The URL can be used to link to this page

06/10/2009 - Packet City of Tigard all City Center Advisory Commission — Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 —6:30-8:45 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Red Rock Creek Conference Room, City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions.................................................................................................... 6:30— 6:35 2. Check-in..................................................................................................................................... 6:35 — 6:45 3. Review / Approve Minutes..................................................................................................... 6:45 —6:50 4. Downtown Land Use and Design Standards Discussion/ ConsiderRecommendation..................................................................................................... 6:50 — 7:20 5. CCAC Leadership Election.................................................................................................... 7:20— 7:40 o. Quarterly Goal Check-in.........................................................................................................7:40— 8:00 7. Annual Planning ...................................................................................................................... 8:00 —8:30 8. Rail-to-Trail Letter of Support................................... pp .............................................................8:30 — 8:40 9. Other Business.......................................................................................................................... 8:40 — 8:45 10. Adjourn ..................................................................................................................................... 8:45 p.m. CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA—June 10, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of CCAC Goals 2009 On April 8,2009 the CCAC met to approve its goals for the coming year. As always, our primary goal is to uphold our charge to advise the CCDA on matters pertaining to Urban Renewal Plan implementation and tax increment fund allocations for the City Center Urban Renewal District. While the Commission will accomplish many goals this year,the following represents the items the CCAC believe deserves specific attention. 1. Downtown Land Use&Design Code a. Review land use&design code b. Participate in public hearings and open houses c. State formal position to City Council 2. Downtown Circulation Plan a. Participate in public/business outreach b. Participate in open houses c. State formal position to City Council 3. Main Street Green Street a. Participate in public/business outreach b. Provide on-going feedback/recommendations to Council 4. Storefront Improvement Program a. Promote benefits and opportunities to business community b. Participate with Staff in developing 2 project models i. 1 large scale(full fagade development) ii. 1 small budget(ie: paint, awnings,planters) 5. Tigard Transit Center a. Review study as presented to CCAC b. Provide feedback and recommendations to Council 6. Review,participate as needed,and Provide on-going feedback/recommendations for the following projects: a. Burnham Street b. Lower Fanno Creek Park c. Greenburg Intersection d. 99 Urban Design and Hall/99 Intersection Long-term Goals 1. Continually improve CCAC processes and procedures including, but not limited to: a. New Member Orientation b. Efficiency of meetings and agendas c. Annual calendar development 2. Increase our awareness of the impact our work has on the community a. On-going outreach to businesses and local community b. Continually work to increase transparency with citizens c. Continually work to improve communication with council and staff 3. Perform other duties as assigned by CCDA City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: June 10, 2009 Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room Called to order by: Chair Alice Ellis Gaut Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 9:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Vice Chair Alexander Craghead; Chair Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph Hughes; Kevin Kutcher; Peter Louw; Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong; Linli Pao (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Mike Marr Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner;]erree 1,ewis, I?xecutive assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were not needed. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): AGENDA ITEM #2: Check In Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Murphy reported that the CPAH application for tax credit financing for the Knoll project was approved by the State. He believes that support by Council, City staff, and the CCAC helped in this success. They anticipate breaking ground in 2010. Commissioners Louw and Craghead reported positive meetings with Downtown business owners regarding the Main Street green street project. Commissioner Louw noted that some of the owners who have buildings that are set back further may be willing to contribute right-of-way to allow for drive-in parking. He also heard concerns about trees blocking store CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10, 2009 Page 1 of 11 signs and suggested that we may need to open up sign code to address this problem. Commissioner Craghead said he heard concerns about construction impacting traffic. Commissioner Louw noted that the City has been saying that this project is all federally funded, however, he heard from the City Engineer that there is a $500,000 match from City funds. Commissioner Louw said this money would have been available for street maintenance if it had not been diverted for this project. Staff was asked to verify the source of the matching funds. Chair Ellis Gaut and Commissioner Hughes will each be walking with staff soon. Commissioner Barkley noted that the street maintenance fee issue was brought up during her meeting with business owners. She would like to have this issue straightened out before she visits other business owners. Commissioner Wong said she has not yet heard back from the staff assigned to walk with her. Staff will have that person contact Commissioner Wong tomorrow. Sean Farrelly advised that the spring semester review of the University of Oregon 99W project took place last week. Commissioners Shearer and Craghead attended the review. This summer, they [the U of O] will create a document similar to the Downtown Plan, which will be a useful tool for the CCAC. The final product should be done by November. During their summer semester, they plan to lead a walking tour along Hwy. 99W. Sean also noted that CCDA and CCAC roles and responsibilities will be discussed at the Council workshop on Tuesday,June 16`" Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will verify the source of the matching funds for the green street project. AGENDA ITEM #3: Review/Approve Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Craghead, that the minutes of the May 13, 2009 meeting be adopted as written. Motion passed by a vote of 8-0. Commissioner Shearer abstained. AGENDA ITEM #4: Downtown Land Use and Design Standards Discussion / Consider Recommendation CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 2 of 11 Important Discussion and/or Comment: The Commissioners received a new sheet on minimum parking standards (exhibit A) in the Downtown. Staff noted that the residential is still 1 space per dwelling unit, which is a reduction from the current code. All other uses would be reduced by 25% from the current Development Code requirements. Also, the current Code requires that percentages be rounded up; the new Downtown standards will round down. The current Code allows up to 50% further adjustment for transit oriented features. This will remain the same in the new Downtown standards. Staff advised that the subcommittee did not reach consensus on the requirement for private open space. The consultant suggested that it may be difficult or too costly to require private open space for all units, especially units that face the interior or are on the ground floor. They suggested a reduced number, possibly 80%, of units that would have private open space. The subcommittee did not reach consensus on that. Options for the CCAC to consider would be to require all multi-family units to have a minimum of 32 square feet of private open space (balcony, deck, or yard) or some reduced number. Comments regarding the proposed land use and design standards included: • Without parking requirements, developers tend not to plan appropriately for parking which could then negatively impact businesses and neighborhood relationships. • How does high density residential use affect the parking requirements? • This is a requirement, not the maximum. The developer may choose to put in more parking. • We need to ensure parking for residential guests. • There could be private parking rather than public parking. If we push the issue toward less available parking, we will have less people who have cars. • We have to be balanced in promoting transit and also allowing for cars. • If we have a lot of car spaces, it won't be a pedestrian environment. • Can we investigate the Pearl District parking regulations with developers? They've be highly successful. • Orenco Station is another example. • Portland has more transit options. • Even if there isn't a minimum parking requirement, it will probably be built anyway. • There is a community cost to having inadequate parking, especially residential parking. A minimum prescription is needed, as is flexibility. • What parking standards have we compared to? Lake Oswego, Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Milwaukie. CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 3 of 11 • The new development in Lake Oswego and the Riverplace in Portland both have interior parking. • The new development in Lake Oswego was a public/private partnership. The City built the garage and the developer built the building around it. • Staff found that a 25% reduction was in line with other jurisdictions. In Gresham near the light rail station, they have no minimum parking required. • One of the things revealed with the University of Oregon review is that 3/4 our land is for parking. • Most of the parking lots in Tigard are private. They're not shareable — people can get towed. • Next year or the year after, we will do a parking management plan. Private parking owners can enter into agreements with each other. For example, employees could park in a lot when it's not the peak hour of the other business. • With regard to private open space, to some extent, it's a design issue. If you can't build it to the standard, don't build it like that. • Is there any precedent for looking at a model that says 80% of the units have private open space and the remaining 20% must have access to some quantity of shared open space? • There is going to be a shared open space requirement for each building or paying a fee in lieu of. • Can we require a unit with no private open space to be co-adjacent to the lawn area? • People should have an open space or window space where they can hang a clothes line, maybe to the rear of the building. • The subcommittee talked about only allowing the 80% if they were adjacent to or close to a park. • The fee in lieu would apply if they were close enough, say within a block or 2, to a park. • People need access to nature, even if all that means is being able to sit on your 32 square foot balcony and breathe. • Are 20% of the people not entitled to that? • It's not adequate to say that there's a park across the street. It needs to be adjacent or it doesn't count. • I fear absolutes and the impact of inflexibility. One hundred percent can be aspirational, but to the extent that it translates into an artificial or a wasteful design, it has to be recognized that there's a trade-off on that. We are potentially making some aspects of Downtown less developable. I would prefer to see an approach where 100% could be aspirational, but as with the minimum parking, allows a certain degree of flexibility. CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 4 of 11 • There are lots of people who don't care about having a deck or access to direct open space, With a plaza in the Downtown, nothing would be that far from some sort of access to nature. • The requirements for a building to have some sort of community space or pay a fee in lieu of needs to be worked on. • If people can walk reasonably to some sort of outdoor space, 80% is reasonable. • Flexibility is the key element to the whole design scheme with the 3 tiers. Absolutes are not necessarily a good thing, however the reason there's a third tier is to deal with those kinds of situations. If we did go to a percentage, it could probably be accomplished by the ground floor units having direct access to the outdoors and the upper units having something else. • The subcommittee was trying to write something that would make development in the Downtown more simple. What about the developer who can only get 79% open space for a difficult piece of property? They would then have to go through extra time and expense for their development. I don't think the subcommittee could agree on the numbers and the difficulty of developing if we have absolutes. • The rent or the purchase price will dictate somewhat whether somebody wants a unit with a patio or access to the grass,or maybe they're looking for an apartment and for the lack of access, they'll get a price cut. • There are a lot of high density apartments in cities that don't have open space, but they have access to parks down the street. • The whole intention of the guidelines is to make sure we have a nice project with a nice design. The third tier of review could be the way to decide whether the project meets the intent of the design standards or not, instead of forcing a percentage. Sometimes we can achieve nice livable spaces without that extra outdoor area. • Be it 80% or 100%, by definition,it is arbitrary. If we're going to have any minimums, it will be arbitrary. Policy considerations do favor open space, which is why I'm inclined to go with the consultant's recommendation of 80%. I'm also inclined to let the market take care of 20%. • If we have 80%, it will mean we have a higher quality of life than a lot of places. • The subcommittee didn't come to a consensus as a group, but it felt like we couldn't come up with something better than what was already written. • What about small buildings with maybe just 3 units? • Are we talking about buildings above a certain number of units, rather than a triplex or 4-plex situation? Staff advised that the code applies to more than 4 units. • Nothing in Exhibit A, MU-CBD minimum parking standards, should be taken to have any correlation to the street maintenance fee issue. This is strictly for development. • Can we write something into the code to ensure that guest parking is always available? CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 5 of 11 • We're talking about a minimum of 1 per unit. There's no reason we cannot consider a further recommendation that the code be revised to include guest parking requirement. Staff noted that in Lake Oswego, the adjacent on-street parking can count towards the minimum. • If on-street parking has a 2 hour limit, how would that work for guest parking? • Rounding down of percentages will be in the code and be Downtown specific. • Residential units on Main Street would not have a minimum parking requirement, however, the market is pretty much going to demand that some will be provided. Also, there is a 3-story maximum allowed on Main Street. • Plenty of housing is built without parking, turned into rentals, and people are then forced to walk. I have a concern by not enforcing some kind of mandated parking for residential living space. • What if the City had parking passes that could be bought that would allow people to park on the street for longer than 2 hours? • If we wanted a retail core Downtown and we have extended parking, then there's zero chance of customer parking. With at least a metered or 2-hour parking limit, retail can function with a public parking space. There are 2 needs — one is for residential parking, the other is for the retail. • How about 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for retail parking and after 8:00 p.m. for residential parking? • Currently, different streets have different 2-hour parking limit times. Some are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and some are 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. • There's an idea floating here of no parking requirement on Main Street in these sections, except for residential units. • Rather than use the name Main Street Village,we should use the name of the street (Maplewood). • If someone wanted to put an apartment above one of the businesses on Main Street that has a small lot, there is no room for parking or driveways on those lots. • There would have to be lot consolidation. • If there's no lot consolidation, then it freezes it the way it is right now. If we don't get interim development with apartments over the I-story buildings on Main Street, we'll never get enough critical mass to start developing as a center. • We could have an exception for lots below a certain size. • We wouldn't have to have lots consolidate; there could be parking agreements with neighboring properties to allow parking. • We anticipate mixed use on Main Street, some of which will be residential, but the vast percentage of residential that will be developed within the district is not going to be on Main Street. CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 6 of 11 I • We need to carefully consider this parking issue before we send a recommendation. • We could use the variance process for this. We could write the code and add wording to provide that, in rare instances, variances would be considered. • I do have a concern to having residential development with no allowance and no means for dealing with parking. This is what the variance process is for. • Staff advised that if we have 1 parking space per dwelling unit required on Main Street, a developer can apply for an adjustment. Getting a 20% adjustment is pretty doable and then we could round it down. • Restaurants and entertainment businesses currently have the highest parking requirements. A 25% reduction won't bring in those businesses. We should have a much steeper reduction for those businesses, more in line with other retail businesses. • The current code is unrealistic in its requirement of parking spaces for restaurants. • I would say a maximum of 5 per 1,000 square feet and then take everything else down 25% from what it currently is. • The 25% recommendation is a result of researching other suburban cities. • Even with a 25% reduction,we're still probably one of the highest with our parking requirements. • Could we just change the existing code and not do the reduction? • Doing the reduction is easier than changing the code. If we're still at the high end at 25%, why can't we have a bigger percentage? • The current table isn't proportional and suitable for across the board percentage reduction. There are some that shouldn't be reduced at all and others that should be reduced a lot. We need an appropriate proportion for today's use within the code. • In terms of quality of life in the Downtown, parking is nearly as important as the design standards and as the circulation plan. Isn't there a parking plan on our agenda? • We'll be doing a parking management plan next fiscal year; it will dove-tail nicely with this change. • What if we don't touch the percentages on the non-Main Street sections and revisit those when we do the parking management plan? • These standards will only be applicable in the Downtown, • If we need to forward something soon,we could forward it with the stipulation that this problem still needs to be dealt with. • Is there a consensus for eliminating any mention of reduction in parking ratio in the Development Code at this time? • If we mention it, we need to say that it still needs to be addressed. • There's a clear recognition that the parking ratios are out of line with current and proposed uses. CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 7 of 11 • I don't want this to go to the Planning Commission saying that we have made a decision on this when we haven't. We can send it forward and say that this piece isn't completed. Are there particular topics in the design guidelines that we want to discuss next month? Permitted uses;would like to see the revisions incorporating the public comments from the open house; setbacks. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Louw, seconded by Commissioner Craghead, to take a straw vote accepting the 80% private open space requirement for new construction in over 4 units, as suggested in the Development Code. The motion passed unanimously. The motion was amended to add the words 32 square feet of private open space. Motion by Commissioner Kutcher, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to accept as a straw vote, 1 parking space per residential unit in Downtown for new development. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0; Commissioner Barkley abstained. Motion by Commissioner Craghead, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to endorse, with a straw vote, that properties along Main Street frontage between Scoffins and 99W on the south end, have no minimum parking requirements, except that there will be 1 space per residential dwelling unit. The motion passed with a vote of 7-1. Commissoner Louw opposed; Commissioner Wong abstained. Motion by Commissioner Kutcher, seconded by Commissioner Louw, for a straw vote to accept the rounding down of percentages. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Chair Ellis Gaut that we take a straw vote to recommend that the minimum parking ratios be re-examined and re-evaluated under current uses and proposed future uses and that they be based on actual usable retail square footage. There was no second to the motion. Chair Ellis Gaut later withdrew her motion. Motion by Commissioner Barkley to send this forward as non-completion and needing further work. The motion was amended to read: Move that from the MU-CBD minimum parking standards, we strike the sentence, "All other uses: 25% reduction in minimum parking ratio from the current Development Code," and that we replace it with a sentence to the effect of, "The minimum parking ratio for Downtown, except for residential units, will be addressed in a parking management plan at a later date." Commissioner Shearer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 8 of 11 The Commissioners decided to hold a workscssion next week to review the design guidelines further. AGENDA ITEM #5: CCAC Leadership Election Important Discussion and/or Comments: Motion by Commissioner Barkley, seconded by Commissioner Shearer, to nominate Commissioner Craghead as chair. Motion by Commissioner Kutcher, seconded by Commissioner Louw, to nominate Commissioner Murphy as chair. Commissioner Murphy advised that he will most likely miss the July, August, and December meetings. It was clarified that this appointment would be filling Alice's term as chair from July through December 2009. New elections would be held in January 2010. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Murphy was elected as chair of the Commission. AGENDA ITEM #6: Quarterly Goal Check-in Important Discussion and/or Comments: The Commission reviewed the 2nd quarter update of the 2009 CCAC goals (Exhibit B). ■ Sean Farrelly reported that the City is currently interviewing consultants for the Main Street green street project. ■ The feasibility study for the transit center may be presented to the CCAC in August rather than July. It will be presented to the CCDA in August or September. ■ Farrelly advised that there are 3-4 properties left to acquire for the Burnham Street project. There will be multiple options for phasing of the project. He will check with Kim McMillan to see when the options will be developed and brought to the CCAC. ■ It was noted that the Greenburg intersection project also needs to come back to the CCAC for comment. ■ The 99W Hall gateway project may be a big issue. Sean Farrelly advised that the consultants Cogan Owens Cogan would like to provide training in external communication and internal processes. Each session could take approximately 2 hours. The Commissioners would like to combine the training into one session in September. It was noted that there may need to be a second meeting in September to take care of business items. CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Shearer was asked to think about some ideas for new member orientation. It was suggested the Commission add walking tours of the Downtown to their yearly calendar. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will check with Engineering about the Burnham Street phasing and the Greenburg intersection project and check the availability of Cogan Owens Cogan for training. AGENDA ITEM #7: Annual Planning Important Discussion and/or Comments: Exhibit C is a baseline of an 18 month CCAC calendar. The Commissioners can build on this. It was suggested discussing budget items before April and discussing nominations in December. To keep ahead of upcoming vacancies, it was suggested doing a membership assessment as part of the quarterly goal update. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner recruitments will be added to the August agenda. Chair-elect Murphy will meet with Sean Farrelly before the July meeting to discuss the annual calendar in more detail. AGENDA ITEM #8: Rail-to-Trail Letter of Support Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Ellis Gaut advised that Duane Roberts has asked for a letter of support for the Rail-to-Trail project. The letter will need a new signature before it is mailed. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Commissioners said they were in favor of sending the letter of support. AGENDA ITEM #9: Other Business Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Ellis Gaut asked for verification that the minimum parking document reviewed by the Commission tonight is not for existing businesses, it's for new development only. Staff confirmed that that is correct. With regard to funding for the Main Street green street project, staff was asked to verify the source of the funds for the City's match and if it impacts street maintenance. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will research the funding issue and email the Commission. CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 10 of 11 AGENDA ITEM #10: Adjournment Important Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Jefree Lewis, CCA Secretary ATTEST: uLA 17 Chair Alice Ellis (taut CCAC Meeting Minutes for June 10,2009 Page 11 of 11 E_7X . MU-CBD: Minimum Parking Standards Residential: 1 space per DU All other uses: 25% reduction in minimum parking ratio from the current Development Code Percentages will get rounded down. Example 2.7/1000*2000 sf would require 5 spaces. Up to a 50% further adjustment for transit oriented features (per current Development Code) Properties with Main Street frontage (between Scoffins and Main Street Village) have no minimum parking requirements CCAC Goals 2009- 2"' Quarter update 1. Downtown Land Use & Design Code a. Review land use&design code b. Participate in public hearings and open houses C. State formal position to City Council Update: • Consultants completed review in May • Presentation to CCAC- May • CCAC Recommendation-June/July • Open House-July 29 • Planning Commission Public Hearings- September • Council Public Hearings/Adoption- October/November 2. Downtown Circulation Plan a. Participate in public/business outreach b. Participate in open houses C. State formal position to City Council Update: • Consultants hired- May • CCAC Presentations-July/Aug • Open House-July 29 • CCAC/CCDA Presentation- September 3. Main Street Green Street a. Participate in public/business outreach b. Provide on-going feedback/recommendations to Council Update: • CCAC/staff outreach to Main St businesses—June • Consultant firm interviews/selection-June • Construction—summer 2010 4. Storefront Improvement Program a. Promote benefits and opportunities to business community b. Participate with Staff in developing 2 project models i. 1 large scale (full facade development) ii. 1 small budget(ie:paint,awnings,planters) Update: • CCAC/CCDA subcommittee meeting on June 24 • Program development:June-August • CCAC recommendation-August 5. Tigard Transit Center a. Review study as presented to CCAC b. Provide feedback and recommendations to CCDA Update: • Consultant presentation of Feasibility Study to CCAC-Juuj�i{,;uS f • Consultant presentation to CCDA —Jul1X'28' ��5� 6. Review, participate as needed, and Provide on-going feedback/recommendations for the following projects: Updates: a. Burnham Street- Obtaining last pieces of ROW • Will go out to bid at the end of summer. • Multiple options for phasing b. Lower Fanno Creek Park • CWS re-meander of creek and bridge replacement to start summer 2010. C. Greenburg Intersection • Contract out to bid in February 2010 for construction in summer. d. 99 Urban Design and Hall/99 Intersection • 99W Urban design- U of O studio project completed. Summer-further student work and document creation. Open House in September. Project to be completed by November. • 99W and Hall Intersection- Contract out to bid in February 2010 for construction in summer 2010. Gateway status unclear. Long-term Goals 1. Continually improve CCAC processes and procedures including, but not limited to: a. New Member Orientation b. Efficiency of meetings and agendas C. Annual calendar development Update: • Training on external communications and internal processes-September 2. Increase our awareness of the impact our work has on the community a. On-going outreach to businesses and local community b. Continually work to increase transparency with citizens C. Continually work to improve communication with council and staff Update: • Main Street outreach-June 3. Perform other duties as assigned by CCDA EA, b;4 � City Center Advisory Commission 18 month Calendar Event 2009 June Jul Updates on Circulation Plan and Transit Center Open house-Jul 29 Aug Sept Training Oct Review draft CCAC Annual Report Nov Approve draft CCAC Annual Report Dec 2010 Jan Officer elections Feb Joint CCDA/CCAC meeting Mar Apr CCDA Budget Hearings May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Review draft CCAC Annual Report Nov Approve draft CCAC Annual Report Dec to be scheduled: retreat .j" ` � .�� _ +..1 I / � ��U0.`.f'� •.t l i i t l \f A:/ .5mi�+j�;. ��f �� t��^a. `. �•' �� f 1 �...flu. �� `♦ Ak Plannersyths of 4Downtown lanning An excerpt from a new book. r �J he 1970s were an innovative era in design for attle,have undone their downtown pedestrian malls many facets of American life,including cloth- to reintroduce vehicular traffic. ing, hairstyles, architecture, and, yes, urban These failed examples are not an indictment of planning. By the early 1970s, a number of all pedestrian malls.Some large downtowns,such as forces were already in full play,resulting in un- those in New York City and Baltimore,can support paralleled residential and commercial growth them.College towns,such as Charlottesville,Virgin- in the suburbs and a steady spiral downward ia,can support them.Those cities constituting both, for many downtowns. such as Madison,Wisconsin, can clearly support a In a desperate attempt to turn that situ- pedestrian mall,as evidenced by State Street. ation around, numerous downtowns across However, because the "mauling"of Main Street the country jumped onto the pedestrian mall resulted in failure for so many other corn munities bandwagon. In an effort to compete head- across America,not to mention the tragedy of"urban to-head with suburban shopping malls,these renewal"programs that razed countless blocks of his- downtowns blocked off vehicular access on toric architecture,the 1970s are rarely recollected by their primary retail streets in.order to create most downtown advocates with any degree of nostal- open-air pedestrian malls. gia.In short,any downtown master plan proposing a Because the market forces that were caus- pedestrian mall should be met with extreme scrutiny before receiving a stamp of approval. " :t The true essence of every downtown plan is a r collection of ideas. The misinformed notions be- low are among those frequently voiced by citizens, sometimes voiced by elected officials,and occasion- __ __-- ally voiced by professional planners and downtown "experts"who should know better.Many have some element of truth,but none is entirely accurate. 1. Our downtown just needs one "big ticket" i development to turn things around.Rarely does a "quick fix"really repair a downtown over the long haul. Developments such as sports facilities and casinos can vanish as quickly as they arrived,and even if they stick around,their novelty to the public may not. { Downtowns that have reversed their downward sir► •, �� '�"':� spirals to become success stories have typically done so incrementally,through numerous small steps over time. Most struggling downtowns did not reach their current conditions overnight,so turning them g around overnight is unquestionably unrealistic. 2. Replacing some existing buildings with s parking lots will bring more shoppers downtown. Buildings are the most fundamental element of any downtown.Generally speaking,more buildings in a latiron'building ing the downtowns'downfall were much larger than the issue of downtown—particularly occupied ones—are better t)in Troy,New vehicular access,these panic-stricken efforts,not surprisingly,did than fewer buildings because the activities that occur k,has been a little to reverse the fortunes of these downtowns.In fact,in most inside them attract people and their money.People 100 years.for more n 100 cases,the"malling"of Main Street only exacerbated downtown's do not visit downtowns to park their cars. n Louisville problems,resulting in a slow and painful death for many of them. Furthermore, in the case of historic or unique et(center) During the 1970s, Burlington, Iowa, then a town of 26,839 buildings, it is their character that helps make the blocked off people, converted the block of Jefferson Street between Main downtown unique. While parking lots located in- ng the'80s and Third streets into a pedestrian mall.By the late 1990s,it was terior to their blocks are necessary, those fronting reopened decades later. clear that the pedestrian mall was not helpingbusinesses along directly onto streets create dead spaces along the Jal events that block,so the downtown organization,chamber of commerce, streetscape and are visually unattractive.Parking is a it)are a and business association pressured the city to reopen the block to challenging issue for most downtowns and one that t way to automobiles. must be addressed,but razing buildings is rarely the ct people to Downtown Allentown, Pennsylvania, erected a canopy long-term solution. mown. along Main Street on the same day that its first suburban mall 3. Our strategy for revitalizing downtown opened,but it was recently dismantled and replaced with historic should focus on retail. Successful downtowns en- streetscape furnishings.Even major cities with seemingly critical joy a rich mixture of diverse uses,including offices, masses in their downtowns,such as Louisville,Memphis,and Se- housing, institutions, entertainment, and, yes, re- tail. However, a singular focus on retail flow quickly through its streets is not the while form of promotion when strategi- is usually an ill-advised strategy, despite root of a downtown's problems.A lack of cally linked to the downtown's particular that fixation for so many downtown revi- destinations to attract vehicles and their marketing strengths. •ization programs. drivers to the downtown is more likely 9. One of downtown's primary In fact, given its importance to most the challenge. On-street parking is im- streets should be closed to traffic and downtowns, housing is often the best portant as a convenience to shoppers and converted into a pedestrian mall, bet of any component of downtown to diners,as a traffic calming device for driv- While that concept was in vogue dur- promote—though success with housing ers, and as a physical and psychological ing the 1970s, downtown experts are is frequently difficult to achieve.In addi- barrier protecting pedestrians from mov- now recommending that these streets be tion to providing further market support ing vehicles.The conversion of on-street transformed back to drivable ones.Most to retail and other uses, residents make parking to driving lanes simply results in Americans are still,and might always be, their downtown feel inhabited and safe, faster moving traffic that makes down- too automobile dependent to completely thereby attracting those living outside of towns less pedestrian-friendly and less abandon their cars.Pedestrian malls typi- downtown to visit for shopping, dining, business-friendly. cally work only in downtowns that have cultural events,and other activities. 7. Existing one-way streets should a high resident or employee density, 4.Attractive new brick sidewalks be maintained for traffic flows that will large volumes of tourism,or some other will bring more people downtown.New benefit downtown.Even more alarming unique circumstance,such as an adjacent sidewalks, as with streetscape improve- than simply maintaining the status quo, university. ments in general, are certainly useful in some communities that are still stuck in a 10. Too many regulations will kill broadcasting a message that downtown 1960s mind-set will proactively contem- downtown's businesses. Perhaps in is important to the community. As part plate the conversion of existing two-way theory it would be possible to regulate a of a comprehensive urban design strat- streets into one-way couplets. One-way downtown to death, but not in political egy, they will sometimes even stimulate traffic is more beneficial to through traf- reality.Politicians enacting a detrimental adjacent private development, which fic than it is to traffic for which down- level of regulation would likely be voted can indirectly attract more people to the town is the destination. out of office. Well-crafted and detailed downtown. However, very few people For most downtowns,one-way streets codes,such as design standards for build- visit downtowns simply to enjoy their prove unnecessary and even counterpro- ings and signs,might be considered over- high-quality sidewalks, so their value ductive because they encourage speeding, ly stringent by some,but they can clearly Must always be kept in perspective. limit the visibility of retailers, and are elevate the quality of the built environ- 5.Downtown needs a large national confusing to new visitors to downtown. ment if used properly. department store to compete with the Confused visitors can easily become ir- A physically and aesthetically en- suburban malls. Unless a downtown is ritated visitors,and irritated visitors may hanced downtown typically results in large enough to enjoy the market support never return.From a traffic flow perspec- increased property values because of one of thousands of people on any given day, tive, one-way streets create many of the simple principle: Real estate values are in most cases time should not be wasted same problems caused by the conversion ultimately based upon the degree of a trying to recruit a national department of on-street parking into driving lanes, place's desirability. While the associated store. National stores' numeric criteria which,in turn,can generate the need for increased rents can result in some busi- for trade-area employees, residents, and remedial traffic calming measures. nesses having to relocate,they are usually vehicular traffic, as well as sales volume 8. Downtown special events are a replaced by more profitable ones. potential per square foot,are typically too waste of time and money because few Some of the most highly regulated high for all but the largest downtowns to dollars are spent in businesses during downtown districts in America, such as meet.Instead,most downtowns are better the events and a great deal of prepara- Princeton's Palmer Square, Charles- served by focusing on niche retailing that tion and cleanup are required.In most ton's King Street, Cambridge's Har- suburban malls are not filling,in addition cases, special events are more important vard Square, and New Orleans's French to other uses such as offices,housing,and for their long-term benefits than for their Quarter,are also some of the most com- institutions. short-term gains. Special events often mercially successful.In fact,in 2005, the This principle does not preclude tar- attract some people who rarely or never Old Town district in Alexandria,Virginia, geting smaller stores that happen to be frequent downtown,but their attendance added yet another regulatory layer to national chains or franchises,as a limited at a downtown event makes them aware limit chain stores and ground-floor of- number of such tenants are usually desir- of businesses or activities that they might fices,yet its virtues as a fertile environ- able to supplement locally owned busi- seek out at a later date. ment for prosperous businesses show no nesses. However, unique, independently Furthermore, a positive visitor ex- signs of abating. owned stores are among the strongest perience during special events can reap draws for most downtowns. tremendous future rewards, including 0 Philip walker is the principal of The walker Col- laborative in Nashville,Tennessee.This article is 6.On-street parking should be con- word-of-mouth advertising. Given the excerpted From Downtown Planning for Smaller verted to another driving lane to im- relatively low costs of preparation and and Midsized Communities,published this spring prove traffic flows for the benefit of clean up, particularly if volunteers are by APA's Planners Press. downtown. The inability of vehicles to mobilized, special events are a worth- 40 Planning June 2009