06/11/2008 - Packet City of Tigard
City Center Advisory Con='ssion — Agenda
MEETNG DATE: Wednesday,June 11, 2008, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Town Hall, Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. Welcome and Introductions........................................
..............................................................6:30 - 6:35
2. Review/ Approve Minutes .......................................................................................................6:35 - 6:40
3. Upcoming Items: Special Workshop June 17, CPAH Tour...............................................6:40 - 6:50
4. Urban Design Work- University of Oregon Project...........................................................6:50 - 7:25
(Sean Farrelly/ Team)
5. Commuter Rail Entryway Project.............................................................................................7:25 - 7:50
(Gary Pagenstecher)
6. Organizational Leadership &Capacity-mi Downtown..........................................................7:50 - 8:25
(Subcommittee / Discussion)
7. Other Business / Announcements...........................................................................................8:25 - 8:30
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA-June 11th, 2008
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Flall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page I of 1
PO City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
TIGARD
Date of Meeting: June 11, 2008
Location: Town Hall, Tigard City Hall
Called to order by: Chair Alice Ellis Gaut
Time Started: 6:30 p.m.
Time Ended: 9:09 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph Hughes;
Kevin Kutcher; Vice Chair Lily Lilly; Peter Louw; Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer;
Martha Wong; Alexander Craghead (alternate); Linli Pao (alternate)
Commissioners Absent:
Others Present: Mike Marr, Stuart Hasman, Tom Anderson,James Pettinari, Rena Simon,
Richard Woodling, Lisa Olson
Staff Present: Phil Nachbar, Downtown Redevelopment Manager; Sean Farrelly, Associate
Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant
AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were made and new
Commissioners were welcomed.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None
AGENDA ITEM #2: Review/Approve Minutes
Important Discussion and/or Comments: The following corrections were called for:
■ 'I'he meeting was held at the Library Community Room, not Red Rock Creek
Conference Room.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11,2008 Page 1 of 9
■ On page 3, 2"d paragraph, the word "form" needs to be changed to "inform."
Commissioner Shearer said there was an inconsistency with the block sizes within the
urban renewal area, and that is why there is no set code for block size.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Lilly, seconded by
Commissioner Murphy, to accept the minutes as corrected. The motion passed by a vote of
6-0. Commissioners Kutcher, Louw, and Wong abstained. The secretary will make the
corrections and bring them back for the Chair's signature.
AGENDA ITEM #3: Upcoming Items — Special Workshop on June 17, CPAH Tour
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar talked to the Commissioners
about the joint workshop with Council next week on the Burnham Street project. There has
been some opposition to the Burnham Street renovations and reconstruction. Nachbar
advised that the issue of appraisal and condemnation will be discussed, but he does not
believe the consultant (Right-of-Way Associates) will be at the workshop.
Nachbar advised that notices were hand-delivered to all the businesses along Burnham Street
and Main Street. Notices were mailed to all the Downtown businesses and to the property
owners on Burnham Street. Property owners and business owners are invited to the
meeting. Their input is requested, but the workshop is primarily between City Council and
the CCAC.
Commissioner Craghead asked about the intent of the workshop —is Council asking the
CCAC to make a decision or advise them on specific issues? If so, it would be helpful to
know more about the specific issue. Nachbar said the CCAC would have the same staff
report being provided to the Council, noting that Council is very concerned about the
appraisal process and the potential impact and resistance to the project.
Concern was expressed over the setting of the workshop —if the CCAC sits with their backs
to the business and property owners, it could be perceived that Council is asking for input
from a Commission that doesn't have enough information. It could look like we have more
to say than the property owners.
Chair Ellis Gaut reported that she had a conversation with the Mayor a couple of weeks ago.
He let her know that Council was considering setting this meeting. At that time, things were
in the question-mark stages in terms of how Council wanted to proceed, but they definitely
wanted to have a discussion with the CCAC. She thought the Commissioners would receive
more advanced written preparation for the workshop. It's her belief that this will be a brain-
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11,2008 Page 2 of 9
storming session to figure out what the issues are and think about what we can do to resolve
them.
Phil Nachbar encouraged all of the Commissioners to attend the meeting if possible.
For the next meeting on July 9th, the Commissioners asked staff to arrange for a tour of the
Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) new facility in Hillsdale — the
Watershed. We will hold the meeting at the site after the tour. [NOTE: It was later determined
that the CCAC cannot hold a business meeting outside of Tigard city limits. They will tour the CPAH
facility on July 9th and then return to City Hall to hold their meeting J
The Commission was also reminded about the tour of the Elite Care at Fanno Creek facility
on July 23`a
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will mail copies of the Burnham Street
newspaper articles, Council staff report, and other background material to the
Commissioners on Friday. Staff will make arrangements for the CPAH tour on July 9th
AGENDA ITEM #4: Urban Design Work— University of Oregon Project
Important Discussion and/or Comment: Sean Farrelly advised that the City has been
working with a University of Oregon professor and several architecture graduate students to
refine the vision of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan to give us a visualization of
what future development could look like. The four main tasks of the project are:
1. Study existing Downtown land use conditions and patterns;
2. Create a "3-D" vision of how development could happen in the Downtown;
3. Refine the conceptual Downtown circulation and block size study; and
4. Create visualizations of potential development of the Downtown and opportunity
sites over the short, mid, and long terms.
The project will run through the end of July, so this is a check-in update to show some
preliminary work products and the outline for the rest of the tasks. The final product will be
an illustrated document that will provide a clear vision of a desired Downtown urban form
for stakeholders, City officials, citizens, and potential developers.
Professor James Pettinari and graduate student Rena Simon gave a PowerPoint presentation
on the design vision for Downtown Tigard (Exhibit A). Professor Pettinari advised that
Metro's 2040 Plan designates surrounding areas of Portland as sub-centers of Portland. He
noted that Tigard is strategically located on existing and potential transportation links and is
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11,2008 Page 3 of 9
considered a sub-center. The idea of the 2040 Plan is to build development centers that
have their own identity and historic areas. 04
Simon noted that Tigard was mostly farmland in 1953. We won't be extending the green so
much as re-greening Tigard. The road system and circulation haven't changed much in the
last 50 years, but much of the farmland has been replaced with pavement. The Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) along with the Leland Study and other studies start
to set up the framework for future projects. Short, mid, and long term plans are sensitive to
what steps will happen first, and determine where the major zones will develop and expand.
Simon briefly reviewed some of the visual tools used for this project—block size studies,
patterns and percentages, green urban network, focus points and gateway sites, formed
based code, and sketch up model. She advised that there will be a more detailed study of 3
opportunity sites (commercial corner area to the north, central Main Street connection with
commuter rail, potential residential site at the Public Works site). She noted that the TDIP
is a discussion of desired outcomes.
Sean Farrelly reported that the project should be finished by the end of July and there will be
a final presentation in August. Rena Simon stated that there would not be a 3-D physical
model at this point. They are in the process of creating a sketch up model that can be
modified. It is hoped that the sketch up models can be available for public meetings and
open houses. It was noted that Google Earth also has some capabilities.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None
AGENDA ITEM #5: Commuter Rail Entryway Project
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher spoke
to the Commission about the Commuter Rail Entryway Project (Exhibit B). The
Downtown Implementation Strategy includes design and construction of a Commuter Rail
entryway. Twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) has been budgeted for next fiscal year for
development of the entryway to coincide with the opening of Commuter Rail this fall.
Pagenstecher noted that the entryway project is a very small project, but it could have a big
impact. The CCAC is being asked to review proposed sites and design criteria and decide on
their preferred site and relevant design criteria. Proposed sites are:
■ Commuter Rail entryway at Main Street
■ Commuter Rail station platform
■ Multi-purpose path swale
■ Commuter Rail entryway at Hall Blvd.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11,2008 Page 4 of 9
Proposed design criteria include:
■ Distinctive landmark—provides a substantial landmark to punctuate the Downtown
landscape and herald the Westside Express Service to Tigard (location, visibility,
scale).
■ Historic/traditional elements —acknowledges Tigard's Downtown railroad, industrial,
and architectural heritage (form, imagery, material).
■ Interpretation — communicates the synergy of Commuter Rail and the revitalization of
Tigard's Downtown (railroad reference, redevelopment, dynamic).
■ Sustainability— demonstrates a commitment to sustainable practices through design
and material choices (concept of generational equity, reused materials, solar power).
After review and discussion of the project, the Commissioners ultimately recommended
distinctive landmark and sustainability as the two most significant design criteria. The
interpretative element and the historic and/or traditional elements in the design are for
guidance and we should look to those as supportive elements when designing a sustainable,
distinctive landmark. The Commuter Rail entryway at Main Street was the preferred site.
During their review, the Commissioners discussed the need for a protective windscreen for
commuters. Staff advised that there may be other money available to fund that; however, if
the CCAC feels it's an important element, we could bring it to Council as a secondary
project and get their response. It was noted that the entryway project is a place-making
opportunity —it creates a landmark for identifying a place, intended to focus on the
Commuter Rail riders as they come into Tigard. It is different than a windscreen and will
function differently.
Commissioner Barkley advised that when the Commuter Rail station was originally designed,
the committee involved discussed all the elements. Windscreens never came up for a
recommendation. She suggested bringing this back to the table and reviewing the reasons
why the former committee came to the conclusions they did. Staff will add this to the July
agenda. Commissioner Barkley will put together what information she has regarding
windscreens from the earlier committee's minutes.
Lisa Olson volunteered to work with the CCAC to "unveil" the entryway project during the
celebration for the opening of the Commuter Rail. Gary Pagenstecher advised that the next
steps for this project will be to take the recommendation to Council. The windscreen
question should be raised at that point because it will be in their court to allocate additional
funds for a windscreen. The entryway project and windscreen don't necessarily have to be
tied to one another. After Council review, the next phase would be to do design
development and have a public workshop with stakeholders and the general public. The
results of the workshop will go to the CCAC and Council again.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11,2008 Page 5 of 9
If the CCAC decides the windscreen is a element they would like to pursue, staff will take
the issue to Council separately.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will add discussion of the windscreen to the
July meeting and Commissioner Barkley will see what materials she has from earlier
committee work.
AGENDA ITEM #6: Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean Farrelly reported that he contacted
Leland Consulting and asked some follow up questions about a Downtown organization.
Chris Zahas of Leland responded that the reason for having a downtown organization is that
the City cannot do everything by itself. Organizations with a paid staff can accomplish
more. Eventually, the organization could be self-sustaining and be able to fund itself after an
initial period of being supported by the City. An organization would foster leadership in the
Downtown and create a dialogue. The timing for forming an organization would be up to
the City to determine.
Farrelly noted that there's a lot of interest in the Downtown right now, but it's not
necessarily in agreement. Some businesses might want to stay for the long run, but other
businesses might not survive the transition. Chris Zahas said that any organization should
have a balanced membership made up of Downtown businesses who want to remain for the
long term and property owners who see an eventual possibility in redeveloping their
properties. The City should have a representative on the board, either voting or non-voting.
In a follow-up conversation with Zahas, Farrelly asked if Leland could direct us to cities that
are going through similar things. Zahas said that Oregon City and Sherwood both have
downtowns with urban renewal districts and are in the early stages of development. He also
mentioned Bellingham, Washington as an example of having a successful downtown
organization.
Commissioner Craghead reported on the work done to date by the CCAC subcommittee
tasked with researching leadership capacity in the Downtown (Exhibit C). He began by
providing some background information for the new Commissioners. He advised that the
subcommittee developed a list of 7 research questions based on questions raised at the May
14`h CCAC meeting (page 1 of Exhibit C). The subcommittee added a couple of questions
that complemented the ones raised by the CCAC.
Executive summaries of the May 21" and May 28`h subcommittee meetings are included in
the exhibit. The last 2 pages of the exhibit include a series of questions to ask Leland
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11,2008 Page 6 of 9
Consulting. Craghead said the subcommittee is still in the research phase right now. They
are working on comparable cities — what are cities that are like us (geographically or
economically), what are they doing, and how is it working for them. Other models are also
being looked at—what other shapes do associations come in, other than the Main Street
Program.
Existing conditions for the Downtown are a little more difficult to determine.
Commissioner Craghead has a list that includes the business names, what kind of businesses
they are, and the owner's address. He is developing a matrix of urban renewal districts and
cities that have some form of association. The matrix will show where there's one but not
the other, where they have both, populations, budget numbers, numbers of people who are
members, numbers of people who can be members. His biggest challenge is that there is no
list anywhere of cities that have associations in this state.
It was suggested adding cities that have economic directors to the matrix (city staff vs. paid
downtown organization stafo. Craghead said that if they exist, they more than likely won't
be dedicated to just the downtown areas; but if there are, he will note it.
Craghead hopes to have the Leland answers by the next CCAC meeting and noted that
Commissioner Shearer has been working on the academic research. He reported that he
attended the recent Oregon Main Street open house in Oregon City. He advised that this is
a program administered by the State —it is not a third party, non-profit program. The
program has been inactive for about 5 years and is now being re-built. It is based on the
National Trust for Historic Preservation's national program for Main Streets, but there's
more flexibility in the State program. There are also multiple levels for the kind of
commitment required, the kind of criteria you have to fit with, and the kind of benefits you
get in return.
There is no cost to join the program. There is a certain degree of criteria that has to be met
and data that has to be provided. Primary benefits are consulting benefits for the
Association. There are 2 different levels— Exploring and Performing. The Exploring level
is easier to get into. There's a lot less criteria, you can enter at any time of year, and there are
no deadlines. You get a certain degree of support from this level. The Performing level is
more strict. It confines itself to the National Program. We would have to talk to Gary
VanHuffel to know if we could qualify for the Performing Main Street version. It's possible
that only part of Main Street might qualify.
Craghead reported that Clackamas County wanted to do their own thing, so they created a
custom program based on the Main Street Program that works with the State Department.
Clackamas County came up with their own criteria, their own goals, and made an entire
custom program for every community in their county.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2008 Page 7 of 9
Gary VanHuffel is very open to having a conversation about what our needs are,what we're
looking for, and what they can do to make us fit. He's working with communities where the
historic districts are completely gone, places that never had a historic district but want to
create something like that, and places where there's nothing. Craghead believes there is
some potential with this program that warrants further investigation. It was noted that
Tigard belongs to the National League of Cities; this could be another resource for us to
look at.
Phil Nachbar asked the Commission to think about where they want the discussion to end,
what the by-product of all the work would be, and what steps would need to be taken to get
there. Chair Ellis Gaut said the subcommittee was asked to do this work for the following
reasons:
■ the CCAC would like to bring a preliminary recommendation to the CCDA and
Council regarding the downtown association element of the Leland Report;
■ do we feel this is something that Tigard needs and could benefit from;
■ preliminary exploration needs to be done so the CCAC can be prepared to say, "Here
are some elements of an association that would be mutually beneficial for both the
members of the association and for the City."
It appears there's a lot of research that needs to be done. In general, the target is to have
sufficient education for the Commission to formulate a preliminary recommendation within
a 3 month timeframe. Commissioner Craghead believes the subcommittee could have a
significant amount of information available by next month. It may be possible to have all of
the information available by August. Two questions that need to be answered before going
to Council are: do we need an association and, if so, what does it look like? Craghead
proposed there be an open discussion next time to get an initial dig in and then maybe in
August, have a discussion to answer the 2 questions. Chair Ellis Gaut noted that the
discussion in August could take extra time, so she asked that very little else be on that
agenda.
A 3 month timeline might be ambitious and if the Commission isn't comfortable going
through wordsmithing at the end of the August meeting, we may have to extend it. Staff
volunteered to help the subcommittee develop some broader concepts. Commissioner
Murphy said the subcommittee would like to see if the National League of Cities might have
information on business associations and if there is research available on other models
besides the Main Street model.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will add organizational leadership and capacity
in the Downtown discussion to the July agenda.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2008 Page 8 of 9
AGENDA ITEM #7: Other Business/Announcements
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Shearer suggested some
reading material and asked if the City could purchase them for the Commission.
Commissioner Murphy suggested carpooling for the CPAH tour in Hillsdale on July 9`".
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will purchase the books recommended by
Commissioner Shearer and will help with carpooling arrangements.
Vi�J o-el-I
Jerre Lewis, CCAL Secretary
ATTEST
"ChaiAhce4-lhs Gaut
CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2008 Page 9 of 9
tigard town center :
AN URBAN DESIGN VISION REFINEMENT OF
THE TIGARD DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
OPUARL: Portland Urban Architecture ResearcUNIVERSITY �
O< OREGON Laboratory
Examples of past UO urban
design work
r
t
v -
REGIONAL GRAPHIC STUDIES
ST
Lu
! �CORNED � t � � ■
RNgVDE RD
ST ST
�IgELAAONTST
—!� 4
ES QO
BROAD N a
5 � .._ DIVISION
RD SER aYv a y e m
RD
�O O PATTON - POWE B
CN�YOV4 ■ m
•
HOLGATE
•B� �� � = SUNs� uI
BEAVERT �p
HI'�SO � STEELE ST
P ``FF w
W > ,
iJ I' ENS RD VERMONT ST
IS
1 + f \v BAN
LV m w N
DENNEY t RD'
MULTNOMAH i
H T R GARD M
HOME { /�
i - > w `
BROCKMAN ST
Nui
�.
Q _ a KING
WEIR RD =
MON
J FER `ti 1 w
T> > ISTEPHENSEN
w
' a CREE�9
KER 5 _
NA S RD O
R
t9 ♦�; ---� Q T CL+t 8LV ake Os RTNE SrO
gull RD R
CJ&RDE T M--ALD ST KRUSE ' O O �� HILL RD
Mtn k 0`,
MOUNTAIN R
BLVD �a
i✓ JUS I n �' ��
Oj
moi._. '!__., I / ��" •• �n� (.� \ �I
Lr
L.7 p
ir
`^ �;. — - r\\ y J_`-��/ a r l •`ice T%
■
regional context
RESIDENTIAL, ~� /
i
IV
regional local context
��Vlt
f. I
�'�
r� i
RESIDENTIAL
EMPLOYMEN-__
r
Or
� -tip� �• � V '.
r
regional & local context
r 1
1
RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT
RETAIL
o.
1
1
�� _.._ _ IJ K�� �f ✓ it '
regional local context
CITE" OF TIGARD - DOWNTOWN
URBAN RENEWAL ZONE
'Joe` ap
ON
., 4
IV
'�. r'�I... � - _ cat.;� 't � i •!`
`��+ �+�� �`,.� � ti., t t� Ian+w,�� ],� \`��'.� �.•S
�f s ry 1
IMF
urban renewal
- •/aoo 8 .moo : tsH�' .` •lq
Jig
'ZI
Isk,
,,_' - Ai.; CHRONOLOGIC GRAPHIC STUDI
1 W
NN'�
ARP,
-AN
10
. .........
�:: � � �• / %may
YIN
MIN Mlkl� N1.10
�{
y� �/ ,�
r . A
Ing
IQ
IFIVI
ol
op
��� /,, .i. � its , �• i �' `4. �.� � ',�.
��' `�j it � � ► 1• -� \�
� J,
�� �,:
i .�� 9y �
1 ..ice`{ ��;
r
o i
oq,,�r�c, vxti �
x� �.
.�� ..,yam �"., Y- +
�.
4 y q; � V
/ _����i r 4 a �K�� ♦ 1
� y�4lll�.�, `1
! /y
�-
/ � v �!i` q
_ � Fye_ ,_f � �� �,��, k r
+.4� 22
.e_S Y♦..,�, yrj v y.
t J t 'tel�, l�J� ^.R' ,` "S � /'
�. ,�: �`� ` i. 1
.� ` e
1 . ` , h^ '.
y �. f
i
I, ���'�`
l � �4S � .� ���
s '� .
•i�r "•
.r q'
y
S�
�!_ � 1
7�C t P
J I
A
. `�
F
r.
i f' �
�:
i► r �
-l�/i\;ice �,�`�!' \:� �.�`\/ ��` '� ,,';°';;,�•�: � • M�,
La
ENS AP
�t�i/fix/�, �'f,'*'� �� ��� .:e���.;� `►, �.�\ � ►���,• �� �;��
Wl
WMA
\t �^
/ J
r' t OOF
WW
SODIUM
amp
}
ASPIRAT-10 NS FRAMEWORK
Jol
r
�; 1. + '�r � ��' �• t.
u CITY OF TIGARD - DOWNTOWN
_URBAN RENEWAL ZONE 'Y`
Hall/99W Ga
t.�w.ts,-
Railroad Cross+ - 4 � �, jr•' •
s
Green Street on M Street �' �' 4' ' � _ fi #'
s.fr r'� ``� 1 f.J 2 I
7.
Transit Station Site/ Co r • ' r �.. ~'`` �'� :� >,,1� "'
�, ..'ray �� S � �•.+ i �..Y �
Form Based ;, s�+�a -�1 = ; 411
Fanno Creek Park & Pla �� .
Green Urban Ne -- ` 41r
Burnham Collect eet �� � s ..��
Ash Ave
Business Inc
CIVIC BuildIngs
Akii
political & physical r
�cV. 40
ASPIRATIONS :
IMAGE & SENSE OF PLACE
ADDITION & IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SPACE
USE & DESIGN OF PRIVATE SPACE
RE-GREENING OF TIGARD WITH A GREEN URBAN NETWORK
^moi
CREATING A PLACES TO LIVE, WORK, & PLAY IN DOWNTOWN TIGARD
�\ S L ANALYSIS & TOOLS
U
i
i
own P\rtland Block
200x200
BLOCK SIZE STUDY:
wntowT Lak Oswego Block
n—
�—' 200x300
diagra
rri��
llr,
I
'�''��► '
�� �j ,`^�d. \/°�' ti��\fir �i \ '/�!L•� � ►1 "�
RNIMMI
XV
ir
� r.',fit r•S /� :+ '� �'�\
wr- 41,
W.
i
y
W4 �J, �!��» r' �%ice # �w�i•� �a
OF
A
WE
' �y� ,s• 1 jay°�`/ ', y
1\7q,7
' r r 1
•' ` /.
rX
-rash,#'► .fit .�y `� rl ��-,/ � /r�'`t � �j���j
• „ , Vis:s \t" �/f 36:,�
'r-._` /4 Z` tib' '���'�'� �..• R ���
,,LAS: , -' ♦ `a' ,�
rig
0\NW
WN
1 • ��
On
l�/ +✓�� a / /I \\
CITY OF TIGARD - DOWNTOWN
• �3
URBAN RENEWAL ZONE
z -
NO
+
. �� � to `k.'••`\\ tz
Formed based code pr
99/Hall Corridor Main St. Plaza Area Mixed-Use Empl. Mixed-Use Res. Fanno Creek
r
,%1
04
40
00
�i. 'i��� ��1 �i'i��� �1t � 'it�� �,, � 'it�� �', + 'it� �t1 �•it� r11
fi
i
400
4,140
00111
�• Iw � �
r' i
Formed based code —building
cra I P
'lop Wiwi
410.
6 It
4lw
Ae •
�o
,� !�
C3
O
O
00 . E
O
� 9
D
� o0
0
detailed opportunity site _ Q
s
ie
• i!71
I 1I{ lit-
jj
AMb
' - 4
! '
t
y
Y
future form , circulation , &
rnnnPrfiinnc
Q
a
D
O
o
4� .V
o� d
00
41
i � o
�� 0-0.
o
8 � o D�
.Lo 000
0
oao 0 �
00 ZD
detailed opportunitysite
Q�
--
.r
1��'�n��.��_ t l�ll►�` `+;-mss'+►_''� _j ��; ,�.:; �•'���►,� �I\ /L '�►""s �s����;��i�
� •1.1 r
Ik
rendering example
TIGARD TOWN CENTER:
AN URBAN DESIGN VISION REFINEMENT OF
THE TIGARD DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
7 GREEN URBAN NETWORK
1 METHODOLOGY STREETS
APPROACH PLAZAS
SUMMARY PARKS
PARKING
2 HISTORY/DEVELOPMENT/REFINEMENT GREEN ROOFS
HISTORY OF TIGARD GREEN STREET DRAINAGE
PAST DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
WHY REFINEMENT IS NEEDED 8 FUTURE URBAN FORM
ASPIRATIONS 5-10 YEARS
10-20 YEARS
3 REGIONAL AND LOCAL CONTEXT 20-50 YEARS
GREATER METRO CONTEXT OVERALL COMPARISON(HISTORIC/CURRENT/5-10/10-20/20-50)
TIGARD CONTEXT
URBAN RENEWAL CONTEXT 9 DETAILED OPPORTUNITY SITES
SITE 1
4 POLITICAL& PHYSICAL FRAMEWORK SITE 2
POLITICAL SITE 3
PHYSICAL
10 CONCLUSIONS
5 SITE DOCUMENTATION FINDINGS
URD EXISTING DOCUMENTATION PRINCIPALS
ANALYSIS HYPOTHESES
DESIGN ZONES&GATEWAYS
11 APPENDIX
6 SITE ANALYSIS TECHINCAL INFO
CIRCULATION REFERENCE SOURCES
BLOCK SIZE AVAILABLE LARGE SCALE DRAWINGS
CONNECTIONS
PROXIMITIES
MASS AND SCALE
Design Criteria:
Distinctive Landmark:
Provide a substantial landmark to
punctuate the Downtown landscape
and herald the WesGsidc I xpress
j - Service to Tigard.
• Location,visibility, scale
Historic/Traditional Elements:
Acknowledge`1'igard's downtown
railroad,industrial,and architectural
heritage.
• Dorm,imagery,material
Interpretation:
Communicate the synergy of
commuter rail and the revitalization
Am of Tigard s downtown.
,� E • Railroad reference,
redevelopment,dynamic
Sustainability:
/1 Demonstrate a commitment to
- � sustainable practices through design
and material choices.
� � • Concept of generational equity,
reused materials,solar power
• � Std
• •
ANN
Design Criteria:
s
Distinctive Landmark:
Provide a substantial landmark to
punctuate the Downtown landscape
i
and herald the Westsidc Express
Service to Tigard.
• Location,visibility",scale
Historic/Traditional Elements:
Acknowledge.Tigard's downtown
y #fir railroad,industrial,and architectural
i- - heritage.
• • Form,imagery,material
Interpretation:
Communicate the synergy of
commuter rail and the revitalization
a of Tigard's downtown.
• Railroad reference,
_ redevclopmcnt,dynamic
• _- _ Sustainability:
Demonstrate a commitment to
sustainable practices through design
_�- and material choices.
• Concept of generational cquity',
reused materials,solar power
AIA
M MR
AN
Design Criteria:
Distinctive Landmark:
Provide a substantial landmark to
Punctuate the Downtown landscape
and herald the Westside lspress
Service to Tigard.
• JA)cation,visibility,scale.
- Historic/Traditional Elements:
:'acknowledge Tigard's downtown
railroad,industrial,and architectural
heritage.
• Form,imagery,material
Interpretation:
Communicate the synergy of
commuter rail and the revitalization
of Tigard's downtown.
a 1 , • Railroad reference,
redevelopment,dynamic
` F t Sustainability:
Demonstrate a commitment to
sustainable practices through design
and material choices.
• Concept of generational cywty,
reused material;, solar power
a r • r, � y
+�:. � •. �, ,�„� .ter - ,a )-..,
E
Design Criteria:
Distinctive Landmark:
Provide a substantial landmark to
punctuate the Downtown landscape
and herald the Westside Express
Service. to'Tigard.
• Location,visibility,scale.
Historic/Traditional Elements:
y y Acknowledge"Tigard's do%vnanvn
railroad,industrial,and architectural
heritage.
• Form,imagery,material
Interpretation:
Communicate the synergy of
commuter rail and the revitalization
J of Tigard's downtown.
• Railroad reference,
redevelopment,dynamic
Sustainability:
j r
y
= . ' Demonstrate a commitment to
i sustainable practices through design
• and material choices.
_ • Concept of generational equity,
reused materials,solar power
City of Tigard
City Center Advisory Commission
Subcommittee on Leadership Capacity in Downtown
Research Questions
At the May 14 meeting of the CCAC, the subcommittee was tasked with researching
leadership capacity within downtown Tigard. At the subcommittee's May 21 s 2008
meeting, seven research questions were developed based on the questions raised by
the CCAC, as well as on further discussion within the subcommittee. They are as
follows:
1.) Needs assessment. What are the needs of the downtown property owner,
business owners, and residents within downtown Tigard that are currently not being
filled by the city? Also the reverse: what are the needs of the city downtown that are not
currently being addressed by downtown business and property owners?
2.) Leland's Context. What is Leland's broader context for providing a
recommendation that the city support financing an association at this juncture?
3.) Comparable Cities. What are "comparable" cities doing in their downtowns; was
an association involved in those efforts, and if so how?
4.) Different Models. What are some different models of associations? How do they
work, &c?
5.) URD only models. What are other cities (of any size/make-up) doing that have
urban renewal but do not have an association?
6.) Web solutions. How many associations utilize web-based solutions, and how?
7.) Failures. What are some examples of cities with associations that failed, and what
are the reasons for such failures?
i
CCAC Subcommittee on Leadership Capacity in Downtown
Executive Summary, May 21 meeting
Members present: Thomas Murphy, Elise Shearer, Alexander Craghead
Meeting began 6:00 PM.
* Subcommittee developed a list of research questions based on CCAC direction at
the May 14th CCAC meeting. To this list were added a few additional questions
regarding web based solutions and how other associations have failed and why.
* The group felt that a list of questions should be developed to forward to Leland. This
list would be developed via email and a subsequent meeting. A question was raised
on whether it would be appropriate to contact Chris Zahas at Leland directly or to route
through staff. Alexander noted that he was going to the U of O presentation with Phil
the next day and could ask him what the best approach was.
* Existing conditions and needs were discussed. Alexander volunteered to contact
Sean about finding a survey done for the TDIP that may contain data that is relevant.
Other materials including a list of downtown businesses may be available via staff;
Alexander added them to the list to ask Sean about.
* Elise noted that academic research was available on the topic and she had found a
few articles on associations to review.
* Tom noted that he was still attempting to contact Gary Van Huffel at the Oregon Main
Street Program, but that Gary was in the middle of a whirlwind tour of the state and
hard to get live. He will keep trying. Tom also noted that the group needs to develop
some set questions to ask various associations and other knowledgeable people. This
was agreed to be worked on via email.
* An additional meeting date was proposed for May 28th. Elise agreed to book the
room for this.
Meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM
i
CCAC Subcommittee on Leadership Capacity in Downtown
Executive Summary, May 28 meeting
Members present: Thomas Murphy, Alexander Craghead
Meeting began 6:15 PM.
* Alexander reported that he had met with Sean earlier that day to request a number of
materials agreed upon at the last meeting.
* Alexander reported that he had talked to Phil about talking to Leland and he
suggested that the group develop their questions and send them to him. He would
then forward them to Leland and see if they would be willing to answer them, or if they
would require additional funds. Alexander noted that he told Phil if the answers
required payment that he should "get a number" so the CCAC as a whole can decide if
it is worth pursuing further.
� I
* Questions for Leland were discussed. Alexander suggested four, and Tom
suggested three, including one that was based on a recommended question provided
by Phil. It was suggested the Leland questions would be developed further by email.
* Tom noted that he attempted to get ahold of Gary Van Huffel but was still having no
luck.
* The group briefly discussed the academic papers that Elise had requested.
Highlights gleaned from them include newer more adaptable approaches to
associations, the rigidity of the Main Street Program, and a discussion of comparable
models. It was noted that most Main Street Program participants are cities under
15,000 in population and with limited budgets.
* Agenda time for CCAC was discussed. Alexander mentioned he would call Alice to
ask her if she has any requests in that area.
* The open house for the Oregon Main Street Program in Oregon City was discussed.
Alexander mentioned he had volunteered to attend the presentation and report back.
Meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM
City of Tigard
City Center Advisory Commission
Subcommittee on Leadership Capacity in Downtown
TO: Chris Zahas, Leland Consulting Group
FROM: CCAC Subcommittee on Leadership Capacity in Downtown
DATE: 30 May 2008
RE: Questions for the Leland Group Regarding the October 2007
Development Strategy DRAFT
Currently the City Center Advisory Commission is looking into implementing the
recommendations made by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy
for Downtown Tigard, Oregon, dated October 2007. One of the suggestions made within
the strategy is the establishment and/or support of a business association for the
downtown area. The CCAC has some questions regarding the context of this
recommendation. They are as follows:
1 .) Why is the establishment of an association recommended at this stage,
despite the fact that much of our redevelopment still lies ahead of us?
2.) Why does this recommendation deserve this level of priority?
3.) Considering the importance of residential uses to the redevelopment of
downtown Tigard, what role is there in an association for residential
matters?
4.) Page 17 of the strategy mentions the importance of strengthening
private leadership. What role would an association play in this, especially
regarding property owners?
5.) On page 13 it is mentioned that downtown needs an organization to
"champion and implement projects". Considering the strong role in
downtown redevelopment played by the City/CCDA, what would private
sector "championing" and "implementation" look like?
6.) Do you know of any downtowns with similar aspects such as business
mix, urban renewal, single retail street, early stages of redevelopment,
etc... that might serve as a comparison?
7.) What information sources can you recommend for other models of
associations than the typical Main Street Program model?
8.) What can Leland tell us of associations or any model that have failed,
and why?
Any assistance Leland Consulting can provide the CCAC in answering these questions
will greatly aid us in understanding the context of the recommendation made, as well as
how best to implement it.
VISITORS
City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Date
Please Print
Name Mailing Address Email Address
/A)
97zz3
U ri Ili ��972, 9 reey4nu�T�,o(cSO
City Center Advisory Commission
Sign-in Sheet
Meeting Date - // - 'K
COMMISSIONER NAME
i
A4- Ile
I
' City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Alice Ellis Gaut, CCAC Chair
From: Gary Pagenstecher
Re: Commuter Rail Entryway
Date: June 3, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Council's Goals for 2008 include implementing the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan through The
Downtown Implementation Strategy. The Strategy's FY 08-09 Work Program includes the design and
construction of a Commuter Rail Entryway to occur between July and October of this year. Staff
proposes to develop the Commuter Rail Entryway project as a City of Tigard in-house design and
development project.
Action Requested: Staff requests the CCAC to review the proposed sites and design criteria, included
below, to identify a preferred site and confirm relevant design criteria.
HISTORY
Tigard City Council Resolution No. 03-11 accepted and endorsed the Downtown Task Force's Design
Recommendation Document for the Commuter Rail Station.The document's purpose was to influence
the development and appearance of the station and to examine other future downtown revitalization
and economic development needs of the area.
The Task Force showed preference for designs that incorporate traditional elements, create distinctive
landmarks, and reflect Tigard's history. The Task Force provided station design recommendations for
the shelter,lighting,windscreens,paving,benches, trash receptacles, tree grates, bide racks, railings and
landscaping.
Additionally, the Task Force considered adding amenities to the basic design to achieve local design
objectives with local funding. The Council appropriated $100,000 for an upgraded shelter design. An
additional$20,000 has been budgeted this year(CIP 08/09) for development of the entryway to
coincide with the opening of Commuter Rail (WES) this fall.
SITE ANALYSIS
As the Tigard Commuter Rail Station nears completion,it is easier to envision the site opportunities for
additional enhancements. The Commuter Rail right-of-way located between Main and Hall is comprised
of a northern portion that contains the two rail lines with the station platform between them and a
southern portion that contains the Park and Ride and multi-purpose path. The multi-purpose path
improvement has been constructed by TriMet to satisfy a condition of approval of their Conditional Use
Permit to conform to the interim requirements for the Central Business District zone.
The Main Street intersection with the station plaza and the Hall Boulevard intersection with the multi-
purpose path are two prominent sites suited to locating entry features. In addition, the swale adjacent to
the multi-purpose path provides a site for installation of a linear element. TriMet has authorized use of
these locations for enhancements.TriMet has indicated that the station platform,which includes a
public art sculpture by Frank Boyden and Brad Rude as part of TriMet's Percent for Art Program and
other appurtenances,would not be available as a project site. However,potential enhancement
opportunities on the platform could include a second shelter and/or a windscreen with an information
display. These four sites for enhancements are identified and described below. (See attached site photos)
1) Commuter Rail Plaza at Main
The linear plaza extends from Main Street to the platform access which tapers slightly from west to east.
The area adjacent to Main is the widest point of the plaza (approximately 25 feet) and is preferred as a
site that is prominent to the street with room to accommodate enhancements.TriMet has located
bicycle parking at the edge of the parking lot in this area.An archway,clock,kiosk,bench,or other
features would be appropriate at this location.
2) Commuter Rail Entryway at Hall
An approximately 400 square foot site is located within the ODOT Rail right-of-way immediately west
of SW Hall Blvd. between the multi-purpose path and the Public Works property. The landscape
improvements at this site include the termination of the swale with columnar basalt and a grove of three
eastern redbud trees. A site-specific entryway feature at this site will function as a gateway to the
Commuter Rail Station area and the multi-purpose path and herald Downtown Tigard to commuters. A
sculptural element of a scale that would relate to pedestrians,rail commuters, and automobile traffic
would be appropriate at this location.
3) Multi-Purpose Path Swale
The 700-foot swale runs parallel to the multi-purpose path adjacent to the Public Works site. Utility
poles are aligned in the centerline of the swale including new PGE transmission poles alternating with
older shorter distribution poles.The swale is planted with grasses and flanked with landscaping along
the PW fence and the path. This linear area could support a sequence of elements possibly related in
design to an entryway feature at Hall. These elements could be a sculptural"echo" of the entryway
feature and/or carry seasonal displays marking civic events in Tigard or convey a message or welcome to
the City.
4) Commuter Rail Station Platform
The platform is located between the rail lines,between the Park and Ride station plaza and the bus
transit center,which are accessed by sidewalks leading to the platform ramp.The platform contains a
pitched-roofed shelter supported by four poles, two light poles, two sign pylons, two trash receptacles,
and two benches. Installation of Boyden/Rude's interactive public art work is planned between the
shelter and the ramp. Enhancements at this location could potentially include an additional shelter,
windscreens,and an information display.
PRIORITIZE LOCATION AND ENHANCEMENT
From the location and enhancement options presented above, staff recommends the CCAC focus on a
single entryway project that is achievable within the project schedule (installation by October 2008) and
budget ($20,000) and responds to the following design criteria:
DESIGN CRITERIA
Distinctive landmark: provides a substantial landmark to punctuate the Downtown landscape and
herald the Westside Express Service to Tigard.
Historic/traditional elements: acknowledges Tigard's downtown railroad,industrial,and architectural
heritage.
Inter2retation: communicates the synergy of commuter rail and the revitalization of Tigard's downtown.
Sustainability: demonstrates a commitment to sustainable practices through design and material choices.
FUNDING
The project has been allocated$20,000 in the FY 08/09 CIP budget. The Draft Transit Station Design
Elements Working Group Recommendations-Additional Considerations for Local Contributions
spreadsheet includes potential"add"items such as an entry feature and a community display case with
estimated costs of$21,000 and$15,000,respectively. Staff will design the entryway during the design
development stage of the project Quly) and contract for fabrication. The City's Public Works
Department may contribute nominal labor and materials for site preparation, transportation,and
installation.
Council may appropriate additional funds, at their discretion, for any other desired enhancements for
phased implementation beyond the scope of this project.
WORKPLAN
Task Staff Schedule
Site Authorization from TriMet for Gary April, 2008
use of ODOT right-of-way
Site Analysis Gary May
Concept development Ga /Phil May
CCAC review Ga /Phil June 11
Council review Ga /Phil July
Design development/Public Gary/Staff July
Workshop
CCAC/Council review Ga /Phil August
Design Refinements Gary August
Fabrication G /Su liers/Fabricators September
Site preparation Ga /Brian September
Installation Ga /Brian (PW) October, 2008
i
i
5 Blvd.2. Hall
f
3. Pathway
.4. Station
f
•r
L wfE
i
Yr;u 23, 2008 Commission Advisory Team meeting
Executive Summary
Members present: Carolyn Barkley,Alexander Craghead,Karen Fishel, Elise Shearer
(alternate)
Staff present: Sean Farrelly
Agenda Item 1:Welcome/Introductions
No introductions were necessary.
Agenda Item 2: Review Executive Summar,of;March 23 Meeting
Follow-up item from previous meeting-it would be possible to specifically forbid drive-
through restaurants.
Agenda Item 3: Future Schedule
An additional meeting June 18`"will likely be necessary to finish up draft regulation
recommendations.
The Open House to review and get feedback on the draft will be scheduled soon-mid/late
July. It should be sponsored by the subcommittee and the CCAC and the Planning
Commission. Council will also be apprised.
The Open House notice will be sent to all Downtown business/property owners and
advertised in Cityscape.The TCBDA will be encouraged to attend. Press releases will also be
sent to local newspapers.
The open House will utilize some of the U of O project's visuals,which will show the
potential urban form of the Downtown with the design guidelines.The visuals and open
house content should be vetted by the CCAC.
Agenda Item 4: Downtown Land Uses
Subcommittee reviewed proposal to have two different zones in the URD- the CBD and the
Hall and 99 area,with slightly different land uses allowed.Nonconforming uses and
development was also discussed.
Recommendations:
• There should be one zone for all of Urban Renewal District.
• Get feedback from property owners to determine if having a one year limit to
continue non conforming uses,after the original use has ended,is sufficient.
Agenda Item 5:Residential Open Space Standards
Reviewed previously sent out materials.
Recommendation:
• Don't exempt small developments from open space requirement. Allow a certain
percentage (but not all) of the open space standard to be met with private open
space. Give a certain percentage credit for developments directly adjacent to Fanno
Creek Park (or other park with a minimum square footage.) For mixed use
developments the standard can be met with upper courtyards and roof gardens.The
current 48 s.f. minimum for private open space will remain.The exact square footage
for shared open space that will be required will be deferred,but the subcommittee is
comfortable with a more"urban" standard.
• The committee approved the changes to the Residential standards with the exception
of allowing plain concrete block for visible foundations-(uniform concrete is OK)
Agenda Item 6:Thresholds and Types of Review
Due to time constraints, this item was deferred to the next meeting
Agenda Item 7: Design Review Body Options
Due to time constraints, this item was deferred to the next meeting
Adjourned: 9:05 Plot
r41
MEMORANDUM
b
WTO: Alice Ellis Gaut,CCAC Chair
FROM: Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner
RE: Downtown Organization: Follow-up with Leland
DATE: June 2,2008
At the May 14, 2008 City Center Advisory Commission meeting, members requested
staff to ask follow-up questions to Leland Consulting regarding their
recommendation to establish a downtown organization. Here is a summary of my
conversation with Chris Zahas of Leland Consulting,using the questions that were
posed at the CCAC meeting.
Q: How important is it for Tigard to have a downtown association? What is your
basis for making that recommendation?
A: The most important reason for establishing a downtown organization is that the
City cannot do everything alone- particularly marketing,business outreach, and
advocacy. Organizations with professional paid staff can accomplish more. Having
an organization also gives the private sector a chance to "put their money where their
mouth is" by forming a BID or other membership funding and eventually becoming
self-sustaining.The organization would also foster leadership and create a dialogue
between the City and downtown interests.
The timing of forming such an organization is a consideration that Tigard will have to
figure out.
Q: Different types of businesses, retail and industrial, have different concerns. A
downtown association could function to both assist retail expansion,events planning
etc.,but also serve as an advocacy group for businesses that will go through a
transition during redevelopment. Do you see this as important to a"cooperative
effort"?
A: This is very important to a collaborative effort. Chris added the organization
should have a balanced membership-made up of business owners who want to
remain in the Downtown for the long term,and property owners who may be
interested in redeveloping. Chris suggested the City should have a representative
(voting or non-voting) on the board and the organization should have a
representative on the CCAC.
Process:
Chris also commented on some process issues,if the organization is pursued. Criteria
should be developed that any organization must fulfill before any funds are dispersed.
Tasks should be set out that will be the basis for judging the success of the
organization.
Agenda Item#
Meeting Date Tune 17,2008
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard,Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Review of the Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
Prepared By: A.P. Duenas Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Joint meeting with the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) to review the Burnham Street and Ash Avenue
Extension Projects and to discuss the feasibility of moving ahead with the projects as originally envisioned.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That Council provide direction to staff on what action to take regarding the two projects.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The reconstruction and widening of Burnham Street has been contemplated for at least the past: 10 years. The initial
effort to design the,project-began in the year 2000;but was terminated at the"50% stage in 2002 because of the:lack:.
of consensus from the downtown businesses and property owners on the components of the ultimate section for
the street. The Tigard Downtown Improvement and the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plans subsequently
provided the basis for continuing the effort to design and construct the project. The Ash Avenue Extension was
developed to support the new Commuter Rail station and park-and-ride. Both projects are nearing design
completion and will be ready for construction pending acquisition of rights-of-way and easements to accommodate
the improvements. Attached is a memorandum providing a detailed background summary of both projects, the
current status for each, and the challenges faced in moving the projects to construction.
The City is making a huge commitment by pledging future gas tax revenues to provide funding for timely
construction of both projects. Before the City takes that step,it is an appropriate time to re-examine the two
projects.The extensive public involvement processes leading to the preparation of the Downtown Improvement
Plan, the Streetscape Design Plan,and the project designs for Burnham and Ash indicated that there was
widespread public support for constructing these catalyst projects. Now that it is time to actually construct the
projects,property owner and business support no longer seem evident. City Council and the CCAC will review the
two projects at this meeting, discuss the challenges faced with moving ahead,and determine if it is feasible or
desirable to implement the projects as originally envisioned.
At this meeting, City staff will give a brief overview of the projects, the current status,and implementation
schedules. The City Attorney's office will present the issues regarding property acquisition created by Measure 39
passed in 2006. This will be followed by discussion by City Council and CCAC on the feasibility of moving ahead
with the projects as originally envisioned.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The Burnham Street Improvement and Ash Avenue Extension Projects are viewed by the Tigard Downtown
Improvement Plan as catalyst projects to encourage redevelopment in the downtown area. Redevelopment and
upgrading of the streets in the downtown support the Council Goal to "Implement the Downtown Urban Renewal."
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Memorandum dated June 3, 2008 providing an overview of the Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension
Projects
2. Burnham Street Plan Overview—Ash to Hall
3. Burnham Street Plan Overview—Main to Ash
FISCAL NOTES
Fiscal Year 2008-09 provides $5,250,000 for Burnham Street and $400,000 for the Ash Avenue Extension Projects
respectively. This assumes that the expenditures projected for 2007-08 ($715,000 for Burnham and $578,920 for Ash
Avenue Extension) are expended as projected. The estimated cost for construction of Burnham Street is $5.0 million.
The Ash Avenue.Extension will be constructed within the$400,000 allocated for FY 2008-09.
i leng%guslcouno8 agenda summaries%-17-08 review of the bumham street and ash avenue extension projects ais doc ,
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Craig Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas �r "�
City Engineer
RE: Review of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
DATE: June 3, 2008
The Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects are nearing design completion and
will be ready for construction if the needed rights-of-way and easements are acquired to
accommodate the improvements. The property acquisition process is well underway, but
there are some serious impediments to the timely acquisition of property needed to
construct the projects. Because the issues need to be resolved before the projects can move
ahead, a review of the two projects and a frank discussion with the City Center Advisory
Commission regarding these issues is essential at this time. This memorandum will provide a
background information summary, a brief description of the scope of the two projects,
current status for each, proposed project schedules, and the challenges faced by the City in
moving ahead with both projects.
Background
There was a previous attempt to improve Burnham Street before the current project was
initiated. In February 2000, City Council awarded an engineering design and right-of-way
acquisition services contract to CIDA, Inc. for the Burnham Street Improvement Project.
The design involved reconstruction and widening of the street to a 44-foot wide pavement
area,which allowed for two 11-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center tum lane, and two 5-
foot bike lanes. The improved street would have included new curbs, sidewalks,upgraded
storm drainage, sanitary and water mains, and undergrounding of existing overhead utilities.
However, the project design was terminated at the 50% stage in 2002 because the businesses
and owners in the Tigard downtown could not agree on how the street should be improved.
There was a realization that the street needed to be part of a larger plan to improve the
Tigard downtown area. This led to the development of the Tigard Downtown Improvement
Plan.
Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan
The Plan development was a three-year effort beginning in 2002 and ending with the Plan
document in September 2005. It provides a 20 to 30 year blueprint to guide the development
of Downtown Tigard into a vibrant,mixed-use urban village. The Plan development was led
Review of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
Page 1 of 6
by the Downtown Task Force composed of citizen volunteers. It was developed through an
elaborate public process that resulted in a 2005 Good Governance award from the League of
Oregon Cities. The award recognizes exceptional city programs that unite citizens within a
community.
Implementing the Downtown Improvement Plan will be a gradual process taking place over
the next 30 years. The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (IDIP) document is a
summary statement of the community's vision, direction, and commitment to action for the
future of Downtown The final document is focused on providing the vision, guiding
principles and concepts behind the plan, the "preferred design concept" and "catalyst
projects" recommended by the Downtown Task Force, and a preliminary implementation
strategy for carrying out the plan. A 12-member citizen committee, the City Center Advisory
Commission (CCAC), has been advising staff in recommending priorities and funding levels
for Downtown projects.
Downtown Streetscape Design Plan
The Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan followed completion of the Downtown
Improvement Plan and was prepared during the period from December 2005 to September
2006. It was a catalyst project for implementing the vision and guiding principles of the
Improvement Plan. In November 2005, City Council approved a contract award to OTAK,
Inc., for conceptual design services for the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape
Plan (Phase 1). Phase 2 and Phase 3 were design services to be provided for Commercial
Streetscape and Burnham Street Improvements respectively.
Again, there was extensive public involvement in the development of the plan. A Streetscape
Working Group (SWG) served as a citizen advisory committee. The SWG included many
members from the Downtown Task Force , and the group provided active design input and
review of the design ideas proposed for consistency with the TDIP. Interviews with property
and business owners along Main Street and Burnham Street were conducted in February
2006. A public open house was conducted in May 2006. The final plan included street design
concepts, concepts for gateways and public spaces, and a public art plan.
Burnham Street and Ash Avenue from Fanno Creek north to Scoffins and Hunziker were
identified as catalyst projects to spur redevelopment in the downtown area. The existing
Burnham Street, classified as City collector, is substandard in width, and exhibits signs of
pavement and structural failure. The extensive failures throughout its length require
reconstruction of the street structural section and widening of the street to its ultimate
section. The existing storm drain pipes are of inadequate capacities,which cause flooding to
the street, even with small flood events.
Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension
The improvements to Burnham Street and Ash Avenue implement design concepts
recommended by the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Plan. These concepts
include widening the street between Main Street and Ash Avenue to a paved width of 38 feet
and between Ash Avenue and Hall Boulevard to 50 feet. Wide sidewalks, landscaped
Review of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
Page 2of6
medians, pedestrian crossings and on-street parking will be provided as part of the widening.
A modern roundabout was specified in the Streetscape Plan for the Ash Avenue intersection
with Burnham, but was eliminated because of complaints by adjacent land owners. Instead, a
traditional four-way intersection will be installed at the intersection. Green street stormwater
elements will be installed between Main Street and Ash Avenue to treat stormwater runoff
and enhance water quality before discharge to Fanno Creek.
In July 2006, OTAK was awarded a contract to complete the design for the Burnham Street
project. The intent was to modify the design that was previously unfinished by CIDA and to
integrate the conceptual design established by the Streetscape Design Plan into the new
design. However, most of the previous design could not be used because of the significant
changes introduced by the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape design concepts.
In addition, after completing the 50% design stage, OTAK encountered unanticipated
obstacles such as lack of cooperation from utility companies, hazardous material
contamination, delay in identifying necessary rights-of-way and easements as a result of
changing utility designs, change from a roundabout to a 4-way intersection, and
incorporation of the Fanno Creek Park into the design.
The right-of-way acquisition proved to be even more challenging. The various changes in
design led to delays in preparation of legal descriptions for right-of-wap and easement
acquisition. The preparation of appraisals leading to offers for purchase was delayed
significantly because of the changes. The passage of Measure 39 in 2006 has introduced new
restrictions into the acquisition process. In addition, some of the property owners have
retained land condemnation attorneys,which eliminates the ability to negotiate directly with
the property owners represented. The City has contracted with Right-of-Way Associates to
provide land acquisition services on the project.
The Ash Avenue Extension Project was initiated to provide a secondary access to the
Commuter Rail parking lot. The project was designed fit into a future Ash Avenue
connection from Fanno Creek to Hunziker Street at Hall Boulevard. The street extension
begins at Burnham Street mid-way between Main and Hall and connects to the rear of the
parking lot. The project when constructed will provide a 2-lane connection to the parking lot
with sidewalk on the west side only. The street will begin with a fully developed section at
Burnham Street transitioning to a two 12-foot wide travel lanes leading to the parking lot.
Land acquisition to accommodate this access street is needed before the project can be
constructed. To allow for the access to be in place at the opening of the Commuter Rail
station, the project needs to be constructed separate from the Burnham Street project. Right-
of-Way Associates is likewise contracted to acquire the property needed for this project.
Ash Avenue Project Status
The design for the extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to the Commuter Rail
parking lot is basically complete. Whether or not the project proceeds to construction
depends upon acquisition of the property needed for the connection. For the access road to
be in place by mid-October 2008, the construction work has to be started by July 2008.
Review of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
Page 3of6
Burnham Street Project Status
■ Design
The design is currently 95% complete. Two public meetings were conducted to review
the plans with the downtown neighborhood. The first open house meeting was
conducted at the 50%design stage on March 22, 2007 to present the preliminary design
to affected property and business owners in the downtown area. The second public
meeting was conducted on March 13, 2008, at which time the property and business
owners were provided with the latest plans for implementation.
The 95% plans and specs are being reviewed by Capital Construction& Transportation
staff as well as by other departments'. There is an issue concerning the outfall storm
pipe's location. The pipe was initially located along the west property line of the Stevens
Marine property. However, because this location will cause disruption to the operation of
the business and an engine testing facility during the construction, a new alignment for
the pipe is being evaluated.
Another issue involves consolidation of driveways to provide joint access for Verizon
and Kim's Embroidery. The terms of the consolidation are being worked on at this time.
■ Right-of-Way Acquisition
Twenty eight properties are impacted by the project. Six of them are owned by the City.
As of this date Qune 2, 2008):
14 appraisal reports have been completed
7 appraisals are being prepared
1 does not need to be appraised because necessary rights-of-way will be donated by the
City.
8 offers have been presented and 1 has been accepted (Tax lot 2SI02AD02400 owned by
NW Preferred Federal Credit Union)
Because of issues that involve drainage and final driveway locations, the rights-of-way
and easements needed from four properties (Stevens Marine, Verizon, Matsumoto and
the trianglar piece of property for the joint access driveway) are still being worked on.
There has been very little progress in reaching agreement on those properties represented
by attorneys. Right-of-Way Associates is waiting for City direction on how to proceed
with acquiring those properties..
■ Wetland Permits
In early May 2008, Vigil Agrimis submitted a joint permit application to DSL and the
Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated that a DSL permit will be issued in July. No Corps
permit is required as the existing wetland is not impacted by the project.
Change of the outfall storm pipe location will affect the permit schedule. However, the
strategy is that revision to the application won't be made until after the permit has been
Review of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
Page 4of6
issued. Amendment to the permit would be processed by DSL quicker than revision to
the application.
A Natural Resource assessment has also been completed by the consultant for submittal
to CWS. It is anticipated that a Service Provider Letter will be issued by the agency in late
July or early August.
No Sensitive Lands permit is required to be issued by the City of Tigard as impacts to the
floodplain are determined to be minor.
■ Environmental
The existing storm water lines commencing from north of the railroad tracks, heading
south toward Burnham Street, then traveling west along the street before ending at the
existing ditch between the Stevens Marine and Dolan properties are contaminated with
pesticide sediment. Meetings between DEQ, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR),AMEC and
City staff have been taken place to determine limits of the contamination and costs in
association with meeting DEQ requirements. UPRR has agreed to clean out the pipes
north of Burnham Street this summer. The westerly segment of the pipes on Burnham
Street will also be requested to be cleaned by UPRR. The reason was that the agency was
not informed by the City that the pipe will convey water during the construction prior
disposal.
Soil sampling by AMEC indicates that groundwater has also been contaminated with
pesticide in the areas in front of B&B Printing and Manning's Auto Repair. A
contaminated media management plan will be prepared by the consultant for use by the
contractor during construction.
Environmental issues will be resolved before the project is advertised for bid.
Proposed Construction Schedules
The proposed project schedules are as follows:
Ash Avenue
■ Bid project: May 2008
■ Award construction contract: June 2008
■ Begin construction: July 2008
■ Complete construction and open access: September 2008
Burnham Street
■ Bid advertisement: August 5,2008
■ Pre-bid conference: August 14, 2008
• Bid opening: August 21,2008
■ Contract award: September 9, 2008
■ Notice to proceed: September 22,2008
■ Pre-construction conference: September 24, 2008
■ Construction: October 08 through September 09
Review of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
Page 5 of 6
The above schedules were prepared assuming that all rights-of-way and easements will be
completely acquired by late July or early August. However,Ash Avenue is already behind
schedule since the property needed for the project is yet to be acquired. The Burnham Street
project will likewise be delayed if timely acquisition of property does not occur.
Cost Estimates
■ Burnham Street- $5.0 million
■ Ash Avenue Extension - $0.275 million
■ Land Acquisition for both: $1.9 to $2.0 million
Challenges Faced
■ The timely acquisition of rights-of-wap and easements is the single largest
impediment to project implementation. Unless the City is prepared to initiate
condemnation proceedings for key properties needed for the improvements, there
is no way to construct the projects in accordance with the proposed schedules.
Part of the problem is lack of progress on reaching settlement on some of the
properties while the remainder is due to the delays in finalizing the legal
descriptions so the properties can be appraised and offers made for acquisition.
■ The storm drainage issues are resolvable,but will take time. City staff is working
with the project consultants to resolve these issues. These may have the potential
to delay the Burnham Street project, but with agreement from affected property
owners can be resolved without much delay.
c: Tom Coffee, CD Director
Ron Bunch,Assistant CD Director
Vannie Nguyen, CIP Manager
iAenglgusVnemorandumslbumham street and ash avenue project review 6-17-06.doc
Review of Burnham Street and Ash Avenue Extension Projects
Page 6 of 6
7
Burnham Street
Typical Section-East of Ash Avenue
Y
V
SW Burnham Street
Co
L
CAMAL CONSTRUC710N AM
TMNSPMAT*N OMMN I Burnham Street Improvements FIGURE
:A —4.4
M t50" 6&szols FILE NO
Project Overview East of Ash Avenue
"-`-AM.,
f p.
,
_ I n
Burnham Street c
Typical Section-West of Ash Avenue >
Q
Ch
� I
. I_- u.N ''" __ >;w' ^t= I F. a 5� j ri �.• � ...,.m,�r<_.,., i
I , •'� 4 ama I ��, -�A Lr^frdy��t ,1w.•.
+60 SW Ven -:
SW u�mham Street
�6
4 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ANO
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION Burnham Street Improvements FIS
ryt� OR 970L'
1`r 'h w (501 935.1619 ' v :t
FLE NO
7a Project Overview West of Ash Avenue