council on December 11th. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING ON DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS There was a brief report by Vice President Anderson on his meeting with the Tigard Population and Housing Review committee. The first meeting included a consultant who talked about what our housing is today in Tigard and what we need to do and address. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-00001\tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 9 of 10 Basically, he said "we're in pretty good shape with zoning and land. We just need to address maybe some lower income housing. We'll talk about this at the next meeting." Commissioner Muldoon had come up with a presentation that he would like to present to Council regarding business clusters and economic development. He asked the Commission to take a look at it. (He'd distributed it to them earlier.) President Walsh said the Planning Commission would need to take a look at it before Commissioner Muldoon presented it— so they could give feedback to him. Muldoon would eventually like to engage council in a workshop format so they can have discussion on it. President Walsh would like to invite Councilor Woodard, as the Planning Commission's Council liaison, to come in to talk to the Commission about economic development and then have a discussion with Council— perhaps at the meeting when Greater Portland Inc. (the consultant who had to cancel at the last minute but would reschedule to another date) would be there. President Walsh asked that whoever attends the joint Council workshop the next evening would bring back information for the Planning Commission as to what had transpired. OTHER BUSINESS Tom McGuire reminded the commissioners that November would be the annual revisiting of development of Council Goals for next year. He reminded the Commissioners to start thinking about that now. It's on the agenda for the November 5th meeting. He asked that they think about what they'd like to recommend to Council for their suggestions for Council Goals for 2013 and then talk about it at the next meeting in November. President Walsh asked Doreen Laughlin if she would be responsible to get a simple matrix out to everybody before the next meeting so they'd have something to think about. He wanted the matrix to list the Council's goals, the Planning Commission's suggested goals, and show what the progress is on them. She agreed to do that. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Co 40 sion Secretary ATTEST: Acting President Tom Anderson I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission 1.2012 Packets\101512-Briefing RT-PH DCA2012-00001&PH CPA2012-D0001\tpc 101512 min utes.docx Page 10 of 10 DRAFT 10/8/12 community. This includes a series of community open houses throughout the process, as well as a citizen advisory committee and technical advisory committee. In addition to land use, the City Council will need to approve a River Terrace financial plan which will help pay for the construction of required new infrastructure and its operations and maintenance. This may include changes to development charges for parks, storm water management, sanitary sewers, water, and transportation improvements. It will also be important to address whether or not other special assessments will be needed for land use and building permits, as well as utility rates to ultimately recoup the investment the city makes in completing the community plan. Schedule General Timeframe-River Terrace Community Plan 2012 2013 2014 Task 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Public lnvolvement/TAC/SWG Adopt WBMCP Goal 5 Natural Resources Parks Master Plan&SDC Update Water Master Plan Update Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Stormwater Master Plan Update Comp Plan/Zoning Maps and Regulations Transportation System Plan Update Public Facility Plan Update Infrastructure Financing Strategy Community Meeting I Stakeholder Working Group Meeting 41 City Council Hearing CD Technical Advisory Committee Meeting * Planning Commission Hearing Project Phases 0 0 Project Kickoff ❑❑ Council acceptance/adoption of the WBMCP ❑❑ CCI approval of the Public Involvement Plan ❑❑ Get the word out ❑❑ Launch Stakeholder Working Group and Technical Advisory Committee 0 0 Launch Tasks ❑❑ Assessment and Collaboration ❑❑ Plan Preparation 0 0 Adoption Process CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done TWARD Downtown Connectivity Plan Code Amendments CPA 2012-00001 DCA2O12-00002 Planning Commission Public Hearing I October 15, 2012 -w• • '. :; "fi } . . ii V ;114- .. . . • . _,_. :._ / - - - Existing r .,..,. .... - _ .. • . .... C i. ,......,. . , , .t� _ . - - . Area: .- • - M ,' F, - Tigard Downtown Urban al - - / • 4 Renewal District (193 acres) (5 r,itcr _ . Arnim Y °4., Existing conditions : ,:,.� • .•1 Limited connections '` 4 • and connectivity - _ . k• 11'.a y Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan Foundation Documents ....--)e,----- i 'Pt, . //if . do/ yk , I dl.' _ ., . ...c }+ ' y# ' ,.....1.r,.. .rovr : I N 1 .--\% ..•�IF Tigard Downtown r- —r. Future Vision: xh;k il d Visual.Felinemert Ileen.die .i. -.. +x � at tIi T[HP 4 it ,. I , ....-4 %. / . , ... , .14 ii. `"-.: 111 • \\11. 114 . :..,..r:14 �_ '+ � 111 y 9.M1 'h k '�� F .....trY-i �.. � e..... 5,.... . trwtiL....HrYL+. SGIW?119-h'NMl VPLAri6AGFIL I J\i•41Ii 11'FS 1' tIIlFlllli.I + i Kl6irll �� 'Mr gFtl111N �gr4- 4 ' 4.H~ ih 1Ff Yiw g.. 4i.` ••:air. Yi tTr." 110644.0 r.4kC.. CCINIY ., 3 Conceptual Connectivity Plan Objectives Connectivity: Foster the creation of smaller block structures, consistent with the walkable urban village envisioned by the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan . Circulation : Create efficient routes into and around the Downtown . Capacity: Create parallel streets to accommodate the demand created by new Downtown development. Implementation of the Plan Proposed code requirements to implement vision : Recognize that improvements will likely be done incrementally over 50 years or longer as individual properties redevelop Provide as much flexibility as possible while still ensuring that connections get made Two elements new connections and new cross-sections Proposed Amendments: CPA 2012-00001 DCA2012-00002 Transportation System Plan to add background and figures TDC 18.370 to add adjustments to the connectivity requirements TDC 18.610 to add purpose, applicability and connectivity standards TDC 18.810 to add new downtown cross-sections ,x i ' 1fL & ,• • • '-, '' cif -I ,` TSP Amendments: fr *� Proposed New Streets u } g. • % • .' .' % Detailed maps showing 'f. f- ,� , , + -.4 rizi .t ,� ,J _ . 4the future streets are . , .., -.t •{ 'i proposedtobeaddedto 1*' rl' - .., ., 4ciF di-7 1_ the TSP so that it is clear '= '` %'* `� # ,4•.r ',A.:' : . - where future streets are • .; • . expected to go and how ..-/ '...7......, • ' 14 -* ` . .: . much right-of-way is • • { : { ' • . .....• . ' IL needed • + . ' 1 Casarnal•r q . al . .km Ea .. oc*nk«I LLL.ad Um s Loren .' '• • _ • • appeR.Fir},\'.mh-RaFomC hbrai, Emkl:�Soars Ca'llrq 74+a'pMAwh 4.-.:y{-W— —,_S ` MAUI igac 111rrA 1 4MIRO In x.t41:Intl 4:M.,rIN r.1..... . %'-..,. Figure 5-14Connectivky Projects Index Map TSP Amendments . . . « ®®0' — Lx15brig Streets . _ Railroads _ — # ■ ` OP . Ad lilt f e , ti max ' 1 I ~ « 'te. e.r J . ' 7 . %f \ —1 • �\ Cb / • « . : x .4. Tr- L_ . y , » . a 4 ~ % , . / a . / 6 N \N & , % 7 r 8 . ----\ % 1 /x | , & \ � y . ! , wa -E2 @# mi—, I I , Figure 5-14B_ Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 1 TSP Amendments Street UhafacterType Future Connectivrty Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Cott kOr) Required bikefpedestrrarl connedtions Downtown MI xed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residenual (52'-56) Taxlots -•' Ailey{20') Note. ire width oe the.Future Connectredy Airgerne,?r Areas equal'to MO upper end o.+the right-or-way rerrge Irsted far The street character type. ..e— - -- it k \ - - "1. __I , ... rte ' w'. .\ ;- le ammipe, .. ....,....2" c'o . .A014,1 \ , ..... „ . -7-- - *1 t • + 1 • . • NA: :.. p.1 lar ( t } i 4 ffir illilir'S , x. • 4 .! '' ' '+ - R. # i 414 • "1( . ./\00,:,.....5., \ / : .'lliPAN ; 4 i it: r I - y. ; Figure 5-14C. Connectivity Projects (Mail 5hor t: WI) g TSP Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (CoIrecter) C : Required bike.pedestrrart connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (.52'-56') Taxlots -- Alley(20) Nate Pre mdrh cd the Frlhue5 Currnecbwdy keyimevri,4r ea rs.+yawl it,the uppet end of Ihe r►SAhu-r'-Ivry rr?rrrA•rrs ENi tat the street rhnrartef type. '}./...‹.., ' \\77 Ift • 5f1(Vr•4" ..(< X .2\ \\.....: f � % ( 7 s•••)<N. . ' N. . , N. L { _ p • ` -'- x \ V. N,..: .. 2".\*'eL 'Z oaiii . li ip*, . /7. ::,. . \\,.../446: ,,, / 2.'.. 'KnA • ' N''' \\* / ' , Pr t 00. ..... , ", • ' / ir•/:',. ':-•-•:./".;(01...;!-. 10 Figure 5-140. Connectivity Projects Detail S : Map3 Street cmmEelrType FuIrueConnectivity AlignmentAr Downtown Mixe 1 (Cecor) EZI Required.••r: Required bikeipedestrianian conn »n Downtown Mixed Use2(Loml Existing Streets Urban Residential (5 mE) Tax lots -- Alley(2e) N :The_th¥lio Figure Corinectrvely A _N' .1z 7/i.:} upper end 7 w,r T-_I M fat the fareer ithi3r.w.riv¥ , . x ' ` / N•s4r.:)3X)"' . ` y `` _ ypz 2.' ` - , . 4 . . I \ . . > x 2 % . . - x . \ •,/:!:!. - "...7 z4 . % .. . » ` • » °\; Z . P. 4 . • . t . . .. . I . . . w . ® ' % �� b. . �� ` � z . ; Ph 01. 1 ' \ \\ . : . iiii . , • 0, .\\;:\...k.:L\ \ ......„.../ \‘‘.. \ \' •... oririiAr' .. lir ,.." '...,/ • 1 7\i.:,.. . ^ � - -2 . ` `@ ' . . 11 m g n 14E. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheer: Uap4 TSP Amendments Street Cracter TyFuture Conn env Alignment Area Downtown Mixed u$e 1 (Collector) ] Required 4i %e men ounnedk4ons Downtown Mixed U 2 2(Local) Existing Streets Urn Residential (52'-56') Taxi0tS –– Alley (20'1 Nue: The _J Lr G_Emma:Dory kirprnerg Area,equal?ID the uppOr end or the J.krid-al-way @ tar Tho O diaraclor rygv R .•( % 11,:tqw. ..,. , k • . • „....4,- [ .. - / . , - � , - . ! . \� . \ / _ , . ^ }� .. + / • 1W11. 1 . - ,...• .•. 16 . ' . .. . . ' k . z .. -- .—. - ... % . . . . . f \i% . / - I • . z : , \ . ' . '• K > _ ' . . . , / � , -» ` ° • •• 4 \ �`` ' • . y . . . y 11 . : � « \ a " /- . •. , . * \x . 12 Figure 44F. Connectivity Projects Detail sheet: Map 5 TSP Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivily&igm t Area Downtown Mixed Use .1 (Collector) M Required hike/pedestrian connedcns Downtown Mixed Use 2(Local) Existing Seets UrbenResidential 52- ) T xUs -- Alley(20') Abor.e: ripe odor■.rhe Future c_rwymi_rArea o equaler Ltirwer end OI?e y _ hots Wreel rhafart-type- - ' • . f \ -41 F ' . - ■ / `'4 - • %\ wiit x zI , 4. , . 4bialt 241111111t 1 . ; . i. . � , . . . � . av z . z . // . . . r . _ . ' ' . ` \ . . �. / -. . / I, 9 > ..Z\,.. y1. • • . % i. � �. \\ ik . -% I4. . - - • ; % a > ® ' O` _ a. \ . i . / T/ S\._� ' - # : ® . n. « . . L. I �/ ^ . . . A. 13 Figure 5-14G. Connectivity Projects D m| Sheet: Map 6 TSP Amendments Street CJi qcterType Future CO #ehity Alignment Area DOwntcrwn Mixed Use 1 (clec#§ 21 Requtrecibkirem mm #Ok § Downtown Midus2 (L R Existing Streets UrbanResidential (5Z-56') T» s - - Alley(217) N* R¥ ,at Furitto CaingeliviryCiA , #m a agetair To aro rffer'ra rho r .+_f range Jived mar the street character type. ~ ` ‘7" *f / /� , i'frTeillit . . . ~ >� N • 2 . . . . 11)111° > , . , , ' z . , . . , % . \ .,,,.... _pt. . - � ._ ........, .. . ..,,,,, , . , ,,,,,,,( { \ .414' , /' " �� l • : � . �� . • \ :.. . ^ \■ �/ . � • i -St- a � - 4 j % . ® 4611:211:/‘ ,. -''`® . . [ r �z . � . � ed A .- . ' . . � W ..• -11P ^ ' / 14 Figure 5-14H. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 7 TSP Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 {Collector} Required bike/pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2{Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52'-56) Taxlots —- Alley (20') fyrri'to. The width of ttFil.Fdlh.+la Connoc slyA wnf Area is wpm'fcr Ow upper and.al rho i I.d-way rave&fedi°,the 5Ereei arm atter type_ E.. , *Olt .. IF 4 4.:.". ..N.4 • 1 f • ..\ • .,. .1 e . 0 , _/ 0 . .. . 4111 ,..,.- i • • ..,::. jo "... ' f� "IOU ill 1111 U P i I !!If }4 t . , Figure ]q. Connectivity P�]oectsDetail Sheet: Map 8 TSP Amendments Street Character Type Faure Com■d w9 AlignmentAma Downtown Mixed Us (CAKt) Required NG/pdkURconnections Downtown AXE Use2(L1) Existing St B Urban R»mmal (55 ) T2X1¢■ -- Alley 90) ■_ m.m»#rbe.E_, .,_ym ,_r 6 equal to Ow upper endow mommy «w Agtaii Ira OM.rf-r Via. ir� 1 - ddi; - ƒ' II . . ■ y - »�: . �„ . . 9 I / Z ` . \ � 2 ` I .. % . .. . - -. _ \ - 3 i .• • . ■ _ a, 1 | , , E . . . � � � | a a , . }. � � - . | . � � __ � / � _ � ; \ � \ _ � � p �: . .! �� . . � • } , >` . _ 3 Figure 5.2a Downtown Street Character Proposed StreetI .%;r124,/ Types r- Character Types - . „ • r • 66, 4. fi } k t 1 Downtown Street Character Types. -Upper Hall Boulevard*” -Mew Street Green Street • . Doymtawn Mixed Use 1 (c•ollecpor) -Downtown.Murgd Use 2{hleiQhktiprhppp} \ • -Downtown M•4ed Use 3;Upper Burnham: -Dowrllawn Mrxee Use 4;Lo»Ir Burnham! Urban Res.rtlenbae - klley. Busrneaa 0 250 540 1,000 Coat I I r i I i • i I 0.154ed fines+ndrearo purWQsedsbmofs - Ober Streets {w enak•"ero A curt,..Cy an cool-uepe•. Coon. •I 7.eeenduas r e}eupeieede thee,gut-duds ea brg - Reilraads 51!.S r+orto r molly • Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) Special street character and cross sections with enhanced streetscape design For existing streets as well as future street connections Applied when the city improves a street or when a private developer has to make full- or half- street improvements as a part of their development Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.810 : New Cross-Sections Current Future Scoffins Street is a Collector Scoffins Street is with Downtown Mixed Use 1 Character Type \<f 15,. dr'S' - Ill. .' 1 T C ik .s. • Q4/} Filart lP.1141 i.LIt,9er is�lr Ci e.t S.�elub. Or. _,x `' *# 4. f _ in i y I. , N. .. - wV r .7Gh:IIt._ _. -7 7'! ilr-F,77z=-1+ . ite* • - a.. ,-;•11 • JI401;;;Rif 1 — . F lt . ilAV - M. \' ‘APq le 4W 37 . I5lsilhif hW 19 18.810 Street Character 1 . .. . _ : ...-. . .. ._ . . . ..... . :e 'IM=11110 • Orr- ' ti r. . I t ....•-•-• * iF } 4M1} 1 4' / a i I ■ 3� _ ,' i.: 1111M. \\\A MI 1V E' 6' 11 I# I I 7 0 la or Rn':4' Hall Boulevard - Downtown — Upper SW Hall Blvd. is currently an ODOT facility. The 2035 Tigard Transportation System Plan recommends that a corridor plan be completed for the SW Hall Blvd. Corridor The street character standards for Upper Hall Boulevard shall not be considered final until the corridor plan is complete. 18.810 Street Character II4, 01 .. s,ti .. s,,' . . .... .......,„.,... ..k. . . , __ . ... . • �y. • . . ;fir ;. y 1,- 44/1 .= ' ' .,L A• .Nli i :1111 14 it _ ii#i• ,� ._ - IIP IL — — • ,. ,- — I 1o'-T2' 8 II1 til 5' 8' I(Y-12' I 6-7o ROW Downtown Mixed Use 1 — Downtown Collector 18.810 Street Character ___ 1 1 r.P X - ,.., "4.. .A*. : E ._ _ .- i"' '' — ril - r"...' K "- Ilik i L-- 1 I .\\%4 Ilk 11/1:z. A mixed use resIdenti al 10'-1 2 ,. I I i 1' 1 Q' 1O -12' fnlxed use residential 55-62-ROW Downtown Mixed Use 2 - Downtown Neighborhood 18.810 Street Character .i.1 1 . .: ,.; : IV - f.. r1. .6 •..':a ' 1. ■ _-. 11 o li, aa +[ _ \ .^r ._ _ I SI g. •• @leg lii •;.:•.1.f 1..1111111111111.1 Downtown Mixed Use 3 - Upper Burnham 411 . , . • .. . .. . , .... :,..„...,... __,_ , . .....„ ....:,,f ___.. . . ., _. , .,..„-_.,- ..„.; ..;.'i.' civ.,: _ 4 ••. 411 • ,,gik,.. ,,,,,,i 1 Zak . - 10'-12' 1 8' 10' !2• 10• 8' 10-I2 d9-72'KM Downtown Mixed Use 4 — Lower Burnham 18.810 Street Character 4. r \lit ,0146 _ . illi Q 10'-12' 71a' T 10-12' IVSkI 8121 57-Stir FON Downtown — Urban Residential i ii PER.1E'&E 2 V ROW Downtown - Alley Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.610 (Tigard Downtown District Development & Design Standards) New Section 18. 610.025 (Connectivity) References TSP connectivity maps Establishes three sets of standards : New Development and Major Redevelopment All other projects Pedestrian Pathways Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18 . 610 New Development and Major Redevelopment Major Redevelopment = valued at more than 60% of its total current value as assessed by the Washington County assessor Dedicate the required right-of-way (or dedicate a public easement if approved by City Engineer) Construct the required improvements Changes to landscaping requirement in Table 18.610. 1 to allow applicant to count landscaping that was part of a required street improvement Proposed Amendments to 18 . 610 Chapter All Other Projects Redevelopment = project valued at 60% or less than its total current value as assessed by the Washington County assessor Preserve the potential for a future connectivity improvement No new buildings within future alignment Surface parking, landscaping, temporary structures, driveways and similar types of development are allowed Sign a non-remonstrance to future Local Improvement District ( LID) Proposed Amendments to 18 . 610 Chapter Required New Pedestrian Pathway For new development and major iv. ..r.-10,,,,, 1 *7 J y redevelopment within the area . -• ',7 ,,,N,,77-11, 1F, designated for required multi-use er ; : .n 1L pathway \ ., :.>: '1' ii r----- Provide multi-use pathwayon public y ' i::: 11 easements or right-of-ways which ' a r / i j , ,0 ensures connections through the block \ .. . .\ say. ''',., -- -, .2 at least every 330 feet Pathways: . it �� Direct connection - 4 ; ADA accessible - _ • Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18 . 370 Adjustments to Connectivity Standards Type II procedure Criteria: Equally or better meet downtown design principles outlined in the TSP Applying the standards would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site Potential for a future connection is preserved No adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees Rough Proportionality 18.810.020 General Provisions A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Public Involvement Project Website CCAC Principles Technical Advisory Committee Open House CCAC review over several meetings City Council, Planning Commission, and Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee workshops Property owners meetings 2nd Open House Citizen Comments Five written comments : One supportive, two neutral, two opposed Eight phone / in person contacts- asked questions about how it would effect them . One made a specific suggestion to delete a proposed connection . Agency Comments TVF& R and TriMet supportive ODOT comments response in staff report Council Workshop Feedback Alley along the park and ride that connects to to Hall ) For Tigard/Burnham connection, straighten out. Put into a different classification (desired connection if the viaduct is reconstructed ) . Footnote to allow flexible design standards for the street near Fanno Creek park. Reduced ROW, pervious pavers. Curve new street that goes through City Hall and Verizon . , .," , „ .... \ , ,. ., , , rit,. . ,, .4,,t, .. , ,.., . .. .„ .... ,„ , r,_ 3 ,,, e , '% .. . N. *. , -," - 4 refr\'64 '''' \ '-' \ -'.\ /it\ \ \ / \iteliii.jillp,i • :\ ' ..- 1•1144 • .4. / i\..'" ' i \ / . .. % 4 A 4 P4.+ 4* '1 I 40t.4 0 V% \ / .410,..i/y \44,..4' / ,.. \ '•*, 7 , A. -..L. . ••"A.-%. • S-. /: ,04;s\ 400:0 r ,10• \ t $ R tet. a*. i f t t- . *Elf 11 V d 41IP`' / \ .\ 141. ' \ MO S el, r r,a , / 0- _ \•N Or ; Te •, i • M1 .0 i �l \‘-‘‘r .y7a * 4 % -y t ff +� 'x } 14' f 01 F / # ./"'" 77'FF 151114e -d' t {i 004,_ 4. / \ 'fin • < - ~k ' { �} , \rw 35 Figure 5-140. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Mali 3 Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) EZI Required bikeipedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2(Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52'-56') Tax lots -- Alley(20') Nate:The wodtfi ti the Future Connectrve y Akgrunerrt.4re.1 JS equa/ro:be upper end of the rrgtrt-of-way rnr1J,alist ra fat the.,treefcWr.w.riv ryprh k ' ,x } r ♦ .- N' - ' Allh . ..... . Conceptual connection to be41- sdr coordinated if significant changes to viaduct are proposed. } .. flk. S. ...''..;::'.• X t . e• • f M1 .T- r ~� •` �T { epee/ ST 4 . , . 07 .14/410 • ii'' • • A Yom'♦ ♦ lk \ ..... .". ...›.., \ '`•,, + F h 36 - » . , / �� . +a, 0 , , � . / . . y � • . - - ® w ,_ . � - » 40. - ' z � 2 « � . _ . f2f » - a � ' . \ . .v: IL... _D ,\ , / { f z : \ • ? :N. } . %40 •: , Ji G to, ,...4' 4% % . y . 4 &> > ' v 4. . . y y>�/ \ - ` &®�• - Allow flexible _ i. ° _ - % � • . design standards ' . \ ' _ . T forth e street ph* , i SI _ ~ • near F8nn0L.N � � � ® St .. . . il Creek park. . �\ Illti w �. Reduced ROS, . - m pervious pavers. , . . . ' : / . T. . 2-.t -• Al,' • . - i x : . � . - . • -• ' 4\ . , , 1 ' \ - . . ` . - iiii4.41441: . . g = _ ■ � . : . ,!t/T.: § ! z ■ II y � -s s; yy / \ ■ / � ' ' .--11F 37 Figure 5141, Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet; Map 8 TSP Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use ? (Collector) Required bike pedesman connections Downtown Mixed Use 2(L c-al) Existing Streets Urban RRvdeniial (52'-56') TaxIQt$ - Alley{20) JYexe. The Airier thr pae FfinifiEl C iracr:Wry Aliq.nerh:rar Arm r;equal ro d 2 epper end of flee r^9t-cl-ow range ASrarl for the Atraar r1rrdnctnr typo. , ....\\lir T./ .- '\ ....... 4. • { _ N " e _.._ ,. . ..\..„ . ,. ... , . . ,. , 00001,. . liillk * • . ( , , 41,ty,.2. i . __....., \ t • . ...... 1, . ...... .. 1 Vi 4�y 4y 1 � R 5 1111 1 Vii,,A - • yr .. I all _• 1 vi. _..... 4*.. Findings : As found in the staff report, the proposed amendments meet the necessary approval criteria from the : Tigard Development Code Tigard Comprehensive Plan Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan Oregon Administrative Rules Statewide Planning Goals Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends Planning Commission recommend approval of the code amendments to Council