TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN

AMENDMENTS PACKET

 

 

 

AMENDMENT NO.

 

 

TOPIC

PAGE

P1

Bicycle Policy

2

P2

Bicycle Policy

3

P3

SW Urban Trails

4

P4

Bicycle Designation on parallel route to SW Multnomah

5

P5

Safe Routes to School

6

PR1

Water Avenue Ramp Replacement Projects

7

PR2

SW Urban Trail Projects

8

PR3

SW Nevada Court Pedestrian Bridge

9

PR4

Hillsdale to Lake Oswego Pedestrian Trail

10

PR5

Lents Urban Renewal Projects

11

PR6

North Interstate Urban Renewal Projects

12

PR7

Traffic Mitigation in conjunction with North Macadam District Development

14

PR8

National College of Naturopathic Medicine Sign Installation

15

PR9

I-5 Sound Barrier

16

PR10

Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing Improvement Project near Ross Island Bridge

17

PR11

Intersection Improvement at SW Capitol and Terwilliger

18

PR 12

Signal at SW Capitol Highway/Vermont at 25th

19

PR13

Hillsdale Pedestrian Improvements

120

R1

NE Glisan Street Study

21

R2

Macadam/Highway 43 Refinement Plan

22

R3

Southeast Division Street Land Use and Transportation Study (errata)

23

M1

North Macadam Transit Strategy

24

M2

New transportation options in Southwest

25

M3

Lair Hill Area Parking Program

26

I1

Environmental Review for Trails

27

I2

Short-term Bicycle Parking

28

I3

Zoning Applicability to Park-and-Ride Facilities

30

I4

Park-and-Ride Facilities Conditional use Approval Criteria

31

I5

Parking Area Layouts (technical correction)

32

I6

Figures in Title 33 Amendments (technical correction)

33

I7

Title 33 Amendments (errata)

34

I8

Transit Setback References (technical correction

35

   

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

P1

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

Bicycle Policy

  

Requested By

 

Kasandra Griffin, Interim Executive Director, Bicycle Transportation Alliance

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 2, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

 

Policy 11.10, Objective F

Provide planned bicycle facilities in conjunction with street improvements, or develop equally safe and convenient alternative access for bicycles on parallel streets when the appropriate bikeway facility cannot be provided on the designated street because of severe environmental or topographical constraints, unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, or the need to retain on-street parking.

  

Requested Amendment

 

Provide planned bicycle facilities in conjunction with street improvements, or develop equally safe and convenient alternative access for bicycles on parallel streets when the appropriate bikeway facility cannot be provided on the designated street because of severe environmental or topographical constraints, unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, or the demonstrated need to retain on-street parking.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The Staff Recommendation included the word, “convenient.” Planning Commission added the “equally safe and” language based on testimony at the Planning Commission hearing. Planning Commission did not agree to adding “demonstrated” because it would be difficult to develop an objective way of “demonstrating” the need for on-street parking.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

P2

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

Bicycle Policy

  

Requested By

 

Kasandra Griffin, Interim Executive Director, Bicycle Transportation Alliance

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 2, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

 

Add new objective to Policy 11.10

Pages 6-153 through 6-159 in the Staff Recommendation (6-167 – 6-172 in the Planning Commission Recommendation) in the draft TSP describe the process the city should follow in the design and construction of transportation improvement projects. A new objective should be added to make it mandatory rather than advisory to follow this process.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The project development process in Chapter 6 is followed for major transportation projects undertaken by PDOT. The process is modified based on the scope and special needs of the project. The process may be revised over time to address new requirements. It is not intended to be a mandatory process or one that is unchangeable.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

P3

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

SW Urban Trails

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 2, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

 

Adopt the SW Urban Trail Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan rather than as an appendix document.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The SW Urban Trails Plan is included in Appendix B of the TSP. The appendix is adopted (as is all of the TSP not part of the Comprehensive Plan) as a support document for Goal 6 and 11B of the Comprehensive Plan to show legislative intent. Most of the trails in the SW Urban Trails Plan have been incorporated into the TSP’s pedestrian designations for Southwest. Trail segments have been designated as City Walkways, Off-Street Paths, or as Local Service Walkways, depending on their use (local connection, along a transit street, or connecting to major destinations).

 

Trails through private property have not been included. Objective C. of Policy 6.40 (Southwest Transportation District identifies one of these trails – the Red Electric Line – for inclusion pending the outcome of a feasibility study. In several locations, there are City Walkways that parallel the trail location.

 

A summary of the SW Urban Trails Plan is included in the Pedestrian Modal Plan.

 

Recommendation: Add new objective to Policy 6.40, Southwest Transportation District.

 

“Objective E. Use the Southwest Urban Trails Plan as a guide to dedicating and developing trail segments in Southwest.”

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

P4

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Bicycle Designation on parallel route to SW Multnomah

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 2, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

 

Add a bicycle route designation from Garden Home to SW Bertha and Barbur as an alternative to SW Multnomah. The proposed route is:

Eastbound on Multnomah from Garden Home, turn north on SW 69th, to Canby thence east to SW 60th, north on 60th to Miles thence east through April Hill Park thence onto Logan eastbound to 54th, south on 54th to Maplewood thence east to 45th and onto Multnomah east to SW 25th thnce south to Hume Court thence east to 24th and then south to Barbur. An alternative to avoid Multnomah would be to proceed on Maplewood to SW 48th, thence north to SW Miles Court, thence east to the church property thence to 45th, north to the old east/west trail across Gabriel Park, thence to 37th, south to Nevada Court, and follow the Urban Trail route to SW Bertha Boulevard thence south on Bertha to Barbur.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

City Bikeway designations should be as direct as possible. This route could be used for those riders who choose not to use SW Multnomah, without designating the route as a City Bikeway. Multnomah has the advantage of being flat and straight, with limited access points and signals at major intersections.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

P5

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Safe Routes to School

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 2, Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

Policy 11.9, Objective D.

 

Provide and improve access to and within activity centers and support the development of safe routes to schools.

  

Requested Amendment

 

Provide and improve access to and within activity centers and support the development of provide safe routes to schools.

 

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The requested language is slightly awkward and inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policy format.

 

Recommendation: Adopt revised language,

 

“Provide and improve access to and within activity centers and develop safe routes to schools.”

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

PR1

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Water Avenue Ramp Replacement Projects

  

Requested By

 

Wayne Kingsley, President, Central Eastside Industrial Council

  

Text in PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

RTP ID 1026: Water Ave Ramps on I-5

Proposed Change – Delete

Explanation – Project replaced by others; City Council directive does not support construction of ramps

  

Requested Amendment

 

Fund the alternative projects to the Water Avenue Ramps in the next STIP/MTIP prior to removal of the Water Avenue on-ramps from the Regional Transportation Plan.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The Motor Vehicle Modal Plan in Chapter 5 identifies several replacement projects in lieu of the Water Avenue On-ramp to meet the Central Eastside’s access needs. All of the replacement projects are either currently on, or will be added to, the RTP Financially Constrained or RTP Priority project lists at its next update. The replacement projects must first be added to the RTP to be considered for funding through the STIP or MTIP. The RTP does not provide for any mechanism to add or delete projects contingent on funding.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR2

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

SW Urban Trail Projects

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Add the following projects with early implementation:

 

a.  ROW SW Fairmont to SW, a key connection to Marquam Hill and OHSU – Urban Trail 1

b.  ROW or easement SW 45th to SW Miles Court over Presbyterian Church property – Urban Trail 3

c.  ROW or easement SW Cable to SW Montgomery – Urban Trail 6

d.  ROW or easement or clarification of platted ROW, SW Fairmont to SW Hessler – Urban Trail 6

e.  ROW or easement on 400 feet plus of trail from SW Fairmont to SW Martins Lane – Urban Trail 7

 

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The SW Master Street Plan and the SW Urban Trails Plan identify trail segments a. – e. (above) as future pedestrian connections. The SW Cable to SW Montgomery connection is also identified as a project in the Pedestrian Master Plan and is included on the TSP reference list. Projects of this limited size that traverse private property and require land acquisition for construction are not included on the project list because they will be constructed as affected land develops/redevelops. The SW Master Plan maps guide the location of trail connections through the development review process.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR3

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

SW Nevada Court Pedestrian Bridge

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack; Patty Lee, President, SWNI, Inc.

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Appendix E.2 Neighborhood Livability and Safety Projects

 

Nevada Court, SW (at Capitol Highway)

Pedestrian crossing improvement

  

Requested Amendment

 

Add new project:

Pedestrian bridge over SW Capitol Highway as SW Nevada Court

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The SW Urban Trails Plan identifies a project to provide a pedestrian crossing of Capitol Highway at Nevada court. This project is included in the TSP Reference List – Neighborhood Livability and Safety. Design of the facility will be through alternatives development in project design, weighing cost, safety, and impact on adjacent properties. This project will compete with other priority projects in Southwest, such as pedestrian improvements to schools or the completion of the Capitol Highway Plan, for funding.

 

Recommendation: Modify project description to say, “Design and construct pedestrian crossing improvement. Consider pedestrian bridge option in project development.”

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR4

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Hillsdale to Lake Oswego Pedestrian Trail

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

Address a “Proposed pedestrian trail from Hillsdale Town Center in southwest Portland south to downtown Lake Oswego with a connection to the Willamette River Greenway Trail.” This project was approved by Metro Council in July 2002.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The pedestrian trail identified by Metro is a conceptual alignment without specific segments. It is premature to add a designation to the TSP without a specific alignment. When the RTP is amended to include urban trails, the TSP will include them at its next update.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR5

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Lents Urban Renewal Projects

  

Requested By

 

John Southgate, Portland Development Commission

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

Project #70008 92nd Ave, SE (Powell – Foster): Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements

  

Requested Amendment

 

1.  Amend Project #70008 to reflect that the work is from SE Powell to the City limits.

2.  Add a new Reference List – Neighborhood Livability and Safety project in Southeast to construct pedestrian crossing improvements and add traffic calming elements on SE Duke Street, between SE 78th and SE 92nd

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The requested amendments reflect refinements to prior project development for the Lents town center.

 

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR6

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

North Interstate Urban Renewal Projects

  

Requested By

 

John Southgate, Portland Development Commission

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Add the following projects to the TSP Major Improvement List in Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements:

1.  Prescott Station Area Street Improvements: Improvements to Prescott and Skidmore (Interstate – Maryland) and Maryland (Prescott – Interstate) to rpovide the focal point for a new light rail neighborhood center. Portland, $3,400,000 (Years 6 – 10)

2.  Killingsworth Street Improvements: Improvements to Killingsworth Street (Denver – Vancouver/Williams) to establish a main street character promoting pedestrian-oriented activities. Portland, $2,100,00 (Years 1 – 5)

3.  Russell Street/Lower Albina Improvements: Improvements to Russell St. (Williams – Interstate) and Albina and Mississippi (Russell – Interstate) to enhance pedestrian connections from the Eliot neighborhood and the Lower Albina district to the new MAX station at Interstate and Albina/Mississippi. Portland, $5,000,000 (Years 6 – 10)

4.  Denver Avenue Main Street Improvements: Streetscape improvements to revitalize historic downtown Kenton. Portland, $1,800,000 (Years 6 – 10)

5.  Failing Street Improvements: Street improvements to Failing (Interstate – Failing St. bridge – Mississippi) to provide a safe and pleasant connection between the MAX station and the Mississippi Target Area. Portland, $800,000 (Years 6 – 10)

6.  Ainsworth Bridge Improvements: Improvement to the bridge to create a safe and pleasant crossing for pedestrians/bicyclists over I-5, linking the MAX station to neighborhood to the east. Portland, $1,500,000 (Years 11 – 20)

7.  Killingworth Street Bridge over I-5: Improvements to the bridge over I-5 to create a safe and pleasant crossing for pedestrians/bicyclists, linking the MAX station to neighborhoods to the east. Portland, $2,700,000 (Years 11 – 20)

8.  Lombard Urban Street Improvements: Improvements to Lombard (I-5 – Denver) to establish a landscaped boulevard promoting pedestrian-oriented uses, to create a safe and pleasant pedestrian link to I-5 with a new traffic light and road access to the Fred Meyer redevelopment. Portland, $2,800,000 (Years 1 –5)

9.  Mississippi Urban Street Improvements: Improvements to Mississippi (Fremont to Skidmore) to enhance the area as a Pedestrian District. Portland, $2,500,000 (Years 6 – 10)

10.  Vancouver/Williams Urban Street Improvements: Multimodal improvements to the Vancouver/Williams couplet (Broadway – Killingsworth). Portland, (Years 6 – 10)

 

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The Interstate Station Area Revitalization Strategy was adopted by City Council on July 3, 2002. The projects listed come from the Revitalization Strategy, the Transportation Strategy for ICURA, the Vancouver/Williams Infill Strategy or the Albina Community Plan. After further review with PDC staff, we agree that Project 10, the Vancouver/Williams couplet should not be included at this time.

 

Recommendation: Adopt except Project 10, the Vancouver/Williams couplet.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR7

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

Traffic Mitigation in conjunction with North Macadam District Development

  

Requested By

 

Martin Slapikas, Chair, CTLH NA Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

Add the following project:

Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation: Develop the NMD concurrently with a transportation plan to accommodate the expected traffic. Portland, $290,000 (Years 6 – 10)

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

Policy 6.40 Southwest Transportation District, Objective D, states, “Evaluate the transportation impacts on adjacent neighborhoods when considering increases in development potential of large new or redeveloping areas, and include mitigation measures in development plans.” The TSP Major Improvement List includes several projects in the CTLH neighborhood. These include:

Project # 20049: Corbett/Hood/Sheridan Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements under I-5

Project # 20061: Pedestrian/Bike Overcrossing over I-5 at Gibbs

Project # 90016: Barbur Multimodal Improvements

Project # 90042: South Portland Pedestrian District Improvements

Project # 90047: Macadam Multimodal Improvements

Project # 90060: South Portland Improvements

 

In addition a number of streets in the CTLH neighborhood are listed in the Reference List – Traffic Calming projects that would qualify for funding including: SW Virginia, SW Bancroft, SW 1st/Grover, and SW Hamilton Terrace.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR8

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

National College of Naturopathic Medicine Sign Installation

 

  

Requested By

 

Marty Slapikas, Chair, CTLH NA Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

Add the following project:

Directional Street Signs at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine: Install directional street signs to replace signage that was removed following the relocation of PCC from the Naturopathic Medicine site.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

Signing is not a TSP-level project. The Traffic Investigations division of PDOT makes recommendations on localized signing needs.

 

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR9

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

I-5 Sound Barrier

  

Requested By

 

Marty Slapikas, Chair, CTLH NA Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

To mitigate increasing noise levels in the CTLH neighborhood, add the following project to the Major Transportation Improvements List in Chapter 3:

I-5 Sound Barrier: Install a sound barrier along the portion of I-5 within the CTLH neighborhood.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

Sound barriers are installed by ODOT in conjunction with significant upgrading of a freeway when noise thresholds are exceeded. An RTP refinement plan has been identified for the Barbur/I-5 Corrid0r that will identify needed transportation improvements along Barbur and I-5. Giving consideration to sound barriers, if deemed necessary, was added to the study’s scope by Planning Commission based on submitted testimony.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR10

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing Improvement Project near Ross Island Bridge

  

Requested By

 

Marty Slapikas, Chair, CTLH NA Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

To address a dangerous pedestrian/bicycle crossing bounded by SW Naito Parkway on the west, the Ross Island bridge ramps on the south, and Kelly/Arthur to the east and north, add the following project to the Major Transportation Improvements List in Chapter 3:

Signal or Intersection Improvements near Ross Island Bridge: Add a signalized crosswalk or new intersection to allow pedestrians/bicyclists to cross safely between SW Naito Parkway, the Ross Island bridge ramps, and SW Kelly/Arthur.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

Project # 90060, South Portland Improvements, is included on the TSP Major Improvement List. It includes area-wide improvements that will reconnect parts of the neighborhood and facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to downtown and to North Macadam. The project includes redesigning Naito Parkway as a Neighborhood Collector and reconnecting east-west local streets. The Ross Island ramps would be rebuilt to separate regional traffic from neighborhood streets and improve access to I-405 and I-5 southbound.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR11

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Intersection Improvement at SW Capitol and Terwilliger

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

Add the following project:

Improve the intersection of SW Terwilliger and SW Capitol Highway.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The Terwilliger Parkway Corridor Plan includes transportation policies (adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan) that discourage traffic changes that are inconsistent with the character of Terwilliger. This includes any changes that would lessen its appearance or function as a two-lane scenic drive. Traffic siganls, channelization and other spot traffic improvements are inconsistent and should only be made where necessary to mitigate serious safety problems.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR12

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Signal at SW Capitol Highway/Vermont at 25th

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

Traffic backs up during the PM peak hour waiting to get onto SW Capitol Highway The neighborhood wants to have this intersection used as an entrance/exit to Mittleman Jewish Community Center. SW 25th is a key route to Robert Gray Middle School.

 

Add the following project:

Add a signal at SW Capitol Highway/Vermont at SW 25th.

 

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The Capitol Highway Plan recommends a signal at SW Vermont and 26th. A signal at 25th could substitute for this project.

 

Recommendation: Add a new project:

 

Capitol Hwy & 27th, SW: Intersection Signalization

Construct pedestrian crossing and traffic safety improvements with intersection signalization or alternative improvements if a signal is not possible. Consider alternative crossing improvement locations in the immediate vicinity, such as at SW 25th/Vermont, as part of project development.

Portland $120,000 (Years 1 – 5)

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

PR13

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Hillsdale Pedestrian Improvements

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 3, Major Transportation Improvements

 

Project No. 90035 Hillsdale Pedestrian District, SW

Pedestrian improvements on town center streets including Capitol, Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy., Bertha, and neighborhood streets. Provide a Bike Central facility.

Portland/ODOT

$3,200,000 (Years 6 – 10)

  

Requested Amendment

 

Move the time frame from 6 – 10 years to 1- 5 years. There are several urgent pedestrian improvements in the town center and to fund Safe Routes to Schools effort in the proximity of the Hillsdale town center.

 

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

All of the town center (Hollywood, Lents, St. Johns, and Hillsdale) pedestrian improvements are scheduled for the 6 – 10 timeframe. The main arterial improvements in the town centers have been scheduled for the earlier timeframe of 1 – 5 years. Hillsdale arterial improvements have been completed.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

R1

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

NE Glisan Street Study

  

Requested By

 

Jason A. Seivers, Montavilla Neighborhood Association

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 4, Refinement Plans and Studies

 

Add a Glisan Street Transportation and Streetscape Improvements study of NE Glisan between NE 67th and NE 82nd with the goal of improving transportation in the area with consideration commercial, pedestrian, bicycle, safety and neighborhood livability needs.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

Add the following to Chapter 4:

 

NE Glisan Street Transportation and Streetscape Study

Identify transportation and streetscape improvements that address commercial, pedestrian, bicycle, safety and neighborhood livability needs.

 

Northeast Glisan been NE 67th and 82nd Avenues has been designated a main street in the Region 2040 Growth Concept. The TSP designated this segment of Glisan as a Community Main Street for street design purposes. The TSP contains one project, bike lanes, for NE Glisan.

 

Currently, this segment of Glisan stretches between two light rail stations at 60th and 82nd. The land use and zoning pattern is storefront commercial, consistent with its main street designation. NE Glisan has the potential to be a thriving commercial district with multimodal connections. Barriers that prevent Glisan from realizing its potential include heavy automobile use as an alternative to I-84 during peak travel times; difficult pedestrian crossings and inadequate sidewalks and large curb cuts, missing bike lanes, intermittent on-street parking, and a lack of street trees.

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

R2

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Macadam/Highway 43 Refinement Plan

  

Requested By

 

Marty Slapikas, Chair, CTLH Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 4, Refinement Plans and Studies

 

Macadam/Highway 43 Refinement Plan

  

Requested Amendment

 

Accelerate the timing of the Macadam/Highway 43 Refinement Plan to coincide with North Macadam District development.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

RTP refinement plans are not prioritized in the TSP. The Macadam/Highway 43 refinement plan in the Regional Transportation Plan list. Metro, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, conducts a ranking process to determine when each study will be undertaken.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

  

Amendment Number

 

R3

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

Yes

  

Topic

 

Southeast Division Street Land Use and Transportation Study (Errata)

  

Requested By

 

PDOT Staff

  

Omitted Text

 

Add the following study description to Chapter 4, Refinement Plans and Studies:

 

Southeast Division Street Land Use and Transportation Study

Purpose: Develop a coordinated land use and transportation plan for SE Division between SE 12th and SE 60th.

 

The 2040 Growth Concept designates SE Division as a main street between SE 12th and 60th. This segment of SE Division has several zoning designations that discourage mixed-use development and can result in suburban, auto-oriented development. The neighborhoods and businesses have been working together on a ‘Division Vision’ and are interested in changing zoning and street designations to reflect Division’s main street designation. They are also interested in incorporating ‘Green Streets’ concepts as adopted by Metro and the City.

 

The TSP classifies Division as a ‘Community Main Street’ for street design purposes only between SE 33rd and 50th consistent with the existing zoning pattern. The RTP classifies the entire length of Division as a ‘Community Street’.

 

This land use/transportation study should consider new zoning designations and street use and design recommendations that would support an extended application of the Community Main Street designation along this segment of Division. The transportation element of the study would consider improvements that enhance access to transit, improved safety and streetscape enhancements such as traffic signals, alternative vehicle lane and on-street parking configurations, innovative stormwater management facilities, light, bus shelters, benches, and crossings.

 

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

This study was approved by Planning Commission. It was inadvertently left off left of the Planning Commission Recommendation for Volume 1, Chapter 4, of the TSP.

 

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

  

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

M1

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

North Macadam Transit Strategy: Additions and Changes

  

Requested By

 

Marty Slapikas, Chair, CTLH Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Add the following to the Public Transportation and Transportation Disadvantaged Modal Plan in Chapter 5, Modal Plans and Management Plans:

 

1.  Include a map showing the NMD regional attraction. The map should show the relationship of the NMD development to the City and the CTLH neighborhood along with its attraction to the surrounding region.

2.  Add the following text: Evaluate the transportation impacts on adjacent neighborhoods when considering development in the NMD and include neighborhood traffic mitigation measures in the NMD development plans.

3.  Conduct public hearings on the transportation findings by the South Portland Transportation Alliance.

4.  Enforce ORS 197.768, Public Facilities Strategy, when transportation solutions are not implemented concurrently with NMD land use development.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

1.  The North Macadam Transit Strategy is a summary of the transit strategies contained in a technical report (June, 2000). The transit strategy was developed in the context of regional growth and surrounding development.

2.  The amendment request is already stated in Policy 6.40, Objective D.

3.  The findings of the SPTA can be evaluated as part of the I-5/I-405 Inner Freeway Loop Study identified in Chapter 4, Refinement Plans and Studies

4.  ORS 197.768 is not a requirement on local jurisdictions for putting transportation improvements into place concurrently with development.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

M2

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

New transportation options in Southwest

  

Requested By

 

Marty Slapikas, Chair, CTLH Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Add the following to the Air, Rail, Water and Pipeline Modal Plan in Chapter 5, Modal Plans and Management Plans.

 

1.  Add a water bus/taxi to serve the NMD population coming from Lake Oswego.

2.  Add a monorail from the PSU transit center over Macadam (Highway 43) to Lake Oswego and West Linn.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

1.  Policy 6.24, Objective E, encourages the use of alternative forms of transit, including water taxis. Water taxi infrastructure is being completed in phases. The TSP includes a project for the River Access Transportation Study, Phase III that calls for construction of a dock to serve a water taxi stop at Oaks Bottom. The North Macadam Infrastructure Plan includes an action to “Investigate the feasibility of a river taxi system.” A discussion of water taxi service and facilities is appropriate for addition to the Public Transportation and Transportation Disadvantaged Modal Plan.

2.  The public transportation connection between PSU and Lake Oswego is important. The TSP identifies an extension of regional transit parallel to SW Macadam through Policy 6.40, Objective A., which states, “Use the Willamette Shore Line right-of-way, the corridor identified in the Macadam Corridor Improvement Plan, or other alignment as appropriate to provide future streetcar commuter service or light rail in the Macadam corridor.” Transit in this corridor would create the link between PSU an Lake Oswego.

 

Recommendation:

1.  Adopt by adding a discussion of the potential for water taxi service and facilities in the Public Transportation and Transportation Disadvantaged Modal Plan in Chapter 5 of the TSP under Programs and Strategies. Base the discussion on the River Access and Transportation Report. This report identifies potential landing sites on both sides of the Willamette.

2.  Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

M3

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

Lair Hill Area Parking Program

  

Requested By

 

Marty Slapikas, Chair, CTLH Transportation Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 5, Modal Plans and Management Plans

Transportation Demand Management Plan

Area Parking Permit Programs

  

Requested Amendment

 

Add the following to the Area Parking Permit Programs section:

Extend the Lair Hill (Zone F) parking program to encompass the total CTLH neighborhood.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The boundary of an area’s parking permit program is determined through a process led by PDOT’s Parking Program staff. Pursing expansion of the Lair Hill parking program does not require an amendment to the TSP.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I1

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Environmental Review for Trails

  

Requested By

 

Don Baack

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

Make the following change:

Modify environmental review process and regulations for trail construction to reduce costs and time

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

Environmental review is a citywide set of regulations that govern development in environmental zones. The regulations are the mechanism the city uses to meet its Goal 5 obligations. The TSP cannot and should not supercede these regulations. Trail development is recognized as a distinct activity in the environmental zone regulations.

 

Recommendation: Do not adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I2

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

Short-term Bicycle Parking

  

Requested By

 

Rick Browning, Bicycle Advisory Committee

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

33.266.A.2.b(1 – 3) 2nd bullet

Inside a building, in a location that is accessible 24 hours a day.

  

Requested Amendment

 

Inside a building, in an area other than an accessory structured parking area, in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

Existing code language allows short-term bicycle parking to be located either within 50 feet of a main entrance OR inside a building in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles. In practice this has resulted in short-term bicycle parking being located behind locked gates in structured parking areas.

 

Planning Commission modified the staff recommendation (the amendment request language) so that short-term bicycle parking could be located in a structured parking area, but agreed with testimony that, if the parking is inside a building, it should be accessible throughout the day. Testimony indicated that regardless of code language, if bicycle parking is allowed inside structured parking areas, it will not be accessible 24 hours a day. Discussion with bicycle program staff, BOP, BDS, and others has led to revised language that will provide a more straightforward approach and result in short-term bicycle parking being more visible and accessible while still providing flexibility for sites without off-street parking.

 

Recommendation:

33.266.220 Bicycle Parking Standards.

 

A.  Short-term bicycle parking.

 

2.  Standards. Required short-term bicycle parking must meet the following standards:

 

a.  Short-term bicycle parking must be provided in lockers or racks that meet the standards of Subsection 33.266.220.C;

 

b.  Location.

 

(1)  Where there is one main entrance on the site, the short-term bicycle parking spaces must be meet one of the following standards:

 

•  The short-term bicycle parking spaces must be located outside a building wWithin 50 feet of the main entrance to the building; or

 

•  Inside a building, in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles.

 

•  For existing buildings on sites with no surface parking, the short-term bicycle parking may be within a building other than structured parking. The parking must be in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles.

 

(2)  Where there is more than one building or main entrance on a site that is not part of an institutional campus, the short term bicycle parking must be meet one of the following standards:

 

•  Within The short-term bicycle parking spaces must be located outside a building within 50 feet of a main entrance, and be distributed to serve all buildings or main entrances; or

 

•  Inside a building, in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles.

 

•  For existing buildings on sites with no surface parking, the short-term bicycle parking may be within a building other than structured parking. The parking must be in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles.

 

(3)  On an institutional campus, where there is more than one building or main entrance, the short-term bicycle parking must be:

 

•  Within 50 feet of a main entrance; or

 

•  Inside a building, in a location that is easily accessible for bicycles; or

 

•  In a common bicycle parking location along a walkway if the short-term bicycle parking is more than 50 feet from a main entrance.

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I3

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Zoning Applicability to Park-and-Ride Facilities

  

Requested By

 

PDOT staff

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

Treat park-and-ride facilities the same (allowed by right in C, E, and I zones; conditional use in the OS and R zones) whether they are on private property or in the right-of-way. Amend 33.10.030.B When the Zoning Code Applies by making the following change:

CHAPTER 33.10

LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND RELATIONSHIPS

 

33.10.030 When the Zoning Code Applies

A.  [No change]

 

B.  Clarification for rights-of-way. Land within private rights-of-way, including rail rights-of-way and utility rights-of-way, is regulated by Title 33. Land within public rights-of-way is regulated by Title 17, Public Improvements, and not by Title 33, except in the following situations where both Titles apply:

1.  [No change]

 

2.  Development within design districts when specified in Chapter 33.825, Design Review; and

 

3.  Structures that project from private property over rights-of way, such as projecting signs.; and

 

4.  Proposals for park-and-ride facilities for mass transit.

 

C. – D. [No change].

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The amendment addresses an oversight in the proposed amendments to Title 33. The Planning Commission adopted new approval criteria to address park-and-ride facilities for mass transit consistent with policy language in Chapter 2 of the TSP. Rights-of-way are zoned but typically are not subject to land use reviews. Substantial portions of the I-205 right-of-way are zoned open space. This could result in park-and-ride facilities being constructed in the right-of-way in open space zoned areas without public review.

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I4

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Park-and-Ride Facilities Conditional Use Approval Criteria

  

Requested By

 

Jessica Richman, Bureau of Planning

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

Add commentary to 33.815.222 Park-and-Ride Facilities for Mass Transit to provide explanatory language to a new approval criterion added by the Planning Commission. The commentary explains criterion F. that states, “The facility is necessary because bus service is not adequate to serve those in the surrounding area who live or work beyond walking or bicycling distance of transit.”

 

Commentary for Criterion F

The highest priority for accessing transit, after walking and bicycling, is the development of effective feeder bus or vanpool service. Walking distances to transit are typically ¼ to ½ mile and bicycling distances are 2 to 5 miles. Where feeder bus service is not present or doesn’t serve all potential riders, a park-and-ride facility may provide temporary or permanent access to transit.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The amendment proposes language that will assist development review staff in making findings for park-and-ride facilities subject to conditional use review.

 

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I5

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Technical Correction to Parking Area Layouts

  

Requested By

 

Jessica Richman, Bureau of Planning

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

F.  Parking area layouts.

 

1.  – 4. [No change]

 

5.  Large vehicle areas in R, C, E, and IR zones. In the R, C, E, and IR zones, where a vehicle area on the site is more than 125,000 square feet, the vehicle area must contain the following elements. Vehicle areas in structures are not included in this total:

 

a. Internal access ways must divide the vehicle area into smaller areas that are no greater than 55,000 square feet;

 

  

Requested Amendment

 

F.  Parking area layouts.

 

1.  – 4. [No change]

 

5.  Large vehicle parking areas in R, C, E, and IR zones. In the R, C, E, and IR zones, where a vehicle parking area on the site is more than 125,000 square feet, the vehicle parking area must contain the following elements. Vehicle areas in structures are not included in this total:

 

a. Internal access ways must divide the vehicle parking area into smaller areas that are no greater than 55,000 square feet;

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

The proposed amendment will clarify that the driveways that meet the “street-like” feature requirement are not counted into the parking area that is used for calculating landscaping. “Street-like” features require their own landscape treatment.

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I6

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Technical amendment to correct figures in Title 33 amendments

  

Requested By

 

Jessica Richman, Bureau of Planning

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

Figures 120-4, 130-4, and 140-4

New Building B2. Allowed because it brings site closer to conformance with maximum setback standard.

  

Requested Amendment

 

Figures 120-4, 130-4, and 140-4

New Building B2. Because building increases length of combined street-facing façade on the site, 100 percent of building façade must be within maximum setback until maximum setback standard for site is met.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

When the figures were reformatted, the new text was inadvertently left off of these three figures.

 

 

Recommendation: Adopt.

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I7

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

Yes

  

Topic

 

Errata Sheet for Title 33 Code Amendments

  

Requested By

 

PDOT staff

  

Omitted Text

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

33.120.220 Setbacks

B.2.d.(2)  One transit street and one non-intersecting non-transit street. Through lot with one transit street. Where the site is adjacent to one transit street and one non-intersecting a through lot and one frontage is a transit street and one is a non-transit street Standard 1 must be met on the frontage of the transit street;

 

33.130.2.15 Setbacks

C.2.b.(6)  The internal accessways are excluded from the portion of the parking and loading area used to calculate required interior landscaping.

 

33.140.215 Setbacks

B.2.d.(2)  One transit street and one non-intersecting non-transit street. Through lot with one transit street. Where the site is adjacent to one transit street and one non-intersecting a through lot and one frontage is a transit street and one is a non-transit street Standard 1 must be met on the frontage of the transit street;

 

33.815.222 Park-and Ride Facilities for Mass Transit

A.  The proposal will not by itself, or in combination with other on-site parking areas, significantly detract from the overall desired character of the area, including existing or planned transit-supportive, high-density residential or mixed use development;

 

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

These are technical amendments that were filed with the ordinance. The language was adopted by Planning Commission, but inadvertently left out of the document.

 

 

Recommendation: Adopt

  

 

 

 

  

Amendment Number

 

 

I8

 

Amendment heard by Planning Commission

 

No

  

Topic

 

Update references in Transit Setbacks

  

Requested By

 

PDOT staff

  

Text in TSP PC Recommendation

 

None

  

Requested Amendment

 

Chapter 6, Implementation, Title 33 amendments

 

1.  33.130.215.C.2.a: . . . For sites with frontage on more than one transit street or in a pPedestrian dDistrict , the regulations of Subparagraphs B.2.d. B.2.c. and B.2.e. B.2.d. above, apply. . .

2.  33.140.215.C.2.a: . . . For sites with frontage on more than one transit street or in a pPedestrian dDistrict , the regulations of Subparagraphs B.2.d. B.2.c. and B.2.e. B.2.d. above, apply. . .

3.  33,140.215.C2: Regulation. Buildings with at least 100,000 square feet of floor area in Retail Sales and Service uses are exempt from the maximum setback requirement of Table 140-5 140-3 if all of the following are met.

  

Staff Discussion and Recommendation to City Council

 

These references were inadvertently left out of the Planning Commission Recommendation on Title 33 code amendments in Volume 1, Chapter 6, of the TSP.

 

Recommendation: Adopt.