The URL can be used to link to this page

08/22/2007 - Packet City Center Advisory Commission Wednesday August 22, 2007 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM Tigard Library 1'` Floor Community Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions 6:30-6:35 pm 2. Review/ Approve Minutes 6:35-6:50 3. Plaza Location Options—Discussion / Recommendations 6:50-7:50 4. Downtown Street Lights—Review / Recommendations 7:50–8:10 5. Selection of alternate to Joint Planning/ CCAC Committee on Land Use Regulations 8:10–8:20 6. Recognition of Contributions to Downtown 8: 20-8:30 7. Other Business/Announcements 8:30-8:35 q Minutes for CCAC Meeting Date of Meeting: August 22, 2007 Name of Committee: CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Location: Tigard Library - Community Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Minutes taken by: Doreen Laughlin,Administrative Specialist II Called to order by: Chairman Carl Switzer Time Started: 6:40 pm Time Ended: 9:00 pm Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley;Vice Chair Alexander Craghead; Ralph Hughes; Chairman Carl Switzer; Lily Lilly;Alice Ellis Gaut Commissioners Absent: Roger Potthoff; Suzemne GaRagher-[Amended to delete former Commissioner] Others Present: Marland Henderson, Lisa Olson, etc. Staff Present: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director; Phil Nachbar, Senior Planner; Doreen Laughlin, City Admin Specialist II Agenda Item #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: There were some members of the public present, so the CCAC members and staff introduced themselves. It was mentioned by Chair Switzer that there would be a time for public comment later in the evening and the public would be asked to introduce themselves at that time. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None Agenda Item #2: Review/Approve Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: There were visitors present, so Chair Switzer decided that in the interest of time, the public, and efficiency, this agenda item was moved to after agenda item #3 (public plaza location options) which is what most of the visitors present were interested in. After agenda item #3 was discussed, this agenda item was addressed. At this time, it was moved and seconded to approve the July 18' minutes for the CCAC regular meeting. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 22,2007 Page 1 of 6 This meeting in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year. I:\LRPLN\DOWNTOWN\CCAC Meetings 2007\August 22\CCAC Meeting Minutes August 22.doc Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): A vote was taken and the 7/18/07 minutes were unanimously approved, with no abstentions. Agenda Item #3: Plaza Location Options /Public Comment— Discussion/Recommendations Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar began his presentation by talking about the process and the review bodies involved regarding the location of the Fanno Creek Plaza. He noted that programming had been added since the last meeting. He presented a PowerPoint presentation. (Exhibit A is the PowerPoint presentation in total). He pointed out an aerial view showing the boundaries for the plaza and park (Exhibit A, p.2). He showed the site characteristics of the park (pp 5 & 6) and the vegetated corridor (p.7). He noted the park would be more of a nature area rather than a developed park although he also noted there is some area available for a traditional park. He said there are economic considerations (p. 13) and gave some illustrations as to how the plaza could possibly be used (p. 15). The slideshow showed photos of examples of possible ways to use the gathering space. Nachbar noted that this space can be used any way the community would like it to be used, and it would be roughly 10,000 square feet. He said you do not necessarily need a lot of space for a nice plaza, and pointed to the city of Portland as an example of a city having a public plaza that is, basically, the same size. He spoke about several options available for the plaza and talked about the possibility of interactive fountains (e.g. pp 34, 35), having some "soft space" (e.g. pp 36-38), or possibly a sunken plaza which could be designed by Walker Macy. Nachbar continued his presentation by discussing each of the possible locations —giving pros and cons of each (pp. 41-44). He said his thoughts are that Scheme 1 appears to be the best location. Chair Switzer (who is also chair of the Fanno Creek Steering Committee) was asked to give a brief overview of that committee's recommendations. Switzer gave the overview saying the official recommendation from them is to support Scheme 1 (p.41). He gave some reasons as to why the other schemes were not as desirable — such as the noise factor, too far from the park,uncooperative property owners, too close to Hwy 99, etc. He said they believed the plaza and the park should be integrated /connected. He noted some of the reasons they liked the concept of Scheme 1 the best: • The plaza would be integrated into the park • Visibility from Main Street • Immediately adjacent re-developable property • Connection to Commuter rail parking which could be used on weekends when the plaza is being used by many people • Green street / urban creek idea CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 22,2007 Page 2 of 6 This meeting in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year. E:\CCAC Meeting Minutes August 22.doc He said again that, in concept, the one they liked the best was Scheme 1. He said it would not be exactly what was pictured —but the general "concept of the location" is what they were recommending. Switzer asked Commissioner Ellis Gaut,who is also on the steering committee, for her input on this. She noted several things she liked about the site. The "bonus apace" across the street was of particular interest as she said it has tremendous potential for a possible "mini- plaza." Another plus she noted was that in terms of"land assembly" Scheme 1 turns out to be the easiest. Nachbar took some time explaining why this was the case. There was more discussion about the smaller plaza and reasons why it would be an asset in so much as it could "reach out" to Main Street. At this point, Switzer opened up the discussion to the public and some of the comments follow: Mike Swanda, who was also a member of the Fanno Creek Steering Committee, said all the schemes had benefits and he talked about some of those benefits. He said of them all, he was a hold out for scheme 1. Commissioner Hughes noted he would like future slides and visuals to include the parking areas so they could be clearly seen. Nachbar said that was a good point and in the future those areas would be shown clearly. Citizen, Deanna Nihill, identified herself as a Yd generation Tigard resident. She said she was very pleased to see what was being done. She noted she would love to have a public plaza in Tigard, right close to home, so her family wouldn't have to go to Beaverton, Lake Oswego, or any of the other surrounding cities, to have something like the plaza available. She likes the idea of it being connected to greenspace and near the park. She indicated she was in favor of Scheme 1, and would like the plaza situated away from Hwy 99W. She wanted it to be a bike/kid/family friendly area. Marland Henderson indicated that he supports Scheme #1 as well, especially as it pertains to Farmer's Markets. There was a question as to whether a trail system to the library would be made. Nachbar said yes, there would. He said the trail system through the park, which goes across to the library, would be reconstructed, lighted, and interconnected. He said there is a project to have a lighted crossing of some kind that will stop traffic on Hall Blvd to make it easier for pedestrians to get across Hall Blvd to the library. Lisa Olson,who was a member of the task force ('IDIP), said that group as a whole had felt a public plaza or public gathering spot should be connected to a park. She said Scheme 1 supports those findings. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 22,2007 Page 3 of 6 This meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Perris t Center,and is retained for one year. R\CCAC Meeting Minutes August 22.doc Commissioner Lilly noted that Scheme 1 was her first choice. From a sustainable point of view, she believes the plaza could be an anchor. Chair Switzer asked if anyone wanted to make a motion. Commissioner Lilly made a motion. (See motion under "action items" below.) Switzer explained that the recommendation is to support conceptually the Stevens Marine site - Scheme 1 - as the location for the plaza. He reiterated that it would not necessarily be the exact same thing as is on the drawing, but that the "concept" is what they supported. Tom Coffee, Community Development Director, noted that the Fanno Creek Steering Committee had endorsed Site 1 (Scheme 1), and the associated concepts, and that action had been communicated to Council. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Lilly made a motion... "I move that the CCAC vote to recommend and support the steering committees recommendation." There was some discussion regarding exactly what the recommendation was and, after some time, Commissioner Lilly added a friendly amendment, which was: "I move to endorse the concepts presented in Scheme one, including the plaza location on the Stevens marine property." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ellis Gaut; a vote was taken, and the motion unanimously passed. One of the Commissioners asked that"Council communication" (the idea of"face time') be on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting. Nachbar said this would be added to the next agenda. Agenda Item #4: Downtown Street Lights — Review/Recommendations Important Discussion and/or Comments: The discussion was begun by Tom Coffee. He explained the look of the acorn style streetlight that had been decided on for the downtown area. (Exhibit B). Coffee said he told the City Manager they were ready to go ahead with this. Since the City Manager had a meeting with the Mayor, he told the Mayor that this was what they were going to be doing. The Mayor questioned the light and said he thought they were going to use a Bridgeport Plaza type streetlight— that was going to go on the commuter rail station. They said "That's what TriMet is doing, but TriMet is doing that on their own." Coffee noted that is not the PGE approved acorn style light that the Streetscape Plan calls for, nor is it what CCAC called for back in February, when this was discussed. He said at a Council Study Session (August 14t11) they talked to them saying "Here's the issue —is it going to be different on the station, downtown, or are we going to try to go our own way— or what? They said, "Refer it to the CCAC". That's why it's on the agenda. There was some discussion about a memo that Councilor Wilson sent dated 8-20-07. (Exhibit C). Coffee said the Council needs to know— are they going to "stay the course" and move on, or are they going to reopen the issue? CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 22,2007 Page 4 of 6 'Phis meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year. C':\CCAC Meeting Minutes August 22.doc Discussion was then opened on this [the question of lighting types] and Switzer prefaced it by saying anyone who participated in the Streetscape Group and the CCAC has every reason to gripe about this, but that they need to just acknowledge they've "hit a bump" and need to move forward through it. There was discussion as to whether the delay would be too long if this whole issue was reopened. Coffee answered that there's time. Some of the Commissioners said they didn't feel the choices were there to begin with. They didn't like any of them but had to choose between two that they didn't like. It was noted it would be twice the cost to do something other than a PGE approved light. Lisa Olson explained what the decision was regarding lights. It had to be a PGE approved light. Tom Coffee said he realizes the people who have dealt with this issue before, time and again, via the CCAC and Streetscape Taskforce have every right to feel frustrated, and even angry that this has come up again. He stressed that no one was saying the original decision was wrong, but that now the opportunity has presented itself to be able to consider a completely new range of lights that people in these groups did not know was available. Coffee said if the issue were opened up again, they would have to get the facts - the cost comparisons. Then they will have to discuss how this will get done,who's going to do it, how long is it going to take— all that. He said if the CCAC goes down that road these are the implications involved in opening it up. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): • A straw poll was taken as to whether to reopen this issue. Those in favor of reopening were: 1. Commissioner Hughes (if it is done in a timely manner—within 60 days) 2. Commissioner Ellis Gaut 3. Commissioner Lilly, and 4. Chair Switzer. Those against reopening were: 1. Commissioner Barkley, and 2. Commissioner Craghead. Chair Switzer stated that with a 4-2 vote in favor, the majority rules, and the issue would be reopened; however, Chair Switzer asked that it be noted the CCAC has expressed exasperation, frustration, and dismay at this. • Staff will communicate with TriMet soon that, despite earlier discussions, the "light" question is back open and they will be communicating with them on a weekly basis. They need to state if there is a "drop dead" date that needs to be met. Agenda Item #5: Selection of alternate to Joint Planning/CCAC Committee on Land Use Regulations: Important Discussion and/or Comments: Nachbar said Sean Farrelly, .Associate Planner, has asked to have an alternate on the joint Planning/CCAC Committee. Commissioner Lilly volunteered to do it. CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 22,2007 Page 5 of 6 This meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year. E:\CCAC Meeting Minutes August 22doc Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Lilly will be the new alternate on the joint Planning/CCAC Committee on Land Use Regulations Agenda Item #6: Recognition of Contributions to Downtown Important Discussion and/or Comments: Nachbar said he would like the CCAC to consider some kind of recognition of contributions to Downtown. The question was asked— "What will this look like?" Tom Coffee noted things are happening downtown on the initiative of individuals and groups. His idea is the City simply let them know it's been noticed. The City should thank them, and give them some sort of recognition - perhaps a plaque of some sort, or a certificate. It was noted that anyone who has done something to contribute to downtown should be recognized. He said there could be categories. It was mentioned the Tigard Eye Clinic (Drs. Smith) have always kept up a very nice appearance. Perhaps the City should say `great job' —communicate in some way with people who are trying to beautify the area. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): It was decided this is a good idea. Staff will bring some examples of ideas as soon as possible. Nachbar noted that a lot is going on, but he will try to get to it as soon as he can. Agenda Item #7: Other Business/Announcements Important Discussion and/or Comments: It was noted there is still a need for two more regular CCAC members and two alternates. September 12'will be the next scheduled meeting and will be held at the Community Room in the library. All CCAC members are invited to the Council meeting on the 28 , but should not feel obligated to come. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Chair Switzer adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm. Doreen Laughlin, City . Specialist II ATTEST: ChAD4an Carl Switze CCAC Meeting Minutes for August 22,2007 Page 6 of 6 This meeting,in its entirety,is available on audio cassette in the Permit Center,and is retained for one year. E:\CCAC Meeting Minutes August 22doc Mixed Use / Retail 0605`' / Mixed \Office Housing e Use \ Mixed M '\se � ► Mixed f M Retail Use \ ,� g�• / , Plaza Office/Housing Gathering 19,480 sf C / c Space Upland Park ' oh `—Green Corridor r Housing/PAC Natural Area \ r Housing \ / / . o f 00 0 ••.'0co p Qt: e �• r ` --- — Plaza location Scheme 1 1 Fanno Creek Park&Public Use Area Mixed ✓ \ �� . Use/PAC Mixed' oe: ousing Use Laza Mixed., (11,930sf), Use Mixed 0 using M Use Retail � • \ 1 enstreet Housing ��•�Q WideWalkw Natural Area c Housing � o V� o \ o ° e, \ ¢ \oi0 o;ro o,.0 o Plaza Location Scheme 2 Walker Macy Fanno(reek Park&Public Use Area Seta ArchiterrsI OF I PAEr Lurna Raven Whitman Projeoj Rider Mu m Mixed Use / Reta11 Mixed ��o•° ` Office Housing Use Mixed Mixed Use Use Plaza (10,650 sf) - Retail Office/Housing / Y Housing/PAC �y _ Green Corridor \~ Upland \ �,. Park 's4 Housing r Natural Area Housing i z c '\ 0 O ° � \ 0% �o CO / 8 1 1 A ) .,•: \l o 0 0 _—— n Plaza location Scheme 5 14-m r % ;of ! Park&Public Use Area i J`y Mixed Use Plaza\.. :✓ ' (13330 sf) Mixed_ =� �,,,��P� " �Housin g Use \ Mixed. \� Use Mixed \ " Use/PAC Retail \\✓��` using N �. \ Pedestrian Upland Housing Park Blocks Jl Park �� \ ARV Natural Area C Housing \ OO o � AL 1 / o/? 8 Plaza location Scheme 6 Walker Macy Fanno(reek Park&Public Use Area Sera Architects'i KPFF I PA6'Luma The GI9.,t Tigard I lune 11,2007 Karen Whnman Project:1 Rider nun( Fanno Creek Plaza Site Comparison Scheme 1 -Stevens Marine Property: Pros Cons • Large enough area for soft-scape and hard- Visibility within downtown reduced scape;Flexibile space can accommodate groups/events of all sizes • Strong,direct connection with the Park with a Farthest removed from existing more visible opening to the site. commerce. • More visible opening to the Upland Park may catalyze development beyond adjacent properties. • Ability to close off side street during events. • Plaza events/activities can be regularly Will require regularly programmed scheduled to generate activity. events to keep it active. • Larger adjacent properties to towards Main St. (Dolan/Liquor Store site)for redevelopment • Adjacent property towards Main St.(Dolan Neighboring properties to the site) is highly redevelopable(low improvement southeast (towards Hall blvd) may value,no disruption to business) not support retail on ground floor Rb ram \ \ IOA .26 ■r.J rn rry \ Scheme 2-Corner of Main Street and Burnham(Liquor Store Site) Pros Cons • Good visibility within downtown Connection to Park Is visual and through pedestrian improvements along Burnham • Adjacent redevelopment Tigard Liquor Store is a viable potential that could include both business that draws people housing and retail uses downtown,but would have to be relocated to an alternate site downtown • Traffic/Vitality Traffic/Noise • Supports mixed used Smaller site area for adjacent redevelopment at other parcels redevelopment along Main Street by providing an amenity on Main Street • Adjacent property towards Hall Blvd. (Dolan site)is highly redevelopable(low improvement value,no disruption to business) i 04f M \M \. rr \.M Mr M 1•/� \ �ti •M i \ \ ` \ : Wer \ �4 • � u Scheme 5- Dolan Property: Pros Cons • Could have strong,direct Visibility within downtown connection to the Park reduced • Adjacent redevelopment Somewhat removed from potential towards southeast(Hall downtown retail core Blvd.)supports housing • Adjacent property towards Main If plaza is developed here, St.could be combined with neighboring liquor store site property for larger would necessitate redevelopment redevelopment project • If housing developed to the south,would require buffer from plaza / f w. \ \N \ \M wy ■sww \ f / y 1 Scheme 6—Car Wash Property: Pros Cons • Good visibility within downtown Connection to Park is visual and through pedestrian improvements along Burnham • Site is large enough to Site is not a good location for accommodate plaza and small housing,the most market- retail or mixed-use development supportable type of development in downtown Tigard in the foreseeable future • Potential for car wash to be Adjacent to 99W,on-site relocated to a site with more redevelopment must be designed drive-by auto traffic to provide buffer • Provides strong terminus to Limited capacity to house Burnham;opportunity for farmer's market(cannot close off gateway structure streets) • Supports mixed used redevelopment at other parcels along Main Street by providing an amenity on Main Street • Traffic/Vitality Traffic/Noise • %• % him i \ • Obw i • UW \ l \M O.ft » XKW PM Mo. www \ \i WALKEK• MACV Landscape Architecture Urban Design Planning DRAFT MEETING NOTES PROJECT: Fanno Creek Park and Plaza Master Plan JOB NUMBER: 0717.0 BY: Laura Herbon,Walker Macy DATE: August 2,2007 RE: July 28th Public Meeting No. 1 -Site Analysis, Programming&Plaza Location On Saturday,July 28th,the first of three public meetings was held in the Tigard Library Community Meeting room for the Fanno Creek Park and Plaza project. The purpose of the meeting was to present the existing conditions of the site,site analysis,potential park and plaza program elements that could be considered for the project,and the plaza location study. Approximately 35 people attended the Public Meeting,including several members of the Steering Committee and the City Mayor. Information was presented at three stations in an informal open house format. The first station focused on existing conditions and site analysis,the second on programming elements and the third on the plaza location study. Public comments were recorded during the conversations at the various stations and comment cards were available for public input as well. The meeting included the following Staff/Steering Committee participants: Consultant Team.- Laura eam:Laura Herbon Project Manager,Walker Macy Mike Zilis Principal,Walker Macy Meeting Participants. Phil Nachbar Senior Planner/Downtown Development,City of Tigard Lisa Olson Volunteer,Project Steering Committee Michael Freudenthal Project Steering Committee Dan Dolan Project Steering Committee Mike Swanda Project Steering Committee Following is a summary of the major comments,points of clarification or additional issues raised by the public participants during the group work session: • The biggest issue is providing parking for new proposed facilities/plaza/park. Need to solve the parking problem in Tigard. • Connect trail for regional access-when?? • The plaza needs to be on Main Street. • Put the plaza on Main Street. Don't stick it on Burnham out of the main circulation hoping that Burnham will redevelop to high enough level to pull people down it. Successful urban plazas need to be treated as an important land use,not placed in left over space. ■ Ensure that proposed use at Main Street-meeting of park and urban life-is highest attraction possible to maximize the street/foot traffic that will"happen"along into the green spaces. Provide another entrance/connection that is for intentional visitors. Arts Center is not an appropriate joining. Police should be kept remote since it is not a destination that brings traffic to other adjacent uses. Lawrence L. Walker • J. Douglas Macy • Michael W.Zilis 1 1 1 SW Oak, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Phone 503-228-3122 Fax 503-273-8878 Fanno Creek Park and Plaza Master Plan Public Meeting Notes Page 2 ■ Get your input from school or other questionnaire. Get art galleries. Support activities of artists. "Rollerskating"for kids/adults. I like the plaza being just off Main Street,perhaps best at the corner where liquor store is? Be sure a shuttle is available to and from train station and bus mall. • Please seriously consider parking for all the activities that the new attraction/structures wil I bring to town. Traffic is already bad,especially around Main Street where people use it to stay away from Highway 99. • I prefer/recommend Plaza location scheme 6(car wash site)since its large and most important,away from Fanno Creek Park,in order to minimize disturbances to the Park,the wildlife that live there and the people who want a quiet experience in the Park. Many dollars(public)have already been spent in restoring Fanno Creek Park-NO more development in the Park. The Turtles!don't want more activity in their home! • Plaza should not be treated as a step-child. Put it on Main Street in prime location. A hybrid of scheme #2(Steven's Marine site)with wide Park frontage onto Burnham is best solution. Do not build a road between Park and development. Unecessary and expensive. Do not bring cars into Park. Retail space on that back edge will not be highly desirable. Can bring street off Burnham between two sites with entrances into garage parking-similar to Lake Oswego Millenium Park with the turn-around and entry to garage. Put Farmer's Market in rail parking lot,not in this plaza. Park does not need a lot of parking if plaza on Main Street,just enough for stage. Let people sit on grass for events. • My first look at the proposals-very thought provoking. I appreciate the clear description of the choices,and plan to physically visit the area with a new eye to the possibilities to consider. • What about low income housing and Section 8? Leave Ash Avenue alone. Don't put it through the Park!! Have something like Portland's Pioneer Square for summer time-"Flicks on the Bricks"-movies shown. Someplace for the youth to go during summer. What about the old haggens? Rollerskating rink,etc. ■ I'm interested in using the plaza for: concerts,play fountain,farmer's market,outdoor plays. Please incorporate into design!! • The presentation helps everyone at the meeting to be involved. The cards are a non-threatening way for people to communicate their thoughts. Tigard is a great little City that has much potential for the community. A plaza would be great for music,market,alnd a place for people to visit-a community table. • Presentation visual excellent!Helps us understand better. Great presentation of pictures and graphs. Pictures are great for people in the community to learn more about what is going on and how they can become involved-citizens of the community need to share their ideas. i .;too, INC AM ., F� �;..�Vw��• mak. Y.f'" �`°?�e r .. ,,. '� ''- �r � `} `.� tet' ��'�°� .d: � k.4 *.� T� 7i� 's- a��!'y r. .� i� ✓ �� ` c?°✓ - ". < <'4• d A y y i',lt,, � b 2 -=� w.� nc a, y�� '�"j� 9� ,J_ .�..- 7 a • - t. _ ff ;. •.tee •..r. `- _ . ~f•�!ry -',� .ry - r olyt b r k ..�y w . "fir,•. @ ,_� s.• .•y .-.# %may.; .• ' ,•. .y" �'�` � }' � `^4''!!�f �.•�-� .Y 1.c Maw... � r- Y ,Rn�. yr r w �r T. L I/IyI/ Ire •• M 0 01b, — 4"O USE RO�Aarhr• iTie ry a � 44M rT�Ci CJ111['./R[t BCV Oa OCuxiiv Or rv�ity C4'lOV4fu♦ h[T.CK El/CVM�NT ria.a.10MK M� wi\ S—Mqh.—Y 1\11\III\{111 ONEfII CMNIDOR uwrwr ewccc ,�♦ •.-N .-rr..w�.a. IEjEM MMM ■_■■■ rLj f T� wcl\wvc.oowwioww lo{�o ew �ewsowr4a o •r"•"�'1'r`� rwow4srrr �s� Iurr�eealrew ros osslcee w��+�Mcca+c•+. Figt" TIGARO OOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN o.a.oa 1 0 !,_~ Preferred Design Alternative Downtown Improvement Pian f- i O� ry 11 r� 11 11 '. ^ti� �w r44``I�1 t < :1 o + /, • • # • �o i #f ••• III;.,,, III;,, 1 I Ii.. - LANO USE +eWdwNY. � Nnw wewror Nrrwr.. OENc�(Y` DENSITY [hMIWMFNi wE(wlE E( EEoI.CNM[M Rf�Flt]IG [TME at-NlyErw-y owccw eowwoow 000000 iiit�iii i UwYNCNF[R •...• ---ee--wCCE• T•NI wvc oowMToww •wNNo cn wenFowMr.a wE1.ULwTED ^�'w^cam^^• r �[w'nwcE[errrc wueE�e wwv w..Y..r.w.v....w[.r•. Figur! I TIG4RO DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN 10 Q Preferred Design Alternative KEEMM Downtown Improvement Plan .cam � f � r�! A �'r`, � �._. �^�' - .•�/f . .. ,'- ' :� JAW ;� _ ' .. ,ate •• � . .fA '� 1•, g .` 4p 14 lic.l n— ti ' h � `#.' - _.'"� - Viz,� � �! ` '�;� •- + ♦. 1 ..2.—� _ s. t ` ,.tt ••t r• of I A' '.h may, ,. S�' � 'r'•.. -. Character "4- �• - .� + ..tom 7�. y ,•. ��. '. ��; i _II� ll s!'J i► , .'! `� s�' Irl,� y .; ,L:- .\ �' 1f Alp IF i�io'�' fir, •i � t '�, N ,+ , r IL Vegetated Corridor AO flip- `;4 YY 1 • 7 00 • •r ` \Y� ''tt�� Vo • - ,• a1�� fir✓ .,j�`'a. �� f •, I t j YI •� •�. � .�f� y. 20. �►� F*DewebPiGle siralegic ci y Property _ Upgrade Pedesuuo Uwwdon >- J Upgrade Access ftnt Imprare Edge 6elloveft �..f•..r7,...i.....:.+, 'U '9C . 1 Ai40 Opportunities and Constraints r i i /moi �// 'ti► rOk / or 116 `vF / .r, / 1 POLICE le Downtown Improvement Plan (2005) _6 0 0 • •• •. • �•y' r� �� • ~• •• ti A •••• • O,� �cl, 'PO Proposed Land Use Designations (2006) \ < AkAt UPLVW / \ Pjfi •a \ 3 a a � District Plan 'a0 if:a / Ph* 40' W 'W a _ , a a L District Plan Economic Considerations •Catalyze adjacent development *Active uses *Market conditions *Downtown strengths/ weaknesses Housing Retail - ,,, Office Economics I • r R Economics Preliminary Program •Gathering Space •Appropriately Scaled Entertainment Venue •Natural Amphitheater ti = •Structure/Shelter -' •Farmer's Market •Integration of Environment ¢, Plaza Program Steering Committee Suggestions •Play Area •Interactive Fountain •Soft Space/Grass •Events .i Festivals •Carnivals •A Plaza Program - i r - ► , 1 .w•. .f.- - 1r�. �_ Aa st fik _ � M,'''•' r�''!�.%aIV doE 'a ffimww� - - .. � - •�.`. - .4 rte. - r - _ ' i - 1- r ' A '.it i• I ., • j•'Et r ♦' • a-�. A •i. �` ..- '�-'. •. ';r rte. sk . - �,^'• 1. _ ' �;/ • �4 .1+ .- �j ��-• 'S _ F i - -_ ,A - - Lid i ■ i ■ ■ �,.■ ■ ■ t c LL J d Jr "poom— IWO tt � A ;'TENT ' I.' The Writers Tent ' %UPPONItO 61 at ULM At IMAM DtA0 -44 � s wo u, 1, .7 Entertainment Venue f%s 'r .��-� •'�:-ten, �, p� - ��,� _ * ` voom mow- 46 a ♦ t y-� y � • t . m Ah I • •�� *s• ; �• i '� s r.e'y -.ter%ti�r• �'�: E lb Ak jW .� ',—;:z — n .„ — Aw 16 4R 46 •L r � �� 1 -, - — '� AP Jr - s L t ' r � r .: _ � � Sys � ,�� .` •� S Y I' _ Al •" _ '141 •`' sw '6 Aft` � � ��99�y!.`'� •SMV �. •�� y... �fj��* T�'� . . . �'�� ` � •_ = �` � ,��. �,,'f � ,, ., aha t� , �, ��,;.:: ��•� ��,I � '`;moi' ��i •��'' � 1 y a , p:. .�i .� _r ��ar �� i 1 •S it i�7ilrrt. ��, ,i i ,yam. Nom•-.era �� •u- `� '!.-i.�� was •� `�� -- - XAV W I vi - r V .,�r �, •� -rte�,;.a •_ �ly. $ r':ft 1','1 �'�- ^s^ it t'�F � � _.. S r r. -1 ti 1Y r ' Y �r r. - �y. au r _ n I � kAfrk h• JJ,S -_�3 ... ... a Play Area Fa sM R w _ IN. ®ter ay' !EINC,-_ �•' � ', -rte.- '4• - Play Area t.'• L • � '' x ,, a ,� l •!1 i. . -�' I - •.', .�' I \� a ..>� � � \ 1 �� . • •fit t. �� ,; 1 y •� f y" :� - Rj _�y`�, � � t. s. - ir l y3 r� r, �,�'+; .,�`t/.�".• :,�a,�.'�y�Y � �1! i.,� _'• t _ �• is p _ � - ;�. • �t ..'' ,�( ry. - r,'V::.rT• f y'Va i _ s' 1ai'Z ,r. N_o� f F� S yam! 1, • •'i - l l�.�O �ej; _ '-!• � - T ::�y2 �+r,` �.. .rte.. � f - :�- , fes[•7 it- MT - _ V =ate .�.. S• *� ,.. -. ., i' im .ao _ •i.a Xzr- a _- �• i`r. / ` � 1, X5,.1 .' ♦ _- •� � �'� r 1 76 �.Al PL 1 .1 Soft Space • .. =- ,,�hrr�' pry• .- ''� �. v .r r 's oil Lw IN dog Aim w ZIP •tet . - - i %elf. •;+". h. _�-� ` '- e rr� S. `. �..•^ •r"rh-.;� '`w]- .5.� x,'71. y,'� ••� tib ir' i= a• 'lot. `� \ ► � �• x t,��, � �` �� `�� `} -gyp .E ' r� f� S't'1� ' - � �C�y Y r � • iii• �'�� =.� 1� .. �•• �7. � •'y �� +� Ff\J A �•�r Plaza Locations Criteria Fanno Creek Plaza Location Matrix Adjacent Property Plaza Proximity to Redevelopable Community Edges VISINIty Connection•n Park RetivvHnpment Commerce rtwrce(Existing,' Potential within 5-10 Year Future) IRoadwdys} :Location isClear- Timeframe Potential Plaza Sites 1. Stevens Marine Property High North,South&East Yes 1 Side,North One Low 2. Intersection of Main Street and Burnham Medium North&South Yes 4 Sides Two High ?Side~,North Y. 3. South of Main Street!West Of New Commuter Hail l o.v � �;de�.t M.rytx� One f;',r,in,n West 4. Suutttveesl Currier of Ash and Burnham Sti et High. North&South Not Likely NonF Isru Luw S. Residence on Burnham High. North,South&East Yes 2 Sides,North& one Medium East G. Car Wash Site Medium 4 Sides Yes 4 Sides One High Site Evaluation Mixed v �' Use Muted �- Mixed M. i Mixed Use �� .�.. T Plaza (9,480sf - \\ SP" �\ UPS U \ \`` Park `s NOusln 'PAC \ �{`¢\ 410 I Natural Area \ \ �+ � Housing �k \ CO G O40' a' \• \ � r Or, Site One Je Z, Mixed � •� , Usu'PAC Retail ��,' . Ahxc77 ` Office Use Pfau ` � Alrxed ^ (11.93001 \ Use Mixed Use �/ Ol6cdHuusing 0 Y P�;71 \M \—Greensneet wish \� Upland �.' \ Housing 6j� Wide Walkways Park \ \ �3 IT Natural Area (' Housing o / � D Site Two Jif r . Mixed use plan r (10,650Part . •\• Housing `s Natural Area \'✓� Housing \ �' '1 .S, X11 ' /• :.%' _ `•` G �3. 6 C t � Site Five L Mixed / Use 03330d M' Mixed Housing � use Mixed . Usr ' Mixed !' Use,PA( \ Y f � v Retail - �d Housing hik Park Natural Area � � Housing e y t� e .t Site Six b 'Y �f ,a - * • f 'xr W` 't� f , f `,. }Sim ' � •. ��-..�� w a. � r �. .�- _! ,� i _� I�. �3' r M� �� Y Y y�+ a�E �+-�� _' .s�� a. � �� .- _` ` . . �; r`�; �I _ �'�� .. a c � , rr .. �• r I ._r ' ' rr; }• Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C Phil Nachbar- Street Lights From: "Nick Wilson" <Nick@atlas-la.com> To: "council mail councilmail" <councilmail@tigard-or.gov> Date: 8/20/2007 6:58 PM Subject: Street Lights CC: "Craig Prosser" <CRAIG@tigard-or.gov>, <Tomc@tigard-or.gov>, "Phil Nachbar" <Phil@tigard-or.gov>, "Gus Duenas" <Gus@tigard-or.gov> Council Colleagues, I was dismayed at last Tuesday's decision regarding the street lights. I hope you all will consider what I have to say and perhaps re-open the discussion on this. . I drove around and took a few photographs of the PGE-approved fixture that is being considered. I didn't need to go far. They are everywhere! Most of the attached photos were taken within easy walking distance of my home. Please consider the following: 1. You don't distinguish your downtown by making it look like everywhere else. 2. The fixture that is being considered is inexpensive. That's why PGE will install it for free. That is why you see it everywhere. If we make decisions about downtown based on what is the cheapest or nearly the cheapest option,we will not end up with a downtown that is any better than the development that is already all around us. 3. 1 may sound like a design snob on this one but bear with me: The fixture being considered is a simplified replica of an historic style—in this case a Victorian era lamp and pole. We are going to build new buildings downtown. There are no Victorian era buildings to match. That light will be completely out of context. It's like the guy on Walnut who built a medieval stone castle turret addition to 50's era ranch home. You drive by and look at that and you wonder"what was he thinking?" I know that people like the charm of that fixture. It is popular. So is Budweiser beer. I would suggest that a more sophisticated approach is to select a fixture that retains the charm of bygone days but is not trying to replicate them. I think that the Bridgeport Village fixture does that. 4. The fixture that we select is one of the more important early decisions that we will make. Because it is part of a system, once it is selected,we will not change it for at least 50 years. We can always add brick or concrete pavers. We can always add art. We can change benches. But the lighting that we pick now sets the tone for everything that comes after it. 5. Sydney reminded us that one of the reasons that Port Moody has been so successful is that they got public input on everything. While that is true,I would caution against allowing committees of citizens to make technical decisions. They should establish the general design direction and inform the consultants what our values are and what the character of the place needs to be. But our hired consultants should make the technical decisions. Lighting selection is a technical matter. There are important things to consider besides its appearance. For example,will this fixture still be available in 25 years when we do our last new street? Will it last 50 years? Is it rugged enough for an urban situation? What spacing is required to get the photometric light distribution on the ground? Fixtures and poles can be mixed and matched. What kind of pole are we using—fiberglass?cast iron? Concrete? Aluminum? How high? Twelve feet? Twenty feet? What kind of lamp? High pressure sodium? Mercury Vapor? Incandescent? Metal Halide? What kind of base? Direct bury? Screw in? Cast concrete? All of these decisions have an impact on how it looks, performs and endures. It is not a simple matter of picking a style. Finally I just want to say that since I started on the Planning Commission 12 years ago I have had very high aspirations for downtown. My goal has always been that the future downtown Tigard will completely transform the image of the entire City. My hope is that people throughout the region will look at what we have done and want to move here because they want to be near one of the most exciting places in the metro area. When I see file://C:\Documents and Settings\phil\Local Settings\Temp\G W}OOOO 1.HTM 8/22/2007 Page 2 of 2 made on the basis of what is the cheapest, it does not bode well for the future of our endeavor. decisions get a e p , While I was not especially attached to the roundabout idea,I was not pleased with the rationale for our decision to scrap it. Again, it was abandoned not because it was a bad idea but because it was costly and there was opposition to it from neighbors. If developers were so timid,nothing would ever get built! Again, it does not bode well for our future because we will potentially have strong opposition and we will need to spend some serious money. Yes, we need to pick our battles and prioritize our spending but the goal should always be to aim high. If it takes a little longer,or our funding is such that we need to do a little less,so be it. But let's not compromise quality. Nick Wilson Atlas Landscape Architecture 320$W 6th Avenue, Ste. 300 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 224.5238 fileWCADocuments and Settings\phi]\Local Settings\Temp\GWj0000l.HTM 8/22/2007