12/12/2007 - Packet JTCity of Tigard
City Center Advisory Commission — Agenda
MEETNG DATE: Wednesday,December 12,h, 2007, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library, 1S, Floor Community Room
13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. Welcome and Introductions ......................................................................................................6:30-6:35
2. Review/ Approve Minutes .......................................................................................................6:35-6:45
Action Items
3. CCAC Annual Report- Review/ Approve for Final..........................................................6:45-7:05
Other Items
4. Design for Commuter Rail Project- Main St. Islands / Access from Burnham St.........7:05-7:25
Design Guidelines - Update (Sean/ Alexander)...................................................................7:25-7:40
6. Leland Development Strategy- Future approach / actions................................................7:40-7:50
7. Budget Process - CCAC Role...................................................................................................7:50-8:00
8 Fanno Creek Park&Downtown Plaza- Status Update......................................................8:00-8:20
9. Training - Upcoming Opportunities........................................................................................8:20-8:25
10. Other Business/Announcements.............................................................................................8:25-8:30
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA- December 12, 2007
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
to
Minutes for CCAC Meeting
Date of Meeting: December 12, 2007
Name of Committee: CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
Location: Tigard Library Community Room
Called to order by: Chairman Carl Switzer
Time Started: 6:30 p.m.
Time Ended: 8:35 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Vice-Chairman Alexander Craghead;
Ralph Hughes; Chairman Carl Switzer, Lily Lilly; Alice Ellis Gaut
Commissioners Absent: None
Others Present: City Councilor Sydney Sherwood; CCAC appointees Tom Murphy and
Elise Shearer
Staff Present: Phil Nachbar, Downtown Redevelopment Manager; Tom Coffee,
Community Development Director;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant
Agenda Item # 1: Welcome and Introductions:
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Introductions were made. Tom Murphy and Elise Shearer, Commission appointees, were
introduced. Their appointments will be approved by Council on December 18th.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
None
Agenda Item #2: Review/Approve Minutes
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
The Commissioners reviewed the November 14`' meeting minutes. Two changes were
requested:
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 1 of 10
1. At the bottom of page 3, change "One of the commissioners said she would like a
flowchart ... " to "Commissioner Lilly said she would like a flowchart... ".
2. Add discussion that Commissioner Lilly was going to step down from being the
alternate on the design guidelines committee and specify that Commissioner Barkley
will take her place as alternate on the committee. It was passed by consensus.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
The November 14th minutes will be amended and sent to the Commission for approval at
the January meeting.
Agenda Item #3: CCAC Annual Report - Review / Approve for Final
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Staff advised that the annual CCAC report summarizes activities and involvement over the
past year and includes a section for recommendations for the upcoming year. The report
will be presented to Council on January 22'. The CCAC will have their annual joint
meeting with Council on February 19`h.
The Commissioners offered the following comments/changes for the annual report. Staff
response is written in italics:
■ Good for a first draft; covered everything in summary form.
■ For recommendations to Council, it was suggested to include training opportunities,
some kind of professional memberships, the ability to look at certain kinds of City
planning or various design publications, and more participation by the Council. We
haze trim to uba*traimng opportunities;hozeezer mast training oaun during the workday Port
Moody was a great opportunity. Maybe there are opportunities for the City to
provide some sort of training or workshop on an evening or weekend. We'll fomes on
ezerring times. There is an upmrrang training hating to do with mvxbi ng m3eting and howto work
more pwductizdy All mmrwtm nrnh-n will be inuted to attend The training date has not bin
sda-W)m
The CCAC would like to have a better presentation on form-based code. If we're
going to come up with some type of hybrid form, then everyone needs to understand
it (staff, Council, all the CCAC members). Perhaps staff mull take a crack at it to see if it
rrzEis the Conmsion's nes. If no4 we could bring m an outside professional for a workshop.
There was some discussion on the differences between form-based code and
architectural review. The Commission needs to understand what a real form-based
OCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 2 of 10
code looks like on paper and in practice and what kind of things would we be
thinking about in making the decision.
Regarding professional memberships, the Commission suggested the Urban Land
Institute. They would like to receive the publications, perhaps just one that could be
circulated. It nt y he cast prabibitiw, bcrt staff can indude the neat as a part ofthe budget
p uposaL It uwU then go to the Budget Corry as a part of the budget process. Staff will let the
Ommsioma know of other training opportunities as they oxcart
■ The 2nd paragraph of the annual report states that the Commission supports and
recommended to Council the use of a "form based" land use and development code
for the Downtown. Considering that the Commission doesn't know anything about
form-based codes (FBC), the sentence seems strong. The Commission recommended
looking at form-based codes so they could make a decision. Perhaps the report could
state that the Commission recommended investigating it further, the joint committee
investigated, and it came back to the CCAC and the Planning Commission with a
recommendation to formulate a code and see how it flies. It was noted that the
Commission made a specific recommendation to Council last year that FBC be
investigated and that people educate themselves about it. Staff suggsted the uomWg
"Supports and mcwn nd d to Co xd that FBC be iiwtigated for passiUe use m dx Dou&oun"
■ The report needs to reflect that the Commission has concerns because they were not
a fully complemented body for almost all of 2007. The Commission has talked
previously about how they could be more proactive in the recruitment process so it
doesn't take so long. It was noted that with the 2 new voting member appointments,
there are still 2 voting member vacancies and 1 alternate vacancy. The Commission
would like to clarify with Council what role the Commission can take in the
recruitment process.
■ There was discussion about the bylaws. The bylaws should have been amended in
order to change the composition of the group. Staff advised that the changes had
been made, but the Commission stated that they have not received a copy of the
amended by-laws.
It was suggested that additional changes maybe needed. There is some confusion
about the intent of the bylaws. For example, it says that there will be 9 members, but
it lists 11 positions. It was decided to put the matter of readdressing the bylaws on a
future agenda, but it would not be necessary to modify the annual report for this
issue.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 3 of 10
■ It would be useful to have a listing of all motions and recommendations that the
CCAC made to Council over the past year. It could be written in a summary format
so Council could peruse.
■ The 2' sentence of first paragraph sounds like the planning process is over and
implementation has started. Planning will be ongoing. Staff adui ad Haat the uoni
"planning" refers to the broad planning 77aat phase is turning to an end and nowue'M ming on
more sp&*pr*s. After discussion on how to re-word the sentence, it was decided to
take out the section saying, "As the Downtown program transitions from planning to
implementation," and instead say, "As the Downtown program progresses into the
implementation phase, the Commission was asked to focus on specific projects within
the annual work program."
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
Motion by Commissioner Ellis Gaut, seconded by Commissioner Craghead, to have Phil
circulate a draft with the changes, with the understanding that the Commission will only
spend 5-10 minutes at the next meeting for discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Added Agenda Item - Timeline for Downtown Projects
Phil Nachbar briefly discussed the list of Downtown projects that the CCAC would be
involved with over the next 6 months (Exhibit A). He noted that other things will be going
on during the same time. Tom Coffee emphasized that these projects are policy-type issues
that the CCAC will need to provide advice to Council on. The CCAC will be updated from
time to time on the operational aspects associated with the projects.
It was asked if it would be possible to put dollar amounts on the projects listed. Staff
advised that we will be getting cost estimates for the park and plaza and that will help us to
think about phasing of improvements. That will be shared with the CCAC as the work
program is developed for next year. The other projects have a cost, but the cost is being
absorbed in the City's operating budget. There is virtually no urban renewal money being
spent here; it's being subsidized by the City. As specific projects come out of these planning
efforts, the costs will become known. Councilor Sherwood noted that there is no urban
renewal money for the City to tap right now. Staff advised that, at some point,
approximately$100,000 of the $6,000,000 Burnham Street project will be recovered from
the Urban Renewal Agency. As we develop a 5-year plan, we'll begin to see what the
possible break down will be - will projects be funded by urban renewal dollars, will part of it
be funded from other sources (e.g., Parks SDC funds).
Chairman Switzer noted that there are at least 7 recommendations listed on pages 4 and 5 of
the Leland Report. Eventually, the CCAC will want some say on the prioritization, or the
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 4 of 10
importance, of those items. If we're going to make this budget cycle on some of these items,
we need to talk about them in the short-term. Staff advised that this will be discussed under
agenda item# 6.
Tom Coffee gave a summary of the budget process. Downtown redevelopment falls under
the Community Development Department. Budget suggestions need to be given to staff,
who then work the requests through the process and forward the department's budget
request to the City Manager. The City Manager is responsible for the whole City's budget.
It is his decision as to what requests are forwarded to the Budget Committee. There is a
separate CCDA Budget Committee charged with reviewing the agency's budget. Most of the
money for the Downtown is in the Council budget, because it's being funded by the City.
The CCAC could submit testimony and appear at the Budget Committee meeting to show
support for their projects/positions.
It was suggested that we schedule some time during the January meeting to talk about the
Leland Report recommendations.
Agenda Item #4: Design for Commuter Rail Project - Main St. Islands / Access
from Burnham Street
Important Discussion and/or Comment:
Phil Nachbar reviewed the site plan for circulation and parking for the Commuter Rail
project. He detailed the layout and how it's connected to Main Street (Exhibit B). The
medians on Main Street are required by ODOT Rail. As people drive along Main Street, the
concern was that they could turn left onto Commercial Street if the medians were not there.
This could result in a queuing of cars onto the tracks. The medians were placed there to
prevent left turns onto Commercial Street from people driving northeast on Main Street.
Unfortunately, it also prevents other cars going the opposite direction from making left turns
into other properties on Main Street, including the Commuter Rail parking lot. The CCAC
had previously expressed concern that cars would have to drive down to the Post Office or
Crown Carpets so they could turn around and go left on Main Street.
Nachbar said it's important that there be another solution. There should be an access on
Ash Ave. from the Commuter Rail station. The Commuter Rail parking lot could go all the
way to Ash Ave. and have an exit/entrance onto Burnham Street. People can then make a
right or left turn onto Main Street from Burnham Street. It's important to have this
connection. Nachbar noted that Burnham Street would be under construction next year for
underground improvements.
Nachbar brought up Commissioner Barkley's concerns about the entrance and exit for her
parking lot. He advised that there is discussion being held about a joint use with the parking
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 5 of 10
lot next to Commissioner Barkley's in order to provide an alternative access. Commissioner
Barkley clarified that the concern is not about people not being able to turn left into her
parking lot; the concern is about circulation of traffic. She realizes that the medians are a
safety issue, but they will cause a circulation problem. She is hoping there will be a way to
connect the two parking lots. Tom Coffee said it's the City's understanding that there is an
agreement between the 2 property owners that joint access is agreeable. The question is who
pays for the cost of connecting those 2 parking lots? Councilor Sherwood said the Cityis
trying to have the railroad or ODOT pay for it.
Long-term implications about circulation were brought up - are we going to prepare for that
now, or are we going to let it sit. Coffee replied that part of the urban design plan calls for
establishment of a pattern for Burnham and the plaza (mid-block crossings, etc.). The idea
is to look at circulation within the Downtown, as well as into and out of the Downtown
area. Part of circulation problems can be solved through redevelopment. Right now, we're
somewhat constrained.
With idea of moving toward more "green" development (water treatments, paving options),
the issue of putting down more asphalt was brought up. It was reported that in the next few
weeks, some of the asphalt will be torn up and contractors will be working on run off.
TriMet will be paying for part of this work.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
Staff will email the Exhibit B slides to the Commissioners.
Agenda Item #5: Design Guidelines - Update
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Commissioner Craghead provided an update of the CCAC/Planning Commission sub-
committee's work on design guidelines. He reported that they're in the process of
formulating a proposed hybrid code. Staff and the Commission Advisory Team (CAT) are
working to come up with an overall idea for how to do the process. Staff is developing
proposed code which will come back to the CAT to be refined into a draft proposal.
Commissioner Craghead advised that the CAT will be working with consultants from the
University of Oregon who will be doing some renderings in 3-D to show what the proposed
code would look like, as well as doing the graphic work for the actual code document at
some point. There will be some focus group meetings/open houses with developers and
various stakeholders. At times, the group will come back to the CCAC with reports. The
document should be ready for review in May or June. If it looks good, the code will be sent
to the Planning Commission and Council for adoption.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 6 of 10
Commissioner Craghead noted that a true form-based code is basically all pictures. A hybrid
code is more friendly for integration, because it keeps certain ratios and has some text. He
reviewed the information on the different track systems that was included in the
Commissioners' packets and described the 2 ways to be organized: 1) organize by building
type (more form based approach); and 2) organize by regional area (building location). He
said the committee will be working on the styles of building types throughout the early
spring, and then move onto the process side of developing (who the tracks will be handled
by; how it will be staffed; if there's a design board, who will sit on it).
Staff stated the importance of the CCAC being fully aware of the details of the committee's
work. It makes sense for the CCAC to get periodic updates and be comfortable with the
direction that the committee is taking. Chairman Switzer noted that the CCAC has not had
regular updates or recommendations from the committee. He's surprised to see how far
along the committee has come, with schedules and handouts that the CCAC doesn't know
anything about. Commissioner Craghead advised that until a month ago, this didn't exist.
The committee cancelled a meeting to allow staff a chance to come back with a proposal.
The committee essentially did all of this work at their last meeting. He couldn't have
provided an update until now.
Discussion was held about providing periodic updates to the CCAC. Tom Coffee noted that
there are a lot of items on the CCAC agendas. It may to point where the group has to pick
and prioritize items. That way, the group can program an in-depth, regular meeting
discussion or maybe hold a special meeting. With regard to updates on design standards, the
group can choose to accept periodic briefings of what's going on or appoint themselves as
the committee as a whole.
It was suggested that CCAC members could drop in on some of the committee meetings or
maybe receive copies of the main documents that come from the meetings. Perhaps at one
of the upcoming meetings, there can be 2-3 agenda items with this issue being one of those
items. That way, more in-depth discussion can be held. This could be repeated every 3-6
months as necessary so the CCAC can feel confident about the material. Councilor
Sherwood advised that City Council cannot possibly sift through all the information. They
count on the CCAC to make recommendations; they accept things that come from their
committees. She suggested the CCAC digest as much as they can from their committee and
ask the questions they need to.
Commissioner Craghead advised that he will still be a member of the committee even
though he is shifting over as an alternate to the CCAC.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 7 of 10
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
After more discussion, it was decided that the CCAC would discuss form-based code at the
February meeting. In the meantime, Commissioner Craghead will ask staff to send an
executive-type summary of the January committee meeting by email to the CCAC. For the
February update to the CCAC, the Commission would like to know where the committee is
regarding building types and get an idea of what the process is, perhaps with some pictures.
Chairman Switzer said the charge of the committee would be to figure out what the CCAC
needs to know.
It was noted that former Comrrvssioner Potthoff was a member of the code committee.
Commissioner Barkley was an alternate and has been filling in, but has not been officially
" " ppr� (anrWed at the 1/16/08 nmti4 by the CCAC. Motion by Commissioner
Ellis Gaut, seconded by Commissioner Lilly, to put Carolyn on the committee as the second
representative of the CCAC. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Barkley
abstained. The CCAC will select another in alternate in January or February.
Agenda Item #6: Leland Development Strategy - Future Approach / Actions
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Phil Nachbar described the process for how the CCAC will approach the Leland study.
Staff will review the study and identify priorities based on judgment, our understanding, and
Leland's recommendations. From that, short term and long term recommendations will be
determined. This will be brought back to the CCAC for discussion and input.
The next level might be to determine how to screen the recommendations for inclusion in
the work program; what could we reasonably assume we can actually achieve in one year.
There may also be budget implications to some of the recommendations. We'll discuss this
more at the next meeting.
It was asked if there was a written recap from Leland on the stakeholder interviews.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
Staff will ask Sean for a summary of the findings for the stakeholder interviews.
Agenda Item # 7: Budget Process - CCAC Role
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
This item was discussed under Agenda Item # 3 and the added agenda item above.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 8 of 10
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
None
Agenda Item # 8: Fanno Creek Park & Downtown Plaza - Status Update
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Phil Nachbar asked Chairman Switzer to summarize where the steering committee is since
he is a member. Switzer advised that the committee is moving toward recommendation.
They had some particular issues they wanted to discuss. They made a few recommendations
about specific items, but in general, the consensus of the group was that they like the
concepts. The design work on specific elements will be reserved for another date, but in
general, the concepts presented are all very agreeable - the trail alignments, location of the
plaza, shelter in the plaza, water feature in the plaza.
The comments made about specific things will be incorporated, with the intention that at the
January 15th meeting, the committee will make a final recommendation. The CCAC will
meet on January 16t and make their final recommendation which will go to Council in
February for adoption.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
A copy of the Walker Macy draft master plan will be available on December 21St and mailed
to the Commissioners. Staff asked that comments be sent to Carl, in writing, in digital
format, by page number, by December 31St. The intention is that the concepts are on target.
Agenda Item # 9: Training - Upcoming Opportunities
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
This item was discussed under Agenda Item # 3 above.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
None
Agenda Item # 10: Other Business / Announcements
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Councilor Sherwood advised that the City has purchased the house between Fanno Creek
Park and the Tigard Christian Church on Hall Blvd. This could be the entryway into the
park. There may be an option for another acre or so behind the house.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 9 of 10
The Commissioners will hold elections at the January meeting for Chairman and Vice-
Chairman.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
None
Jerree Lewis, CCA Secretary
ATTEST:
Chairman Carl Switzer
CCAC Meeting Minutes for December 12,2007 Page 10 of 10
Downtown Projects - December 07 to May 08 X
12-Dec
Dec Jan Feb March Aril May
Fanno Creek Park Master Plan
METRO's Natural Areas Grant - Fanno Crk Park
Design Guidelines / Urban Design Plan
Review of Development Strategy
Downtown Implementation Strategy
3-year program
1- ear program
Transit Site - Project Development
Downtown Budget
Hall Blvd. / 99W Gateway . ' ,
1 ffIan
N
fd fir •__ Id •0'
00
3`• =6 fcAL 1• fC
lY ��-- r�� � � T•8.�i' - g3fT
�+• • lY i
�,� :...D, . s 8 i Ka r
n,►war
•r C B arcs ami
a�336 ls.if .
AM+ OLTTl. ,eclr CMI•
-4 ftWX
liu-
1- CJ - ..t ' y• C113.MA, 1 . 2•„ .�. 6 M-3RD"r / 6 Z
I.•1 •avGI, 25.fI..O
6►-'` f', 03! 12.00 f - _ _ ---- � C C:f t,.�W_ I!•;�
,--Lj R b--� 6 tN — -----�'
�
� Z/ $.976
+$bit
c l — r � 't'J
10NLOC __-- �1. ,C 7 allukAL NOtES -__ - _. crosTocTiah mon 9CTAIL(S)
,c"_ _ 1 ttTAVc 'IC M STD 20
w.It�••uLi,w,r:l 6 MI 1 w • Cb4*lRJC'AC" � ..
►.: .pr r•,•ft Ir►•0•GlL. t S,ow- RT ySU:YA,lS r _-
i 1 Mb1,NAM • . 'RfryL CommyT•1D a06f1MC -_-__
r �_�__.�.XA'!tG►dl►RO C.Off 1AC s,GMM RT1111f cyM All,016061. 'Um St �n
�
'.Si awe .:Trx
/• —_
CI10 'Ct7Tf UC'MORM
r .RB CURVE CI-A�'
n 'RUC ►I►7 �, ,
ign at Co Rail
MATCH EXISTING EL y
11462.84 27.00' L t �
°
11+65.32
.� ° 1 , 38.17 L ` ', 11+24.59
n 20' 10' 0' 20' 40'
MATCH EXISTING EL
9+9 � 33Ti0' L S I 1010+76 8� & ` 41.56' L D � :I• 20'° 1 33.50• L a g
8 + � 22 9 0 1 1 CS a 12+13-51, 27.05' L
9+95.00 \ __ ' : C -,, _u
27.00' L
VTROL LINE-\ 2 � SW MA iN ST
2+43_06, 4.97' L
C O
] I C11 N C9
L-4 .00% '08'30" E_1 _— J3#AO
N _4 1
\N.651328.015 3 ^ :. _------ --
E:1417386.774 �% a 2 1 � ' 6 �_. 9 7 CONSTRUCTION-LIMITS --
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 111 a 1 ATCH EXISTING EL N:651584.373
_- --- 1:-- --- sr -`MI I+79.63 27.00' R E:1417693.826
- - --a -
} is
12 11+85,48
13
MATCH EXISTING EL Q �' 11+5989 (� 29.57' R
9+90.00 27.50' R 4 9 35.10' R
13 +93.52? I C 5 2 t
9.57' R O
10+39.90 33 r�
10+17.53 4&30' 41.23
13 �
� R 41.23 R
29.52' R
11+18.7d 1 1+41.3 1
44.0$ R 42.05 R
I
J�
t.
Y /
,.y
.•Ah
• 41F_.
•Y.n. y
., _♦
Y `:• �k
y.
5.
� � f Vit' 4;*4• ' ,",1.+'�,.
Aw
s 'k
& ) �➢ oil
- b •
lie
07 91
f.'
w
' ••�♦A . r ate
R
Draft
2007 Annual Report of the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC)
The 2007 calendar year provided the CCAC with a range of projects and issues to
consider with regard to the Downtown and Urban Renewal. As the Downtown program
transitions from planning to implementation, the Commission was asked to focus on
specific projects within the annual work program. These included a master plan for
Fanno Creek Park& the Public Plaza, the development of new Land Use and Design
Guidelines for the Downtown, and the Burnham Street reconstruction project. At its
monthly meetings,the group has explored other topical areas relevant to their mission
and provided guidance with regard to use of a "form-based code" in Downtown,
communications and"branding", affordable housing, and Council relations. Many have
recognized that this is a unique time to help the community set a direction for the
Downtown, and that this challenge, though daunting, is a unique "branding" opportunity
for Tigard to create a truly unique public place.
The Commission supports and recommended to Council the use of a"form-based" land
use and development code for Downtown. With the idea that design is critical for the
success of Downtown, this type of code has been evaluated by Staff, and a newly formed
Joint Committee on Land Use and Design Guidelines. The result has been a
collaborative effort to provide top-rate design guidelines for Tigard's new town center.
Though not complete, the direction has been established with the CCAC and the Planning
Commission working together in this effort.
The Burnham Street reconstruction project has made steady progress with assistance
from the CCAC in reviewing plans, hearing public comment, and providing
recommendations to Council. In particular,the CCAC fielded comments and concerns of
several Burnham Street property owners during the preliminary design process. The
Commission evaluated the relative importance of the "round-about", and supported the
concerns of Downtown property owners in recommending to Council that it be removed
from the project. City Council supported the recommendation and decided to eliminate it
from the plans. In general, the Commission has supported the project and encouraged its
"green street" design initiated under the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan.
The Commission was involved in early discussions for development of a master plan for
Fanno Creek Park& the Downtown Plaza. This project sets the course for development
of needed public space and the core area of Downtown. The CCAC provided input and
guidance on the formation of new Steering Committee for the project, which would
maintain the influence of the CCAC,but incorporate the influence of the larger
community. With the CCAC's Chair serving as dual Chair to the Fanno Steering
Committee, the Commission has been closely engaged in the project, providing specific
recommendations to Council, but also bringing ideas to the Steering Committee through
cross membership. The CCAC has acknowledged the quality of design being generated
by Walker Macy, consultants for the project, and has provided thoughtful oversight to the
2007 CCAC Annual Report
Page 1
work of the lead Steering Committee. In particular, the Commission supports the Plaza
District Plan, and thinks it will help open up new redevelopment opportunities in the area.
The Commission has advanced the discussion of"sustainability" in the Downtown, and
as a result, the master plan to restore Fanno Creek Park and design a new public plaza has
referenced that over-riding goal. To the extent that sustainability can be conveyed in the
design of both open spaces and buildings, it can become the public "brand"which will set
Tigard apart, and begin to bring into focus a public identity.
As the Commission sought to recruit new membership, it capitalized on the opportunity
to revise its composition to a more meaningful representation. In particular, the
Commission recommended eliminating the automatic appointment of a Planning
Commission member due to their inability to realistically serve on two commissions at
the same time, expanding at-large, community-wide, membership, and requested that a
new position provide expertise in planning, design, real estate or affordable housing. The
CCAC has had several discussions on affordable housing, and is advancing the
discussion on this issue for Downtown.
The Commission participated in discussions about the budget for Downtown, and made
recommendations to Council for consideration of repayment of Parks funds when used in
the Downtown. In concert with the City's interest in providing a balanced approach for
community-wide use of Parks funds,the Commission recognizes the opportunity and
responsibility that goes with it in using multiple funding sources for the Downtown. The
City has set up a repayment loan account for just such use of funds.
In March of 2007, the City received notice that it was awarded a $2.5 million MTIP grant
for the reconstruction of Main Street from the railroad tracks to the street's southwest
entrance at 99W. The Commission was instrumental in providing critical testimony for
the project, which resulted in the award.
The Commission has taken a stronger interest in establishing its own agenda, and
prioritization of issues for discussion. Staff recognizes that as the CCAC evaluates its
mission, the natural progression is for the group to take on a stronger leadership role, and
has planned training opportunities to support this objective.
Additional Recommendations to Council
(CCAC to insert here)
Carl Switzer, Chair, City Center Advisory Commission
2007 CCAC Annual Report
Page 2
4, # 5
Schedule for Downtown Design Regulations Project
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct
Project Tasks
Citizen and Technical advisory
Team meetings
Consultant-plan visualization
(University of Oregon
Architecture Dept.)
Consultant-graphics creation
Developer focus group
Property Owner/Stakeholder
Open House
Review by consultant
CCAC briefing/review • •
Briefings to Council • •
Planning Commission workshops
and Public Hearings
City Council workshops and
Public Hearings
Downtown Dcpsign Standards
• • ate
x
Three Track System
1 ) Clear and objective track: This track would emphasize quantifiable "clear and
objective" standards with illustrated development standards and expected building
forms. The applicant's compliance could be determined by a checklist. It would be made
as a Type II decision by staff and could be appealed to a Design Review Board.
2) Discretionary track: "Discretionary" standards use qualitative statements, where
there is more than one way for a designer to meet the standard. This track would result in
a Type III decision with public hearing by Design Review Board.
3) The "over the counter" track would be used for applications for minor changes and
additions to existing development (up to a threshold to be determined.) If the applicant
demonstrates that applicable criteria were met, a decision would be issued
within a short period of time in the form of a "compliance letter."
Clear and Objective Standards
Different standards by building type-
• Storefront Mixed Use Buildings
• Corridor Mixed Use Buildings (99W/Hall)
• Corridor Retail Buildings (99W/Hall )
• Multi-Family Buildings
• Attached Single Family Buildings
• Employment/Office Buildings
Discretionary standards
Apply to all types of buildings in the Urban Renewal District
i
Clear and Objective Standards
• FAR/Mass 0 Tri-partite Facades
• Building Height 0 Primary Entry
• Setbacks 0 Corners
• Buildable Area 0 Weather Protection
• Building Frontage 0 Windows
• Lot Coverage 0 Cohesive Architectural
• Parking Facades
• Street Connectivity 0Roofs
• Equipment Screening
• Materials and Color
• Transitions: Courtyards
and Plazas
Discretionary Standards
1 . Create Vibrant Streetscapes and Rights-of-Way
2. Promote Ease of Movement
3. Develop Transitions Between Public and Private
Space
4. Provide Weather Protection
5. Create Pedestrian Friendly Block Sizes
6. Utilize Unifying Design Elements
7. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and
Durability
8. Design Coherent Buildings
9. Create Corners with Strong Identity
Clear and ObjStandards
Sample Graphics:
` Parking
and landscaping '
2 Stories �' ■
t!y'
bt ' o
a �
Property line
rmrt setback line
D 11 11 11
l
4
�f
WALKER• MACV
Landscape Architecture Urban Design Planning
Fanno Creek Park and Public Use Area Master Plan
Final Schedule
December 2007
o December 6th—Steering Committee Meeting-Final Master Plan Design
6:30—8:30 pm, Redrock Creek Meeting Room, City Hall, Tigard.
o December 21"-Walker Macy to Provide Formatted Draft Master Plan for
review by Steering Committee/CCAC
January 2008
o December 31 S` — Steering Committee- Consolidated Review Comments due
to City
o January 15th—Steering Committee - Review of Revised Master Plan and
Recommendationsi6:30—8:30 pm Tigard Library Is'Floor Community
Room.
o January 16`h -CCAC Meeting, 6:30—8:30 pm Tigard Library I` Floor
Community Room.
0
o January 18th— Final Review Comments due to Walker Macy
February 2008
o February12th—Final City Council Meeting—Public Hearing/Adoption
of Master Plan
List of Key Discussion Items—Dec 6th
Fanno Creek Park& Downtown Plaza Steering Committee
1. Final Concept Plan for Park
• Design Objectives/Program
• Final Concept Plan
• Plan Refinements: Trail alignment, wetland restoration/habitat area,
boardwalk.
2. Final Concept Plan for Upper Park & Plaza
• Design Objectives/Program
• Final Concept Plan for Upper Park& Plaza
• Plan Refinements: Location of Overlook,pond buffer.
3. Program for Key Design Elements-Plaza
• Shelter
1. Provide for casual assembly, events, entertainment
venues, year-round use
2. Covered outdoor gather space
3. Fireplace to provide"ambience"to space
4. Provides focal point / spatial definition for plaza and
festival street
5. Restrooms
• Fountain
1. Interactive—Play for children
2. Visual amenity in Plaza
3. Can be shut off or located for flexibility of space
• Li,ght Columns
1. On Burnham St. — provide visual linkages from Main St
to the Plaza
2. Vertical markers are lit and provide a unique and
identifiable element of downtown both day and night
Dec 6`h Steering Committee
Key Discussion items
Page 1
• Overlook
1. Provide views of the natural area from the upper park
2. Interpretive Center for restoration work in the lower park
• Playground
1. Includes "naturalistic" play forms and equipment for
children
2. Attractive design element for Festival Street/Upper Park
3. Size- 3000 sf
4. Seating for adults
• Festival Street
1. Circulation and on-street parking for access
2. Designed to slow traffic,be pedestrian-based
3. Able to be closed off for events, including a farmer's
market
4. Seamless connection to Plaza
• Urban Creek
I. Establishes "Urban Creek"idea from the TDIP, extends
"nature" into the Downtown.
2. Accommodates storm water from the park,plaza,
Burnham St, the adjacent mixed use building, and
potentially a 20 acre area north of the RR tracks.
3. Provides an attractive walkway with an interpretive
element related to the sustainable qualities of the park
• Seatin
1. Will accommodate 100 people for informal use
2. Located in upper park and plaza only
• Li htin
1. Provided on main, regional trail in the Upper Park
2. Designed as "dark sky", and shielded from the natural
area
3. "Ash Ave" trail (optional) connecting neighborhoods
south of Fanno Creek Park with Downtown.
• Public Art
1. Located in the upper park area, urban creek walk, and the
plaza
Dec 6 1 Steering Committee
Key Discussion items
Page 2
2. Sculpture, interactive pieces, temporary installations, and
art which is integral to the park development
4. Key Design Elements—Park
• Gateways
1. Located at primary entryways into the park(see map)
2. Reflective of sustainable/naturalistic theme developed
3. Main St"Gateway"to include all options
• New Wetland Habitat Restoration Area
1. Accomodates stormwater for wetland mitigation areas
in upland park area
2. Graded to accommodate water accumulations in winter
months
3. Designed for both viewing and protection of habitat
• Trails
1. Alignments consistent with goals for park design
2. Open corridor design for safety
3. Main Trail— 12' with 36' clear zone
4. Secondary—6' with 20' clear zone
• Parking
1. Short-term,temporary, and long-term options
2. Combined street and parking lots as identified
(Burnham St, Main St., Festival Street, City lots on
Burnham, Commuter Rail Parking Lot, City Hall Lot,
new City Hall Lot(potential).
S. Non-Park Properties Within Master Plan
• Properties within the Plan not currently under City ownership
1. Plaza Site /Redevelopment Sites
2. Park Expansion areas — Public Works Site, wetland
properties
Dec 6th Steering Committee
Key Discussion items
Page 3
Guidelines for Review of Draft Master Plan:
• Comments should focus on specific sections for review
(Introduction, Chapter 4 Concept Design — Plaza, Chapter 5 —
Concept Design Park)
• All comments go to Carl for collation by December 31
• Comments that are questionable will be left out for discussion on Jan
15th.
• Agreement as to the list of design elements and program (see
materials) sets the basis for review
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Purpose of Plan
Planning Process
Vision and Goals
Chapter 1 -Existing Conditions Assessment
Public Use Area(Plaza)
Urban Context
Plaza Location Study
Plaza Location Schemes
Downtown Tigard District Plan
Park
Site Location and Context
Site Access and Trail Linkages
Wetlands, Remnant Side Channels and Ponds
Fanno Creek Restoration
Vegetation
Vegetated Corridor Assessment
Wildlife
Infrastructure
Regulatory Framework
Chapter 2—Park Site Opportunities and Constraints
Park Site Limitations
Park Site Opportunities and Constraints
Chapter 3—Program Development and Design Precedents
Public Use Area(Plaza)
Urban Design Program Elements
Plaza Design Trends and Precedents
Park
Park Program Elements
Chapter 4—Concept Design
Public Use Area(Plaza)
Design Objectives
Plaza Concept Alternatives
Summary of Green Building Design and Sustainability Practices
Linkages to Urban Creek Corridor and Civic Center Blocks
Farmers Market on Festival Street
Park
Design Objectives
Trail Alternatives
Main Street Entrance Alternatives
Chapter 5—Master Plan
Public Use Area(Plaza)
Preferred Concept Plan
Design Elements
Stormwater Management
Park
Preferred Concept Plan
Entrances
Trail Safety Corridors
Bridges
Vegetated Corridor Mitigation?
Vegetation Management Overlay
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
References
Appendix
A. Design Guidelines for Adjacent Redevelopment(Front SERA)
B. Summary of Comments from Public Meetings
C. Leland's Report
D. Kpffs Bridge Assessment and Design Recommendations
E. Kpff Utility Memo
o
Bridge and Q Sri �� 00 `/
0�0 /�'
Boardwalks
1 S
- New Mixed Use
r
Plaza
L
-BOY � n
i New HOKing r Q
}
PO--V� me pr ive Point
N
eryv Boadwa Entrance Feature >
Public Works
Annex
O
< _ e$1�nd
r B Pa
Er) e nt Area n j
w Boar rage j
al
Mitig Ion Area
R ocate Bridge
grade �; w ridge Verizon
ntrance
'Regional Trail
Pr City Hall
E
Upgrade
New Bridge ,_ _ Entrance
New Boardwalk's
New Bridge
Existing Bridge i �,
�r
Light Columns
Cafe Seating
Boardwalk/Bridge Interactive Fountain
Brew Pub Patio
F
Use Restroom with
Urban Creek-- Picnic Shelter
Open Lawn
Housing" \
S.
Olay Area
r�1, Festival Street \\
a \
Overlook Pier
x-
IX
; - ,_ -' 1 - gra•;
#1 Fg 11
Leland Report Exec Summary
1. Poised to attract new investment—housing, retail, mixed-use
2. Unique features & amenities—Fanno Creek Park, traditional Main St., access to
freeways, transit, neighborhoods with demographics to support retail.
3. Constraints—incompatible land uses, fractured land ownership, access, low
improvement to land value.
4. S key areas for City of Tigard to focus on—Organization, policy, housing, retail,
access/parking
• Organization
1. Strengthen private sector leadership and communications with Council
2. Establish strong Downtown Association
3. "Success Audit"
• Policy
1. Maximize public investment to stimulate new investment
2. Improve regulatory framework
• Housing
1. Ideal location for range of housing types
2. Land assembly key to success
• Retail
1. Strong potential as area's residential population grows
2. Will attract local /independent retailers on Main St. and regional /
national retailers at larger visible sites on 99W/Hall Blvd.
3. Use of research, marketing, design standards, storefront improvement,
loans/grants to attract quality retail.
• Access/ Transportation/ Parking
1. Address poor access to and circulation with Downtown to realize full
potential
2. Significant on-street parking and commuter rail parking an asset.
City Center Advisory Commission
Sign-in Sheet ,
Meeting Date
_
COMMISSIONER NAME
J
47
VISITORS
City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Date 07
Please Print
Name Mailing Address Email Address
LT
� S �iTo (-c( J` � � Jr � �� � �