The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Packet - 04/17/2000 POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. City of Tigard TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION �,��y�,�,� APRIL 17, 200II —7:30 P.M. shap•mgA aea�rcarn,na�ty TIGARD CIVIC GENTER -TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE A911NUTES 5. PU�LIC HEARING 5.1 TRANSPORTATION �OND The Tigard Planning Commission uviol review the Transportation Bond Task Force's recommendation for � proposEd transportation bond measure to be forwarded to City Council. The following streets have been proposed for improvement: Gaarde St. (99W tn 121St), 121St Ave. (Walnut to Tiedeman), Walnut Street (Tiedeman to 121 St),�121 St Ave. (Gaarde to Walnut), 98thlDurham signalization, ar�d fonner Street (with a modified design). The alternative projects on the list in the following order of priority if bids are favorable, or if partnership and other sources of funding are found: Commercial Street Sidewalk (Main to �incoln), Burnham (Hall ta Main), Tigard Street (Main to Tiedeman) Tieoleman (Greenbum io Tigard St.). The bond measure is being proposed for approximately 16 million dollars. 6. f�T�I�Ft �U�INESS 7. �DJO��iNfENT �: • � CITY OF TIGAI2D PLANNIFVG COMAAIS�SION Regular Meeting Minutes April 17, 2000 1. CQeLL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson (arrived late), Griffith, Incalcaterra, Mores, Olsen, Padgett, Scolar, and Topp Staff Present: Augustin Duenas, City Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary �. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner P��dg�tt moved and Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion to approve the March 6, 2Q00, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Commissioners Incalcaterra and Mores abstained. � 5. PU�LIC HEARING 5.1 TFtANSPORTATION BOND The Tigard Planning Cammission will review the Transportation Bonnd Task Force's recommendation for a proposed transportatior� bond measure to be forwarded to City Council. The following streets have been proposed for impravement: Gaarde St. (99VV ta 121St), 1215� Ave. (Walnut to Tiedeman), Walnut Street (Tiederr�an to 121St), 121Sx Ave. (Gaarde to V�ialnut), 98th/Durham si�nalization, and Fonner Street (with a modified design). The �Iternative projects on the list iri the following order of pric�rity if bids are favor�bi�, or if partnership and other sources of funding are found: Commercial Street Sidewalk (Main ta L.incaln), Burnhram (Nall to IVl�sn), Tigard Street �Main fio Tiedeman) Tiedeman (Greenburg to Tigard St.). The bond measure is b�ing proposed for approximately 16 million dollars. STAFF REPORT Steve Clark, Chairman of the Transportation Bond Task Force, and City Engineer Gus Duenas, presented the recommendation. Mr. Clark said that, as adopted by the City� Council, the purpose of the tastc force was to evaluate Tigard's transportation goals and select projects to be submitted for voter approval of the . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2000—Page 1 • • bond measure. Using PowerPoint, Mr. Clark y��ave a presentation detailing Tigard's transportat�on goals, the initial cri�eria for project selection, meetings held for citizen input, criteria incorporating public input, ta�k force recommendations, locations and descriptions of the recommended prajects, alternative projects (depending upon available funding), and bond issue tax rates. The presentation outlining these details is attached to tMese Minutes as Exhibit A. Consideration was also given to distribution of funds, traffic studies, and geographic balance. Following is a brief description of the recommended projects: Gaarde Street(99W to 121St): 3000 feet; paving, two traffic lanes with a center turn lane, bike lanes, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. 121 gt Avenue (Walnut to N. Dakota): 3200 feet; paving, two lanes with a center turn lane, bike paths, and sidew�lks. VValnut Street (Tiedeman to 121 St): 5700 feet; improvement to travel lanes. 121St Avenue (Gaarde to Walnut): 4300 feet; improvement to travel lanes. Durham Road and 98th Avenue: signalization and restriping. Fonner Street (Walnut to 115th): Improvement to travel lanes, with bike lanes, & sidewalks. � Alternative projects: Commercial Street (North side, Main tn Lincoln): Sidewalks, drainage, and right-of- way. Burnham Street (Main ta Hail): Sidewalks, curbs, gufters, drainage and right-of- vuay. Tigard Street (Main to Tiedeman): Sidewalk on S. side, drainage, curbs, gutters and ric�l�t-�f-vvay. Tisdeman Avenue (Creenburg t�Tigard): Two travel lanes w/center ian�, and bike path. . Mr. Clark explained the tax rat�� as detailed on Exhibit A. He said that citizec� input ;�howed the community is wiliing to p�y for value received. The Planning Commission shoul� accept these recommendations and forward them to the City CounciQ for a publi� hearing on May 9t" and placement of this Bond M�asure on the November 2000 ballot. President Wilson asked about projects that were rejected. Mr. Clark reviewed the rejected projects, citing consideration of the dollar value anc� cost of the project, funding through other means, and fut��re development plans already in process or future �pportunities for funding, as the reasons for rejectiAr�. The rejected projects PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMUTES—April 17,2000—Page 2 e � included rr�ajor collectors such as Greenbur�q Road at Washington Square to Hall Blvd. anci to Tiedeman Street, and 72n Avenue/Hunziker Street/Hall Blvd. Approximately 20 projects for minor cc�llectors and neighborhood sidewalk and street improvements were rejected due to neighborhood disruption, cost, and citizen opposition. President ��Ison inquired about the Transportation System Plan and bond . processes being canducted independently rather than in conjunction with each other. He als� wanted to know if the task force had rec�;ived any benefit of transportation modeling. Mr. Duena� said that city traffic counts and coordination with a transportation consultant who provided models for the proposed major collector projects were considered by the task force. In addition, many proposed projects were dropped because of neighborhood opposition, so the task force focused on projects that would be approved by voters. Commissioner Padgett, a task force member, said they recognized a c�ifference . b�tween recommending projects that citizens felt were important versus putting together a list of projects that were good for the City as a whole and that would have to be a�pproved by voters. There are many projects that are needed and worthwhile, but putting them in this bond issue could mean the difference between its passage or failure. This had to be considered as an important criteria in the recommendation of projects. He also noted that a lot of the recommended projects are based around the 121St Ave./Walnut St. area, which will coordi�late with County improvements in that area and therefare may result in same cost savings. Commissioner Olsen commented that the City's goals meshed with citizen responSe. There was a lot of community input and the recommendations are likely to meet voter approval. Commissioner Griffith nofied that th�e recommendations for the main collectors pr,avide for continuous left turn lanes. Mr. Clark said that is not true for sensitive areas, such as the cemetery on �aarde or areas where the geography vuil� not allow for a c�nter iane. In those areas, or where a center turn lane is not needed except �c�r driveway er�fir�nces, sidewaiks and bike lanes will be� impraved befo�e a c�nter turn lane is cc�nsidered. Current c�riveway entranc�s wil! continue to have acc�ss to lots and any need fiar a new entrance for a current driveway will be worked out driveway-by-drivewa�. Access to lots is a City requirement, but absent a current driveway, �wners later developing a larg� lot will ne�d fio determine th�ir entcance requirements. Commissi�ner Topp asked �if the flexible design standards are specific to this issue. Mr. �uen�s said he believed that is a usual capability, but in this cas� citizen input indicated that reducing some requirements may be necessary ir� existing neighborhoods. Design standards are generally tailored to the situation. A developer has that same flexibility, depending on the situation, but typically a develop�r of a new subc�i�ision must f�llow the requirements. The flexibility is for . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2000—Page 3 � • established areas, in order to avoid disturbance to people's property wherever possible. Mr. Clark said ik is a matter of code and de�ign standards evaluati�on by the Planning Commission, to determine the need for bike paths or sidewalks on both sides of a street versus prop�rty distt�rbance. Mr. Topp said his concern was only that if the City is allowFd to provide for flexibility in the standards, thafi same flexibility should also be an option for a developer and everyone else. Mr. Clark responded that the flexibility is not an exclusive benefit for the City, it is mainly to provide that existing neighborhoods not be disrupted. For a new development where there is no one currently there that can be impacted, there should be an evaluation of the consistency in applying the standards. Commissioner Topp also asked if the bond's tax rate is the same for residential and commercial properties: Mr. Clark answered that any property tax is applied to real property, so is equivaler�t to businesses and residences. Regarding other opportunities for funding, Mr. Tc�pp asked if the bond obligation would be reduced if enough other funding were obtained to complete both the recommended and altern�tive projects on the list. Mr. Clark said that was the intention of the task force. If some�how enough funding was available to complete all of the projects on the list, including the alternative projects, for less than $16 million, any differ�nce would �ot be used to do more projects, rather it would go to reducing the obligation. The citizens were very particular about what and how much they would fund. Commissioner Griffith asked if the City currently has any right-of-way for these projects. Mr. Duenas said that in some cases the City will need to acquire some strips and in others the City's right-of-way varies. In some cases there is a 50- foot right-of-way and in others it is 60 fee#. Commissioner Griffith commented that there has been difficulty in the past wh�n trying to reserve a right-of-way for future u�e. He asked if there were any plans to reserve right-of-ways for future projects. Mr. Duen<as said a right-of-way would be purchased as and when needed, and only as part of these projects, not to buy additional right-of-way. Mr. Griffith said his thoughts were that if it is known future right-of-way will b� nee�ed, a resenvation for th,at right-of-way should be acquired. Commissioner Pad�r�tt responded that a second bor7d would be required for that. There is some leverage in the Transportation System Plan to deal with that issue, and it is �omething that also can be addressed in ather venues. This Bond is not the way to do somethin� lik� that. The task �orce tolcl citizens that there would be no ch�nge �a tl�e recommen�ed projects, ans,� if the Corr�mission were fio go �eyond what is being proposed, there would b� a very n�gative community and voter reaction. Commissior�er Topp inquired about reimbursement to the City by a resident or devefoper whc� wanted to later change the street improvement after a project is completed. Mr. Duenas responded that typically reimbursement districts, which are funded separately through the sewer fund, are set up when there are street improvements and a developer. does have the opportunity to take advantage �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2000—Page 4 • � � that. A brief discussion was held regarding this issue. It is very ciifficult to determine what reimbursement would be required, and the current requirements are sufficient for this proposal. President Wilson commented that the reco�nmended projects are mostly on old roads th�t need to be brought up to standard. Many transportation problems in Tigard result from streets that do not connect, or have barriers that prevent connection, to major collectors, and the community is frustrated with arterials that are congested due to local traffic. Widening the arterials has not been a sufficient solution. He asked if the consialtant's model recommending a V�Jalnut Street connection to Hunziker had been cornsidered. Mr. Duenas said that had been looked at, but was rejected because oi` negative imp�cts to wetlands and disruptions to existing neighborhoods in that area. That connection is not feasible for this bond issue. Mr. Clark explained further that voter acceptance is more likely when it can be demonstrated that the recommended improvemer�ts wi10 have a positive impact and will be implemented without a lot of delay. He discussed several areas where improvements are making a difference and are receiving the public's approval. PU�LIC TESTIMONY Gene fVlcAdams (13420 SW Brittany Drive, Tigard OR �7223) said he appreciates the task force's work. He discussed concerns about problems in his neighborhood and his hope that no speed bumps will needed. He asked that the new projects not be barricacled later for political reasons as has happened in his neighborhood. He was advised that the code preclude� speed humps on m�jc�r r.ollectors, but that a guarantee cannot be written into the bond regarding barricading streets. Mr. McAdams said he understooei that, but asks that the Commission express this concern to the City Council. Joyce P�tton, Tigard �ity Councilor, commented on how pleased she wa� to be a part of the task force, the tremendous job that was done, and the serious consideration af ci�izen input during the process. She discuss�d the need for a distinction to be made befi�veen nevv and exisfiing neighborhoods an� fl�xibility in fihe design standards. She felt citizen input was well presented to th� task force and sh� st�ongly recommends thafi it be taken into consideration. Tec� ��ence, � ta�k forcE; rriernb�r, cor�mented or� #h� paraleel r�ut�s of the statP highways, the circulation of traftic, and a new ODOT program #hat allows for working with the State to take traffic off of the state highways. He strongly encourages the City of Tigard to pursue zhi� with the State. A brief discussion was held regarding these issues. Beverly Froude9 � task force member, aske�d the Commission to support fihe recommendati�ns. Reg�rding street connectivity, she has noticed there are a number of barricaded streets and she sugg�sts that a review of all of these be PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—April 17,2000—Page 5 • • made and then signs placed on all of them to advise the public on which streets will be opened and when. Discussion was held regardi�ng this issue. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Fadgett advised that the City Attorney has given approval for the commissianers who were task force members to vote on this issue because this is not a quasi judicial hearing. Commissioner �opp elabor�ted on his earlier comments regarding in-fill development and the consi�eration �f developers' improvements versus City improvements. Commissioner Padgett moved to recommend the bond measure to the City Council as proposed. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. A voiee vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. �THER BUSINESS The Planning Commissi�n Secretary noted that Tigard City Council has proclaimed April as Volunteer Recognition Month and expre;ased the City's gratitude for all the time and hard work the Commission has donated. They were advised that the volunteer appreciation event well be held on June 30th. The Commission also received applicant materials for a public hearing to be held on May 15tn 7. ADJOURNAl1ENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. � rree Gay , Planni Com ssion Secretary �, ATTE,'ST• President Nick Wilson ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—Apri117,2000—Page 6 � � COMMIJNITY NEWSPAPERS, BNC. Le98, P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 NOtICA �l'T 9 617 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 ^,� � Lega! Notice Advertising 1 � ' : ,� .� � pp � E � V n � City of Tigar_d • ❑ Tearsheet Notice �J 13125 s��a Hall si�a. apR � B 2000 ' Tiqard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit . ' Acaounts PaS�al�le � ,� . AFFiDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' �� I{�.th��t�3!d�r' being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of thdT'i.t�a r�-Tua 1 ai-i n �}.�es a newspaper of genecal circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at— T�-q��'d in the aforesaid county and,state�• that the Transp�rtation Bond Publ�_c. Hea.r_ing/I�4easure fc�r St.Im�rovements a prinfed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said rsewspa�Oer for nNE successive and cons�r�sstiv� in the follow��rog i�sues: April � v7�� S�bscribed and sworn to fore me thish+�-h r3 a� o f An r i 1., 2 0 0 0 __.._..........._.._._-OFFICIAL S�AL ...._�. 5•. RO�fK' b. B�1F8Q��S N ry ublic for Oregon ,? NOTARY nU[31.IC-OR�GON My Commitsion Expires: "' '.• COMMISSION N0, 062071 MY COi�M15810N EXNIHES MAY 16, 2O0' AFFIDAVIT .u.,..,,.n,._.._....��..��,�...�,.M......�,.,.�,,...�...�.�. s� ,� . ��, :---,�+�*—�^,., �, ,' . __._ ... "1 he�pv�� '� ' � ��r� �Ttgard Planning Commission on 1V�p��r�.,_ :�,�;` ,�"#'��A�.M.,at the Tigard Civic Center— Town I�a�l, �i31'L5 SW:I�utl Blvd.,Tigard,.Ore�on.,Both puhlia oral and written xestimany'sre�nvftod:Th�p!ublic hearing oe this��matter will be eonducted in accordance wit}i fhe rules of ORS�27;120,Chap'ter 1°.390 of the Tigard Municipal Cod'e,and rules and:pcaCedures of the Planning Com�nission � Failure to raise�n issue in persan or by leMer at sopne point prior to the c�ose of'the;6t'aring accomlpaaied by statements<orevidence sufficient to allow;khe hearings authoriRy�attd all the parties to respond on the request preclud�s an appeal,and�f�ilurt to speci�y the criterion from the Corn-' mu�t'tty,AFve�opment Code or�Co�pi'eherisive Plan at tivhich a comment is dire�ted'�recludes an appeaY'b�i�e�i on ihat criterion.Further iaformation nrtay'+be obtained from the Planrting DivisiQn at 13125 SW Ha�l Blvd., Tigard,Oregon 97223,or by calling 639-41?1. . k�7$�.IC I�EARI1�tG ITEM: : ' 1'he Tig�rd Pla;nning Commission will'review the Transportation Bond � Ta�k Fbrce's r�comYri�e�Ydati',o�1s,for a proposed transportation ho�!td �r,asure to be fqrv�iardes�t�City Counqil.The,following Streets have bef�n pircbposed�or improvemept:Gasude St.(99W to 121st), 121st Ave.(Wal- rntt to•Tiedeman),Walnut Street(Tiedeman to 121st),121st Ave.(�'iaarde to Walnut,98thlL�urham�signaliaation,and Fonner Street(witN a modified design).Alternative proSects have been adde.d to the list for impiementa- tion if bids are favoraale,ar,if pactn�rships and other saurces of funding �re found. The proj'��tS in orcler of priarity are Commercial Street Sidewalk('IVtain to Linc�li�),�urnham(Hall to Main),Tigard Street(M[ain to T�edemanJ,Tiedeman(Crreenburg tt�Tigard S.):The bond measure is , _ 6eing proposed for approximately 16 million dollars. „ � '�"Y'y51'1�—P�b�ish Apri16,2000. ' , . � . ,, , �� • � ��h;b�+ _�,� .. :: �� Bond Task Force �� io �� Transportation Bond :. ' 99 9Force formed by Council Resolution �� Recommendations �� • Mission: Select a list of projects for a �� transponation bond measure �� Presentation to Planning Commission �� . Task Porce has been meeting once or e� bY �� twice a month since April 1999 �� Trwspoctation Bond Tuk Porce �� April 17,2000 ii ii � a� _ ;e" Tigard's Transportation Goals �fask Force Members :� _■ Q� • Steve Clark(Chair) • Beverly Froude �� • Improve Trafftc Safety �� • Muk Padgecc(Vi« • Paul Owen �� • Intprove Traffic Flow �� Chair) • Elaine Baungard �� • Enhance Pedestrian and Bike �_ • Joyce Patton • Ted Spence �� TransporcaciAn � � (Council Liaison) � Phillip Pasteris �� • Briw Moore _! (Cot�ncil 1azs�n) • John Olsen �i ■ ■■ • j�s�W��Z �: ii � �� ' ;; Inotial Criteria for Praject Selection ��: Initial Crit�ria for f'roj�ct Selection �� General �e -Connect to other projec[s �o -5upport Tig�rd 43eyond Tomono�vv goa9s �� -Development fonseeable :: -Promote citywide equity �� a SpeCifi� �� -$olve safety problems �� ,-Traffic congestion relief •• -Supplemental funding availability �� -Pavement condition �� -Provide links�o al�ernate modes ■e1 ' �� s -Connectivity �� -Support future growth �� -Multi-Jurisdictional support _� -Public support �j � ■■ %� t ■■ e • 1 h� • • 1' •� Citizen Input �:: Criteria l�corporating Public Input �� ■■ -Fc�cus improvements on collectors �� • Citizen Involvement Meetings reached - 10 year bond term approximacely 225 community residents: �� , �� j� -Keep bond at 515-16 million range , �� -October 20,1999(Open Houu ac Tigard �� Wacer Buildin� �� -Keep projects within City limits j j -February 3,2000(CIT'Presentadon) �� -Seek partnerships to supplement bond �� -February 9,2000(Open House at Fowler �� proceeds(i.e.county,region�l,developer �r Middle School) �� involvement,etc.) a� -February 16,2000(Open House at Tigard �� -Minimiu adverse impacts on �� Mechodist Church Conklin Hall) �� neighborhoods �� -February 24,2000(Open Houu at Tigard �� i� �� -Punue flexibility of standards co consider � � � existing neighborhoods . ii �� Recomrnendations �� Recommendations :� :� • Pocus improvements on collectors !! • Seek partnerships aggressively to �: -Project recommendations reflect t6is =� supplement bond proceeds '= G°'p� ii • Minimize adverse impacts on existing �� • S16 million bond issue �� neighborhoods e • 10-year bond term �� • Examine code and design standuds to � • Select prajects within City limits �� allow more fleaibility in application to :� -Recommended projeccs an wirhin City limia ' ': exis�ing neighborhoods ii , ii �. �: Recommend�d Projects :� �: ;; Alternative Projects �� Ivlajor Collectors ■■ �� -Gaarde Stmt(Fiighway 99W to 121st Avenue� �� -121sc Avenue(Walnut Screec co Norch�a.kota) ..ii • Comiuercial Street{North Side,Main Street �o -Walnuc Streec(Tdedemnn Avenue co 122sc) �� to Lincoln Street) �� - 121sc Ayenue(Gaarde Screec co Walnuc) �� • Burnham Street(Main Street to Hall Blvd.) '� • Mlnor Collectoxs �e • Tigard Street(Ivlain Street to Tiedeman- �� -Fonner Street(BValnut co South of 115th �� sout�t side� _� Avenue)-conscrua ac reduced widch wherever �� • Tiedeman Avenue(Greenburg Raad to �� feuible �� Tigard Street) • �� ii� ii „ �� : . 2 1r , • . F'roj�ct Loc�tions Gaarde Street (99W to 121 st) � �,, �1� ` '�y , �'"�Jj`�'jy'1r��',y,��/ �'laf i�� l,Y�� .. ( tt�ACtil !'+ I � �y ° �i ." �� r �4 1 - � . II�} ))W lo I Itl A�c „� �,��; ��,;�,��. �.� �d N : U , >�:; ; �.. �_ - _ � 1 7;� 1,��.y,r��F 1�i� �M I il' ��ti1 I�� :I �H■ ix�J;'J11 I �1{ �! • I � �•��, �� ' !t1 � ��■ a�41��Qf'�+ 9�.( -•�i�''Tr:j� , 1,�• l > �'�; a{[p � .�ta �V�; . .�. \' � ASIR 1�. a P\. YoY ��■ ��'� r��f��1('� 711� `� �,r 1 � ��■ ■■ t/ r .(�: /�\ �Y� � � r ��■ 7a�� ' A 4��r� � �� ! � f� 1�■ L<�t �r C�� '�i� i I'�n��1"�' r l , � �� ` ' C � ,tj . 1�■ �i�� / J'y*��}'��!��+h��Ati'I�rM �,� 1 ■■ '�. ■■ '7�f!,. '"d�.�;�'�'y '��' � ;" '�{�)lC��j��na�,A�u� I ■■ �'. , v' ■■ a'hL 1' "� ��i7'ti� '•�1'CY .. .� ■■ � .r ■■ — , ,{i1� ca. pt�3�,� a kG.'�'��' , 1 ■■ � .�3 ■■ -__ �S,,�� 'v l. ��,.t':r� ��1' 7�' i I• ■■ / ■■ ___'= I�� E',�� ),y�/ u l�vt.i ��a11 ��.� � ■■ �� - - -- �.�1'i�'�.��''�- 'w� "��iw'�r��. ��; ■■ ■■ ==�...s.' Y`�Lu. r .!..i�k'�1��: , � , . ■■ �� y,:,.� 121st Avenue (Walnut to North Dakot�) Walnut Street (Tiedeman to 121st) a.�.�µ' inei.vr J:i.i � JN": ��•niNUi ru N nn�:uin. _�.� ie WAL�UTSi Sl�.r_. {::_.. ...: . . ,�(y;!i � 9i14 t� ;, ,'�a'�J TIf:DG\fANT0121S`f '6WR I L-fi t_'°,��-I �� . ir� -- - ir• � --- ---`-- �� r■ ��■ ��' �i �io ■■ ■■ ii ii � �,� ' �� ■■ ■■ ■■ Q■ ■■ r•:`::� t.'�I ii ii t �` ` � ■■ ■■ '`; ■■ ■■ ii �� , is . � �s � 121 st Avenue (Gaarde to Walnut) � 98th Avenue Signalization (At Durham �_�;��„ Road) .. (lnnNl�F_�i W I.ral.l. .I I'r...—__. � .� , } �__��-_L—=�� .�'UA - ' .'clrl Y(dS: I � �f� Jf3td 4RTlIAS'F.tiIGNALI'LA'fl0'r' y�� fal IIUHIIAM RI) I X9�9 7F11�- 8 S1 114 7 I 9YS� ]itM �a■ a��a rsi �ii ■■ ■r + ' i ■■ e■ u ■■ n■ ■■ � � � �. ■■ ■■ ■■ ,� ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ { l ■■ ■■ ��•-• - ■� � .. �� :m-'-:�;: n+ „ �� .. 3 , � � �� Altemative Projects f c��t�tcl�' SlrUOt (W�Inul to 1 15th Avenue) �- Commercial Street(N.Side,Main to Lincoln) �;r j,�i� r��w�„ �;t.4: i�.n, i�I t K�ii�ui iu��w��ri�..� �;y a �emnnuul�urunli .,i.. '^� Commcrcial5t. �j�,� ��hnr nrnlyd—� �-�� K�`�n''� Main St.lo Lincoin St. 111M ,,,�,t S11■ Sidewalk North Side �� r �� A :� �� '.. � a ■■ _� ii � ii , I •■ , ■■ i�,�� , �� - �9 ■■ � ' � l�Itorn�tivo F�ro)ects :�_��+ Altemative Projects �u�� :im Ti ard Street Main to Tiedeman, S. Side ,�s;,i, f:3tu�nhnnt Straot(Maln Street lo Hall Blvd) .,m�, g � � �� IIUIINIlAA151 qMW rwras M41N'f011All 1111'U ��■ i nu�� ::. I�; .:�. ; :::� .:: .. -- ,.. aa ; :: . .. � ,. :: � ii ie �� ii ,� si , ,� ■■ �z Altornntivo Pro�octs �:��, Tiodoman Avonuo (Groonburg to Tigard) �'��" Bond Issue Tax Rates „ <,; !!i �'�•r �ei i atiu:�i i",i�i:xn�� !1 2A •�s iaia .7�k 1 ' C q Praposed iranspartatlon emd a 4?G li.1.,.�ry*�.�i,:4.� 3!i R llClu'1 �y'y:.� 'tS� �ieo �ta�.i�f� ke.a.� �'�' ti�:�. �r■ ...��SS� 11�8 � si.a t.i.�:i� i�i°'L:y�rSrc�°. � � 6�■ IN� �; ftia �.!f.�,r,Y.Y,.nC'fo��"� � �v .3os� U■ ■■ 6 4 nao .1'7oni)V:Y�i��- .S. w�rs� ■■ ■■ � io�o;.,�.._i•l,��.J' �io.m ■■ ■■ �' b Wu� ■ion�ee�a ■■ � ■■ �7 toa.F .,� �n, ■aor..�eo�+ ■■ ■■ �� tow:,f. �a : eAYk , ■■ � ■■ �ax a ::S 1 �-. � ■■ ■■ mw ■■ ■■ �w000.000 tm000.000 trsooa.aoo viaa000 si f;� ii �,��.�..,,,�,M ■■ ■■ �■ - ,� ■■ �� 4 4 ` � • ■■ . ��: Bond Issue Tax Rates :� What's Next? 9� $° �f0°�;M�„""�'�oi° '� • Presentation to City Council-May 9, �� 2ppp � �,,, �w � �_ • Placement of the bond measure on the � ��p �"' ��„ �� November 2000 ballot for voter approval � u» � a�.. a' �n M �NK"�'"� A= � Support of the bond measure as �_ .. "� � �� individuals � ■ �,.,,,, �,M,M, w� ,,,,,, � • Support of the bond measure through "w-�'"'�""�- formation of a citizen action committee � , r 5 � � TIGARD PLANNINC COMMISSION ROLL CALL ��TY o�ARD OREOON FiEARING DATE: ��' /7'OD STARTING TIME: 7:3� P.M. �COMMISSIONERS: _ NICK WILSON (CHAIRPERSON) u�� JUDITH AN�ERSON /� '� JAIVIES GRIFFITH ✓ LISA INCALCATERRA � GLENN MORES ✓ JOHN OLSEN � MARK PADGETT � SHEL SCOLAR STEVEN TOPP ---------------------�---------------------------------------------- STAFF PR�SEIdT: DICK BEWERSDORFF NADINE SMITH J�lLOAD @�A�[�tJ�C LAUF�I� NICF��LSON KAREiV P�1&�L FOX DUANE ROBERTS MA17':3CHEIDEGGER JAMES HENDRYX _ BRIAN RAGER � GUS DUENAS � TIGARD � PLAN ING COMMISSION � CITY OF TIGARD OREGON NOTICE: PEOPLE WISHII�IG TO SPEAK ON ANY IT�;M MUST PRINT THEIR NAM�AND ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM#: � � Page of DATE OF HEARII�iG: �l I7/ U v CASE NUMBER(S): ' ' � OWNER/APPLICANT: -- LOCATION: ---- PLEAS�PRINT YOUR NAM�, ADDRESS, AIVD ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the propasal) OPPONEI�IT (Against the proposal) ----------------�------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- (Print Name/Address/Lip&Affiliation) (Print Name/Address2ip&A�liation) Name: � � �, M� (~t �3�—r�5 Name: �� . �CS (�dams Address: ��° 2 b S�(.�. �r��r�-� '�r• Address: � ��I-2 D �. C.�• (�r..�h �aM.y Dr�v� City: 1 t A a f'� ' State: D 12 Zip: g'7 Z 2� City�c�V`� State: �� Zip: �`Z_2 2 3 A1ame: Name: Address: Address: Citv: State: Zin: �City: State: Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: Citv: State: Zip: Citv: State: Zip,: Name: Name: Address: Address: _ _______ Citv State: Zin: Citv: State: Zip: Name• _ Name: Address: ' Address: C��y State: Zin: ' Citv: State: Zip: • � CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Depardnent Shaping A Better Community MEMO�tANDUM CITY OF TI�GARD . 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 Ta►: Planning Commission FROM: Gus Duenas /�''"' City Engineer DATE: Apri17, 2000 SUBJECT: Transportation Bond Task Force Recommendations The'�ransportation Bond Task Force is scheduled to present a list of projects to the Planning Commission on April 17, 2000 for a proposed transportation bond nleasurc�in the November 200Q election ballot. Attached is the project list recommended by the Task Force. The Task Farce will�laborate on the process throug�which the projects were selected, and will be making speci�ac recommendations during the Planning Commission meeting on April 17th. Also attached are the prQjects originally considered,public comments, and sorne other relevant documents that v✓ere developed durir�g the course of the process to sel�ct the recoAnm�nded projects. The Task Force vvas created by City Couxicil Resolution No. 99-19 to identify transportation, s�fety, sidewalk, and pedestrian/bikepath projects for inclusion in the bond measure to be submitted for voter approval. The projects recommended are to be submitted to the Planning Commissir,n for review and connment, and to thF� City Council for review and approval. The Task Force has been meeting since April 1999 arxd initially developed an extensive list of projects fbr consideration. The projects proposed were rated using a variety of criteria aime�i at meeting Tigard's transportation goals. After a se�ries of public meetings(one on October 20, 1999 and the remainder in February 2000),the Task Force selected the attached list f�r submission to the Planning Commission. The public inpui��was carefully considered, and the finallist w�s based on what would be approvable by the voters. The focus was on construction of major collectors,with the inclusion of one minor collector(Fonner Street)that had safety issues. The estimated cost for the • e recommended projects total $16 million, includirig the cost of�nssuance. The Task Force felt an alternative list of projects should be included for implementati�n in the event that bids come in lower than anticipated,or that other funding so�trces are found to supplement the bond pxoceeds. The alternative list of projects is shown in order of priority for implementation. TY�e Task Force wi11 elaborate on the�pecific recornmendations during the presentation on the 17th of April.However, some of recommendations include the following: ■ Focus of pro�ects should be on the collectors ■ Bond should be in the$15-$16 million range ■ Bond should be issued on a 10-year term ■ Projects should be within the City limits ■ Partnerships and other funding sources should be aggressively sought to supplement bond proceeds ■ Adverse impacts on existing neighborhoods should be minimized ■ Fonner Street should be constructed at reduced width wherever feasible ■ Design standards shauld be examined to allow more flexibility in application to existing . neighborhoods Planning Commission comments will be incorporated into the submittal to City Council. The . presentation to City Council is scheduled for May 9, 2000. Attachments c: Mayor and City Councilr�rs Bill Monahan, City Manager Steve Clark,Transportation Bond Task Force Chair Mark Padgett,Transportation Bond Ta�k Force Vice Chair Transportation Bond�ask Force Members D:\Word Documents\Transmittal to Planning Commission—Proposed Bond Projects � Transmittal of Proposed Bond Projects to Planning Commission Page 2 ot'2 COMMUNITY NEWS�AP�F�S, INC. Lega, ' P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 NOtiC9 �l'T 9 617 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising � City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 ST) Hall Blvd. e ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • migard,Oregon 97223 • Accounts Payable � . • The following will be considered by the Tagard Planniaag�Comffiission � on Monday,April 17,20(i0,a�'3:30 P.1VI.,at the Tigard Civic Center—._ Town Hall,i3�125 SW I�all Blvd.,�igard�Oregon.,Both gublic oral.and 14FFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATlON written testimony are invited.The public hearing on this�atter'wi�l�be conducted in accordance with the iules of ORS 227:120,C�apter 18.390 . STATE OF OREGON, ) .of the Tigard Mumcipal Code,and,rules and•procedures of the Planning COUN7y OF Wi1SHINGTON, )SS' Commission. ;_= -` ' ' ': � •• � ', h�� Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point pnor to the;., being first duly sworn, depose and say that i am the Advertising ciose of the hearmg accompanied by statements or:evidence:sufficient to Director, or his principal clerk, of thelL'�ga Y'�—Tn a l a t i n Tl mE allow the hearings authonty:and all the parties to respon�o.n the request '� a newspaper of genecal circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 precludes an appeal;•and-faiiiue to speci�y the criterion from tt►e Com , and 193.020; published at Tic�ard in the �unity Developmeni Code or`ComprehensivePlan.at:whicl�a>cotaiment is . aforesaid county and,state;that the Transportation Bond �d"uected precludes an appeal'based on that critenori.:Further informat�onS��` Public Aearingf Rseasure f or St Im rovemeni �ay be obiained from the Planning D'avision at Y31�5 SW<Hali Blvd, __ Tigazd,Qregon 97223,or by calhng 639-4171. , ' . a pr6Med copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the pIIgI;IC Ii�ARiNG I'�EM:� _ � entira �ssue of said newspaper for ONE _ successive and The Tigard Planning Comffiission willYeview they�'-ranspoTtation Bond ;" Task Force's recommendations.for a proposed transporfation l�ond�= consecutive in the following issues: measure to beforwardeci to.City.Counc,il.The following Streets have been � ' proposed for improvement:Gaarde St.(99W to 121st), 121st Ave.(WaT- �' Ap r i 1 6,2 0 0 0 nut to�Tiedeman),Walnut Street(�iedeman to 121st);12 A st Ave :(Gaarde;:: . � to Walnut,98th/Durham signalization,aud Fonner Stieet(with a madified design):Alternative projects liaye been adde�l to the•listf�r iffiplementa --�. — tion if bids are favorable,or_if;paFtnerships and othei�sources o,ffunding ` are found�. The�rojects'in�orsier of prfority are�Coinmercial Street Sidewalk�(Main to Lincoln);Burnham(Hall to Main),Ti;ard`Sfreeti-(Main,<, , to T}edeman),Tiedeman{Greenburg to Tigard S,)�.The bond measure is . _ Subscribed and sworn to fore me thish t h �a v o f A r i ,� being proposed'for approximately 1,6 uullion dollars: . � . - '� TT961'Y-Publish Apri16,2000 . � N ry ublic for Oregorr . ' � �� • i My Commission Expires: � n„ .............�.�.__�__-,�, AFFIDAVIT ---� - ' . • �ans ortation Bond Task Force P � RecoRnmended Projects Categoay Project Project Cost Major Coilectors Gaarde Street—99W to 121st Avenue $3,140,000 121st Avenue-Walnut to North Dakota $2,030,000 Wainut Street—Tiedeman.to 121st $4,990,000 121st�lvenue—Ga�rde to W�lnut $3,760,000 98th Ave. Signalization-at Durham Road $280,000 Minor Collectors Fonner Street-Walnut to S.of 115ti�Avenue � $1,570,000 Totals $15,770,000 Bond Issue and Other Costs 1.5% $240,000 �� :� - �, �� , ��x ��r ,• � , (� - ,3 ��k��i��;a.��F�� ' ': t j '!.��O��l: 1 I 4,f.. Altern�t�ve Projects � Com��rcial Street(North sid�,M�in 5t to I.incoln St.) $460,000 BurnD�am Stc�eet—Main to Hall $1,570,000 Tigarcl S�reet—Main to Tiedeman(south side) S990,000 Tiedeman Ave.'—Grce,nburg to Tig�rd S� $860,000 Note: Alternative Pxoject�in the order ofpriority shown vvi1.1 Ue imp�emented�if funding beaomes availa�le because of favorable bids,partnerships,or if some other funding mechanis:ms are � identified. �Prepared Mazch 16,2000 . �Proposed Transportation Bond � Project Raniking By PriariHes Cat o Pro ect Priori Pro ect Cost Cumalative Total Pro osed Pro ects Ma or Copecton Gurde Street—99W ta IElat Avenae 1 53,140 000 53140 000 121rt Avenae—Walnat W North Ddcota 2 S2 030 000 SS 170,000 W�Innt Strat—Tledeman to 121tt 3 5�.990,000 Si 160,OQ0 121�t Aveune—Gaarde to W�Innt 4 S3 760 000 S13 0,000 Bnro6�m Street—Maln W Hdl S SI 70 000 SI 90 000 98th Ava S alizadon—�t Darham Ro�d 6 SZ80,000 S15 770,000 SI5,770,000 Ciroenb Road—WS to Hal1 7 54,380,000 520,150,000 72nd Avenue—99W to Huntika Street 8 53,640,()00 523,790,000 Wall Street Extension 9 5�4,880,W0 528,670,000 Hunziku Street—Ha11 to 72nd Aveaue 10 51,810,U00 530,480,000 Greenb Road—WS to Tiademan . 1 I 53,710,000 S3h,190,000 Tiadeaa�n Ave.—Greeab W Ti St 12 5860,000 535,050,000 ' 535,050,000 Mluor Co1leeWr� • Sattler Strat—100th W 98th 1 5560 000 5560,000 Sattler Strat—98th to 92sd 2 �540 000 SI,100,000 ' 9' Strat—Maln to Tladw�an 3 �� 006 52,090�000 79th Aveaae—Boclta Rd.to D�r6�m Itd. 4 . 7 000 S� 0 000 WaHd�s Avea�ae-99W to W�laat S4�eet 5 S17 000 1 000 . 56,610,000 Fooner Shed-Wdnut W S.of 115W Aveaue 6 SI 840 WO 58,450 000 SGHri lacemeatt 7 &1,310000 59.760,000 15 Strat—Tiademaa to I15th Aveaue 8 51,660 000 S11,420 000 NewConnact.—NorthD�Iwtato ' 9 SI,S�O,U00 Sl 960,000 11 Sth Ave.—Ti St W North Dakota 10 5590,000 S 13,550,000 Nath Dakota—Tiedapaa W 121 a l i 53,85(1,000 S 17,400,000 517,�;�iJ,000 Local treeb Mardocic Strat—103rd Ave.W 97tL Ava 1 S7 000 5750.000 ' S�ttius Street Realt meat 2 Sl 20 7 0�0 Mardxk Strat-IA6th Ava to 103rd Ava 3 5190 000 S2,4b0,000 S2,�60,000 • ' 52,460.000 Sidewalks a�d Bike at6a � 92nd Ave nea W Heldi Conrt S250 000 . Pluebrook St W�tvd to 9`tnd Aveaae 5310 000 103rd Ave eDonald&L to Vke►Terexa S3 000 103rd Ave CanteeVin I.n Qo I�d Muloa 000 . 100th�tva cDonald SC.to Mar�dock S� ' 5990�000 Imez Se. 103rd Ava to IOOth Ave. S3i1Q�,�UOU Grant Ave Johnsou St W T u�d SL �',�LS�000 As4 Avc Garntt S4 Qo north ot HW St 5630,Q00 Paark Street stkla�SG to 99 5289,000 Ann Strat 121:t.*va W 30iD ft.east S90,000 • L n Sd�t 12flst Ave.W 31D0 t4..eat SI00,000 Coenmerclal Street alo S�.ta Llneola St 54�50,000 116th Aven�se ard St to Katherine&t 5130,000 I.oaut Strat at of 92ad Ave to Sall Btv �Ci10 000 • 72nd Avenne nst SL to& ruce St 54�1 000 S rna Street nd�.ve to 78t6 Ave Sl 000 Oak Strat Inooln St W Sall Blv S7 000 Garrett Strat W to Crwmer Dr. ' SIS0,000 78t6 Avenue S ru¢e St to Pfame St 5440 000� 71tt Avenae 99W to Oalc SL S28 000 69th Avenne 99W to Oalc SL 5250,000 S7,450,000 S7,450,000 TotalY 562,360,000 All Pro ec4 532,290,000 Bond Issue and Other Cwb 1.SY. S4&0,000 Grand Total[or BoAd Issue $32,770,000 As of December 8,1999 Page 1 — � • • Proposed Transportation Bond $1.60 f, � $1.42 c � � $1.40- ,$1.15 ;� � � , � > $1.20 0.93 �$0.92 ' � ;$ a y $1.00- - � $0.75 � � y ` $0.89 ; i � N $0.80- � c$0.60 ; u, ' ■10 Year Bond �; � „Q $0.60- ,$0.45 j ; ■20 Year Bond c o `; � � � $0.40 I ;i ' $0.20 i ; '�'! � $0.00 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $31,000,000 Bond Issue Amount Proposed Transportation �ond ��3 ��I!�a�! Ro�d Issue $450 r --- -- - -- _� _ __. $378 l $427 $40q- $350- $303 $278 � } $300- `$227 $232 � �250- �151 $186 __ y $200- $139 �10 Ye�r B�a�d �° $150 $93 �10 Year Bo�d $100 $50� �•. $0- $100,000 $150,OQ� $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Assessed Value of Home a. Proposed Transportation Bond S25 M illion Bond Issue . _. __ _ __ .. _.._ _�_ $350 'l�. , I- _ , $344 !$287 $300 ' �,� �� $229�.. �� i$2�4� � $250 � '?$1871 !� i$172 " ` a $200 ' �$ 15 . i,..._,_ '`.i$150 1 � s ' 1 ; N $150 , ', ' �$112 � :, ,� ■10 Year Bond o $75 `! " ' ' ' ■20YearBond v $100 �i^ � ;i ( ;j !°j � � ; , $50 i $0 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Assessed Value of Home Proposed Transportation Bond �20 M illion Bond Issue -- - --�— - __. _ - _. __ _----. _. $300 '' $275 '$229 $250 $183 ,$180 � $200 �1$1�38 r� -. ;� '$150 �� v $150- � 'i$120 ' � � `$92 ' �� j$90 � ! � p 10 Year Bond o � �� v $100 $6� i ;j ' ■20YearBond { ':� $50 � i � � a �i � $0 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Assessed ValueofHome F'rc�posed 'Transpar��tion �ond �15 Milli�n �� e�su� $250 �'`� `` $2Q6 $200 $1/2 � � $138 '$135 °}� $150 $102 $113 ' � a $90 , � $100 °$69 � �$gg � ■10 Year 8ond a i20 Year Bond c� $45 $50 $0- $100,000 $150,OQ0 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Assessed Value of Home , , f,�/ • • Transportation Bond Task Force , Meeting Minutes D �� (or Wcd'nesday,March 15,2000 Meeting Location: Tigard City Hall—tted Rock Creek Conference Room Members . Attending: Steve Clark,Mark Padgett,Joyce Patton,Brian Moore,Ted Spence, Joe Schweitz, Elaine Beauregard,Beverly Froude, and John Olsen. Memlbers Absent: Paul Owen and. Phil Pasteris. Staff: City Engineer Gus Duenas, Seruor Administrative 5pecialist Diane M. Jelderks. Guest: Approximately 12 citizens and Representative Max Williams attended. Hand outs for the meeting: ➢ Notes, Comments&Questions from Open Houses � ➢ School District Walking boundaries ➢ Traffic Counts on Tigard Streets Elaine Beauregazd re,quested that her comments that she would actively�ppose any improvements to minor collectors be added to the Mazch 8th minutes. AIsA, Steve Clazk's�omments regarding the ne�d to following through to the design to insure neighborhoods are not adversely impacted. Ted Spence moved and Joh�Olsen seconded to approve minutes vvith corrections. Members gave their list of improvements. ♦ T'ed Spence supported irmprovements througli 98`h on the major collectors list,possibility of Cireenburg Road-being included. s Jae Schw�itz recommend�d the top six nnajor aollectors. If the bond is to be$20 million include �ar�c.�zb�r�,Tiedeman9 Sattl�r,�onr►�r and th$�idewalk on Comrnercial from 1VIaAn to Lincoln ♦ Bev Froude selected number one through four on the major�oll�ctors and 98�h and Durham , sig�xal. Fonner, Tigard(Main to Tiedeznan), and North I7akota intersection. No sidewalks at this time. ♦ Mazk Padgett preferred stZCking to major collectors. �ie recommended the first four projects on the list. He was reluctant to include Burnham(Main to Hall)until downtovcm plan is completed. He added the 98th and Durham Signal and Tiedeman Avenue(Greenburg to North Dakot�). He commented that the TSP (Transportation System Plan)criteria for sidewalks is different than for bikepaths. TSP should probably be adopted first. He wouldn't be opposed to adding some sidewalks and bikepaths.. He wonder if we would get more or less support if bikepaths/sidewalks were added. Proposed projects amount to a little over 16 million. Transportarion Bond Task Force Meeting Minutes-March 15,�000 Page 1 � � � • ♦ Ted Spence commented that we still have t1�e CIP process that we could use money &om to whittle away at these projects. ♦ Brian abstained from making a recommendation. As a Council member he felt this is a citize:n task force and he would support the T�sk Force's recommendations. ♦ John Olsen felt we should ga for$20 million. He supported projects one through six on the major collectors,Fonner Street,both Sattler projects, 98�h/Durham Signal, and the sidewalk on Commercial. ♦ Joyce Patton, express her interest but did not want to be counted in the poll. In order to pass bond measure we need to focus on major collectors. Does not believe support for sidewalks came out in open house meetings. She listened very closely to citizens. She would support Task Force's recommendations. • ♦ Elaine Beauregazd supported top six mi��.s number four. She�uvas not comfortable making a decision regarding sidewalks. • ♦ Steve Clark strongly favored one through six on the project. He expressed interest in the two Sattler projects. He felt some responsibility to complete some sidewalk projects that can't be funded through other sources. Total cost would be at 18 million,with an added 1 million for , sidewalk prc�jects. ♦ Discussion regardi.ng the following: availability of other funds,TIF,Gas Tax,possibility of . dedicating$100,000 a year from TIF urban services funds each year, for the next 10 years, for improvements to major collectors,dedicating one million to side�uvalks, and another one million designated for site-specific projects as d�signated by the City Council. Go for 19 rnillion. ♦ Bev Froude felt the money would be needed for major improvements. Questioned if we should tie up TY� fees especially since Bull Mountain area will need fu�aax°e improvemPnts. A John Olsen wazited to go on record that he�upported the City Engineer's efforts and leadership. s Dan Mittelsfiedt, 9880 SW'Sattler,south side of Sattler,betw�en 98 and IOOth. IIe�i�'t lcnow abo�tt proposed improvernents until the 21St of February. He is concerned for his littPe section. Thexe are eight or nine hornes along that section,21 people who wi11 oppose Sattler l�eing improved. With 60 fe�t it wou4d be 22 feet from his house. One of his neighbors would be lei� � with a 12 foot setback. �t would ruin the neighborhood. ♦ Susan Riles, SW Genesis is happy to hear for support for Fonner Street. It is a safety issue for � children walking. She supported improving 121St(Gaarde to Walnut). A lot of people walk try walking her and more would do so if it was safer. ♦ Marc Even, Sattler Road, said he would lose his big trees. Traffic is bad already. Would like to ' see speed bump�. Conc�rned that speeding would increase on Sattler Street. ' Transportation Bond Task Force Meeting Minutes—Maa'ch 15,2000 Page 2 , •� • ♦ xJnidentified Citizen, who lives on Sattler Street, felt there should be other ways to fund projects instead of going out for a bond. ♦ Gus Duenas, reviewed how he prioritized the projects by looking at the traffic circulation. He has concerns about Greenburg Road from 217 to Hall. This roaci is not under City's jurisdiction,but is an important road to the City. He likes Burnharrt because of the downtown area,however, can see reason for postponing until downtown comrriittee has had an opportunity to come up with a downtown plan. 72"d Ave is another high need,but development may pay for these improvements. Wall Street, the new extension, is an important street,but not sure how residents will feel. We do have support of Coe Manufacturing for this extension. He likes Tigard Street(Main to Tiedeman)because of the heavy pedestrian traffic. Fonner Street is ' pr�etty dangerous,possibly the worst corner in the City. Scoffins realignment would eliminate problems and would do a lot to improve traffic movement. Commercial Street sidewalk is important,as it will complete the connection from downtown to the newly constructed sidewalks on Lincoln 5treet. ♦ Discussion regarding Tiedeman,North Dakota, Greenburg and the difficulties in improving those areas. s Discussed three lanes versus two lanes on major collectors. s Consensus one through four should be on the bond list. Project#5 Burnham was discussed. Can this b�a partnership with property ovcmers through a LID? John Olsen favored improving Butnham—need to bite the bullet. VVhat other downtown streets need improving? Burnham project was put in the parking lot. There was consensus for a signal at 98�'/Durhan Road. Tiedeman(Greenburg to Tigard)needs to be improved in conjunction with intersection the project was put in the pazking lot. ♦ �ev Froude felt that we need at least a walking path on Fonner. John Olsen agreed something needs to be done. The curve is a killer. Elaine, asked if it has to be a three-lane road? Design sta�dards were discussed. Design width c�uld be reduced at portions along the street. Consensus to improve Foyu�er Street with reduced staxidards as possible. ♦ �unziker and 72°a shoixld-wait unti1217/I-5 is completed. State project will start in April. �tate has fiinds for livability impraveme�ts. Tig�rd needs ta� apply for tkiese funds. Ted 5pe�n�e wi11 � provide th�applicat��ra foxin for Skate I,i�ability Improvemer�t fi�aids. ♦ Tigard Street(Main to Tiedeman)was put in parking lot. Joe Schweitz said he has personally walked this area and felt it is adequ�te. ♦ John Olsen said he had supported improvements to Sattler Street until he heard the public testimony. Now he has concems. Traffic signal at Sattler&Hall creates a need for imp�ovements on Sattler. Bev Froude felt we should take it all off or look at the whole area. Discussed options. Mark Padgett felt they should both be removed. Steve Clark had concerns about future safety problems with increased traffic. � ♦ Consensus was not to designate a portion of money just for sidewalk and pedestrian improvements. Transportarion Bond Task Force Meeting Minutes—March 15,2000 Page 3 . • � , ➢ The following streets are being proposed for the bond measure. Items ane thrc�ugh four, Gaarde St(99W to 121s`), 1215`Ave. (Walnut to Tiedeman), Walnut Str�eet(TiedEman to 1215�), 121g` Avenue(Gaarde to Walnut). Item number six, 98�'/Dur•ham sigs�alization,Fonn.er Street � (modified design). The alternative projects on the lis!in the following order nf priority if bids aze favorabl�,or if pz�rtnership and otlx�r sources of funding are found: Commercial Street Sidewalk(Main to Lincoln),Burnham(Hall to Main),Tigard Street 4Main to Tiedeman) Tiedeman(Greenburg to Tigard St.). ➢ Joe S�hweitz moved and Ted Spence seconded to approve the 10 priority projects,as listed . � above, for a 10-year bond measure Motion.carried by anajority present, Councilors Moore and Patton abstained. • ➢ Ted Spence moved and Beverly Froude seconded that priority be given to projects if partnership funds become available. Motion carried by majoriry vote with Councilors Moore and Patton abstaining. ➢ Elaine Beauregard moved and Ted Spence seconded to provide for language recommending to Planning Commission and Council that the City implement these projects vvith�ninim�al negative impact to abutting property owners by allowing flexibility in the design standazds. Also,that the flexibYe design standard philosophy be incorporated into the TSP and make it a part of the plantiing process. Motion cazried by majonity wi�h Councilors Moore and Patton abstainimg. ➢ 'Ted Spence moved and Elaine Beauregard seconded for the City and its staff to be�ggressive in pursing partnerships to minimize the cost of projects. Citizens, elected officials,and City staff � need to work together to achieve this goal. Need to laok to State,Coiunty,Metro,and members af the business community for,partnership funding. Motion carried by majority with Councilors Moore and Patton abstaining. � ➢� Elaine Beauregard moved and John Olsen seconded to recommend to Planning Cornrnission and City Council that the City of Tigard engage in a discussion at�d review of sfireet design standards taking inito account new neighborhoods and existing neighbarhoods w�th the direction to minirnize th�impact to e�isting neighborhoods. Motion carried by majority with Councilors Moore arnd Patton abstaining. . ♦ ��scu�sion follow�d rsgarding the need for a citizen's group td take this to Yhe vot�rs. The indication is t�at some of t1Ye Task Force members be vvilling to form a citizen's committe�to promote this bond measure. This committee would be formed afte�Council puts the measure oa� the ballot. Meeting adjourned 8:40 PM . Prepared By: � . Diane M. Jelderks, Sr. Adm. Specialist ,:��.� Transpogtation Bond Task Force M�eeting.Minutes—March 15;200U Page 4 , „ . � • Transportation Bond 7Cask Force Meetang Minutes for Wednesday,March 8, 2000 Meeting Location: Tigard City Hall—Town Hall . Mernbers � Attending: Steve Clark,Mark Padgett, Joyce Patton, Ted Spence, Joe Schweitz, Elaine Beauregard,Beverly Froude, and John Olsen. Members Absent: Brian Moore,Paul awen, and. Phil Pasteris. Staff'. City Engineer Gus Duenas, Senior Administrative Specialist Diane M. Jelderks. Guest: Approximately 20 citizens attended. Hand outs for the mee�ing: � ➢ Notes, Comments&Questions f'rom Open Houses ➢ School District Walking boundaries+ Elaine Beauregard questxoned the road designation as to why the need for minor collectors. She was concerned about the impact to the property owners in existing neighborhood�. The standards could be reduced and stall serv�the needs of the neighborhoods. She stated if the Task Force . chooses to include the minor collectors in the bond measure recomrnendation she will actively oppose the bond measure. � � Gus reviewed the standards for the different street classifications. Ted�pence s�uestioned the cross-sections. Concerned about the impact to the�,eighborhoods. Three la�nes may not be raecessary. Should we l�e emphasizes the arterials and not address local raads? Should we eliminate projects that are not in th�City? How about incorparating landscaping ' into the projects? Need t�be s�nsitive ta the existing neighborhood�concerns. WlZere tkere is considerable�pposition, �nayb��:�ney should be eliminated. Size of bond of$25,000,0000 rnuch moxe reasonable. As we review the projects look at the specific obj�ctives of the project. Joe Schweitz. '�hinks we coizld step back. Even though we�vote for the project it is not over. There is still opportu�lity�or n�i�abor�h�od input dur�ng the design process. Need third turn lane in some locations and not others. Which should we address first money ar projects? Beverly Froude. Took her map and drew a t�ansportation system. Are we t�lking a major transportation update or a minor transporkation update? Would like to see about changing some of the standards. Garrde and 121 S`need the third lane and sidewalks. Elaine Beauregard felt we need irnprovements but we need to review the extreme definitions in some areas. Concerned that if bond is approved that prnjects would char�ge fror� v✓hat is on the list. � Transportarion.Bond Task Force MeetFng Minutes-March�,20Q0 Page 1 � ,, , , � • N1ark Padgett, In approaching this task, they need to understanding that this ks a political process. Eliminate projects that have lots of opposition from neighborhoods. Get general agreement on majQr streets that have a citywide impact. Ten-year bond would be better. Concerned about projects be added afterwards unless already included in the bond. John Olsen agreed with Mazk. Task Force has put a lot of work to rnake a viable proposal. He was blown away by the negativity from people who don't want their street improved. We need to look � hard at this and select projects that the voters will support. Steve Clark thought we w�ere going to organize projects and promote bond measure. Public input came later into the process. Measure will not pass if we recommend projects that do not have public support. Achieve support by selecting projects that will serve public needs. Need design standards that are flexible. Important to get the most bang for the money. Supports partnerships with Washington Caunty and ODOT. Agrees 10 years bond is more acceptable. Joyce Patton-�First,traaisportation improvements are v�;ry important,equally important is not to demean or destroy our n�ighborhoods. She was very frustrated and troubled by design standards seems to work for new development,6ut don't work so vvell in existing neighborhoods. We aze either respectful of neighborhood or focus on growth. She prefers being respectful,but still need to be'able to get around in our vehicles. Heard loud and clear we need to take care of major arterials first. Believes we needed to have conversation with impacted property owners instead of just sending a list of projects without getting input first. Need some way to identify existing neighborhoods to protect their livability. Not satisfactory to say trust us, saying we will take care of design later,need to be more explicit. This is a political process. Need to loolc carefully at where we are going. Ten years seems reasonable numb�r of time to phase in a discreer numbear of projects. Beverly Frounde stated we need to be talking same language. Clarified these are majar and minor callectors that need to be improved not arterials,they are e�nder the jurisdiction of the State. � Tasflc Fores discussed c,itizens concerns and City's street design standards. � Public I�put: ' Har�en Reetz lLyrua S�reetl121s�. �Ias origin�lly opposed. Liked what he heard toniglit. Need Bridge on 12fls`repl�ced. Worse Street in the�ity is Ncarth I)akota. Only i•equest is that we do not construction the projects i�x the winter. � K:risten Preston, 79`h Avea Asked i£there is a funding mechanism for futiding the TSP. Feels funds �ho�ld be funneled to that plan instead of selecting streets for a bond measure. 1Viark Padgett ex�►lained that the Transportation System Plan is mandated by Metro and has not been adopted. • Sue Beilke Looking at the list of proposed projects she did not feel the Task Force look at impact on natural resources.. Does not want improvements througl�the wetlands. All the neighbors want the wetlands to be left alone. They have been given misinformation saying that they weren't going � " Transportation Bond Task Force ' Meeting Minutes—March 8,2000 Page 2 ," • , » �, ., ,. • � . to plant trees because bridge is going to go through. Murdock Street is another example�of destroy natural resources. . Ed Ivy, 106�h. He is impressed with everyone wanting to get the public input. Hopes everyone meamt what they say. Johri Smith,79�'�venue,needs to find out what is actually being proposed. Neighborhood has been giving out misinformation. Design standards needs to be reduced. There is no place on 79`n for children,but we need to protect property owner's rights. Need to be realistic. Twenty years is better. Need to know how it is really going to affect us. Supposedly the LID is off, if this project is removed from list,will LID come back? Work needs to be done,but not as drastic as is being proposed. Need to laok at kids safety versus homes losing their front yazds. Discussion followed among the members. The following criteria were established by the Task , Force to use in creating the list of'proposed projects. • • Focus on major collectors. � •� Amount of money-Begin with$15,000,000 • Length of Bomd- 10 years. ' • Projects should be within city limits. • Should there be a distribution of sidewalks? � Partnerships � , Impacts or�neighborhoods(keep to a minimum.) • Flexibility of Standards Joyce Patton stated and.Elaine Beauregazd seconded that she would like to send a message to the Planning Commission�nai we��:,r�ee:�1e��z�.:ficant input that designed standards r�ed t�bP � � address in rela8ionshnp to exi�ting neighbarhood to be more flexible in�maintaining the livability of the neighborhoods. . Discussion followed regardiaig the`1Vashi�ngton Square Plan. Steve Claxlc requested staff pr�vide the Task Force�vith a typed list of the�riteria. Eacl�member ne�s to came grepared with list of projects and x�asons why t�eir propose�d project should be ira�lt�c�ed�n tkae bond rnea��.cre. l�lso,he fel��t in�por��nt�iat�sam.��ne,praf�:ably this task force, follcsw the process through the design sta�e to insure established neighborhoods are protected. Meeting adjourned 8:80 PM Prepared By: , Diane M. Jelder s, r. Adm. Specialist � - � I:WqldanyYt�lMq�4nkiules 460Y tramP borld W k laos.doc , Transportation Bond Task Force Meeting Minutes—March 8,20U0 Page 3 ,• �� Trans orta�ti� �ond Task For� O en House Comments — Pro/Con from 2/9/00. 2/16/00. & 2/24/00 ♦ Cancern — impact on natural resources. Goal #5 — preserving natural resources ♦ Concerned that 116�' Avenue footbridge & path will tum into a full size street ♦ Favor putting sidewalk on 121St for safety ♦ Fonner Street— move this up higher on priority list. ♦ ��iigh speeds on 121St—safety issue for kids ♦ Lynn Street has numerous trees —don't want to lose ♦ �avor projects, however, need something to go around Greenburg and Hall ♦ Favor WaInuU121st�—make the main streets work first instead of improving local streets. � ♦ Concemed that 116�' path will �ncourage through connections once access has been put through, wants guarantee this uvill not go through ♦ Does not make sense to put bike path for 150 feet down Lynn and Ann at 921Sr ♦ Concem that residents will Iv,se parking with bike paths ♦ Ann Street is main walk for Fowler Jr High ♦ Need to provide safe crossing on 121St for school kids � ♦ Favored signal at 98�' and Durham Road ♦ Bicycle and pedestrian paths are not needed an Cour�ty side of Locust ♦ Improvements to Greenbu�g and Hall rt�ay elevate traffic problems�on Loc�st ♦ All arter�als ne�ed to be upgraded to keep traf��off Locust Street ♦ Proposed extending pedest�an path behind 115�'!'i"eRace Trail Drive connecfing to Gaarde � �etter to have sidewalks c�n oi�� side than ns�ne at all � Murdock— P�nararra� �est F��s— neg�tive impac�t� apartment dw�liers— kids us� streets now—this should not be a high af priority, will lose on-street parking —S�ave surveyed apartments —appose putting Murdock through — area has � natura{ neighborhaod park ♦ Signalization �+�ede�� at �16"' and Walnut with improvemer�ts to Wainut. ♦ Need impraver�ents on major raads ♦ How wide does it really nsed to be? Not convir�ced that three lanes are necessary. ♦ No need for sidewalks in residential areas ♦ Neighborh��ods want to maintain their rural atmosphere ♦ 79�'Avenue, no bike traffic now—traffic volume nc�t that higF� - can'X even get a stop sign �� ♦ Poor quality of road keeps traffic slowed down s M�rdock— residents very opposed�—does not serve connectivity, s�abmitted petition with 200 names opposing this extension ♦ Murdock residents would like area developed as community park with bike/pedestrian paths ♦ Improvements proposed,are�excessiv,e—destroying uniqueness of neighborhood ♦ Support speed bumps (narrow, tall ones)to slow traffic down ♦ Cancern about the condition of roads in Tigard ♦ Citize�s prefer the n.iral atmosphere vs. grid neighborhoods. They would have rnoved to SE Portland if the wanted grid streets. . ♦ Connectivity does not benefit local citizens ♦ Running Murdock through will not improve safety for children, parking is.limited, currently Murdock is a safe street, this would change if street is put through. ♦ Conne�tin�� Murdock would eliminate area for kids to play and a place to take dogs ♦ Need more sidewalks—add Fonner— replace one of the higher projects that citizens don't . � . .,. � want ♦ City is not supportive for walking - i�nany areas have sidewalks that don't connect � Appears City is trying to move traffic through the neighbort�oods . � . .. . . � � � . , � . _ .. � City should cmncentrate on major roads, like 99W and Hall Blvd. instead of money being spent throughout the City. �� ,� , _,- � � . , ♦ Citizens want their neighb�rhoods protected , - ;,,: , - • s Favor irnprovernents� not thr�e la�es on Ga�rde, vv611 increase traffic volume� � � ;; . ; . . s 11Vo�ld �r�fec a 10 y�ar bcand,.tax rate not ov�r$1.00, �e� local r�sidentiai street on measure �r F��et� io �ddress isst�� ofr side�nralks ♦� 11Ve hav� conflict—with plans within the City . , � . ♦ Support ped�strian pakh in general � � � 10N1 - 10 years w4uld suppo�k 20M — if split on arterials 25M —split for and against 31 1A - Little interest � ,' Questions from 2-9-�-16-00. & 2-24-00 � o item #13, who proposed crossing wetlands at 116�'? Staff prcposed ♦ Will 116�' be tumed into a street? � ♦ Will we put a light on 1215�? (response— lighted crosswalk) ♦ Fonner—will it be in City before Bond Measure is voted on? Transfer April — May ♦ Sy�tem Development Charges— Don't we have money to pay for improvements? ♦ What schools wouid benefit from improvements? ♦ Was density/children study done to determine — Looked at '/z mile radius —of school ♦ Why install embedded lights when road widening will mean tearing th�m �ut again? ♦ Walnut/Tiedeman —Why is condition of road so bad during constructian (Big Potholes). ♦ How soon would projects be completed? 3— 5 years construction period ♦ How do citizens know priorities will not change if bond measure is approved by voters? ♦ How will Bond be issued? ♦ Greenway-likes the natural greenway—don't we have to work with other jurisdictions when doing work �n the greenway? ♦ TaP—who is putting this together`? � ♦ Fias anyone driven and looked at projects? "fask Force took bus tour ♦ Will.road improvement destroy setback requirements, creating illegal lots that will be difficult to sell ♦ Did Lincolra Genter fialfell land use conditions for street improvements? ♦ VNhy City sid�walks on�County streets? � ♦ Why sidev►ralks on on� p�r�icular sidP? e What r,a�n b� done #o save tr�es7 �_. .. a o Why�n't you ha�� bike p�#h ar� one side—sidewaik o$h��sid�? ♦ What �re the schaols rules for stude�ts walking fo school? ♦ Why not make developers improve streets they are impacting? i.e. Lincoln Center— . impr�ve Loc��t, ��eenburg ♦ How does input get mad�for spe�ific designs7 ♦ Are we doing too much by m�king streets wider than necessary? ♦ Are we losing sight of impact? ♦ What typ� �f livable community do we want? ♦ Are there any possibilities of improving 99W? .� ,, , •, � e , . =� ♦ What wili sp�ed be on�79"'? 25 mph", ;`. � . ' �,' "�':� ..`.`. , ;. ♦ What�bout tr�es?� How,do�we pres�r�ie�.the trees? � � ;�.: �.! ; � ° r--� , . . , , ♦ What is timeline to address Task Force's recommenc�ations?' ' :;�� ;;� . , ��,.. ♦ Does Gaarde need to,be,,�h�jor,�ollecto�._ , . . :; �� u r� "�.'', . ♦ H�f't$��h��mprov(ngto,5�,lanes,��s,;1hi�.t�ue? � ��;� ,•.: ��t��' �,.;. . , . � ' ' . �� ' ��n'��it�i'as'se,ss'develope�s:toipick-up;difference tietween TIF;�#�ctii�lx:c,ost?, � ♦ Wh�/�,��1. � ., , . . . , . . , , .:, �� .. . ., .., ��'.�. �: �� r;c3�i�,.' ;;_ �': . ,,,�,�-�^:.. �'. � .:.�., ' . ,l" > Y. ,.�" ' � �, '. , . _ �i'.�� , . �ik,�fE,�'i�1�'iri?!�li. • r .. 1 ,f `�"+.13 (, J'' • ,;f11.-,1�'� ' �i . � ti . .. ' :i1, �' .. . :t"'l�4�� Lil( 1/�'� � 1.t s.� � , � . `e'� � .t�-�'.i , * �.. �' . : ._ :'`+ �.,t�i}�f.��?� �.. :'�.��111J� � '�':al '� ! • 4(1.1't. • 'i.) t ��r �:'sj, �. .� �, .. ( _ a;�$��1'�t�11�J . - L. .. t . yr . � , . � x�+ _,_�..��qJ,�� --� .. .;[i' t' r ry'� ,�r-�; ;l' ,., r ,� ., . :r � ":y1( C��✓'t!� 4rt�'�•{� , f;:,: �. . . , 'x.. ., ' • , b t;, .?c � �-} � "j ��r �t . � ' -;{ �i� �. .. " � �. ..r...�`�,�t��w��; , .�>. •ts,�_. i'1 t, � , , .�� . ,. <<'; . • „�~ �.-�' . �.`i';e"a��t1Gl�t.'�t.r�";' �� . � ,' ....Y�j. �,' . ,r r;��;,�. :. .. � ��. �. a _ . .i ��.�� _•5ttr�.mhC'}��`�;j� . . i i .�t � 3� . � ��i ... �� c� '`, . . .. ��.�{....�i{��It l,�.t!�it'.1 . ,�i'� .1tJS�� .J) ., ' ,l�ti , .. , t �::... , ! t � . .r' l ,� M • � �'J ;;f��'�� . . . � t,ti` . .s; .�+ ^' t }�M . 1 :i� g e��f �w #,.t. .. � � ' ) �:S � )t .�' 4 l � �� A �� .�� ' 3 � � ��'y z � � � f . F � ` . .� .. i . f i t,. � } � .' t • `, l � . . 5 ��e 4t�`� i.3r - rr� � � ti �.� �L�� ? �`�.. � � ' �`.i' '�if� '1f,?s J'ti.1 � � ti.it � � �j 5 � i � r �i. . .4" e �` il 4. v q.� {i�tt 'r� �krr�1 ' ` E �;",t",�, � �� . . ,�, , !.�< �'.1 „ (t+�.3�ir.! � �•�`�� 1;�� r�, �j ;1�,. �x � ' '-.ai.7 7i�;� �}r.}�f ?'.i„ � . . I l.�:13_ .. . . . it . . , L' �.'"ru . . . :��;� �� :�93 t��i''��t, ��.': ' , � - . .�,' : k. . . w r � �, i. ., .,. �-.�L i+S1:. -a\� �iMStM'f��.�� , , �j�� r tt� i.�.i � . .:��I�' . , _ .f :if i�� t , �,: 1��[�f�l'1�.,� af�( t r.: n ' � ' �i��j�n.., . ' ,vtt11�1�� NI� Sr . , f� •� .iS . I ' '��11C' , ` � , • . . � � . 1 , • . .7�}4f,a A r��F� t c�1rK� .��. �. ' ,.. !' ; �`j�' t•:'d,�'l��g: �C�i!� � , , ('t.i:i ai;�Qf�``��, r. }' j,�,`�.. '. . .,7. •i.�'f~��_:� :��V�*� �? . � '��1 � . . . . � � . . '�� -k:.' �'11�A? ' . � �� ,.�•� � - . -r • . � . .� .' �S> . .. . .. .1� "sYr.Pj��.��=. f �,'` ,,� � � .E' , , � � F7��f��`'� . , � .. 3 ,' ,_ � „ E.f ;��. ; �'� . � ,;. . �� I .., ' ,a. , (. yti; :,�.; . rr � .�.t..�° .. _. t � �� '� f.'�e : e'r,�;� �. F� .. . . , � Y � _ �!! ` �i��f� �� i� � �� . � �r� � � . . .. . ..:t ..'!�� . -� . , ''i ;C, � t.r.ii'i t '� �`i �' - . 'f ry'.. �. 'y'�� _ ^'�� ' . • . . • 'i 7 � y'�t• yr��. !�} . . . . . . . .n.)�. .�.�,: � � ':��f1{4�:�� • .. . . � � • . . . _ � . .:�_�I:��{. � � .. . ... .. .. . .. . . ................ .'� � . �... ... . . ' . . . ' � . (� � • . � • . . • � � Gaarde Street-� 99W to 121st Ave. Favor-Commen�s Why� Oppose-Commenu Why Not� Yes!Currently too nurow for unount of traff'ic.Unsafe You a�uldn't get it right the'first tiene.How many tries for pedestrians and bikes. does it take. Yes!! � ' • Resident's Letter ' Yes!! ' More improvement means more traffic. More traffic necessitates more unprovement. Yes!!john Olsen Okay . . .. Good project,unsafe u is . . . This road is in desperate need of improvement. Sidewalk on one side only Need t6is dasperately. Too duigerous to walk or bike • . � aad I and my kids do bACh. Yes,buc traffic spc'sd�is ion f�st1"Also lacking street liglit's -. . .. . . at various pla�ces • Yes,laaes�naraow and pavement is in tercible shape. " ' ' � � � �,:.r.�:r.� •, _ , •>• � • � Yes,Gaac+de;carries;st;loc�f tr�c.nnd need unp�oveanent�. � •Yes,plase slow speed to 30 anph or�ennd�s-�Staadents � � . �val�ing to schr�l This r�eods improvem,eaie but not at the expense of_ ' nei�aborhoods. �Iav�the developer�pa'y the full ccast. • �� ' 9.21st Avenue-Wa�nut to l�or�h Dakota � 'Yes,ca.zrrendy��ery dan�geroeis far bikes and pedestrians. Needs l�f�turn lanes at in,�ecsections,�a�t do we really Muc�i used t6oroughfasre overcrowde�l ' aeed 3 laues the full length? � ' Xes!!!d risk my life avalknng on 121A.Fix by putting i� • This doesn't need isnprovement. It already has the sidewalks FASTII sidee✓alk and bikepath. Uon't ruln the rneighborhood by creating a speed°ang zone. Yes.l7itto. 1'wo lanes are suff'icient w/p�si paths. There is no room � for 3 lanes and with the wetlands there you can't e.xpand ' ' anyway! In favor-it is dangerous for peds and vehicles.Would like to see the trees�ved if possible ' Yes,currently very dangerous for bikes and pedestrians. Much used thoroughfare overcrowded ' � , C, � � 1 • , � " ' ,�v �.«:' tl��.ar,. e:. .:��i � r � - : i � 'Y.r.,��' , . . . � �q�'.1@yy .. ��sli!„>Irruk:m,YE�fe wallung on'121";Fix by�pi�'�tu►�.:in, , '. . ,�,�•`; ,,ir�'�'�J�'� -... sideo"valks�ASTI! . . � . y� ,. � n��'a .� � 'Yes.Ditto. " " ' ' ' I�favor-it is dangerpus for peds and vehicles.Woµld , . , � ,_ , . ,, � like to see the trxs saved.if possible , � Okay ' : � • ., .,. . Need alternate to 121". 116'b should have auto b�ridge Re that comment: NO WAY! ' over Summer Creek. � � � I hope chis includes widening the'bridge to the full widch . of the roadway. The current set up where the bridge � . loses the sidewalks(shoulders)bikelanes is homblc. , �� ; . .. V:...t; .. Need.to make the bridge wider-sidewalk on one side. . . . _ . . . . .,...� .,,.; , Yes,pleasel My daughter walks and rides bike there,and : . _ . . it scaces md . . . . , ., • •••r i Yr,c. Lanes are too narrow. . '. . . . . . - . -w.... Yes. Slow tr.�ffic beca�se of students w�alking to school. ,F, ..., , .'•<��.��:,,,.•;: � ,;�-;';'r�r,i jn�� . .� �... Walmut Str�et-Tiedeman to 121st - � - -� -� - ' • �. . .. ,u u;.� t� ,r�;; Yes,much needed for safety of students going to wd Don't really nced three lanes. . '•;_.;�,;;,,��•� t ,froffi Fowlsr- -. . . . . _.. . ._ . _ . ; . . .,�;�� 'i . , •. r :.' ,., . .i,� �, �. ,�r, *..:�� •:s_ �r,, k:�'� . Yes1�5o muip reasons:Walkers�n�ed°sidewalks�and I thought the�county was alre�d3'Planning�to dot6is.:""V. chi�dren risk thear lives to go to school. - Dot['t`riiiri-tke neighboshood=�i3st make if safe�fifr~'� '=``� _� . pedesea�iw/baketr�fc. . . � . .. .. �_ Yes,bike lanes are n�eda;d. _. . . . � . ._.. ��,:r..'.Y��.. Yes-School sa�'�y ... . � . . . . • , . ��,;. . - . . .._ . . . ,�•: :• ��rt . � — �.i. . r- . .:. ..c• . 1. .�es-�.s3fety m sadewalks neod�d. -- .. . .�__ :' . � �.` � '� ' ��y .. ... . �_. ,...'" ` `: :, . ' ..: . ;.:'' . ;. ': -+ ,;1��,. .. � , . .. �. . �. .,. .:�. Yes,iiiuch n�ded for safety of students g�iigg to and ' ' � '� '� . . .;t-.. . _ , ... <,..,-_. �;•: , ... , ._ ;fro�.Fowler.- '� - .. . .:.: :. _ � .. .. �Sndeaalk�on'one side'only: • ` . . � '� ' ' . � ' � � � . . . _ .. .. � � Sh�uld go fixrther wesc. Really need sidev�alks atl ttie . way to 135th! � .. If this is built,it will attract additit►nal traffio and make it even huder than currendy to tum left from 116th onto Walnut. Need a signal there to mitigate neighborhood impact. . Ycs. But please consider lowering speed to 25 mph. • High volume o�young pedestrians! • Page 2 of 16 � • � 121st — Gaarde to Walnut . Yes,cutrently very du�gernus for pedestrians and bikes. No-I wouldn°t have and fro�nt yud left or driveway. Also,too many cars for such a narrow street. . Yes!!I risk my life walking on 1�1".Plea'se do sidewalks!' Oppose unless and until chis area i:;within the city limits. Yes.Bike lanes�avill be used often The wider the street,the faster the tra�c. No sidevvalks'. � No bike path. • � • Okay no we really need 3lanes? � Yes! Improve traffic flow and add sidewalks and Don't ruin tke neighborhood,just mako it safer for bikepuhs. • bicyclists aad pedescrians: � � Sidewalks on one side only. •Sidawxlks are not aeeded on both sides of the street. � Sidewalk on one side only a�ad make street wider. Yes to sidewalks. , I really want this project. Walking on Gaarde scares me! � Yts,lwes are too nurow. � ' " .Yes. � . . . � Burn�am Street-Main to Hall �..� . . . . .. . .. _ __. . Yes!!Bike I.anes are a must. no comments � Nutnw Rouiway to 2 Lane with no parking uound ' • �McDade house.xc Main Street end. _. 'Yes,,helps promote pedestrian tcxffic.S�aPP'Q� .. . . .. , . . . ..,. dow�wwn efforrs. . Okay � � . . '. �Side�avalks and bikepaths a must. . Good LYSe��tax S. � • . 9�th .Ave. Sigrnaliza�io�—at�u�°ham Road Yes,very busy in AM witth traffic going to Tigard'I�igh, 1�To comments inapossible to cnake a left turn onto Durhazn from 98`�at �thae tnme. . � . Yes,I agree with the ab�ve stateanent.Plus it is congested all day long n�ot just AM. � Yes,needed for a long time to aid seniors coming out of Sumn3erfield area. Yes,needed.Di�cult to get ou�onto Durham. Page 3 of 16 i � � \Will this back up traffic on Durham more? . � Left turns from 98th to Durham are dangerou�. ' Greenburg Road- WSQ to Hall . , . ,� . Suppor'ts Washington Squue plan,allows people to walk ' to work . . ' Okay ' . Bike Paths!!!!!!11 ' Yes,bu`t would you need�signal at the last entraace to Washingtoa Square(closest to Hall Blvd.?) � �� - 72nd Avenue-99W to Hunziker Street . Much needed due to build up of Winco-Costco area, No coaunents. curnatly duigerous narroo'v and dark for pedestrians and . ' ' � bikes. � Lut time thcy said the new building next to the_ . ' aputmemu wu going to be ia the stroet if they wickn 5 t lawies,because someone goofed on their building permie. ' � What will happen at that spot? • � , Gr+eat prnject,nads to be donq. - -72ndasunder developnaeat-..�vvaitand '� ,"�.W; • -. _.., . ' ..'.. � . _. .,... . _ . � , ._ � , ` ai save the moaey. � � _��y . ._.. .. . . :. .. .+ . :, .. Yeslt I�Tew development has caused lors of saxffic! . � : . � . `,;:'' , t. � � Wall Street Ext�axsaan �. .._ _._ <: �; Wh�t happen�d tm th�crmssoaer ar 217 to�'hil I,�wis aaid This atreet down aot need this maybe puE in the new � .72�°? crossoeer as�d xa�cw intersececon at 72�. � � 3hould�im�srove#�ow at H�11�nd Fiunzi�er Very poor�roposal. . • . � ; . - Hunzik�r Str�et- Ha�l to 72aad Ave. � ' - Yes!�-iea�y tr.xff'ic esp�cially l�age.trucks;but alsci well- .-, �.Why;do tiia�if yoia are btiilding Wall Street extension ••liked cut=off between Hall tci 72°�. ' ' ' relie�ce it'?Eithea one��r the other.Not both.". ` 3�''es4 Concern would be the intersection at Hunzikec and Hall. • .Okay. , Old road aeeds all kinds of improvementsf! • Page 4 of 16 , � � � Greenburg Road - Washingtc�n Square to Tiedeman � Yes!There could be so man}�more local walkers to the No comments. mall,like me,if you didn't have to risk your life. Okay Bike paths a mustl � � ' Sattler Street � 100`� to 98�' Favor-Commenu Why? Oppose-Comments LY/hy Not? Continue the good work that has been As it sits,this street is good for"traffic calming" to widen it would bring more unwanted traffic and turn the 100ie and Sattlec intersection into a"safety joke." Definitely opposed The intersection of 100`�&I.ady Marion is a congested Unnecessary project-street functions fine now. area. Widen Sattler from 100`6 to 98`�and you should emprove traffic flow We need more bike lanes and sidewalks Narrow street slows traffic. 1 side sidewalk maybe. Most definitely oppose from Dawn Ct.to 100`b. City of Tigard can't control the traff�c and speed now! Widening the street increases the amount of traffic as well as the speed of traffic. This is a waste of S. This street should be kept as is. Widening would only encourage faster cc�xfEic. People drive 60 here now. We need p�lice,not faster craffic. 'There are several houses(S total}that would lose the front yards if this street were widened 60 feet. I can't imagine the noise from the traffic if people speed aown t.l�is newly widened r.oad. Leave it as it is or widen only to�0 feet as was plotted on Tigard's original plan. The rest of Sattler '. is not 60 feet is it? Sat�ler Street - 98`� to 92°a Good project,lots of pedestrians, access to school Definitely oppase from 96c6 eo 100`h. Too many pets and children-what we need is speed bumps,speed limit of 25mph, and a stop sign�96`h street. Not people driving even faster. Continue the nice work to the entire road There is no room to widen the street here. The existing sidewalk and street is adequate as is. Page S of 16 � • , ' I.eave it alone. It's a waste of money. ---- Txgard Street:�Main to 7Ciedeman � Include u much curbside parking as possible Just re-paved and narrowed bike lan.e at that time.It now •runs north an��south?? Good thraugh street-bike paths a mustlll 79`�Avenue- Bonita Rd. to Durham Road Ol,der.�ueet�e.�ds�,t��p�royiag for thrpu traffic to,. �uucFease.ic�Aow speed�mph)and count no guarantee of s�I1C111�E",.,�bl�. � 7� �[�-tti t,+I 1� .�I '+ o f� • � �L["�G C'�IY11IIg � ^ '':t. ''.i'�17l;T 1d ,r f.'1t: � .ct,.A: �.b. ��x:. �r YC '�f, .: ..: ... ..i � . .,1 �. .. .��'..w:♦�:�• . . }.: . . . . .: .�: . . ., �'..?• Resident's lefter. �� , � � �It�s�my understanding that this is not a minor collector. ° � ° You will destroy the neighborhood. Good thru street-needs bike paths aad�dther Absolutely opposed to this.It is excessive expenditure of improvements � taxpayers'money.In opposition to citizens desires! � . • • • •• Oppose it will cause unsafe traffic flow and destroy ' � ' ,property.No LID. Wish to maintain residential suburban neighborhood - . . � status. . _ � .Only a fool would agcee to the destruction of his own� � - ' �neighborhood.(Colin Penno) ,. _ ... , . . ;,.,• .., , . . _ � . :. � - • � � � ; ;Invites high-spced tc�affic.There are alternative"road�� ' . . , '�. . , . ... .�• � ,desigas.Who uses bike laaes Nov-May? � � ' _ � �, . ' ,. . � �A6solutely opp�sed-I�teighborhood does nat warrant a � . ,; -full siu street-too muc6.traffic-high speed. � . , �Absolute overkill.VPe do not want a highway!We want � �; ,, . . .Sa�keep the low key atmosphere. � ;Waste of public�oney.This road doesn't need to be • � 'v�ader.�all destroy a cauntry at��sphere. , , �O�pose this is not needed traffic�vill be worse-totally 'unsafe. , . ' ;Excessive spending,excessively large road design.Why ' ' �isn't the City listening to residenu? � '°i'he City Council xc�d Ciey Engineer acknowledged . ron�ght.(io/2o/s9)ch�s��`�'is appropriately a IVFIGI�ORHODD ROUTE;the neighborhaod route �� . needs some improvemenu by DESIGN and attention should put NEIGHBOR.HOOD first.Please. . Spend the money on the important projectsl! The task force identifies safety as paramount.Widenix�g the road automatically invites higher speeds and out of the nei hborhood traffic.I don't want eo le usin 79`b � Page 6 of 16 1 � � Avenue to avoid traftic lights and congestion on 72ad. ' P�ve the road maybe-but do NOT widen it. Oppose-This is a neighborhood that needs to retain tlie ' neighborhood feel.79ie par�llels Hall Blvd-We already have cut through doing 45 mph-We wbll have fatalities if you widen the road. � � If the Council h�s any common sense at all they should sc�le back 79ie and use the potential savings to improve ' McD�nald between Hall and Hwy 99 this is a much , heavier traveled road and is seriously inferior to the 79`� proposal. Will result in speeding cars&revamping as was done to N.Dakota between 121"&Scholls-FR RR There is no justifiable reason to spend close to SS million dollars for a neighborhood St. Minor improvemenu are all that is necessary. Revise plan. Your plan is , unacceptablo to neighborhood and citizens of Tigard. I am stronelv opposed to this unsafe road. Children ride bikes into this street. Cars spading by niins my neighborhood. I will work:agaiast the bond . This is not a worthwhile project. •The road is a residential road,in a residential neighborhood. Why create an industrizl road-45 mph? The spad limit is 25mph and • pcople already spe.ed on this street. By making it wider . speeds will only increase-and that is not safe�for this road. All you need is 2lanes aad 1'sidewalk. O�aly acx,�ptable if there is no L1D and massive speed bumps aad stop siga�s to control speed and maintain . �afety. • W�4:kins A�r��ue— 99W to '�al�aut �'treet �ood thru st.ceet-ne�ds bike paths and oeher What resp�nsibility does State OR.Hvry 99 take ln ' araprove�ents ' rerouting onto Watkins from 99V�for funding and . patrolliag?Propasal:if one side has side walks and bake paths this area curaeritly used(i.e.autos)as safetq has been a factor on sch�ool walkers so there has been increasing number of autos opposed to wal�Cers.Speed bumps have been ineffective. Use does r�cs�j�stify irnprovements�cao not need 2 pedestriac�and bil�e paths Proposed improvements will cause increased traffic cutting through neighborhood School access for children will be threatened by the increased traffic Pagt 7 of 16 . • � Why widen tihis=Commercial development?This will � ' ruin the neighborhood � • � ' ' Looks like a good project to delete,and apply che funds ' � • ' to improving Fonner. ' � Foriner$treet-Walnut to S of 115`�Ave. Yesl1�I'un a�avalker uid I�ee cke'kids�dvalk to sckool too: no commenu This sectitin of r�oad'is a fo�al�deaih trap:I sde caius off' � into,chat right aiigle tuin gully-every few months along � , ihere.Will it take a death tdinspir'e people to�b'uild� ' ; sidewalks?At leut put ia guudrails aad blinking yello,ws at dead maa's ,curye,therel We don't aeed a �bond issue to do ihat much at:least.. „, .. � . . . , • Good,i -road is unsafe:fo'rfpedestrians and eyclists..; ��P��«�:ho,�d�,��r�, pnority to uap"rove, aK because rt get'!'oonstatit�►olu�te" ere are�3'new _ 1... �rt '{� .. i devdopaienu gd�ng�in.t�'iere^sind�it's a fairly short• � distaace Pl`ase! � . . We need th�s'ti�be.a' 'rib �1i'upgrades 8t:s ": � � . I am-'most ooncerned to get�idewaillks�mon than a third • lane:` �- c . , , ' �x�a',-� � i��i� .. �, • .� . . �wf•... ;;.. . ;;A;� I�,�itv��;;of�5�1��►!ift�slic�uld,be•liighptIorityl��:'� �_'9i e�,1.• �f i1. ? t:• 1.-� ..�� ...J.' `_.�.b - ,..� ��.. . . (1°Dllld�l��y��i�'�r,y�men��.i�.�OIIQ yC''IIT''� aga9 -,: , -„•�: ��• . _ - ,.� ', . � �: � .� :,,, , .. ,. ,.� � �,,:r :ti,:�� .�:Ts�ci;S��ri�dge Replac�ment . ,�� „ �. . . , ., . , ,,,,..,:;,,. If�bridge eoa�diti��.a�wmargi�al"it is time to repluc it: ' no coxa�nenu , , .. _ . . ,. W , r��;T�igs�rd�Stroet��Tiedmi�n�o li�`�Avenue �„� . . i . ..�, _ .: ., , ;, (�aod aelaxioa.fors�treat;i�npro�emen�,,� .;,r ,.; �„f.;. Ar�you kidding�Put yc��r zlme to b�tter us�. . � .,. . . , , � ^1�ee�vv Conn��,om:.-.North Iaako�a ta'Tiga�d ` ,: .,i. � � :: : � .; •. • , :r;..� Good,idca�-,wili fielp impr�v`e u�tersertion of N.Dakota, Are you serinus???Do y�u�lan to tear down those new and�iede�en . . :, . houses on 1�7`�. � . ' � ' � Major Neig�b�rhood opposition-n�,t�rorth the rmone�. ' ' �. Will not�ccomplish anything. VVill just transfers � . problems to another locatian. Also,this goes through another new homa Suggest routing traffic to North Dakota directly from Greenburg vs Tiedeman. A band-aid on the street,a lot of money routing traffic to N.Dakota won't help that much. (New homes cost S) Would it be possible to connect North Dakota to Page 8 of 16 . . , . � � � Cascade??No homes would be destroyed by that process. . Not well thought out. Oppose. 115`� Ave. - Tigard St. to North Dakota no comments no comments . North Dakota -Tiede�nan to 121st � no comments Need sidewalks,but this street already,needs speed bumps to control excess speed. 3`�lane will make it worse. Don't need. ' Don't need bike lanes or sidewalks-will make problems. , � Sidewalk on aY:l�ast one side would be good when developments aze complete and speed bumps on vazious . areas are causing problems of a hindrance to fire dept.or police&road just resurfaced. Recommend bike paths ' , away from traffic flow. � • . . _ ..�,. , , . , .. . . .-,; • Murdock Street— 103`�Ave. to 97`�'Ave. Fav�nr�,-Comm�tts lt� � Oppose—Commenu Wfiy Tlot? Aefinit.ely a safety issue for children going to and f;rom " You'll destroy what remains of aature on Little Bull Mta�. school—iffipmvements woiald be gre�t� ' . ,. . . , . . .. � Need for school aad loc�l use. WR.ONG • � W�nced to preserve natural areas in residential . , • ' "`'neighborhood.Elinuaate the project!!! � , Sidewalks are only needed on one side of the street. Beke - � lanes sempty ue not safe for children to use as a means of . • . • . . transportation. - � • , Wlaile it makes sense to put sidewalks an one side of the " road,it does no�aiake sense to create a straet for other than local use. �'uttittg too mucla trafEic down Murdock • � Stcreet increased�he d�nger to our n�i�k�borhood. � � . � Remove neighborhood park for unne..ded street.NO! ' • Extension through 106`�to 103`�to 9Te not necessary. � ' No-This only encourages more and faster vehicles on MurdACk. A sidewalk on one side would be nice for�the schoal children. � • Sidewalk on one side good proposal to facilitate pedestrian aaffic but further improvements unnecessary especially without need to put thru to 103'�. ' Scoffins Street Realignmerit Improves pedestrian sa£ety at intersection May promote through traffic on this street Page 9 of 16 . � . , Very.iasapo�tant safety projact�and supports dowatown , - improvement goals Will improve traffic flow.Need to proyide,leEt turn lane. � i' ; �� Murdock Street—, 106�Ave. to 103`d Ave. . Corineetivity`is tfie�ouncil s�mun issue-this should A"park"�evill be destroyed!Tigard is lacking true green have beea done many,'maay y'rus a�o. ` • � • spaces—with the density that we now have=this is � ' ' . greatly needed.It would be foolish to put Murdock street ._ . , � through.This arsa has a pedestrian path already-,we do ,, not need more cus in this area , � - � • �' • ' A 60'vvide street is not a local street.You're taking away �� • � -' -�� •�'• '• •� "• � from the already approved puk wd for what!Our kids , . . � : .:�;.,, �i z , i .� _ won't be xny safer with a street�like this proposed one. ' � � � - � Traff'ic from 109`�to the schools will become nightmare.. ��t ,, . ; . �� . ' . ' ��!l.�-•1i1�'%r. •.y�. .1:' ��1:.4.-. t�y:� � ri� � �*�. �'•4'c S^ f 2+i5'p ay�4��1 rct� .�v'.;'_ .o' ..�1 s��' a., 1f 5 .;v�`y�. ��*: { ,� �.``�'�;'�� ,,,��kourd'!i�r�-�pxrk�witxi� naa'bi�cle�"w`�a.y. . , . �. ;�;i, ,,..aa �,.�.��:L1�• .a.-r.!'£..� .• ..., ��f`roni'106'�and 103'�.Unnecessary wd'd�tructive project . . �,:.,� , � r�� ,; : . of lirttleSif aay r'al valuc. ..�. _. .�... ...�., ,. ,. _ . .. „ . . Nnl Elimination of�,potential parkland-does�aot lend to . . . � . connectivity . . � . , . . . . .,. , ' ', . , ,. ., ., As street cnds in nucq�v<c�r,xt.Be[EGr co.nnecxivtty'wpuld r' . . . .... _. � . . .._ .� .. _- `lse�best servtd by usuig�Canterbury Laae to�conneci tb� . , ,; �:,.. _ ��, . �; .�:�� .. ,,�,; �y . . ., 99W. ,. . �,, . � . , . .. . 1: .r-�..1,. ,.rl�� ' .. . . . •i� �. . .. . . , _ :- . . . . Tkis�proposal is defuutelp not needed or dccired-This �. . .�. . :, ?< .1 , _, ,. •�: . . _ . , :�i: ,.. r.•. . , plan would descroy what little park we have in this area- . • ..�, .,�, „ :��: . .:s . ,.z ;. �; .. . please spend my tax dollus more wisely!!! _ . •�•. � ; � ' • • - ° - ' ' 'Noi''What dorx this pro�eP Use Caneerbur}y I.and or , , . .;,,; ,.... .:•�:: .. , ... . � • DelMonte.�Street to n�urow . � �:.., : . . ... � • � � .._ . , ; • :, , . , ., _ , `6ieay,pcDar proposal..List�n to the homeo�✓ners anal _ .. . r, �• 'rexadents.Do not include this in the bond prpject. . . . � , . . Wh�t about the trees?�74'e're starting to look lik.e - . - --• � �• '� � southern California-all pa�r�ment mo greenspaces • �r• .. ' � . „ . . � � � ° • 'Unneeiled-save the water district property-build a . . puk instead. . Forget the us�n�cessary experase of the street. iJse the � , land to enh�na the�leeady approved pu��; Dan't sacrifice our neighborhood environmeht by creating yet ' another¢raffic hazard. Spend your(our)money where it's needed in other areas throughout the city. Page 10 of 16 ` 1 � � , This is ocfly not needed by not wanted-Use tax dollars in other areas of Tigard where they can be better used and � appreciated. ' • Would speed traffic thrugh very dense family apt. housing and ruin a park&'cause impossibl�parking situation! No point in extending Muadock thru a natural park to a less traveled area,when Canterbury is 1/2 block away. Constructing road through last remaining natural area on little Bull Mtn would destroy quality of neighborhood . there are enough roads in the area already to handle the tr�c of the residents. This would be a waste of taxpayer's S.TrafEic should continue en use Canterbu.ry, 103'�and Murdock. An extension would only make the cars going down Murdock go faster. Money would be better spent to put only a walkway/bikeway through the park. Illogic�l extension as west direction ends Murdock at a "T"intersection whlch would not really serve � conne�tivity u stated. The intersxtion would direct 99 tr�ffic to a dangerous intersection with Canterbury. Save money and the puk bq directing traffic North on 103`�to Canterbury which is already wider and has a tc�affic light at 99. Trafflc c�n Murdock is not heavy eaough to warrant . concern over"traffic flow". And loss of our pazk would be detrameneal to the ne'aghborhood Also,flow diverced to Canr�erbury(by Church&Tigard House)ke�ps speeds ' down. � , � Why fiaa�nel traffic into P�eighbarh��od vrlth Kids,dogs, � joggers,etc? Loss of greenspace�vauld be detrimental to neighbarhood environlnent. People use the gr�c�space for��ts,w��ay and you have some large growth trees. The people ie wauld effect don't want it! � C:onnectiviey for streets is not as necessary as pedestrian � &bike connectivixy. e � i 0 92°d Ave. - Inez to�-Teidi Court � Sidewalk one side good no commen�s We need more sidewalks Page ll of 16 � • ., � . . Pinebrook St. -Hall Blvd to 92°d Avenue , ` We nr.ed more sidewalks no comment� , •103`d Ave. -112cDonald St. to Vie�v Terrace • We nad more bikepaths - • • ��• � Not necessary.Very Tighe tr�c , . � � � � No-I bicycle az►d do nox see a valid need for such ,.. , ,, , Sidewalk and paths for bicycles-curve the development � . .,�;•��. around development around trees. , . � lA3`a,Ave. -�Canterbury Lane to Lady Marion . � Gcwd ide� . ' � Not enough"tc�affic"to warrant project We neod more sidewalks � . _ • Need from C�nterbury to Murdock-not to Lady � � Marion • . � �� ;100'�`A�e;';�VicDonald St to Murdock St. � � , , . . � , :. . � • . `';' � a-. ..i. Do.�his:projcax,not p�o1xt N3(103`�IVtcDon?t�d'to��w Really only need path on one side,not both Teriracb)'and;N4.;(103`��Ca�ierbu 'ry to Lady Mar'ion) ` ,, • . _ Good idea� R�. � � � ' �'. . • 'We ricod,.a;ore b�cepaths . . . ' �: �,.t .. .__ �y.l .. . .. � .' '.� . .,i i.�� }'l.11a+l[i�al��70�'�Avee �Q �00�CIV�• ,,; . �a . . � ,; ,. . ,,. _ . . Y�o¢hir�pmje�cx:,not pirojext M3(103'�I��Doti�ld to View Unnecessary-nice as is,almost no tcaffic,so no need °1 err�c�e�and IY4(103°�Cantcrbury ta I,ad A T�arion)� • . We.nesd�sox��bike�aath.s. . � 1..� , � . . . . . , , . ��:,� . � : ��- ��;., � , �:. .., ��:: ..+Grant;.Av��.Jot�son St. to'I'a�ard �t. � ,.; .. . . .. ,� . , =T. . � . Add�ike lPath both sides.Johnson so Tigazd� ••� ;�-� • No bike path .. _ We need more sidewal.ks . . , Bike path one side only � �� i y ,��f�x'tasc 1+r :t��. t ��y�y,-. �. . -:E i! . µ�� l�� k ��`'` a� .'4:*�}' r�,�i;�c�r�.��' � '� �"'�°C��i�F��%S6: t�r��-T'"-...�4#'�lr`,��11.I..�e7S� �y' � . t �'�E§tS c:�.e.h.n v n.C+M. Y „r'� �n r. �,��'�Y '`�"�A;.4e�� :,� �'�:1�'a1`� . �. rj,.�i?"y?�,"��'A(.�' �'�}��•4`y�d.�i:lt��:. i�ii ..� ; ^.�. y�t��{ ��. .. . . . �..,.+:o .. T.k�. eei��aad unprove so ev�nt�lly Ash c�n be exte'n'ded No bike path ' � •w�'`•`�'�`i: ac'ross Fxnno Creek to Bumham-ar at leut pedestrian bridge. ' Used quite often by bike.commuters � No on both We need more sidewalks and bike paths Page12of16 , ' � � �' ' Park Street-Watkins St. to 99W We need morc.sidewalks A bike/ped lane is already exiseing and current use does � . � ' ' not justify additional ped path. . ' .' : , . . , 'No bike path � , � . . � `� • . • � � Why both sides?It should only be on the soqth side.Do . . � """ ' - not impact tlie residential neighborhood! . � • � � • � 'Anri Streef 121" to 300 ft east . We need more side�valks' � ' • No bike path • ,,, . ' t��• .' No bike path-no need . , � Fix 121"first� . . '- - - - �--. . - ,- : . ... ';What about all the trees and granery? � . � .. ' , ,.�; , . . .��. :No bike Paths-No sidewalks No need-will affect looks - - . --- � : � �- of entire area due to loss of landscc�ping. � ,:� ' . . .. � r ;: � .:. . . . , ,. . :. � ..,t�.,�;.�.��.., :. -:. ,� Absolutely NO bike path over wedand� We do not need: •, �: . ,, ,,,,,,;, , ,,�r•r,a , . .' . , • the�sidewalks on Lynn. We have very few children aad .. • • • 'the busses delaver them to&from school. � � • � � �Y� �Remove this project w ooacentrate on Fonner,Walaut, ' �.. . . }121K`8z C�arde: . ._ ._. .. . . ., . .�� .::� r��<<,�•. • .. . ., . � 'J!� b��.r�.��.• • r' = � -� - •�• �' We do not need sidcwalks on Ann St. Concentrate on . ._ . - � -- . � - Fonaer�Walaut;E�'121st. . . . . �_ . . '`'�: ` ,-'...�__ :__:_ _.,�_:._ �o�idewallss'rieedet�,keep trafficspeeds doviin. _. ;t,� ,�;,�• : � � �.•� ��=��• '� . . � �. .�_.. .. . . ... �..�v�F.aa}pr, � -.�ef.ta�1,....� .:�`O�-r�,...�.nY�..rc-w�<fi;'{.�;v;^ . .,. ... _�..,.. . . ... . ......... .._ .,. .. ._„. . . _. . . . . . . .. ' !. • . ._. . _.. . . , Noe.�e�ded.Aas,es St.has littde traffic 8c a.u�uch of-it:a�� _ _ _ cuir�etat pedestsyan te�ific is bypassi�t�ae lack of sac�r�lk" ... ,... . . .,:,; ;�,',, �. , . . ... . :�.. .oxa;Walnuti:�thic�i.is.su�rposed ta gee�f'ixed as paro:�of•t�e ._. , _ . . - asaaj��r collector p�aYx: Also,this�ould take`aut a¢lsast on .._. . - . � lacg�e tsee. .._. ... .. f P w;..w„ _ -;Na bike or,'s,�dewatls needed .. . ...,.. . . . . . , � ; ,, . I.ynn,�treet- 121'`Ave. to 300 ft east � ' , „ .. ,,.,_..,: a r � W�a�ix�aaore sidea�lks � � , No bike paxh--require lxcense p�aees for bi�.es . • ' NO-bike or sidewalks ' ' We have no need for a bike path/sidewalk on Lynn. ' Neighbors are free to walk and ride bikes now because . there ue so few of us. No bike gath-no need for sidewalks in this residential Page 13 of 16 � � . . uea,very l.ittle tr�ffic ^ , . , , , ; ;Not neededll i�toc wanted!! � Y . . . , ,, , For the amount of ti�affic in this area it woidd not be a . .. . . � good use of taxpa�er money. No thru'traffic as both ' � � ° ' "! '116`�8�c Lynn'are not thru streeu! ' , . . , . , . . ° � '`Sidewalks havcn't been completed on 121'or Walnut . �� .. „ .,. � ,��';' which are much busier streeu-Concentrate,on thadl - � �-°- If you have-sidewalks&bike lane on 121"this are a waste. . .'. ,. ;,.; � ; : of anoney..Na bridge in wetlands. . . . �., .... ,.. ,. ,,._.� ,....�.. . . .. ,_ �� , . ... J I am not in favor of improvements on Ly�n St.. There is � • ' -- -� not much tc�aff'ic on the street an not much ped.traffic. �' �+ ,�,• Why spend the money? � • � �+ ,� i -�� Siace people oppose this project,I advocate removing it � " ' '�' � � � in favor of the Fonner. � , .., . ..r. . , ` � � - � ��" `- � �� . No sidewalks nceded,j�ist keep traffic from cutting �; ..''� : • . . ' .: ' . . � ':`�� through our neighborhood! .. � . . . ... � . ' ' " '` This should be the l�st project on any priority list. There i �• . T ,.��' _:..�. .: �� ; ..,. ..,a,�:.� ';;�; is no one in the neighborhood who would suppon t�is. I� �' ''. . . . , . ' .� � . ^ ''^=,°�.;,'�'; know you will loose lOQ or more voted if tbis is on the , �.: �. . � . .. . �,., .,�..�� final list. . .'. . .. _. . . __ .. '. ... --�- - - � , . • � :; �r.'�i .. �::,,i �; . • . .. ._ �.� ,_ ••; i�;��;,r;u't�. ;No bike path ae�. • � . .� . ,, .` �� . �; _ � - ,` ,. '�°liis seemc fo be useful only for handling traffic from tlie�. , .,,,�. • sr,.., �., � � i . ... <<�� c,f��,�'}V., 11�`�bridge,which should not be doae. .. . , .�� , . � _ _ . _ ___ . . ..._ ... _ , .. , �. . .. .-- - �..TVo'6ike or sidewalk neoded . ._�. � �.:. _ . , ;�i, . . ,, . , ., ..�.:.:,� ,, i .__ _ . .. . __ _ . -._Barri��a-s Road=k�arii�r:'B�l�r�.to �'�tnut ._" �� no c��,e�.t.. . . -. _ I�ta bike p�th - ---� .. _ �t,�:..-.=�--�° F. . . , .,z�'; ;�: �.� `�; ;: �,+�. Gomimor�aal��;�i�iM��e �� L.Encoln St. ' � . . , , . . ; �-- no;coirianent .. . , , . - , �':..1' No bike paths ' . _.._. . _. . . '. x_ _.., . .. __ . .._ _ , . „ �, .116`�,Avenue;;�Tig�rd St. to Katherine St ' Y�:s,a bilce path�would b�good� .y r " ' . , ¢� „ .Th�s one is��rotected as a gree�aspace,wetland anc9 .. .. � .. �. ,,. ... . ,. .. . . .. .. . _._ , _., , floadplain,.&Suanin�er creek had.federally I�.s�e�d specles.ut-� . ; ,� �, .. , , . , ,,,,, itl the proposed path is not needed,warat�by the people: . -•- �� - . who live there,nor will any state or Fed.agency Ever' . � ;. approve this proposed project! It would be a.waste of S ' &destroy our nat.resources!!!! ; . ±j ' . NA Need!!Fix 121"first. � I)o not agree-we'll fight it. No need-do not want. , ' I'age 14 of 16 , � � � Not wanted! Not.neededi Noe•Wantedl No need-have ernjoyed privary the last 35 years.-feel that walnut would be too much"thru 'traffic"already! Not needed or wanted-Ann St already get traffic from Walnut. ..._... ' Don't need a freeway thru a quiet residential area. Have children. I enjoy the peace&quiet-wildlife area � deserves more cons'ideration than this! Area ean't handle ' this much craffic. ' � ' " Not needed-use 121". No need for a bridge. use 121". • Are U kidding? � This is a wetlwd area. In Feb.96,summer Cr.flooded. this entire araa. � , _ ' • If it's not broken........ • What will screet width be at fooebridge after fin:il . con;Kruction. � � No way. It's a flood plain 8c natural wildlife area. � Remove this project&apply che fundiag to better project,especially Foaner ehls is not necessary. Save the SS and use it for 121�, '�A�luiat,�-Iall,Durham! . i�e do�:ot want this project. Use the mnmsy foa�Watnu�, Fqn.ner, A21st�xd C�aard�. • Nothing further to add,see above. I.ocu�t Street - West af 92°d�ive�o Hall Blvd Bettr.r safety for kids walking to school(N[etzger no comment • E�emeratary) 72°d A�enue- Locust��t. to Spruce S�. � bo comment no comment Spruce Street - 72°d Ave. i:n 78`� Ave. no comment Serves people outside city Iimits who beneEit but don't PaY ' Page 1 S of 16 j � � � � + ` ' � � , . .i � ' ' ' ,Oak Street-L'u�coln St. to �iall Blvd _.. � `� __ . _. - . __.._ _. . . _�; Se�ves'a I�i�ge nelghborhood�unsafe u is. ' ' ' , no commcnt ; • ,,;�'�.,'„ ''' : ` "t� ' _. . Garrett�treet-99W ta.Cresmer Dr. . ....� . .. ',�'� .....- '', t ��', ; . �. , Sa� �1a.�37�t ):y� 'r, 1 f> � �.. ,-� , �� , i �_L« kr ' . e�y�sstse�or Pedestnans� . ,.r; ,'�. no commeat . ... -- »....c,.�s. ��r ,�.' ta�r ma r, �., �7,.8�'Avanue:,,.Spruce St to Pfaffle St. . . ..__ . . ,.___ ;; , ' Tg have gc�d bilpe.Pat�s,.;l•�',� ,�:�. � . , .:, ... � no commenc . � z'r . :�..1 f . '•t'�' .. , . o��•. I ."f.� `.ti.. `'tt, �( . . "' . . • T�O 6av_'e a great t�mE bikiagl ` ' . . _ . �{: -t �.r, .�• • . . . . .._.�.... .....�. .. ...� ......�. . . .. � ._., .... . . . _ . ._._, . . . , ; ._... , .... �.'_. �. . 71 �►.enuc=99W to Oak St. � _ � 'r ,, . . . .._ _,.._..... _._. � �`��.,. ;_ �IIO COII]mCIIt • ��1:' '?"t.: , •�, .•'.�. �;":'� �*�I ' ;AO COn1II1CIlt _ _ • : -- � t _„....., .,.. . . _ . . . ' , . .:69�`�Avenule�99W_to�0ak St. . . .....__. �_ ..._ .: .:�...�. 4� �., . _ _. . . _ ..._.._..._.. . _. ........._ ....�....,__ .: t1 t'`L. � ' � ,., � i. ; • �� . ;�.: ' ,. �,r � ,.•„ cA,i; no comment f no'cofin�acnt` ' , :. ,�' �.. ... ......_.._ ..._._ . .-._.. . _... . ._.. . . _ .�7 ...�._ � _ ..Y.._"___. . .. . ... ._.._.............. -�_."'._... ., __. .. . . . , . . , . y ,�r; r�*r? f .w.,. .. . I:�eng�dianej�transportation bondcommenu� ' �... ._- �Lrc..r , 's.-i .:,:f , �•�~ ,, ;.. ._"_ �Ee. .,,.�, * _ _ . . --._..__,._ _.__._ _ _1 . i , _ . .. r, ,�cr . , . i-, •— ,� �+� —,-- — -: —4 ��f;_._ ... _.. � _ _ . . . ._.__ _._ . .. : i .. ..�. .. .H':�T��su:C.+�i[,7�Y'Sy/i''�S7r,,t.'`�rin�'� %f. .�G'n n",,s I __. _ . - _. ....�� ''�. ' ; .�i M .. � : . i ..,�..... �. ...�. _. _ .. . .. . ., ,.._. . . . __._......... �._ . ".��.. � i� � r.t, ..lr :1:'�.: ' . . , � .., ��.,' . , i . . ^ 7`?�•r ;, s�_ �:t, � �i\�.� .L ti� :,r> J4 .: vr'�{�tJ: � . . . . . ... .�„�.:�.� ..�.,�r •�(�, .., , .._ . � � , . � ' . ._.,r, .�...,_ ._..'_ • ; • �- - �- ._-- i3t'. 1� . __. _. . ..._. . __ _ __ <� . r :�= r;,; : ., ' '. �u 9:tt :',..;, .:! , ;G eSJ .�.. 't,: . , i . . � ._ �mctt7 ^�� :,�{�{�5l�.��ti�- , .._._ .. , . . .. . .... . , . . _ _.,. .. , ._ ,.�... .._.._ . .. ._... ._ .,� _ r. .. _ .__.�. .. . . . .__.. . _..__ .._ , _.._ .t , , , ,�n t,. ._,i ��vr� �' .,• �r .. , .��i ., � ,�y' a�, h: t'C `` • i . .. __ . .. .. ' tif;y`C:•r; ,,?� �;.�1 7. �„ +�, � • - , _ _... ; . , . , .. ; . .._. . . .. . . ... __. _. : . _ _ ..,.,.. ._ _ . _. . _ __.. . ._._ __:I . • t .- ' . ?..`�. ' '. " + ' � ' �-. ' � �.....�. �,r:S{ .. ': '.'7 7 ��:�17:�1.. 'i. . . . . .. . ._ . . -..._..{. 1 . . . ' -• "' .. ..... .' ' ' ' .. . :._ . . ._._. ..�_._...._� .... , . . . e. . . I. �ri `1:� '1 .•J� .. •/c1•, �� ^ . �d'�..• ....E'J./'�lt� ... w..4 � ,. ... . ..+�, h . .. ...� .�... ...r. . a.i .v.cuw�. . � _ . -. . .. aa . . . . .. - .. .. . . .i ,'r "��,`� ___. -`_; . � � '. . � .t . ' , .�.-�lj.. . . . J'i� t 1 1'Jl'f�7 ��'.11"� �-.! � . ... . . .... ... � � '�'faSPir7�Y.��'I7�L�-; . . . ....._ ' ..: __. . _ ..._ .:.._......._:._,_._.,_� �. � .......__.._ __ .... . _. ._ _. . .. i . . � . . � ..t �' . ; . . . . � � . - _. . ... ... . .. . . . .�t�. . _A."�x;.;„� ;,�.; .3r. i'di� n .Av� ...�+;�,n. 'ij .... .� .. ... ...-«. . �. . . .,� w .....�..... ... .. . .. _ .... . � .. .... .., . . . . . • -. _... . . .. . , , +.... �.... , ..sp•� . ' . � ,. . . i . . t.�..r.{...� .. . _ . � • Page 16 of 16 . � • � _ , � ��''" ,,� �� 4Y.� �-- ' 1 � � ' p � � . � .��.,,=S� �; W' � ; ,�14�' � o . „ a � , , 1 0 �.5' �. �y.`� ,V sP �� '' ,jIN�"'-.: f�l• ��, � �" ,'.�— �'�' !�. i i,�^� f pi. �t�a;�. r . , � � � � . , ' .. . . . . . r , � �,.,, , ....,, . ..- `�1 �� ,... �1 � �� ..s� �� .�y' � �,�. ; �� ` g ... ..,, . :�-�. �.�, 0 s �--�-,--- .� ' _. . ��19�; .�� ; ,.,x; .,,.., . _� , ,.,. . , �: � �� '��, , � ,� , � � . . . . �. �13' . , , , � �.�-� ,.,. . � ,.,� n � �on � .��:.� k _U,�,Y � f ' Pi! � . , � — k 12 : , . . . , �� , � : „ ,�„ ; . , ,�,1,; . .�., . < , �.. , , � .. . a„� �� g �7 � � N B '� ��+, � A - ryg 9, �� . �... � §w�� 4 :,� � � � � � . � w � � . ;: -� , � , �: �r .." ,r, , .,o,, �, : ,, _.. ae � � � eM � ; ' . ,�..,�� ° �°� ra°n. � /''�Y I a4k :and Bika� ath Project� ,,' i 9. �� , �� _ .�.� �a °� �� a `�� '�� P��ropo�ed Sid��n► !� -� � � � �;,,:� , , > . ; � �� .�.,�.��, r . . � . : ; , . : . � c�5 � .. � � �;o�Ie��l�Ct. Stt�ewa�k..�V�st�icl�) ��;,� . ' � � J�xld A�t.e �taeu��t. t. �� ,� . . ; _ , . . . - d . _ . . � �r :� �rriet�r�3pk�St. -1-��ilt�3iv'il. tco i�2u� r,��c, (Sid�`i�1�lc So��tl� 5ide) , . � �„ �. L��R , � ` c;� 13i tc�itt�Bo�ta Sicit;s �� ' �y ^`� '' )'`°•�- 1 :�, .�O.��t�.A��-Tic�oi�alcl St. Lp vi�w �erxtt ( t � ) �; � �,� 1 � -° "�, �Q��r�,tA�E; Caxzl:c�Ci�t�xy.T,,�,. to•L,�.cl�y�t;,►x�o11 (Siclev�'�a�lc��reSG fiaele) :� '� '��" � � 5 �,[Dt?�f��'v� 1��Cb��1�lr��, tcy�liv dcrGl� St. (13i�e�itttli C3otf�Sidc��) m � • . ; , ;:� �ll�'l,1r�� ,�:�Q��'�. t�YE, klY �.��}��1:,AYl: ��9 __ ., lte�a.�li Sot��.Sic�e) � ,,,� „ ,: . . ,. ;; � �:> ,,, � ;. . , ,:° s , . �: � ; � t'�i.s�rd 5t: S tieFwa.lk ��ist Sicle � — � " � , � g g � ' e .,.Z)�t21Sd. S� �!� t 4 ) . , 7 , �1�Yx nr., � ►, � , •. .,. � ,,,, � .�,�.� - � � ', . .,../� � a ; �= � , . . .. F , 3� � ��. , �, � p 7 e, (''��tCC�tt�Str.tp N'. at:C1'�il St�.;'(�idr.�rdl�,I3i�CP�1�ll;W85t S7(1l;); •�: � ,. i � �''� � ' '��_, ;r;� _ � c7 �S�� F . - , � � ��4 ' T� 'ki �,. ��1�1��ri5.��n�JJ1�y ��G�Y�.lk:�3nC�i $i�es) oo �. .,::_ . ~ . „ . , �9 ��{ � � �, ,.�' �. � � �� %t� St, �,21st i��e f�:`l i6h�t,A.�tt �S,�clew�tlk N�>rt]i,Sii1�) �' , '`� '� . ' � �; e. ��irlew;i:il�N�>rtli-'Sidc "� s ��a .,�., �� , — , : .;,_ P6tl�.'� t� � �i Tf�'i1�� t �z 1.st:��G 't�► 1 ( ) r�v—,��.� � � . q� . �y "1 f '_' �'� ; �( , �: . . ,�.. . f . ( �i,�: ..��, , , : . .,. i . . � � ';1 � f° PCC�iII�t, -16�n7 `St,.t�?,��l1G.1��11'�t �S71�("WV<lllC;��U .,� .a . ;2c!,�3��i� , ,.; .... ; �-,; , . ,,:: .,:;,; ., ,: -,' ; n �:,�.�� "t''ry �'':� I. �.: �1 �' e ....: ......i� ..� .i ...,� .. .1 ....,�,. •- . � Y-t�` ,'A�.., ., , ;_ , ;,.; ,.. , :,,, , ,. e �: aret a c!�1hatlier��c St: _ , J -: � • k � � �� s $�l_d f�, .Cl� �:� �1 �C�l��,L� T� L� . , �,,., r. �: .,; . � 1�f9 � k �; .� � „ � • � . � .L�:G ��e R i� �t � � � + 1 � ' .. i <�-�"{��!'�us� 5� `,�esk of f�,2n�i R��,;;to,�t�ll��tvd (5idew�,�C Nc��tlti S�itte) ,r � � � ., � I�. i r4 � �� .[ .t.�` 5 1ldC( f,��:��,�,G 17L61V .�. . �/ �.. ' i '7;�ii ��: �3c� x�s�� tt► Sp�C'trt�c4 ��,.(-�fi �,�� s� ,� I� � ��r u ct.:'Fd��?. 1 �'-. - .1' ' . ' ., ' 'i $�li:>��v ,�'tr�� .�deii�ii N��r�h Srde) , ��`;`� i'� z� a �; ��1d��.�'z��:k a,'� G ( N' � „ � s ..� t�,�,�,: � �: ,.,} �;�� , .., , , � I ,: ; , .. . ; . r .:t r , �!"�9 ,F�,�L �!�11u �t r�b'��1'I �31l��1 f/��1{��'W;�IIC��Ct►x,tll:Stc�tf) �,. .,, � �� ,1� ��f�, � �nN�rt 7,��,. ;x r � y r�, ,;�; i' � J _ — I ,, ;, � ,.:� y ��,� N � ry,1�bi��rt�Sr��, t i(��,Y�ey��1��.��irtly Sxc�e) ��' ° �!�i 3Y��{�� .A '��(�� .._ �� . 1 , �� i�h��Y:T Y� :� I " n� . �:. , A`4 i� J�• ,/ ..,...5 !4� .t. �' ....:^.� �. ' �.' . tl �' . y ...::' , � .,- , , . , . • 1 1 ? .r. -' , �' 1.r;1•' � �,�,+�'°��t�� ;,tT�,x��.� �t,�� 'f�L��7�� (s��cw��1��a�t�S�c��.) ;,', y , � 1�^,, r.�, :.i � ��v r ^�i:t:�p i f� � 1 .y i��:3 i l\ 9... ,�, �n' d , I � ',: ,,;-i t l �,; �' �r� �' �i�(1�Y 1�U:Y+$�t',�1��. ,,,. �`U1. ��1� Y�t�;W('' r 1.� 1 � � (.� i ��, a K.., t►��4� � �,� �, � �+, .t� , . / -• '��'� , ?;A). r�+p �r tf- ;� S�. '4 i� .'t�.� 1t � ,i� �r -• . �'�1 r�� G�AVt'• yc}1 ��t�? �1��.�i`� (�,Sl(�t�'Na�1h;�`CdS��It�C) „ _.... � , � �r � ,� � � , , '�� -' t 'Sit d � ,.;• f ' ,,.... .. v . _ ri n l f�7j i E y J � ' 7 � ti t, : ,- �' :' � . � ; V4• k A �� y � l` � � � 1 7 , ,�.-�r:Sl a �i�' .t�r'�.�1.. ,Y! is.' � � � / � � • � t � \ e9 v - `� �� $ �` � y _ 1vQ ,y� _.` r¢�ut_ a�Y ' u wom � onr ( <i - � �qY`r�.� I�- a . . . � � '�( �w ' G I . � / � ry�R� � u — � �. _3� _� . � _ „�r. , O I {� � ' .� -��_ -�, � — �/' � u ,�L.._ �I�� .L1t(��iL "� � 1 I �LL � •rl � ,.[� { �� _�,��, � � 0,,� �-� ",;��„ W � � ,., � � � �,.�— �� `-""" ' "� � � � '. �` IONI MNtf . �� S ' �f � � - a . � � �—_ ,�- ��. e.w� � G . �� W-�— . N g � > §�, c " 11 on�r; - f . . � �, �1 _ , A �J� ,4� .��,. , . / �' t '1Cy� ,c �i. � . �, ,�'y�''' 1 � s loo[WA NMMOI��f ❑ n - � Q � 'y � 1 O o �o.,�o.� � �,�„�.� $ , ��,,�a,.. . Proposed Boncl Projects @ 1z �ej� , I � �i 4 q K � ' � rMH �. L a� 8 7 „'!4" o . Y W � u u `'�" �.ci� 8 � ' Major Collector Streets = �� , ,� �, K �° <� � � 1. Gaarde Street- 99W to 121st Avenue � W a� " '� , _ ;� anaQ �t S�' . � �r x n � � ��NR 2. 121st Avenue -Walnut to lvorth Dakota k , _ 3 , 3. Walnut Street-Tiedeman to 121st Avenue � � = . � � ` � '"w . ` �q �` �� O 4. 121st Avenue - Gaarde to Walnut y � ,,� W �1 �� ti 10 5. Burnliam St�'eet-Main to hall Blvd. � v o €-�; `^`. g �. � > � � �"o- � � 6. 98th Ave. Signalization- at Durham Rd. d € urm y 7. Greenburg,Road -Wasllington Square to Hall Blvd. � �`� �"�� 1 � - - � r ��,,.� � � �� 8. 72nd Avenue - 99W to Hunziker St. " �,,�r — ` '� "�" � �" `� w�' � ) E �, 9. WaIl Street Egtentio� � � ��° � � ? 10: �I�unz�ker 5treet-�ltall to 72nd Ave. � ;� � � ? 11. Gre�nUtYrg Road -Washington Square to Tiedeman � - / ? � 4� ° —� — —� P .. � �,�„ � � � 12. Tiedeman Ave. - Greenburg to"�.`i�� St. r � � � . ? L a "/ � .�a ,� � !3 �,o . . � � , � � �� R � �`� � � \ ` Q 9 �-- ��Catlar G�,l��ct��• �tr�c�t� _ .� Q,� , , � t �, � ,.�„ „�,o. � o �� 3 T ��` `�$W 1. �at�er Stre�t- 10�tt�to 98th i � v < �" � t c., f f ��,� � � r � � _ �i 1 ,�,�� ...,<<, r �� 2. Sa�tl�r Stre�t- 9�th to 92nid + � °� ��"""' t : ww' 1 �o� k ,� -„��o,�, - 3. '�'iigarel Street-Main to Tiedeman � ' � �— "" � � " g "`",�� ,p � � �w:� ' �� 4. 79th Aeenue - 8��ta Rd. to Durham Idd. � r — °4" .�� _ w M '""�'"`` ,Qn « 5. Watkins Avenue - 99W to Wa1n2�t �t. ^��w� �W 8 � � � w :� . ' ,„ � �- 6. Fonner��reet-'Wa1��ut to 5��:�aa�'i�5th Ave. ' � �'. � ... ! ; �., s 7. Ti�arti 5treet Brid�e�.ep�ace:��:��. �"�' � � „ �< � " � � � � G � �. Tigard Stir�et-Ti�denaan to 115th l�ve��e �,� ,a4� . � �� 6 `°�"�°". °. '3 � _ �° — 9. �Tew Co�nection-Atorth Dakota to 7Ci�ard 5t. ,. � , ,�° "� — � � 10. 115th Avenue - Tigard St.to North Dakota w. � � ;�� ' � v �' 4 * ± ` , 1�:. North Dakota- 'I`�edeman to 121st Ave. �� 0 3 s� � : � ti a � �s � �' / ��'o� c � o� ,� � ' � xno d 3 � p � � a l= y,. a �� G L�cal Str�LtS = �• �' � �`°�� '� ,��" � ��r ` �»MO , 1:`Murdock Street- 103rd Aye. to 97th Ave. „,,,� ' ,n a °� ° G ° � �� 2. �coff'ins street Realignment C � ' � i"�' f � 6 °'��' � 3. Murdoc�s Steeet�- 106tti Ave.to 103rd Ave. t �. � / � _ �. °G ,„ � ti .. _ � � 8