Loading...
09/16/2009 - Packet « City of Tigard I City Center Advisory Commission — Revised Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 16, 2009—6:30-8:50 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall- Red Rock Creek Conference Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions ....................................................................................................6:30—6:35 2. Downtown Circulation Discussion.........................................................................................6:35 —8:00 (Matthew Arnold of SERA Architects) Discuss and evaluate alternatives. Decision onprrfemd alternative requested to forward to City-wide Transportation System Plan consultant for evaluation. 3. Review / Approve July and August Minutes.........................................................................8:00—8:05 4. Main Street Green Street Project............................................................................................8:05—8:20 (Sean Farrelly) Discuss preliminary public involvement ideas and make decision on C(.,-ICs role. 5. Quarterly Goal Check-in/Annual Report Discussion ........................................................8:20— 8:40 (Kevin Kutcher) 6. Facade Improvement Subcommittee Update........................................................................8:40— 8:45 (Sean Farrelly) 7. Other Business...........................................................................................................................8:45— 8:50 8. Adjourn ......................................................................................................................................8:50 p.m. CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— September 16, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page I ofl p City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: September 16, 2009 Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room Called to order by: Chair Thomas Murphy Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 9:05 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Vice Chair Alexander Craghead;Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph Hughes; Kevin Kutcher; Peter Louw; Chair Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong; L inli Pao (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Matthew Arnold, SERA Architects;Allison Wildman, SERA Architects Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were made. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #2: Downtown Circulation Discussion Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean Farrelly referred to the memo he sent out on September 4th (Exhibit A). He noted that a major change was made to one of the previous Downtown circulation plan alternatives —removing a section on Main Street that would redirect traffic. An analysis done by the Engineering Department for turning movements and demand modeling has shown that there's not a major need for a Greenburg to Hunziker connection. Also, there have been negative comments from Main Street businesses that closing off Main Street would impact businesses. Farrelly also noted that there is a big project scheduled for the Greenburg/99W intersection. He doesn't believe it would be a good idea to suggest undoing the intersection project to close off Main Street. Commissioner Louw doesn't like this alternative being taken off the table. For Main Street to compete as a business district, it will need something significant. The Ash Street connection will CCAC Meeting Minutes for September 16,2009 Page 1 of 7 significantly change the character of Downtown. He thinks the Commission should look at long term solutions. He would like to keep this option on the table to fix the problems that are inherent to Downtown. Commissioner Wong likes the Main Street closure idea. She believes it's the most creative solution to the traffic issues on Main Street. With everything that's going on in the Greenburg/Main Street intersection, she doesn't think the closure may be achievable in the short term, but it should be kept as a long term possible alternative. It creates a new, more distinctive entrance to Main Street and the whole Downtown area. Because of the opposition from the business community, Commissioner Ellis Gaut wasn't surprised that the closure idea was removed as an option. However, she thinks it may be premature to say that we'll never consider it. Chair Murphy suggested taking up the subject of the restriction of access to Main Street as one of the points for the Commission to vote on. They can decide whether to plug it back in or consider it further. With the Main Street closure alternative, Commissioner Barkley commented that if someone going down Main Street wants to go to Greenburg, they could down Scoffins to the Garden connection and then to Greenburg. It's not going to make that much difference for getting to their destination. She agrees that it might not be a good idea to take the closure alternative off the table. She also believes the Greenburg to Hunziker connection is very important. Commissioner Craghead thinks that whether the connection lives or not will have some bearing on what other roads will go in that area. He would like to hear what the benefits are with the other options before discussing whether to keep the Hunziker/Greenburg connection in the mix. Matthew Arnold noted that it sounds like the primary concerns about the Greenburg/ Hunziker/Main Street issue are the Greenburg/Hunziker connection itself, what it could mean for the potential of a new gateway/entrance to Main Street, and keeping options open and not dismissing things quite yet. He advised that the consultants are charged with trying to come up with actual decisions about the circulation plan,which will be added to the TSP process. Eventually, the City is trying to adopt a map that has all the lines on the map. There will be periodic reviews of those lines in future years. As far as the Greenburg to Hunziker connection, Mr. Arnold advised that the City Engineering Department determined there's not a strong enough traffic demand for that connection [see Exhibit A]. He believes that the two alternatives will address some of the Commission's concerns about Main Street and Commercial Street viability. Also, there are some urban design solutions that could help with creating a new gateway. Mr. Arnold advised that the consultants took all the preferred recommendations from the Technical Advisory Committee and adapted Alternative #1 with those recommendations. A couple of the CCAC Meeting Minutes for September 16,2009 Page 2 of 7 49 I NJ City of Tigard City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Notice 111101100 MEETNG DATE: Wednesday, September 9, 2009—6:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Red Rock Creek Conference Room, City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR Training Notice The City Center Advisory Commission will hold a training session on communication with the consultants Cogan Owens Cogan. No official business will be conducted during this meeting. The public is welcome to attend. CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE—September 9,2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page I ofl recommendations also appear in Alternative #2. He also noted that the Commissioners had previously asked for more information about the traffic impacts and the market implications of the different options. Mr. Arnold reviewed the two connectivity plan alternatives with the Commission (Exhibit B). Some of the differences between the two alternatives are: • In the northern triangle, the dotted green lines suggest where pedestrian and/or bike connections could be. • In the northern triangle, both alternatives have a new connection from Scoffins to Hunziker. • Alternative #2 has a connection from Commercial to Hall Blvd. north of Garden Street— this road may be a right-in, right-out road. • Alternative #1 has a connection from Commercial to Garden Street (this intersection may also be right-in, right-out;it's not necessarily guaranteed that there would always be a connection for automobiles, but pedestrians and bikes would have that connectivity). • With Alternative #1 there is a connection from Ash Street into the northern triangle. • The blocks in Alternative #1 are more equal than with Alternative #2. Allison Wildman advised that Jerry Johnson with Johnson Reid, the market economists, has said that generally speaking, developers like more access into larger parcels. They get more frontage, more street access, and more accessibility. Mr. Arnold noted that the connections will primarily occur with redevelopment. Another decision point is what happens between Scoffins and Commercial. The blocks are smaller in Alternative #1;Alternative #2 has larger, more flexible lots. Mr. Arnold noted that the Commissioners had asked previously what this means in terms of the market. The opinion of Johnson Reid is that, while the larger blocks sound attractive, it's actually more attractive with Alternative #1 because of the public infrastructure, roadway and access, and definition of how block faces will function. [See Exhibit B for memorandum from Johnson Reid.] • Ash Street is roughly the same with both alternatives; the difference is what happens north of Scoffins. Alternative #1 has Ash Street accessing the large parcel in the northern triangle. Ash Street ends at Scoffins in Alternative #2; however, it could be possible to continue it farther north into the triangle if the Commission would like. • Both alternatives have a new correction from Scoffins to Hunziker. • When you head south of the tracks, both plans have the connection to the new "green" street. The only differences occur south of Burnham—Alternative #1 has 2 connections from Burnham to the green street; Alternative #2 has 1 connection, which creates a larger parcel next to Hall Blvd. Mr. Arnold noted that the area by Joanne's Fabrics will be included in the larger TSP process. The Commission discussed the importance of alleys. Mr. Arnold advised that the consultants included the alleys north and south as a service function for Main Street. The idea of keeping all the service functions (delivery trucks, trash pick up) off of Main Street is an attractive idea to keep Main CCAC Meeting Minutes for September 16,2009 Page 3 of 7 Street lively. He noted that large tractor-trailer vehicles could not negotiate in and out of the alleys. Deliveries from the larger vehicles could be scheduled during off business hours. Commissioner Ellis Gaut does not want the creekside residential area to be covered with a lot of pavement, so she is more interested in having less permeation into that area. She asked how much of a difference there is to a developer if you consider things like adding a couple of alleys to accommodate things such as trash pick up,in-home services, and bike/pedestrian access. Mr. Arnold believes that during development, some of the pavement may be pervious because of storm water and floodplain regulations. With the extra street on Alternative #1, there's a little more access and more of a potential to have an open neighborhood. With regard to the overall street circulation plan, the extra street doesn't make that much of an impact. Commissioner Ellis Gaut is more concerned about having too many access points that close to a sensitive area; it invites more use which may overwhelm the creek. The consultants think those concerns could be addressed through the Development Code, perhaps with a green district overlay. Commissioner Hughes asked if consideration was given to the urban creek. Mr. Arnold stated there is still the potential for that to occur as part of the Development Code. The City could purchase part of the land and work with developers to deliver that kind of system. Commissioner Hughes would like to see green lines going up the alley to indicate the urban creek area. The Commissioners used an evaluation matrix to rate how well each of the alternatives meets CCAC value statements for the circulation plan. The results of the ratings (general consensus) are shown on Exhibit C. [The wording of some of the value statements were changed during discussion— changes are shown on the exhibit.] Commissioner Craghead observed that the post office property isn't highlighted on the property impact maps for either alternative. It needs to be identified on both proposals. The consultants will take the preferred alternative and submit it for a more rigorous market look and a transportation analysis. Adjustments will be made and the consultants will further describe the functional classifications of the streets. The adjusted preferred alternative will then be forwarded for the TSP to make sure it works with the overall TSP process. It will go out for public comment and eventually be voted on by City Council. The Commissioners decided to forward Alternative #1 on for more analysis. Mr. Arnold asked for any concerns or proposed solutions for Alternative #1 before sending it forward. The following comments/suggestions were made: • More work on the top triangle piece; would like to have Garden Street begin farther north, closer to where Alternative #2 has it located. Also bring it down to Scoffins (almost like the Alternative #2 alignment). This will cut the triangle more equally. • For the Garden extension, the Commissioners voted 6-2 in favor of Alternative #1. Commissioners Barkley and Craghead voted for Alternative #2, to include a connection to Scoffins. Commissioner Louw had to leave the meeting before the vote was taken. CCAC Meeting Minutes for September 16,2009 Page 4 of 7 ARC 11 ITECIU RE INTERIOR DESIGN Memo Mi Date: 9 September 2009 Project Name: Downtown Tigard Circulation Study Project Number: 091381 Attention: Sean Farrelly Subject: CCAC Discussion Points Remarks: The project team would like to present modified versions of the Downtown Tigard Connectivity Study alternatives at the next CCAC meeting. • A recap of the study's process-to-date • Review the connectivity concept alternatives o Connectivity Plan o Character Classifications o Property Impacts Questions for the CCAC include: • New connection between and parallel to Scoff ins and Commercial (traveling northwest-southeast between Main Street and -Hall Boulevard) o Should this connection be a road or a bicycle/pedestrian connection? o How should access for emergency vehicles be addressed for this area? • Need for and location of the "Garden Extension" - the street that runs northeast-southwest between Commercial and Hall o Should this connect to the existing stretch of Garden as shown in Alternative 1 :> Should this connect only to Hall with a right-in/right-out access as shown in Alternative 2? o Should streets and pathways be more or less defined in this area? • Creekside Residential Area(south of Burnham between Ash Street and Hall Boulevard) o Should the new northeast-southwest connection (between Ash and Hall)connect directly across Burnham or not? o Should streets and pathways be more or less defined in this area? • Pedestrian Connections o How should pedestrian connections be addressed as part of the connectivity plan? ■ Development code? ■ Specific alignments? ■ Specific designs for sub-districts and/or adjacent land uses? From: Allison Wildman and Matthew Arnold Cc: Brendan Buckley(Johnson-Reid):Beth Wemple(Kittelson and Associates) 338 NW 5TH AVENUE PORTLAND OR 97209 1 503.445.7372 1 503.445.7395 SERAP0 t'U'-i DRAFT _ la" .. 091 { 1 pr � r ..�R�. ! •rte /`+f.. ;5,t � F.. a kri ;e' •'y 't �psadopted in the Y +- current Tigard 'r _ l Transportation System Plan)TSP) Fy ,LEGEND Existing street/public right-of-way - t� Proposed street Proposed alley t Exisfing bicycle and pedestrian connection -• Proposed bicycle and pedestrian :° 4; connection-foxed alignment r •+••••• Proposed bicycle and pedestrian < , connection-exact location to be determined upon redevelopment ^�» N� — Existing public transit center and WES Commuter Rail station ••• Downtown Connectivity Plan -Refined Alternative 1 Downtown DRAFT v ' Cq FF,i• - 9L - A � G ply ti^ �' ' �' -'7x.�� .yMfR �� !•�y� r r. Oft` �¢: Y �.4 •-.'� .- ��w9 :AA, As adopted is the * ✓ ` •.,,. yew current Tigard ° Transportation r. s System Plan(TSP) \ LEGEND �- f� Existing street/public rght-of-way Proposed street , Proposed alley ✓ Existing bicycle and pedestrian connection r: 40 ——• Proposed bicycle and pedestrian R connection-fixed algnment Proposed bicycle and pedestrian ` connection-exact location to be y. '+q determined upon redevelopment j All, Existing public transit center and .r w 0 VYES Commuter Rail station ^.0 2 Downtown C• • Alternative 2 Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Project r' r r' DRAFT �A; ,lydye' Gq� ��lII r ............. pP �M Tib fq co T ys 4 fns. ,� co by at.;,V 'g I ¢ h f \' a As adopted in the *y, currerHTigard Transportation System Plan(TSP) r LEGEND Character Classification !�J t_ Main Street Green Street r Downtown Mixed Use 1 1 Downtown Mixed Use 2-Downtown Collector t Urban Residential 1 r gllllllllllllllll Festival Street t_ Upper Hall Boulevard N Alley f' ......• Bike/Pedestrian Connection ' Mul&Use Trail r ° 0 Existing public transit center and WES Commuter Rail station i, is >•: 4 j> RefinedStreet Character Classification- Alternative 1 ,.wntown Tigard Connectivity Plan Project 9.1r r 1 DRAFT 5 C,fl FFy r p�� - GPROFJI. 9 / R ••� SCO a' KNOLL / P5 HUN? 1 giF'9� � ikFn APV f '1 9 ' 4 As adopted in the cunentTigard •.,.Transportation a System Plan(TSP) LEGEND Character Classification ;a ta_ Main Street Green Street Aiiiiiiiiiiiiii Downtown Mixed Use 1 i Downtown Mixed Use 2-Downtown Collector Urban Residential 40 Festival Street y Upper Hall Boulevard Alley - r+ .,:•'. •••^•• BikelPedestrianConnection - _:� �. Mul&Use Trail 0 Existing public transit center and WES Commuter Rail station Street Character - •- �'a'. '., .. tea. ,. � � � Classification Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Project 09.10,09 o0r � �• - i, -v• Amo u; loop O X00 _:!►� 0 '• �0 O r I x:.. .e l I ,ar _ zI Vi W LEGEND ( � . AlhW(--")/'S Proposed Downtown Connectivity Plan-Alternative 1 Property Impacts Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan 1 10 69 eq 0 ►'l -® �° o=• X00 � -� o r Yw. Ix ;11401 +; A •' !I -\ /��1 �'. ^ ��,���• ;` ` �•. f Vit. /Y..✓j 10 RV 41 LEGEND Impacted Tax1ots 1' l Proposed Downtown Connectivity Plan-Alternative 2 Property Impacts Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan 9.10,0 r � 4`h ' 10' 10' setback 98' ROW setback Hall :opp- 78' - 82' ROW Mixed Use 2 - Downtown Collector 1 _ - Y t 9i mixed use residential 10' - 12' 8' 11' 11' 8' 10' - 12' mixed use residential 58' - 62' ROW Downtown -. Use 1 '4• � . .r•Y� l� residential 10' 7' 18' 7' 10' residential 52' ROW Green Alley JOHNSON REID LAND USE ECONOMICS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 27,2008 To: Mr.Sean Farrelly Long-Range Planning Division City of Tigard,Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 FROM: JOHNSON REID, LLC SUBJECT: Tigard Circulation Study,preliminary questions In conjunction with the Downtown Tigard Circulation study, JOHNSON REID has assessed conceptual alternatives for two subareas of the district, the"superblock" located between SW Commercial and Scoffins Streets,and the large lots on the SW side of Burnham Street,adjacent to Fanno Creek Park. This memo comments on how the proposed conceptual street alternatives affect the marketability and development prospects of the properties included in these areas. Scoffins/Commercial SuVerblock Currently, there is a large block bordered by Main, Scoffins,Ash and Commercial,and an additional large block across Ash to the SE, bordered by Ash, Scoffins, Hall and Commercial Streets. These blocks are very large compared to a traditional city center block size of 200 to 300 feet per side. As a result,the blocks do not offer an accessible,walkable scale. The circulation alternatives presented thus far offer two basic approaches to breaking up these superblocks and providing internal connectivity: a network of new multi-modal streets, or a network of bike/pedestrian connections which would limit or minimize motor vehicle traffic. Market considerations: The essential question posed here is the importance of auto access to the interior of these blocks,versus exclusive bike/ped access. From the standpoint of future developability, interior access for automobiles would be expected to provide the greater economic value,and development potential for these parcels. This is because it allows for more versatile use of the entire site,and more versatile parking solutions. Without interior auto access, the frontage on the main mixed-use streets (Main, Scoffins, and Commercial) would be required to accommodate more curb cuts, parking lots and the like. This would likely cut down on the amount of building frontage on these streets. 319 SW WASHINGTON SUITE 1020 PORTLAND,OR 97204 503/295-7832 503/295-1107(FAX) Auto access from the interior would allow for more active uses on the main mixed-use streets while allowing residents and employees parking access in the rear,as well as access for deliveries,waste management and the like. This could be accomplished with streets or alleys designed for joint use with bikes and pedestrians,with traffic-calming measures in place. Auto access is key for unlocking economic potential for most land uses. While other modes of transportation play an increasingly important role,developers still seek sites with good auto access, visibility from auto-oriented streets,and sufficient parking for users. While the auto-exclusive pedestrian/bike network might be a nice amenity for future residents in the area, it would be expected to limit the development potential for active uses in the interior of these large development sites. The interior street network as depicted would not result in blocks which are irregular or too small for development. The parcels in this superblock are fragmented, and under multiple ownerships, this makes the establishment of the future street grid more imperative,so that expectations are set. If development proceeds organically and piecemeal on these smaller parcels it will be more difficult to establish future streets in the long run. Fanno Creek Area Similar considerations apply to the area between Fanno Creek Park and SW Burnam St. Currently this area is characterized by industrial and employment uses on relatively large lots. These properties front onto Burnham with access by private drives into the interior. In considering the future street network in this subarea, it would be beneficial to include some additional access to the interior of these sites because most of them extend many hundreds of feet off of Burnham. As opposed to the Scoffins/Commercial block, which has a significant fragmentation of smaller parcels, the Fanno Creek area features many large parcels which would facilitate larger planned developments. Larger and/or planned developments will offer greater flexibility and resources for providing future streets,public and private. The proposed alternative featuring a new street running parallel to Burnham would serve the stated purpose. This street would likely serve the internal users of this area, and would likely not be a prime candidate for significant retail or commercial services, compared to streets like Main, Burnham,and Commercial. Even while providing additional access, this alternative would leave many large parcels. However, combined with fewer owners, this configuration should help maintain flexibility for future development and allow for creative solutions. Small, piecemeal redevelopment is less of a threat here than in the Scoffins/Commercial superblock. TIGARD DT CIRCULATION-PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS 2 Considerations for Downtown Commercial In preliminary discussions of the Downtown circulation and other planning efforts,the importance of Main Street has come up frequently. The Downtown is envisioned as a mixed-use district over time, meaning that retail,dining and other commercial uses are expected to spread to other areas of downtown to mix with new housing and employment uses. In particular,Burnham and Commercial are proposed mixed-use streets,meant to be both residential and commercial in character. This vision raises questions over the future of the historic Main Street, as well as the larger shopping center located in the "Triangle" at the north of the district. Commercial streets evolve over time, often quite slowly. While a commercial district may be somewhat in decline, JOHNSON REID generally recommends against attempting to start over, or focusing too thoroughly on new commercial development to the detriment of existing development. This is because the bones of the existing district are already there and well-established. It is often easier to repair and add fresh life to that existing framework than to start over. Even a retail street that isn't thriving has significant real estate investment, functioning businesses, and loyal customers. A few key redevelopment projects on the existing street can provide more impact than a more expensive wholesale redevelopment of another street. This does not mean that the new mixed-use streets adjacent to Main are inadvisable, or that they shouldn't be encouraged. However, it is important to remember that these new commercial areas will develop organically, and will likely succeed to the extent that Main Street is revitalized next door. Good multi-modal access to Main Street should be maintained and enhanced with the new circulation plan to the extent possible. The larger shopping center in the triangle area is a somewhat different story than the future mixed- use streets. This center did not develop as a series of storefronts over a long history. It is a good candidate for one or more large-scale redevelopments in the future. Because of the scale, this type of shopping center development can create its own customer"gravity" all at once. Its location also makes it an important anchor for one end of Main Street with good visibility from the highway. TIGARD DT CIRCULATION-PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS 3 t i 7 EVALUATION MATRIX: CCAC Statement of Values for Circulation Plan 09.16.09 Statement of Values Refined Alternative 1 Refined Alternative 2 Create a street system that will encourage people to visit and return to 3 2 downtown. The new street network should result in a positive impact on therg een 2 2 environment and ecological character of downtown. All modes of transportation must be accommodated. 3 3 t Encourage a pedestrian oriented urban village in downtown. 3 2 Get people into and around the Downtown easier. 3 2 Highway 217 via Cnnffins and {--Iunziker The street network should serve the uses envisioned for the future. 3 1 The existing built form should be has been taken into account when 1 / 3 2 / 1 planning new connections but the greater economic interests of future development should take precedence. Rating of how well each Refined Alternative meets each Statement 1 = weak, 2 = moderate, 3 = strong 3rd Quarter Update of 2009 CCAC Goals 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 • CCAC recommended proposed code changes-July • Presented at Open House-July 29 • DLCD Notice-August • Planning Commission Workshop/Public Hearings- September/October • Council Workshop/Public Hearings- November/December 2. Downtown Circulation Plan a. Participate in public/business outreach b. Participate in open houses C. State formal position to City Council ➢ Update: • Presented at Open House-July 29 • CCAC presentations and discussions July-September 3. Main Street Green Street a. Participate in public/business outreach b. Provide on-going feedback/recommendations to Council ➢ Update: • Consultant team selected,led by Harper Hough Peterson Righellis • Contract negotiation and work plan development-Sept. 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 (i.e.: paint, awnings, planters) ➢ Update: • RFQ issued and on-retainer architecture firm hired-LRS Architects • Sub-committee meeting to meet LRS- September 23 • CCAC discussion with LRS - October • CCAC/CCDA- approve work program- October • Solicit applications for business/property owners- November and on 5. Tigard Transit Center a. Review study as presented to CCAC b. Provide feedback and recommendations to CCDA ➢ ate: • Feasibility Study presented to CCAC and CCDA in August • Follow up on recommendations 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 September,with construction starting in Oct. • Still deciding between two phasing options b. Lower Fanno Creek Park • Preliminary work completed-Aug • 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`10. d. 99W Urban Design and Hall/99W Intersection • 99W Urban Design- Public event planned for November. Vision document to be completed by December. • 99W and Hall Intersection- Contract out to bid in February 2010 for construction in summer 2010. Land will be reserved for gateway. Evaluating water and electric for gateway site. 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: • New Downtown website 3. Perform other duties as assigned by CCDA BID Business Improvement District CCAC City Center Advisory Commission CCDA City Center Development Agency CWS Clean Water Services,local authority for sewage treatment,storm water run-off. )EIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development,a state authority overseeing land use and related matters. EA Environmental Assessment.A statement discussing the potential environmental impacts of a proposed public project and providing rationale that the project does or does not require additional rigorous study through the EIS process. EID Economic Improvement District EIS Environmental Impact Statement.A lengthy and more thorough examination of environmental impacts of a proposed public project. HCT High capacity transit. Fixed guide way public transit systems operating daily at frequent service intervals. Example: MAX LRT Light rail transit. Example:WES. LUBA Land Use Board of Appeals,a state body that hears appeals to local zoning decisions. MAX The Portland Metro Area system of high capacity transit. METRO The regional government of the city of Portland and surrounding suburban cities. MSTIP Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program.A Washington County program for funding street improvements. NEPA National Environmental Protection Act,a federal act requiring,amongst other things,environmental reviews before major public projects are undertaken. See EA, EIS. OTIP Oregon Transportation Investment Program,a state program for road and highway improvements. PDC Portland Development Commission,the oversight authority of urban renewal in the City of Portland. PPO RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Quote System Development Charge,an assessment charged to a developer at the time a property is developed to help support the CDC expansion of city services. CDBA Tigard City Downtown Business Association 1.)Tax Increment Financing. In Oregon TIF freezes the assessed value of a property(with adjustments for inflation)at a set TIF amount,and taxes on that amount continue to be distributed as normal. Taxes levied against improvements or increases in the value of the property above and beyond the initial value go towards a separate fund. An urban renewal district is an example of TIF. 2.)Transportation Impact Fee,a form of SDC used to mitigate for development impacts to the transportation system. TVFR Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue URD Urban Renewal District WES Westside Express Service light rail transit serving Beaverton,Tigard,Tualatin,Sherwood,Wilsonville. U of O Graduate Project:Student Concepts Communicated 09-16-09 Summary to CCAC Design Problem: Visualize how Tigard could develop over the next 50 years, along the seven-mile stretch of the Pacific Highway corridor, from the 99W/1-5 junction at the north end to the Durham Road/99W junction at the south end. Approach: The class identified the micro culture of each area of Tigard. In particular, the students were posed with the question, "How can you cover in detail and incorporate into design, all the elements of topography, culture and climate?" How to plan for a new MAX line running southward on 99W, from downtown Portland through Tigard. ➢ How to plan for housing and employment for the next million people arriving into the metro area. ➢ How to best utilize the open space in Tigard, 75%of which is parking lots. ➢ Where will the water go? In the Fanno Creek Basin, drainage is already problematic. Nodes/Centers: 1. North end: from 217 to 1-5 called Tigard Triangle 2. Central section: from Gaarde-McDonald to Hall Blvd 3. South end: from Durham Road to Gaarde-McDonald Geographic (visual)Gateways: 1. From south end: Bull Mountain/Little Bull Mountain junction 2. From north end: I-S/99W junction 3. From east end: 1-5/217 junction 4. From west end: 217/Scholls Ferry Road junction Actual Gateways Proposed: ➢ South node: 99W/Durham Road ➢ Central node: 99W/Main-Johnson St. ➢ Central node: 99W/Hall Blvd. ➢ Central node: Hall Blvd/Burnham St. ➢ North node: 99W/72nd Ave. Future Concepts: Entering Tigard from the south end through the city gateway at Durham Road, you have left rural Willamette Valley behind and have been drawn into a more urban zone. Local shopping centers yield to smaller mixed-use business and housing structures,with a less formal grid following the hillside landscape. Rounding thru the geographic gateway created by Bull Mountain and Little Bull Mountain, traffic crests the hill on 99W, presenting you with a visual surprise. A green swath divides the highway, and treed pedestrian/bike lanes front businesses and neighborhoods. To your left is Canterbury Square, now having grown taller, dominated by large, institutional buildings, which is now an important mixed-use center near the Gaarde/99W intersection. Below it is a transit station bustling with activity as the MAX train and buses load and unload their passengers. The greening of 99W was an important concept communicated. "Boulevarding" the highway by planting underused center lane areas, visually criss-crossing the roadway with lush pockets utilizing the green areas of churches, schools and landscaped MAX stations, provides a good method of linking the institutional green spaces to Fanno Creek Park and Plaza.This also creates a more visually appealing drive and helps slow down the mad rush of traffic, as residents and tourists traverse this asphalt ribbon dividing the city. The central node of Tigard was identified as the civic heart and an important housing and employment center,with historic buildings, city government, and several institutions surrounding it. There is a vibrant Main Street,with a large mixed-use business district reaching down Commercial, Burnham and Scoffins. Downtown stretches westward on Tigard Street, with industrial buildings functioning as important business incubators. Excellent circulation patterns and connectivity ease vehicles into the expanded downtown core. Large business centers have grown on both sides of 99W,where the MAX line delivers passengers between Hall and Greenburg. Stopping at the center of the viaduct,the train brings passengers to connect to the WES line downtown, descending by elevator and stairs behind the Chamber of Commerce. Other passengers make their way home to the terraced,garden towers overlooking Fanno Creek Park and Plaza. Another stop past Walnut delivers more passengers to several schools,churches and neighborhoods. Fanno Creek is the verdant artery of town,connecting the busy town square with all pedestrian and bike trails radiating outwardly from it. An undulating,treed path runs from Tiedemann to the WES station, carrying cyclists and pedestrians through to the leafy, "urban creek" running one block behind Main Street to the Plaza, providing a continuous belt of green space throughout the grid. The seasonal drainage creek in the Tigard Triangle has become a year-round greenway trail, tying to downtown Tigard underneath 217 and into the "urban creek". The Tigard Triangle, as the northern node,was identified as having the greatest potential to become a major housing and employment center,with its proximity to Portland, mass transit, and highways. The much taller mixed-use urban structures on the north side of 217 give visual cues you are moving into a denser urban area. Additional backage roads parallel to 99W now funnel traffic from it, widening the business district on both sides into surrounding neighborhoods and relieving traffic backlog. A MAX line stopping near both 72nd and Dartmouth intersections carries employees and residents into this bustling, business district.The hillsides overlooking 1-5 have grown business and apartment towers and developers are beginning to talk about bridging the highway with structures that allow traffic to flow underneath. EVALUATION MATRIX: CCAC Statement of Values for Circulation Plan 09.16.09 Statement of Values Refined Alternative 1 Refined Alternative 2 Create a street system that will encourage people to visit and return to downtown. The new street network should result in a positive impact on the•e�ironmentqkll 4 All modes of transportation must be accommodated. Encourage a pedestrian oriented urban village in downtown. Get people into and around the Downtown, ehiete-sA&-eut- d�'� �f@tfg�t{YYI'th-t1�p655 ��gf1W8��-��-VtA�COffInS and-1#unzikeo- The street network should serve the uses envisioned for the future. The existing built form shock tm taken into account when planning new connectionAt the greater economic interests of future development should take 3 precedence. Rating of how well each Refined Alternative meets each Statement 1 =weak,2 = moderate,3=strong MemoINTERIOR OESIrN Date: 10 September 2009 Project Name: Downtown Tigard Circulation Study Project Number: 091381 Attention: Sean Farrelly Subject: Discussion Points for the 9/16 CCAC Meeting Remarks: The project team would like to present refined alternatives for the Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan at the CCAC meeting on 16 September. Refined Alternative 1 includes the recommendations by the Technical Advisory Committee at their meeting on 10 September,and is currently the option most supported by the TAC. Refined Alternative 2 includes,at the direction of Tigard City staff,the elimination of the Greenburg/Hunziker connection and the resulting Main Street diversion. We proposed the following agenda for our time with the CCAC on 9/16: • A recap of the study's process-to-date • Review the Refined Alternatives, including: o Connectivity Plan o Character Classifications o Property Impacts Please note that we are attaching the Refined Alternatives to this memo,save for the"Property Impact" maps, which we will bring directly to the CCAC meeting. We recommend that a significant portion of the 9/16 CCAC meeting be spent evaluating the two Refined Alternatives based on the CCAC Statement of Values for the Circulation Plan(also attached). Specific questions which we would like to discuss with the CCAC in terms of these two alternatives include: • New connection between and parallel to Scoff ins and Commercial(traveling northwest-southeast between Main Street and --Hall Boulevard): o Should this connection be a road or a bicycle/pedestrian connection? • Need for and location of the"Garden Extension" -the street that runs northeast-southwest between Commercial and Hall o Should this connect to the existing stretch of Garden as shown in Alternative 1 o Should this connect only to Hall with a right-in/right-out access as shown in Alternative 2? • Creekside Residential Area(south of Burnham between Ash Street and Hall Boulevard) o Should streets and pathways be more or less defined in this area? From: Allison Wildman and Matthew Arnold Cc:Brendan Buckley(Johnson-Reid); Beth Wemple(Kittelson and Associates) 338 NW 5TH AVENUE PORTLAND OR 97209 1 503.445.7372 f 503.445.7395 SERAFG.X I U0.1 CCAC Statement of Values for Circulation Plan Fmm the April 22, 2009 CCAC meeting 1. Create a street system that will encourage people to visit and return to downtown. 2. The new street network should result in a positive impact on the environment. 3. All modes of transportation must be accommodated. 4. Encourage a pedestrian oriented urban village in downtown. 5. Get people into and around the Downtown,but do not enable vehicles to cut through (with the possible exception of a connection to Highway 217 via Scoffins and Hunziker.) 6. The street network should serve the uses envisioned for the future 7. The existing built form should be taken into account when planning new connections,but the greater economic interests of future development should take precedence. DRAFT 1 C,fl FFy BG 9C I ........................ � APDEN S oP� � s� Nor] Z. c0'�.yF9 ` ,yGHLkeq e,. �a BG9Hy91i \y As adapted in the current Tigard_ Transportation ;° r -- — System Plan(TSP) — - — LEGEND Existing street!public right-of-mly Proposed street I Propovsl alley ----- ---- ---- - `• Existing bicycle and pedestrian connection • 10 roosc bicycle ycle and pedestrian v� — - — -- — mnnedion fixed alignment •••••• Proposed bicycleandpedestrian `•� I connection-exact location to be j' delernuned upon redevelopment Existing p.rrianblic transit center and WES Coder Rail station AV Downtown Connectivity Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Project 9.10.09 DRAFT v 1 C,p AG 9C , ................ ... .� GARDEN P99 � CO p TjG. MSF qq0 sc KNOLL F. Pym Ar 4; •.�Phi a" �•r As adopted in the _cuff 811t TiA8rd_ Transportation — System Plan(TSP) t LEGEND Character Classification Main Street Green Street Downtown Mixed Use 1 tllllillllllllli Downtown Mixed Use 2-Downtown Collector -- Urban Residential 40 Raw" Festival Street llllllllllllllllt Upper Hall Boulevard Alley ••••••. BikelPedestnanConnection Multi-Use Trail O Existing public transit center and WES Commuter Rail station Street Character Classification-Refined Alternative 1 9.10.09 Downtown DRAFT C,Q FFi C° 9C > EN C OP99 ¢ S y�r �• f t 9 h Ems. As adopted in the --- • current Tigard - 1 —-- System Plan(TSP) LEGEND Existing sheet I public right-of way Proposed slfeet Proposed alley --_.- Exislmg bicycle and pedestrian connoction - Proposed bicycle and pedestrian ♦+...�,.,♦� — — ronntruon fixed alignment Proposed bicycle and pedestrian �♦ connection-exact location to be �"01 determined upon redevelopment O Existing public transit center and WES Commuter Rad stanon MW AK Downtown Connectivity Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Project r• r r• DRAFT y9 C9 8 GP EN Pq9 fir Cp � P\a F Y T As adopted in the "4 current Tigard .i Transportation ---- - System%n(TSP) r - LEGEND Character Classification Y. Main Street Green Street P. Downtovm Mixed Use 1 Downtown Mixed llse 2-Downtown Coliector Urban ReSidentral Festival Slreet Upper Hall Boulevard �— F Ile-y f r n ` •••-••• BikceeslnanConnmlion ` T Pd Multi-Use Trail Existing pubbr transit(.enter and WES Commuter Rall stationDowntown Tigard Connectivity Plan Project , Street Character Classification Plan- Refined Alternative 2 r• r r• f !sir' ■ `: a7lIIMI' min. 15' 8' 5' 11' 14' 11' 5' 8' 15' 17iin. 10� 10' setback 98, ROW setback Hall Boulevard pp 78' - 82' ROW Mixed Use 2 - Downtown � 1 .�� � �c �'gyp •��• t e�; _ d s• mixed use residential 10' - 12' 8' 11' 11' 8' 10' - 12' mixed use residential 58' - 62' ROW Downtown Mixed Use 1 _ •w:� r 5^C�'f y 'a_ _. 1,g�`': �h4�t;�^� k..�t a.��• ��ii �^ �:��+•s�j�� .. �a,tt• � � .�Y, � •r� � 611 �}_• :� _ .; �. �.. t r _ l rI1 '� 1 residential 10' 7' 18' 7' 10' residential 52' ROW Urban ,. Green Alley • Just have dotted lines on anything on the opposite side of Pacific Hwy. The integration into the TSP in that area is a stronger factor. Make a statement that we want a connection there and want them to explore a Hall/Greenburg connection. It can come back to the CCAC for the point of view of Downtown Urban Renewal. • Have a green line along the side of both alleys to represent the urban creek function. The urban creek needs to go all the way to the park. • Could we add more bike/ped pathways off the street in the section between Scoffins and Commercial? • Can we make a note about the option of taking out the section of Main Street in the future? It was commented that this is not a restriction of access; it's a re-routing / re-meander of traffic. It could actually enhance the functionality of Main Street. • If they do eliminate that section of Main Street, it should be noted that the route people will have to take is farther away [from Hwy. 99W on Hall Blvd.] with Alternative #1 than in Alternative #2. Alternative #2 is easier to maneuver Main Street than Alternative #1 if you take that section of Main Street out. With information already received from the City and from the TAC, Mr. Arnold feels like the Main Street re-routing decision is leaning away from eliminating that section of Main Street. He will note on his recommendations that the CCAC would like to keep the Main Street re-routing as an option for future consideration, but the plan should not rest on whether or not it happens. Staff advised that it is time sensitive to get this analyzed as part of the TSP. The consultants will come back to the CCAC for a formal endorsement before the TSP adoption process. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): As noted above. AGENDA ITEM #3: Review / Approve July and August Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Craghead, seconded by Commissioner Shearer, to approve the July 8, 2009 meeting minutes as revised. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Ellis Gaut abstained. Motion by Commissioner Ellis Gaut, seconded by Commissioner Craghead, to approve the August 12, 2009 meeting minutes. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Hughes abstained. AGENDA ITEM #4: Main Street Green Street Project Important Discussion and/or Comment: Staff advised that the CCAC will be the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Main Street Green Street project and will be in charge of outreach. The consultant will have approximately 6 meetings with the Commission. This may CCAC Meeting Minutes for September 16,2009 Page 5 of 7 require having 2 meetings a month. It was decided that the first meeting will be with the full CCAC/CAC, and then may be broken down to subcommittee(s). With this project, there will be a person who will be the liaison to the Downtown community. She will be provided with the results of the outreach that was already done. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #5: Quarterly Goal Check-in/Annual Report Discussion Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Kutcher went over the 3M quarter update of the 2009 CCAC goals with the Commission (Exhibit D). • For the Downtown land use and design code, Commissioners were encouraged to attend the Planning Commission public hearing on October I9th and the City Council public hearing on December 8th. • It will be noted that the CCAC is now the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Main Street Green Street project. • Chair Murphy asked the Storefront Improvement subcommittee to write a brief annual summary to include in the annual report. • Staff advised that the Burnham Street bids came in under the City's estimate. We may be able to do the whole project now. • As part of the new member orientation packet, Commissioner Shearer provided a list of acronyms (Exhibit E). Commissioner Ellis Gaut noted that it really takes about 2 months to write an annual report. If there are components to be included in the first draft of the report, she suggested having them ready before November. By November, the Commission should be doing the final modifications of the report. It was remarked that the Commission goals could be the outline for the annual report. Chair Murphy would like the first draft of the report at the October meeting. Chair Murphy thinks the work that was done with the Downtown Leadership issue is a good example of the goal "Increase our awareness of the impact our work has on the community." The outreach on Main Street Green Street is Exhibit A. It wasn't labeled a demonstration project for finding another way of serving the purposes of the Downtown organization, but that's what it was. Instead of handing it off to a hypothetical organization, members of the CCAC paired up with staff and did it on their own. This is an example of how ongoing outreach to businesses and local community has happened. At the next retreat, Chair Murphy wants people to provide input on how they feel about the goal setting process and the goal monitoring process. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): As noted above. CCAC Meeting Minutes for September 16,2009 Page 6 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #6: Facade Improvement Subcommittee Update Important Discussion and/or Comments: The subcommittee will meet next week with the consultant. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #7: Other Business Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioners Shearer and Pao provided a summary of the U of O project (Exhibit F). Chair Murphy reported that Community Partners for Affordable Housing closed on the purchase of the Knoll/Hunziker property. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #8: Adjournment Important Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. A Jerree Lewis, CCAC Secretary ATTEST: 7 Chair Thomas Mirphy CCAC Meeting Minutes for September 16,2009 Page 7 of 7 S. Memorandum City of Tigard To: Tom Murphy, Chair City Center Advisory Commission From: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner Re: Downtown Circulation Plan Update Date: September 4, 2009 A consultant team led by SERA Architects and staff have been working with the City Center Advisory Commission and a Technical Advisory Committee (City Planning and Engineering staff,plus representatives from ODOT and Tri-Met) on the development of a Downtown Circulation Plan. The CCAC's role is to make recommendations on different options to be included in a Draft Circulation Map. This draft would then be evaluated by the consultant working on the City-wide Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. The CCAC would then decide whether to recommend the evaluated plan to the CCDA for adoption (either as part of the TSP update or a separate adoption process). At the August 2009 CCAC meeting, SERA Architects presented two conceptual draft alternatives. Alternative 2 included a feature that"closed off' Main Street at the northeast intersection with Hwy 99W and Greenburg Road. The diversion was proposed to create a Greenburg to Hunziker through-connection. It is a provocative idea that would have a major impact on Downtown connectivity. After a meeting of the project's Technical Advisory Committee, staff analysis, and further discussion with the consultant team, staff has requested that the consultant revise the approach for Alternative 2,by not including the Main Street diversion. There are three main reasons for this recommendation: 1) The uncertain need for a Greenburg to Hunziker through-connection. SERA had been working under the assumption that connecting Greenburg to Hunziker through the Urban Renewal District was a needed connection. As the project manager,I would have ideally had our Engineering staff review this assumption earlier in the process, prior to the development of the alternatives, but it occurred later. City engineering staff reported that previous transportation studies including travel demand modeling and turning movements analysis done for prior Transportation System Plans have not shown a need for a direct connection of Greenburg to Hunziker. A new connection,if created,would likely be used by people seeking to avoid traffic on Highway 217. However, the goal of the Circulation Plan is to improve connections to and around the Downtown, not to create another opportunity to cut through it. 2) Potential impacts on Main Street businesses. While this closure would not completely cut off access to Main Street businesses,it would make the connection less direct and potentially have a negative impact on present and future businesses on Main Street. In the memo dated August 27,Johnson Reid stated that while new streets can be encouraged to develop with mixed use, the revitalization of the existing commercial framework of Main Street is likely to be the key to the success of Downtown. For this reason, they recommend that good multi-modal access to Main Street be maintained and enhanced with the new circulation plan. While this proposal could have a secondary benefit of discouraging Hwy 99W cut-through traffic, it is anticipated that the Main Street Green Street improvements will calm traffic and discourage this behavior,while preserving the direct access for patrons of Main Street businesses. 3) The construction of the Greenburg/Myy 99W/Main St. intersection improvements. This project is being funded by a dedicated City gas tax and is nearing design completion. It is scheduled to go out to bid in February 2010. While this near term project does not necessarily preclude a long term design plan to change the intersection configuration, it is another factor weighing against it. My assessment is that including this idea in the draft plan would be received negatively by the public,as the City would be proposing to partially undo a project just as we are about to spend $4.5 million on it. If the CCAC feels strongly about preserving the idea, this option could be further evaluated. However, I feel strongly that it would not be fruitful to pursue such a potentially problematic option. Upcoming meeting SERA has produced a revised Alternative 2 that will be discussed at the September 16, 2009 CCAC meeting. The two alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive and have features that could be mixed and matched. The main decision points are: • New connections through the Rite Aid/Value Village center • New connections through Scoffins/Commercial block • New connections through Fanno Creek area • How to address pedestrian/bike connections It is hoped this meeting will result in enough information for SERA to produce a draft circulation plan for evaluation by the TSP consultant. The CCAC will revisit the evaluated draft plan and consider a formal recommendation to the CCDA.