04/11/2012 - Packet _ it Completeness
Review for Boards,
Commissions and
Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
City Center Advisory Committee (CCAC)
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
04/11 /2012
Date of Meeting
1 have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record.
C.L. Wiley for Shelley LeBarre (temporary recording secretary for the Apr 2012 meeting)
Print Name
ck
Signature
08/07/2012
Date
= City of Tigard
City Center Advisory Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, April 11 , 2012 — 6:30 — 8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library- 2nd Floor Conference Room
13500 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, OR 97223
Please note: Board and Commission ethics training will be held from 5.•00-6.•00 p.m. in the Library
Community Room.
1 . Welcome and Introductions .... . ... ................. ....... .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . ...... ........ .. . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6:30 — 6:35
2. Review / Approve March Minutes . ...................... .......... . ....... .. . . ......... . .. ..... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6:35 — 6:40
3. Non-Agenda Items/ Public Comment .. .. .. . ....... . .. ... . . . .. . . . ........ . . .......... . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6:40 — 6:45
4. Liaison/subcommittee reports .... ....... . .. .. . . . . . . .. .............. . ........ . . . . . .. ....... .. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6:45 — 7 :00
CCDA, Art Subcommittee, FaFade Improvement Joint Cmtee.,PRAB-CCAC Joint Cmtee.
5. Input on Downtown Work Plan . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . .. ... .... .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:00 — 7:20
Action item: Provide input and consider recommendation
(Sean Farrelly)
6. Targeted Retail and Restaurant Incentive Program ........... .. . . . . .. . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . 7:20 — 7:40
Discuss criteria for selecting projects
(Sean Farrelly)
7. Update on Downtown Connectivity Plan . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .......... .. . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 :40 — 8:00
Review nese draft map and implementation summary
(Sean Farrelly)
8. Burnham Parking Lot ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ............ ...... . . . . . . . . ... ... .. . ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8:00 — 8:20
Action item: Review and recommend alternative
(Sean Farrelly)
9. CCAC Executive Session* . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ................ . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8:20 — 8:30
Property purchase discussion
10. Adjourn ... . . . . . . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . ... . . ...... . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . .... .. .. . . . .. .... ..... . . ...... 8: 30 p.m.
*EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Center Advisory Commission will go into Executive Session to discuss real property
transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from
the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA - April 11, 2012
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft
must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
Upcoming meetings of note:
April 9, PRAB/CCAC Joint Committee, Public Works Auditorium, 5:30-6:30 PM
April 12, Downtown Events Networking, Sherrie's Jewelry Box, 6:00-7:00 PM
April 20, Tigard Night Out, Main Street
April 23, Budget Committee Meeting, Public Works Auditorium, 6:30 PM
April 30, Budget Committee Meeting, Public Works Auditorium, 6:30 PM
May 1, CCDA Regular Meeting, Red Rock Creek Conference Room, 6:30 PM
May 7, Budget Committee Meeting, Public Works Auditorium, 6:30 PM
May 9, CCAC Regular Meeting, Library 2nd Floor Conference Room, 6:30- 8:30 PM
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA - April 119 2012
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of2
e
City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Location: 2nd Floor Conference Room, Tigard Library
Called to order by: Chair, Alexander Craghead
Time Started: 6:30 p.m.
Time Ended: 8:35 p.m.
Commissioners Present:
Deanie Bush, Alexander Craghead (Chair) , Sherrie Devaney, Ralph Hughes, Jeff Mauro, Thomas
Murphy, Elise Shearer, Philip Thornburg (Vice-Chair), Peter Louw
Commissioners Absent:
Linli Pao
Others Present: City Councilor Marland Henderson, Richard Shavey (Planning
Commission) .
Staff Present: Sean Farrelly (Redevelopment Project Manager) ; Shelley LaBarre (Sr.
Administrative Specialist).
AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions
Introductions were made.
AGENDA ITEM #2: Review / Approve February Minutes
After a name correction was noted on page one, a motion was made by Commissioner
Thomas Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Elise Shearer, to approve the minutes of the
Wednesday, March 14, 2012 meeting. All were in favor, with one abstention from
Commissioner Louw. The motion passed.
AGENDA ITEM #3: Non-Agenda Items/ Public Comment
The Planning Commission delivered their Annual Report to the City Council on March
25`h, 2012. Richard Shavey expressed his advocacy for Planning Commission to be involved
CCAC Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Page 1 of 6
in actively supporting economic development in Downtown. He proposed beginning joint
work sessions (Planning Commission and CCAC) to develop an economic development
strategic management plan for downtown economic development. CCAC members
suggested sending a packet to the Planning Commission (including the CCAC 2012 Goals) to
provide context for the on-going work of the CCAC. CCAC members expressed interest in
working with the Planning Commission. Discussion will continue.
Staff announced International Association of Shopping Centers session on Retrofitting
Suburbia. It is an annual event, held this year on Thursday April 19`h, 2012, 7:30 a.m. to
11 :30 a.m. . Last year, several CCAC commissioners attended. Michael Freedman is the
speaker this year, addressing integrating sustainability, mobility and prosperity.
AGENDA ITEM #4: Liaison/subcommittee reports
CCDA, Art Subcommittee, Facade Improvement Joint Cmtee., PRAB-CCACJoint Cmtee,
Art Subcommittee - Commissioner Shearer:
Staff reported on the March 21 Art Subcommittee meeting. Consensus was reached for art
installations, confirming: gateway locations, larger scale art, importance of visibility for
passing cars, but also a need to be attractive to pedestrian traffic. A link to the natural
environment (natural materials) is also desirable, as well as accessible and interactive art. The
next step is a call for artists. The resulting list will be sent to CCAC for review and
comments. The Art Subcommittee also discussed how and when to involve the greater public
in the art/artist selection process. Councilman Henderson noted a previous selection process
that required three artists to submit a project design, which was then used as a center piece
for a public review/selection process.
Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTA Q - Commissioner Shearer.,
Commissioner Shearer attended the TTAC meeting. She referred to the handout, City
Operating Project Flowchart, noting it was a very useful reference document for understanding
and tracking the city's Capital Improvement Program budget process.
Commissioner Shearer reported that TTAC would like the CCAC to begin nominating
MSTIP projects. CIP input is needed by September. Citizen involvement and support for
Tigard projects is very important in determining which projects receive funding through
Washington County. Tigard is underrepresented in Washington County projects (relative to
taxes paid - a donor city by over a million dollars) . To learn more about these projects, visit:
http://www.co.washington. or.us/LUT/TransportationFunding/what-is-mstip.cfm.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Page 2 of 6
Facade Improvement Joint Subcommittee - Sean Farrelly:
The subcommittee met with CCDA last week and awarded two new fagade improvement
grants: Sherrie's Jewelry Box (receiving approximately $ 12,000) and Tigard Cleaners
(receiving approximately $20,000) . Live Love Glass is expected to receive approval for a grant
in May. All three projects will provide visible examples of the success of the Facade
Improvement Program and perhaps inspire other businesses to move forward. Commissioner
Shearer noted the subcommittee will discuss making hardscape improvements eligible for
grant funding as PDC does.
CCDA Meeting April 3- Recap
1 . Tigard Finance Division discussed the state of the general budget. The General Fund is
under significant pressure. CCDA has been borrowing from the General Fund and
paying the loan back with TIF funds. CCDA needs a long-term loan strategy. Private
loans or bonds will be necessary for actions such as larger property purchases.
2. Facade Improvement Program - Staff presented a general update on the program.
Tigard is funding about the same percentage of grant related design
assistance/improvement projects as the PDC.
3. Targeted Retail and Restaurant Incentive Program - Will be discussed under Agenda
Item # 6.
AGENDA ITEM #5: Input on Downtown Work Plan
Action item: Provide input and consider recommendation
(Sean Farrelly)
Downtown Development Work Program
Staff reviewed the Downtown Development Work Program plan for the next fiscal year.
The plan is informed by City Council and CCAC goals, the Leland Five-Year Report, Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) and City Center Urban Renewal Plan. Staff seeking
feedback from CCAC based on the budget document. Sean will take the work plan to the
CCDA on May 1", 2012.
Tigard 3-yr Downtown Action Plan
CCAC discussed the timing of projects. Commissioner Murphy proposed continuing to use
Downtown Action Plan document as a tool to track project processes and CCAC strategic
planning accomplishments.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, April 11 , 2012 Page 3 of 6
AGENDA ITEM #6: Targeted Retail and Restaurant Incentive Program
Discuss criteria for selecting projects
(Sean Farrelly)
The CCDA discussed the proposed TRRIP and expressed a general consensus: preference for
one large project for first two years and a transition to smaller projects. The vision for the
program encompasses targeting successfully established businesses that are looking to expand.
CCAC discussed potential criteria for selection process. The commission acknowledged the
original concept of the TRRIP program was aimed at filling building vacancies. CCAC
supports CCDA proposed funding levels (50% match) and approach (begin program
weighted toward large scale projects) . CCAC would like to review and evaluate success of the
TRRIP program, perhaps after 2 years, providing an opportunity to make necessary
adjustments.
CCAC also suggested developing a set of values-based selection criteria, which would:
• Facilitate alignment between values and goals for Downtown
• Inform targeted selection and ensure awarding funds to candidates that are most likely
to help Downtown develop sustainable and desirable economic development.
The discussion centered around four categories of criteria:
1) Commitment of applicant
2) Potential economic impacts to Downtown
3) Reflection of community values
4) Economic qualities of the businesses
CCAC noted there is a need to identify underlying assumptions about what is desirable for
promoting Downtown economic development and revitalization.
Counselor Henderson suggested CCAC may wish update the Agenda Item #7 CCDA Board
Memorandum (see packet) based on what the CCAC discovered during the brainstorming
session.
AGENDA ITEM #7: Update on Downtown Connectivity Plan
Review new draft map and implementation summary
(Sean Farrelly)
Staff reviewed results of several public meetings, held to inform and gather feedback from
CCAC Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Page 4 of 6
property owners who would be impacted by the Connectivity Plan. CCAC discussed the
changes, impacts and general components of the plan. The commission also reviewed the
Connectivity Map, which is still under revision. Staff will provide updates after next month's
meeting with the consultant.
AGENDA ITEM #8: Burnham Parking Lot
Action item: Review and recommend alternative
(Sean Farrelly)
The commission held a general discussion regarding whether Downtown Burnham parking
lot should be solely focused on maximizing parking or if the design should include some
amenities (such as an urban creek or water feature design) . 24 slots are in the parking-only
design. A modified design would sacrifice some parking slots (several design options being
discussed) . Some discussion related to whether the project can be phased-in: beginning with
parking-only and later transitioning into an amenities-included design. The CCAC expressed
interest in a phased approach so that it is possible to plan continuity with adjacent property
designs. Staff will bring CCAC thoughts to CCDA next month.
AGENDA ITEM #9: CCAC Executive Session*
Property purchase discussion
No minutes for this item.
Additional items:
• Staff asking for CCAC volunteers to attend the CCDA budget discussion.
• Planning staff will not be available at the CCAC in June. The status of June meeting is
TBD.
• Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) — Commissioner Hughes emphasized the
importance of emergency preparedness. For emergency preparedness information
please go to http://www.ready.gov/ .
AGENDA ITEM # 10: Adjourn
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeff Mauro and seconded by Commissioner Elise
Shearer, to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor, the motion passed.
*EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Center Advisory Commission will go into Executive Session to discuss real
property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may
CCAC Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Page 5 of 6
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as
provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the
purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
Shelley LaB rr , Acting CCAC Secretary
ATTEST:
Ch A exa Craghead�
CCAC Meeting Minutes for Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Page 6 of 6
Tigard City Center Development Agency
%he City q Tigard s turban Reneival.4genry
CCDA M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chair Dirksen and the Directors of the City Center Development Agency Board
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
RE: CCDA Agenda Item 7: Revised Targeted Restaurant and Retail Incentive Program
DATE: March 28, 2012
At the March 6, 2012, meeting of the City Center Development Agency (CCDA), staff presented a proposal
for a Targeted Restaurant and Retail Incentive Program (TRRIP.) The program would offer matching
grants to prospective retail and restaurant tenants to help offset the cost of interior tenant improvements.
The objectives of this proposed public-private partnership are to fill vacancies and attract businesses that
will lend vitality to the district. This proposal advances one of City Council's 2012 Goals to "Begin
cooperative efforts to secure tenants that will contribute to the vitality of downtown. "
Staff proposed that the program be organized similarly to the existing Facade Improvement Program: open
to any business that met the criteria of restaurant/active retail and providing a 50% matching grant up to
$25,000 for tenant improvements (up to $40,000 for restaurants due to the more expensive required
improvements) . In the early stages of the program, only properties on Main Street would be eligible, in
order to concentrate resources in this area of opportunity.
During the meeting, Director Wilson suggested consideration of a more targeted option that operates
similarly to a request for proposal (RFP.) A higher level of funding would be made available to attract one
successful, substantial business (rather than several smaller grants). Based on this feedback and input from
three commercial brokers, and the owner of a local cafe chain that is considering expansion, staff developed
a revised TRRIP proposal with the following elements:
1. Eligible Improvements
Suggested eligible improvements to be funded by the program include:
• Hazardous materials abatement, such as asbestos removal;
• Demolition and shell reconstruction;
• Plumbing, mechanical and electrical improvements;
• Fire/life safety improvements including seismic upgrades and fire suppression systems;
• Interior finishes including flooring, painting and built-in casework; and
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.
Only "permanent" types of improvements, which would stay in place even if the tenant changes, would be
eligible. Although the responses to the RFP would come from prospective tenants, the grant would be
awarded to the property owner.
2. Funding
The funding would be offered as a 50% match, up to a defined amount. The available maximum matching
grant funding could be offered as a flat amount per property or be pro-rated by the square foot ($10 per
square foot for retail and $15 per square foot for restaurant up to a set maximum.) The FY2012-13 CCDA
Budget request includes $75,000 for this program. As an illustration, this amount could provide a
$ 15/square foot match for a 5,000 square foot restaurant space.
The funding would be publicized as having "up to X dollars" available to allow the agency discretion in
reviewing proposed projects.
3. The "Request for Proposals"
The CCDA (or its designee) would decide annually on the type of business to focus on. Because of their
potential to be a destination business, food-related ventures such as restaurants, cafes and bakeries would be
a strategic business type to focus on in the first year. Subsequent years could focus on other active retail
uses. The request for proposals would include detailed evaluation criteria; however, the agency would also
be able to exercise some discretion.
The availability of funds would be advertised and communicated with the commercial brokerage community
and Downtown property owners. Owners of successful established businesses looking to expand would also
be proactively invited to submit proposals. A three month open period would allow sufficient time for
proposals to be made.
4. Evaluation of Proposals
The proposals would be initially reviewed by staff and brought to a decision-making body (either the Board
of the CCDA or the Facade Improvement Program Joint Committee with an expanded role.) The proposals
would be evaluated using a mix of objective and discretionary criteria. Such criteria would include
soundness of business plan, record of success, access to capital, explanation of financial need and the ability
of the project to attract new customers to Main Street. Preference could be given to established businesses
looking to expand to a new location.
Request for Direction:
Staff requests CCDA direction on two issues:
1 . Does the CCDA prefer the program to function as an "RFP," as presented above, or to function similar
to the Facade Improvement Program.
2. Should the decision-making body that would approve grant applications be the Board of the CCDA, or
should the role of the Facade Improvement Program Joint Committee be expanded to assume this
function?
Staff will work with stakeholders to finalize program details for final CCDA approval.
2
DRAFT ASehdu lf�►. r S-
Downtown Redevelooment Work Program FY 2012-13 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
1 Facilitation of Downtown Redevelopment Projects
A Property Purchase
Continue contact with owners of properties of interest
Work with the Finance Dept. on private financing of purchose(s)
B Developer Outreach
Continue outreach to developers
Communicate opportunities for public private partnerships
Develop a demographic profile of Tigard to use in marketing the Downtown to developers
C Public Works Yard
Coordinate relocation plans with Public Works
Begin RFP process for vacated property
D Downtown Plaza/Public Space
Complete property purchase
Business Relocation
Complete RFP for Plaza Design services
Consultant selection and contracting
Plaza/open space design process
Authorize construction drawings
Develop funding strategy
D Main Street Fa4ade improvement Program
Publicize program and solicit applications
Administer program
E Targeted Incentive Program
Finalize program guidelines
Identify targeted business type
Issue request for proposals
Publicize among brokers and target businesses
Review proposals for grant decision
Implement grant
F Development Opportunity Studies
Follow up on previous studies
Evaluate additional sites for DOS
i
DRAFT
Downtown Redevelopment Work Program FY 2012-13 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
G Parking Lots
Monitor completion of Burnham St. parking lot
Coordinate with adjacent property owners on parking lots public private partnership
2 Improvement of Fanno Creek Park/Open Space System
A Additional Fanno Creek Open Space
Work with property owners on easement
Design work
B Tigard Street Trail
Coordinate with Public Works on discussions with Railroad/ODOT Rail,
3 Development of Comprehensive Street /Circulation System
A Downtown Connectivity Plan
Refine Draft Connectivity Plan
Public outreach
Planning Commission workshops/public hearings
Council briefings/workshops/public hearings
B Street Improvements
i Main Street Green Street
Participate on Management Team
Public/business outreach
Participate in CCA(/Council briefings
Prepare for post-construction projects (bridge and outfall)
C Gateway/Streetscape Improvements
i Main Street Green Street Public Art/Gateways
Work with subcommittee on artist selection
Contracting
Monitor progress with Main St construction schedule
ii Hall/Pac Hwy Gateway Flagpole
Follow up with County to determine property status
iii Clock Tower
Work with stakeholders to determine project feasibility
D At -grade Crossing at Ash Ave
Follow up with Public Works
z
DRAFT
Downtown Redevelooment Work Proeram FY 2012-13 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec I Jan I Feb I Mar Apr May June
4 Organizational: City, Agency, Commission, Downtown Organizations, and Regional
A City Center Development Agency/City Center Advisory Commission
Serve as Liaison to CCDA, CCAC, CCAC Public Art Subcommittee, Fagade Improvement Joint
Committee, CCAC/PRAB Joint Committee
Strengthen coordination between CCOA,CCAC, and other Downtown organizations
i Communications
Create CCDA webpage
B Events/Marketing
Serve as liaison to Downtown events group
Evaluate consultant work
Report to CCAC/CCDA on progress
C Regional Coordination
Collaborate with Metro TOD program
Participate on Metro Brownfields Technical Review Committee
Participate in the activities of Association of Oregon Redevelopment Agencies; Greater
Portland, Inc. (Economic Development); Urban Land Institute
3
"" Tigard City Center Development Agency
Me Cloy of'"h'ads [ rhan Renewal.-Igmep
MN a
CCDA M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Center Advisory Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
RE: Agenda Item 7: Downtown Connectivity Plan Update
DATE: April 4, 2012
Staff has been working with consultants to prepare the Downtown Connectivity Plan for the public hearing
process before the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of documents are attached to update
the City Center Advisory Commission.
1 . Stakeholder meetings were held with several Downtown property owners who properties could be
affected by the plan. A memo summarizing those meetings by Matt Hastie of Angelo Planning is included.
2. An updated map has been prepared based on some of the feedback received at the stakeholder meetings
and further review by consultants and staff. Map A2 shows proposed connections by "Implementation
Approach." There are four categories:
Category A - The city has identified the improvement as a high priority and will consider adding it to the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) during the next update. If new development were to trigger the
improvement, the city would work to fund the improvement at that time. With Category A projects, the
alignment of the proposed improvements is fairly well established. I=lem_�ntation approach: Proportionate
share and city funding, development standards to preserve connection.
Category B - These improvements have been identified by the city as a mid-level priority. They will likely
not be added to the CIP and if development were to trigger the improvement, the city would likely defer
funding/construction of the improvement to a future, appropriate time. As with Category A projects, the
alignment of these proposed improvements is fairly well established. Implementation aappxoach: Fee-in-lieu,
ROW dedication, development standards to preserve connection.
Category C - These improvements axe a lower priority for the city and are not anticipated to be built within
the next decade. If development were to occur on land where a Category C improvement is located, the city
would work to ensure development did not preclude the eventual improvement, but would not require
right-of-way dedication at that time. The general location of the proposed Category C improvements is
known, but a specific alignment has not been established. Implementation apgxoach: Public easement, non-
remonstrance to LID, development standards to preserve connection.
Category D - Category D improvements axe bicycle/pedestrian-only connections that are a priority for the
city but do not have an identified alignment or dedicated funding at this time. The general location of the
Category D proposed improvements is known, but a specific alignment has not been established.
Imolem_�ntation aappwach: Non-remonstrance to LID, development standards to preserve connection.
The packet also includes a summary of the implementation approached, and Map A (to compare to the
revised Map A2.)
2
14Sepido Hew 7
p {annln XYOU � nND VSE PLAN !: HG TRANSPCRTAT OFI ; i ' . 3 P U . EOT pAANAC.EMEFIi
tJ Memorandum
Date: March 29, 2012
To: Sean Farrelly, City of Tigard
From: Matt Hastie
Re: Tigard Downtown Connectivity Plan — Stakeholder Meetings Summary
This memo summarizes the results of meetings conducted by Matt Hastie and Sean Farrelly with
downtown property owners to discuss connectivity projects and associated implementation approaches.
Sean and Matt met with a total of 13 people in five small group meetings. In each meeting, Sean and Matt
provided an overview of the background and objectives of the Connectivity Plan, described specific
connectivity improvements, reviewed preliminary concepts for implementing the projects and discussed
participants' questions, comments and concerns. The remainder of the memo summarizes comments
provided by the attendees. A list of participants is included at the end of the summary.
Keylssues
The meetings featured a number of recurring themes, including the following;
■ Participants generally appreciated the opportunity to find out more about the project and voice their
opinions and concerns. They also were generally supportive of the city's efforts to work with
downtown property and business owners to improve the downtown and achieve the city's long-term
vision for the area.
■ Property owners. expressed concern about specific impacts of a number of the projects on their
individual properties, including loss of a portion of the property, impacts to existing buildings or
parking areas and/or the ability to redevelop their property either in the short-term or long-term.
■ Several property owners said that even if the improvement projects are not implemented, by showing
them on a map, it may make it more difficult to sell or redevelop their property in the future or obtain
financing for improvements to their businesses or properties.
■ A number of participants had questions about the timing of the proposed improvements, how costs
for improvements would be covered and how their properties would be affected if they chose to
redevelop.
■ Several people mentioned the adverse impact of the railway through town, noting that it creates an
obstacle to connectivity and is a source of noise and traffic delays.
Tigard Downtown Connectivity Plan - Stakeholder Meetings Summary
March 2012
Project-Specific Comments and Concerns
Following is a summary of questions and concerns related to specific proposed improvement projects:
Project —Ash Avenue At-Grade Railroad Crossing
■ This project would significantly affect owners of the two properties adjacent to the connection,
including impacts to existing, long-time businesses there.
• Property owners questioned whether this project will be feasible, given the challenges associated with
creating an at-grade railway crossing here. They also questioned whether people would be willing to
live so close to a railway, given noise related to train homs, track switching and other rail activities.
Finally, they cited existing traffic issues downtown that could be worsened by implementing the
connectivity plan and the long-term vision for the downtown.
■ One property owner noted that by implementing this and several other projects, the city will be losing
valuable land and associated taxable income in the downtown area.
Project — ScoMns/HunzikerRealignuient
• While the owner of this property did not attend any of the meetings, several other participants noted
that this appears to be one of the more "doable" projects on the list. It has appeared on the City's
Transportation System Plan for many years. They agreed that it is a needed connection, only affects
one property and if properly designed could still leave the property owner with enough land to replace
lost housing units if the remaining property were redeveloped at a higher density.
Project C —Ash Avenue to Garden Place Connection
• One property owner said that this project could increase access to his property but that associated
undesirable behavior (e.g., vandalism, littering, loitering, etc.) could negatively impact his property and
business.
■ This project would directly impact plans for future redevelopment by property owners on either side
of the northernmost portion of this connection. Property owners said that it would decrease the
development potential and have no benefits to the property to the north and that it would impact
existing structures on the property to the south (both fronting Hall Blvd.). One property owner noted
that if the city is depending on redevelopment to help initiate the project, they may be waiting a very
long time. These property owners questioned whether the improvement would benefit their
properties given their existing access to Hall Boulevard and topography issues that may prevent direct
access to their properties from this new connection.
■ Existing agreements between property owners that govern use of the properties to the north and west
of this proposed connection could act as obstacles to redevelopment of these properties, making it
less likely that this project would be undertaken in the near-term (if it depends on property owners
proposing to redevelop).
■ Providing access to the rear portion of the properties that front Hall Blvd. in this area would be a
benefit to property owners.
Page 2
Tigard Downtown Connectivity Plan — Stakeholder Meetings Summary
March 2012
■ It may not be possible to create a through intersection across Hall Boulevard. to Garden Place, given
traffic conditions in the area and the relative proximity to Highway 99. If that is the case, an offset
intersection would allow the city to shift that portion of this connection to the south.
■ Potential future improvements to Hall Boulevard also will affect property owners adjacent to this
project. The City should consider those impacts as it refines plans for this improvement project.
Project F— Bim ham Street to Rail Condor Connection
■ As shown on the handout, this project would directly impact a relatively new building. Participants
asked if the connection could be shifted to the southeast to more closely follow property lines in that
area and reduce impacts to the existing building. They noted that this would be easier to do if this
connection does not need to line up with the proposed connection on the other side of Burnham
Street.
• Meeting participants questioned whether this needs to be a full street connection if it is simply
providing access to the rail corridor and the TriMet park and ride. If it does not represent a through-
street connection, perhaps it could be simply a bicycle/pedestrian connection or a narrower street
connection.
• Participants also questioned whether the alley connections (adjacent to the rail corridor) are needed in
this area given current use of the area for the park and ride and multi-use pathway southeast of the
park and ride. They noted that as long as local street connections provide access to the backs of these
parcels, an alley connection in this area may not be needed.
■ Attendees noted that coordination with TtiMet will be needed associated with the proposed alley in
this area, including any impacts to the TriMet park and ride lot.
Project G —Alley Behind Main Street from Btmibam to Commercial Street
■ Staff noted that this may be a combination of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway and basic access to
parking lots in this area.
• One participant suggested considering making this a full street connection and eliminating street
connection F.
Project I—Mid-Block Connections between ScoHns & Commercial and Main & Hal/Streets
■ Participants noted that these connections would affect multiple property owners and be difficult to
coordinate and implement over time.
■ Potential future improvements to Ash Avenue between Scoffns and Commercial Streets could have
significant impacts to the properly at the southeast comer of Ash and Scoffins.
■ As with other projects, participants noted that a map showing this improvement may affect the value
of the properties in this area and/or the ability to finance future improvements or sell the property.
■ Participants asked about the timing of this project, how it would be implemented and funded and
whether they should consider redeveloping their property in the short term or hold onto the property
and see what other property owners in the area decide to do in terms of redevelopment.
Page 3
Tigard Downtown Connectivity Plan — Stakeholder Meetings Su=aty
March 2012
Pmjectf-Connections Southwest ofSWBumham Street
■ Open access to the storage facilities in this area (e.g., a direct road connection through the site) would
create a security issue if the storage facility continues to operate.
■ Future redevelopment of some of the properties could be accomplished in a way that allows for the
connections proposed in this area to be implemented.
■ A participant noted that he was glad to see the city planning for the future of the downtown and said
he would help inform some of the property owners in this area about the project.
Other Comments
A variety of other comments were provided at the meeting related to downtown connectivity and
redevelopment more generally. The city will consider these comments as it moves forward with other
downtown and transportation planning efforts.
• Rather than trying to create more connections across the railroad in the downtown, it should consider
creating a more direct connection from the downtown southeast to the Tigard Triangle and 72n'
Avenue areas. This would generate more traffic through the downtown and improve business
opportunities there. Similarly, the city should try to eliminate the rail line through downtown in the
future, given the obstacle it represents to downtown accessibility.
■ More events and activities are needed downtown, patticulady on the weekends to improve business
opportunities there.
■ Property owners need more information about proposed implementation approaches.
■ Are there other parts of the city that would be easier to redevelop? If so, why not focus efforts there
instead?
Page 4
Connectivity Plan Stakeholder Meeting Attendees
March 13 and 15
Attendee Property
Russ Little 12020 SW Main (Woodcraft)
Diana Little 12020 SW Main (Woodcraft)
Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall
Steve DeAngelo 9033, 9035, 9047 SW Burnham
Lisa Maguire 9185 SW Burnham (Scott & Hookland)
David Leary 12175 SW Hall
Dave Leary 12175 SW Hall
Regina Dibb 8848 SW Commercial (T-Scandia)
Mr. Dibb 8848 SW Commercial (T-Scandia)
Fanny Bookout 8775 SW Commercial
Luella Paddack 12455 SW Ash
Gil Lipp 12430 SW Ash
Steve Mozinski 8900 SW Burnham (Burnham Business and Storage Park)
AS e ii I f+ M 7
Tigard Downtown Connectivity Plan Implementation
Summary of Implementation Approaches
Proportionate share and city funding. If a development triggers the improvement, the city would
require the applicant to dedicate right-of-way and pay for a proportionate share of the improvement. The
city would provide the rest of the funding and construct the improvement at that time. Proportionate
share is typically determined through a traffic impact analysis.
Fee in Lieu of Construction. If a development triggers an improvement but construction of the
improvement is not appropriate or feasible at that time, the city could request a fee in lieu of constructing
the improvement. This type of program ensures that opportunities to improve connectivity are
maximized and allows the city some flexibility in determining the right time to construct a project.
Right-of-way dedication required. Right-of-way dedication may be most useful when the city is able to
identify a specific alignment for an improvement, but construction of the improvement is not likely to
occur in the next 5 years. Right-of-way dedication ensures the land will not be converted to other uses
and will be available for future construction.
Public easement required. This approach would function like a right-of-way dedication except the land
would remain under private ownership and could potentially be used by the property owner for a variety
of uses prior to acquisition by the city. This approach could be particularly useful for bicycle/pedestrian
connections that may be triggered by lower levels of development if the alignment has been determined
with sufficient specificity to establish an easement.
Non-remonstrance to future Local Improvement District (LID) required. Under this approach, a
property owner would sign an agreement stating that he or she will participate in a local improvement
district (LID) and will not oppose such a district as a method for paying for an improvement. It could be
suitable for projects where the city would like to ensure eventual construction of the project, but the
specific alignment for the connection has not been determined and the timeframe for construction is
several years or more away. With this approach, no right-of-way dedication or easement would be
required at the time of development.
Development standards to preserve future connection. This approach would ensure that new
development does not preclude eventual construction of connectivity projects. This would be achieved
by updating the city's code to limit the type of development that can be constructed in an area identified
as a fixture connection. Development such as surface parking, landscaping, plazas or temporary activities
could be permitted while new buildings would not.
Map A . 2 As -emolk'
Proposed Circulation Improvements by Implementation Approach Category
•�,.., ,. Ali
N
-
�0
Ti
GgRpST \N4 i r
4 d s
r' Z4$c Y kW 1 m
fe
sr X r TC CN,
a a o
i . pv
'9<
i'
lit
i
1 ♦
Existing Streets
♦
Existing Public Right-of-way ■
Existing bike / ped trails
Tc Transit Center
■
Railroads
i n —; Urban Renewal District
Proposed Streets
Category A
Category B . ,,,...,.�..,
Category C P^�•..�'
TSP Project
Proposed Alleys
i 1
Category C
Proposed Bike/Ped Connections o
F- - - � Category D + oIVIARA 0T 0 100 200 400 Feet
1 ---------------------- ------ --------------------------_------,
I '
�sw ciHns w SVeet and PaNwaY connections in this
m area will it 4'T "'aetl as pan Gt the 2010 City of Tigard Transportation System Plan
f--� Up late "P) and HCT Land Use Plan. k`
3 r
3 —
FFHR
GRR • �
i -
SW GARDEN
O041, o p
SCF Sw XNOL
ryS
• c H E
G � �
�yF RyNz
Rn� k`R
st`E
1 �sp \ �
.ti \BRgry
As atloptedin Ne
current Tigard
Tert ion
System
Plan (TSP)
LEGEND
lonnoll Existing street) public righWf-way ?` i
Closed street I public righl:4-way
minnia Proposed street �`•
-- Proposed alley
Existing bicycle and pedestrian connection
- - - - Proposed bicycle and pedestrian connection Rq
- fixed alignment
••••••• Proposed bicycle andpedestrian connection
- exact location to be determined upon
redevelopment
- Primary Circulation
Secondary Circulation
Access (contingent upon development)
O Existing Trailhead 7
Existing public transit center and 3 sw OMARA
WES Commuter Rail station
Implementation Map - MAP A
Downtown Tigard Conceptual connectivity Plani�
v
n
ti
y 1 yy \
w
{
lot
ZZ
if
r
e
Y
Y�
afr � Y
i
f
x
+/- 24 spaces
HAIR SALON (2S102ABO4600) }
12442 SW MAIN ST ) MOUNTABLE
CO VERT ER Cu 9 10
OWNER: FELIPA PEREZ TO 1730 VA J
_ ! 8 11
` SITE
COMPU ER USINESS 1 7 LIGHT
2S102AB04700 24' !
12448 SW MAIN ST 1 2 3 4 5 6
OWNER: CAPISTRANO 0 13
EDGE OF
PAVEMENT D ' R. 10' ASPHALT R:8'
R:2 4
5.5' WIDE + CfL 5 !
VACANT LAB 33 C {':10, + SIDEWALK R;20'
2S102AB04800 1
12460 SW MAIN ST B 17
OWNER: CAPISTRANO 24 23 22 21 19 18
A 1 !
J ® 0. !
R:5' 1177
• •
BURNHAM STREET STANDARD CURB
EXISTING STREET LIGHT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MAIN STREET FIGURE
PLM3LI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1
13125 S.W.
OFFSTREET PARKING LOT
TIGARD, OREGON
QN 97 97222 FIG-
3
VOICE: 503-716-2466
FAX, 503-624-0752 LAYOUT FILE NO
` WWW.TIGARD-OR.GOV
{
u„ '
r ,.
r
�`,, �"�uw
�" � t x�,
i
x, E
�� .
� a f.'
r
d'�.
'us
Conceptual 20' urban creek/path +/- 16 parking spaces
F2442 SW 4sa N ST � � } C �
OWNER: MiPA PERE2 � I AREA b hr
COMPUTER RUSIAIESS 24'
2S 102AB04 700
W
NE!?r SW SIS t 3 4 SJTf ST
OWNER.,
�1fCAPF,SF
I LIGHT
cow,
R.-V
VACANT' x.48 33 r;?0' CACD4S
2S)D2,4RD4800 PEDESTAL
12460 SW MAW ST 8 FO FGf 6x6'
OWNER: C PISTRANO fB 15 14 13f 5 � VAULT
A 1
q : IYEMZON LOCAL
4r Ln PEDESTAL
f CS
d—max— — — —�— — — .—
FGE ,moo - 0n
VAUtT
8URNHAM STREET
comr.4sT � STREET L /
VAULT S BEET LN
SCALE. 1" t SEE
"105 .W, � 'M, OFFSTREET PARKING
503- -4
' o - 07!
-a
6 wvvw rr - .0ov WIDE IDE URBAN CREEK AREA
Conceptual 15' urban creek/path +/- 19 spaces
NIUR S4LON (2S 102A&04600
12442 SW ,444ON ST
SER; MIPA PEREZ + LAIN 2 I 7D
y
�f
AREA � 7
COMFU7M GUSLVE S T -� rIGE '
OWNSSH' , +N ST �E— I
OWIN'E�4T.' Cr4T'lSTfiAlV�1 � b J•. 1d+ �� 3 � �' I ,f 9
D TF 10 CONC,
R.2' WALK
0 f f F f h
VAOOA4C�gST
CANT J3
a 0' '. t2 {. PEDESTAL2�'I C14€#04�'C�7
12460 SW M*N ST -6 y PGF 6x6°
OWNER.- C4PJSTi AiVD 19 18 17 16 5 14 ' VAULT
A iP4 Ap
f
� I � r vERIZOI�
4` PEDESTAL LOLL
J-80 — — —q~ — —
_ PGE 3.037
Y.AUL T '
ao-r
BURNHAM STREET COUCAST � STREET �
VA41LT STREET L
�. MAIN T E E T
'`? "L M►?. FF TF EET PARKING
QE'• -6-%-077 F14 NO
rs" 0 ""' �-'- -0 1 w UR13AN CREEK AREA.
4-11-2012
TRRIP — Values-Based Criteria Brainstorming Session
• Business that would stimulate Main Street activity 18 hrs/day
• Jobs generated
• Quality of Jobs (living wage jobs)
• Fills a vacancy
• Expands an existing business
• Magnet for Downtown
• Retail preference
• High turnover clientele
• Average dollars spent in Urban Renewal District (per person/per trip)
• Green business
• Past record of success
• Amount of Investment (total cost of improve)
• % of match for each $ public investment
• Tax-base improvement (impact on assessed value of property)
• Owner occupied building
• Length of the lease
• Complementary to business mix— synergies?
• Diminishing/detrimental to other businesses
• Pedestrian oriented— friendly to foot-traffic
• Filling a gap in current services/retail in Downtown
• Quality and uniqueness of product or service
• Attractiveness to draw spending-public into Downtown
• Demographically targeted (matching Tigard's needs)
• Attractive to disposable income population (baby-boomers)
• Branding value (Tigard's brand?)
• Upgrading a blighted building
Themes
Commitment to Success - of Applicant to Follow-Through
• Amount of Investment (total cost of improve)
• % of match for each $ public investment
• Owner occupied building
• Length of the lease
Economic Impacts of Project to Downtown
• Complementary to business mix— synergies?
• Tax-base improvement (impact on assessed value of property)
• Past record of success
• Expands an existing business
4-11-2012
• Fills a vacancy
• Business that would stimulate Main Street activity 18 hrs/day
Reflecting Community Values
• Jobs generated
• Quality of Jobs (living wage jobs)
• Green business
• Branding value (Tigard's brand?)
Economic Qualities of Business/Products (Success/Sustainability)
• High turnover clientele
• Average dollars spent in Urban Renewal District (per person/per trip)