Loading...
02/13/2008 - Packet City of Tigard City Center Advisory Commission — Agenda im Amen" one*, LIlleffm MEETNG DATE: Wednesday, February 131h, 2008, 6:30-8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Red Rock Creek Conference Room,Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions....................................................................................................6:30-6:35 2. General review of meeting protocol & minutes....................................................................6:35-6:45 3. Review / Approve Minutes .....................................................................................................6:45-6:55 4. Downtown Design Guidelines - Update................................................................................6:55-7:25 5. Downtown Implementation Strategy Update / Leland Development Strategy—Discussion..........................................................................7:25-8:00 Downtown Association—Discussion....................................................................................8:00-8:20 1. Main St. Beautification —Discussion......................................................................................8:20-8:30 8. Other Business/Announcements ...........................................................................................8:30-8:35 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— February 13, 2008 City of Tigard 1 13125 5W Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-ongov I Page 1 of 1 City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: February 13, 2008 Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room, Tigard City Hall Called to order by: Chair Alice Ellis Gaut Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 9:10 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph Hughes; Lily Lilly; Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Vice-Chair Carl Switzer; Alexander Craghead (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Marland Henderson, Mike Marr, Pete Louw, Marvin Bowen, Lisa Olson Staff Present: Phil Nachbar, Downtown Redevelopment Manager; Tom Coffee, Community Development Director; Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were made and visitors were welcomed. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #2: General review of meeting protocol & minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Ellis Gaut talked to the Commissioners about how the meetings are conducted. Staff has pledged to keep the presentations clear & short. The presenters should be allowed to finish before questions are asked. Sometimes it will be appropriate to take some public testimony so it can be incorporated into the discussion. CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 1 of 10 i Commissioner Lilly asked for more detail on the agendas. She would like the agendas to reflect who the presenters will be, what additional materials should be brought to the meeting, and what, if any, action items will be needed. Chair Ellis Gaut said she would ask people to stay on topic, not interrupt, and ask to be recognized by the Chair. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will add more detail to future agendas. AGENDA ITEM #3: Review / Approve Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: None Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Lilly, seconded by Commissioner Shearer, to approve the January 16, 2008 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed 5-0; Commissioners Hughes and Murphy.abstained. AGENDA ITEM #4: Downtown Design Guidelines - Update Important Discussion and/or Comment: Associate Planner Sean Farrelly reviewed his report with the Commission on the Downtown Urban Design Refinement Project (Exhibit A). He advised that the subcommittee is working on the design standards. We want to regulate what new development will look like in the Downtown. The purpose statement and the January 23`d executive summary are included with Exhibit A. Farrelly advised that the subcommittee wants to implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP), have a three track system in which applications can be processed and approved, and incorporate form based code principles (FBC). The subcommittee is going in the direction of regulating by different building types. There will be a store-front, mixed-use building type (basically what is on Main Street); there will be a different type of development along 99W/Hall Blvd. by the shopping centers which will be mixed-use. Other building types would be mixed-use employment, multi-family residential, and single-family attached homes. The locations of these buildings will follow the TDIP concept. A sample of how the guidelines would look was handed out (Exhibit B). Each building type will have its own regulations — some could be the same,but each building type has unique regulations that will apply to it. Farrelly described the process that the subcommittee has been following. Staff has been taking language from different sources and adapting it to our needs. The subcommittee then CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 2 of 10 reviews it and comments are incorporated into the language. Next month, the subcommittee will start to get into administrative issues, such as what kind of review body there may be. He distributed copies of the revised schedule for Downtown Design Regulations and Urban Design Vision Refinement Projects (Exhibit C). By May, the subcommittee hopes to have the proposed language ready to take to the next step. Also in May, there will be an open house for property owners, business owners, and stakeholders. Farrelly reported that we have received a grant (approximately $30,000) from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). They will bring in a consultant team to review the FBC language to make sure it fits with our code. As part of the consultant contract, they will develop the graphics. Hopefully, the graphics and the language will be ready to present to the CCAC by August. After that, we'll move on to the public hearing process. Farrelly advised that Council approved the Urban Design Vision Refinement Project. We have engaged the University of Oregon Graduate Architecture Department to perform some services for us. He reviewed the services that the graduate students will be doing (page 1 of Exhibit A). Farrelly reported that the City will spend $20,000 on the U of O project. We'll be receiving dedicated man hours to work exclusively on this project and getting public input,including the CCAC and the Design Subcommittee. The DLCD will be working on graphics for the regulations that developers will have to follow. The U of O students will be visualizing and presenting a vision of what the entire Downtown could look like if it develops according to the TDIP and the design guidelines. This is supplemental to what we're working on to help with visualization so people can understand the plan. With regard to fast tracking Downtown projects, staff advised that this is on the proposed work program for next year. If Council agrees with it and adopts the new strategy for Downtown this spring, we will be able to put Downtown Renewal District projects to the head of the review line. The project could then be assigned to a specific review team. It was noted that we need to make sure it doesn't get lost in the paperwork if the Commission decides they want to move forward with fast tracking for Downtown projects. Staff was asked if there is a population target for Downtown. Staff advised that there is no specific target. The TDIP lays out land uses which lead into design guidelines for the various land use areas. As the U of O project comes together and the design guidelines come together, there will be incremental decisions about the multi-family areas,which could be as high as 6 stories. Calculations are made from those decisions which will give us a population number that could be living or working in Downtown. It's also possible to go in reverse — start with a desired population number and force the guidelines to create that. CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 3 of 10 Staff was asked if doing the reverse and increasing density in the Downtown is a viable approach. Tom Coffee answered yes, if the objective is to avoid building higher density in the neighborhoods. During the Comprehensive Plan update, that question will be in the forefront. The City has decisions to make on how it wants to grow in the future. If it wants more population, how should it be arranged? Should it be in outlying areas, or should it focus in commercial and employment centers such as the Downtown and the 99W corridor? Downtown is part of a bigger puzzle. We are approaching it, not so much as a way to avoid density, but rather what the optimum mix is for uses, market standpoint, and design. Staff was asked if there is a projected population density in Tigard;is there a plan for Tigard to grow by any population base in the next 20 years. Tom Coffee answered that the only plan we have is the zoning/land use map. Using this map, we could count all the existing development, estimate the population for vacant land, and come up with an estimated population projection. He estimated that we could be in the 50-55,000 range over the next 20 years. If we start bringing higher density residential to the Downtown or look at a high- density corridor along 99W, the number could increase. Physically, we're bounded by Beaverton, Portland, Tualatin, and unincorporated Washington County. The only way we can grow is through redevelopment, infill, or looking at places like the Downtown or Washington Square for more density. Staff was asked if the U of O project will find a balance between upscale and affordable housing. Staff said that they would be looking at the form, shape, and density. Whether the housing is affordable or upscale is a market-driven decision. The City cannot get into housing costs through regulations. It has to come from subsidy programs or possibly density bonuses to encourage the developer to provide lower-cost housing. Visitor Mike Marr believes that for the sake of sales and the quality of the Downtown, we need upscale housing; but for the sake of the employees,we need some affordable housing as well. Chair Ellis Gaut noted that the CCAC has discussed affordable housing off and on for awhile. The Commission has not addressed it formally, but they are beginning to do that. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink from Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) will probably be at the meeting next month to talk about it. She thinks it would be ideal if housing in the Downtown included a certain percentage of affordable housing. Tom Coffee said this is called inclusionary zoning and did not know if the City could require it. Commissioner Murphy advised that state law forbids inclusionary zoning. It was noted that Portland uses inducements to provide for affordable housing. Farrelly will be back in 2 months for another update and will send out monthly executive summaries in the meantime. CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 4 of 10 Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will send the Commissioners Murphy and Hughes information on examples of FBC. AGENDA ITEM #5: Downtown Implementation Strategy Update / Leland Development Strategy — Discussion Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar advised that this is the third year for updating the Downtown Implementation Strategy. This year, the Leland strategies have been incorporated into our own. The strategies have been combined into a single matrix with a timeline. Nachbar stated that the text will be written up and should be ready for the Commission to provide comments in March. It needs to be approved this fiscal year. Nachbar summarized the 08-09 work program (Exhibit D). The Commissioners had the following comments/questions about the work program (staff comments are written in italics): ° The last page on the 1 year work program contains items that Leland recommended that we do not think we have the staff or financial resources to do in the next budgetyear. Relocation costs have been added to this page. This will be an issue for the CCA C, Counczl/CCDA, and the Budget Committee to ponder. Staff believes there should be about,8'100,000 to start for this item. Relocation costs can include other things in addition to the actual physical moving, e.g., interim financing, helping to identify a new location. ° The proposed budget includes money to finance projects listed in the work program. It includes such things as Phil Nachbar's salary, consulting services, training, and legal expenses. ° The Leland strategy, `establish a strong downtown organisation (funded position)"was not included in the budget because it has 2 components— money we don't have and it's a policy question (what kind of organisation should that be, how will it be selected). Its beyond the current scope of our program. • The Commission has discussed the 1 year work program, but has not endorsed it asyet. The Commission can choose to revise the work program,perhaps choosing something from the back page. The Commission should wait until they re comfortable with the work program before endorsing it. • It goes back to the money situation —if we take out a deal worth $100,000 and put in one worth $250,000, it would be shot down right away. CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 5 of 10 ° Are the tasks listed in the letter from Chris Zahas (Leland Consulting) in order of priority? We can assume that these are the top priorities that Leland is suggesting. We don't know about the order of priority, but all of them are on the work program for next fiscalyear. ° Organizational Task 3 to increase property owner and developer outreach is in the work program for next fiscal year. Staff mill do the duties for this task in house;we will not be hiring a consultant. ° Organizational Task 6 is for a success audit. This will also be done in house. ° Policy Task 5 for design standards specifies a consultant. This is being handled through the U of O and DLCD projects ° Concern was expressed about staff having the expertise to do this work as well as it could be done. At some point, there are limitations on everyone's abilities. Will we get the highest quality product if it's done in house? The fundamental challenge is deciding what we want to do, what we want to accomplish. Crafting language that satisfies legal requirements and can be understood by the average person is something staff believes they can do. In that respect, we have the advantage ofgetting an outside auditfrom DLCD. They will make recommendations to US. ° Some consideration should be given to whether we can effectively do all this work with existing staff. The alternative could be to hire more staff or hire consultants. Staff has said there's no funding for that. Current staffing costs plus,$'60,000-, 70,000 for consulting fees is what we consider our current service level. This amount is in the proposed budget. Anything above that amount would come in competition with other departments (Police, Library, etc.). ° How does staff respond to Leland's recommendation that Policy Task 5 should be pursued immediately? We believe we have the talent and can do it in house. ° Leland states that Housing Task 4 should be accelerated to begin immediately, but it's on the back sheet. It's actually on the firstpage of the work program, under assemble land for housing. We're moving forward with it and anticipate approximatey$25,000for a consultant to assist us with it. The item on the back page is another development opportunity study (DOS) program. This program is forgrants given to property owners to get consultants to hep them with feasibility studies to consolidate and develop their proper y. It's a grant program and were not in a position right now to ofergrants. CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 6 of 10 ° Tom Coffee advised that there are 2 things were working on right now. One is the strategy which includes the work program (written narrative and chart);the other is the budget process The strategy and work program willgo to the CCDA for adoption by July 1. If we want to put something in the budget, there's a separate and parallel budget process in which the money would be in competition with the whole City. There are 3 points in time to add money to the proposed budget. City Manager's budget, Budget Committee hearings, Council adoption. These are all points in which the CCAC can provide direct input for the budget (the sooner, the better). ° Since the CCAC makes recommendations to the CCDA and not the City Manager, Budget Committee, or Council, how would this work? Although recommendations are made to the CCDA, the City Manager is aware of things happening in the City and he can choose to add items to the proposed budget. If the CCDA isn't ready to make a recommendation prior to the City Manager's deadline in March, we're out of luck. That's an opportunity to provide input, but it's not the last opportunity. ° We could make a recommendation to the CCDA to increase the consultant budget to be more in line with Leland's recommendation. Relocation is anotherpolicy area that the CCAC should pay attention to. The CCAC could go to the CCDA before the budget deadline in April or May and make a direct recommendation to them. The Commissioners discussed the need for an adequate consultant and relocation budget. It was suggested coming up with a ball park figure that's reasonable and submitting it as a place holder to the City Manager, then take another month to refine it and submit the final recommendation to the CCDA. The Commissioners talked about making a recommendation for an additional $100,000 to cover relocation and/or consulting costs as needed. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Lilly, seconded by Commissioner Shearer, to request the CCDA include in the fiscal year 08-09 budget additional funding in the amount of$100,000 for consulting services outlined on page 4 of the letter provided by Leland Consulting Group dated 16 November, 2007, and for relocation assistance as needed. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #6: Downtown Association — Discussion Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Ellis Gaut noted that this item is one of the priority items identified by Leland identified for the City look into. Leland recommended a strong private downtown association with active and ongoing management and a united face. What should the CCAC recommend to the CCDA about how this would CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 7 of 10 work? How will the City interact with the organization, what is the organization's composition and function going to look like, do we want some criteria for what that organization does/does not do? Leland recommended that there be an initial amount from the City to support an Executive Director for this organization. They also indicated that this is fairly high priority. The CCAC should begin thinking about this. It was suggested that the City submit a survey to the business and property owners to test the waters for the level of interest. It could be funded and managed by the City, or possibly the Chamber of Commerce. It was noted that the Leland report isn't very clear—it calls for a new organization, but it does not outline what the difference of their charge is vs. previous organizations and why there is a separation between those two, or what the goal of this organization is. Staff believes the Leland report is talking about what a lot of downtowns come up with — a downtown association that's a formal organization with its own funding and is able to manage the downtown in a way that's like being a shopping center (as opposed to multiple, individual owners) and represent and promote their interests. They are a partner with the public sector in achieving the best interests of redevelopment in the Downtown. There is an existing organization in the Downtown— the TCBDA [Tigard Central Business District Association]. The Leland report refers to the TCBDA and notes that they address some of the needs for the Downtown, but their membership is limited and it does not have adequate resources to staff a manager position. The report goes on to say that the Chamber of Commerce is supportive of the Downtown, but its mission is broader than just the Downtown. It was brought up that there may be a discrepancy about the amount needed for a Downtown manager. The letter mentions $25,000, the report says $40,000. Tom Coffee said the question is what we'll get for $25,000 or $40,000. It may be that it would be a half- time position. He said downtowns have a disadvantage when competing with malls and the purpose of downtown organizations is to help with that. The question for the CCAC and the Council is if there's an existing or potential group out there capable of doing those things and do we need one now. Chair Ellis Gaut believes it's on Council's radar and thinks it should be on the CCAC's radar to the extent that we're aware and that we may not have money right now to do it the way Leland is suggesting. Council may give direction to tackle the issue. It was suggested that we invite the Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) to visit with the CCAC and provide information. It was also noted that a downtown CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 8 of 10 organization is not on the top 5 recommendations from Leland. When the ODDA meets with the CCAC, it was asked that they provide some examples where organizations like this have worked well, especially in urban renewal districts. They should also tell us where it hasn't worked or was proven to be unnecessary. Marland Henderson spoke to the Commissioners about the TCBDA. He would like to see if the TCBDA and the CCAC could incorporate their work together. He stated that the TCBDA already meets the requirement of being a non-profit organization. It would probably take a year for a new organization to obtain that status. Lisa Olson invited the CCAC members to attend TCBDA meetings and get to know the group. Vice-Chair Switzer said that if we're looking at Leland's recommendation, it may or may not have anything to with an existing group. We shouldn't make the assumption that the existing group is the one that's going to fill this role, nor should we discount that it will be. We need to be clear about the matter and make sure we're not entangling the two. First, we need to decide if we support the idea of a downtown organization. Chair Ellis Gaut agreed, saying we're not in a position at this point to say one way or the other. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will contact the ODDA and invite them to attend a meeting. Phil Nachbar will be attending the TCBDA meetings on a monthly basis to maintain the link between the City and the Downtown group. AGENDA ITEM #7: Main St. Beautification — Discussion Important Discussion and/or Comments: Due to time constraints, the Commissioners decided to hold this discussion at a later date. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #8: Other Business/Announcements Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar told the Commissioners about an upcoming training session for chair and committee members on group effectiveness. The training date will be either April 1 or April 3. Nachbar also told the Commissioners about a seminar on March 4th on Retail in Neighborhoods. The City will pay the registration fee for any Commissioner who would like to attend. CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Lilly said she would like to have training on urbanism or sustainability — building sustainable cities. Tom Coffee advised that Commissioners are welcome to check out the Urban Land Institute website for information. The Commissioners talked about visiting Sheila Greenlaw-Fink's new CPAH project in Hillsdale (Watershed). They would like to hold one of their upcoming meetings at the facility. Commissioner Murphy thought the Commissioners might like to see a multi-family CPAH project. Both projects have available meeting rooms. Vacancies were brought up. The Commissioners would like to discuss this in the near future. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The secretary will poll the Commissioners about the best date for the April training and will let them know the final details. The Commissioners will let the secretary know if they would like to attend the March seminar. Staff will watch for other relevant training opportunities. Board composition and recruitment will be added to the March agenda. - �V,,e J Jerree ewis, CCAd Secretary ATTEST: C air Alice Ellis Gaut CCAC Meeting Minutes for February 13,2008 Page 10 of 10 MEMORANDUM TIGARD TO: City Center Advisory Commission FROM: Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner RE: Downtown Urban Design Refinement Project DATE: February 6, 2008 As part of the Land Use and Urban Design Planning program for Downtown, the Community Development Department plans to engage the services of the University of Oregon Graduate Architecture Department. A professor and several architecture graduate students would assist in the development of a Downtown design vision/framework to provide guidance for future redevelopment. They would focus on four main tasks: 1. Study existing Downtown land use conditions and patterns; 2. Create a "3-D" vision of the scale, form, and character of the recommended urban form using the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan and other planning efforts; 3. Refine the conceptual Downtown circulation and block size study; and 4. Create visualizations of potential development for opportunity sites identified in the Development Strategy performed by Leland Consulting. The final products would provide a clear vision of a desired Downtown urban form for stakeholders, City officials, citizens, and potential investors. An open house is tentatively scheduled for May in order to receive feedback and select from alternatives. Also the CCAC and the Commission Advisory Team (design subcommittee) will have other opportunities to provide input and critique products throughout the course of the project. January 23, 2008 Commission Advisory Team meeting Executive Summary Members present: Carolyn Barkley,Alexander Craghead,Stuart Hasman,Elise Shearer Staff present: Sean Farrelly Agenda Item 1: Welcome/Introductions Re-introduced Elise Shearer as the new alternate for the CCAC. Agenda Item 2: Discuss communication with CCAC and Planning Commission Discussed member/staff communications with parent commissions. Staff will provide executive summaries of CAT meetings and will periodically come to CCAC meetings to update. The concept of"traditional"architecture came up in reference whether the TRIP required new buildings to be of"traditional"design. It was agreed what constitutes traditional design is difficult to agree on. It was also agreed that the design guidelines the committee is working on do not require buildings to be of"traditional"architecture,but the qualities that will be required will have the effect of creating and reinforcing a traditional downtown or main street feel and function. Agenda Item 3: Review Proposed Map/ "Regulating Plan" Next the committee discussed a proposed map of building type placement or"regulating plan."A regulating plan is a form based code idea, similar to a zoning map,instead of specifying where and what type of uses can be located,it specifies where and what building types can be located.There was much discussion on the pros and cons of various locations. It was pointed out that the Burnham and Commercial/Lower Hall"districts'allowed identical building types and should possibly be combined.There was discussion on whether the area bounded by Ash,Commercial and Scoffins should be restricted to housing. There was also discussion on whether the location of Office/Employment building types should be scaled back. A decision would be postponed until design standards for Office/Employment buildings were presented to the committee. Agenda Item 4: Review Corridor Mixed Use and Retail Buildings Design Standards Code The Corridor Mixed Use and Retail Design Standards were discussed,They had been distributed at the last meeting. Among the changes that were suggested: p. 5 Make the front setbacks on Hall/99 20'min and 30'max. Other areas- 10'minimum p. 7 Clarify overhangs and property line p. 8 clarify that parking should be set back the same as the building P. 11 include and/or with corner treatments p. 12 Minimum clearance for projecting fagade element 10'minimum p12. Specify lighting under the awning is permitted p. 17 Remove standards for color palette (for this and all building types,due to the difficulty of coming up with a clear and objective standard for color.) Color could still be addressed in discretionary standards. p. 18 Windows along courtyard should be minimum 60% to be consistent p.18 Street connectivity—consider only for this building type,it may be hard for small lots that redevelop to meet this. p. 20 Buildings along Main and Scoffins should be at a lower scale that n the rest of the Hall/99 area which allows 8 story buildings.A building needs proportional step backs so it would be smaller scale on these streets. Also there was a discussion on requiring new development to install new sidewalks where they are deficient and include a planting strip,as a buffer for pedestrians from the heavy traffic on 99W. Staff will research the current City requirements and ODOT requirements. Agenda Item 5: Multi-Family and Single Family Attached Residential DesigLStandards Power Point The Powerpoint on Multi-family and Single family attached residential was not shown,due to the time.The draft Multi-family and Single-family Attached Residential design standards were distributed for review and comment within two weeks. Downtown Tigard Design Regulations Proposed Purpose Statement: The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (I'DIP), adopted by the City Council in September 2005, was the result of extensive public involvement and outreach. The TDIP set forth the vision to create "a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes and uses natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live,work,play and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard." New development and major renovation projects in the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall meet standards that will achieve the vision set forth in the TDIP.The intent and purpose of the Downtown Tigard Design Regulations are to: 1. Facilitate the development of an urban village by encouraging attractive and inviting downtown commercial and residential architecture through high-quality building design,with particular attention to building fronts and streetscape.A well designed public realm is intended to attract investment and protect property values 2. Integrate natural features and the open space system into Downtown by promoting development sensitive to natural resource protection and enhancement;addressing the relationship to Fanno Creek Plaza and Fanno Creek Park (air,water and land resource quality,tree planting);and promoting the creation of public art and use of sustainable design. 3. Enhance the street level as an inviting place for pedestrians by providing features that are visually interesting and that are human scale, such as storefront windows,detailed fa5ades, art and landscaping,;and limiting the impact of parking on the pedestrian system. 4. Promote Economic Development in Tigard's Downtown which is integral to making Tigard a great place to live and do business. 5. Provide a clear and concise guide for developers and builders. How the Downtown Tigard Design Regulations Work The proposed administrative process for the Downtown Design Regulations demonstrates flexibility while promoting high-quality design.There are three alternate ways to receive approval based upon the complexity of the development and the applicant's wishes. 1) Clear and objective track: This track would contain quantifiable"clear and objective" standards.The applicant's compliance could be determined by a checklist.The decision would be made as a Type II decision by staff and could be appealed to a review body: the Planning Commission,Hearings Officer or a new"design review board." A further appeal would then to LUBA/ 2) Discretionary track: "Discretionary" standards use qualitative statements,where there is more than one way for a designer to meet the standard.This track would result in a Type III decision with public hearing by a review board (either an existing body- the Planning Commission or a new body created for this purpose.) In exchange for more flexibility, there is more scrutiny by review board and the public process.The process must result in a timely decision.A further appeal would go to LUBA (or the City Council,if they wish to be involved.) 3)The "over the counter" track would be used for applications for minor changes and additions to existing development (up to a threshold to be determined, but could be similar to the current code's "minor modifrcation"standards.) If the applicant demonstrates that applicable criteria were met,a decision would be issued within a short period of time, in the form of a"compliance letter." - - r- Pedestrian Oriented Ground Floor Design 9. Windows • First Floor Windows/Doors: 60% to 90% of each 11. Weather Protection first floor facade shall be occupied by transparent windows/doors. The bottom edge of windows along A Projecting Facade Element (awning, marquee, or pedestrian ways should be constructed between 12 balcony) is required, on the street facing fagade. and 30 inches above the adjacent walkway surface. • Upper Floor Windows/Doors: 30% to 70% of each Awnings/Marquees may project 3' to 6' from the upper floor facade shall be occupied by facade. windows/balcony doors. This specification does not may project u to 6' from the apply to floors where sloped roofs and dormer y p ro 1 p windows are used. Windows should be vertically facade. oriented. 10' minimum clearance. • Window Shadowing: Windows shall be designed Projecting and blade signs permitted at least 8 feet to provide shadowing. This can be accomplished g g either by: 1) recessing windows 3 inches into the clearance from the bottom of the above the fapade and/or 2) incorporating visible and sidewalk) substantial trim. Trim is considered visible and Awnings must match the width of storefronts or substantial when it is of a contrasting material, color, or it creates shadowing. window openings 10. Primary Entry Internally lit awnings are not permitted • Awnings must be made of glass, metal, or exterior Entry Door: At least one entry door is required for each grade fabric (or a combination) business with a ground floor frontage. The entrance shall be covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. At building entrances, the elevation of the ground floor shall be O A (D within 0 to 12 above the adjacent sidewalk grade. 00 0 0 0 --- O CF 00 00 0 [JA I 1A I SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION Revised Schedule for Downtown Design Regulations and Urban Design Vision Refinement Projects, 2/13/08 Project Tasks Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Design Regulations Project Commission Advisory Team meetings (design subcommittee Technical Advisory Team(staff) Property Owner/Stakeholder Open House DLCD Grant Consultant- feedback and graphics creation Developer focus group CCAC briefing/ review • • Planning Commission workshops and Public Hearings City Council briefings, • • • workshops and Public Hearings Urban Design Vision Refinement University of Oregon: site analysis, plan visualization, opportunity sites Commission advisory • Team/CCAC input Property Owner/Stakeholder Open House City Council briefing • Summary of FY 08-09 Work Program • Where as FY 07-08 focused on developing a master plan for Fanno Creek Park & the Downtown Plaza, FY 08-09 will emphasize executing specific projects in the master plan. This includes: 1. Relocation of the Stevens Marine Property 2. Executing an option agreement for purchase 3. Lower Fanno Creek Park—Acquiring properties for park expansion including performing due diligence and environmental remediation, preparation of construction drawings. 4. Plaza Area - Determining the market potential for redevelopment of properties adjoining the plaza site. 5. Plaza Area- Develop partnerships and agreements with property owner(s) of properties adjacent to the plaza site for future 6. Public Works Site—Determine Development feasibility and timing for redevelopment • Develop Preliminary Design for Main St. Reconstruction Project • Develop Land Use &Design Guidelines 1. Land Use/Design Guidelines 2. Urban Design Refinement 3. Circulation Plan • Street Improvements 1. Burnham Street 2. Ash Avenue Crossing—timeframes/ feasibility 3. Hall /99 W Gateway—concept design and review • Develop Organizational Leadership & Capacity in Downtown • Identify Opportunities for Redevelopment—Housing, the two shopping centers (Tigard Plaza, Rite Aid/Value Village ) • Outreach—Property Owners, Developers, Brokers. City Center Advisory Commission Sign-in Sheet Meeting Date -,s o g COMMISSIONER NAME �W, 10 (4 mut-r S � r U VISITORS City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Date 2-/3 -o e Please Print Name Mailing Address Email Address �V. (k)ox 230 b -L, ©mo wyvZ.€: ► J p�l OA w Q VNOk V th" S 1 Tigard Downtown Work Program 1 --Year DRAFT- February 8 FY 08-09 Project/ Task Organizational Leadership & Capacity in Downtown Strengthen coordination between the CCDA and other downtown organizations. Appoint a Downtown Liaison within the City's Current Planning Division to serve as a"go-to" person for private sector developers, and property and business owners. 'Increase property owner and developer outreach. Expand communications with property owners, developers, brokers. Establish on-going forums with housing developers, commercial real estate professionals, retail developers and others. Create an ongoing "success audit"for Downtown Tigard Facilitation of Downtown Redevelopment Projects Downtown Plaza Development Facilitate relocation of Stevens Marine (Plaza site) Develop option agreement for acquisition /disposition of the Steven Marine site Finalize Funding Strategy for Plaza Housing Development 'Assemble land for housing downtown. Conduct design and feasibility studies for housing and mixed-use development on parcels adjacent to the Urban Plaza as specified in the second phase of the Urban Plaza project. Develop Disposition/Development Agreements with Key Property Owners (Adjacent to Plaza) Public Works Site Prepare master plan/site development study Appraise property/Determine Valuation Work Program Page 1 Tigard Downtown Work Program 1 --Year FY 08-09 Project/ Task >�� Q � O �° p >`� 4� Commuter Rail Block Transit Center Redevelopment Monitor Grant Proposal with TriMet for Transit Site (MTIP) Retail Development Facilitate redevelopment of the two shopping centers Develop incentives package Evaluate strategies for acquisition/reconveyance of properties Refine Urban Design Plan for Downtown Develop conceptual framework for circulation, open space, pedestrian access, and land use Incorporate preferred urban design elements into Downtown Circulation Plan Land Use—Regulations I Design Guidelines Design Guidelines "Establish design standards for Downtown Tigard Land Use Regulations Development new land use regulations for Downtown!Amend Zoning men existing zoning standards to promote lan-d use and development that is consistent with the TDIP vision. (duplicate) Institute an Expedited Permitting Process. Work Program Page 2 Tigard Downtown Work Program 1 --Year FY 08-09 Project/ Task Improvement of Fanno Creek Park I Open Space System Fanno Creek Park Strategic Actions Incorporate Fanno Creek Park into Parks System Master Plan Finalize Funding Strategy for Fanno Creek Park Develop Phasing Plan for Fanno Creek Park Design Prepare Construction Plans for Fanno Creek Park Construction Construct"Re-meander"and Associated Improvements(CWS) Land Acquisition Land Acquisition for Park Expansion (floodplain properties) Develop Prospective Purchaser's Agreement(PPA)with DEQ, RR, City re Enviironmental Issues Land Acquisition (Public Area) Establish time frame/options for relocation/property conveyance Develop Option Agreement(Stevens Marine Floodplain Property) Coordinate with property owners adjacent to Plaza site Rail to Trail (Hall to Tiedemann St.) Evaluate use of consultant to assist with RR Coordinate with consultant to establish strategy/benchmarks Urban Creek/Green Corridor Phase I Urban Creek Corridor(Burnham St. to Commuter Rail)—Focus on Phase I rather then expend resources now to develop a separate urban creek as identified in the TDIP Strengthen urban design concept for Phase I Urban Creek Corridor Develop concepts for expansion of Urban Creek Corridor north of Commuter Rail Work Program Page 3 Tigard Downtown Work Program 1 --Year FY 08-09 IZ Project/ Task > Q O Development of Comprehensive Street/ Circulation S stem Downtown Circulation Plan Determine/Evaluate Circulation Plan Options (TSP Update process) Coordinate Review/Select Circulation Plan Option Achieve Consensus on Alternative Downtown Access Improvements (TSP Update Process) Implement long-term plans to increase connectivity to and within the Downtown. (However, there is no need to pursue these in the short term given that early projects will be located directly on Burnham and Main streets.) Incorporate Alternative Access Plans into TSP Update Pedestrian/Bike Plan with Circulation Plan Street Improvements Burnham Street Construction Bid/Contract Construction (utilities/under roundin ) Main Street Improvements Develop preliminary design for Main St. (MTIP grant year 1) Identify ROW requirements Review/Approve preliminary plans Identify Main Street'Brand Tigard" Improvements Install Street Trees Work Program Page 4 Tigard Downtown Work Program 1 --Year FY 08-09 Project/ Task �°'� O ° �' �' l 1 > Q 4 > Q > Development of Comprehensive Street / Circulation S stem (continued) Ash Avenue Improvements Ash Ave. (Burnham St. to Commuter Rail Parking Lot) Provide grading/underground for construction Construction (road improvements) RR At-Grade Crossing (vehicular and pedestrian) Initiate discussion with RR as to criteria/ requirements Establish timeframes and agreement with RR Hall Blvd./99W Downtown Gateway Gateway Conceptual Design Intersection Design Input/Washington County Coordinate Review of Preliminary Design ROW Acquisition Review Gateway Preliminary Design Work Program Page 5 New Tasks Requiring additional Funding or Staff Organizational Leadership & Capacity in Downtown Establish a strong downtown organization (funded position) Develop a branding campaign for Downtown Tigard to market the downtown to the development community, potential tenants and patrons. Retail Development Form a relationship with a retail consultant to work with property owners and retailers to attract desired retail development downtown Create a Main Street commercial redevelopment loan or grant program to encourage development along Main Street that is consistent with the TDIP vision Create a Main Street storefront improvement program. Similar to the recommended housing DOS program, create a retail-focused DOS program for Main Street and the section of Burnham Street between Ash Avenue and Main Street. Housing Development Create a Development Opportunities Study (DOS) Program to encourage property owners to explore redevelopment. Relocate Tigard's Public Works yards and make this prime site available for housing development. Redevelop the Tigard Public Works property at the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Burnham Street. Other Relocation Costs- Steven's Marine Site Work Program Page 6 Tigard Downtown Action Plan--3 year 8-Feb-08 Draft Project/Action Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Future Items in "italics -New tasks requiring funding FY08-09 FY10-11 FY11-12 Facilitation of Redevelopment Projects Downtown Development Opportunity Sites-Program Identify OpportunityOpporlunity sites for redevelopment x x x Development Program for Land Assembly/Marketing x Density Bonuses for Housing x Relocation City Public Works Yards x Redvelop City Public Works Facility-Hall Blvd/ Burnham St x Facilitate redevelopment of the two shopping centers x x x Hire Retail Consultant to attract new retail devleopment x ---7T—eve/op a branding campaign tor Uowntown x Main Street Storefront Facade Improvement Program x –Create a Main Street commercial redevelopment loan or grant pro ram x "`Create a Main Street storefront improvement program- duplication x Create Development Opportunities Study for Main Street and Burnham Street to Ash St x Land Use–Regulations t Design Guidelines Land Use/Building Types Refinement x Design Guidelines x Land Use Regulations x Commuter Rail Commuter Rail Block/Joint Development x x x Downtown Housing Development Housing Study x Housing Program Estimate x Implementation x x "'Create a Development Opportunities Study(DOS) Program to encourage property owners to explore redevelopment. x Performing Arts t Recreation Center Performing Arts Use/Preliminary Siting x Performing Arts Use/Feasibility Study x Land Disposition/Acquisition x Improvement of Fanno Creek Park & Open Space System Fanno Creek Park/Public Area Downtown Amon Pian Plaza/Private Development Feasibility Study x Page 1 Tigard Downtown Action Plan--3 year Project/Action Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Future FY08-09 FY10-11 FY11-12 Improvement of Fanno Creek Park & Open Space System (continued) Land Acquisition(floodplain properties) x x Land Acquisition Public Area x Fanno Creek Realignment&Restoration x x Park Restoration x x x x Public Area Improvements x x Urban Creek/Green Corridor Alignment Options x Feasibility Study x Preliminary Design x Land Disposition x Final Design&En ineerin x Construction x Ash Ave.Street/Open Space Design x x Rail to Trail(Hall to Tiedemann St.) Planning/Design x x x Construction x Hall Blvd-Commuter Rail Segment x Main St.to Tiedeman Segment x Development of Comprehensive Street& Circulation System Downtown Circulation Plan Revise Circulation Plan x Streetscape Enhancement Program Burnham St.Construction x x Commercial Street Main to Lincoln--Construction x Commercial St. Hall to Main St. x Scoffins St. x Downtown Action Plan Page 2 Tigard Downtown Action Plan--3 year Project/Action Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Future FY08-09 FY10-11 FY11-12 Development of Comprehensive Street& Circulation System (continued) Streetscape Enhancement Program Main Street Main St. Comprehensive Improvements Design x x Construction x x Main St Traffic Light @ Tigard St-Evaluation x Ash Avenue Improvements Ash Ave. Burnham St,to Rail Engineering/ROW x Construction x Ash Ave. North--Design/Construction x Ash Avenue Fanno Creek to Burnham St. x RR At-Grade Crossing Initiate Vehicular Crossing Negotiations x Pedestrian Crossing x Vehicle Crossing x Open Space Design x Burnham St.to Fanno Overlook x Ped/Bicycle Bride x Terminus to RR Tracts x Hall Blvd./99W Downtown Gateway Gateway Conceptual Design x Intersection Design Input/Washington County x ROW Acquisition x Intersection Construction x Final Design(Gateway) x Gateway Construction x Downtown Alternative Access Studies/Projects Downtown Alternative Access Stud -TSP x Scoffins/Hall Blvd/Hunziker Realignment x Pedestrian/Bike Plans Update Plan x Parking Management Plan Monitor Parking in Downtown x x x x Shared Parking Program Employee Parking Areas Off Main St. Determine Catalyst Project Impact x Prepare Parking Stud /Plan x Downtown Action Plan Page 3 Work Items Completed FY 07-08 Market Analysis/Development Strategy Identify Opportunity sites for redevelopment Commuter Rail Station Shelter Upgrade-Commuter Rail Initiate discussions with USPS Post Office -removed Fanno Creek Park&Plaza Master Plan Funding Strategy/Parks System Master Plan Public Use Area Design Main Street Safety Improvements Main Street"Brand Tigard"Improvements Burnham St.-Final design/ROW Farmer's Market-Site Location Greenberg Rd/99W/Main St./ Center St.Intersection Removed-Post Office-Relocation Stud /Facilitation Ash Ave.North Feasibility Stud Traffic Analysis--Greenberg Rd/Tiedeman /N.Dakota Downtown Action Plan Page 4 LELAND CONSULTING GROUP L. TIGARD DOWNTOWN Project Memorandum TO: Sean Farrelly,City of Tigard FROM: Chris Zahas,Leland Consulting Group DATE: 16 November 2007 SUBJECT: Immediate Next Steps for Tigard Project Number: 4749.2 Downtown Strategy Implementation Now that the Downtown Development Strategy is complete and the council has embraced its recommendations,Tigard must move aggressively forward to maintain momentum and take advantage of the current level of enthusiasm. Since the Development Strategy identified many tasks as high priority that should be undertaken immediately,this memorandum provides additional prioritization of those recommendations in order to give the City a more manageable list of actions that should be undertaken within the next six months. The following table repeats tasks mentioned in the Development Strategy and further identifies staff or consultant responsibilities and likely costs,if known. Only those tasks that should be undertaken within the first six months are listed. Since each task was described in detail in the Development Strategy,only a brief summary is listed here, unless additional information is warranted. It is assumed that projects that are already funded or planned will continue to move forward(as they should). Therefore,projects such as the public plaza and Burnham Street improvements are not discussed below-the City should continue to fund those projects and proceed forward. -ResponsibilityTask Organizational Task 3:Increase property owner Staff, $25,000 and developer outreach. Meet with key property development owners to discuss ownership status and potential advisor(LCG), plans for redevelopment. Focus on: and possibly a ■ Properties surrounding the new public public relations plaza; consultant. ■ Tigard Plaza shopping center; ■ Rite Aid/Value Village shopping center; ■ Potential housing sites along Burnham St.; ■ Property owners who have recently invested in Downtown(brew pub,dance hall). ■ Urban Stretegists, Wit no.lelandconsulting.coin Page 7 of 4 Portland•Denver•Boston-New York•San Miguel de Allende,Mexico I LELAND CONSULTING GROUP Task Responsibility Cost This outreach will almost surely reveal one or two immediate development opportunities-either public-private or strictly private. In either case,the City can play a lead"matchmaking" role in getting projects off the ground in addition to providing resources and incentives to make projects feasible. ✓ Secondly,increase outreach to the development community. Consider convening a quarterly workgroup or luncheon with developers to discuss opportunities in Tigard,review City policies,and gather feedback on ways to attract investment. Partner with the Chamber or a new downtown organization to organize the meetings. Constantly reinforce an"open door" policy with the development community. In addition to these meetings,conduct one-on-one outreach to developers through meetings. The quarterly luncheons will be useful,but some developers may be hesitant to discuss details in the presence of their"competition." As with any focused marketing effort,the goal is to match city needs with developer capabilities and interests. Organizational Task 6:Success audit. Using Staff and $10,000 interns or administrative support,prepare a development success audit to document recently completed, advisor(for set underway,and planned projects. Post on City web up and site when complete and distribute to developers structuring). and property owners at meetings described in Task 3,above. Use the success audit to build and maintain a dialogue with the media and with developers,investors,tenants and others. Policy Task 5:Design Standards. Although this Consultant $20,000 to was not listed as a"now" task in the Development contract. $30,000 Strategy,we now believe it should be pursued immediately in order to provide the policy foundation for other actions such as development studies and storefront improvements. Housing Task 1:Assemble Property for Housing. Staff, Can vary Housing is the single greatest market opportunity development considerably and has the greatest potential to catalyze other advisor,legal depending upon investments in the Downtown. Assemble counsel. the strategy 0 Urban Strategists, uwww.lelandconsniting.con► Page 2 of 4 LELAND CONSULTING GROUP L' Yask Responsibility Cost properties in the Burnham target area of between employed. one and two acres in size. Control properties Options through outright purchase or option agreements. If (assignable)are the City uses options,simultaneously study the recommended. development options(Task 4,below)in order to set Some shortfall realistic values prior to committing to a price. between option Later,issue developer requests for qualifications value and sale (RFQs) to develop the properties and sell the value may have property or transfer the options to a private to be covered by developer. Depending on the subsidy required,a the city-deal by portion of the purchase price could be recaptured deal. Up to upon sale. $500,000 for options. Housing Task 4:Development Opportunities Staff, $15,000 to Studies. This task should also be accelerated to architectural $25,000 per begin immediately. Identify two or three consultant, study. Assume properties and work with property owners to development plaza studies develop redevelopment options. Likely candidates advisor already funded should include: through plaza ■ Properties adjacent to the planned public contract. plaza(Phase 2 of the plaza scope). ■ Properties along Burnham controlled by Steve DeAngelo-he has already assembled land and has expressed interest in discussing redevelopment options. ■ Either of the two shopping centers,but only once a line of communication between the City and the owners has been established and the owners have expressed a high level of interest in moving forward. Miscellaneous Consultant Services. As described Development $6,000 to$7,500 below,Tigard will need ongoing strategic advisory advisor. per month. services to assist in decision making and technical analysis. The above list of actions should be manageable for a staff of two to three people. Consultants will need to be engaged to conduct the development studies and prepare design guidelines. The single greatest City expense will be for property acquisition, however assignable options are encouraged such that the city does not have to fund the full cost of acquisition. In the case of the Stevens Marine property,the City must acquire the property outright since it will eventually be a public park. Since the urban renewal district has few funds available today,the City should identify other sources to acquire property or secure options. This could be done through internal loans between accounts to be paid back in later years when the district has greater funding potential. For options 0 Urban Strategists, rorou�.lelendcottsulting.cont Page 3 of 4 LELAND CONSULTING GROUP L alone,a budget of up to$500,000 would be adequate. Anticipate an additional$250,000 for various consultant contracts described above. Ongoing Services from Leland Consulting Group Leland Consulting Group often provides flexible ongoing advisory services for cities in support of implementing downtown revitalization strategies. Currently,we are serving in this role for the cities of Oregon City,Oregon;Vancouver,Washington;and Boise and Twin Falls,Idaho. We have provided similar services in the past to Lake Oswego, Tualatin,Bend,Gresham,Hillsboro,as well as numerous regional planning and transit agencies. In the case of the above recommended action items,Leland Consulting Group would be able to assist Tigard in the following: ■ Outreach to developers and property owners; ■ Selecting key properties for acquisition,options,or public-private partnerships; • Determining acquisition cost of properties; ■ Assistance in structuring the success audit; ■ Developing strategies and negotiating agreements between the City and property owners; ■ Programming solutions for target properties; ■ Conducting feasibility studies and working with architects on the DOS program; ■ Serving as strategic advisor to the City Council and City Center Development Agency; ■ Assisting in ongoing communication to the city council; • Providing an overall strategic assessment of all the moving parts that make up the Downtown Strategy; Given that implementation requires us to be flexible and able to move quickly on unexpected opportunities,a consultant contract with Leland Consulting Group should be structured on a time and materials basis,with"rolling"not to exceed caps extended at a pace that is comfortable to the City. From our experience in other cities,given the workload planned for Tigard,a budget of between$6,000 and$7,500 per month would likely be adequate,with some higher months as specific projects"heat up." Specific tasks that can be forecasted would be budgeted-such as a feasibility study or part of the team to develop design standards. Conclusion Leland Consulting Group is grateful to have been able to assist the City in the next steps of the implementation of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. As mentioned at our council presentation,the work of downtown revitalization is never truly complete and the City must be vigilant in maintaining momentum. Tigard is clearly on the right track, having put in place the key policies that will support implementation. Now is the time to get individual projects underway. Leland Consulting Group stands by ready to assist the City in this effort. ■ Urban Strategists, rozoro.telendeonsidtrng.conr Page 4 of 4 From: Sheila Greenlaw-Fink [mailto:sgfink@cpahinc.org] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:02 AM To: Phil Nachbar Subject: Mixed Use town center projects and the CCAC Phil: Just a quick note to pass along a flyer describing the Hillsdale town center project CPAH just finished. I also attached the invite for the opening which was earlier this week, because the graphic depiction captures the building's fagade very well. I know that the CCAC was interested in pursuing a more detailed discussion of how affordable mixed-use like this might help seed redevelopment in downtown Tigard. Please feel free to pass these along if they're of interest. It also occurs to me that you've done field trips in the past, and that this might make a relevant and close site visit. We'd be very happy to do a tour, or let the CCAC meet in the community room at The Watershed. We developed a wonderful ongoing relationship with the neighborhood and business association in Hillsdale as we planned together and were able to build this project. In the end, they launched a $30,000 local campaign to help pay for the marquee sign, a public drinking fountain, and for lighting the tower—all elements they knew were unusual for an affordable residential project, but important in a town center. As I mentioned at that time, CPAH will need to make a decision on its pipeline in the next 90 days. The local funding award we have in place through the HOME program ($750,000) is for a senior project in the Tigard-Tualatin area. To date,we have not been successful in getting site control in Tualatin. We are currently working with our broker on two potential sites (one on Hall Boulevard and one on Greenburg Road)in Tigard. However, our first choice would be to consider a site in downtown Tigard, though we are unaware of any currently on the market. If you have any information on either privately owned or City properties that might be available, please let me know. And if we can schedule time with CCAC and/or City Council members to tour The Watershed, that would be terrific. Alternately, we do have extensive slides available to illustrate the interior and exterior features. I keep hearing that the City is focused on market-rate projects to kick start things, and am worried that you're underestimating the quality and speed with which a nonprofit project could emerge. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, executive director Community Partners for Affordable Housing PO Box 23206, Tigard, OR 97281-3206 503/968-2724 (Fax: 503/598-8923) sgfink @cpahinc.org; www.cpahinc.orci �11111111L. . OEM- s - - - K- _■ _ s ■EM■■ - i no waiersnou ai ninsdale Grandopening Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3-5 p.m. Y 6380 SW Capitol Highway, Portland, 97239 y I _ I. N L L ,s D L Please visit our Web site, E www.cpahinc.org, for event details and a map to The Watershed. i Illustration and design by Bruce Rodgers Come celebrate CPAH's greatly anticipated, green and affordable senior housing community, The Watershed (LEED silver certification anticipated). This project is a landmark gateway to the vibrant Hillsdale Town Center. Open house: 3-5 p.m., Program: 3:30 p.m. �• ���� Limited parking nearby. Please consider carpooling or taking one of Tri-Met's 10 bus lines in the neighborhood (#44, #45, #54, #56 provide frequent service). FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. g For detailed information, visit www.trimet.org. What are Green Communities? Green Communities are defined as ones that strive to balance The environmental (waste minimization, pollution prevention, resource conservation), economic (locally owned businesses, affordable housing, atershed illsdale mixed uses and open spaces, economic equity) and social factors (active and broad citizen involvement, policy based on local values, safe/clean neighborhoods, adequate recreation, infrastructure, education and health care systems), as they develop. CPAH's development practices align with this framework. The Watershed A@ Hillsdale, a project of Community Partners for Why Green le ° Affordable Housing (CPAH), is a stunning new mixed use project in the heart of the Hillsdale Town Center in SW Portland. The Watershed Resident Benefits includes ground floor commercial space with three floors of housing • Ithier indoor ronments that pr asthma above. This high quality, transit oriented development redevelops a her used or affected g construction contaminated site and was designed to reduce its impact on the, environment and to contribute to the strong identity and economic vitality's • ces need for low-income households to ma- Y• of the Hillsdale Town Center tra. et at or electricity and other basic necessities ," , , r fly 1 .r • Reduced transportation costs { Me=velop7dwith the unwavering support of the Hillsdale neighborhood, this project will provide 51 units of housing for seniors, with 40 units • More active living and wider opportunities through greater c serving households earningTr+om 0 to 50%of the median income with rent interaction through walking access to mass transit, jobs, schools and locals; subsidies provided through the Housin of Portland. The project services. -' includes eight units for formerly homeless veterans in collaboration with the Owner Benefits Veteran's Administration. • Operating cost savings through reduced utilities, maintenance and The building design and construction incorporates innovative green turnover building techniques and materials that minimize life cycle costs, add to • Reduced risk from building-related factors such as mold and indoor air quality, and reduce utility costs for residents. The Watershed is sick-building syndrome expected to achieve a LEED Silver certification. The building also includes features developed through neighborhood participation in the design • Market positioning, distinction, and visibility process, including a vertical glass and steel tower that creates a gateway • Public relations and community good will to the Hillsdale Town Center. With guidance from a nationally known Environmental Benefits senior housing specialist, lighting design, color selection, unit layout, and common area design, all acknowledge the visual and social needs of the • Contribution to climate change solutions aging residents. • Natural resources conservation " TJ € s • Water and energy efficiency f Y � • Reduced pollution X. • Less waste ` • Sprawl reduction FR.3 6388 SW Capitol Hwy • Portland, OR 97239 j Watershed Green Building and Susinabl Dev lopment Features Process Stormwater - ■ Community design charrette to hear community Stormwater is a design element vision - vision for site expressed from the of the name ■ Green building charrette to brainstorm strategies -• roof forms, and for achieving goals water tubes ■ Integrated design process including early selection Stormwater coscadinggardens filt- of architect, contractor and design subconsultants stormwater and detain initial surge to maintain water quality in nearby Locatio - Location Stephens Creek and Fanno Creek ■ Smart growth location with proximity to transit, watersheds. commercial and services ■ Compact development of 85 units/acre on infill site Water Conservation ■ Mixed use with structured parking to improve Achieving 30% water savings with low pedestrian experience in Hillsdale Town Center flow faucets, showerheads, - and dual flush toile Site: .. . ` ■ Brownfield assessment and cleanup to allow controls development of passed-over site ■ First nonprofit recipient of an EPA Cleanup Grant in Oregon ■ Reduced Urban Heat Island effect with Energy Star roofing and 100% of parking underground Materials & Resources ■ 95%+ construction waste recycling j Durability Recycled content materials including crushed concrete base, fly ash ■ 4' roof overhangs to protect building from rain concrete, steel, gypsum q \� C and sun Local and regional materials including wood products, windows, doors, li r �t ■ Rain screen siding system to improve durability of cabinets, and paint I " the exterior „�. ■ Canopies to protect major entrances from weather Indoor Environmental Quality ■ ERV system provides continuous fresh air and exhaust for both kitchen Energy Conservation and baths ■ Achieving at least 30% more efficiency than ■ Low VOC paints, adhesives and sealants Oregon code ■ Green Label Plus certified carpet ■ Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) System recovers ■ No added urea formaldehyde composite wood for cabinets and heat from the exhaust during cold weather and countertops pre-cools dehumidifies incoming air during hot, ■ Daylight and views to improve resident health muggy weather ■ High efficiency central furnaces & heat pumps for Operations & Education common areas ■ Third party commissioning to verify that completed building met the ■ High efficiency central boiler for water heating design intent and requirements ■ Energy efficient lighting while still meeting higher ■ Non smoking building lighting levels for the aging eye ■ Resident and management education on green building features 5 `• ■ Energy Star Appliances, windows and roofing ■ Educational signage, tours and presentations for community and general public