HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2005-07-28 PM L�fiOEIlUI[UskfCO Foothills Plan
ifok, Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting
I Agenda
ii
E , g Thursday,July 28,2005,6:00—8:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chamber
380 A Ave
Lake Oswego,OR
6:00—6:05 Introduction
John Turchi, Lake Oswego City Council
6:05 — 6:35 Summary of Findings
Financial Analysis(Jerry Johnson, Johnson Gardner&Becky Steckler
ECO Northwest)
Land Use &Development (Denny Egner, City of Lake Oswego)
Transportation (Randy McCourt, DKS)
6:35 — 7:05 Questions &Answer(All)
7:05 — 7:55 Discussion(All)
What elements of the alternatives would you like to see carried forward in
future planning efforts?
What elements of the alternatives should no longer be considered?
What information do we still need?
7:55 — 8:00 Adjourn
For more information or questions,please contact Denny Egner at 503-697-6576.
�oE U►KE pswE Community Development
Planning Division
Memorandum
�REGON
To: Foothills Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
From: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
Subject: July 28, 2005 CAC Meeting
Date: July 18, 2005
This mailing includes the following:
1) Agenda for the July 28,2005 CAC meeting
The purpose of this meeting will be to review the Foothills District Refinement Plan Report
(June 2005). Staff members and consultants will present the findings in the report regarding
the conceptual scenarios and the financial and transportation analysis. The CAC will then
have the opportunity to ask questions and discuss the report. In preparation for future
planning efforts for the Foothills District, the CAC will be asked:
• What elements of the alternatives would you like to see carried forward in future
planning efforts?
• What elements of the alternatives should no longer be considered?
• What information do we still need?
2) Foothills District Refinement Plan Report(June 2005)
Foothills Plan
Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting
Thursday,July 28,2005
Work Session Questions
• What elements of the alternatives would you like to see carried forward in future planning efforts?
• What elements of the alternatives should no longer be considered?
• What information do we still need?
Plan Elements
Access and Circulation
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
w/ changes Acceptable
2nd access at D./E. Ave. with + Least complicated and least costly
traffic calming for FAN connection
(Scenario 1) - Rail crossing required
2nd access at Terwilliger +Direct access to Terwilliger
(Scenarios 2 and 3) +Access to more land
- Bridge across Tryon Creek
- Access needed to Fielding Rd.
One way couplet street +Improves traffic flow
(Scenario 4) +Allows connection at A. Ave.
- More land given up to roadway
- Higher speeds
1
Street Pattern
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
w/changes Acceptable
Grid pattern lining up with FAN + Creates logical extensions and linkages
(Scenario 1) + Strong connection to Foothills Park
Skewed grid +Oriented to Mt. Hood
(Scenarios 2 and 3) +Traffic circles
Use of existing right-of-ways for +Least complicated and least costly
street framework - Constrains redevelopment opportunities
(Not depicted)
Public Space Framework Plan
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
wl changes Acceptable
Willamette Steps and Grand + Strong connection to river
Boulevard to Foothills Park +Pedestrian oriented
(Scenario 1)
Willamette Steps leading to a + Strong focus on public open space/park
Village Square/Park +Good connection to river
(Scenario 2) - Less developable land
Willamette Steps leading to a +Focus on public plaza
Plaza +Good connection to river
(Scenario 3) +More developable land
North-South Main Street with +Pedestrian oriented commercial focus
storefront commercial + Directs commercial to busier streets
(All scenarios) - Limited opportunities for commercial
2
Land Use
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
_ w/ changes Acceptable
Relocate Wastewater Treatment +Opens up developable land
Plant +Removes a nuisance
(Scenarios 2 and 3) - Very costly
Layout incorporates future +Maintains option for relocation
possible relocation of treatment - Treatment plant is an undesirable
plant (Scenario 1) neighbor
1000-1200 dwelling units + Best opportunity for financial feasibility
(Scenarios 1 and 2) - Higher traffic generation
700 dwelling units + Lower traffic generation
(Scenario 3) - Less feasible financially
70,000 sq. ft. of commercial + Best opportunity for financial feasibility
space(Scenario 1) - Higher traffic generation
30,000— 13,000 sq. ft. of + Lower traffic generation
commercial space(Scenarios 2 - Less feasible financially
and3)
Waterfront hotel or restaurant + Waterfront anchor use
(All scenarios) - Limited space available
Public Uses—Library, senior + Off-peak traffic generation
center, recreation center - Highest public cost
(not depicted)
3
Community Character
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
with Acceptable
changes
Extension of Downtown Lake + Creates a visual connection with
Oswego and "Oswego Style" downtown
(Not depicted) - May limit design possibilities
Distinct neighborhood with + Offers greater flexibility for
different character than redevelopment
downtown Lake Oswego (Not
depicted)
Building Height
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
with Acceptable
changes
3-10 Stories +More feasible financially
(Scenario 1) + Most transit supportive
- May block some views
3-6 Stories + May be feasible financially
(Scenario 2) +Transit supportive
- May block some views
3-4 Stories + Does not block views from downtown
(Scenario 3) + Similar to Oswego Pointe
- Least feasible financially
4
Miscellaneous Elements
Element Features/Issues Desirable I Acceptable Acceptable Not
with Acceptable
changes
State Street Green Esplanade +Provides open view into the district
(All Scenarios) - Does not take advantage of highway
traffic
Daylight Tryon Creek + Links open space features
(Scenarios 2 and 3) +Can be designed as part of a new bridge
Pedestrian connection to Tryon + Links Tryon with Foothills
State Park (All scenarios) - More difficult without a new bridge
Enhanced landscaping, screening, +Hides the treatment plant
or capping the treatment plant + Less costly than moving the plant
(Not depicted) - May not eliminate odors
5
Foothills Plan
Citizen Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
July 28, 2005, 6 to 8 p.m.
City Hall, 380 A Ave.
Members In Attendance:
John Turchi(Chair), Ray Totten,Julia Glisson,Colleen Labbee,Bruce Freed,Frank Orem,Doug Jost,
Lisa Shaw-Ryan,Dee Denton,Dick Loffelmacher, Russell Jones,Warren Bacon,James R.Mreen,
Jeannie McGuire,Herb Fricke, Lynn Peterson
Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner,Andrew Gulizia
Consultants In Attendance: Carl Springer,Becky Steckler,Jerry Johnson
I. Introduction
John Turchi opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. He clarified that the purpose of the meeting was to consider
various development scenarios for the Foothills Plan Area and discuss them.
II. Summary of Findings
Dennis Egner presented a slide show outlining three development scenarios for the Foothills Plan Area:
one that included high-rise buildings(3-10 stories),one with mid-rise buildings (3-6 stories),and one
with low-rise buildings(3-4 stories).
Jerry Johnson with Johnson Gardner, LLC presented his financial analysis of each development scenario.
His conclusion was that a mix of high-rise and mid-rise buildings would be the most economically
feasible scenario,require the least intervention, and represent the"highest and best use"of the land. Jerry
predicted that low-rise development would require greater public subsidy,especially if structured parking
were included. He noted that structured parking and economies of scale would be very important factors,
while ground floor commercial uses would play only a small role financially.
Becky Steckler with ECO Northwest presented a tax increment financing revenue forecast for each
development scenario. She estimated that a Foothills Urban Renewal Area could generate between $34.5
million and$37 million in tax increment financing revenue over a sixteen-year period. The revenue
generated under all three development scenarios would be sufficient to fund the public infrastructure costs
necessary. However, when gap financing for development viability was added to the equation a different
picture emerged. Becky estimated that tax increment financing would cover 150%of the total funding
gap under Scenario 1, 98%of the total funding gap under Scenario 2, and 59%of the total funding gap
under Scenario 3. She noted that costs for relocating the wastewater treatment plant were not included in
her analysis for any of the development scenarios.
Carl Springer with DKS Associates presented a transportation analysis for the Plan Area. Carl predicted
that the three development scenarios would have mostly similar traffic impacts relative to each other.
However, Scenario 1 would generate the highest number of trips and would have a greater impact at State
Street and"A"Avenue. A second connection at either"D"Avenue or at Terwilliger Boulevard would
both operate adequately. In any case,Foothills redevelopment would represent only ten to fifteen percent
of future traffic growth on State Street. Other areas, especially the Stafford area near 1-205,will probably
have a much greater impact on State Street traffic over the next twenty years.
III. Questions & Answers
Bruce Freed commented that infrastructure costs seemed to matter more than density,and thought the
choices may have been presented in a misleading way. Dick Loffelmacher responded that higher density
could yield several benefits, including greater flexibility and greater support for infrastructure,parks, and
retail. Becky Steckler clarified that her group's financial analysis excluded relocating the wastewater
treatment plant per the City's request,and Dennis Egner stated that the City did not have a good way of
estimating those costs at this time. Lynn Peterson suggested that the Committee needed to choose the
plan elements they want to carry forward and not get too bogged down in numbers at this point.
IV. Discussion
Dennis Egner asked the Committee to vote on various potential plan elements,and whether each one
would be desirable, acceptable, acceptable with changes, or not acceptable. Dennis then led a discussion
of the results(see below). Height and density were key issues,and several members expressed concern
that buildings as tall as ten stories would be controversial with the public. Julia Glisson argued that the
visual impact of high-rise buildings would be mitigated by the slope up to State Street, and that taller
buildings could provide more opportunities for affordable housing. Other members agreed that affordable
housing was important,and argued that Foothills redevelopment should attract young families with
children as well as"empty nesters"and other smaller households. Lynn Peterson suggested that the City
should prioritize which views should be preserved and which were less important. She also said that
"signature buildings"should emerge in the district. Julia Glisson noted that short,squat buildings could
block more views than tall,thin buildings. Colleen Labbee suggested that high-rise buildings might be
acceptable in places,but that a variety of heights were needed to prevent an urban canyon effect.
Another important issue was community character. Dennis Egner noted that a key question going
forward would be whether the Foothills area should be an extension of downtown Lake Oswego or a
distinct neighborhood.
James Mreen asked that property owners on the east side of State Street be considered more carefully in
the process. Lynn Peterson said that Terwilliger Boulevard was important to the region historically and
emotionally,and expressed concern that directing more traffic onto this road might be undesirable. A few
members asked that financing alternatives other than an urban renewal district be evaluated.
VIII. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. This was the final meeting of the Citizen Advisory
Committee. It is anticipated that the City Council will hold a work session in September to determine the
next steps.
L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2004\P 04-0006 Foothills Area Plan-TGM\Foothills CAC\7-28-05 FINAL CAC
meeting\Foothills CAC meeting notes 07-28-05 DRAFT.doc
Foothills Plan Page 2
Meeting Notes—July 28, 2005
Final Tally: Committee Members' Responses to Plan Elements
Access and Circulation
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
w/ changes Acceptable
2°d access at D./E. Ave. with +Least complicated and least costly 8 7 2
traffic calming for FAN connection
(Scenario I) - Rail crossing required
2nd access at Terwilliger +Direct access to Terwilliger 1 3 3 10
(Scenarios 2 and 3) +Access to more land
- Bridge across Tryon Creek
- Access needed to Fielding Rd.
One way couplet street +Improves traffic flow 2 1 3 1 1
(Scenario 4) +Allows connection at A. Ave.
- More land given up to roadway
- Higher speeds
Street Pattern
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
w/changes Acceptable
Grid pattern lining up with FAN +Creates logical extensions and linkages 9 5 2
(Scenario 1) + Strong connection to Foothills Park
Skewed grid + Oriented to Mt. Hood 4 4 7
(Scenarios 2 and 3) + Traffic circles
Use of existing right-of-ways for +Least complicated and least costly 2 5 2 8
street framework - Constrains redevelopment opportunities
(Not depicted)
Foothills Plan Page 3
Meeting Notes—July 28, 2005
i
Public Space Framework Plan
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
w/ changes Acceptable
Willamette Steps and Grand + Strong connection to river 1 1 5 1
Boulevard to Foothills Park +Pedestrian oriented
(Scenario 1)
Willamette Steps leading to a + Strong focus on public open space/park 9 5 2
Village Square/Park +Good connection to river
(Scenario 2) - Less developable land
Willamette Steps leading to a +Focus on public plaza 5 8 1 2
Plaza + Good connection to river 1
(Scenario 3) +More developable land
North-South Main Street with +Pedestrian oriented commercial focus 8 8 1
storefront commercial +Directs commercial to busier streets
(All scenarios) - Limited opportunities for commercial
Land Use
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
w/ changes Acceptable
Relocate Wastewater Treatment + Opens up developable land 9 5 2
Plant +Removes a nuisance
(Scenarios 2 and 3) - Very costly
Layout incorporates future +Maintains option for relocation 9 7 1
possible relocation of treatment - Treatment plant is an undesirable
plant(Scenario 1) neighbor
1000-1200 dwelling units + Best opportunity for financial feasibility 9 1 4
(Scenarios 1 and 2) - Higher traffic generation
700 dwelling units + Lower traffic generation 1 4 i 7
(Scenario 3) - Less feasible financially
70,000 sq. ft. of commercial + Best opportunity for financial feasibility 6 1 3 2
space (Scenario 1) - Higher traffic generation
Foothills Plan Page 4
Meeting Notes—July 28, 2005
. l
30,000— 13,000 sq. ft. of + Lower traffic generation 4 8 2 1
commercial space (Scenarios 2 - Less feasible financially
and 3)
Waterfront hotel or restaurant + Waterfront anchor use 8 5 2
(All scenarios) - Limited space available
Public Uses—Library, senior + Off-peak traffic generation 4 8 4 1
center, recreation center - Highest public cost
(not depicted)
Community Character
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
with Acceptable
changes
Extension of Downtown Lake +Creates a visual connection with 6 4 5 1
Oswego and"Oswego Style" downtown
(Not depicted) - May limit design possibilities
Distinct neighborhood with + Offers greater flexibility for 6 7 4
different character than redevelopment
downtown Lake Oswego (Not
depicted)
Building Height
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
with Acceptable
changes
3-10 Stories +More feasible financially 5 3 5 7
(Scenario 1) +Most transit supportive
- May block some views
Foothills Plan Page 5
Meeting Notes-July 28. 2005
3-6 Stories +May be feasible financially 5 8 2 2
(Scenario 2) +Transit supportive
- May block some views
3-4 Stories +Does not block views from downtown 1 8 7
(Scenario 3) + Similar to Oswego Pointe
- Least feasible financially
Miscellaneous Elements
Element Features/Issues Desirable Acceptable Acceptable Not
with Acceptable
changes
State Street Green Esplanade +Provides open view into the district 7 8
(All Scenarios) - Does not take advantage of highway
traffic
Daylight Tryon Creek +Links open space features 12 1
(Scenarios 2 and 3) +Can be designed as part of a new bridge
Pedestrian connection to Tryon +Links Tryon with Foothills 1 1 1
State Park (All scenarios) - More difficult without a new bridge
Enhanced landscaping, screening, +Hides the treatment plant 9 4 1 2
or capping the treatment plant + Less costly than moving the plant
(Not depicted) - May not eliminate odors
Urban Renewal District/Tax 12 1 1
Increment Financing
(category added during the
meeting per members' request)
Foothills Plan Page 6
Meeting Notes—July 28, 2005
1
-{a a 4,t(I s CAC yM.2 4-r► 7t 2-g/4 S—
J.r.
JdLL VtI 5/ P1/4:42O,L 1 rem/1
co-u/vti
G ► Y STD'r
R,l9c F FRE.OlD L4kEwe°D /Uc-1-11) .
Fifa 1,4 l 5
L-41/) niraer. ics A5 svct.idt.c
c a/r/L
{X,( -k S t,c,va r E(-01J u
J1czy , f ,1 vu L,
... CV a v‘ lam% ( dc./c4-i*cm VLLt cp,6tAiS
ir;V Z, /rxodoiz
k5)eAL javv2.4--
r Key), Oct co-7A (I c'v el '.e -e v1 TFe0
pfd
-
July 26, 2005
John Turchi, Chair
CAC —Foothills
City of Lake Oswego
Dear John:
As we bring this current process to a close, there are a couple of unfinished areas or
elements I feel were unfulfilled. I would like to see a repeat of some of the previous
visioning processes that were held without some of the constraints of the TGM grant.
These could be revisited with some of the constructive elements of the current summery
that yielded some generalized transit, funding and general infrastructure costs being
available to the participants.
A cross section of business and community participants could be utilized. I feel some
effort should be made to include a representative of the Review or at least bring a
representative up to date as the process goes forward would be positive as some of the
current coverage has not had the perspective of the process that started back with
Crandall/Arambula. As we all know, the best of intentions or efforts can be thwarted by
incomplete or inaccurate information being presented to the general public.
Regarding what elements I feel that should be carried forward:
- Development should emphasize the access and views toward the river
from current downtown.
- Some option of"A" Street extended with possible use of couplet option
discussed at CAC.
- The treatment plant elimination must be a part of the long-term plan.
Some form of streetcar or light rail must be assumed and allowances for
this must be a part of the long-term infrastructure design.
- Go back to the Charrette of last summer and the visioning of the CAC
around the end of last year and first of this year. They were quite similar
and go forward from there.
- Some preliminary work should be started immediately on the feasibility of
a new urban renewal district should be initiated —whether to enlarge the
existing or forming a new one.
- Lastly, the future planning should work to come up with a plan that is
feasible and practical. It does no good to spend time on the low density
"Scenario 3" approach as this will not ever work or be feasible. If the
consensus is to lean this way, we should stop the process at this point.
Otherwise, the next steps should reflect pulling together some combination
of or advancement on the previous Charrette, Scenario I and Scenario 2
that are both feasible and add to the long-term viability and beauty of our
city.
I am sorry not to be at the last CAC meeting but hope the above comments may be added
to the other voices at the meeting. I look forward to working toward a good and practical
vision at a future time.
Best regards,
Rob Fallow
ria.nL 1 C� �Dc/ Jooiv USA Slfia,) eye,
HT—V—CM )(-46 I ufroa.vt-Ens,-,. kocs.sa._
Jrv� (1 _ c ^ G v Ae G J ( �r}I�SOv F J uc'
�cTo.sJ � JJu,d CLA3,2 -- Gi e�1
�S SO, oat) /� �}-�{ lA,sho r o.ta ,�, (Ls�
, ,,
ter^ - l
111.6C, \ s 3n ,0 Ct C M
�v Fl 0cr Q J CAST l A5 A/
S t 3---/ .1 U c
i ( AC(` C��Lt✓ �c �� - rji✓--1 it) Scar-fYVA-w 3
J ----
Atk 'RV CZ 3
'C- - 0 i— Pad (vcv,-
�r �.k. \.5