02/26/2007 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commissioners Anderson, Doherty,and Vermilyea
Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall and Walsh
Staff Present: Ron Bunch,Long Range Planning Manager; Sean Farrel ly,Associate Planner;
Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE
REPORTS
The secretary reviewed the Commission's upcoming calendar.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
There was no quorum, so the minutes were not approved.
5. JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY
COMMISSION
- Introduction to the Downtown / Consultant Presentation
Members of the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) in attendance: Carolyn Barkley,
Roger Potthoff, Alexander Craghead, Carl Switzer, Alice Ellis Gaut.
Associate Planner Sean Farrelly advised that this meeting is in response to a request from the
CCAC to explore the potential for instituting a particular type of development code in the
Downtown, a Form Based Code. This kind of code is graphically based and has been used
in several places around the country, although no jurisdiction in Oregon has significantly
implemented them.
This is an important milestone in the development of a new regulatory framework for the
Downtown Tigard Urban Renewal District. The City has hired a consultant team to give
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 26,2007—Page 1
some background on the principles of good Urban Design for Downtowns, an overview of
Form Based Codes, and how design regulations are implemented in Oregon.
The presentation tonight's is informational. The next step will be to summarize comments
and discussion at the March 5th Planning Commission meeting and formulate a course of
action.
While this is going on, the City will be starting the public hearing process for updating the
Goals, Policies, and Action Measures for the Downtown section of the Comprehensive Plan.
This will be the legislative basis for adopting whichever type of development regulations are
decided on. The Planning Commission public hearing is on March 19th.
Farrelly introduced the consultants,Don Genasci, an architect with Genasci and Associates,
and John Spencer, a land use planning specialist with Spencer and Kupper.
The consultants gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A). They explained the
characteristics of form based code and reviewed the quality and function of urban design for
small downtowns. Form based code helps with understanding the physical results of
development in the Downtown. It builds into the existing code a way to see how it all fits
together—what the buildings will be like and how cars and pedestrians can be brought
together. The presentation consisted of 4 sections: principles for urban design; explanation of
form based code;how design review occurs under Oregon's fact based land use code; and
implementation of form based code.
Planning Manager Ron Bunch stated that staff would like this to be an on-going
collaborative process involving both the Planning Commission and the CCAC.
The consultants provided local examples of the Albany, Corvallis, and Eugene downtowns.
One of the most important things for a quality downtown is pedestrian scale organization
rather than automobile organization, e.g., covered sidewalks (awnings),building decoration
and large windows, small scale block structure, smaller buildings, and a range of housing
density.
The consultants were asked how it's possible to marry small block stature,which tends to have
a lot of infrastructure components,with sufficient housing and parking. The consultants
answered that parking can be tucked under buildings or behind buildings. Another aspect is
the question of public vs. private parking. In downtowns, there is typically a public parking
role somehow. In a number of metropolitan downtowns, there isn't a parking requirement
(no minimum parking, except possibly for housing). With a mix of uses, there generally aren't
as many trips and the need for parking goes down.
In Hillsboro, the block sizes are approximately 300'x 300' and they have a regulation that
requires developing property owners to consolidate parking areas in the central part of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 26,2007—Page 2
blocks. It's a nice idea,but it's difficult to implement. Property owners develop at different
times and it's not likely that they will all agree on sharing the parking.
Ron Bunch noted that parking has to be taken seriously. As redevelopment occurs and things
become more intense for parking,parking structures may be one solution for managing on-
street parking.
The consultants listed things that are necessary for a successful downtown: a mix of uses
designed for a walking community, signage at pedestrian eye level,wider sidewalks, street
furniture,trees,public places,possibly a farmer's market, active and managed public realms
(gathering places), and a variety of transportation modes.
The consultants provided an overview of form based code (FBC) concepts. BBC deals with 3
dimensions the public space between buildings (the street,the square,including elevations,,
walls, surface, floor,pavement, furnishings,permeability of buildings, and the experience of
someone walking through public streets and public rights-of-way). The emphasis is on the
physical form, the 3-dimensionality of development. FBC starts with buildings and spaces
rather than with uses.
Some of the goals of FBC are to improve the quality of the built environment,provide more
community control over the quality and configuration of what is built,provide more certainty
and specificity for developers and property owners, and improve the quality of public realm
and its buildings. NBC is typically developed through a planning process and then put into
regulatory form as to how the buildings would work,given the urban design concept plan.
FBC can be integrated into existing development code, through quasi judicial review
processes. They are no different, from an adoption point of view, as a set of design standards.
They are configured for 3-dimensions and are graphic, as opposed to words on a page. The
• characteristics and elements of FBC were described. It was advised that one of the goals of
FBC is to simplify the review process. It allows for some diversity of design for the architect,
but it does restrict buildings from being too large or too small or moving away from the street.
A big difference from FBC and regular development codes would be public spaces and street
standards. FI3C would tie the form of the building to the street setting. The consultants
reviewed sample matrices from other cities.
It was noted that there are the same limitations with a fact-based code as with a form-based
code. The consultants advised that decisions would be made about what's appropriate given
certain places within the community. Ron Bunch believes that with fact-based codes,
everything has to be based on fact (findings &conclusions have to be made). With traditional
codes, the same building forms tend to be repeated over and over because the developer is not
given the information about what the community really wants. The developer responds to
market conditions. FBC provides more of an impetus toward better architecture and form.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 26,2007—Page 3
The consultants noted that Beaverton has a Design Review Board. They have 5 general
principles of design and review everything but single family applications. The design criteria
were overwhelming so they eventually created a 3-tier system—one had specific quantifiable
standards based on facts and land use codes;larger projects or projects in certain areas
automatically went to the Design Review Board; and in some cases, only the standards that the
developer wanted a variation for were reviewed,rather than the whole project. The 3-tier
system streamlined the permitting process and dealt with design in a quantifiable way. BBC is
no different in concept and procedure;it's just a different way in how to regulate code in a 3-
dimensional way.
FBC should be treated the same as any other design-related development regulations. They
need to be processed through public hearings and created through a public process. The
consultants have not seen anything in Oregon land use requirements that would preclude
using FBC. The consultants advised that,if the City wants to pursue FBC or any design-
related regulations,the development community needs to be involved in the incorporation of
those plans. They will have good ideas about what works and what doesn't. The development
community should be invited early in the process.
The consultants were asked how F'J3C has been accepted in other communities and if there are
guidelines or ways of stopping it from becoming too restrictive. The oldest example is the FI3C
done in Seaside,Florida. It's a private development that started with open land, so it's hard to
tell yet. Alexandria,Virginia has used FBC for about 4-5 years and they are pleased with it.
Becoming too restrictive is always an issue with any kind of design restrictions. There has to be
a line between what is necessary and what is clearly unnecessary. For example,restricting color
choices is over the line. You don't want to have regulations that stymie development. It's
counter-productive and needs to be watched.
The consultants noted that some of the earlier codes were written so that the form-based
aspect was an election. Developers could choose either a design standard way or a FBC way.
Basically, there were 2 separate codes and developers could choose to use either one.
The consultants were asked if they were aware of any community where the Planning
Commission does design review rather than a Design Review Board or some other architectural
component. The consultants answered that it's more typical for a Design Review Board to do
the review. Ron Bunch noted that,in his experience,Planning Commissions typically address
the large scale policy issues and recommendations to City Council (Comprehensive Plan,
standards, etc.); Hearings Officers and Design Review Boards hear the day-to-day things for
discretionary review.
The Planning Commission will have a follow-up discussion on this issue at the March 5th
meeting. The CCAC was invited to attend.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 26,2007—Page 4
None
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Jerree L 's,Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—February 26,2007—Page 5
E--)( ° i41.
FORM BASED CODE DRAFT#6
Presentation for the City of Tigard
INTRODUCTION
Section I
What constitutes high quality and functional urban design for small
downtowns?
Principles for high quality downtowns:
lye
,/, „,,,,,,,;;;*-,4't,,,,› .:407.:if:',414,411',:;*:!, 1.?:. g.,,, ,:::;ririal
\ ,,,,,,,,,,.. ,----4,4*- - , #,.-y° '19*.;47'- , ,:c_ ,.- ..,1 4:1-*U
if
853 { �`�.,°-zt � �
Section II
How design review occurs under Oregon's fact-based land use process:
Procedural aspects that must be observed in
the development review process
'7-V
Overy form cents
Why use iew FBof C with based current zoning code(FBC)codes con an d
i
design standards?
Characteristics of form based code A _
Elements of FBC 1 �,
How C W -Ef Matrix `.
Organizing FB Principles orks xamples o
Mechanics of Implementation
1
Section I
What constitutes high quality and functional urban design for mall
downtowns? s n
Principles for high quality downtowns: ( )
Pedestrian Scale organization,rather than automobile s d
:x
scale organization-small block structure with active 4,4''7:114%,.,:',,,;1.., ia,,,,,,K,,
„ ,i,,,i, ... „,,,,,..„..,,,,I.: ,,V2.t,
uses(fosters variety and intensity)
Sufficient housing density in close proximity(walking '
distance)to support active street life and retail that
provides residents'daily and long term needs "'
A balance of work,living,retail and entertainment(a .« i a i vi:-10,M
mix of uses)so residents considerthe downtown as �i i • - `;
a destination for short and long term needs
;ii
Quality design and construction-is a symbol of local
values k
is`��� h
xP 4
�,i .moo $ �Mt Z�� !
tlkt. S 1!.� ' a ,_ill ''z 3 J::_+m
3 �rV'3 ,
_a.., s,:..,r ,3 Vim- .%".. s �;z
Signage focused on pedestrian scale observation
Public places(parks,streets and squares)that encourage fu€
public usage ( t
An actively and Imaginatively managed public realm with
c,+;' ' ,
places that encourage events and public involvement j.\,.',
Activities and elements that safely bring children,people
of all ages and physical abilities into the new public 4.,,,,,
s aces -, " )
P
Opportunities for a variety of scales of businesses, x ,7 r' ��
including live/work,street vendors,incubators,artists
Plan and build for a balance of community interests for
variety of economic and age,constituents ,
} i,
.y
t a
r° { x !i
2
; ...
Traffic calming principles to ensure that the
automobile is accessible but not intrusive
Develop A variety of accessible transportation modes jfrti f 4 stop
Ensure that buildings support public life in form , i {
and configuration,letting sunlight into public x
places and not overshadowing
Take the best urban ideas from history and use
them in a way that fits the local context
404 'I
i �
� ac 1,;
'4.j,l i 7r) f I , . &'TYCO
Provide for an ongoing public process in a specific place that encourages dialogue between decision makers,residents
and stakeholders.The dialogue will examine values,opportunities,issues and aspirations,the bases of a three
dimensional plan and form based code
Flow do urban design decisions and developer investment follow principles?
Development of form based standards to ensure that investment is protected by quality design and construction
Section II Overview of form based code(FBC)concepts;
How design review must occur under Oregon's fact based land use process
FBC is a refinement plan/overlay and subject to the statutes
Procedural aspects that must be observed by the development review process,in order to provide a clear
understanding of what constitutes legally defensible design regulations and procedures under the Oregon
land use system. (Oregon's revised statutes in general and specifically ORS 197's)
Development of quantifiable regulations(administrative decision)or clear,objective interpretation of
standards by a quasi legal process(Design Commission)
(b)The approval or denial of an application,based on discretionary standards designed to regulate the
physical characteristics of a use permitted outright,Including but not limited to site review and design
review,197.195
FBC Is no different than design review standards and guidelines now being used in a number of cities
including Beaverton,Portland,Bend,Lake Oswego and Hillsboro
Are form based land use regulations the best way to expedite the land use/design review process that
results in quality buildings and public spaces?yes
Can FBC be combined with other types of standards/regulations? Yes
3
Definition of FBC:
A predictable method of regulating the quality and configuration of development directed toward the goal
of Improving the public realm. This is accomplished by unifying a three dimensional plan and
regulations that graphically emphasize Improving the economic viability and physical quality of cities.
FBC is a land development regulatory tool that emphasizes the physical form of the built environment
(public realm). Its end goal is to produce a type of place that addresses relationships among and
between buildings and the public realm. It does this without eliminating land use regulations.
By understanding what future development will be like,communities can make better decisions about
what will be built
Goals of Form-Based Code(FBC)
Improve the quality of the built environment-(buildings and public places)
Improve the certainty of the quality and configuration of what is built(fewer surprises)
More community control over the quality and configuration of what is built
Transparency for developer(two tier system)acceptance of FBC vs.more ambiguous Design
Standards/Commission
Greater certainty for developer-Projects can be planned with more knowledge of outcome
FBC improve the quality of public realm and its buildings:
Based on visual district standards provided by an area master plan and matrix
They are visual and written rules for the form of buildings and public places
They emphasize mixed use development and a variety of typologies for divergent needs and densities
Based on a public participation process
4
Integrate form based codes into a legally defensible design review and land use program
that provides economic incentives to developers.
Clear and objective standards
Place based land use process-tied to local values
Provide Findings
Time Frames within process
Why use FBC with Current Zoning Codes and design standards?
Shortfalls of zoning(a blunt instrument for achieving community development goals)
Based on land use,rather than the quality of the buildings and the public realm
Height-usually maximum only,rather than minimum and maximum
Density-units/acre and FAR(floor area ratio)
Overly complex and difficult to understand
Open to uncertainty-unable to demonstrate the result of zoning
Not related to quality
Focused on protecting adjacent uses from impediments
Leads to homogeneous single use districts
Separates and compartmentalizes uses
Design standards are difficult to interpret and enforce,because they are ambiguous and usually
unrelated to plans or examples
5
Characteristics of form based code:
FBC is a statement of community development goals.
FBC will achieve a more predictable built result than zoning,
because it is based on a plan that proposes specific physical qualities/attributes
Elements controlled by FBC are those most important to shaping a quality public realm
FBC provides physical examples and guidance for implementation with community support
The process of developing a plan offers communities opportunities to consider the physical character of
the community
Community members will have easier access to FBC,because of its physical descriptions and stated
goals of the code
Less open to legal challenge,because failure to comply would diminish the good that comes from the
community adopting a specific plan and code
Elements of FBC:
Regulating Plan:providing a coherent strategy based on community intentions to implement the agreed
configuration,physical character and quality of future development. The plan will show building sites,
street types,build-to lines and design features.
Urban Regulations:standards organized by district and building type,presented in the form of a matrix
and diagrams that address bulk,height,coverage
Public Space/Street Standards:width and dimensions of streets,sidewalks,paths,curb heights,
parking requirements etc.
Building Form Standards:regulations controlling building and landscape configuration,character and a
range of functions,including walls,windows,fences,roofs and species,sizes,locations of trees and
plantings.
Administration: clearly defined application and project review process
Definitions: glossary to ensure understanding technical terms
Annotation: text and illustrations explaining intent of specific code provisions.
6
How FBC Works-Examples of Matrices
Seaside urban code
X V
....«.�.. .,. 3 .».._.a-.. �i YA:�41"' ,»b.�% ..........u«,+ .....IILY,^ 1 ."u:rb
. , x . s a . x' - "'"t
Generic FBC Matrix
RURAL I URBAN 'DISTRICTS
I .�. r ®I�, g »I if Ed •I to
41 44.0.,pr-410 ti, iq,;,,,:-;';',...,c,..-, -.--1,!.,...yyl .t..--- _ 0,,, ir„,,,
'.'‘et? ,.1„,,,A.,,%.„v.-..-‘ 4.r,,,pr,-.,„-irr... A..,;,..'"4*tilt riMar li • 'li,
e
11 PRESERVE II IZ RESERVE 1 TU URBAN I j -ORSANA` 1.5 CENTER r6lORE+ _I,DOISTRICT _
7
FBC Matrix Arlington VA
0.OVILMMIEMTIME$IAMMIMS,LOCAL SM.
mmm LL'VrAI:=Polt=r.
nasta,:tt-Fir:
SntriargYP.Zil
izirar...=grazr.
--
17-71
1 ; I
Three Dimensional Examples
WV:T PALM 6EAC e MASTER PLAN UPDATE
A '40
EM...11,1g CI,KOCK
, N 4,•
- v
EXMLIAPI ZONING M:4.030 ZO..W.:
8
La n dcaste r,CA
5.4 BUILDING TYPES AND REGULATING PLANS
BM DfM110 TWE'S
A lunlrimg rype r.on to•groop of builviingf that share common oho maafistica,ad..la plufemont,moo
end Me,and erMunal eiements.example:of digt,.bagrlinvyra melee.elopemper,varebovees,
deodeed labor,fowhouges,••■COSP.Olefual leca.kbadogs.Viitton Doom:own Law.,the foliowang
buihbonpaa aro allbamal:
•Commons,Block B.0.1.,
•-main seme c......delock BwIdings
•Live.Vock Lab
•courtyat•Daildings
•Ensobousee
•Snaked Flo Mali,
• Detached Hansen
•Gasp/Ace:nog fiad•a•
Mohan,5...7 shoves conceptual•obvfiens of■In above hoe.,enaea
WI*54:Concardval11441rdiont of Allowatl64.940.
Coabvnit•04 ..me•••
lftwort) 555 "1
oa•.•
Camor4
konan,
1.wrag ,
for Defamed
eea•
tive•tat offs. Maw., .f.f.'..
Vort•fde PM.°re W.. ..,... .
imova..P.14 me.ter.* ..,..g saucer. . ..
otiga.
1......
....—
Site SpecIficHions:
I Facade Spealf kotions: I Exhibit,121
low.,Lot.0 Como,Loos.,j, 1 DevelopmencSoilficatbna
.2' -- I v,,,,,......,■vo,.........^.....' I for liveWork Lola
0 fabigffibial I e FF5'72Ffi'I I 0 ._.„.Mi 1 Desarlptf
. EfeaRWAN 0 a 4gfgatal tfi! . 1 Cji Ha M• It o
Lo2:.......
VISTA t i I 1,
",em zo 0
ft 1 i 0 iltg
_jaA
0 —0
I •■•:,,,a',;;120144
'"Zr.w.tzt:i::::::::,71,'' 1",r:..z.r.-'`,' :1=i;,.g"'"'m— ,..,..,—.........,„. -.?7,11:'••:n:"1:: ::;,g _,, ,..,.„,
11'••••''''eaaa'''•.Z.7,:elmetvemt.""'• '''''''':e42;vabla2Z4toaDa.aval=1.ad•a%?4'vem I ..neon,*erera•eavvemaebve••••
"erverf ea ve,of o•...tax,
:7,==a1P=Zetaar
•.,;,V,.."7-V,::,-,
.-,' """`—'
'r.::::::,::" ■ -"— ..
1 Pooh!WWI Facade Elem...
---...-- —
Mnsl/Hdlyht spacifiadong
Allowed RoolTv.0. I .Y....a
0.11 0
• ,,,,,,,,J111111—,...- 0 0.., 0 Ct 1 I use Speccation,:
I lt.quIew I find Allowed ,
•=I r Proixtin a Food.Som. i ,...■■■
M al- Wall
......6.1
0 er lz ii s s 1 ..m.morim.
....,
,....,.......;.,..,...v..........,_,.... ,.f.....,,,....,==....,. 1
'2r,•:::::Trz.z.V.Itrtr,....:0.
,,,........-
fr'7'—"'""-- 1 F.:i.".:Lt--564iFilEtCEE Tztvg---Atv.-7,......-
'..,..., 55 r =7.,55 I4rM.xN., . 1■ -.:.-..,,-..;?4-,z---x-v.r414.7--"" .t?v.v,-t.:4..1.4."....-,.--r-,-o" r..
0554 554.S5- 9'
V.,.... r4.147rAt..7",1,47.......,
!
9
Organizing Principles:
Graphic codes may be organized In several ways(based on which part can fit into
the Oregon land use system).
Coding by a hierarchy of street types
Boulevard
Main streets
Squares
Secondary downtown streets
Residential streets
Lanes
Pedestrian walks
Alleys
Coding by Location:
Town center
Neighborhood center
Neighborhood general
Neighborhood edge
Coding by building type:
Mixed-use buildings-commercial and housing
Loft buildings/workshops
Apartment houses,boarding houses,hotels
Rowhouses/duplexes(0 lot line houses)
Side-yard houses
Independent houses
Mechanics of Implementation(general):
Existing conditions analysis and inventory
Develop a participatory plan to ensure an open process;prepare an urban design plan.
Develop an urban design plan together with stakeholders,public,Planning Commission and City Council
(completed in Tigard)
Present urban design plan to participants,stakeholders,Planning Commission and City Council
Revise to more nearly fit the chosen vision for the urban design plan
Develop FBC matrix(graphics and words)designed to implement the agreed urban design plan
Present the FBC matrix to participants in the urban design process,Planning Commission and City Council for
approval.
10
Legal Issues:
Discretion-manner in which regulations are written:
FBC must also contain sufficiently detailed and meaningful standards to alert applicants to what is
expected of them,while allowing sufficient discretion In the decision making body to ensure approval of
an application.
Delegation-manner in which regulations are administered:
Local government will need to administer and interpret the FBC.
Local government can be advised by an architectural review board or a town architect.
However,neither can be a proxy for the decision-making body. The determination must be made of
the appropriate balance between the degree of prescription required to create the desired physical
result and the amount of discretion necessary to find solutions to problems that could not be anticipated
when regulations were drafted.'
The resistance to prescriptive design regulations is practical and political rather than legal.
Often Heard Objections to FBC
Too prescriptive based on a particular style of architecture
Too arbitrary in implementation and subject to abuse
Does not allow for creative solutions
11