Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04/14/2010 - Packet
City of Tigard r r . City Center Advisory Commission ❑ Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday,April 14, 2010 — 6:30-8:15 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library- 2nd Floor Conference Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions......................................................................................................6:30— 6:35 2. Review / Approve March Minutes..........................................................................................6:35 — 6:40 3. FY 2010-2011 Draft Downtown Redevelopment Work Program.................................... 6:40— 7:10 Provide feedback on draft staff workplan (Sean Farrelly) 4. CCAC Webpage..........................................................................................................................7:10— 7:25 Action item:Review existing CCAC webpage and make recommendations for new content (Sean Farrelly) 5. Downtown Circulation Plan.....................................................................................................7:20 — 7:50 Discussion of Urban Creek alternatives (Sean Farrelly) 6. Updates .......................................................................................................................................7:50 — 8:10 A. Parks and Recreation Board/Parks Bond status (Commissioner Barkley) B. Facade Improvement Program (Sean Farrelly, Commissioners Wong and Shearer) C. Burnham Development Opportunity Study-preliminary findings (Sean Farrelly) Information only 7. Other Business............................................................................................................................. 8:10— 8:15 8. Adjourn.........................................................................................................................................8:15 p.m. Upcoming meetings of note: 4/13:CCDA Study Session on Fee Subsidy for Temporary Uses,Consent Agenda Downtown Review Permit Fees 5/3: City/CCDA Budget Committee meeting(@PW Auditorium) 5/10:City/CCDA Budget Committee meeting(@PW Auditorium) 5/11: Council presentation Pacific Highway Vision 5/12:CCAC Regular Meeting(@ Tigard Public Library,2nd Floor) 5/17: City/CCDA Budget Committee meeting (@PW Auditorium) 6/8:City/CCDA Budget Adoption CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA—April 14, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 1 oft City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: April 14, 2010 Location: Tigard Public Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room Called to order by: Chair Alexander Craghead Time Started: 6:32 p.m. Time Ended: 8:26 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alexander Craghead; Ralph Hughes; Peter Louw; Vice Chair Thomas :Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong; Linli Pao (alternate); Philip Thornburg (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Kevin Kutcher; Alice Ellis Gaut Others Present: None. Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Senior Administrative Specialist AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions - Because administrative support was different for this evening, the Commissioners went around the table and introduced themselves. Doreen Laughlin was introduced as supporting the CCAC in Jerree Lewis' absence. 0erree is on vacation.) Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None. AGENDA ITEM #2: Approve March 10th Minutes Discussion and/or Comments: An alternate Commissioner said she would like the "Commissioners Present" portion of the minutes to be consistent and, therefore, include 'Tice Chair" in front of Tom Murphy's name. Another Commissioner noted that, for consistency, the word "alternate" should appear behind alternate Pao's name, since it is behind alternate Thornburg's name. [Note from Laughlin: These would be considered style preferences and, therefore, do not alter the actual substance of the minutes being considered. Future minutes will reflect the desired style preference.] Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): There was a motion by Commissioner Louw, seconded by Commissioner Wong, to accept the March 10, 2010 minutes. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0; Commissioners Hughes, Murphy, and Shearer abstained. CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 14,2010 Page 1 of 5 AGENDA ITEM#3: FY 2010-2011 Draft Downtown Redevelopment Work Program Discussion and/or Comments: Redevelopment Manager Sean Farrelly talked a bit about the Burnham project. He then went over the draft "Downtown Redevelopment Work Program" (Exhibit A). He noted that this document will replace the former, somewhat more elaborate, "Implementation Strategy." He said this "work plan" format is meant to be simpler and more flexible. When he comes back to the meeting next month, after getting the CCAC's input, he'll flesh out some of the actual work tasks. He noted the timelines are meant to be somewhat "rolling." There are a few things that are definite— for example, the Developer's Forum in the fall (noted under"1.d'�. That will be an important developer outreach. Sean reported that we will be working alongside Metro's transit oriented development office on this forum. The forums are called "Get Centered." Among other places, they've been done in downtown Vancouver and downtown Milwaukie. Sean will be talking with them next month about fleshing out the plan—the format, etc. He said the developers would most likely be willing to participate in something like this. One Commissioner noted that it dovetails squarely with the CCAC 2010 Goal No. 2.A1 "Outreach to Developers." He said perhaps they can pull a workgroup/subcommittee from the CCAC to support them. Sean said another thing they should have for the forum is some idea of the kind of incentives that would be offered. He will bring a "menu" of different incentives out there and get the CCAC and CCDA's prioritization of what types of incentives would be the most preferable. He said the incentives could change after feedback is received from the developers at the forum, but they would definitely want to have some sort of list for them to react to and give their opinions on at the forum. There was some general discussion about the other items. The question came up as to whether "Select Consultant" on Item 1B was still necessary. Sean said at the last"Facade Improvement Subcommittee" meeting, it had been decided to roll over the contract with LRS since they were performing well. He said to cross that out on the draft. It was noted that Kim's project is on hold. There was a question as to what "HCT' stands for. Sean explained that it means "High Capacity Transit." It was asked whether this was the time to figure out the ratios for the type of housing needed in Downtown. There was some discussion as to how to get developers to attend and who might be interested. After the discussion, Sean said that if the CCAC knew of any local developers who might be interested, to please get the word out to them. The question was raised about possibly using Mixed-use Development Downtown (office with residential on top). Staff answered that that would be ideal—that's what we want to see. There was some discussion as to residential versus office space. It was noted that this topic would be addressed at the next meeting. There was some discussion as to a "quiet zone" and how realistic that is. It was mentioned that "quiet zones" result in barriers and make it difficult to get around. There was a suggestion that someone from Tualatin come to a meeting to discuss the consequences of"quiet zones" and what happens so far as closing streets. It was noted that it doesn't have to happen right away, but a sense of the pros and cons does need to be made known. Chair Craghead said this would appear sometime on a future agenda. CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 14,2010 Page 2 of 5 Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Possibly get someone from Tualatin to come and talk about the pros and cons of a "quiet zone." AGENDA ITEM #4: CCAC Webpage Discussion and/or Comments: The group looked at a print-out of the CCAC webpage as it is now. Sean had also printed out a snapshot of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board webpage and they compared the pros and cons between the two pages. There was a question as to whether documents can be easily found on the page, and some discussion as to the importance of that. Sean asked whether anyone had suggestions as to what they would like to have on the page. Some of the suggestions follow. The page should include: • the goals of the CCAC; • the Commissioners' names (but not their email addresses); • a map; • photos of successful projects; and • possibly, thumbnails of the before and after photos of Burnham Street. There was some discussion about using smaller, low resolution, photos so the loading wouldn't be a problem for most people. Sean said the City has an excellent webmaster and he's confident she will do a good job with the mechanics of the webpage. Someone suggested including a list of things the CCAC accomplished during the urban renewal. Chair Craghead said some of this is already included in the Downtown webpage. The suggestion was made to include a hodink to the Downtown webpage as well as a quick update of recent things done. There was a comment that the webpage is text heavy and should, instead, have icons. Commissioner Pao said she would be happy to be the webpage contact to staff, so long as she wasn't expected to do the actual work. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Sean will touch base with the webmaster and give her the recommendations and suggestions that had been made. AGENDA ITEM #5: Downtown Circulation Plan Discussion and/or Comments: Sean led the discussion using the "Additional Alternatives Analysis Memo" from the consultants SERA Architects & Kittelson and Associates (Exhibit B). There was some discussion as to the urban creek and how it would be maintained. Chair Craghead gave some background about it and explained that there were several different concepts but all conceptual at this point. One Commissioner said he liked the urban creek along Sequoia Parkway. There was some discussion as to the impact on parking, and that the urban creek study should include a parking study. It's important to take into consideration future needs for parking as well. CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 14,2010 Page 3 of 5 There was a question as to what a "chicane" is. Sean said it's basically a traffic calming device — could be an island, an artificial curve meant to slow traffic, or landscaping jutting out. It's meant to calm traffic—slow it down. The Commission discussed the various alternatives. There was a general consensus that alternative 4 was not a good idea. The idea is desirable; however, this is not the right location. There was discussion about water features or waterways needing to be near pedestrians rather than by cars. It was noted that multi-modal circulation should not be impeded. There was a suggestion that people could go to Commissioner Thornburg's website to see some very interesting concepts. One of the issues to consider is if there's an urban creek element, then getting right-of-way dedication from development is a lot easier if it's connected to a multi-modal project. After discussion, the question was raised as to why the "urban creek" concept was so important. One Commissioner stated that he was not invested in the concept and not eager to see Downtown Urban Renewal distorted by trying to subserve that concept. Several Commissioners agreed. There was discussion as to what's really important. An urban creek? Good greenspace? Pedestrian walkways? There was discussion as to what the urban creek concept actually is. Are there alternatives for an urban creek different from these other alternatives? Is it actually a "creek" or could it be a "greenspace?" At this point, the suggestion was made to drop the whole idea. The question was asked "Are we not in favor of any of these options?" Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): After more discussion, Commissioner Shearer moved that we remove the urban creek from the Circulation Plan. Commissioner Barkley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Urban Creek will be separated from the Circulation Plan. This will be revisited next month. AGENDA ITEM #6: Updates (Information Only) Discussion and/or Comments: A. Parks and Recreation Board/Parks Bond status Commissioner Barkley reported that the meeting was about 10 minutes long, as there was no quorum. They went into Executive Session and then the group went home. Nothing to report. B. Facade Improvement Program Sean reported that the Facade Improvement Subcommittee [joint committee] met last Wednesday and made its first award to the only shovel ready project—the Tigard Liquor Store. The award was for$25,000. The owner is proposing to spend upwards of$60,000 (he will be reimbursed the $25,000). Sean said this location is absolutely key to Downtown. CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 14,2010 Page 4 of 5 There was a question as to which group would present the award, the CCAC or the joint committee. The consensus was it's the joint committee's call. Sean spoke about a possible project facade improvement to the "Underwater Works" building. C. Burnham Development Opportunity Study-preliminary findings Sean Farrelly gave a general update, advising that there is an option to either get an "OK" development on the Burnham site, or wait for the market to improve to get a better one. In the meantime, the City can use the building. 'Ccv- z.u b e t- jorL:p*r 4 y Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None -information only. AGENDA ITEM #7: Other Business Discussion and/or Comments: There was some discussion as to encouraging "mom and pop" types of businesses to the area. It was noted there is not significant retail in Downtown. Vice Chair Murphy reported that CPAH closed today on the financing for the Knoll senior project. It will be in excess of$11 million. The project will start construction next month. Demolition will start within a matter of days. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink wanted him to express her appreciation to the CCAC for their support of the project from the beginning—and also specifically Duane Roberts and other staff on expediting what needed to get done in order to meet the closing date. It's going to happen and it's in the Urban Renewal District. There will be a ground breaking ceremony. No specific date yet. AGENDA ITEM #8: Adjournment Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 8:26 pm. een Laughlin, CCAC Secretary i ATTEST: Chair lexander Craghead CCAC Meeting Minutes for April 14,2010 Page 5 of 5 Downtown Redevelopment Work Program-DRAFT FY 10-11 July AugSet Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May lune i Facilitation of Downtown Redevelopment Projects A Development Opportunity Studies Follow up on previous studies Evaluate additional sites for DOS Perform 2-3 opportunity studies Determine whether to transition to a pre-development grant program B Main Street Fa4ade Improvement Program Select Consultant Publicize program and solicit applications Administer program c Downtown Plaza/Public Space Monitor Parks bond activities Evaluate opportunities for additional public space D Developer Outreach Organize a developers forum partner Monitor opportunities for public private partnerships E Development Incentives Develop Incentive Toolbox CCAC Review/CODA Approval F Pacific Hwy Corridor Land Use Participate on management team for HCT Land Use Plan 2 Improvement of Fanno Creek Park/Open Space System A Lower Fanno Creek Park Deferred until FY 11-12 B Rail to Trail(Main to Tiedeman) Coordinate with ODOT Roil 3 Development of Comprehensive Street/Circulation System A Downtown Circulation Plan Public outreach Develop Implementation Policies CCAC Review Planning Commission workshops/public hearings Council briefings/workshops/public hearings B At-grade Crossing at Ash Ave Re-initiate discussions with ODOT Rail Downtown Redevelopment Work Program-DRAFT FY 10-11 July AugSet Oct Nov Oec Jan Feb Mar Apr May lune C Street Improvements Main Street Green Street Participate on Management Team Public/business outreach Citizen advisory committee meetings Design and Engineering Submit MTIP grant application for north Main Street Burnham trees Ash Avenue Monitor Project Greenburg/Main/Pac Hwy Intersection Monitor project Hall/Pac Hwy Intersection Monitor Project Provide input on"interim"gateway area 4 Organizational:City,Agency,Commission,and Downtown Organizations A City Center Development Agency/City Center Advisory Commission Strengthen coordination between CCDA,CCAC, and other Downtown organizations Increase property owner and developer outreach Establish regular CCDA meeting schedule Communications Re-design CCAC webpage Create CCDA webpage Refine Downtown webpage B Events/Marketing Support private/public special events in the Downtown Work with CCAC to determine City role in marketing and branding Downtown C Policy Prioritize UR Projects Prepare S year Evaluation Report of Urban Renewal EXHIBIT B T0:Sean Farrelly.City of Tigard FROM:Matthew Arnold and Allison.Wildman(SERA;.and Beth Wemole;Kittelson' DATE:16 February 2010 RE:Additional Alternatives`or Aspects of the Downtown Tigard C rculation Plan Introduction Following the presentation of the Downtown Tigard Circulation Piar to the Tgard City -ouncil on 19 January 2010,the City of Tigard asked the SERA team to analyze a few addrtional alternatives to some of the concepts presented witn:r the plan.Specifically. the team was instructed to present four new alternatives to the-Urban Green Street 2"conceptual street type that would demonstrate different ways to realize the"urban creek"idea presented in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan(TDIP).The team was also asked to examine intersection;connectivity issues along Main Street-especially a;Commercial/Main,Burnham/Main,ar.d Tigard/Main.This brief memo presents the team's firdings. The 'Urban Creek"/ Urban Green Street 2 The TDIP describes the'urban creek"concept.in part,wrth the following: The concept of developing an"urban creek-seeks to establish a unique feature that reinforces the concept of a'green downtown providinga 'ARE F_v CORRIDOR URBAN CREEK thematic linkage to Fanno Creek,and helping to establish a unique identity IVN for Downtown Tigard.Connecting the two anchors of Fanno Creek and 4 ' the Regional Retail Area...at Hall Boulevard and 99W,the Urban Creek could be a natural appearing creek. •� portions of a creek or a series of water r ' �,• �, Features linked by plazas,or some other combination of water and pub'c -" Z space/amenity.The Urban Creek would . :...•' be integrated with new and existing development,providing an alternative r -front door"to redeveloped properties Z along its length.In addition to the ` Ft creek or water features,this major \ s s public amenity would be accompanied 1 by plazas or open spaces,pedestrian = f walkways,a service road,and landscaping.(p.281 ADDIT OUAL ALTER ,-:.�S :.:._,'__ preparng the Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan,the SERA team,with input from the -roject s Technical Advisory Committee.attempted to balance the community's desire `r-.r ar ;rban creek`ovth the transpor.-atton,-connectwry needs within dowr-.own.The the team out forth-A thin the Crculatrcn Plan was to create an"urban green c•-FPt as an ex*ensicr if Ge•den Place-rGiring east and south from the intersection -.f Garcen Place and Hall Boulevard across Sceffirs to Commercial.This"urban green ,treet-would then pick up again on the other sine of the railroad right-of-way,cross urnham,and then tie in with the planned Festival Street.As an-urban greer street. :r;s facility would accommodate not only a high-quality.mixed-use,pedestrian-oriented streetscape.but also leadrrg edge/innovative stormwater management systems ,potentially including broswales,permeable pavers.celebratory fountains,etc.;. i'er this initial re-examination of the"urban creek"concept.the team has developed 31ternatrve design concepts for the"Urban Green Street 2"sectior.which runs from :coffins tc Commercial.and from the scuthleast side cif the railroad right-of-way to Birnham.All fie of the alternatives presented here assume the same right-cf-way :irdth:60'.!If one of these concepts is chosen for further study,or as the preferred aKernatrve to be included in the final Circulation Plan,the"Urban Green Street 1" section from the plan should be revisited to see what,if any.modifications should be made to t as well.) Urban Green Street 2-Alternative 1 Altemative 1 is the concept that was presented in the Downtown Circulation Plan and most closely resembles a the type of urban green street found in many northwestern cares(including Seattle and Portland).This cross-section includes a shared travel lane, parking on both sides.and flow-through planters/bioswales.The concept also suggests permeable pavers in the �_.....�.-� parking aisles and the potential for rain •---- gardens and/or other water features n •-� he curb extensions. Alternative 1 presents an efficient use of the available right-of-way to balance the needs of pedestrians •� and automobiles,while also providing attractive on-site stormwater management.This section is more expensive to build than a standard urban roadway.but offers the potentia to save money in terms of the operation and maintenance of traditional systems for conveying and treating stormwater.While this illustration suggests several specific design features-such as permeable pavers-the ultimate design should be based on current best practices and the City's ability to maintain whatever is constructed. Urban Green Street 2-Alternative 2 Alternative 2 removes one of the t parking aisles from Altemative 1 and uses the additional space for an 11 ° enhanced"urban creek-/stormwater t ° 0 amenity on ore side of the street.The resulting space is perhaps too narrow ° i -o accommodate an actual creek."bur. could offer the potential for enhanced stormwater management capacity ► ` as well as for additional landscap ng. fourtains.and/or public art.As with Alternative 1,the initial construction cost is likely to be higher than a standard street section.and there may also he subsequent maintenance:ssues. Also,parking on one side of the street only may influence adjacent development types and/or the viability of adjacent uses,especially retail.Related.it would be recommended that driveway access on the"urban creek"side of the roadway be strictly limited or disallowed altogether to preserve and enhance the continuous feel of the water feature. Urban Green Street 2-Alternative 3 As with the previous two alternatives.Alternative 3 employs an 18 bidirectional travel way.However,it does not include any on street parking,thereby albwing for an even wider area for the landscaped"urban creek"feature and additional landscape or streetscape amenities(fountains.plazas.etc.).While the 18'travel way is fairly narrow,the lack of on-street parking lin addition to impacts that lack may have for adjacent uses)and curb extensions removes some of the friction and traffic calming the previous two alternatives enjoyed.If this option is pursued. t may be recommended that speed humps.raised crosswalks.textured i paving,or other measures be emDloved " tc slow traffic. As with the previous alternative,the initial construction costs would be significant with this des+gn,and the a� implications the lack of parking would have on retail and other uses should t a be carefully considered.Similarly. driveway access should be strongly discouraged or disallowed on the "urban creek"side of the street. S—' ''""3 __=c�5:i:'."':--•- Urban Green Street 2-Alternative 4 ,!te-rative 4 presents the full'urban creek-concept,with generous landscaped areas and the greatest potential for"green"stormwater management.plazas, and other public amenities.For adjacent residertial uses.and potentally some ,scstaurant or retail uses.this public greenway could be quite a positive addition. :Yhde this concept would allow for full pedestrian-and possibly bicycle access. t would not allow auto movements,which could have significant ramifications for the development types and uses likely to be realized on the adjacent parcels. Save for the proposed alley running oenind Main and the potential parking lot drive aisles associated with private + development.'here would be no true. public vehicular connectivity between Scoff ins and Commercial save for Main and Ash.Also,if this concept is developed,there would be similar connectivity issues for the blocks k bounded by Main.Burnham.Ash,and �.... �� the railroad right-0f-way.This design would have significant impacts on the overall circulation within Downtown -• �' Tigard.and would also limit the access potential to the adjacent blocks.As with all pedestrian malls.the challenge w-th this space will be with activation and defensible space:without eyes on this greenway area,the real or perceived safety concerns could be significant. IP_bI, Urban Green Street 2-Alternative 5 At the request of the City.the SERA team sketched three quick versions of a'chicane' approach,as an attempt to create a unique street type in Downtown T,gard that could balance traffic calming.stormwater management.and the-urban creek" concept. The first chicane concept(Alternative 5A)shows a two lane(-10'travel lanes)roadway with a tight chicane at the middle of each block.The sidewalks are a minimum of 10' wide.but could be wider depending �'v� on the width of the landscaping; stormwater; 'urban creek' area.There is no on-street park:r.g,and the ab:4R to accommodate dnveways in some areas would be limited. The travel way in Alternative 5B runs r diagonally across the nght-of-way from Commercial to the"New Street-that -uns parallel between Commercial and Scoffins.From there,itjogs in the opposite direction towards Scoff ins. The angle for the stretch between the ti Nev.,Street and Scoffins is somewhat fF� less.as the chicaned road needs to align with the Garden Place Connection .� north of Scoffins.This version includes two-10'travel lanes and no on- /^ street parking and.without the strong chicane of Alternative 5A.may have / some of the same traffic calming concerns as Alternative 3. \\ V Alternative 5C has the most"gentle" chicane of the three because it also accommodates a degree of on-street parking along one side.The provision of parking also means that the landscaped/"urban creek"areas are somewhat narrower(similar to XN Alternative 2);the sidewalks are a minimum of 10'wide throughout. y�ly S The chicane concept is difficuft generally within a 60'right-of-way, especially if there is a desire to provide M- , on-street parking.The need to align ^ the northern end with the balanced \ cross-section of the Garden Place \ Connection at Scoffins adds an additional constraint.As 5A and 5B demonstrate.the chicane concept almost demands a spitting of the "urban creek.'forcing the feature to jog from one side of the street to the other. Intersections with Main Street Tnore are ur!entlti se.eral ccnnccti,6ay and traffic issues that occur along Main Street n;:o:ntov,n_For example.the irtersection of Commercial Street wi th Main is offset saua'ion which s further corrpGcated by the proximity of this intersection with the rail ine:rat r ms oarallel.o Commercia'.Tigard Street is also in close proximity to the rad line.and does not continue south across Main Street:it is off-set from the commuter rail parking lot iwhicn is proposed as an alley in the Circulation Plan). 3urmham Street is off set from ooth E:ectnc Street and the unnamed right-of-way to the southwest.Collectively.these off set nterSeCtiors and the presence of the rail fire create traffic issues and inefficiencies along this central portion of Main Street. In their 2006 memo.-Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan:Traffic Analysis for Street Function'mprovements.-DKS Associates proposed realigning both Commercial and Tigard Streets to address these issues.The realignment of Commercial ,also mentioned in the TDIP`would occur on the property between OR 99 and Main to the east of the rail line.Under the DKS recommendations.Tigard Street would be reconfigured into an S-curve to align with Burnham Street.The SERA team began by evaluating the DKS recommendations and then developed three additional alternatives for addressing the connectivity/intersection issues along Main Street. DKS'proposed realignment of Commerc:al Street seems to be a fairly straightforward move;it would allow for direct movements on Commercial across Main.make turning movements at the intersection more efficient and would simplify the interaction with the rail line by moving the north/ west leg of Commercial further away BG�c 99W from the tracks.This realignment will �o impact existing property however, and.depending on final design.may c 'eave an undevelopable'sliver"parcel o�FDCA �oiF�G O bounded by OR 99.the railroad right © of-way.Main Street.and the realigned �o Commercial Street. rga.d �.c Transit �% Z. Cenror ' DKS'proposed realignment of Tigard Street seems more problematic,as it , Proposed-'T �p• r! introduces an S-curve configuration ? Parking Lo o crure with two-90-degree turns)onto AFPROX.1000 0 a fairly tight block.While this © arrangement would allow for a direct connection to Burnham.the S-curve -�'-- 2ss, is introduced presumably because 0 of the desire to utilize the existing Tigard Street underpass for OR 99.In addition to the tight turns.the S-curve is awkward oecause it pushes through traffic around the back of a developable block.In other words.the middle leg of the"S"will run between the OR 99 earthworks and the parking,/loading/service area of a development that will face Main Street Depending on the final design and alignment.this configuration may also make access to parking and loading d fficutt for adjacent parcels. For the three additional%lain Street connectivity atternatives,the SERA-eam utilized the DKS'recommended realignment of Commercial Street and then examined different concepts for those areas south and west of the rail fine. Alsc included in the three alternatives;s the suggestion of an alley system that would run approximately parallel to Main Street in order to provide access to rear parking or loading and thereby moving those functions to the back sides of new developments.The east and west extents of this new alley system would depend ,n part on the depth of adjacent parcels.the extent of the OR 99 earthworks,and the disposition(,-f ODOT,which owns the OR 99 right-of-way on which some or all of these alley segments might run.Lastly it should be noted that elements from these various alternatives could be combined into a single.preferred alternative. Main Street Intersections-Alternative 2 Note:-Alternative 1"is the Connectivity Plan currently featured in the Circulation Plan ands not discussed here.) Alternative 2 proposes shifting the Tigard Street alignment north and east such that it abuts the railroad right-of-way and ties in to Main Street d,rec ly across from the commuter rail lot/proposed alley. This reconfiguration would provide , a.presumably iow-volume through- movement between Tigard Street and the alley.However.R also would move the Tigard/Main intersection / closer to the railroad crossing,which •,, ..,' - could cause additional traffic issues \ "� when trains are present.While this new alignment would impact ;\ i' �\ 1>4 existing property,it could facilitate redevelopment in the future.The narrow lot that is currently between Tigard and the rad line is marginalized by both its size and the presence of �� \ the railway.Under this alternative,this U/ developable area would be shifted to the southwest,where it would be combined with the block that runs from Tigard Street to Electric Street. ,, �.._. . Main Street Intersections-Alternative 3 3 assum_s-r. —":K f"-ty )f—!',ng anew opening, urdemass oeneath OR 99 that would allow for a straighter -,.rr-ct:cn be%,,eon T ga-a j"0 3t rrr.ar--Streets.While this alignment would both move the Tigard/Main intersection away from the rad line and allow direct / mcvement from Burnham to Tigard Street,it would impact properties on \ •,�� / both sides of OR 99.,,The degree of � mpact would depend on the final alignment and right-of-way width. 3y vacating both the current T gard right-of-way as well as that for Electric Street.this alternative would allow for a larger developable block(bounded by the new Tigard Street,OR 99.Main. and the rail lines at the heart of the ` Main Street sub-district Main Street Intersections- ' Alternative 4 alterrative 4 proposes leaving Tigard Street in its current location.but s .\. �' '•, ,� vacating both Electric Street and the unnamed right-of-way to the south and west of it.As with the previous �.� alternatives.additional access to the intervening parcels would be '�. provided by a new alley that would run southwest from Tigard Street. This alternative would eliminate the � off-set intersections with Burnham. •. �+, / aF � Electric.and the unnamed right-0f- way with Main Street.and therefore 4 eliminate some of the confusion and inefficiencies caused by the current arrangement It would also provide a continuous development block on the J ' ` north side of Main running southwest from Tigard Street.However.it would ' do little to improve connectivity Cbetween Burnham and Tigard Streets ' or the issue of Tigard's proximity to the ti rail line. \ S� - /} `s �� / .� �� i / � i' � i � /� /i \ �i / ,/ �r ' � �Jt. F,C., /// \\ / City of Tigard Memorandum To: Alexander Craghead, Chair City Center Advisory Commission From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager Re: April Agenda Items Date: April 7, 2010 This memo contains a brief explanation of three agenda items and associated documents. Agenda Item 3: FY 2010-11 Draft Downtown Redevelopment Work Program Attached is the draft work plan for Downtown Redevelopment staff for FY 2010-11. The plan was guided by Council goals, CCAC Goals, TDIP, Urban Renewal Plan, Downtown Development Strategy, and staff input. The CCAC is asked for feedback prior to formal recommendation next month and submittal to CCDA. As an adjunct to the work plan a matrix showing the current status of the recommendations made by the Downtown Development Strategy ("Leland Report") is included. While the Leland report is not the only document that guides the work plan, it provides context. Agenda Item 4: CCAC Webpage Attached are printed pages of the current CCAC webpage on the City website. I believe that the current page could be improved and provide additional resources for the Commission and for the public. A potential model is the webpage for the Parks and Recreation Board. At the April meeting, Commissioners will be asked to decide what additional information they would like on the webpage. Agenda Item 5: Downtown Circulation Plan The April 7, 2010 CCAC meeting brought forth several issues that will be revisited at future meetings. To keep the decision process moving, the issue of how the Urban Creek should be treated in the proposed Circulation Plan will be discussed. At the January workshop on the Plan, Council suggested that alternatives be developed on how to incorporate the Urban Creek, a Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan concept, into the Circulation Plan. Please review the Urban Creek section of the memo from SERA Architects dated February 16, 2010. At the meeting the CCAC will be asked to give staff direction on which alternative or variation, to include in the proposed Plan. Some determination of the feasibility and potential cost will need to made at a future date. Downtown Development Strategy ("Leland Report") Recommendations and Current Status updated 4/7/10 by Sean Farrelly C= Complete, IP=ln Progress, N= Not yet pursued Organizational Status Status explanation Recommendations 1. Establish a strong Downtown IP In progress. CCAC is currently evaluating. organization. 2. Strengthen coordination between the IP In progress. CCAC has good working relationship CCDA and other Downtown organizations. with CCDA. Staff meets regularly with Tigard Central Business District Association. 3. Increase property owner and developer IP In progress. Staff and CCAC members completed outreach. outreach with Main Street business owners as part of green street project. Staff have made numerous contacts with property/business owners on such issues as parking and potential Development Opportunity Studies. Staff and Metro staff will organize a developer's roundtable in FY 10-11. 4. Develop a branding campaign for N Not yet pursued. CCAC will explore the City's role. Downtown Tigard. 5. Appoint a Downtown liaison within the C Redevelopment Project Manger serves as City's Current Planning Division to serve ombudsman for Downtown development as a "go-to" person for private sector applications. developers, and property and business owners. 6. Create a "success audit"for Downtown IP In progress. An informal one has been used for Tigard. staff purposes, but not as the public/promotional document recommended. Can be combined with a Year 5 evaluation of Urban Renewal. Policy Recommendations 1. Follow through with projects that are IP In progress. Burnham, Main Street, Hall/99W planned or currently underway. intersection projects, are scheduled to go to construction between fall of 2009 and summer of 2011. Rail-to-trail corridor is progressing. 2. Revisit, prioritize and amend specific N Not yet pursued in a formal review, although elements of planned and proposed projects have been prioritized. projects identified in the TDIP and the City Center Urban Renewal Plan to ensure that public dollars are maximally leveraged and affect the greatest impact. 3. Implement Downtown Tigard Urban C Completed. Development Code Amendments Renewal District Comprehensive Plan adopted Feb. 2010 policies and action measures. 4. Amend existing zoning standards to C Completed. Development Code Amendments promote land use and development that is adopted Feb. 2010 consistent with the TDIP vision. 5. Establish design standards for C Completed. Development Code Amendments Downtown Ti ard. adopted Feb. 2010 6. Institute expedited permitting process. C Completed. Applications within the urban renewal district receive priority Housing Recommendations 1. Assemble land for housing Downtown. IP In progress: City has purchased property on Burnham that could be developed as housing. 2. Conduct design and feasibility studies N Not yet pursued, due to Urban Plaza is on hold for housing and mixed-use development pending financial issues. on parcels adjacent to the Urban Plaza. 3. Create a Development Opportunities IP In progress. One DOS has been completed for the Study(DOS) Program to encourage Tigard Transit site and two others are in progress property owners to explore in FY 09-10. redevelopment. 4. Offer density bonuses to encourage C Completed. Development Code Amendments housing development Downtown. adopted Feb. 2010. Development code update allows increased density in vicinity of Commuter Rail/Tigard Transit station. 5. Relocate Tigard's Public Works yards IP In progress. This is a long term project, but initial to make the site available for housing discussions are ongoing. development. 6. Redevelop the Tigard Public Works N Not yet pursued. The final disposition of the Building property at the intersection of Hall property has not been determined. Boulevard and Burnham Street. Retail Recommendations 1. Form a relationship with a commercial N Not yet pursued. broker to work with property owners and retailers to attract desired retail development Downtown. 2. Create a Main Street commercial N Not yet pursued, in lieu of the Main Street fagade redevelopment loan or grant program to improvement program. encourage development along Main Street that is consistent with the TDIP vision. 3. Create a Main Street storefront C Completed. Pilot program established. 4 properties improvement program. have received design assistance 4. Create a retail-focused DOS program N Not yet pursued. The DOS program has not for Main Street and the section of focused on retail, but potential mixed use and Burnham between Ash Avenue and Main housing development. Street. 5. Facilitate redevelopment of the two N Not yet pursued. DOS on one or both properties shopping centers at the intersection of could be performed in FY10-11. Hall Boulevard and 99W. Access, Transportation and Parking Recommendations 1. Implement long-term plans to increase IP In progress. Downtown circulation plan is being connectivity to and within the Downtown. reviewed by the CCAC 2. Establish a shared parking program. IP In progress. The City is studying parking needs in the Main Street area, in collaboration with property owners. 3. In collaboration with the Downtown IP In progress. The City is studying parking needs in organization, pursue a very modest the Main Street area, in collaboration with property parking strategy. owners (a Downtown organization has not been established). ■ February 2009 Community Events Coordinator DEFINITION Plans, organizes, coordinates,promotes and facilitates city sponsored special events including Family Fest,the Fanno Creek Conference,Neighborhood Network Open House and other events with City staff, citizen groups,volunteers,business owners and other public agencies;prepares written materials to promote and implement events,programs and activities; serves as the editor of the City's newsletter; performs other duties as required within the scope of the classification. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general supervision from the Assistant City Manager. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS This is the full experienced-level professional class that has responsibility for development, coordination and implementation of special events in the city including logistics,promotion,marketing, sponsorship development,media relations, etc. EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS(Illustrative Only) Management reserves the right to add, modify, change or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job. ➢ Plans,organizes, coordinates,promotes and serves as the city's primary liaison with other staff, citizen groups, event promoters, corporate partners,business owners,the media and other agencies for city sponsored events including the Family Fest,Fanno Creek Conference, annual "So You Want To Be A City Councilor", and other events. ➢ Prepares and distributes written materials including press releases for events and assigned programs and activities; coordinates with Office Services in the design and distribution of flyers/brochures to promote programs/events. ➢ Serves as editor of the City's official monthly Cityscape newsletter. ➢ Schedules and maintains communication with speakers,vendors, and participants; coordinates and monitors event timelines;negotiates event related contracts for services including services, materials and support needed from other agencies and city departments. ➢ Reviews and analyzes event evaluations; maintains financial records including event costs and budgets; attends meetings and represents the city with groups, etc. ➢ Serves as the coordinator of the annual Neighborhood Network Open House. ➢ Facilities the implementation of Neighborhood Network events including collecting, reviewing and presenting applications to the Committee for Community Involvement. ➢ Develops written content for Neighborhood Network web pages and events/programs. ➢ Prepares and distributes program/event forms and applications. ➢ Researches and submits budget information for assigned programs/events. ➢ Conducts outreach for event volunteers and Neighborhood Network programs. ➢ Monitors City and Neighborhood Network web pages for event and volunteer opportunity content. Community Events Coordinator Page 2 of 3 QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: ➢ Practices,procedures and techniques of the development,implementation, scheduling,promotion and coordination of event planning,public relations and marketing principles and practices. ➢ Public relations and communication techniques including the development and delivery of public presentations. Modern office practices,methods and computer equipment. ➢ Computer applications related to the work. ➢ Fundamentals of writing and composition as it relates to publications and internet applications. ➢ English usage, grammar, spelling,vocabulary and punctuation. ➢ Techniques for effectively representing the City in contacts with community groups. ➢ Techniques for providing a high level of customer service in person and over the phone. Ability to: ➢ Plan, develop, organize and coordinate a variety of programs and events/activities. ➢ Assist in developing and administering program budgets. ➢ Effectively conduct meetings and make presentations to various groups. ➢ Prepare clear and effective written materials; ability to write in a creative, descriptive,technical or factual manner. ➢ Establish, maintain and foster positive and harmonious working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. ➢ Plan, organize and carry out assignments with minimal direction. ➢ Organize and prioritize a variety of projects and multiple tasks in an effective and timely manner; organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical deadlines. ➢ Adapt to quickly changing plans,priorities and circumstances. Education and Experience: Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be: Two years of experience in the development and coordination of community, special or cultural events. Graduation from an accredited, four-year college with a specialization in event planning,public relations or marketing may be used in combination with experience to meet the minimum qualifications. Licenses and Certifications: Possession of a valid driver's license with a satisfactory driving record. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment,including a computer;to operate a motor vehicle and to visit various city and meeting sites;vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person and over the telephone. Work may involve exposure to the elements in an outdoor environment for events. Standing in work areas and walking between work areas or to facilities outside of the work area may be required. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter and retrieve data using a computer keyboard, typewriter Community Events Coordinator Page 3 of 3 keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop,kneel,reach,push and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry,push, and pull materials, supplies, and objects weighing up to 25 pounds. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Employees work primarily in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employee may interact in difficult interpersonal situations with both staff,public and/or private representatives in implementing program activities. Adopted 07/01/09 CCAC 2010 Goals I. Project Infrastructure a. Monitor, review, and provide input on the following key projects: i. Main Street/Green Street Phase 1 ii. Main Street/Green Street Phase 2 (north end) iii. Plaza site iv. Burnham Street completion v. 99W Pacific Hwy./Greenburg/Hall vi. Lower Fanno Creek vii. Transit Center redevelopment II. Development a. Explore incentives that may stimulate private development with a focus on residential including: i. Outreach to developers ii. Financial incentives iii. Land assembly and direct development options b. Advise CCDA on our exploratory findings of incentive c. Improve our knowledge of the "built" environment including demographics and geography of Downtown III. FagadeStore n Improvement Program a. Implementation of Phase 1 (approved businesses) b. Continue to promote, expand, and refine program IV. Circulation Plan a. Review for final adoption b. Engage in regular communication with Transportation Committee to ensure transportation plan meets needs and values of the community V. Branding/Marketing of Downtown Determine role of CCAC in branding and marketing of Downtown, including: a. Encourage the development of a Brand ID for Downtown Tigard b. Determine our role regarding marketing, advertising, and promotion of Downtown c. Liaise with COT Event Coordinator to develop appropriate event strategy VI. Communication a. Determine effective way to liaise with other COT boards and commissions b. Engage in on-going communication with Council and staff i. Regular attendance at Council meetings ii. Periodic attendance at Friday morning meetings on Burnham project iii. Representation from CCAC at CCDA meetings iv. Periodically invite Councilor Webb to our meetings c. Engage in on-going communication with hired consultants d. Engage in on-going communication with neighborhoods e. Develop talking points for CCAC in Urban Renewal District VII. Long-term Goals a. Continually improve CCAC processes and procedures including, but not limited to: i. Annual calendar development ii. Continue to evolve meeting efficiency and agendas b. Increase et awareness of the impact our work has on the community i. On-going outreach to businesses and local community ii. Continually work to increase transparency with citizens iii. Continually work to improve communication with Council and staff c. Perform other duties as assigned by CCDA •, Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions ' and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD Cite Center Advisory Commission Name of Board, Commission or Committee April 14, 2010 Date of Fleeting I have verified that to the best of my knowledge, these documents are a complete copy of the official record. I was not the original administrator for this meeting. QUI, . �a 6GLy- Print Name Signature �1a4 l► ot— Date