06/04/2012 - Packet lig Completeness
TIGARD Review for Boards,
Commissions and
Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
June 4,2012
Date of Meeting
< 0-g4 ---;catLf2 —
Signature
Doreen Laughlin
11/6/14
Date
1E '"4
City ofTigard
Revised Planning Commission Agenda
TIGARD
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2012; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:01 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:03 p.m.
5. WORKSHOP— DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN 7:07 p.m.
6. OTHER BUSINESS — 8:07 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT— 8:15 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—JUNE 4, 2012
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
1,1 - II
City of Tigard
0 SO
TIGARD Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly
Re: Downtown Connectivity Plan
Date: May 25, 2012
Since 2005, Downtown revitalization has been a priority for the City of Tigard. The Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) found one of the major constraints for the
development of Downtown to be the lack of connectivity which impedes pedestrian, bicycle
and vehicle circulation in the Downtown. To address this, the city produced,with
stakeholder input, the Tigard Downtown Conceptual Connectivity Plan (Connectivity Plan).
Connectivity Plan
The intent of the Connectivity Plan is to establish a framework for improved multi-modal
connectivity and circulation in Downtown Tigard. There are three objectives in the
proposals for new Downtown streets:
• Connectivity: Foster the creation of smaller block structures, consistent with the
walkable urban village envisioned by the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan.
• Circulation: Create efficient routes into and around the Downtown.
• Capacity: Create parallel streets to accommodate the demand created by new
Downtown development.
The plan was originally developed by a consultant team, led by SERA Architects,who
worked with city staff and a technical advisory team of public agency representatives. City
Council, the City Center Advisory Commission, and the Tigard Transportation Advisory
Committee reviewed and provided input to the plan.
Implementation
The Connectivity Plan itself will not be adopted, but will be implemented through
amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC) and the City of Tigard 2035
Transportation System Plan (TSP). The amendments address the future connectivity
improvements and the new downtown street cross sections called for in the Connectivity
Plan. The intent of these proposed amendments is to provide the city with some tools for
1
implementing its vision for downtown Tigard while recognizing that improvements will
likely be done incrementally over 10 to 20 years or longer as individual properties redevelop.
The proposed language also aims to provide some flexibility for the city and property
owners in terms of when and where the cross sections and connectivity improvements apply.
These proposed amendments will be brought to the Planning Commission at a public
hearing to be held later this summer.
The Planning Commission was last briefed on the plan in March 2011. Since then, staff has
engaged Angelo Planning Group to develop proposed language; worked with the City
Center Advisory Commission; and held small group meetings with potentially affected
property owners. A public open house will be held in the next several weeks. Making a
recommendation on this plan is a 2012 goal of the Planning Commission.
Connectivity Improvements
The future street connections shown in the Connectivity Plan are relatively general. In order to
implement the Connectivity Plan, the alignments have been further refined. Wherever possible,
alignments have been adjusted to minimize the impacts to property owners, while still achieving
the desired connections. Attachment 3 shows the proposed locations of new streets
superimposed on an aerial map of Downtown. The width of the proposed future streets would
be based on the new downtown cross section designs, shown in Attachment 1. Detailed maps
showing the future streets would be added to the TSP so that it is clear where future streets are
expected to go and how much right-of-way is needed.
Unless a future street is also added to the city's Capital Improvement Program, it will likely
only get built when there is new development or major redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment
valued at more than 60% of total current value) on an affected property. At the time of
development, applicants will be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct the portion
of the street that is on their property. In some circumstances, they might be able to dedicate
a public easement instead of right-of-way. In all cases, the city will work to ensure that the
required improvements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the development.
For smaller projects (e.g. redevelopment valued at less than 60% of total current value), the
applicant will only be required to keep the future alignment clear of buildings. Surface parking,
landscaping, temporary structures, driveways and similar types of development could be allowed
within the areas where new connections are planned. The applicant could also be asked to sign a
non-remonstrance to future Local Improvement District (LID) to help pay for the identified
street or alley improvement.
Because these future streets aren't fully designed as yet, there will also need to be an adjustment
process that provides some flexibility for property owners and the city. For example, this would
be important when application of the connectivity standards would preclude reasonable
economic use of the site or would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as
wetlands,bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees.
2
New Downtown Street Cross Sections
Currently the TSP includes a map showing the street classification (e.g., arterial, collector, etc.)
and TDC Chapter 18.810 describes all of the cross sections, showing the required width of travel
lanes, on-street parking, sidewalks, etc. As part of the Connectivity Plan project, the special street
cross sections (Attachment 1), which provide an enhanced pedestrian environment, were
designed for the downtown. To implement these special cross sections,a new street classification
map for the downtown will need to be added to the TSP and the new cross sections will need to
be added to Chapter 18.810. These cross sections apply to existing streets as well as future street
connections and will be applied when the city improves a street or when a private developer has
to make full- or half-street improvements as a part of their development.
The new street classifications and cross sections with the recommended right-of-way
widths, sidewalk, vehicle and bike lanes were developed based on the present and
potential contexts of the streets i.e. the narrowest streets are proposed for areas that are
likely to develop with primarily residential uses.
Plan and Code Amendments
Proposed amendments will likely affect the TSP as well a number of chapters in the TDC:
• Amendments to the Transportation System Plan to add background and figures.
• Amendments to 18.370 to address adjustments to the connectivity requirements.
• Amendments to 18.610 to add purpose, applicability and connectivity standards.
• Amendments to 18.810 to add new downtown cross-sections.
Attachment 1: Proposed Cross Sections
Attachment 2: Downtown Street Character Classifications
Attachment 3: Proposed New Downtown Streets- Street Character Classifications (aerial)
3
Attachment 1: Proposed Cross Sections
Table 18.810.1 (proposed)
Minimum Widths for Street Characteristics
Type of Street Right- Paved Number Min. On- Bike Sidewalk Landscape Median
of- Width of Lane street Lane Width Strip Width
Way Lanes Width Parking Width Width
Width Width (exclusive
of
curb)
Hall Boulevard - 94' 64' 3 11' 8' 6' 11' 4' 14'
Downtown —
Upper
Downtown Mixed 66'-70' 46' 2 10' 8' 5' 6-8' 4' N/A
Use 1 —
Downtown
Collector
Downtown Mixed 58'-62' 38' 2 11' 8' N/A 6-8' 4' N/A
Use 2—
Downtown
Neighborhood
Downtown Mixed 62'-74' 38' 2 11' 8' N/A 6-10' 6'—8' N/A
Use 3— Upper
Burnham
Downtown Mixed 68'-72' 48' 2 10' 8' N/A 6-8' 4' 12'
Use 4— Lower
Burnham
Downtown — 52'-56' 32' 1 18' 7' N/A 6-8' 4' N/A
Urban
Residential
Downtown - 20' 20' 1 20' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Alley
r:
, q 1 N.
Lit _ . . j,1 iL
15
�'_ A
15 8 6' 11 14 11' 6` 6" 16'
4 ROW
Hall Boulevard - Downtown—Upper
1
Y
nil
liW
air
ID'-17' B' 5' 10' 10' 5' 0' 10'_13'
66-ta'ROW
Downtown Mixed Use 1—Downtown Collector
h 11
mved use resident al 10'-17 9' 11' 11' S. 10"-12' mixed u.residentlal
58'-62'POW
Downtown Mixed Use 2—Downtown Neighborhood
. -
IIIIIL
s
•
WON i
i M -- mm
ft i
13'-70' 1 8' 1 11' 11' 1 8' 13'-1B'
67-74'110W
Downtown Mixed Use 3—Upper Burnham
2
Id
_ oll
i .. ` ,,.
,,,. .',. :
t;.'.. .'''-..:
m
IN: 711-II%11
it
t
L-- ''l - .._'--.,'::**--- .'s
111.11.11111111
Downtown Mixed Use 4—Lower Burnham
01111 , "7.
6 I: ,-
4' % Ps_ a
61164L IF
+ �' "�
1114,
ill
D.
Y; y `y - .
reslaental IU-17 7' 18' I 7' Id-I Z' residential
Ra'-Sir R 0
Downtown—Urban Residential
1111
t
IPERNEARE
WES
20'ROW
Downtown-Alley
3
Proposed New Downtown Streets - Street Character Classifications
. .: ...,: mil ....:47, \.: ,,,,,<.,„.,,,,:. ' 44' '''
la%ir .
"'slip 000 1 tip El . , , :„., , .. .
Ws:. s s' 14kk 1
Iii'
i
ik
N. 41k0b* '' ' 1 l 1W ,.---le
, - Illp , -,•
i littolihi
4 4
. ,. .... ., ,, ,; ,„, _, D
44 4 I P.-/. 44• 41 I V* ' ,-
l',..' •- ,\:. ,.= . . • 1
. .,. - __3_-,:___,_ .....„:" ,
,, .,, N
,<
� ¢ ♦ / ..`tet* : n ,
, .... „st \ / ,7_
II
>, e . 4k . , , , , - w\V.7„.
\ , . i'•_
:,- .`r Ai; s„ • ,ksk - / , , 1 , . . : . '''' -
..\-„.„,,i7-_, ,.,..-
4
..
fi
'',,,k, , „. _ 1 ,
�9:
,., , , . ,
.,. ..\A - • .
, ,
• 7 ,:.,
, \,, ov,
... i. w. ,•,-
th.
...t... . .,... 4,),),, , ..• \., . ,
' . \ \- d ' : '44'4 .4'.e; -** -s ,),. 1%. , ., ::014,44,. 1-1 mall I,___
;,• ' � •, ' � � :; '�,,ori'"� ''\' , O♦�♦�♦♦ ♦♦j♦j♦♦♦j♦
• ,IP.♦♦ ♦44*♦I1
Alk \.,, .4.. / S' ' ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� ♦♦r
44. . , , : les
2.
440i ' ,, ',\„/„.., ,
;\ .,,„,•,,,,„...„.,..,..,..,,„.,..„.„.. „,"...!.,„„.,.:.?,.:,
��♦i �$♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦.
,,.‘ • ( , . , . 41„„„ , .
�' ate♦♦j♦yA♦♦�♦♦ '�•�♦♦♦♦♦� <{♦®♦♦♦i,
4
,,. _ .,„,
�♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦®�4Pc ♦�♦� ♦♦♦♦♦�4..
I4_.4
♦ *k• *��►... I
.6.
�,
1 ‘17,——7” 14( ,,, 4 ',44lik
iy s ,
\ ' •. ..\
44*
fir. ' IV •
.., ';,;(. ‘r 414. . \ i .
!!
, i ,
, ' s..'4% ., / \ ..' ., , . ,., , • .\,• ' 4 , ,
rte �1 I
,' 1 A//
.411F
11Character �s ■
LIB!�►:�1 le n� 1 pNg l• i- no NI ►� d b; 6 :7
Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) ,�_M i _ ,�,,,a 1
. . ■ Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local)
•Urban Residential (52'-56') _ ,
eV
— — - Alley (20') , ,” 1 ��
om alir
�� e �
Approx. ROW width - Proposed Streets ' �
Existing Streets " -
Existing bike / ped trails
Taxlots
Z5 Block subject to bike/ped connectivity requirements * . i.
SII I I
Wwa > 0
z y FFA
� BHT. SG ‘,- � t PP
� ovc'
co
M G�' r
cg• v
•
•
°•o I OA.,
ne
tit
d"
II •,tip
• 9
i•tic,')16 #*0
T
I //I/ O�0 c0 4k/,
9
0G i,
4,4,
II ,9
ti�s
i.
II' PJB
•♦
♦ \
♦• ��
1.♦
♦ \41
Downtown Street Character Classifications*
- Upper Hall Boulevard
- Main Street Green Street
Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector)
Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local)
Downtown Mixed Use 3 (Upper Burnham)
- Downtown Mixed Use 4 (Lower Burnham)
Urban Residential
Alley
*Dashed lines indicate proposed streets
Other Streets
Railroads N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet
muumuu I 1 1 I I I -I I I
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Walsh
Vice President Anderson
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Fitzgerald
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Rogers
Commissioner Ryan
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Shavey
Alt. Commissioner Armstrong
Absent: Alt. Commissioner Miller
Staff Present: Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen
Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project
Manager
Others Present: Cathy Corliss, Principal,Angelo Planning Group
COMMUNICATIONS
President Walsh attended a neighborhood meeting for the next phase of the Fields bridge
project. He gave a brief rundown of that meeting. Based on what he'd heard at the meeting, he
believes the project will be approved. He noted that Mr. Field's had passed on and that the
estate of Mr. Field's had given a very,very generous donation—almost the entire estate - to
charity, the Oregon Community Foundation, to support education and the arts. The benefactor
of any development project done on the bridge will be that charity. Walsh noted that it's just a
bridge project, there's no second phase to it.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\060412-Workshop Downtown Connectivity Plan\tpc 060412 minutes.docx Page 1 of 3
CONSIDER MINUTES
May 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the May 7 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes
approved as submitted.
WORKSHOP —DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN
Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Manager, introduced Cathy Corliss as a principal at the Angelo
Planning Group. He said he was there to talk about the Downtown Connectivity Plan. He
noted that he wanted to take this time to reacquaint the commissioners with this project
that's been on the "back burner" for some time due to other council priorities. He reminded
them that it is one of the Planning Commission's goals for 2012 to make a recommendation
on this to City Council. He said he would refresh their memory on what's been done in the
past and what is being worked on presently—also what will be coming up in the future. He
went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A).
Farrelly noted that there are limited connections into and around the Downtown area,
mainly due to the barriers of connectivity such as the viaduct, the rail crossing, and Fanno
Creek. He noted this plan will address that and that this plan is based on previous plans such
as the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, the Tigard Downtown Vision.
The objectives are threefold: connectivity, circulation, and capacity. The process to date
includes:
Working with the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) who, early on, had put
together a statement of principles of what they'd like to see out of the Connectivity
Plan. The plan has remained pretty true to those principles.
A Technical Advisory Committee made up of different jurisdictions such as ODOT,
TriMet and Washington County.
An Open House.
The CCAC intently reviewed this over several meetings.
City Council, Planning Commission, and the Tigard Transportation Advisory
Committee had workshops on this.
Property owners that could be affected by this plan had been contacted and staff
received some excellent feedback and had some frank discussions. As a result of
those meetings, they "tweaked" some of the proposed streets.
Farrelly went over the seven categories of streets and alley classifications. He gave some
street character examples.
Cathy Corliss from Angelo Planning Group continued the presentation by talking about the
two key elements that needed to be addressed: new connections and new cross-sections.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\060412-Workshop Downtown Connectivity Plan\tpc 060412 minutes.docx Page 2 of 3
There was a question from the commission about non-conformity. Ms. Corliss noted they
don't want to create non-conformity amongst adjacent property owners. On the flip side—
in order to get these connections to eventually happen, you're creating for that property
owner, eventually, more visibility—more public street frontage which for most retail, and for
a lot of uses,is a positive thing; triggering redevelopment on both sides that will eventually
add value for both property owners. Ms. Corliss said they would do some more research on
that and come back to that subject later.
Ms. Corliss went over the new cross-sections examples — current and future. She also spoke
about potential amendments. The potential amendments, as they're laid out now,would add
background,principles and figures to the Transportation System Plan. The TDC 18.370
would add adjustments to the connectivity requirements — and that would be fairly full
bodied. The TDC 18.610 is the downtown standards and that placeholder would be filled in
with purpose, applicability and connectivity standards. TDC 18.810 would have to be
amended to add new downtown cross-sections. She said there would be a packet of
amendments that all work together to accomplish what's going to happen - as opposed to
just a single new chapter that does this.
At this point Farrelly went over the next steps. One of which would include additional
outreach to property owners. This would happen fairly soon (within the next few weeks).
Then in the late summer they are planning on scheduling public hearings with the Planning
Commission for the Development Code and Transportation System Plan amendments. Staff
will be asking them to make a recommendation to City Council at that time.
Sean concluded his presentation and said that he would send links to the actual connectivity
plan - mainly for the new commissioners — to help get them up to speed on this.
One of the commissioners asked a question about how this can happen "incrementally."
Farrelly and Ms. Corliss explained that there are several options and solutions the city has to
help with this.
There were some general questions by some of the commissioners regarding the map of
future streets they'd seen in the presentation.
OTHER BUSINESS - None
ADJOURNMENT
President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Dave Walsh
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\060412-Workshop Downtown Connectivity Plan\tpc 060412 minutes.docx Page 3 of 3
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done
TIGARD
Downtown Connectivity Plan
Planning Commission Workshop I June 4, 2012
- LEWIS LOMrrh
kE
y O o _ i
PIHSt i .r & m ! F 3,
FF
t NGELA _, 19
E Study Area
• %\x..c...„....s..,..„.....„..„ c-v,tp 1...i VW. ,
)00:00
i ce"FR
.
�FRC�L fryp . - -
�Ro — Area:
,-r s Tigard Downtown Urban
N.�F � Renewal District (193 acres)
{: .41
. . / WESI
Commuter b a
Rail Station 'rzye t5
Ni, � Existing conditions :
Q PG " ` ., ., f Limited connections
ti
and connectivity
t.
-.%,
*o
_7:1711.11
_.
e
1 \a
Downtown Study Area ®urban rem.'didnd lstudyarea
Eovntovm Tigard Chelation PI a-i Project 12.21.W
—..
Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan
+,=L � : 4r f c` L' a" ,r';_ - Foundation
' >� ` ,� Documents
T `y
Gam " ! .'"%\ \ ' /_ _ .'�s, I ._, a_ A .
e
mar ..moi® .,, A� �� ., + , �. :
� � � M1 _ .
''',.TRAIL /%,\ N •' '•,N• . \
r .0, `yw s4,,,
•
Y
� ,, p :,..').:•;',,'. i Tigard Downtown
tiP
*`"••, ` T Future Vision:
�.,,
4/ —
- • I yp y \
.. —a visual refinement
%,, of the TDIP
M. 'x it,XPi Vii• y...
'r •.;, aril_
A.
�,r , t- V
a
/� ' - `s °Pa ` r� '�'A y.�° X60
V.
nam . ,,� r* o0
•
-,j•-q, , o
Roe dway. 41111111,
State GREEN GORRIBOR f'Ja • •,� IJ 4
URBAN GREEK - - • i',
l 111 l l 111 1 1 1 1
-Itie t ..Ni.1' .,*ry 'u'l
~��' RESIBENTI0.L RESIBEN TIAL - ` �-
HIGH OLI ME rMIN STREET CNICI FLEX H )B. 1._ 4,
Railroad F. $ DMEDIUM ENSITY
BENSITY EMP NT RETAIL EMPLOVMENTREGk3NAL RETAIL
STREE TSCAPE '
Trail 001, ENHANCEMENTS
Conceptual Connectivity
Plan Objectives
• Connectivity: Foster the creation of smaller
block structures, consistent with the walkable
urban village envisioned by the Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan .
• Circulation : Create efficient routes into and
around the Downtown .
• Capacity: Create parallel streets to
accommodate the demand created by new
Downtown development.
Process to date
• CCAC Principles
• Technical Advisory Committee
• Open House
• CCAC review over several meetings
• City Council, Planning Commission, and Tigard
Transportation Advisory Committee
workshops
• Property owners meetings
iu W
aN C�lP
Proposed Street •
ar 004 6c
Classifications a,,,,cT 0t44 P .one In
«• •
hi
■ r,4y..''hp ',1� I Cdr ice.
,
`.0. �''A P
y yr
t
d
d'G
+
P,;
N.4
t
\ s
Downtown Street Character Classifications*
-Upper Hall Boulevard w
ib Main Street Green Street
Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector)
Downtown Mixed Use 2(Local)
-Downtown Mixed Use 3(Upper Burnham)
-Downtown Mixed Use 4 (Lower Burnham)
Urban Residential
- Alley a
N 0 250 509 1,000 Feet
Dashed fines indicate proposed streets .
Other Streets
=1111111H Railroads
Proposed New Streets ,�, t �� -NPJ� ,..;,/,\,, ,,,.. . r
C �' _;
ti, ., �,�, ; .._wok
�, a I.
11' l i
.,,..' ..,,„ ,i, .S.S.,.- ,P'44. ,(
Z_ 1
r9 ','-'Y
�O
Y
4,
( A` .�' -
gip, I.•
,... �". ,.,�
•
j A.,‘,40. 'r/'e i'...,\ \ N. 'Z'-' / '''.‘; . . .S
•
L'' • a d `^ f
'tot/
•*> ....-s, : .
d . �
it
r
CharacterSpe {V t t,.-,1111"11 ;x f.. • �,'\ \\
Downtown Mixed Use 1(Collector)
wuLL-� }t y`y \`
Downtown Mixed Use 2(Local) x ,\
Urban Residential(52'-56') - 3 . ; \\
——_Alley(20') \ \/ � �`\\\\ySE
Approx.ROW width-Proposed Streets \\
Existing Streets /
Existing bike/ped trails /` \
Taxlots \\
12.Block subject to Like/ped connectivity requirements \\ "Y
iT- 11
Street Character Examples
_ it •
____
._ .
I
z 1.
Fg
is 1 e B 1t 14' tt 6' s Is
Mil
4d iimit
111i
1.1111111
•
f .4..--4,0I) rr •4
f�� � r ,,
1"051116111.121 19'-12' 7' 18' 7' 10'-12' f6slU6Ilttai
52'-56'ROW
Urban Residential
Implementation of the Plan
• Two elements — new connections and new
cross-sections
• New code requirements for implementing
vision :
— Recognize that improvements will likely be done
incrementally over 50 years or longer as
individual properties redevelop
— Provide as much flexibility as possible while still
ensuring that connections get made
ConnectivityImprovements
Detailed maps showing A
the future streets would +; # . , -
need to be added to th \IL•en _: '
- • , :1,1 \\\"1 ''e
TSP so that it is clear
ti
where future streets are _ a
expected to o and how
�T
much right-of-way is '• - 1,10 .1. 4
u ca�� _
.,
rA\1\\\\*\\\*, --
.. , .____,_____,...1 . .1 . R i
needed
.1A.
1 inch=150 le tY - y
Feet J. -
0 59 100= 206 •- {. .� �
.. , 6. l_ -.- 0 1
\
ConnectivityImprovements
• New Development and Major Redevelopment
— Dedicate right-of-way or a public easement
— Construct a portion of the street
• Smaller Projects
— Redevelopment valued at less than 60% of total current value
— Keep the future alignment clear of buildings
— Sign non-remonstrance to future Local Improvement District (LID)
• Must be "roughly proportional"
• Allow alternative alignment or design
— Allow reasonable economic use of the site
— Avoid adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands
New Cross-Sections
• Special street classifications and cross sections
with enhanced streetscape design
— For existing streets as well as future street
connections
— Applied when the city improves a street or when a
private developer has to make full- or half-street
improvements as a part of their development
New Cross-Sections
Current Future
• Scoffins Street is a Collector • Scoffins Street is Downtown
Mixed Use 1 (Collector)
i
s
ti
c.e'i I Tic . cS>, M
44 •
•
to
e
Figure 18.810.2
Collector Sample Cross Sections 11 � in i
P 66r
_ 41
'S.6-8 5.5 55110 1111' b'81;e 55' 5-5'.6
PM 1-,s2'
1 Law 58'-62'R W
_ r
12'NBaIaN5 -^ rte} -5'4-8..5 6'dlkP, 711u 7CY.e 11' 0@kg 5,5' 4�' F _
RIW 7U'-76'. r a166 • _ -
9Lane70574'RAN eel 0 � g�
1:e
12'Mee4aN 0-, firs 70 ROW
G+3 �,6'�6'B1�e. ll' lY' iUmlao 11' 11' 6BNa SS:'
15W 92'-95
5 Lame 92'-98'RMI
Potential Amendments
— Transportation System Plan to add background
and figures
— TDC 18.370 to add adjustments to the
connectivity requirements
— TDC 18.610 to add purpose, applicability and
connectivity standards
— TDC 18.810 to add new downtown cross-sections
Next Steps
• Additional outreach to property owners
• Late summer: Planning Commission and
Council public hearings and adoption of
Transportation System Plan and Development
Code amendments.
Questions/Discussion
Contact:
Sean Farrelly
sean@tigard-or.gov
•
503-718-2420 jigafc
. -t a :40 .4IkAlt.it
�
mixed use rrsldeOtlal 10'-12 8 11' 11' 8' 10 -12' mixed use r2sldentaI
58-82'ROW
Website:
www.tigard-or.gov/downtown_tigard/behind_the_scenes/circulation_plan