The URL can be used to link to this page

05/11/2011 - Packet Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD City Center Advisory Commission Name of Board, Commission or Committee May 11, 2011 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. She,l 1 e M • La. Print Name Signature 5-d3- 1a Date n City of Tigard City Center Advisory Commission Agenda s MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 — 6:30-8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: The Knoll at Tigard 1St Floor Community Room 12291 SW Knoll Drive,Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions...................................................................................................... 6:30 — 6:35 2. Tour of the Knoll at Tigard Facility.........................................................................................6:35 — 6:55 (Ben White, Carleton Hart Architecture) (Return to Community Room 3. Review/Approve April Minutes ............................................................................................... 6:55 — 7:00 4. Downtown Tigard Marketing Website....................................................................................7:00 — 7:10 Discussion of website and marketing activities (Chair Murphy and David Dahle, DowntownTigard.com) 5. Downtown Marketing Strategy.................................................................................................. 7:10 — 7:20 Report from field trip to North Mississippi Ave. and upcoming schedule (Sean Farrelly,Vice Chair Shearer and Commissioner Hughes) 6. Follow-ups...................................................................................................................................7:20 —7:40 Main Street Green Street Pr ject Downtown Open Space and Parks CCDA Budget (Sean Farrelly) 7. Downtown Public Art................................................................................................................ 7:40— 7:50 Discussion of potential process and timeline (Sean Farrelly) 8. CCAC 5 Year Progress Report.................................................................................................. 7:50 — 8:05 Discuss process and formation of subcommittee (Chair Murphy and Vice Chair Shearer) 9. HCT Land Use Plan Update.......................................................................................................8:05 — 8:25 Informational presentation on HCT Land Use Plan (Sean Farrelly) 10. Other Business............................................................................................................................. 8:25 — 8:30 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— May 11, 2011 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of2 11. Adjourn.......................................................................................................................................... 8:30 p.m. Upcoming meetings of note: 5/12,Parking Management Work Group meeting, Chamber of Commerce, 12345 SW Main, 6:00-7:30 p.m. 5/24,Main Street Marketing,Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, 12345 SW Main, 4:00-5:30 p.m. 5/25,Tigard HCT Land Use Design Workshop,Library Community Room, 6:00-8:30 p.m. 6/8, Regular CCAC Meeting,Library-2nd floor Conference Room, 6:30-8:30 p.m. CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— May 11, 2011 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 oft City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: May 11, 2011 Location: The Knoll at Tigard - 1s,Floor Community Room 12291 SW Knoll Drive, Tigard Called to order by: Chair Thomas Murphy Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 9:09 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chair Thomas Murphy;Vice Chair Elise Shearer; Carolyn Barkley; Alexander Craghead;Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph Hughes;Peter Louw,Linh Pao Commissioners Absent: Philip Thornburg Others Present: Councilor Marland Henderson; Ben White; David Dahle Staff Present: Sean Farrelly_ , Redevelopment Project Manager;Tim Lehrbach, Temporary Planning Assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Chair Thomas Murphy opened the meeting. Introductions were made. AGENDA ITEM#2: Tour of the Knoll at Tigard Facility Ben White with Carleton Hart Architecture made some introductory comments before leading the group on a tour. He called attention to the sustainability features built into the project. The Knoll is a project designed for limited income seniors age 55 and older and is an active living community. A goal was to exceed basic accessibility and mobility features throughout the building for tenants to age in place or if they become temporarily disabled, the design wouldn't be an issue. Rainwater harvesting is a big feature of this project. The entire north wing has a metal roof that collects the rainwater into downspouts to a below-grade cistern in the parking lot that has a 15,000 gallon capacity. The water then moves on to a 5,000 gallon tank used to flush all of the unit toilets. Carleton Hart Architecture sees the Knoll project as a catalyst,introducing sustainable features and transit oriented development into Tigard, and a new node for development. Nodes promote community and resident interaction and services exchange. CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 11,2011 Page 1 of 7 A Commissioner commented that we are trying to facilitate more sustainable development and that developers will be looking at payback for implementing such features. Are there hard numbers available on this? Mr. White replied that those numbers will be collected as the building comes on line. Cistern from rainwater collection will provide 100% of toilet flushing water in rainy months, about 50/50 in the summer. (using water collected during the winter). Counselor Henderson asked about the heating system for the units. Mr. White indicated that each unit has a through-wall heat pump. It's more economical than forced air and can be controlled individually. Mr. White then led the Commission on a tour of the building. AGENDA ITEM #3: Approve April Minutes Motion by Commissioner Barkley to make one change to the minutes. Agenda Item #2 (Approve March Minutes), Commissioner Barkley abstained. Motion by Commissioner Louw, seconded by Vice Chair Shearer, to approve the April minutes. The motion passed. Commissioners Ellis Gaut and Craghead abstained. AGENDA ITEM#4; Downtown Tigard Marketing Website Chair Murphy introduced David Dahle. Mfr. Dahle described the DowntownTigard.com website for marketing the Downtown Tigard area to the community and to visitors. A Commissioner asked if his website was linked to the city's website. Mr. Dahle replied it wasn't yet, but will be. He also wants to provide a link for the CCAC to communicate with the downtown business owners and perhaps post CCAC meeting agendas on his website. A Commissioner asked if there would be a link to real estate marketing in the area. Mr. Dahle said that they are collaborating with a realtor that indicated there is interest in businesses leasing downtown Tigard real estate at this time. Mr. Dahle indicated that the brick building on the corner of Burnham and Main has been leased as of last week. Mr. Dahle said that we need to give our downtown district regional visibility to Lake Oswego, Newberg, Sherwood, and Tualatin. Their website also has a Facebook page that they link to and all of the content gets populated to the social networks. Their website is a good venue to have a "just visiting porthole" for visitors to be able to see what there is to do in downtown Tigard. They will also be sending a link to all of the managers of apartments so that when people relocate to Tigard ' there will be a welcome page. CCAC Fleeting Minutes for May 11,2011 Page 2 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #5: Downtown Marketing Strategy Sean sent out a link to a video on Metro's website with highlights of the recent field trip to North Mississippi Avenue with remarks by Councilors Henderson and Woodard. Twenty-six people carne on the field trip. They talked to developers and business owners on the street. Discussion followed: • They were impressed with the business owners and developers that spoke to the group. • Entertainment is the draw, not only single bar hoppers, but families. • Mississippi Pizza had a big impact using live music. They were losing money for approximately a year until the owner brought in live music and turned the business around. • Live music is very expensive, not always a big profit item. Music attracts more business, but the overhead costs offset that gain. • Michelle Reeves has one more session on May 24, 2011 at 4:00-5:30 at the Tigard Chamber of Commerce. Michelle said the next meeting would be enjoyable and hands-on with small group discussions. The final work product will be a memo with recommendations. • Trip to North Mississippi Avenue provided great examples of Michelle's point about using colors and art to make the area visually interesting. • Also interesting was the green street water feature. It was suggested that we could incorporate it into some of our old buildings. AGENDA ITEM#b: Follow-ups Main Street Green Street Sean provided an update requested at the last meeting regarding the removal of some of the raised pedestrian crossings from the Main Street design. It was asked why all crossings weren't speed tables. Sean indicated that they are going to put the one back in closest to Fanno Creek Park Trail which will provide a good connection to the trail by A-Boy, but not on the bridge. Having all crossings as speed tables was thought to be too many in too short of a distance. Once paving is complete the crosswalks on Burnham Street also won't be raised. Sean indicated that in terms of the schedule, all signs point toward summer construction. The goal is to minimize impacts on businesses. There was concern that summer seems late to get started. Sean replied that the construction season extends into October. Commissioner Louw requested that there be changes made on the Main Street Green Street construction plans, sheet 1A-2 General Construction Notes-Item 4, to notify tenants sooner than 72 hours advance notice before disrupting traffic. He also wants to see Item 7 eliminated about no construction between certain hours. Sean indicated that this was boilerplate ODOT language and the city will write the final construction schedule. CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 11,2011 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Louw offered to form a subcommittee for the purpose of making the needs of the downtown business community known as an element of the design process for the Main Street Green Street. Sean will set up a meeting with construction engineer Kim McMillan and they will provide a 15 minute report at their June meeting. Doxwown Open Space Sean Farrelly gave a follow up pertaining to the handout he provided to the commissioners containing the PRAB criteria for evaluating properties for purchase (Exhibit A). • The Plaza is not in the Parks Master Plan. • PRAB representatives we met in April said they are mindful of what CCAC wants, would consider an increased amount of money out of the bond fund for a plaza purchase. The CCAC needs to figure out a space for the plaza soon. • Consultant for managing park bond acquisitions has not been retained yet. • It was asked if the CCAC had come to a consensus to use the $1.7 million to purchase a plaza site. Chair Murphy replied that there has been no formal decision presented for consideration. • Motion by Commissioner Craghead, seconded by Commissioner Ellis Gaut, that the first priority for the ten percent from the parks and open space bond money is acquisition of a plaza site. The motion passed unanimously. • Motion by Commissioner Craghead, seconded by Commissioner Ellis Gaut, to consider all options for a plaza site in addition to the original site. The motion passed unanimously. • PRAB and CCAC should compare notes to figure out what they want downtown: park, plaza or facility. • Is anybody doing anything right now in terms of property availability? Any update on the status of using the public works property as a park? Sean replied that public works needs a place to go. There are not a lot of large enough properties available and it's going to cost a lot of money, but it's in the long term plans. • A commissioner asked what is standing in the way of picking a plaza site now. Chair Murphy replied that a consultant will be hired to identify sites for acquisition and he wants to hear what she/he has to say. • We do have a matrix of values and qualities we're looking for in a plaza. Consultant will be on board, hopefully within a month. It was agreed to get some face time with the consultant the first month before having that person attend a CCAC meeting. Having a consultant doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking and looking ourselves, too. GGDA BudP, 'rhe CCDA budget was approved by the CCDA budget committee. It will be finalized at the June 14, 2011 council meeting. The proposed budget was included in the May packet (Exhibit B). • In the budget message Craig Prosser mentioned several times in the material that Tigard's maximum indebtedness is a lot smaller than other communities of similar size and that it was a conscious decision to be a modestly sized urban renewal district. CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 11,2011 Page 4 of 7 • If we want to expand the amount of urban renewal,we have to go back to the voters and we need to be able to show them that we accomplished something before asking for more money. Other cities around us didn't look all that different after 3 years of urban renewal. Lake Oswego and Tualatin took twenty years before they saw results. Domwo;m Open Space The commissioners were asked to review the draft Cityscape article (Exhibit C) and to e-mail any comments to Sean by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. The article is approved as written incorporating the following: • Any comments by the commissioners. • Allow a one month deadline to submit suggestions on park and open space purchases and improvements in the Downtown. AGENDA ITEM #7: Downtown Public Art The commissioners reviewed a handout that Sean provided on the potential process and timeline for Downtown Public Art (Exhibit D). • Amateur artists should be considered. • We trust our committee to have an open process. • The CCAC contingent on the ad hoc committee is Vice Chair Shearer, Commissioner Craghead, and Commissioner Ellis Gaut. • Commissioner Pao shared highlights from a recent visit to San Diego Coronado and the San Diego botanical garden. Coronado had a downtown public art brochure and the botanical garden had plaques that provided fascinating details on their public art. • There is also art for lease and we can talk about rotating exhibits, too. • We will be looking for a consultant to work with the ad hoc art committee. • The reference to Downtown business should be "businesses"if we want more than one business represented. • Council approval is required to appoint the ad hoc committee. Goal is to go before council in August. • This project is being driven by the Main Street Green Street project, that's where the need to fulfill is. First task is to deliver for the Green Street, and then later throughout Tigard. • Councilor Henderson shared information about a program that his daughter has at the Mitch Charter School where they do murals at the school. Costco and Lowes have donated over $2,000 apiece for the project. It's an interesting partnership where they provide supplies and they even have their own artists that will help. Cascade Locks also has five different artists who work with the Port of Cascade Locks. • Allot ten minutes on the June agenda for further talk about public art. CCAC Meeting h inutes for May 11,2011 Page 5 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #8: CCAC 5 Year Progress Report The commission discussed the process and formation of a subcommittee to work on the CCAC five year progress report. • Vice Chair Shearer offered to work on this with others. We need to prepare a five year report and summary and publicize it somehow. • The Leland Group is working on a five year milestone report of urban renewal. Perhaps we should start narrower with the review of CCAC activities at five years, maybe dovetail with what the Leland Group produces. Obvious candidates for this project are Commissioners Craghead and Barkley. • The Leland report will be presented in July or August. It's logical to get the Leland work first, and then have the subcommittee add to it. • For marketing purposes, this will get the word out to a lot of people who don't know about urban renewal. It will also provide talking points about what we're getting done and what we need to get done in the next five years. • The CCDA is going to want our input before doing anything with the Leland report. We Nvill wait for the Leland five year report as the starting point for the CCAC's process. AGENDA ITEM #9: High Capacity Transit (HCI) Land Use Plan Update Due to the late hour, Sean skipped the HCI"presentation on this item and invited everybody to the May 2511) HCT design workshop starting at 6:00 p.m. (Exhibit E). This land use plan is just to identify potential station areas and doesn't get into what kind of HCT it will be or what specific alignment because that would take about ten years. AGENDA ITEM #10: Other Business • Sean gave an update on the potential use of the TriMet commuter rail parking lot. TriMet didn't say no or yes, rather that it would depend on what we wanted to use it for. They have a lot of regulations that they have to follow because it was federally funded. It would probably have to be a non-profit operation or city sponsored use. Sean will talk to Kim McMillan about the contract between the city and TriMet that says the city can use that parking lot for the specifics. • Commissioner Pao asked if the circulation plan was ever coming back to the CCAC and if it's off, where can she get a copy to show to the PRAB? Sean replied that the current plan is still on line and that he will send her the link. No work has been done on it pending his availability on working on HCT. The plan has not yet been approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council. CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 11,2011 Page 6 of 7 AGENDA ITEM #11: Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Ellis Gaut to adjourn, seconded by Chair Murphy. The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m. Upcoming meetings of note: 5/12, Parking Management Work Group meeting, Chamber of Commerce, 12345 SW Main, 6:00-7:30 p.m. 5/24, Main Street Marketing, Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, 12345 SSG'Main,4:00-5:30 p.m. 5/25,Tigard HCT Land Use Design Workshop, Library Community Room, 6:00-8:30 p.m. 6/8, Regular CCAC Meeting, Library- god floor Conference Room, 6:30-8:30 p.m. Patty Lunsf ro CCAC licretary Chair Thomas Murphy CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 11, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Agenda Item#G EH IBILA PRAB Matrix (12/21,/2010) 1, Is identified in a park master plan or the Park System Master Pian. 1. Does the potential property fit well into the Park System Master Plan? 2. Does the property fit well into the purpose of the Bond Measure? 3. Does the property tit into the Trails Master Plan? 4. Is there a specific park master plan that fits this property? 2. Serves an underserved area or is identified as a high priority for a particular neighborhood or City area(location,population). 1. Does the property meet a neighborhood need(1/4 mile standard)? 2. Does the property meet a local need,serve a large population? 3. Is the property in an area that lacks that type of park or open space? 3. Meets a need for the park system as a whole (quality or uniqueness, connectivity). 1. Is this a park type that is needed,wanted, or lacking in the City of Tigard? 2. Is the quality of the land high (examples-are there large trees,good habitat areas, flat areas for playing fields)? 3. Does the property connect to other public lands or easements? 4. Important in size, habitat,or vulnerability (depends on type of project). 1. Is the property vulnerable to development.. 2. Is the property large enough to accomplish a specific purpose? (examples: Potso large enough for a dog park?or Summer Creek area large enough to be a natural area community park?) (4 Evaluation Criteria, 10 points each—with 10 as rating highest in that category) Agenda I t e ..`6 ; i ro K l U L `1%� �;��4°'�1 �v l� t �l4 t ''�+.t. 1�•�,R'�, t t� ,� ��Stt t .'_` }'� � t i.`yd �ti�l,�tl l�lel�1>>��cllFit s�� ' gsha a°'1i �kxs;L ,i tti tlSf 4 \ L r SS `1! i� i t ally h.:.}�`'�\\ LL t 1 e r 1 13 �. Lb S3 3, 1 b i Sss Nn1. \v 1 al he i�- � y'ttt��'�1'y1„t� �`U L 1 LtY'aL" t t f� m t '� iL 4tt 'ti�.v1�\tty t t a t its C\ t pL g S L Sp 0 �L 4y�� "'� 1 � t t n i k��jLlutsy� tL nLl a't l� ta,1r �t i .kz`s x 1,A, lye �1.i111f ..a`i L 't f d a. 1 'yi tth;' +s\�1t 1 r L L 6i17 Lt P, _ a ti >t tl CttM� ti t �i rY{�;Al� tsY i t li L L S } v Lf �y t^ALty� yttl� is �,, 4. 3Lv1 ex1L L V � l � �ts�ik nL v'iL�1 j t' 1,. ,1 sixtzs�t�1�� il�Vl S�lL tlu.�Xn l�t��t�,`' r L t 1� t z kite \ter z F L st { ti S, 4 ate emi s b�dt tY ti 5t 1 yy�� 14�tt °��t^� ��Lt 1��i a,�l �� +it4 t�1�il�\ Yv4ss��$}n1i .�S�r,}Lyys,�tS L Li s ac y.1A h4 1t� t last 1L A { S t}cL � it ?' v10111"",� 'trot >t ��.� tv\ 1A t hlV'�Fy test 1tt sS ut�O t >L L �} q 411th t t {t"O'k�,`x S xSS�� i .3~�t�1�1��`�1`s5t�l\� k1'k t�Lyl� sf sa p�t4 ti e�f��'�stitlalLl�a Syt i,Llpa a� t t sk r{ s , h�` 1v tl ti 4 1 Is s>= v t L 1i tt L t 11' 11 r�1�1X L l4 �T'lt ��l�\V i1 `T4 �tiai, Y., 1A'Y�'•;. �sv1,i c�`�i r110lx`+,� 4 ti tf >, 1't 114 silLiL yll tl"St� IiS�VifiSPll�li�\rlt ls�f�i ltii' d,At1U� � 1+1. t}Lt t��L n\L{�yvslh�.t<�i L >L��1� i�tltd�a�S t�41S14�1�Li9�iL �L v i�sPli. WC jil NO �s ..,A.A 1L.� ,tl.,�..,�y r.�.L�` �� 1 \w 1• � S��i �u��.u�.� 1ti L�L� + � t 1 ��` +t ti: City Center Development Agency City of Tigard Fiscal Year 2011--2012 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE Melody Graeber Craig Dirksen Christopher Henn Gretchen Buehner Cai eton James Maxlafld Henderson Dan Goodrich Nick Wilson Rich Parker Marc Woodard CITY CEN'T'ER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD Craig Dirksen,Chair Gretchen Buehner Nick Wilson. Matland Henderson Marc Woodard EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Craig Prosser COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIREC'T`OR Ron Bunch REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER for DOWNTOWN Sean Fatrelly FINANCE and INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Toby LaFrance r AE CI'T'Y CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY City oFTigard 13US SW Hall Blvd. 'Tigard,OR 97223 Cover Graphic Pram Tigatd Do"town Future Vision by Tigard CommunityDevelopmwi and University of Oregon To the Citizens of Tigard, As the First Executive Director of the City Center Development Agency(CCDA),it is with some sadness that I submit my fifth and last Budget Message, The City Center Development Agency is charged with the revitalization of Downtown and implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan which was approved by voters in May of 2006.Ile source of fundu-g comes from tax increment financing. When the CCDA was established,the assessed value of the district was frozen. Property taxes collected on any growth in assessed value over and above the frozen base(the increment)go to the CCDA. In prior messages,I have preached patience for two reasons. First,Tigard's Urban Renewal district is not as mature as others in the area and it takes time to build the increment. Second,new private development in the area has been slow to materialize,due to the downturn in the economy. Until the increment grows,we are limited in the type and size of projects we can undertake. For Fiscal year.2011-12, 1 want to discuss Ore on Urban Renewal j 3 em&r Sekaed 05 arisow expectations, There are 68 government City Jurisdictions with a total of 102 urban renewal City/Agency Population Max.Indebtedness districts in the state of Oregon. Tigard is the ninth Alb"Y 48,770 56,000,000 most populous city with a district. One primary Canby 15,165 51,150,000 way to measure the size of a district as its maximum Gresham 100,655 92,000,000 La indebtedness. 'this is the most debt the agency can L 36,150 45,890,384 Lae accumulate to pay for projects. Tigard's CODA is Oswego 36,590 58,014,000 only the 48"'largest urban renewal district. The Oregon City 30,405 130,000,000 average population of agencies with smaller urban Pendleton 17,295 33,500,000 renewal districts is 7,100. Redmond 25,445 The table to the right shows how Tigard's Downtown 27,136,719 South Airport 24,675,190 maximum indebtedness compares to a selection of Roseburg 21,235 77,675,133 urban renewal districts that are either in the od 16,420 35,347,600 Portland Metro area,or are in cities of a population SherherwowoSpringfield 58,005 that is similar to Tigard. Of these districts,Tigard Downtown 43,010,0.300 has the lowest maximum indebtedness. Glenwood 32,860,400 All of this is background to say that Tigard chose Tualatin 26,040 to be a modestly sized urban renewal district. We Leveton 36,424,338 went through a.public process to establish the Central 27,707,384 district and the conscious outcome of that process Wilsonville 17,940 -was to have the modestly sized district use have Year 2000 92'687'423 West Side 40,D00,000 now. Accordingly,our expectations for the size WoodburnWest Sid 23,355 29,300,000 and types of projects the district will undertake should be proportional to the size of the district. Tigard 48,035 22,000,000 The FY 2011-12 Proposed Budget for the CCDA contains$375,000 in projects based on recommendations by the City Center Advisory Commission(CCAC). In the upcoming year,we will continue the popular Facade Improvement Program. In addition, the CODA will undertake a number of other projects,includitxg- • Development Opportunity Studies and Real Estate Consulting • Downtown Marketing Implementation s Downtown Gateways at two locations • Wayfind ng Implementation • Parking Management Assistance • Burnham Street Public Parking Lot All of these projects will be paid for by loans from the City of Tigard that will be repaid during the fiscal year. Additionally, staff has researched the viability of securing private financing, This is now a possibility for the CCDA. Due to the nature of this funding source,it should be used when a major project or land purchase has been identified. These projects and the potential for privatefunding of additional work are proportional to the expectations of where CCDA should be for its age;economic condition,and size. Wbat is amazing is the amount that local government has invested in the urban renewal district. While the CCDA may be modestly sized,it brings attention and investment that may not exist without the district. Over the last several years public projects such as Burnham Street,improvements at the intersections of Pacific Highway with Greenburg/Main and Hall Boulevard have invested over$18 million in public funds from the CCDA,City of Tigard,Washington County,and State of Oregon. In the next two years,Main Street will be improved with another$3.7 million from the CCDA,City of Tigard and Metro;plus$1.7 million in parks acquisition and development is now possible due to the voter approved parks bond that passed in November 2010. The parks bond alloses up to tent percent of the proceeds to be used in Downtown. Including the parks bond and the Main Street projects,total public investment in the district as of the end of FY 2012-13 will exceed$23 million We have also been fortunate to see some development in the urban renewal district. There has been$10 million in non-profit development for the Knoll at Tigard senior housing development, This development will not add to the increment since it is exempt from property tax,but we hope it will spur private development in the district. According to building permit records,there has been S7 million in private investment,including new development, tenant improvements and building upgrades. As the economy continues its slow climb out of the recession,we need to see more investment from the private side to assist with the development of the CCDA. The objective of the City Center Development Agency is to engage stakeholders and foster economic development in the Downtown. Despite the economic downturn,property and business owners will be engaged to plan for the future,and set up partnerships than can be acted upon when the economy improves. The Agency is fortunate to have an engaged,and committed citizen advisory body,the City Center Advisor} Commission (CCA..),which has made recommendations on many critical issues implemented in this budget. 1 am optimistic that this year's budget and the projects that are currently underway,will position the Urban Renewal District for further revitalization and investment from public and private entities. Respectfu mitted, 11 7; 1 City of Tigard Urban Renewal District r✓''`� �w. ak . Urban Renewal uascr,'tr Boundary # #—_,,�" ��' ,•''.�`pt, � „ IV �? POP* L r.,}'.` ,, -•fes, _.. � -� LNI 00 CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FACTS DistrictFormation Date............................................................................................ fay 2006 DistrictSize (acres)........................... , ........,...,........................................................._...193.71 DistrictTax Lot Area(acres):.......................................................................................144.14 DistrictRight-of-Way Area (acres)....................................................................................49,57 BaseAssessed Value ............................................—................................................$69,207,378 AssessedValue (2011) ..................,.........................................................................$95,604,035 Anaual taxes levied (projected 2012)..........................................................................1300,000 Maximum Debt Limit:..............................................................................................322,000,000 Debt Issued(2010):..--.................-...............---...................................., ..............$393,687 Remaining Debt Limit..............,,....,........................,.....,.........................................,$22,000,000 Capital project Funds Urban Renewal Capital Improvements FY 2009 FY2010 2011 2012 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised 40000-$cglnning Fund Bahr ci 0 27,967 42,500 0 TozxllleginningFuntl BarsEll a 1 , + a_ ,', ..�" 1, , 0 ►. _ , 44501-Intergovernmental Reviuue 323,616 0 449,(W 375'WO -16.5° fi ttilXntcrgovcrnmcntal ,3,4zG t)" 4 9 a¢ ,"rSCICSIi lffa li 49160-Transfer Infmm GenetA Fund „ %C3 p7l t� t1.iM14 .r t ia#u. +1�,�Jwo, ...111 _ '�i'`Lttwi6} X.usa'GSi Program Expenditures Program Expenditures Torel Transfers out 0 0 TotxF Work in Progress 295,64[} 4 491,500 375,{XXI 76.31J° ..,k a tS-� iati z 33ie z ,. ,� ,Y g? yy"'ryix3 'L�,' 'L,�#' .}�'"�t�;i t)1 ttf s nt ae `d f 6�,. 4, ,51�,k.,,` �illa�,3•,...+n +,Kt}1Ygta>: 4:a;w.''rilz tl:1 S111�7..uCna.m zrtY3':>d �iL..u :ra'tV�1Y,'tSs+?\Urr: Ending Fund Balance 27,96; 98 n38 0 Debt Service Funds - Urban Renewal Debt Service PX 2004 PX 2010 2011 2012 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised 40000-Beginning Fund Halanec 39,d(i2 157,54: 414,493 354,818 31n 40100-Current Property Taxcti 115,014 254,078 211,((X) 3w.(KX) 42 21b 40201-PsiorYtlrF:ctpt:rty Texts 0 2.319 1,60u U 0.0%. __..�. �,.� n ,�,,rz,• � } •s st ""tom• t `; �}�'"`�_.._,. �.„� J,�a3 u D cam+ �';'• t �il. _...... 47WO-Interest Earnings 21848 845 6_25 3,455 445% ��' ��'� . �.' � �� ° �' �, 1�?�`��4'i♦lk�" � X33 1_ �,� < .�.,� Program Expenditures Pmgram Expenditures 0 J 0 Total Debt Service 0 it 240.001) 37.1.(KO 150 6°/ EndingFvndBalance 157,579 414,884 384,818 313,,'73 18.4e/r ,,,, .,.,....-ra,a,*;-'::s'Y.cU.,-; ,:: ;:Nn� , tit,-:r:.gip.:,a.wpry...:.,,,�5;man ....y..�.e.,.;, ;�;�;a •:"r�;`^F��J{iv'a, :gv:: ,v:.n...„�< ��,u-. <3 ..`�"' •J�ttA� :xsxwmo, i'-�;'u+,w :?�3r. ,. ,Y-) 4 v r :....,.:+�.,�� .mu+1...?' FY 2011-2012 Urban Renewal Projects MakL&=AQ-t-mg Strut Related Pto jects Burnham Street Public Parking Lot-$50,000 Description:Build a public parking lot on.two City-owned parcels on Burnham Street.As a companion project to the Main Street project,the lot will provide additional parking options and flexibility in managing parking in the downtown. Parking Management Assistance-$5,000 11is project would fund a consultant to assist in the development of a parking management plan for Main Street. Wayfinding Implementation-$15,000 The City has obtained a Metro grant to fund a wayfsnding plan and walking map.This project would pay for the design and installation of signage,including directional signage to public parking that would be installed in conjunction with Main Street Green Street streetscape improvements. Downtown Gateways -$120,000 Gateways dematls entrances to the Downtown and create an identity for the District. One gateway was installed at the intersection of Burnham and Halt and another is planned for the intersection of Hall and Pacific Hwy.This project would fund the design and construction of two additional gateway walls at the northern and southern entrances of Main Street and Pacific Highway.The construction will.be coordinated with the Main Street Green Street project. Fagade Improvement Progranx-$75,000 The program has awarded three matching grants for a total of$39,195 (one completed, two in progress) to property owners.Five additional property/business owners have received architectural design assistance (one owner used a suggested design for a sign without requesting a grant). This project includes up to$22,500 available for architectural design assistance and$'52,500 available for snatching grants. Development Opportunity Studies and Real Estate Consulting$60,000 '.'his project consists of funding professional services (in real estate development and economics, architecture,and other needed specialists) to foster the opportunities for the redevelopment and/or renovation of properties.A major program will be development opportunity studies to provide business and property owners the technical assistance and resources to assess the feasibility of redeveloping properties in the urban renewal district Eligible pre-development activities include architectural,planning, and engineering studies,and real estate market and financial analysis.`Ae goal is to increase the tax increment revenues in the urban renewal district. Downtown Marketing Implementation-$50,000 The Agency has engaged the services of a consultant to work with Downtown business and property owners and other stakeholders to develop a marketing strategy for Main Street/Downtown.While the consultant's final recommendations are not due until June,this proposed technical assistance project would pay for consultQnt services to implement the recommendations,and funds for marketing and promotional materials, Total Budgeted Projects: $375,000 Agenda item 6EXIBIT $ 1 } Draft Cityscape article The voter approved open space bond included a provision that up to '10% of the bond go toward pur:chase.Jdevelopment of park land in doNxrntmxrn Tigard. 'Me citizen-led CitY Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the Turk and Recreation Advisor; Board (DRAB) upant to hear your suggestions on park and open space purchases and improvements in the Downtown. The. CCAC and PRAB vill evaluate vour suggestions using the park bond critcria. At least 80 percent of the bond proceeds-will be used to buy park land and open space:;the balance will be used to purchase additional park property or to construct improvements. is the deadline:to submit suggestions for e=valuation. This process is expected to take several months. The CCAC and DRAB will forward their recommendations to the Citic Council later. It's easy to share your ideas Attend a CCAC or PRAB meeting. The CCAC meets on the second Wednesday of each month at 630 p.m. (Check the city-website for the meeting place.) The I3RAB meets on the second Monday of each month at 7 p.m.in the Tigard Public Works Building, 5777 SW Burnham Street,Tigard. Stand a letter or an e-mail to Parks and Facilities Nkfanager. Stere LNlartin, or Redevelopment Project Manager Sean 17arrellyP, City of Tigard, 33125 Sly'Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223,or and sean@fi�grd=or gots. All correspondence Neill be f6marded to the CCAC and PRAB. Want to check in on how your park bond dollars are 1xing spent'?Visit nvrvw.1i ard- orgoplparkbonr 2012 Downtown Public Art-potenfial fimefine June July Aug set Oet Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May I June July ALkg Sept Oct 1.Preparation Set tip ad hoc committee(CCAG representatives,Downtown busirteSs,artist et Meet with committee,planning,goal setting,prospectus development Determine potential sites in project area for Ott Notice to invite artist submittals 2,Artist SeIeZ Fla; Screw application materials with committee Artist(s)selection Oversee final design for artiste)selected L3 Write and negoliate artists'contracts 7 Monitor contracts Assist as needed in fabrication coordination with construction project Coordinate,installation with artists and prulect i I Determine future,ort-going inamteriance heeds for art work j Agenda Item 9 EH —E City ofrigard R Memorandum .. .. M.. .......�'!�, PAs .. § 511 '�i(CA1A�N�'VSl�R11�1YdWAXF1WA71T�41�LC 'AL�1�N.4W1��3'gFfS'dRiA�.iSSY.a4Uht44iti4iklaki'arik5�'F}`U,14�1�yu`',��t14p: Ta -Mayor Dirksen and City Council. From: Judith Gray,Senior Transportation Planner Re: 'Tigard HCT Land Use Plan Update Date: April 12,2011 `T he'Tigard High Capacity,Transit(HCT).Land Use Plan project is moi-ing forward according to its contracted schedule.Two of the five tasks in the contracted scope of work halve been completed;in addition sev.e-t-l public involvement elements have been completed or are mo`* forward.This memorandum presents an update of the project status within the context of the broader.,Southwest Corridor Plan, summarizes recently=completed project tasks,and identifies upcoming acti-%xities. _A brief summary of public involvement acti,,rities is also provided. SW Corridor Plain, The Tigard HCT Land Use Plan was the.first of five related projects comprising the Sly'Corridor r, P 1 p g Plan to get underway. Similar land use plans for the cities of Portland and Tualatin are expected to 1 Y4 get started by year end as funding issues are resolved. These land use plans will lay theP'`k4 groundwork for.HCT planning and will,inform later decisions about transit service alignments. Not only does this approach help assure the success of future transit service, it also assures ; that transit planning serves local community goals f� and aspirations for future growth and de-velopment. The planning for.HC'T'and other transportation improvements in the SW Metro area,must take into account the unique needs and aspirations of three cities,Metro,Tri-Met and ODOT.'This requires close cooperation of all involved to ensure future transportation facilities work seamlessly across jurisdictional boundaries. Adso, the SW Corridor Plan will consider the relationship of land use and transportation as essential to economic prosperity,land use efficiency and livability.The larger SVG CorridorPlanning effort is not only about High Capacity Transit. Rather the focus is on how to achieve a balanced infix of auto,HCT,traditional bus,pedestrian and bicyclee transportation movies. Agenda Item 9 The.Tigard project is the only one officially underway and is scheduled to be completed in January 2 012.The other SVS Corridor plan projects are ex cted to get started this sutxzmer. Tigard HCT.Land Use Plan Project Status The first two of five project tasks were completed as of the end of Nfarch.2011. 'Major deliverables included: Stakeholder Interviews:Appro dmately 45 stakeholders were interviewed about desired community characteristics and the impacts of transit The key themes from the inten-iews include a desire for a good walking environn-lent and good access to open space.A summary report documenting the inter-views is included as Attachment B. Existing Conditions Analyses: The project team conducted a comprehensive analysis of current conditions,including land use,public policies,market conditions,transport2tion,natural resources, public facilities, parks and trails. These reports are available for re-'rie"m on the project web site. Tigard Typologies Definitions The findings from the Stakeholder Inten iews and the Existing Conditions analyses were used to d.efinc Station C:oinrnunto,Tpolob�ies for Tigard. From the report: This study,or"typology" describes four distinct Station (::ommunitcr"tees,"and classifies the urban design and land use characteristics of each one,including the primaxy land.use or mix of land uses (for example:,employment.,residential, civic), and measurable characteristics such as persons per acre, jobs per household, floor area ratio,etc. It also describes more qualitative characteristics that can't always be measured such as".sense of place."It should be noted that within specific Station Community tyTpes, there can be a wide range of characteristics,both qualitative and quantitative. The four typologies are summarised below: L Town Center/Main Street The Town Center/Main Street:Station Community includes significant housing, employment and commercial businesses and serves the local population.The area within 1/2 mile of the high capacity transit station is a mix of housing,retail, sen ices,civic uses and office. This area has ajobs-to-housing balance of approximately 2:1. Residential. units in the form of flats (apartments or condominiums) occupy the upper level of some buildings.Moving away from the station,there may be townhouses with f7ound floor office and home-based businesses.The edges of the station area are predominantly residential,blending into the surrounding single dwelling neighborhood. References for comparison include the Hollywood neighborhood;Downtown INWwaulde;Downtown Lake Oswego. Agenda Item 9 2. Employment/R tail Destination The focus of the Employment/ Retail Destination Station Community-is regional employment and/or commercial and institutional.uses.It is a moderately,to intensely populated district with an emphasis on employment and commercial retail activities.A destination for transit.trips, this district focuses on office and/or retail employment,and is highlighted by a regional shopping center and/or large-scale office coo-Pplexes. Employment uses include a range of professional services,research and tec.hnology�- based manufacturing. Civic uses and colleges can also be found here.The core of the center is surrounded by medium to high density multi-story housing inn the form of townhouses and apartment buildings, creating opportunities to live and work in close proximity. A large percentage of the workers in the center travel from.outside.the area to a job within the district. Additionally, the regional shopping center draws many trips in .from outside the area.References for comparafion are: Lloyd District;Tanasbourne; Bridgeport Village. 3. Transit Corridor NeWhborhood 1"he focus of the Transit Corridor Station Community is shop*g,dining and residential uses with a suburban residential character. The transportation arterial seraing the corridor was otigitnally*designed to accommodate auto traffic,but significant efforts have been made to improve the pedestrian environment.The corridor has evolved into a destination location for restaurants and a mix of stational chain retail and small-scale, locally-owned.retail. The area has schools within-walking distance of the district..The Transit Corridor Neighborhood has access to transit stations strategically located along the corridor. Employment land uses, shopping and dining may be located near this station community type but are smaller in scale than the same uses at the other Station Communiti;s. The station area allows for a synergy of land uses because they are oriented to customers arho use either tran sit,auto or other modes.Fhe rnajority of residents leave the area to work,whileany jobs found within the corridor are predominantly=retail, personal services or restaurant focused. References for comparison are: Ifillsdale, Orenco Station,Lake Grove Neighborhood. 4. Transit Neighborhood Station Community T e Transit Neighborhood Station Community is moderately populated and has a residential feel..There are few commercial land uses in this Station Community, and when they are present,they occur at locations where such uses have historically located; usually at the crossroads of through streets. V hen they occur,commercial land uses take the form of small--scale retail or office,usually on the ground floor of one or two corner buildings. Examples of the retail that might be foundhere included coffee shops and specialty stores,while office uses may include professional semkes,some'«in the f)nn of home-based businesses. Some of these buildings,have residential uses above or behind the retail or office use. Afore significant clusters of retail and restaurants are.within walking and biking distance. References for comparison include Laurelhurst,Ladd's Addition;Summerfield. Agenda Item 9 Tigard HC's' Land Use Plan --Next Steps Over the next five months the project team will develop a Station Community Concept Plan, including six to ten potential station locations which will be further developed using the Station Community Typologies. A key step in the concept development will take place at a design session and public meeting on May 25. An afternoon work session will provide an opportunity to the project team,city staff, the'T'echn'ical Advisory Committee(TAC),and other agency planners to spend several hours working in small groups to develop concept alternatives.This will be followed by wi evening public meeting to hear comments and concerns and to further refine the concept alternatives. .A separate presentation of the.concept alwi natives is scheduled for the Planning O)mmission at. their June 6 meedng.This presentation vrill focus on station area planning within the'Tigard Triangle. T11is is an opportunity to engage the Cx)mn ission in a discussion aboutt development of a Tigard Triangle Master Plan. This will also be an opportunity to engage the Planning Conon ssion at a critical time for input on thee overall project. '111e Concept Alternatives will be: further evaluated for development of a proposed Station Community Concept-Plan which be presented to Planning Commission and Council in December 2011. —January 2012. City Council consideration of recommendations may depend } on changes to mobility standards related to the Transportation Planning Rule (rPR).'T his could occur as an outcome of the SW Corridor Refinement Plan or due to changes in.statewide policy which are currently wader.discussion.If these are not yet enacted,Council will be asked to approve the Station.Community Concept Plan as the basis for future land use and transportation planning decisions. Also the Concept Plan can be the city's blue print to guide HCT planning Corridor such as the Alter natives Analysis;F,nvri om-rental Impact Statement (CIS) and Locally Preferred Alignment,and other.related studies. Public Involvement Activities Activides for public involvement were initiated with the project kick-off and are continuing throughout the project. In addition to the stakeholder interviews, citizens have offered commeznts and questions through the C_A-C,on the project web site,mid via email.. Some of the initial comments and questions include: • Wheree will the alignment be? • Are we talking about light rail? • Why can't we just.increase bus serrice? • Its important not to reduce the capacity?on Pacific Higbw'ay to handle auto traffic. C7ther upcoming public involvement activities include the follovc�iag: 'Tigard lkrea Farmers Market(Nfay '15 and June 19) * Public Meeting Mt ay 25th) * Balloon Festival Dune 24 through 26) !Vile, T R E'I Jpdaar Memo Ron Aptii v1 chwxj 1 Agency C1 Center Deve omentp ' The City of Tigard's Urban RenewalAgency . 1 11 -12 Proposed Budget P .� �_,,: .. ��•,�;, ,.� Wit;+,�� 4 \� u � �J Tigard, Oregon. City Center Development Agency City of Tigard Fiscal Year 2011-2012 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE Melody Graeber Craig Dirksen Christopher Henn Gretchen Buehner Cameron James Marland Henderson Dan Goodrich Nick Wilson Rick Parker Marc Woodard CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD Craig Dirksen, Chair Gretchen Buehner Nick Wilson Marland Henderson Marc Woodard EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Craig Prosser COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Ron Bunch REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER for DOWNTOWN Sean Farrelly FINANCE and INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Toby LaFrance Erg CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 Cover Graphic from Tigard Downtown Future Vision by Tigard Community Development and University of Oregon To the Citizens of Tigard, As the first Executive Director of the City Center Development Agency (CCDA),it is with some sadness that I submit my fifth and last Budget Message. The City Center Development Agency is charged with the revitalization of Downtown and implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan which was approved by voters in May of 2006.The source of funding comes from tax increment financing. When the CCDA was established,the assessed value of the district was frozen. Property taxes collected on any growth in assessed value over and above the frozen base (the increment) go to the CCDA. In prior messages, I have preached patience for two reasons. First,Tigard's Urban Renewal district is not as mature as others in the area and it takes time to build the increment. Second,new private development in the area has been slow to materialize,due to the downturn in the economy. Until the increment grows,we are limited in the type and size of projects we can undertake. For Fiscal year 2011-12, I want to discuss Ore on Urban Renewal Agencies Selected Com arisons expectations. There are 68 government City jurisdictions with a total of 102 urban renewal City/Agency Population Max. Indebtedness districts in the state of Oregon. Tigard is the ninth Albany 48,770 56,000,000 most populous city with a district. One primary Canby 15,165 51,150,000 way to measure the size of a district is its maximum Gresham 100,655 92,000,000 indebtedness. This is the most debt the agency can Keizer 36,150 45,890,384 Lake accumulate to pay for projects. Tigard's CCDA is Oswego 36,590 58,014,000 only the 48`''largest urban renewal district. The Oregon City 30,405 130,000,000 average population of agencies with smaller urban Pendleton 17,295 33,500,000 renewal districts is 7,100. Redmond 25,445 The table to the right shows how Tigard's Downtown 27,136,719 South Airport 24,675,196 maximum indebtedness compares to a selection of Roseburg 21,235 77,250,133 urban renewal districts that are either in the Sherwood 16,420 35,347,600 Portland Metro area,or are in cities of a population Springfield 58,005 that is similar to Tigard. Of these districts,Tigard Downtown 43,010,000 has the lowest maximum indebtedness. Glenwood 32,860,000 All of this is background to say that Tigard chose Tualatin 26,040 to be a modestly sized urban renewal district. We Leveton 36,424,338 went through a public process to establish the Central 27,707,384 district and the conscious outcome of that process Wilsonville 17,940 Year 2000 92,687,423 was to have the modestly sized district we have West Side 40,000,000 now. Accordingly, our expectations for the size Woodburn 23,355 29,300,000 and types of projects the district will undertake should be proportional to the size of the district. Tigard 48,035 22,000,000 The FY 2011-12 Proposed Budget for the CCDA contains $375,000 in projects based on recommendations by the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC). In the upcoming year,we will continue the popular Facade Improvement Program. In addition, the CCDA will undertake a number of other projects,including: • Development Opportunity Studies and Real Estate Consulting • Downtown Marketing Implementation • Downtown Gateways at two locations • Wayfinding Implementation • Parking Management assistance • Burnham Street Public Parking Lot All of these projects will be paid for by loans from the City of Tigard that will be repaid during the fiscal year. Additionally,staff has researched the viability of securing private financing. This is now a possibility for the CCDA. Due to the nature of this funding source,it should be used when a major project or land purchase has been identified. These projects and the potential for private funding of additional work are proportional to the expectations of where CCDA should be for its age, economic condition,and size. What is amazing is the amount that local government has invested in the urban renewal district. While the CCDA may be modestly sized,it brings attention and investment that may not exist without the district. Over the last several years public projects such as Burnham Street,improvements at the intersections of Pacific Highway with Greenburg/Main and Hall Boulevard have invested over$18 million in public funds from the CCDA,City of Tigard,Washington County,and State of Oregon. In the next two years,Main Street will be improved with another$3.7 million from the CCDA,City of Tigard and Metro;plus $1.7 million in parks acquisition and development is now possible due to the voter approved parks bond that passed in November 2010. The parks bond allows up to ten percent of the proceeds to be used in Downtown. Including the parks bond and the Main Street projects,total public investment in the district as of the end of FY 2012-13 will exceed$23 million We have also been fortunate to see some development in the urban renewal district. There has been$10 million in non-profit development for the Knoll at Tigard senior housing development. This development will not add to the increment since it is exempt from property tax,but the hope it will spur private development in the district. According to building permit records, there has been$7 million in private investment,including new development, tenant improvements and building upgrades. As the economy continues its slow climb out of the recession,we need to see more investment from the private side to assist with the development of the CCDA. The objective of the City Center Development Agency is to engage stakeholders and foster economic development in the Downtown. Despite the economic downturn,property and business owners will be engaged to plan for the future,and set up partnerships than can be acted upon when the economy improves. The Agency is fortunate to have an engaged and committed citizen advisory body,the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),which has made recommendations on many critical issues implemented in this budget. I am optimistic that this year's budget and the projects that are currently underway,will position the Urban Renewal District for further revitalization and investment from public and private entities. Respectfu mitted, W, y L_OMITA a l City of Tigard Urban Renewal District 1. Urban Renewal District Boundary , - 9 N i / V v / I i z; /l s Fanno Creek I !eJr y!l� Park 1 , I CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FACTS District Formation Date..............................................................................................May 2O06 DistrictSize 6czcs\ ............................................................................................................l93J1 District Tax Lot Area /xcrcs :...........................................................................................14414 District i Area /ucrrs ....................................................................................4Y.57 Base Assessed Value ................................................................................................$69 8 AssessedValue C20D\ .............................................................................................$9 5 Annual taxes levied (pzo)cctod2O12\ .......................................................................... Maximum Debt Limit:..............................................................................................$22,0U0`00U Debt Issued Cl01[A:........................................................................................................$393,687 RemainingDebt Lin-lit..............................................................................................$220001Xl0 Capital Project Funds - Urban Renewal Capital Improvements FY 2009 FY 2010 2011 2012 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised 40000-Beginning Fund Balance 0 27,967 42,500 0 0.0% Total Beginning Fund Balance 0 27,967 42,500 0 -100.0% 44501-Intergovernmental Revenue 323,616 O 449,000 375,000 -16.5% Total Intergovernmental 323,616 0 449,000 375,000 -16.5% 49100-Transfer In from General Fund 0 70,071 0 0 0.0% Total Transfers In 0 70,071 0 0 0.0% Total Resources 323,616 98,038 491,5(X) 375,000 -23.7% Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Work in Progress 295,649 0 491,500 375,000 76.3% Total Budget 295,649 0 491,5(X) 375,000 -23.70,'. Ending Fund Balance 27,967 98,038 0 O #_vum! Total Requirements 323,616 98,038 491,500 375,(X)0 -23.7"6 Debt Service Funds - Urban Renewal Debt Service FY 2009 FY 2010 2011 2012 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised 11101&0111� 40000-Beginning Fund Balance 39,662 157,597 414,993 384,818 -7.31/. Total Beginning Fund Balance 39,662 157,597 414,993 384,818 -7.30/- 40100 7.3%40100-Current Property Taxes 115,019 254,078 211,(X)O 300,0(X) 422% 40101-Prior Year Property Taxes 0 2,318 1,6(X) 0 0.00/0 Total Taxes 115,019 256,397 212,600 300,000 41.1% 47000-Interest Earnings 2,898 895 6,225 3,455 -44.5% Total Interest Earnings 2,898 895 6,225 3,455 -44.5% Total Resources 157,579 414,889 633,818 688,273 8.6% Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00/0 Total Debt Service 0 0 249,000 375,000 150.6% Total Budget 0 0 249,000 375,000 Ending Fund Balance 157,579 414,889 384,818 313,273 -18.6% Total Requirements 157,579 414,889 633,818 688,273 8.6% FY 2011-2012 Urban Renewal Projects Main Street Green Street Related Projects Burnham Street Public Parking Lot- $50,000 Description: Build a public parking lot on two City-owned parcels on Burnham Street.As a companion project to the Main Street project, the lot will provide additional parking options and flexibility in managing parking in the downtown. Parking Management Assistance-$5,000 This project would fund a consultant to assist in the development of a parking management plan for Main Street. Wayfinding Implementation-$15,000 The City has obtained a Metro grant to fund a wayfinding plan and walking map. This project would pay for the design and installation of signage, including directional signage to public parking that would be installed in conjunction with Main Street Green Street streetscape improvements. Downtown Gateways - $120,000 Gateways demark entrances to the Downtown and create an identity for the District. One gateway was installed at the intersection of Burnham and Hall and another is planned for the intersection of Hall and Pacific Hwy. This project would fund the design and construction of two additional gateway walls at the northern and southern entrances of Main Street and Pacific Highway.The construction will be coordinated with the Main Street Green Street project. Facade Improvement Program-$75,000 The program has awarded three matching grants for a total of$39,195 (one completed, two in progress) to property owners. Five additional property/business owners have received architectural design assistance (one owner used a suggested design for a sign without requesting a grant). This project includes up to $22,500 available for architectural design assistance and$52,500 available for matching grants. Development Opportunity Studies and Real Estate Consulting- $60,000 This project consists of funding professional services (in real estate development and economics, architecture, and other needed specialists) to foster the opportunities for the redevelopment and/or renovation of properties. A major program will be development opportunity studies to provide business and property owners the technical assistance and resources to assess the feasibility of redeveloping properties in the urban renewal district. Eligible pre-development activities include architectural,planning, and engineering studies, and real estate market and financial analysis. The goal is to increase the tax increment revenues in the urban renewal district. Downtown Marketing Implementation- $50,000 The Agency has engaged the services of a consultant to work with Downtown business and property owners and other stakeholders to develop a marketing strategy for Main Street/Downtown. While the consultant's final recommendations are not due until June, this proposed technical assistance project would pay for consultant services to implement the recommendations, and funds for marketing and promotional materials. Total Budgeted Projects: $375,000 Agenda item 6 Draft Cityscape article The voter approved open space bond included a provision that up to 10% of the bond go toward purchase/development of park land in downtown Tigard. The citizen-led City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) want to hear your suggestions on park and open space purchases and improvements in the Downtown. The CCAC and PRAB will evaluate your suggestions using the park bond criteria. At least 80 percent of the bond proceeds will be used to buy park land and open space; the balance will be used to purchase additional park property or to construct improvements. is the deadline to submit suggestions for evaluation. This process is expected to take several months. The CCAC and PRAB will forward their recommendations to the City Council later. It's easy to share your ideas Attend a CCAC or PRAB meeting. The CCAC meets on the second Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. (Check the city website for the meeting place.) The PRAB meets on the second Monday of each month at 7 p.m. in the Tigard Public Works Building, 8777 SW Burnham Street, Tigard. Send a letter or an e-mail to Parks and Facilities Manager Steve Martin, or Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223, or stevek4 and-or ov andsean@fiagrd-or.gov. All correspondence will be forwarded to the CCAC and PRAB. Want to check in on how your park bond dollars are being spent? Visit www.tigard- orgov/parkbond. 4 N f _•��\ �� e sail � �� }9 � ..i �Y'T t► _. �, _`,° �,' ` �i�\ '�. i� Wit• �'a .�^�- !" J • .....: j E i E E . d N Ed E3 3333 3 E E.E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 d d d d dd d d 3 3333E3 Ed Edi 3333Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed EZ 1-1.. .: .: 7 N-N EZZd spago E E EZi-d i 3 NORM 9f 9f 9f'.R 5 5 5 5 5 5 5'S p 5 p fE€E€P e,ip ip:. 9q ::€;I §§ E W 6NfW6NfW6WfWEWWEWWEW`.W.W W.W W W W.W.W.W W W W W W W E€E€E€E€E EP f'.ff°i°f §§§§ gY999§$999§$p@@ I I E E Wf WE WE W;WWWWWWWWW6€E6€E6€E6€E€E€E€E€E€EEE€EEE€EEPPPp PW3 3 Ti GARD 'j33� [y °e°fi 66°6�$Np6�6.I tl. 9 9 Pr.. �NENE CEE�€�EEI€I�€I�€R REREREREREE6 E6 EE EEEPEEEPEPEEEPEEEP pJ §I pg gJ 9qI ...: 1 E €€ E tl I EI I €C€C EE [f f E E EEE -.-. ......... ..:..:........ ... ...... ......... EEEEE'EEEEEEEE'.EEEEEEEE'EEE 'EEE ii ii € g f � lL-`• € u g ySfggf .. U � ! � �,, • I I uggg €E E P .jam� • . • . • I S eJ r. r #ice ► �i 7 , / • • �'� , • ------------- H ..... .:: .. .... ...... w SW Corridor Plan t • 5 related studies Land Use Plans —Tigard, Portland, Tualatin r Corridor Transportation Plan Vt Transit Alternatives Analysis • Tigard is first in Portland "Barbur Concept Plan process Metro,ODOT, & The TriMet "Southwest SOuthWeSt Tigard "99W ■ Others in Corridor Transit Land Use Plan" A Alternatives Corridor �I a� Analysis" _ !II �lltll' rl summer/fall Metro, ODOT& a r TriMet Tualatin "99W "Southwest -_ Corridor Corridor Refinement Planning" Plan" � SII f i': . • f �say g tWM� �-Ic�Y-�ENIIII.II --�s'.'.W��`3113'ii hill IIII8I818 *xwm+ N ...:Ei' 3 3 iii: i i.i:'i:N N • ., - a op x . ..... ............................................... ...... ............... ......: — — ............................................................... ..................... ....... ........ ROX ....................... ............ .... ...... a t .................... ......... ... t.... ........ .. a ...:. NO 4, ,fi Major Tasks Completed ti ,1 Existing Conditions Analysis Policies Transportation Land Use Market Conditions Natural Resources Public Facilities q x b 3V ti l - CIE EE IEEE E. u. E,E;. Stakeholder EEEEl 3 33 E33333. 'M►, + Interviews 33 333333333 333333333 � . Transit Station Typologies $, fltilkllyll �af,� .� a � Existing 33333 3333 3333 333333 �.. 33 Conditions w __. ........ rt .:::.:� ....... ::............::::::::: w _ . ...: ........: 1-1 .......gym _........ ... ......... ad _.Y._ E Typologies , r A framework for describing_ g the 4 ' it4 character of different areas `�ap • For comparing & contrasting the characteristics of good places x �a . 4 Aspirational what could be r Un ,�1[j� .i �1r■ h Mill MRIMM ffe Ei EEE � iE�ii I �► I` r 6p • 6g �_:c• _ , 1YI@@pJ�E —��- -� �I e°!@y Y9Yy Ydl YYYYY dgddN_Ni glg E� y<y. -----" .asy€hl"i gHC a�,Eal,al. • / • • / • • • E s. A • 1\VIf111�V�t ', �1� � �..... ....... ....................... ... .. �..... YY a r � / • • rl`- Y4i i, .y •N.{ s 1 Y 1_• riVld ! l r ® - t!„ -•'7 4 — • r �. € \..W...: �� ------------ fA �r ... • I . - v 4 _•• \ ' /r .. .....:... .....:... ........................................... f zxc a... � \ r 3g 3 ■�� 1 �` ��—.P�` g g Egg '•F .. EgEqysg� �- g .y • ,�- 46g1y u gytlpYu :� f�'�ti � • � 72 uVuE d� '�9ggl�I l31'!F — EgEE m �E � :...:x .e.veeo a..»g=g.gggga E Ea3 gg=ggggggag� � � f f •� ii � • A ,• �j `i 17�i y r 11Vr\l1\ilk � � •r _..........-' ......... .......:. ........ k ....... ,..ato • , . . 1�M2k#:sem iar ,. J1 • Dow r Ig EF AM iii 11� � L , ......._ .. ��t y WOO Mail AMR AMR .So r . g F ••�� jam• ,' / N Main Street/Town Center Community destinations, civic uses planned ry III III IIIII'�I I I III:;. events = `" ` _ I jam' I v rlllllll i�l RMIMI ,r LVA1 [3 s<y. I p, iE E , • • • • ` dN �e t 1\Vr1 �. IMEN All in! �ll \IG EHMN €. V� f A '_ 11..1 • .� i. �. o -- II� a►• ... �� '�. ��• .�"" x,1.2,. �.i , l l v +1 +r. � • NE We Ab Ah PPEEPPE �' `�` t. Npp 1 E¢yNyN�NNs s 6 f ��ss .M . fEsSPSP1ENE3 s�-�s"�-ter �.i�YY9YYYYYYh • f s<ygo • Y - 4 M INS HIR ult �♦,AR ;/r i `a r •i : a hi 11 I .. 0 •s'. d i" `•r k 9€ ♦ •1 .M k r , • .`? `�''. G .^fit �. i 1 f • Y * • ;; . - • n . •.. �• �" ;3� V F y• ;k s r r . F.. _..... AA .. . —............................................................................................................... RnnN ! d9 V5 as I,C , 6i IN \ S 3 A L lYyplE�a�E i �...;� ��d:"y"yYyYeYdmpYyyYN Ntl tl IY�aA N �• *p111{Hi 7 I:ifilfii EEE i p P ` EE pp FppF pppp pE E ._ ' L E•EEEEI.l�N N 3lNE€Z�d E.3aEy�y�ISiN,pgg B. EE, � ,tt�rti►t�i�t UW I ■ � ■ � wururururm � ►' ► �. .� �. PUFM - . . —� . ....: WN a w.. ......... �- M [l 1 PPPPPPP`P`P" , E EP PiP PiPiP P PiP�iPIP Pi iPiP iPiPi Pi 3 w— lit NMI " .. R:��ai iP EiP ui9 uiP EPP:Ei�iP Ei EiP ' _ :_ %7i— M L , �. f J.. l f x �. 4 i 4 t t i { }} wl S 1 ! ..... r. as33� la's 8 RP G� • / . • / • • • 18686868.I8 G8 868 68 68 8IN I.11h 8 8 81°�68�I�I I I��' • - 8%G G 8 88 8 8°616161616161 M M E 4d •� a y J 11�e3 Y8L83rrE8 EjvPIIS IS°ES°IE — .:... . OR IN ..... z �. „y♦� .. v■ a � � I .. ........ ........ y - _ Y i .5 p ., r #} ■ •_ �� I. s �mm _e aa .HE a� E €�€p ................�......�.:ee.._.._.._.._.._.E.:sse.:°m.°...°...°.°.°.°...:......:..:::....................::.:::.::::::.°:°:°e.. F.° r �f ,l �...... 'S°oon 3 _ - 34'3 3E3f3 `_. T 3€E€E€€€E€€€E - EEEE€€E€ €. II €I€€E.€E€€€€€€€ • �d , i�jii�. 14 � 1� At DROM i .� I` y + .�. A E. _._.... ........................ ...:. ......... min _ y (. _.._..v.. o-o .......:. 1 ...:......... --' - ..i _.. .. .... ......... ........ `3 L� • A alk *swm+ s<y.. _ _ • • • . • - • I I y3 ®il;y .r r �i .µ r .m _ -- E�1 S tt Y tj .... .` 3 I At 1 an �. I >� L ,< ► i , "t f Transit Neighborhood ti Small-scale, locally-owned retail or office the ground floor of one or two corners. n- 114 1 r' TEPHAN P SYKM - 5 W '�1 � r' r, Transit Neighborhood Si nificant rets i I/resta u ra nt - r , clusters are within walking & biking r distance � �' ......:...__ E......e.� ....�.:.� �.....:. .e...e.. 4 ,l, j a E Y€ F mm 0` •�►' �� 4 y J A 1 , _". EEE��. E�EiEE i • • • • • I � r �` a r.. } E r— ......... ....... ............................................................... ....... -.-:'..'�: a :. `� (o ........_ ........: ......... ........: ........: J ,.''✓:. .i '�' N i + N .� sr .l. - Next Tasks a dd'dddd "�t Develop Concept Plan ��l��klllllllllll�11111111111111111111111111111111Illllllllllllllllllllilllii�i�� May 25 — Design Session and Public Meeting r w June 6 — Work session with Planning Commission w, June/July — Analyze Station Community Plan Alternatives I� I f H { Public Involvement What we've heard Upcoming opportunities Visit www.tigard-or.gov/hct HCT Land Use Plan T I M E L I N E M E ''S KICK",I Scup ASSES ME ME/COLLABORATION - - Existing Conditions and Typologies Definition *I _ f InaliZe Station Community plans --------------- - III�II "a -------------- -------------- r,.I I II Formal Legislative _ �. process w� Agenda Item 9 City ofTigard Memorandum Ta Mayor Dirksen and City Council From: Judith Gray, Senior Transportation Planner Re Tigard HCT Land Use Plan Update Date: April 12, 2011 The Tigard High Capacity Transit (HCT) Land Use Plan project is moving forward according to its contracted schedule. Two of the five tasks in the contracted scope of work have been completed;in addition several public involvement elements have been completed or are moving forward. This memorandum presents an update of the project status within the context of the broader Southwest Corridor Plan, summarizes recently completed project tasks, and identifies upcoming activities. A brief summary of public involvement activities is also provided. SW Corridor Plan The Tigard HCT Land Use Plan was the first of five related projects comprising the SW Corridor Portland"Bar&ur Plan to get underway. Similar land use plans for Concept Plan" the cities of Portland and Tualatin are expected to Metro,odor,A, get started by year end as funding issues are rrlMnt The "Southw Ut�'1W St rlp�ard"94W resolved. These land use plans will lay the Corridor Tr 4 �dnd t,"Flan" groundwork for HCT planning and will inform panni;it orridor, later decisions about transit service alignments. - tt ,onor,��11 Not only does this approach help assure theTrlraet Tualatin"99W Southwe%t Corridor orridor success of future transit service, it also assures Refinement Planning that transit planning serves local community goals Plan" and aspirations for future growth and development. The planning for HCT and other transportation improvements in the SW Metro area,must take into account the unique needs and aspirations of three cities, Metro,Tri-Met and ODOT. This requires close cooperation of all involved to ensure future transportation facilities work seamlessly across jurisdictional boundaries. Also, the SW Corridor Plan will consider the relationship of land use and transportation as essential to economic prosperity,land use efficiency and livability. The larger SW Corridor Planning effort is not only about High Capacity Transit. Rather the focus is on how to achieve a balanced mix of auto, HCT, traditional bus,pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes. Agenda Item 9 The Tigard project is the only one officially underway and is scheduled to be completed in January 2012. The other SW Corridor plan projects are expected to get started this summer. Tigard HCT Land Use Plan Project Status The first two of five project tasks were completed as of the end of March 2011.Major deliverables included: Stakeholder Interviews: Approximately 45 stakeholders were interviewed about desired community characteristics and the impacts of transit. The key themes from the interviews include a desire for a good walking environment and good access to open space.A summary report documenting the interviews is included as Attachment B. Existing Conditions Analyses: The project team conducted a comprehensive analysis of current conditions,including land use,public policies,market conditions,transportation,natural resources, public facilities, parks and trails. These reports are available for review on the project web site. Tigard Typologies Definitions The findings from the Stakeholder Interviews and the Existing Conditions Analyses were used to define Station Community Typologies for Tigard. From the report: This study, or"typology" describes four distinct Station Community"types," and classifies the urban design and land use characteristics of each one, including the primary land use or mix of land uses (for example, employment, residential, civic), and measurable characteristics such as persons per acre, jobs per household, floor area ratio, etc. It also describes more qualitative characteristics that can't always be measured such as "sense of place."It should be noted that within specific Station Community types, there can be a wide range of characteristics, both qualitative and quantitative. The four typologies are summarized below: 1. Town Center/Main Street The Town Center/Main Street Station Community includes significant housing, employment and commercial businesses and serves the local population. The area within 1/2 mile of the high capacity transit station is a mix of housing, retail, services, civic uses and office. This area has a jobs-to-housing balance of approximately 2:1. Residential units in the form of flats (apartments or condominiums) occupy the upper level of some buildings. Moving away from the station, there may be townhouses with ground floor office and home-based businesses. The edges of the station area are predominantly residential, blending into the surrounding single dwelling neighborhood. References for comparison include the Hollywood neighborhood;Downtown Milwaukie;Downtown Lake Oswego. Agenda Item 9 2. Employment/Retail Destination The focus of the Employment / Retail Destination Station Community is regional employment and/or commercial and institutional uses. It is a moderately, to intensely populated district with an emphasis on employment and commercial retail activities. A destination for transit trips, this district focuses on office and/or retail employment, and is highlighted by a regional shopping center and/or large-scale office complexes. Employment uses include a range of professional services, research and technology- based manufacturing. Civic uses and colleges can also be found here.The core of the center is surrounded by medium to high density multi-story housing in the form of townhouses and apartment buildings, creating opportunities to live and work in close proximity. A large percentage of the workers in the center travel from outside the area to a job within the district. Additionally, the regional shopping center draws many trips in from outside the area. References for comparison are: Lloyd District;Tanasbourne; Bridgeport Village. 3. Transit Corridor Neighborhood The focus of the Transit Corridor Station Community is shopping, dining and residential uses with a suburban residential character. The transportation arterial serving the corridor was originally designed to accommodate auto traffic,but significant efforts have been made to improve the pedestrian environment. The corridor has evolved into a destination location for restaurants and a mix of national chain retail and small-scale, locally-owned retail. The area has schools within walking distance of the district. The Transit Corridor Neighborhood has access to transit stations strategically located along the corridor. Employment land uses, shopping and dining may be located near this station community type but are smaller in scale than the same uses at the other Station Communities.The station area allows for a synergy of land uses because they are oriented to customers who use either transit,auto or other modes.The majority of residents leave the area to work,while any jobs found within the corridor are predominantly retail, personal services or restaurant focused. References for comparison are: Hillsdale, Orenco Station,Lake Grove Neighborhood. 4. Transit Neighborhood Station Community The Transit Neighborhood Station Community is moderately populated and has a residential feel. There are few commercial land uses in this Station Community, and when they are present, they occur at locations where such uses have historically located; usually at the crossroads of through streets.When they occur, commercial land uses take the form of small-scale retail or office,usually on the ground floor of one or two corner buildings. Examples of the retail that might be found here includes coffee shops and specialty stores,while office uses may include professional services, some in the form of home-based businesses. Some of these buildings have residential uses above or behind the retail or office use. More significant clusters of retail and restaurants are within walking and biking distance. References for comparison include Laurelhurst, Ladd's Addition; Summerfield. Agenda Item 9 Tigard HCT Land Use Plan — Next Steps Over the next five months the project team will develop a Station Community Concept Plan, including six to ten potential station locations which will be further developed using the Station Community Typologies. A key step in the concept development will take place at a design session and public meeting on May 25. An afternoon work session will provide an opportunity to the project team, city staff, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and other agency planners to spend several hours working in small groups to develop concept alternatives. This will be followed by an evening public meeting to hear comments and concerns and to further refine the concept alternatives. A separate presentation of the concept alternatives is scheduled for the Planning Commission at their June 6 meeting. This presentation will focus on station area planning within the Tigard Triangle. This is an opportunity to engage the Commission in a discussion about development of a Tigard Triangle Master Plan. This will also be an opportunity to engage the Planning Commission at a critical time for input on the overall project. The Concept Alternatives will be further evaluated for development of a proposed Station Community Concept Plan which will be presented to Planning Commission and Council in December 2011 —January 2012. City Council consideration of recommendations may depend on changes to mobility standards related to the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). This could occur as an outcome of the SW Corridor Refinement Plan or due to changes in statewide policy which are currently under discussion. If these are not yet enacted, Council will be asked to approve the Station Community Concept Plan as the basis for future land use and transportation planning decisions. Also the Concept Plan can be the city's blue print to guide HCT planning Corridor such as the Alternatives Analysis;Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Locally Preferred Alignment, and other related studies. Public Involvement Activities Activities for public involvement were initiated with the project kick-off and are continuing throughout the project. In addition to the stakeholder interviews, citizens have offered comments and questions through the CAC,on the project web site, and via email. Some of the initial comments and questions include: • Where will the alignment be? • Are we talking about light rail? • Why can't we just increase bus service? • It's important not to reduce the capacity on Pacific Highway to handle auto traffic. Other upcoming public involvement activities include the following: • Tigard Area Farmers Market (May 15 and June 19) • Public Meeting (May 25th) • Balloon Festival Qune 24 through 26) (File: HCT Update Memo Ron April v2.docx) PRAB Matrix (12/21/2010) 1. Is identified in a park master plan or the Park System Master Plan. 1. Does the potential property fit well into the Park System Master Plan? 2. Does the property fit well into the purpose of the Bond Measure? 3. Does the property fit into the Trails Master Plan? 4. Is there a specific park master plan that fits this property? 2. Serves an underserved area or is identified as a high priority for a particular neighborhood or City area (location, population). 1. Does the property meet a neighborhood need (1/4 mile standard)? 2. Does the property meet a local need, serve a large population? 3. Is the property in an area that lacks that type of park or open space? 3. Meets a need for the park system as a whole (quality or uniqueness, connectivity). 1. Is this a park type that is needed,wanted, or lacking in the City of Tigard? 2. Is the quality of the land high (examples: are there large trees, good habitat areas, flat areas for playing fields)? 3. Does the property connect to other public lands or easements? 4. Important in size, habitat, or vulnerability (depends on type of project). 1. Is the property vulnerable to development? 2. Is the property large enough to accomplish a specific purpose? (examples: Potso large enough for a dog park? or Summer Creek area large enough to be a natural area community park?) (4 Evaluation Criteria, 10 points each—with 10 as rating highest in that category)