Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's really cool.

Planning Commission for the city of Wilson. bill Wednesday, August 8th, 2018 is now in session. Will the clerk please call the role? Chair Greenfield here. Vice Chair Posma here. Commissioner Hebler here. Commissioner Hurley. Commissioner Mespa here. Commissioner Milan here. Commissioner Springal

here. Please rise for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good evening. This is a time in our monthly meeting when we uh set aside the opportunity to or set aside time for the opportunity to address the planning commission regarding any item that is not already scheduled for a formal public hearing tonight. If any member of the audience would like to speak about any work session item or any other matter of concern, please raise your hand so that we may hear from you. Now, uh we do have a public hearing scheduled for tonight on the parks and recreation comprehensive master plan. And in that hearing, I will again request public input. But if you have anything to address us on other than that matter, this would be the time to do it. Does anyone wish to address the commission? Then we'll move on to consideration of our planning commission minutes for July 11th. They were uh distributed to us the end of last week. I assume everyone has had a chance to study them. They're quite extensive. Are there any changes or additions to be made to the minutes?

Hearing none, the minutes are approved as distributed. We move on to our first major item of the night which is a legislative hearing on parks and recreation comprehensive master plan. Uh who is representing staff tonight. Thank you, Chair Greenfield. Um we'd like to invite Mike McCarti, parks director, Brian Stevenson, and Todd Blankenship. all uh they're going to present to you the revised master plan that they've been working on since we opened the hearing date back in May.

Very good. At that time, we continued the hearing until until this meeting. Uh the the hearing is therefore open. Uh what we will do is hear again from our consultants and staff and the commission will have an opportunity to uh address questions. Uh after which I will invite members of the public to address the commission and if the presenters will stand by for that uh to be able to answer questions that might arise in that testimony. Please, are we good? Um, first of all, the um consultants will not be here tonight. Um, and hopefully we can answer all your questions. We've been doing this for

I I neglect I neglect I'm interrupting myself. I I neglected to read the obligatory uh legislative hearing procedure. Um, so here goes. Matters before the planning commission involve legislative public hearings. These are somewhat different from the quasi judicial hearings conducted by the city's development review board. Planning commission would like to hear from anyone who has testimony to offer that is relevant to the issues before the planning commission. If you wish to testify tonight, please fill out one of the yellow cards on the side table and make sure that is given to the member of the staff. Actually, submit it to our clerk. That would be good. If you wish to testify tonight, uh make sure that u your testimony gives you I'm sorry, your testimony gives you legal standing in the matter for which you are testifying. It is important that you provide your full name and address on the testimony card or at the beginning of your comments. When you do testify, please address your comments to the criteria that will be reviewed by the city staff at the start of the hearing. Some of the issues that come before the planning commission are fairly complicated and the length of this report indicates that degree of complexity. For that reason, we especially appreciate any specific recommendations or suggestions you may have. We'll ask you to avoid redundant testimony. If you agree with testimony that has already been given, just tell us that we have a large number of people. If we have a large number of people testifying tonight, uh we may limit the time allotted to each. It's not likely to be the case tonight. When you come to the microphone, please state your name and your address. Or if you prefer not to state your address aloud in the public forum, state your address as it is provided on the testimony card. State

your address as provided on the testimony card you submitted for the record and speak into the microphone. At the end of your testimony, members of the commission may have questions for you. Thank you for taking the time for coming here tonight on this warm summer night and help us to deal with these issues. No, thank you.

Okay. Thank you, chairperson uh Greenfield. Like I said earlier or started to say is the uh consultants will not be here from Greenplay tonight. Um we've been doing this now for over a year and I believe between Todd and Brian and I we can answer your questions. I I would hope so at least. Um, and again, um, we're here to bring the final version of the parks and wreck, uh, comprehensive master plan tonight. Brian will give you a brief PowerPoint, um, that will tell you where we're at. And again, it's probably 15 20 slides. It's not going to be very long. Uh, staff believes we have addressed the commission's comments, concerns, and the city council's comments and concerns and suggestions. Um and hopefully you agree. Um that is in your staff report and will be addressed in the PowerPoint. Um the only thing I need to do besides that is I really need to thank these two guys. Uh Erica who Baylor who is our uh rec coordinator Aimon who pretty much is I hate to say this but the director of parks and recck. Um she kind of keeps us going. Um, I want to thank this these people over here, Chris, Miranda, Charlie from the planning commission were awesome helps. Um, Amanda from legal. Um, same thing. Uh, we wouldn't have done it without them. Andy and also Greenplay. I mean, it wasn't easy. Uh, we had to get through some hurdles, but that's probably common. Uh, but they were they were right along with us to make all the changes. They uh they made him at a week's notice, a month's notice, whatever, and they hung in there with us and got this thing through. At least I hope they got it through. We'll find out tonight, I guess. Um but with that, I I really don't have much else except Brian will give the PowerPoint, and if you have any questions uh about the park part, the wreck part, or

anything else, just let us know. Thank you.

Thanks, Mike. So, uh, real quick, what we'll be running through tonight, uh, just a quick overview of the planning process that we've been through. Uh, we'll recap the key findings. Uh, those have not changed since the last time you saw us, and then, uh, highlight the various pieces, uh, that came from your feedback as well as city council feedback. Uh the purpose of this plan uh we're really just trying to update uh a roadmap for the department for the the next foreseeable future. Uh the plan's addressing the park development, the recreation services, trails, open space and natural resources preservation, uh the current deficiencies, and then the need for the future facilities. As Mike mentioned, we've been going at this for about a year now. though uh there were stakeholder focus groups, there was a community survey. Uh we've had a number of public meetings gathering as much public input as we possibly could. Uh from there, we took those findings. Uh we came up with the goals, the recommendations. Uh when we were here last, you saw the draft plan. Tonight, hopefully we'll be looking at what uh is close to a final plan. The key findings, uh, these were things that we just heard over and over from the community, things that they liked, things that they wanted us to, uh, focus our attentions on. Uh, they do have an appreciation of what we currently offer, the parks, the programs, the services. Uh, a consistent theme we heard is a desire for river access. Folks are wanting to be able to see the river, touch the river, get in the river. So, what can we do to address that? Uh some other common themes were the need to add synthetic turf fields. Uh there is a concern and a desire for indoor recreation uh and aquatic facilities. Uh and then you know obviously protecting

and preserving natural areas is a high importance to the community throughout this plan. Uh, one of the goals that that we set forth as a department was to come up with our mission statement. And we did our best with this mission statement to to kind of frame everything we felt was important within the department. And you'll see that all the goals and the objectives that we lay out after this are in an effort to meet that mission statement. Uh, and I'll just take a second uh, let you read through that. And hopefully we touched on everything uh that you as a commission find is important because it's stuff as staff that we find this is important. Seeing heads nodding we will move to the next slide. So, the last time uh that we presented this plan to you, there were a few items uh that you felt could use more information, more detail, or in some cases just a a shift in wording to to make it more amunable to to this commission. Um the first one would be the use of pesticides. Uh we're going to talk about that tonight in the integrated pest management plan. uh protection of natural resources was something uh that you spoke about. Uh we went back and forth on on synthetic turf, so we'll touch a bit on that and recap where we fell on that piece. Uh highlighting a need for public art uh to be pulled out a bit more within this plan. And then one element that that mildly came from this meeting but also came from planning staff was was how this particular parks and recre excuse me parks and recreation master plan addresses future development within the city. So uh we'll just kind

of detail how this plan uh will take a look at what happens. So, if you recall at the the last meeting, uh the integrated pest management plan known as the IPM plan, uh Todd was able to speak on that, what that might uh hold. Uh they are still working through that. So, there is not a draft of that to present to you this evening. Uh but what you see, objective 3.9, uh it did receive its own objective and that's on page 132 of the plan if you you want to move to it. Uh but it reads the department should work with other city departments for creation and implementation of a citywide IPM plan. And it goes on to say that we should select optimal integrated pest management strategies that balance social in environmental and economic factors. And those five bullet points you see below there are actually pulled straight from the IPM plan itself. Uh so those goals are what the IPM plan itself will be encompassing. Any questions that I can answer or Todd can answer on the IPM plan? At this time,

when can we expect a draft of that? We are hoping to have a draft ready for the September 6th council meeting. So, we're still internally reviewing. Um, at this point, it's really just some formalities trying to get page numbering and headings and everything squared away. So, we're I feel pretty good about where we're at right now. So, uh, the intention is to take it straight to council. It's not you're not going to um you're not planning on bringing the IPM to the planning commission beforehand? We had not intended on it. No. Do we get will we get to see it uh perhaps afterwards or something?

Yeah. when it gets prepared for the city council packets, we can forward we can absolutely forward a copy to the planning commission when it is prepared for the city council packets. Okay. Thank you. I'd appreciate that. Yeah. Thanks.

So, um yeah, since you asked for qu for comments, I I um I I like the uh the objectives and the actions here. I I think the um I'm very interested, you can probably tell in the details of of how this is going to work and I'm eager to see what you come up with. Have you um have you been consulting with other bodies, you know, the people who brought the B city program, the NCAAP is that in the generation of this? Yes, the um Northwest Alternatives to Pesticides was pretty integral in developing a an IPM plan that we're now morphing with our Memorial Park master plan and then taking some other pieces from other cities entities that we felt should be in there. So, yeah.

Okay. So, which other entities are you um incorporating content from in terms of the plan? We've we've uh Metro has a really good plan. Lake Asiggo. We've dealt with them personally, had some meetings with them. They have a a pretty good plan. Touched on some of the Eugene stuff as well. Okay. City of Eugene. Thank you.

So, the next topic uh was natural resources. And if you remember, natural resources was clumped together with a couple other uh items. So, we felt that it made the most sense to pull it out. Uh, it's now objective 3.10 on page 133. Uh, and it, the objected itself is to maintain and improve Wilsonville's natural areas, including Tree City and B City USA designations. And under that, we have three specific action items. Uh action item one is provide appropriate care of natural resources paying attention to biodiversity, pesticide management, and eco-friendly practices while following the city's IPM plan. And that's a that's an action item that didn't exist to that detail uh in the last plan. Uh but given the feedback we received from you, we felt it did deserve to be called out in a specific action item. Uh action 3.10 10 on the slide is convent or condensed just to tree city and B city USA uh in the actual uh action in the master plan there there's a bit more detail into it but it that's the condensed version and 3.10C is creation and implementation of an urban forestry management plan.

Does that exist or is it in the works? I would say it's in the works. Um but we have it was funding was provided for us starting July 1st fiscal year and um there's been no work on it to this point. It's a community development driven program. So any endpoint uh already envisioned that is date date of completion

that that I can't answer. Are there specific um requirements for Tree City and Bity designations having to do with pesticides?

Um as far as the and I I can try to speak to the B city portion of it. There there are some items in there that ask for a reduction in use of chemical pest control products. Um Tree City, I I'm not quite sure on that, but I'm sure it follows along the same lines as the B city. I I think the um the tree city is uh is about replacing trees and then having a tree code which you know we do have a a tree code in the city about for for the neighborhoods and things. Um well I have a question about the the scope of the urban forestry plan you you brought up. Is that is that uh presumably that stretches beyond uh the parks but but includes uh street trees and things like that.

Correct. Yep. Um, we had an interesting presentation from the interns from last summer from SMART about um I don't know if you saw this about the street trees and the and the um they made they made a survey of the street trees around the different neighborhoods and and some neighborhoods they were more poorly affected and than others by construction. Not really a p not really a a parks issue, but it's it was a public works kind of issue. And so I think public works is going to have a pretty big um uh contribution hopefully to the urb urban forestry plan.

Yep. Absolutely. And and one of those interns is currently on our staff now and we're putting him to work and working on inventorying all the trees that weren't weren't in existence for that. But Okay. Thank you. And will that plan uh the urban forestry management plan include like recommendations for what type of street trees are planted? I know right now that there's when you cut down a tree, there's really not a a plan for what kind of tree you should replace it with. There's a a global list and but nothing specific. Will that include that? Do you know? Uh to to my knowledge that list is is in existence and that's part of what came out of the the the interns work that they did last year. So it does exist now. It didn't

correct last year when when I had to deal with it, but okay. Thank you.

Moving on to synthetic turf. Uh this was a topic of discussion for a couple different reasons last time, but you'll see that objective 1.8 8 now reads, "The department should consider development of synthetic turf fields in an effort to meet the demand of the community for year-round play. Staff should explore synthetic surfaces that best needs of the community." Uh, action 1.8 A under there. It lists a variety of things, but one thing I do just want to make sure that you do take note of, we do call out the safety and environmental concerns, uh, as well as the financial pro projection, excuse me, for construction and replacement. Uh, so I know those were concerns of both the citizens that were here as well as members of the commission. So, just want to highlight that those were added uh, to the description on the synthetic turf piece. Uh looking at page 127 where this U objective appears, the language is as you say um adopting our recommendation of substituting the the word consider uh for develop in the original formulation. uh the develop language persists in the actions um indicated and I'm wondering whether that is an inconsistency we ought to repair as it stands the action statement is develop priorities for installation of synthetic turf fields etc. uh that could be read as an endorsement and directive to uh install syn or or to install synthetic turf and I don't think that was our intention. And do you feel that way even though it falls directly under the objective that says should consider?

Um it seems to be inconsistent with that objective to use a the action verb develop. So if you were to change the wording of that, what would you be comfortable with? What I would feel comfortable with is a study. Um what I'd feel would be even more comfortable with is perhaps even a referendum on the issue, community referendum on the issue. But uh to um at least substitute again the word consider for develop. How about develop priorities for the consideration of installation of synthetic turf fields?

I could buy that. I like that too. So just to re develop priorities for consider consideration for the consideration of installation of synthetic fields. So development develop priorities for the consideration of installation of synthetic turf fields. Not to that. Okay. point is I think we should be delivering to council a document which has a little more flexibility for them uh as the final decision makers in this sensitive issue. Okay.

I said we'd try to get them all. I didn't promise we did. No, you did do a very very good job of it. Thank you very much. Uh you almost got them. out there. No, that that takes care of it. Next up was public art. Uh the request to make that a standalone action. Uh we didn't have any issues with it. Previously, if you recall, uh it was tied in with other park amenities, uh restrooms, tables, drinking fountains. While they're all important, there is nothing at harm by calling it out as its own action item. So we did make that change.

Thank you. I smile because I I smile be myself because this is a pet issue. Uh talking about pet issue. Um I thought one of your pet issues was to identify the location where they have been obscured over the years. Are some of those locations in parks? Because this could explore opportunities to feature public art. Um, covers existing and new uh, public art presumably. Certainly wouldn't hurt to have it mentioned here. U, there is a a more fundamental consideration of public art to be handled with another B, another city body. um perhaps a a commission or um task force, however it's handled. Um and that commit that body would certainly uh start with an inventory of what exists in Wilsonville as well as uh querying the community about what they want to exist. But it wouldn't hurt to have it mentioned here as well. Is that possible to work in a couple of words?

Oh, go ahead. So, are you saying like the creation of a uh arts commission?

Well, no. I think that goes beyond this document, the purpose of this document. Um, and I believe it's already in the city council hopper under consideration. Um, but it wouldn't hurt to have it cross- referenced here. The only thing I would add is we did have the the communication about this topic internally and I think as staff as far as what goes into a parks and recreation master plan, we support public art. We would support public art within the parks and there's not a doubt that if that commission when that commission comes to fruition, which is a work in progress, we would support the public art. Um, I guess the only hesitation I would have is does that commission determine that the existing pads within the park maybe aren't the best best choices at this time? They were 10 years ago. So, we did make the conscious decision to leave this general um to support public art but not get into the detail and allow uh a body that was solely focused on art to be the ones to make those decisions for us. I raised that issue without any knowledge that there is an existing public art piece in one of the existing parks that's obscured by weeds or brush and you can't see it anymore. And that's why I was asking the chair who's much more familiar with these lost public art pieces whether or not any of those exist. If they do, then uh I was hoping to bring it to the attention of the park staff so that you could highlight the existing

sure art pieces as opposed to also featuring new ones as parks expand and so forth. So are we recommending a change to any language there? I for one tend to prefer the general because it leaves the door open for broader action, but I'm just trying to get a sense of where we're at so that we can direct them where we're at. So long as the general includes what I was talking about, I'm fine with it. I was just making sure that that was part of the general, existing and new is

exploring opportunities to feature would still cover that point that you're talking about which would movement correction of things around. Okay. Could could we uh insert the words uh existing and future as you wish Mr. Chair? Would that be a significant amendment? So after so after future you're saying to insert that existing and future existing and future. Yeah,

sure. Yeah, we can do that. else. And finally, uh, a section was added that really opens up conversation and details what future development uh, we would be looking at within this particular parks and recreation master plan. Uh so it's going to include design and construction of parks and recreation facilities as part of the Basalt Creek planning area. Um also would cover things that are added to the UGB and annexed into the city. Uh just being sure that we're working properly with other city departments and private developers uh that the community's needs are being met in the way of parks and recreation. And then uh finally working with Oregon Parks and Recreation for public access access to and development of a 15acre site that currently sits outside of the city on the Wamut River. Better make sure I turn my mic on first. Um so the first sub bullet for design and construction of parks and wreck facilities as part of the future Baltic creek planning area is that really necessary when you have the second bullet that is a general we're going to ensure adequate parks and wreck facilities are provided in all future planning areas. Why the Miranda on that one?

Uh I would imagine that the second bullet would incorporate the first one. I think there was a question that came up about uh specifically around Basalt Creek planning area and how that would be incorporated since it is one of the areas that we just brought into the urban growth boundary. And since it was a joint effort with another city, there wasn't a lot of detail laid out for parks planning in there as it was sort of directed to both two cities. Um, I think you could go either way. You could have the more specific bullet at the beginning or you could um rely on the second more broad bullet that would encompass it as well

because the Basalt Creek planning area or at least Wilsonville's portion is still going to be our responsibility to ensure that there's adequate parks and recreation access. we're not going to control the towatin side of it. So, correct. It seems like the second bullet covers

that condition as well. I I think we did call this out specifically um as um something which had not been mentioned and no account had been made of the Basalt Creek uh canyon in our inventory of uh present and future parks. Um, I I think that we we are responsible for your inclusion of that if I recall correctly. Not pointing any fingers. We're just here to appease whatever direction you'd like to go this evening. May

maybe the first bullet should be a sub bullet for the second bullet. You're suggesting including Basalt Creek planning area. Yes. As a sub bullet in the second. Yes. in all future planning areas including the Vasalt Creek. Yes. Planning area. That's elegant.

Then we could drop the first bullet. One of the things you talk about the 15 acre uh landing site that's outside the UGP. One of the things that I brought up at our last conversation about this is, and I'm speaking fully cognizant of my ignorance about the subject because this may already be done by Metro or somebody, but in addition to identifying uh park and recreation facilities, we should be identifying natural all areas because natural resources is currently part of this. Um I'm not seeing that here. I see a kind of a reference to it in principle with that last bullet and the 15acre Wamut meridian landing site. I don't know if that's going to be a park site or a natural resources site, a natural site. So unless it's being done by Metro or some other entity uh and and I they are identifying these natural areas, preservation areas so to speak. Um I don't know where we would highlight that as the urban area expands we should be identifying those and including them as at least target preservation areas in our long range planning.

Sure. No, you're correct. It is not called out in this future development slide. There is an action item um and I'm trying to find it on the fly for you, but there is is one about acquiring uh natural areas or open space that that is a bullet point in here if I'm not mistaken. Takes care of it. Thank you.

I would also note just for the purpose of this discussion that Metro does um map out regionally um title three and title 13 natural area lands consistent with goal five for the state. uh when long when the when planning does comprehensive planning, master planning, area planning for new urban growth boundary areas, uh we look to those regional layers, uh gain that information about natural resources, do a scan of existing conditions in an area, um highlight the natural resources that need to be protected, should be protected or mapped. And then when we go through the phase of actually um bringing that area in for the master planning, we will look at that layer and determine the the accuracy of it. And then when the land is annexed in, uh we do the sort of on ground uh testing of that to determine the specific delineations of those areas. So that process is done when we're doing the planning for the urban growth boundary areas.

Happy to hear that. when when we look at the accuracy of it, do we look at the accuracy on it of it based on what is important to Metro or what's important to Wilsonville? So, they kind of go hand in hand in terms of the classification system. Uh, but Wilson, my understanding is that Wilsonvilles is a little bit um the word be more conservative. Uh, and so resources. Yes.

Yes. And so that is um that's the approach that we take. So we get to use our local regulations and the way we delineate resources um as long as it's in compliance with the regional layer. So you can go above and beyond which our standards do. So that's handing love. Uh so that's part of the planning process. It's not part of the the the park department's board. Right. Excellent. That's what I was looking for. more before we go on.

Okay. And finally, just wanted to to recap from our perspective, those were the main issues or ideas that that came from this commission. Uh, additionally, uh, city council had three things that they just were their questions or items that they wanted some further explanation on. Uh, one was including a school district facility list and that's on page 50. Uh, that's just so that we're showing a full comprehensive list of what's available to the community as a whole uh in regards to gym space, field space, and playgrounds. Uh, the joint use agreement with the school district, that was an objective that was with was in the plan to begin with. Uh but there was just the request to add a little bit more detailed language uh surrounding that specific element. So we did that and that's on page 131. Uh and then uh as I mentioned or has been mentioned before, there are some members of city council uh that are just wanting to be sure that there is the inclusion of the addition of synthetic turf sports fields within this parks and recreation master plan. So that's more or less just a FYI. We heard council and those are the the elements that they wanted encompassed in this plan.

A little thing on the the map facing well it's actually on page 150 page 51 and on all the other maps that have a comparable uh uh representation. The magenta um areas are indicated as future schools, but that includes the Meridian Park School. Um in all of those maps, that's indicated as a future school for accuracy. And this is an historical document, but those that probably ought to be corrected. I would say simply uh school. And the reason that is is as we mentioned, we've been working on this for a year plus now.

Yes. And I think when they started their mapping, it was a future. That's what I assumed. That's what I assumed. But but your point is well taken. Anything else? Page 54. That concludes all we we had exactly the same map on page 54 as well. While you read it. Yeah, it's in two or three. Oh, it's in all the maps. Uh now comments on the report overall.

I have just one question and it I'm sorry I should have brought it up at the at the last meeting and I and I didn't and it's on objective 1.5 uh around ADA accessibility at all facilities. Uh I'm just curious it indicates in the objective that there's an ongoing self-evaluation and continued implementation. Um where is that implementation plan reviewed? Where who does that and where does that reside? You want to speak to that?

I can try. Yeah. So there was an ADA assessment completed I believe in 2014 and so obviously with any new construction that happens we that's something that we make sure we address. Um right now we've it was a very costly total when it came down to the total cost to basically implement the the plan. So, kind of just chipping away at lowhanging fruit. Um, you know, adding concrete slabs to areas where we needed some additional turnaround space type of thing. Um, so I guess I don't know if that answers your question or not, but we're just slowly chipping away at it.

I guess my question is more is there like, you know, here are the things we'd like to accomplish and and where are we bumping up against that and saying, "Yeah, we're getting there or we're not getting there." This is a little vague to me in terms of kind of addressing that. Does that make sense? In other words, you know, we're going to do XYZ and we hope to accomplish it in this kind of time frame. And I understand that, you know, it takes time and this resources are available, but yeah. So, I guess just who's who's bumping up against that that initial study and saying, are we there? Are we close?

Yeah, that collectively that's us as as a department. Um the the assessment itself was I believe 200 and some pages long. So we in within that document, it also lays out the the objectives and the and a timeline. So I I think the overall timeline was 10 to 15 years to have everything implemented and and taken care of. Okay. But I guess I guess my question still isn't being answered. Who's taking a look at that and saying we're halfway through this or we're you know only a quarter of the way through this? Where is that process happening within the department? Is that

collectively it's with the staff here? Yep. So on a periodic basis, you yank this dusty old document out and say, "Here we are on this and and um Okay. All right.

Yeah, it's just the action is kind of continue to implement. It sort of implies that there's going to be a more of a check and balance that we're we're getting there." And I'm not sure that quite says it, but maybe it does. Is there a periodic status report? Well, yeah, I guess that's where I was looking at, you know, some evaluative criteria that's going on to say, yeah, we're getting there, or no, we're not, or we're failing, or we're way behind, or Yes. So, currently, no, there is not, but that that's a point well taken. can certainly make that something that we review quarterly or bianually or something.

Thank you. That's sort of the thing that's an action to me that this isn't this is continue you know that that doesn't that's not an action that's just sort of gee that's nice but you know having some kind of um checkpoint where you're periodically and I I I again I recognize and understand you're not going to fix it all tomorrow but you have to say where are we and where do we want to be or we'll never get there. Mhm. The thing to I'm sorry to point out on that is just that it it's a city-wide plan, so it's not necessarily specific to our all of our parks. Is that true? Like we're looking overarching of of the city as a whole. Yeah.

Yeah. That that was going to be my question. Is there is there a published uh city plan to monitor ADA compliance? I'm not clear on the um performance monitoring that's included within the ADA plan or not. Um the engineering division of the community development department is who's responsible for that ADA plan, who published it and highlighted the different projects that we need to come into full compliance. Um that's something that we can check on and get back to you in terms of what um sort of performance measurements laid out in that plan and how often we're going to revisit it and look at how far we are in the project implementation. Okay, that's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for some I will follow up with engineering and get back to you.

Thank you. You're welcome, Mr. Spring.

Yeah, thank you. Uh so, thank you to the uh park staff to I think you've um done a nice job in incorporating the uh a more explicit focus on natural resources. Um, and as I mentioned earlier, I'm very much looking forward to seeing this IPM and and uh perhaps have a I'd like to have a um a discussion about that when when there's something to look at. Um although I recognize it's going to the city council. So, um the the only um thing that jumped out at me when I well I mean there's a lot of things in here, but the one one thing in particular jumped out at me when going through the uh the the attachment the um the action plans was the um I was just going down the capital cost estimates and um the frog pond uh community park has a cost estimate of $12.5 million and I And so I I was paged through and I tried to find something else that was anything that was comparable. I couldn't find anything else that was comparable in terms of the cost. So why why is the frog pond park $12.5 million?

Well, you're talking about right now 10acre park. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, I think that's a 10acre park. And when you're talking about possibly synthetic turf fields, again, it's considering synthetic turf fields. U 10acre park when you're putting in there's lighting, which is very expensive. Um the turf itself, um there's uh the drainage you have to put in. Um everything involved, it's approximately, we're guessing, and we've looked at other cities, four to$5 million per five acres. Okay. So, so it's the sports fields themselves that's really

and that's all sports fields out there. And the other thing is is that we don't know when we might get the money or what's going to happen to to to to get the funds to to do this. And the cost of projects are definitely not going down. So, we're trying to maybe project a little bit out there because con construction costs they're going up every day pretty much. And as we've seen in all the projects and I think planning seen in their projects is you might plan for something two months from now and doesn't happen for two years from now and then all a sudden there's a 20% increase. So we're trying to project out for that too. Okay. Thank you.

Any more? Okay. Thank you. If you would uh stay close by. I have cards for two people who wish to speak. Uh first is James Barnes. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. The second is Steve Benson. Mr. Benson, if you'd come up to the table. My name is Steve Benson. and I live at 8525 Southwest Wilson Lane, Wilsonville, Oregon. I have a a pet peeve, but I want to use it in a broader sense. My pet peeve is that we can't get a kayak launch attached to the dock at in Memorial Park because of ADA rules. In other words, even though people just walk down there uh with their kayaks and launch, apparently the access from the parking lot up above doesn't meet the standard. So, so this this launch idea has been in the master plan for quite a while. And so it brings me to a question about when we go from master plan to master plan and the same items remain in it and never get completed. How do we assess whether they still should be in there or should there be some kind of evaluation and explanation why it hasn't been done yet?

Short answer, uh, someone asking that question can get the process started. Well, I'm almost thinking maybe there should be something that when a master plans expires and items aren't completed, there needs to be an evaluation around those items. Technically, technically speaking, I don't think the master plan expires. It gets updated.

Okay. All right. When it gets updated, then maybe an explanation of why items don't get completed. Anyway, just something for you to consider as something I cons as I look at, you know, if I as I get frustrated over things that don't get done and and uh it'd be nice to have something out there saying exactly why it didn't happen and and it would require a little bit of time, but that should be part of I think of the master planning process. So, we can consider this as an issue which has been idling along and it needed a little bit of push. Mhm. Perhaps uh this u is the occasion for such a push.

Yeah. Well, it's not the it's not the only item. For examp, you know, to me it's like it's going to be really hard to get that in there because the the turf for the master plan for Memorial Park is a higher priority. It's it's higher up on the list than than completing the parking lot in the back of the park there and and and working on the road that goes down to the boat launch. So, if we do things in order in a master plan and we never get funding for a multi-million dollar turf fields, then when do these other items get done? And all the items on that part of the master plan would kind of just sit there and and not get completed until uh higher priority items get done. And if you never get funding for them, then a whole lot never gets done. This is a global critique of planning which planning has been trying to deal with for a couple decades now. The plan document is typically reflective of the desires of the community. So if a boat launch continues to be desired, by golly, it'll show up in some plan. Uh what you're highlighting though is a very important point and that is that in our planning we typically do not have a more a detailed coverage of the implementation steps necessary for the wishes and there is a reason for that. Uh, as a person who was a planner and a staffer, I can tell you you never want to sit in front of a commission and tell them that the boat launch that everybody wishes to have is going to have maybe a chance in 200 years to be funded because that's not going to be popular. What you're doing is telling the population, the residents, that we heard you. This is in

our plan. if we come up with the money, we can do it. And if it doesn't come up with the money, then you say, "Well, we didn't have the money." And uh who's who's at fault? The residents who don't want to pay high taxes presumably are going to be at fault. But uh the point you make is a very important one. And I've been kind of talking to our staff about having not that ex that deta I mean you can't jump into that deep a pool uh in short notice but starting to have realistic steps towards implementation in all of our plans is what we should start moving towards and prioritizing is the first step but then putting a timeline on it is the second step. DOT does that all the time. And in fact, when you talk about some ramp being updated, they say, "Well, no way ever is this going to happen with our current funding." So that's telling you it's important, but we don't have the money for it.

Yeah. Or sunset some things like if we don't get a turf in by such and such state, then uh then those smaller priced items that are behind it can be implement implemented. But I don't I don't think that just because it's a lower priority item means that it won't get implemented. It's a matter of political will. If if there's the decision made by the council that this lower priority item needs to be done, it'll get done. That's really what it comes down to. And that comes down to the citizens voicing their desires for that specific thing in in a large enough quantity that it becomes something that is an urgent issue rather than just something that is important in a document.

I agree with that. And there's another step that goes with that by the way. uh grassroots uh fundraising for something that a group of kayakers want is public service and it is really loudable. If enough people are interested in something and start doing that, it'll it'll happen because now you're offering the parks department the funding to do that project. Oh, but that's not really what is in the way of it. It's the ADA standards for actually getting to the B boat launch is that's in the way. And that's a lot pricier than just putting the boat launch in itself. Uh, remind me, is this addressed at all in the Memorial Park master plan?

It is. It's actually in the plan. I'm a kayaker, so I watch that one pretty extensively. It's almost like you and I have talked about this before. Um, yeah. So, it's it's in it's it's expected to go to the boat dock um down at Memorial Park. It's been on the plan for some time. There's also going to be another one in the Boon's Fairy Park master plan. Correct. And that seems to have some specificity to it already. Actually, no. I think the last iteration we saw of that did not have it in favor of the walk down portion for the current road down there. Yeah. I don't know how that's going to meet ADA standards. That steep decline down

steep grade is never going to get there, but it's steep grade over the docks on that park as well. So, but there is a plan for a uh a a boat building for correct. So, well, your concern is on the record. Thank you very much for bringing it to us. Thank you.

Right. Then I will does anyone else wish to address us on this issue on the um parks master plan. That being the case, I will call the public hearing closed and uh we'll have discussion in commission. So uh before we do that, I I'm going to um pull pull the u I guess the English it's not really English teacher um hat on it's um about it's actually more out of my design sensibility having taught this um since this is a draft and but it's an important document that should be widely read and for some time uh I would suggest some formatting adjustment in the attachment A. Um the as I get the scheme, this this whole thing seems to be uh done in the form of a spreadsheet and the goals are highlighted in kind of an ugly um olive color. uh which makes actually the type rather um illeible. Um but nonetheless it is distinct from the action which is a a brighter green color. Um if the spreadsheet is broken if if the um the table is broken above the each of the

goals. So there is a break there. It'll let that goal uh be distinguished, easier to find. It'll affect some of the pageionation. I think there are a couple places where actually the goal is separate the the the u the olive line is separated from the rest of the table that it pertains to uh on different pages. And that's especially confusing if you're going back to try to find the goal that governs um a section. It's hard to find sometimes. So, are you recommending essentially a page break at each goal to ensure that a goal starts on a new page?

Not necessarily a page break, but a table break. That's a simple thing. It's just kind of trivial, but nonetheless will make the document easier to use. It's interesting you say that. I had a similar problem except I couldn't the the actions are, you know, nice thick bar and then you had to backtrack because you can your eye picks out that that thick green bar where it says action. Then you had to backtrack to find the objective that was actually hard to see. So just again I I completely agree the formatting is kind of

I would consider a different color for the objectives. So, just to be clear, page 127 after action 1.8A, you would what I hear you saying is that you'd like white space between the end of that and goal number two. Yes. Okay. Realize this isn't really a planning issue. Looks like it's possibility in the future. I think this would be very good. And and the reason we didn't put like neon yellow or anything in there is we were trying to go with the city colors. So that was the whole intent there, but we did not divide it.

Well, you don't need to use orange, I guess. Anything else here? Um, now I I consider that the changes that I've suggested are in the order of editorial changes that don't really require any formal approval, non-substantive. Yes. Yes. Um, is uh the city expecting us to act on a motion to endorse or to to adopt this? Uh we're not actually adopting, we're recommending this um resolution to the council. Correct. Staff is requesting an action this evening.

Then I will hear a motion to that effect. I got one. And since I saw our assistant city attorney scribbling down as I was scribbling down, I'm hoping she will throw darts at me if I'm missing something here. So, um, so I would move that we approve resolution LP18-00003 recommending approval and adoption of the 2018 parks and recreation comprehensive master plan with the with revisions to um section 1.6C on page 125 as was indicated on the record. um to section 1.7H on page 127 of exhibit A as indicated on the record. Um to section 1.8A 8A on page 127 as indicated on the record. And um just by way of a non-substantive point, but an encouragement from up here would be an encouragement for correction of the maps that shows Meridian Creek Middle School as a future school um throughout the documents since that occurs in additional maps and some other non-substantive considerations that have been brought up regarding formatting.

Did I catch it? Well done. That's my motion. second. It's my responsibility to repeat the motion, but I'm going to to trust the clerk has got it right and I simply uh reduce it to it has been moved that we recommend resolution recommend to city council with um do adopt recommendation resolution number LP1800003 there. Second. Further discussion. Those in favor of this resolution say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Resolution. Oh. I. Resolution. Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Appreciate it. Hey, before you finish, I left one person out of the thank yous and Tammy from planning is like with awesome one up there. She did so much for us and I was thinking the whole time, how do I get that in there? And she's a real detail.

I needed to get that in there. It's appropriate. Thank you. Moving on then we have on the agenda um another hearing with the expectation that the hearing is actually going to be very brief and continued to a time certain on October 10th. Um, could we launch into it? This is a hearing on the Boon Fairy Park master plan. Uh, it's necessary to open the public hearing even if we're not expecting testimony tonight. The hearing is now open.

Should we ask if anybody is that me? Um, yes, I think so. Okay. Um yeah, we are asking for a continuence to October 10th uh and to leave this this hearing open. Uh we didn't feel like the document we were going to present was the best we could present and we don't want to do that. So we would like to continue it to um October 10th. Is there any objection to doing so? Well, we need a formal motion. Correct. So, I would move that we um that we postpone and continue consideration of the Boone Ferry Park master plan to a date certain of October 10, 2018. A second.

I'll second. It's been moved and seconded that we continue the hearing on Boy Park master plan to a date certain on October 10th, 2018. Those in favor say I. I I I. Motion carries. The hearing is continued with an indication that Commissioner Mesba does not participate in this vote. Correct.

Thank you. And we do have another major item for our consideration tonight and this is in the manner of a work session. And the staff has been busy. this. Thank you, Chair Greenfield. Commissioners, my name is Miranda Bait. I'm planning manager for the city of Wilsonville. And um I will be presenting to you this evening along with Alex Dupy who is the project manager from MIG consulting firm who's been helping us on this project. Uh you've met him a few times now. And um also Jennifer Skola in the audience. She may be here to help answer some questions through this um project and has helped us all a a great uh bit along this way. We are excited to be here and start talking to you about details. Um we've been we've spent a couple years now. Uh we started with visioning uh about 18 months ago with the community. Uh we went through a series of design workshops talking to people about their preferences for town center and then really uh talked to the community over about 30 events last summer uh about what ideas they have for a community design concept. And um

you'll remember that um we took that community design concept back out to the community to ground truth it and make sure that what we had been hearing was right. um and make sure that before we finalized this concept into a plan and before we started to create details around design and development code and implementation actions that we got it right and identify the areas where uh it might not quite be right yet or where more work needed to be done to resolve concerns that we were hearing in the community. And so we conducted a number of outreach activities at the earlier part of this year. We had a community concept openhouse here at city hall. We had a Latino family night which was an open house uh in Spanish. We had an online survey and then we held a number of other um sort of out andabouts going out getting more information through the library with our question of the month and online as well as doing a semesterl long project with Meridian Creek Middle School 7th grade math class. So one of the at the first open house that was February 8th here at city hall. Um, a few of the key takeaways from that was we had a lot of support for um, mixed use, particularly mixeduse office by I-5 and then mixeduse um, retail ground floor with residential above in the main street area. Um, we had a lot of continued support for that main street concept that came from the community and a lot of excitement for it. We heard a need for more transit and a request for more art. Um there was a lot of excitement for the bridge and bridge landing park concept. There um was a desire for festival streets as well as pedestrian only zones or walking paths. And so that could be either permanent or um just during festivals or for sort of different activities. And then um there was support for the Wilsonville Road crossings. And there was a idea that came out there that

night of consolidated timing for crossings that people were really excited about. Um the Latino family night was held in partnership with um the school. Wood Middle School has a um Spanish program and they helped us to put on this event and partner with us along with the other um Latino family groups that we've been working with through all throughout all of the schools. and we hosted this in partnership with them. Uh some of the key takeaways that we got that evening was um more support for the increased activity and the idea to create more year-round activities. They really wanted more space and activities for youth, including the potential for a community center. There was a lot of focus on safety and increasing safety um through um ideas around increasing lighting, better lighting, uh better crosswalks and crossing opportunities, more bus shelters and again uh we heard a lot more support for increased transit service and connectivity. We also heard there the support for taller buildings and they really want more local diverse international options in shopping. So, we're hearing a lot of the same uh continued kind of ideas and concepts. We also hosted an online survey from January 24th to March 7th during the same time to get input for those who couldn't make it to the in-person open houses. We had four over 460 people participate in that. Um again, we heard support from the community. Um they continue to coales around these same ideas. As you can see, these are pretty high numbers. um in terms of supporting each of the different elements in the concept. Um one of the biggest concerns we heard was traffic and as you know we're going to be doing a traffic analysis and bringing that information

to you and that will be something we're talking about. Um there was a lot of support even within these sort of different elements. We had over 84 we had 84% supporting the bridge and the bridge landing park. Uh 92% supporting the green linking open space. So there's a lot of support for additional green in town center. Um and then we had uh again a lot of support on the transportation side. It was interesting with the main street concept. We had both people people commented um is the main street too oriented towards cars? It really should be facilitating pedestrian and bike access um primarily and maybe don't have cars. And then on the other side we had questions, are you going to allow cars on Main Street? So um part of that is communication. Um and then the other part of that is I think what we've heard throughout this whole process is the balance um which I know all of you have really been focused on is how do we balance the different users and create a really great space. So we're hearing that. And then one of the other things we heard sort of mixed reviews on was housing. We had a lot of people at the actual events have a lot of support for housing. We had people in the survey comment that they want housing including affordable housing. And then we also had some who um are not very supportive of additional housing in Town Center. So that's something that we'll probably want to talk about through the rest of this process. So without repeating myself too much, the community really supports the Main Street District, the green links, the multimodal transportation, the bike ped bridge, um more activated public spaces, making it year round. And what these this is where I think the nuance gets into play and where we're going to spend some time talking with you over the next few months. Some of this will be through the code work, but some of this will be through project lists and other implementation actions we'll be bringing to you. Um, one of the things you'll note has changed slightly as um, Alex go he'll go into more detail about some of

these because what we did was we took some of these questions and concerns and um, started looking at okay, how do we refine then the community design concept, make some revisions, make some changes to modify that. We're not modifying things hugely but refining the ideas that we'd had already um, as we move into this next phase into putting together a draft plan and this actions. So, one of the things we heard at these events and through the online survey was about the Bridge Landing Park. Some people said, "Do we really want a park right next to I5? Is that where I want my kids playing with the noise? And is that really the most conducive place for a park?" And so one of the um people really wanted a landing space, really wanted a gateway and a welcoming, but they also wanted it to function as bringing people into the heart of Town Center and and really making that connection, which is what we heard before, which created the Green Link concept, was that connection between the bridge, Town Center Park, and Memorial Park. And so what you'll we'll talk a little bit more about some of the changes we've made related to that. Um, we also had a lot of um not much understanding about the modified town center loop west. A lot of questions around that and um whether what that would do for congestion. So, we'll get more into that. Um, parking. People want consolidated parking, but they also want to make sure it's adequate. Um, and then housing. We had a we had a lot of support and I would say that it's more than 50/50 that support it, but we are having some people who have concerns about additional housing in Town Center, particularly as it relates to parking. And so I think when we have these conversations, we'll want to keep that in mind. And then um a need for increased transit service, which I've mentioned I think now four times. So I'm glad Trans Smart's in the room. And so with that, um, as I mentioned, the project team has updated and refined the community design concept, um, and we have a lot of direction, I think, on

some of the implementation details. So, I'm going to, um, hand it over to Alex now, um, and sort of go through some of those changes for you. And one of the first things that we're tackling on the implementation side with you is, uh, the design design guidelines and development code. And that's what we're going to spend most of tonight talking about you with. There will be other implementation pieces that we will be bringing to you in your upcoming meetings. Um, but as we all know, it takes a while to get those design development codes right. And so we wanted to uh bring those early and start the conversation early.

Great. Well, thank you Miranda. Thanks for um having us back in this evening. Once again, I'm Alex Dupy with MIG and I'm just going to talk briefly about the community concept and what's changed since we last met with the task force back in June. Uh what you'll see through these next slides is really a lot more specificity. Uh what were once kind of fat arrows uh pointing to directions is really started to get nailed down into specific locations, street crosssections, you know, really starting to to build the town center vision uh from what we've heard over the past past couple years. So I'll step through that work. Thank you, Miranda. U I'll just step through these briefly. Um, as Miranda discussed earlier from the public engagement component from the the initial community concept, there was a very high level of support for the emerald chain that we had called it, which is essentially linking the future pedestrian bridge over I5 down to Memorial Park through a series of, you know, interludes, if you will, um, through Town Center. And the focus of that and really that that northwest gateway, there was a lot of discussion through both the survey and the the open house. what what is that that key public space? Um it's certainly an entry and a and a portal, but how does that start to function and how does that function within the larger multimodal system? And so we took a look at that next next slide. We we took a look at that um specific space and thought about, you know, if this is a true gateway, what does that start to look like? We're not designing that pedestrian bridge uh over, but you know, it's a key and a critical element for as a gateway into into Wilsonville. And we've been using a series of precedent images to start to talk about that bridge. Um this is the an example in Denver over I25, which is very similar to I-5 in terms of of you know, just capacity. But the important thing to look at this is that it doesn't enter into a large park. It enters into

a fairly intimate space. uh people do what they need to do to get on and off the bridge. It's attractive. It's a gateway, but it's not a place you're necessarily going to be playing basketball. Um it's a place to, you know, kind of be and understand where you're at, but not necessarily stay for for a long time. And that's what we had heard was important to folks. It's maybe this isn't the best place for me to always be there, but it should be beautiful and it should be attractive and it should announce your your entry into into Town Center. I know this bridge, it has a very large footprint on both ends.

It does. It does and it's actually a series of bridges um that that goes from the multimmoal station in downtown Denver all the way across I5. So it's it's become I grew up in Denver actually and it's it's become a catalyst for some really great development on both sides of that bridge head even though you have I5 um right there or I25 in this case right there. Next slide. So with that, um, when I was talking about specificity in terms of multimodal connections and trail connections, one thing we heard very clearly was, yeah, bike lanes are great and we certainly have have proposed a number of bike lanes through town center that connect to the the larger system, but it's really about that that ease and that safety um, if you're with your family and you're riding your bike or you're walking. And so creating a series of trails that mimic that emerald chain that we had discussed early on that takes you from the bridge head, you know, across the bridge head to Vilois or other locations, but allows you to kind of march south towards Memorial Park, connecting to the future Main Street, connecting to Town Center Park. You know, really providing those those key connections that are very safe and very easy for a variety of, you know, it's not just people wearing Lycra riding through here. These are families with with kids and dogs and and strollers. And so making it safe and effective, but also also pretty um and attractive as you step through that. So this spine, if you will, um for this trail is is very important from what we've heard as the vision. Um again, this is the the open space network. We've we've seen this this slide. There's a a key a few key spaces I want to talk about specifically. And the one is the prominade uh right between what's now the existing theater and the fry site. What we were thinking about uh for this is as as you come off the gateway or you're going towards the gateway for the bridge, there's a space

there that um has some interesting qualities. Um it's quiet. Uh Fries has been identified throughout this process as a potential, you know, redevelopment site, whether it's commercial or office or or mixed use. But providing those key spaces where people can relax. um throughout the throughout the the trip down through town center and as a part of that you know it requires a different type of of development. It doesn't mean that when the bridge comes on, the pedestal bridge comes on in three, five, seven years, whenever the that process takes, you can still provide that connection, but ultimately having this prominade, a linear space, a small park space that's activated and programmed with surrounding development, uh, but also, you know, providing things like storm water. Um, providing those connections, but also kind of having this small space where people can can congregate. And you know when we when we think of the these types of things um we again use precedent images that we've been we've been using throughout the process that people have responded to very well. You know public art but still having that quality of accessibility um interaction with whether it's water or different features so that you do have that momentum moving through. But it's also a great space to be. And so if you lived in a a condo or an apartment or a town home near there um that's a small space to go and have a cup of coffee. uh without having to necessarily go to a larger a larger park, but also gives you those those connection points without throughout the the process for town center. We've heard loud and clear that it has to be more accessible for bikes and for pedest pedestrians and the multimodal system that were is proposed through the community concept has both of those. Um it has the cycle track that um has really I think morphed over time as we've talked to folks about what that looks like to really being a defined feature that goes throughout town center and connects the major park and

recreation elements but also having wide sidewalks safe streets to cross the ability to make multiple connections without having to walk through a parking lot. So, those are the types of things we've thought about from a multimotal standpoint in addition to be able to provide vehicle connections because we know people are still going to continue to drive. So, with that, we know, you know, we've all been in Town Center, we know what it's like to drive through there. Um we were actually standing next to Town Center Park talking about our popup on um August 22nd with the u the citywide barbecue that's coming up and the number of cars going through um Park Place uh was really surprising. They're using that culde-sac. They are they are getting through that that space and it's it's very busy. So, it's it's starting to think about how we not necessarily regulate that traffic, but disperse the traffic so that it's not stuck specifically on Town Center Loop West, for example, which we know backs up every every afternoon. So, how do we start to distribute that traffic through a series of different different streets, whether they be local or um arterials or collectors, but really starting to think about it as a system as opposed to just a couple key connections. And uh uh an item Miranda brought up about Town Center Loop West. That's a connection we've talked a lot about. Um there's challenges with Town Center Loop West. One is that it's really close to the interchange. Uh a lot of people use it to try and get on to I5. Um it backs up, but there are a lot of other options, too. And we looked at this in initial traffic analysis on what if you change the um change that that organization of that road. So what if it were a smaller road? you still allowed that connection, but what if you started to to try and get traffic to move to Town Center Loop East a little bit more or use Main Street or some of the other connections so that you distribute that traffic more than having this that focal point on Town Center Loop West. And I know we'll

talk more about it this in terms of the the grid and the block size that we're proposing, but really providing more options and also providing more local connections so those folks aren't stuck just on the arterials. And that's what you see on those gray those gray dotted lines. um on the map. And just some examples, um we've drawn some cross-sections to show what that looks like. Uh Park Place and Courtside, you know, are really the key streets from a pedestrian and a placemaking standpoint. Uh but they're not all created equal. Um Parkplace North, for example, um you know, has great potential uh for a walkable street connecting the north part of town center to the south, but also we know that the apartments are are there and will not likely redevelop. So, you know, acknowledging that and making sure that we have solid landscaping, making sure that, you know, any impacts to them are are mitigated, but going to other locations through town center looking at what do I have next?

Sorry.

Thank you. um town center at Park Place that intersection with the park and some of the other spaces. You know, what if that were more of a curbless street to that you could close off on a regular basis if you wanted to that offers those options for it's still you know provides mobility and but it's also pedestrian friendly but provides you a little bit more flexibility than the the street that you have today. One of the biggest moves we have in in this project um is that Parkplace extension. Um and that is really your key main street. Um very active storefronts, on street parking, wide sidewalks. You know, it's really this is this is the the core of the walkable district right here. And so when you look at this cross-section, it's partly the street, but it's also the urban form adjacent to that street that's very important. And those are some of the questions we'll have later on. but it's really, you know, supporting and invigorating that Main Street concept that's been very supported through the community. And then finally, Courtzside. Courtzside's a great connection. Um, but really using that more um partly for placemaking as a part of that main street on the the north side of the street, but also using that as as a cycle track connection. So, integrating the park, but also talking about some other mobility options there. And that courtside becomes that central connection for the cycle track down to Memorial Park. So, it's both a functional street, but as well um a still pedestrian focused street. And then finally, the local streets, which were the gray lines on the map. We provided a few different options. Um the top two are more traditional local streets. These are ones that would likely be um you know, constructed as a part of development, you know, but likely privately funded, either on street parking or um bike lanes, depending on where you're at. The bottom option is what's called a vounerf, which is a much narrower street. Rather than

defining exactly where cars go, you use a series of parking alleys. Um, pedestrians are often mixed with traffic. You see these in in many urban areas where you're not you're really trying to slow down traffic and actually create a space that's much much more unique than others. Um, downtown Portland has a few. Um, Seattle is is implementing a lot of these in some of their their more suburban locations to create that space, particularly on on older older streets. So, it's it's a it's a different it's a different look, but one that has I think we think applicability in some areas. So, so again, ideas for cross-sections. And then finally, the the land use map. Last time you saw this, this was a series of bubbles. It was talking about activity areas. um you know, commercial or or recreation or or housing. Um we've refined that to become much more of a zoning map. Um and we've renamed that. So MSD, which is the main street district, you'll see that is really that core um node, if you will, where we're expecting as development occurs to be highly pedestrian oriented, really focused on the street. And our design proposed design standards reflect that. Some of the other locations like neighborhood mixed use may not be as as dense, more town homes, other things that reflect the adjacent neighborhoods around it, but still very walkable. And then mixed use, which is more the the brown or orangey color depending on the print or the the screen. Uh that's kind of your traditional mixed use. There's a lot of different uses that could be in there. um two to four stories u but again buildings fronting to the street in most cases really trying to make that grid um you know focus and and be well used and then finally commercial mixed use which is the highest density um at I5 you know that's primarily office space we heard loud and clear don't put residential next to freeways um which we agree with uh but you know potentially

like you know where that prominade is prominade is maybe allowing some type of mixed use or residential within that that area which is further away from from the freeway. So definitely flexibility, but the goal really is is activity and action and part of that is having people in town center and that's where the zoning uh comes from. That's the vision of the plan that we've heard loud and clear for the past couple years. But doing that through activating streets through parkletits and allowing, you know, or requiring specific types of of building placement so that you do get that solid street activity, but allowing people to recreate, allowing different types and development densities. You know, these are town homes or walk walkups that are two to three story. These are the types of things that we might envision in the neighborhood mixeduse or mixeduse districts. You know, this type of area. Um, this is an example that we found really attractive. This is in actually in Ogden, Utah. And you know, again, it's dense. You know, this is 16 or so units per acre, three stories, but it's owner occupied town home style, parking in the rear with garages, but still a very attractive product that, you know, we could see um within Town Center. And then some of the higher density uses, you know, again, whether it's brick or glass or however it's designed, these are the types of commercial products that might might fit within that CMU zone. higher higher densities, four to five stories potentially. But really, you know, if you're trying to provide a mix of uses in office, you know, either employment or hotel or other types of things, providing attractive spaces for people, uh, regardless of what's in the building is the key um, you know, the key thing that's really important to to take away with what we've we've been working with. And then finally, another example. This is a a residential um, semi semi- mixeduse project. You have residential access in the front. Um, you have some retail on the corners. Um, but

notice the the percentage of glass within this building. Um, high percentage of glass, eyes on the street. When you think about these taller buildings and these these boxes, the last thing you want is a wall of brick or a wall of of wood. You really want that permeability and that visibility through glass or or other features that, you know, makes it inviting. Um this is a good example too of of um small porticose within within the buildings. So just different ideas and different scales that might be seen through through town center. All right. So that's that's where we've been. Those are the those are the those are the elements that that we've been carrying carrying forward and continuing to to refine with with task force and and community assistance. Um the next piece of this project is starting to get into into the details a bit and what we've been doing um as a as a team and with with city staff is starting to develop implementation strategies for town center. We have the general land use map crosssections where streets would go. The next step is really to start to develop that zoning and some of the site and and building design guidelines. And we started this process with the task force back in June. uh ha asked several questions about you know key elements and priorities uh for what what should go into those those pieces but the key focus is to come back to that goal of harmonious design. That's something we've been talking about and we've talked with planning commission city council on. One of the main tenants of this project is to have a town center that's beautiful, but that also has um necessarily an eclectic style, but a style that has a high variety of of of different types of compon components. And when we started to develop the design guidelines, we we came back to this immediately and and looked for at this goal for for guidance. So, I'm just putting it out there. I'm not going to read it. Um it's in all of the plans and documents, but um this was our our

overarching feature that we looked at for guidance. Um there's major elements within the zoning and design guidelines. Uh we are starting to look at what permitted and prohibited uses might be. Uh building and street frontage requirements. Um site design standards, which includes parking, like how do you address parking within within Town Center, which may be different than other parts of Wilsonville. Uh building design standards and street connectivity. Um those are some of the main elements that we're we're we're beginning to to address and and we have some questions for you about many of those. So just as a preface we have six questions just so we can count keep track at home about how far we are along in the the number of questions. Uh well what what I'd like to do is just to ask the question and then provide the input from what the task force gave us on that question. not all of the questions um we didn't ask the task force all of these questions so we've noted that if if we haven't but um we just love to have a conversation to help provide us direction as we move forward. So, one of our first questions, and I think we've talked about this even before we got into the last task force, um the existing development code, um from our analysis, is that it doesn't provide the the framework that you need for developing the town center according to the vision. Um the question is is how far do you go in terms of requirements versus guidelines? you know what type of if you're requiring a really heavy set of standards that could go down to brick work exact building locations you know a very specific points which can work in some instances but it can also be challenging in other other locations and so when we asked this of the task forces how far do we take this um the answer was mixed and but the clear direction was that it came this should vary by

location And so if we're looking at these various areas within Town Center, Main Street was a location that that the task force suggested might have the strongest design requirements because that's that's the really the focus and some of the biggest lifts that we're talking about through this process. But other areas might might require greater flexibility. Maybe the commercial mixeduse area is does not have as strong of requirements. Still has the guidelines and some of the standards that you want, but maybe it's less so than than what what Main Street is. And so that's a question for for you as you get people to come in, you know, for for review and and and permits is what level of detail do you want to provide them and require of them uh for these specific types of uses. So I'll throw that I'll throw that to you.

Who wants to go first? I'll go first. Sure. So I guess you know at a high level I'm as part of the task force as well um I don't have any major disagreements with the task force recommendation I think it does make sense to have uh a higher level of design requirements for Main Street versus the rest of the areas. Um now from my perspective that doesn't mean that Main Street is um prescriptive in every specific detail. Um but that there are higher expectations in terms of the type of design and and the things that we would allow or not allow in that area.

You know I'm on the tax task force. So that was my understanding as well from the discussion we were having. Um, I guess I have a little bit of a different opinion on that and I think it's based a little bit of of living through Villa and the development of Villa and seeing where initially there were some very I would say more stringent standards and how that turned out and how it looked and as time progressed and there weren't those more directive kinds of guidelines that things don't look quite as good. And I guess I have a real concern about that. I mean, if we're creating a show showplace here, which I mean, showplace in the sense of we want people to want to come to the town center, we want them to to come. If you if you allow it to kind of um develop kind of with more guidelines, people tend to stretch those as far as they possibly can. And I think you lose a little of the character. You lose a little of the element of of this overall look and feel. And I think, you know, as I sat through some of the initial initial meetings that I heard a lot of about the feel, you know, there's a there's a sense of wanting it to feel like a community. We want we don't have a downtown area. And I think that's one of the um um drawbacks of Wilsonville. And I I think there was a real strong need for that. now you know how how far you know all the way out to but I think within that area I I guess I disagree. I think we need to to have a little more stringent guidelines through the whole central core of this. Um

is there a specific area in Viba that you would say stands out as not being what you would have expected?

Several. Yeah, I think I I think um as as time sort of developed the initial um standards of you know the pattern book idea and it was very well adhered to initially and as time marched on it's not as adhered to and so the the the look and feel um there was this uh kind of sense of what we wanted it you know the the people who were involved with it wanted it to look and feel like and I think that's sort of degraded a little bit and that's that's my concern because you know it it the the the the it it got less stringent as time went on and that that's just based on my my impression of it.

Yeah. And I guess I guess my side from being on the development review board that approved a good majority of the recent development in Villa is that you know I think what you're seeing is a variety of different types. Not necessarily that it doesn't still apply to um the the concepts that were there in the Villa development, just that you're starting to see the different varieties of developments that were allowed under the development. And so and maybe it's more of a not being happy with that from an aesthetic standpoint, which I can understand. It's all a matter of personal preference. It is.

So I I think that's a challenge that we're going to have to work through as a as a body to figure out that balance between allowing the freedom and and catering to the different tastes. Yeah, I I I understand what you're saying there. And I also understand that when you're trying to attract businesses to develop in an area, you can't if you lay down the parameters too too stringent, you're going to discourage um you're going to discourage people to to build there and to and to be part of it. But I guess initially as we go into this, I'm going to stick with a little more

um feeling about being a little more directive on our um not guidelines so much, but more um design standards. Right. Thank you.

Can you go back to one of the maps for me a second? Um the one one of the ones that has like a has some of the plot line one's a little confusing. There we go. And and the reason I asked for this is because one of the things that I I'm trying to be really cognizant of in the entirety of this process is is for this to be successful, right? There's this there's this notion of land ownership consolidation phasing type of idea that has to be in the back of our mind throughout this process. And um and the reason I wanted to look there is is because I'm trying to visualize in my head where Main Street and what that sort of ownership structure looks like along Main Street, right? Because if you've got a stringent standard that's going to then be applicable to multiple property owners that may be doing it at different times, that becomes a little less workable. And if I'm seeing that correctly, right, I mean, the the general notion is is that Main Street is mostly at least on the east side pretty consolidated ownership, right? But when you get to the west side, it's a little bit less so, right?

Um, at least I'm seeing in the southern portion. Am I seeing that right there, Miranda? Technically, you would still That's not Maine. Oh. Um, so technically where that is located, you would still only have two owners. Okay. So we actually do have a pretty good Okay. And we for for this street plan, I mean, we particularly for the larger larger projects, you know, that would be a capital project or something of that nature, we we tried very hard to avoid existing businesses. Um, you know, to really start to make, to be honest, some of the connections that are sort of almost there. um the main street extension from Courtzside South, we were looking at it today and that's

that's pretty much your drive aisle with within that within that parking lot. Okay. Um the other the the gray uh streets, those are more local streets that would likely be be constructed as a part of of development. And so those are ones that will, you know, kind of mimic the block pattern that we've been talking about that it actually is a I think it's question three or or four. Uh but those are things that would be likely constructed as a part of private development but it does provide that that connectivity. So those are a little bit more um I think you know dependent on what that development comes in that uh that what you'd want to see but still the desire for a connection is is strong there.

Okay. So at least on the at least on when it comes to Main Street we probably have because we're talking about two potential owners there. It's there's a little bit more we at least have the freedom to be a little bit more stringent if we need to because we expect that it's a little more consolidation than we see in some of these other places where there's a lot more lot lines and ownership. Right. Okay. Correct. And I'd even say the extension of Courtzside um is just a handful of owners as well too. So that's the purple dotted line going to the west as well. So those big moves um do have relatively few land owners which is which is nice and unusual. Okay. That's good to know. Okay. Thank you for indulging me with the map again because

Okay. So um could you go to the proposed zoning map please? 19 I think. Yeah. So um related to your question are we talking about a more prescriptive zoning within what's called here the main street district MSD the purple zone and then is that is that's really what we're talking about.

Yeah that was the recommendation from the task force. So, one of the questions we have is whether or not the planning commission um agrees that the MSD might have higher um requirements or have more requirements but be not as loose or flexible. Um the task force didn't feel like there needed to be as high of standards or I guess as I don't want to say as high of standards but as rigid

rigid of standards um in like the MU mixed use the neighborhood mixed or the commercial mixed use. Um, still wanted high level of design, still wanted to make sure we were putting in design guidelines or maybe some standards, but maybe not as many. Um, but we're recommending that Main Street District is a very very important place and central feature of this plan and wanted to I think be a little bit more regulatory in that location. And please correct please correct me if I misinterpreted that or phrased it. No, it's not correction or or changing what you said. It's it's highlighting what you said. The concern, if I remember correctly, was in a lot of new urbanism. Uh you end up uh doing a Disney

kind of a thing. It's what what Disney, it's what old downtown looked like kind of a thing. And it's hokey. It's just fake. Um the idea was to make sure that the the creativity of the owners and their architects are not stunted by a bunch of um shortsighted and by shortsighted I mean really timewise shortsighted because a lot of our preferences don't age well. So something that looks very nice now in 15 years looks you know who came up with this idea? So we were trying to make sure that the design was authentic and so the guidelines were supposed to really be qualitative almost get getting designers and architects to look at the the motivation that the community has and the hopes and ideals that it has for this area which is what you were talking about um and highlight those and come up with their creative ways of achieving it. So, at least that's what I was. Maybe I'm just delusional about what development will be like, but that's what I'm hoping.

Yeah, I think that that that that's exactly right. And that's that's what the task force was talking about when we put together the design guidelines, particularly for Main Street. Um there's that balance between a heavy regulatory hand on this building shall be wood with brick with, you know, X. Uh the way we established the guidelines now is really about building placement, percentage of glass at the ground floor, uh where building entrances should be, and to be honest, weather covering. Weather covering is a big deal, and it's something we've heard over and over again. So with those that that places your building where you want it to be um provides some direction about permeability and and visibility through the building but leaves it to the architect or designer to you know interpret what that might be and that's I think the question you know how far do we take that that regulation versus standard. I think the key thing for Main Street is location of parking and location of the building. Those are the those are the two major elements for for Main Street.

So parking um in general, you know, the concept is to put parking behind buildings in the main street district uh or along the streets itself, right on street parking. Um, is so we're not talking about having centralized parking for all districts, but perhaps smaller centralized parkings for each individual district and or groups of or something like that, like parking lots behind buildings in this case, in the case of of Main Street District.

Yeah. And I think you'll see with with other locations like um Belmar in in Lakewood, Colorado, which is a it's a it's a new urbanist development, but I think they've done a good job at creating a main street not dissimilar to what we're we're looking at here. They they have centralized their parking. Uh but they've done it in ways that they're connecting adjacent parking lots. So you may have parking behind the buildings. Um, it could be multiple land owners, but you might you could have requirements that those those parking areas are connected so that you're not, you know, chomping up each of those spaces spaces in the back. And that's that's I think a way that you can get to the development type you want um at a more incremental level as opposed to you have a master developer who's going to come in and do your entire main street for you. But yes, parking is behind the buildings um or on the street, whether it's structured, tuck under, I think that's that's up to um the developer or you even the city to decide how to how to handle that.

And we actually have a question about parking tonight as well. The last question. The last question if we get there. Yep. Is it um this this design requirement for Main Street? Is it is it do I say it kind of feels like you're talking about a formbased code or I mean yeah I I think there's a what we're we're moving towards.

There is there is that balance between form-based code and design standards. Um, you know, I think form-based code, form-based code often gets away from pure formbbased code often gets away from the prohibitive or permitted list. Um, which is sometimes hard uh to to deal with if you're if you're doing a development application. There's really just stuff you don't want um within that. What we're recommending is to go more of a balanced or a hybrid approach of having a series of of more traditional code elements um but then have those design standards which to be honest yes are are similar to what a form-based code might look like. Okay.

So are you thinking that that hybrid of of for all of the area but or for just the the kind of around the purple the main street area? Um what you know obviously you've given some thought to this and

yeah I think building location is one that um is likely more flexible depending on where you're at main street you probably want to be more stringent on that because you really want to have that strong pedestrian orientation. If you're talking about larger office buildings or you know mixeduse residential that's not on a main street maybe there's more flexibility in in exactly what those forms look like. But I think the key the key piece and the overarching vision particularly with the harmonious design is to develop something that's um pedestrianoriented that is easy to get around and that as a pedestrian the building is inviting and there's a number of ways you can do that and a number of different kind of levels you can regulate that but I think you you could do that in different ways uh depending on what district you're in. So kind of holding those strong tenants uh of of you know pedestrian fenly etc and and having those universal through all the areas but maybe a little more prescriptive in right

the central area right but still there's some key I guess there's some key concepts that we never deviate from you know pedestrian friendly exactly exactly yeah offsets those kinds of things and those are those are standardized and and a little more prescriptive elements to the the main area.

That's that's correct. And you know, for like the CMU area, potentially maybe parking is allowed behind and on the side of the building. Um whereas a main street would only be allowed behind the building. So I think there's some flexibility depending on where you're where you're at. So, in time management, feel like we've gotten some good input on that one and there's some cohesion among the commission. I would propose we move to um question two.

So, the the next question and this is a this is a esoteric question sometimes about block block length. Uh currently right now the city of city of Wilsonville um implements the metro standard of a 535 excuse me 530 foot block frontage. Um that is a really long block if you think about um urban areas even other suburban areas. Um that that that's that's a long distance to to travel. Um, we're recommending something not as dense from an intersection standpoint as downtown Portland, which is 200 foot blocks and has, you know, you couldn't construct that today for what it was, but to go with a 400t block distance, but also within that require that there is some pedest pedestrian connectivity through that block. 400 ft that that's a a typical block length. Um, it's one that can support larger development if necessary, but also allow on-site parking. Uh but it it should be balanced with um strong pedestrian access through that site. Um and so that we do have some some guidelines within within the what we're proposing is within every 250 ft you do have pedestrian accessibility through through the site and that can be done through a building. It can be done you know having you know through the parking lot but it does need to be identified and demarcated. Um, I'd like to use this graphic uh just to talk about what block width and structures are. Um, when we talk about, you know, block length, uh, you know, Portland has one of the smallest blocks in the country. Um, which is great if you're a pedestrian. It's challenging if you're a developer, particularly a modern developer. It's also very expensive if you're talking about infrastructure to be able to build those those roads. Um the benefit of a block structure like that is that it's very easy as a pedestrian to make make choices and also vehicles to make

choices on how to get around. And so it's the balance between that versus like Salt Lake City, which is the really big block uh on the the far right. And if you've ever been to Salt Lake City and walk through it, it takes forever to get to get around any place. And many of those blocks aren't broken down. Um so it's hard to get through. So I I bring this up because one, it's there is no magic bullet in terms of block width and length. The key piece for this though is to provide um you know what we think is the best alternative for town center based on its existing development pattern. What could be constructed realistically both on the public and private side but also provide that strong pedestrian connectivity. And just as an example, this is a ranko station. Um, if you've ever been there, New Seasons, I believe, is on the left side there. Uh, I think this is a great example of of that modern block structure. And, and I'm going to point out a few things. Essentially, from right ofway to right ofway, from Brighton to Cornell, that's about 400 ft. That's about what you're looking at. Um, if you notice that east west connection, that's about 250 ft. So, you have those two linear buildings, north south, then you have that east west connection about that that provides access to parking. Um, it also starts to split some of the buildings. Um, because also a monolithic buildings can be very challenging. Uh, but then the the thing I I like about this is that this is a nice precedent image for what Main Street could be. Parking to the back. Um, you have a strong pedestrian orientation, not large buildings, threetoryish buildings, um, but still providing, you know, all of the amenities that you need for a for a modern town center. Um, this took a long time to develop, so it's not something that happened overnight, but it's a it's a good example, I think, of of that strong form that kind of balances the need for access versus um pedestrian orientation and block size.

And you can buy a live work unit just up to the north there. So questions, comments. What about the block length?

I say yes on the shorter. Um, yeah, 530 seems long. Mhm. Considering what we're trying to build, 400 seems long. But I I see what you're saying, though. If you break it up with, you know, either pedestrian crosswalks or Right. or or access to parking which then serves the need of putting the parking behind the buildings like we're talking about. Right. So, okay. Yeah. And I think that's critical if you go with that length is to have that accessibility that additional accessibility

the um the mid midblock pedestrian access is that does it make sense for them to for these to be mo multi-modal access or is that you going to keep the bikes in the main street area? Right. We're talking about main street. No, we're talking about the whole the blocks is is the whole whole town center area. Um in some places we're going to have bike paths, right, that are non so these could be um these could be in the in amongst the

sure they they I don't know that they would be marked, but they would certainly be accessible. Um, I think the key piece with those that that pedestrian access is that you could combine that with parking access as provided it's, you know, it's designed to to accomplish that. Um, the nice thing about that too is that you can share the access. So, it's it's removing curb cuts essentially, which is better for bicycles, pedestrians, and really focusing on those those, you know, 200 200 or 250 foot um connections between between the buildings. That's what I'm talking the curb cuts is a big piece of that. If you if you if you if you say purely pedestrian access, then you're going to have curbs and you're not going to be able to get bikes through there without breaking buckling wheels,

right? It would definitely need to be um designed to be safe for all all modes. Uh but consolidating that access as much as possible to parking so you don't have cars coming in and out in all all directions. That's important. And it's critical that the parking lots not become throughways. Yes. Yeah. As in the current where are we parking lot over here right theo station photograph there's a lot of parking there there is is that is that parking purely to to cover those buildings that we also see or is that parking intended to cover to support more buildings

I I believe so I don't I don't know what the percentage or what the ratio that they used to develop that was But those those buildings are surface parked and there are the the small buildings behind in the north of the town homes that's that's covered parking for those town homes. But all the apartments within those larger buildings I believe that's all surface parking also for new seasons and others which are higher you know higher generators. So it's it's a mix of residential as well as the commercial. Yeah, just from this view it does look like a lot of asphalt. I'm hoping for something greener. Well, and that's that that that's a question for that actually question six.

Thank you. I'm okay with it at 400 ft. Great. I'm okay with it, too. My concern is that your midblock pedestrian accesses, if not designed well, are not going to be defensible spaces and at night, they're going to be not where people want to use as a as a throughare on on foot. Anyway, maybe there are some design requirements for for those

lighting would be important. uh highlighting that this is a public path uh is even though it's going through a public uh or a private parking uh would be I think all of those need to be there and maybe some activities I don't know maybe that's where you want some of your vendor carts or something for that's you need to have some some other activity there that is a a um stable activity So people who are transitioning through uh are not going through no man's land.

I agree with that. These these should not be these should not look like institutional parking lots. Great point. Thank you. Are we good on this question? Yes.

All right. So we we had shown some of the the proposed cross-sections uh on on the plan and these were these cross-sections have been refined since the the task force. We've made them more attractive and refined some of the the pieces. Uh we we discussed generally those connections with task force but we didn't talk specifically about the cross-section. You know what they what they look like. Um generally speaking they're about a 60oot cross-section. Um the Verf is slightly smaller at I believe 52 or 54 ft. Uh but what we had tried to do for all of these is to make sure there's wide sidewalks, 12ft sidewalks on all all locations depending on where you're at on street parking or bike and ped uh facilities. But again, it's really trying to get that multimotal connection as well as that pedestrian um adequate pedestrian space uh moving forward. So I and this is a great picture because I wanted to ask to go back to this anyway. So I think this is a a perfect time for it. My concern I guess with with this the way it's shown is um the inconsistency of the bike ped as you go north and south along Park Place. uh and the extension where you know on North Park Place you have um you know bike lanes on both sides and then you transition to Park Place at Town Center Park where you've got a a buffered bike lane cycle track on on one side. And so that means that at each of those transition points you're going to have people, families, children um transitioning um a a street. And you know, from my perspective, the more you can minimize those transitions, the better.

And so, I picked up on that right away in terms of the inconsistency in terms of how the how the people would flow specifically through that that street area.

That's a great observation. Um, we could cover why it ended up that way from what we had heard from people. That doesn't mean that we're still moving forward with the project though and further refining. Um, but part of that was that concept of the cycle track really coming from the bridge down Main Street and then along the southern part of the park to then connect south to Memorial. And so that is how that sort of the cycle track got prioritized to take that route and not necessarily feeds straight south as well. Um there is um I think the other thing is that with the redesign of traffic flow on Wilsonville Road, the intersection at Main Street has full um what's the word I'm looking for? I'm at a loss.

You can go everywhere. That's right. Right. You can go any direction. Um there is some limited flow of direction on Town Center Loop West. And then we're also the the long-term a lot of support we heard through the community was for a lot of the pedestrian and bike activity to go on Rebecca because um at that intersection because of the direct flow south to the library um and having that be not as it's not a full sort of vehicular traffic flow and so it felt safer to people going where? Um, so there's a on, let me see if I can find a better map.

This one will work. Um, Canyon Creek eventually sort of extends south and um would cross at the where there's an existing traffic light at Rebecca. It becomes Rebecca to the south of Wilsonville Road. Okay.

Sort of on the west side of the library. And so we had heard a lot of support through the project that there was a desire to bring the most of the pedestrian and bike traffic to the Town Center Loop West intersection because that's going to be redesigned and have um some limited turning mobility um to cars in order sort of in this future plan. And also part of that is so that we can provide better bike and pedestrian connectivity than we have today because currently we don't have full pedestrian connectivity at that intersection. And so in order to do that um it would sort of modify some of that traffic flow and how the different intersections along Wilsonville Road are handled in the long term. that brought some interest in then focusing pedestrian and bike connectivity north and south of Wilsonville Road to Town Center Loop West and Rebecca. And so there it is. I would I would agree with your observation though that it makes it there are these sort of points that could be awkward for bike and pedestrian activity because in in some ways what what's been prioritized so far by the community is sort of this diagonal connection across uh and then sort of splitting off in two ways. One down to loop west and south and one down Rebecca and south. And that may not be where we want sort of the final version of the connectivity to occur in this plan, but that's where sort of how we got to where we are today.

And you could you that we were thinking about particularly um Park Place north of Town Center Park where you you have have the connection coming kind of northwest to southeast. You rather than doing bike lanes on the street, you do a cycle track that continues up to Town Center Loop to continue that. Um that that is certainly a possibility to just continue that up. I think the question the question we had is where do you make the transition because there's existing bike lanes on Parkway north of Town Center Loop West or Town I guess guess that's the confluence between east and west. Uh you could certainly make that transition there and continue cycle track north. I think the the question um and it's a good one for Main Street is how large do you make that street? uh you know with particularly the extension moving from Wilsonville Road up to to city town center park. We we went with on street parking and you know wide sidewalks and you could certainly add bike lanes to that but it's just you know it's just more more right of way to do that. So we chose to use other roads. Um certainly bikes could share traffic with that that slow traffic street but we we tried to route if you're going to go through on a bike maybe that's not the best street to to do it. If you're trying to get to a business on Main Street, then you share it with the slow traffic. But that's that's a great point. Um, you know, those transitions, you know, they need to be effective and maybe there's a better way to to look at them.

Yeah. I and I guess we don't have to we're not going to solve it here tonight. So, I just, you know, as we continue to get through this process and refine it, just, you know, make sure we're looking at at at it from that perspective as well, so that we don't create a a hodgepodge of transitions that are forcing people to do more things than they really need to. It sounds like a good task force question moving forward. At the same time, I don't think we would want to have a street so wide and complex that it divides Town Center into two distinct districts.

Yeah, that's that's a great point. And I think you you could very easily like the park the existing park place moving north from Town Center Park. I think that'd be an easy transition to go to cycle track or bike lane like how you because the space is there and you're not that's not really the energy is but that main street extension south you know I think we want to be cognizant of what that ultimate cross-section looks like. I I think the the real burden of if it is a burden of uh the main street district is to establish most clearly the sense of place for town center

and that that's a heavy burden design-wise. Um but it would certainly be made more difficult if that street becomes too heavy in traffic. Yeah. And we and that's one one reason why it's it's very narrow. Not narrow 10-ft lanes, you know, on street parking. We expect a lot of pedestrian activity. So definitely people going through it. But if you're going through to get through to town center, Main Street is not the one we want you to go on. We want you to go on Town Center List to be honest. So

next question. So, did we have any other comments on this one? Are people generally feel like these there might be some a few more issues to work out in terms of consistency and transitions, but otherwise these cross-sections generally feel like what we've heard through the process and the locations of them. I think these these transitions are a design challenge,

but they're a challenge at each point. They have to be resolved uh in terms of what's there and how we want it to function.

Thank you. So the next question, we've actually I think discussed this um somewhat. uh we we've done a lot of survey work with the community about you know using those precedent images that we've been talking about and and I think the the question that we're starting to grapple with is you know do we recommend or require specific building materials versus having more the general standards of building placement location general qualities. Uh but you know it's an important it's an important issue because Town Center does have the the red brick facade for example that that's prevalent in in some of the buildings. Is that a continuation? Um but getting to um Cameron's question do how far do you take it so you don't get Disneyland? You know so th that that's we would love some guidance on how far you think we should we should take those design guidelines specifically for building materials. I actually favor more eclecticism in the final result. This is going to take a long time to develop in the first place

and we're starting from an established built uh area with and I I don't see it as we don't we don't have the opportunity that they had say at Bridgeport Village where they started out Tab Rasa and could do an integrated design and they did a good job of it. don't especially like it and I don't want to replicate it in town center. Uh I I prefer more architectural variety as long as it's not glaringly inconsistent.

And I forgot to mention that's generally where um task force landed is you know articulation of buildings so that there's breaks in buildings or you know change in plane. But um you know it was it was kind of for the most part people wanted that variation. Um, but some people did want more of the stronger stronger standards. I I think that businesses might very well prefer to have some distinction in their architecture. I think the housing units also would want to be unique.

Great. Thank you. So it sounds like a similar approach to what we've done elsewhere is that we might prohibit a few things but um and then look at articulation but allow a lot of flexibility in terms of precise materials. Yeah. Correct. Great. Are we going to talk about weather protection since you had it on a bullet there? Sure.

Uh we need a that's been that's been very clear. So, you know, any any buildings, particularly entrances, but also, you know, along Main Street, maybe there's, you know, stronger uh weather weather protection if you want people out um and about. So, you marquee awnings are historic for a lot of main main streets that go across the entire front of the building. U you know, maybe in other areas like the CMU or mixed use, you only need it on the entrances. So, th those are some things that we're we're working through right now. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we highlighted that because that was a a key thing from the task force is having that year round use and and that weather protection being a critical thing especially for the main street area and having a continuous um weatherprotected pathway from one place to another.

Thank you. Yes.

All right. Um so we have a couple that the task force had didn't didn't really discuss but um have have come up uh through various conversations uh you know the question of whether or not we should restrict or permit one-story commercial buildings within within town center. Um you know that there are some very successful main streets or business business districts that have one-story buildings provided they're you know they're they're well welldesigned. Um the goal though is to have more life within within Town Center. I think the the question for planning commission is most everything in Town Center right now is single story. And so what direction makes the most sense for that? If we if we regulate it so that it's two or more stories on on Main Street, you know, that that could extend development times. Um if it's single story, are there specific recommendations that we should consider for for design standards for those? So that's that's something we had we had talked about. The other piece is, you know, should you limit the the scale of resident or of retail uses? Um, Fry, for example, is about 100,000 square feet. Um, is that too big for an area? Um, from what we've discussed through community from community and others that it's not so much the the size of a business, it's more the floor plate size. So could you have a fries that's three stories that has the same same amount of square footage but the max floor plate is 30,000 square feet for example which is like Trader Joe's and Hollywood you know it's about that about that size. So I guess there's two questions there. Do you allow singlestory buildings and the other is do you limit the size of square footage for retail or commercial space?

I'm not a big fan on limitation on either of them. You still have to let the market figure out what it can build. So, you put too much limitation on it. And I don't know. Seems like a recipe to me to maybe never get built.

I think that one-story commercial buildings are fine. Um I don't see any issues with that. and and possibly you might want to look at that main core purple area again in terms of limiting the amount of retail you you know the the size but not in the other pieces I think you got to let it develop but you know I think it might be worth considering and I'm not saying we absolutely you know nail it down but um should consider limiting the amount of size of the retail space in the in the in the purple main zone or maybe even BL maybe even segment that and say in this section you know we kind of want it'll be a little smaller scale and then

no big box stores I can buy that exactly no that makes sense I mean if you if you're not going to limit it on that main street then

you're never going to get what you're trying to get but I I guess my point is is that I I proximity to um to some sort of anchor is may be the the determining factors as to whether some of these things can work. And that doesn't necessarily mean you want to park a new fries on Main Street. But, you know, if you've got a Trader Joe's one block over, um, it can still work in my mind. I I I still I I'm still holding to this notion that I've heard from some experts on that that it's really dangerous to say you're going to limit it to a point where you you're you're prohibiting an anchor tenant of sorts.

Okay. Point taken. I will buck the trend. Um, I'm sensitive to the market concerns that uh, Commissioner Postman U is concerned about. To me, there is a danger in undervaluing a resource. And if we're trying to make this into a gem of a downtown area, we need to treat it as a gem. A one-story development is a total waste of that resource. So I would have uh F requirements and um definitely no one development. Um I mean we're talking mixed use. Uh you know, on the face of it, a one-story development is going to buck that. in most cases. And I'm I would wait. I mean, if somebody isn't willing to do a at least twotory or whatever uh multiple story we're talking about and say don't don't develop until the market is right to do it, right? Um and I've seen that work. Um uh Madison had to wait on uh the main thoroughfare Washington Avenue for almost 12 years before mixeduse really well-designed um development happened in lots that were parking lots for called car dealerships and market had to catch up with it. Basically, it was an idea that was too ahead of its time, but the resource would have been completely wasted and postponed that development for probably another 50 years until they got

dilapidated enough to get thrown away. And that's what I don't think we can afford to do in uh Town Center.

I completely concur. One of the impetuses for uh redeveloping town center is to make better use of that real estate. Uh currently it's it is largely wasted. This is very valuable town center location and we're wasting it you know tragically I think in our current town center development. At the time it didn't seem like a waste because there was plenty of space, hardly any population, but that's not the case today. And that is we're moving away from that. That's the whole purpose of or much of the purpose of the redevelopment.

Thank you. And and I'll and I'll clarify because I I actually I I agree with Commissioner Mebbon on one point and that is that I I'm okay with the notion of if the market doesn't think it can sustain it because it doesn't and waiting for it to catch up with what we want. I'm okay with that notion if if it's if that choice is um you know maybe we got to wait a little bit longer to get it closer to what we want. I'm okay with that notion. Um, but I also just trying to be sensitive, like you said, is is that if we're too restrictive, the market may just tell us we're never going to build it. And and that's what I'm trying to avoid. But I'm I'm trying to keep that balance as well of let's make it look like what we want. I'm just terrified of being so prescriptive that we are um that that the market will just ignore us. I guess I would say just one one quick from a task force perspective and from the community feedback we've received. I don't think from all the things that I've looked at there's been any real push from the community or from the task force to say let's put singlestory commercial in in any of the town center. I mean all the survey results are saying you know multi-story.

So I I I don't see any any reason to to change what what seems to be a fairly good public consensus. Great. Thank you.

Yeah. I also have the consensus with um uh I think one story is uh is what we have now and um yes it was less dense but that if if we're if we're going to replan and we want a more vibrant um busy center it's got to be multi-story. I think I think certainly certainly in the in the main street district it needs to be at least two stories but um maybe it makes sense it really makes sense to me in the whole of town center to require redevelopment of multiple multi stories. Well, I let me ask this question though because I I mean I'm I'm thinking it just because it's easier to think in terms of a specific, you know, like a Trader Joe's type of concept that is kind of anchor-ish but not real large. I mean, on the outskirts, not in that Main Street district, would we really be opposed to one like that that was well-designed and it was technically singlestory um because it fits the character of what we're trying to do. And I, you know, I just throw that out there as an example of something that would work and still fit what we're trying to build. And are we doing ourselves a disservice by being so prescriptive that that doesn't become the option?

It would certainly work if you built residential on top of that Trader Joe's. I I mean, I have developers that would disagree with that, but um I mean I I understand what you're saying. Um,

I think that what direction I've heard though is that main M main street, you know, multiple, you know, more more than one story for sure. But I'm but I'm hearing a little a little bit of uncertainty on some of the other areas potentially. Um, you have we are there locations where we would allow single story or or are we requiring multiple stories in all locations? Yeah, my my internal debate is that this town center area is huge and and so being prescriptive that this entire how many acre area? 100.

That's really large. I mean to say that there can't be any single story in in a 100 acres. I'm not sure I'm I'm for that. I I think Main Street, you know, area is is a definite um and we should probably think some more about.

So, one piece that we have been working on and that is still in draft form and we had some initial results at the task force but haven't shared with the full planning commission is some development feasibility analysis and that's been um updated and is being a a fairly polished draft is being completed now and we intend to share with you in October. And so I think that I think for tonight's purposes, the direction we've received is good. I think it's clear for Main Street. I think that when we bring back that development feasibility analysis to you, that might help inform your discussion on this from what from the dialogue I'm hearing and we can look more specifically at um sort of the other districts um particularly probably the mixed use and the neighborhood mixeduse to see what you'd maybe want to do in those districts. So I would propose that. I think that we got good direction here and we can uh in order to present something back to you in October

and we have at least toyed with if not adopted the general general principle of increasing massing toward the highway and correct and uh so if if we end up with singlestory buildings the most logical place would be in the neighborhood mixed use. Okay. Now, this is a really big topic and I believe we have hit the time frame that town center work session had on your agenda. So, and I want to be respectful of the other folks in the room and your time.

So, what I would say here is that we can put this question on the topic the next time we come back to you in October. Um, but what I would like is that if you have very strong thoughts already, you've already thought about parking and town center, um, your ideas for, um, the location of that or ideas around different solutions you've thought of, um, at a very high level. If you want to share that with us tonight, then we know to bring that type of information back to you in October, not necessarily as the solution, but as information to inform the dialogue and discussion.

I've not been attending the any of the task force meetings, but from the uh what is percolating out from them, um I I am very much of a mind, I think, with what's going on in those meetings. Do you want to talk?

So I I think um just a a couple quick notes. Um I think some considerations moving forward. Uh we did do a a very high level parking analysis of of the area and um some of it is some of parking in the area is heavily used and a lot of it um is not. And so, you know, like with areas that have more disconnected parking areas, um, you know, like in the the southwest corner, those are pretty occupied and active. Uh, Bri has some excessive parking. The theater has some, you know, excess parking. The northeast corner does as well. So, there there is certainly some parking use, but um, how we characterize it, there's not really a parking problem within within Town Center. I think some key considerations moving forward though as we look at this are your current parking standards and if we introduce mixed use into Town Center currently you don't have mixed use parking standards. Um there are also from some smaller business exemptions that you don't have within your code like smallcale retail or restaurants less than say 3 or 5,000 square feet. Can they just use the on street parking in in front of their space rather than having to provide that to the back or a side of the building? Um, a lot of other jurisdictions, Tiger, Hillsboro are good examples of ones that I think have interesting standards to look at. Tiger has really gone to the zero minimum standard and allowing the market, frankly, to decide what how much parking they want to build. Um, downtown Hillsboro actually uses a lot of planning director discretion for level level of parking. Um, but overall they're they're mostly going to a per unit as opposed to per bedroom basis for residential. um they have a variety of standards for mixed use or mixed um types of um tenited buildings where they use a graduated system as opposed to Wilsonville that counts up all the potential uses within a business and then requires that much that much parking. So there's some things to consider I think

as we move into the implementation standpoint of how we do how we do parking in Town Center knowing that it's a different type of development than Wilsonville has typically had. So there'll be more discussion on that, but those are some some things just to think about as we move we move forward on that. So in or do you want

I just wanted to say is there anything high level or like information that you would like from us when we bring this back to you in order for you to better have that conversation? I've um just been thinking about you know mixed mixed use uh commercial residential or uh business residential or business commercial mixed use for that matter. Um does that really does that really reduce the the net need for parking because of you know time sharing

or does that not work in practice? So maybe some examples where that has been tried and and whether it or not it's effective um for for for you know mixed mixed use buildings reducing the net uh required parking. Great. Thank you. Anyone else?

Slightly related um more on the transportation side. Um, we have not had a chance to talk about the alignment on Town Center Loop West. I think that is a an important thing that we should be discussing and and a potential wasted opportunity with the alignment that it has right now. Um, so I would like to be able to have that conversation at some point. Okay.

Thank you. And although it's not within the design here, but the other side of the pedestrian bicycle path on the other side of of I5, I'm just kind of curious. There's not a lot of space there and Bloomsberry Road is very um people drive very fast. It's very crowded and I'm just kind of what there's not a lot of space in there. I'm just kind of wondering if there's been some thought is it as to what's going to happen to the other side of the bridge. You know, that's a that I I was wanting to make a similar comment because it seems to me that the bridge has moved has walked to the south from where it was drawn on earlier maps that that I've seen.

The bicycle the bicycle pedestrian bridge. Yeah, the I5 bike pedestrian bridge. So, we originally Well, it's it's now clearly south. Go for the multi multimodal. Uh it hasn't moved very far, but it there. Wait, you want the multimodal? Yeah. Yeah. Ah, one too far. Uh, so originally the corner property was marked with a big kind of park potentially at that corner property in green and the bridge was coming straight into that corner property. You mean um Le Schwab? You mean corner property? Lewis uh across from Lehwa across Loop West. Oh, the the vacant lot,

right? Correct. Um that has uh come through for a development application with the city during this process. Wow.

So, we have um we have just marked the potential bridge location at this time kind of at the boundary line, which is what we often do, thinking that we might um look at right of way um on sort of each al along that boundary line a little bit from each parcel. So, at this point, it's moved a little bit south, but not very far south. I mean I this came up um last time we had smart in the room because one of one of the things that we heard earlier on especi also in the discussion about Denver was that the this kind of crossing could be a catalyst for development on either side of the of the bridge. Um and that section of Barber Barber Street at the end as it comes to towards um uh towards Bunesy Road is is is probably also ripe for redevelopment. There's there's some there's some large companies on the south side and much smaller buildings on the north side of Barber Street there. Um so the the opportunity, you know, the opportunity for cross town connectivity is is important here as well as the opportunity to to catalyze uh further development adjacent to town center.

Uh so I think we need to have somehow we need to make sure that that that connection works properly. Okay. On both sides of the freeway. And I would add to the transit center too. I mean, yes, you're really trying to build a an area where people don't have to use their car at the transit mall and walk over or use scooters or whatever crossed over the main area. So, that whole

Well, that's c certainly something we could put in in the in the plan as a as a guideline for that bridge sign and access. Uh yeah because it is important to make make a connection more than just to the end of the bridge. Uh so so you know while we're not designing that side of I5 um certainly have have an item in there that it has to provide that connectivity you know for future guidance for the bridge design.

Well and once this project wraps up or towards the end of this project the uh design work for that bridge actually will begin um in early early to spring of 2019. Um and so we can take these recommendations, put them in the plan and that can inform the design work that will be done. So I do want to um sort of be cognizant of time. I would love to hear your ideas for the next three hours, but we all would like to go home at some point. Um so to give you a sense of where this fits in terms of our flow and our next steps is to revise the draft um code design standards and guidelines based on your input. We'll work through this again with task force um and we'll be developing a draft plan and implementation strategies for you which you'll be getting kind of in phases um we'll see you again in October and November I believe um and so we'll be bringing more pieces back to you. I would say if you have more sp like we didn't go through word for word of the code because thought this more overall

I'm the only one that cares. Is that what you want to say? If you if you have if you have thoughts on the specifics, please email them to me. Um I really would like to integrate your um whatever direction and comments and edits you have, the earlier the better um to get us further along in the process faster. So uh question when you have that market feasibility state, do you expect it's going to be in advance of the next time we're looking at this in October? like will it be done in September that yeah actually get that sooner in other words to kind of be processing that before we get the

that would be my hope. I just received the revised draft and so and I think I'm waiting on one more piece but my hope would be that we can make it through a a um a revision of that or maybe it's even ready based on when I review it to be able to share that with all of you and with some of our other partners. Our hope is to have um some type of uh economic summit or some type I don't know what it's going to be called but some type of we have kind of another event that's targeted towards um the business community and thinking about like the feasibility development opportunities based on the plan. Um and we're trying to figure out when that'll occur and we're hoping that occurs in the fall as well. And so we want to have that out in people's hands and have an opportunity for them to look at that um in

and that's why I asked that from the business community side. It's a little bit harder to get quick input on those sorts of things. And I know I'm sure probably sure you're talking thinking about talking to Kevin when that time comes up with the chamber for that. And I I I just know it's we're hoping they'll help us put the event on again. I I will do what I can to help you out with that process. Um, it's just it takes longer for that community to digest information like that. And that's why I'm asking the sooner that we have that, obviously, don't push, but the sooner we have that and can digest it, it' be easier. Yeah, I think it would be very good if we had a shortformational item on our uh September agenda.

Okay. Um, I will actually be absent for your September agenda, but I'm sure somebody else on the project team could could do that for you. Great. at least share the document if it's ready. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Now you take your seat at the other table. We have a final matter for consideration tonight. The smart programs advancement enhancement uh strategy. I was present when you presented at council.

Oh, okay. Good. Good. So, um good evening, uh Chairman Greenfield, um members of the commission. My name is Dwight Berser. I'm the proud transit director uh for SMARTRT and uh joining me this evening is uh our transit management analyst Nicole Hendricks and uh to her left is um Eric Lumis who is our operations manager. And uh uh we just uh we're going to try to be as brief as we can uh try to get through this in five minutes and then we'll be we'll adjourn as the according to the agenda. That is our goal. I will not uh explain what HB 2017 is. I think it's in the staff report and um so hopefully um you are okay with the understanding of that. What has happened since last we met was uh TRAT uh had established a timeline for delivery of the project lists that all of the uh recipients uh try being the u qualified entity and so they really are the controlling entity if you will and we are a subreient of TRIMAT. So, Trimet had established a a timeline uh by which all of the other uh subreients which includes SMART were to follow. And so we were before you in June, I believe it was with a project list and uh we reviewed that. We talked about that. Well, about uh maybe a month or so ago uh in a meeting it was discovered that the timeline that TRIMED had established

for delivery of the project list so that we could receive funding uh was inconsistent with the timeline that ODOT had established and it took them that long uh both sides to figure out that there was an inconsistency. We actually, I think, tried to point that out to them and uh we thought that they would make a correction, but it didn't happen until recently. Uh last Thursday and Friday, uh it was confirmed for me by TRAT and then by ODOT that the timeline uh had been uh well, ODOT's timeline was a timeline that we should all follow. And so we had to uh shift gears. We had to be flexible. In 2017, this group passed approved, I should say, our transit master plan. And that plan was budget neutral, as you recall. However, uh being the uh geniuses that we are, uh uh we had appendix B, which was if money wasn't an object, what type of projects would we like to do here in Wilsonville? and outside. And so, uh, finding that that plan met all of the requirements of HB 2017, we quickly pulled that plan out of, uh, the TMP, took it to the city council. We put some numbers to it, and asked the city council to please, please, uh, amend the TMP, at least as it relates to appendix B. And they graciously did that. On July 2nd, uh we formed a committee for Clackamus County for all the small providers and they uh somehow appointed me the chairman of that committee. I'm not sure why they did that, but in any in any event, through two meetings, we were we were able to get five

project lists um the plans for each one of the uh providers through. And so we are prepared uh to submit that plan which is appendix B which was already approved by this uh board uh this commission and also went through two years of public outreach and so we feel very comfortable with that plan. However, that being said the plan that we brought before you in June, we want to keep that plan moving. It's a more robust plan. Uh it also uh will allow us because there are a total of four pots of money. Uh it will allow us to go after those other three pots of money because it will also be part of an adopted plan. And so that's what has gotten us to this point. That's why we're back before you. And we wanted to provide you with some updates on uh some of the public outreach. Nicole is going to talk about some of the public outreach that we've done and and the results of the public outreach.

Hi everyone. Um so we came to you in June, like mid June when the survey was going. So we provided some partial public comment results. So I just wanted to check back in and do the full public comment results. Um the survey itself was seven questions total. It was pretty brief actually. um the draft project list that we brought to you originally was we grouped projects together so that people didn't have to prioritize so many different projects in one. So for example, there was a question on there that said um instead of enhanced services, it was broken out into vampool services, bike share, that kind of stuff. So we merged it into just enhanced programs um for ease of use for the the um surveyor. And so they had um rankings for each project and we had a total of 159 responses for the month and an average time of completion was 48 seconds. And then from that survey list we asked for um if people were interested in project updates and meeting notices that we'd send them. So um so that's that's from the survey and then the results in priority order. Um, but most people just really want those new destinations. And so this could be in addition uh to current services. For example, the 2X currently exists, but it could go to Tigert instead or things like that or Portland um was the top destination. And then there were also desires for Oregon City service um service to Woodburn and Hillsboro. And those are in that priority order. And then the highlighted um sentences next to it are specific quotes from survey respondents who chose that as their top priority. So for Portland, I won't read them for sake of time, but um the no out of town fairs, someone said that they wanted that as their top priority and the reason was because they ride both

Trime and Smart every day and the costs add add up for them. But clearly out of this prioritized list, a lot of folks are willing to pay for more service because the no out of town fairs scored the lowest for the public. Um but then as you can see there was uh requests for more weekday service, more weekend service that included included Sunday service, increased frequency of buses throughout town. Um and then enhanced programs like I mentioned that includes van pools, bike share, um those kinds of programs and then pursue clean energy and then last was the no out of town fairs.

And I think it's it's important to note that there are some u projects on this list that overlap with projects on

uh on appendix B. And so that kind of uh uh actually creates a better opportunity for us. and uh ODOT um in their uh wisdom uh in a number of conversations that I've had with them uh even prior to the rule making um has decided that this money will be flexible and what that means in the um as far as the priority list is concerned there is no requirement uh that you go in order. So even though it's in priority order, there's no reason that you have to do one before you do two or one before you do five. Uh when we look at some of the uh services that we're looking at uh increasing service to say Salem, um we would have to work with Salem Chariots because they would be responsible to pay their portion of that service as well. And so some of those projects may take a little longer uh to get underway, but some of the lowhanging fruit on our uh priority list or project lists we can, you know, do more expeditiously. And with that, we also have a uh again, I will never want to put together a plan if it doesn't include what would we do if we had additional funds. And that's what this next page is about. and I'll let Eric talk a little bit about some of the future projects that we're looking at.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so this list of future projects is our our next appendix B. So, it's going to look towards the future as if what if we had additional funding? What can we do uh to unlock some of that funding from uh those additional pots through HB 2017 and so the first one here we have mixeduse facility at Smart Central. uh we've visited about before here with the commission and um in the past it it's part of our uh transit master uh not our master plan but part of the design the original design of the transit center um to a certain aspect there and that's something we've built on as staff u from what we've heard from with the community through other outreach opportunities. Uh so that's something we want to put in into this plan uh to look at a concept for a future design. U possibly getting uh a third party in here to review that and see what it might look like the the pros and cons of that scenario. The technology investment uh we want to keep up with technology with onboard uh technology for our buses as well as at our transit centers here. And you can see uh that image there is is an example of what we could put at our bus stops, our our bus shelters that are heavily used uh with live uh bus tracking times for our customers to know when the next arrival of of a vehicle is for their particular route. Uh so we want to definitely keep on top of that and expand that program uh if there's additional funding available. uh the grow smart. Uh so something we're definitely looking at with uh the addition of electrical buses is electrical infrastructure uh in this case uh through solar panels at our operations center at our offices over on the west side. And that would expand our um our electrical

um ingenuity there so we can expand on our setting up additional charging stations for our buses as we continue to go green with electric buses and uh CNG buses as well. So the next piece to that is the smart facility phase 2 expansion. uh as we expand our fleet uh we need to expand our infrastructure and that would be to the west of what we currently have uh moving towards the the west operations and maintenance center there filling in that that's also was in the original plans I believe in 2008 as far as the facility phase we have at SMRT the neighborhood community connections uh that as we expand the city of Wilsonville particularly Frog Pond and Coffee Creek we want to make sure that SMART expands as well into those neighborhoods and areas. Uh so we're going to um design and and create plans for that as infrastructure is developed. Bus coaches for 1X service um just providing a little more comfortable ride for those longer trips is something we'll look at as far as if there's additional funding available for those types of trips. So rather than transit vehicles, we would look for more of over the road coaches in the future as we expand into midday and possibly weekend service as well for that. So and then coordinated medical shuttles. Uh we would definitely want to expand our current program we have uh we fund that through uh special transportation funds currently uh outside of smart we get through try and we would definitely want to expand that with uh outside funds if we could to expand that program that has been very successful for us.

Right. Thanks Eric. And uh then our uh timeline for getting um all of this this project list through uh both the planning commission and the city council there is before you. So we'll be back here on September 12th and then October 1st and October 15th first and second reading uh respectfully. And um I think we want to move into um real quick um last time we were here uh Commissioner Mesa asked about uh asked us to gather some information on mixeduse uh transitoriented development projects. And so uh Nicole was able to put some uh interesting information together that we'll share with you real quick.

Okay. Um, I just want to preface that I am not a TOD expert, but I did some research and I hope this helps kind of give some examples of what a mixeduse facility could look like at SMART. So, just to start off first of why entities look into transit oriented development, what are the objectives for it? um mainly to incentivize and attract investment um in the community and optimize the use of the transit system that's nearby it. Also to enhance that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to transit and also to um the city throughout the city. also to reduce the single occupancy single occupancy vehicles so there's less traffic um on the roads and then also to well a metro goal is to enhance those 2040 growth centers which believe one of them's identified for town center in Wilsonville um so if we get a bike ped bridge going that'd be cool u anyways so um and then the benefits of tood so similar to the objectives it encourages the non-motorized transportation enhances the local economic de development and increases the land value. Um reduces pressure to build higher density in other areas. That was an argument that was made for folks um who prefer singlestory elsewhere but still need that capacity. So it's it's one benefit. um and then increases public safety and health benefits, offers housing affordability opportunities, and then just builds community um in a more um sense of place. Okay, so I have three examples. These are all um partially metrof funded projects that are within our area kind of similarly set up and each project I

chose for specific components are comparable to what a mixeduse facility would be at Smart. So the first one is the null and it's in Tiger. It was built in 2011. This is a fourstory 48 unit affordable housing apartments only and they are for seniors and homeless veterans specifically. Um the reason this one was comparable to the transit center at SMART was its proximity to the west train. So their proximity is about a half mile and Metro estimated that that increased um wrership by 3,455 folks annually. Um we're closer to the west than a half mile if we were to do something at the transit center. So that would be a little more convenient for folks. The total development cost for this building was 6 million. And the taxable assessed value for this building is zero because um it's a it's affordable housing and they don't pay taxes. They have a um a pass on that. So there was no records for that. And then the wait list for a unit to be in the affordable housing um is a year. So, it's popular demand to live for affordable housing for at least seniors and and homeless veterans. The second example is Acadia Gardens, which is in Happy Valley that was built in 2012. This one's a fourstory, same um 41 unit um affordable housing apartments on the upper three levels. And then on the bottom floor, it's more of a community space, secure bike parking, things like that. This one was 10.6 million to develop. and the taxable assessed value is about 1.8. And the reason that this one, even though it's affordable housing, has an assessed value um is because there's different levels of affordability within each. So like 28 units are designated for those who make

60% of the median income or and then there's 20 some odd units that are available to 50% of the median income. So there's varied levels of taxes paid for the specific units. Um the last one is the Nexus which is in Hillsboro that was built in 2007 and there's 422 rental units. These aren't affordable housing units um but it is popular. There's no rental space or retail units available currently. The ground floor retail uh provides child care and then a barber shop and a salon. um that was 50 million to build and the taxable assessed value was 37 million roughly. Um so just a summary there's been 41 um projects that have been completed with the help of Oregon Metro to projects since 2000. So there's quite a few examples out there in our region. our mixed use facility would be a combination of maybe some of those examples that I showed with affordable housing maybe at the different income levels um to bring in that assessed value and then have retail space on the bottom. Um and also just the importance of collaboration between Oregon Metro the Clacam Clackamus County and then affordable housing or partners community partners for affordable housing. Um, and then a TOD uh contact manager at Metro mentioned that usually the affordable housing projects are always full and have limited financial risk since they're subsidized already. And yeah, they have a large weight list, which we saw from those examples before.

Yeah. And that rendering uh to the right there is is what Smart Central could look like. The only building that currently exists is the one in the uh in the forefront here. And then the one the four buildings in the back um are what we're looking at ultimately. Great. When do we break ground?

Well, believe it or not, we we had since I was here last, I think we had a major developer in the area that was interested in a 99-year lease on that. He said, "I he he did. He said, I'd develop it tomorrow for you." And and I believed he would. So, um, we just, you know, I I just think it it makes good sense, you know, ultimately, but it's it's down the road. This is, right, you need to tone down your magic field just a little bit. Just just one little final point though. I mean if there's actually one thing that I know broken I mean

I know that's clearly that weird noise. That's better. He turns somebody down in the back. So, somebody doesn't get to talk anymore. Somebody doesn't like DoD.

If there's one space that I understand a lot is this affordable housing projects and and I and I will say that they are tough to manage and operate. I mean, yes, people are willing to build them because the the the incentives and subsidies are definitely there. It's a long-term thing where it gets problematic, just so everybody's aware. I mean, I I I'm familiar with just about every one of these developers in the Portland metro area, and they'll tell you it's great to get them off the ground. It's it's a question of what they're like 10 years later, and and how hard it is to keep them sustainable over a course of time. So, so if I recall correctly, the the next steps are actually a a public hearing next month.

That's correct. Here. Yeah. On the 12th. Okay. Mhm. Uh

I guess you know one thing that and I think I talked a little bit about it last time we met was you know the the concern of of ridership and making sure that the things that we're planning for are are all being with a very tight focus on increasing wrership. I mean you know wrership is not improving right now um in at the large level. So I think anything that we do we need to be looking at fundamentally how can we improve wrership? Are we doing the right things? Are we planning the right things to increase writership in the long run or are we looking at it, you know, based on the existing transit methodology and not looking at, you know, alternative solutions that'll work, you know, not only for two years from now, but 20 years from now. Um and and so as as long as we're taking that look with these plans and and and taking that eye, I I I would like to see at least something that talks about how each of these things in the plan are are going to improve writership or not. Um because I think that's a key component in and making sure that we are spending our taxpayer dollars well. Um and and making sure that we're using

right. Well, we we just recently uh you know we I think the the monthly data showed a increase uh year-over-year for uh July was 8.72 or something I think the number was it was so we are seeing an increase in wrership uh there are a lot of things u and try will tell you that drive ridership

and some of them are certainly within our control uh certainly advertising which we have started to do. We're running ads. Uh but then there are other things that that are sometimes outside of our control and and so we we control those things or we work on those things that we can control and then you know just try to manage as we can, you know, as best we can those other things.

Yeah. Yeah. We would I'd like to see all the buses full all the time. But even offering a free product, you realize that there are some people that will will choose their car driving across town when when you know there's a bus. And I've I as I was sitting here, I watched the the buses go by quite frequently. And for a a city our size, it's a very robust a robust system. And I can tell you that Westland and some of the others are are quite envious of us and and we have met with we met with uh we'll meet with Westland, Beaverton, Hillsboro. They all want to know kind of what the secret sauce is. How how do you create uh what Smart has created here and uh we're very proud of it. So, but yeah, writership is always going to be something that that uh we're driven to increase. So,

so for content within the strategy, are you thinking more like vague factors that could contribute to increase in wrership for each project or or hard numbers on this? going to Tigert or going to Hillsboro will provide access within a half mile of a stop to X amount of people, but that doesn't guarantee that they'd right. But

yeah, I I mean I'm a former engineer turned program manager, so numbers are still really good for me. Okay. Um, and so where they're available, I think we should be using those as a basis for decision-m and and in the absence of them, I think we should at least be looking at, you know, from my perspective each of these projects and and how we expect that they're going to improve writership. And if if we have a project on there that doesn't really improve writership or we don't think it's going to do what we want it to do, well then let's find something else.

I might chime in here too as well. Uh, one thing uh through HP 2017 is they they do want to hold uh each agency accountable uh to numbers, but also understanding that those can be relative um based on several factors. Uh for us being a more suburban area, a little more spread out in our population is going to be different than obviously try downtown. Sure. And and so we do we are looking at those and those are going to go in our our application to try to uh to the OTC as far as um you know here's what we plan on uh for our performance measures and if we don't meet those over the the the um span of this plan uh we might revisit that for the next plan to maybe change that route or or add a new route that might be a little more come to fruition a little better. Okay.

Yeah. If you've got performance measures that you plan on having for for these different projects, that's something I would absolutely like to be able to see. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's something um it's a fine line for this particular plan, but it's something we can put in here. Obviously, we don't want to to get down into the details of planning and lock ourselves into something that we wouldn't want to be, but I think we can get some numbers in here that Yeah. And I don't think it necessarily has to be part of the plan, but at least in the presentation that talks through what the plan is. Yeah. Um I I I wouldn't expect it to be in the plan itself, but some backup to be able to justify why we made the choices we did. Right. Great.

And you know, after having done this for a little over three decades, it's kind of a chicken in the egg kind of thing because what I found uh is that it is usually frequency of service that increases ridership. Um, highfrequency service in our industry is anything that operates 15 every 15 minutes or less. So, if you're standing at a bus stop, you won't have to wait more than 15 minutes. Uh, I once operated a a system, we had six minute headway. So, every six minutes if you're standing on that particular block or at that bus stop, a bus would come by and each one was more full than the next, but it was in a major corridor. And so, as Eric explained, we have different operating environment here. And so, you know, we have to try to be a little bit more creative in creating that because, you know, we could run all of our service every 15 minutes, but it's going to be very, very expensive in order to do that. So, there's a balance. The good news is is that we are the uh the second largest uh recipient of HB 2017 funds in the tri county area behind TRAT. So no one else uh is receiving more funds than us from HB20 2017 than trying that but then that gap is huge. So I mean there's yeah but but we're very proud of that. So

when are we going to get service to Portland?

So that's an interesting question. uh being at the top of the list. Um an express route directly from Wilsonville to Portland uh is obviously very expensive. Um ju just preliminary planning hourly service all day would be about a million dollars annually. Uh so one thing we're looking about a million dollars annually for hourly service. Um, one thing we're looking at currently to ramp up to that, you know, in the long run, uh, is looking at Tramtt's line 96 that goes from Twolatin basically from there as an express to downtown. Uh, and rather than, uh, mirroring that service, we would uh, make higher frequency connections to Twatin, which would be much more cost- effective for us. So, that that would be looking at maybe 20-minute frequency um, there rather than 60-minute frequency downtown. Uh and if we were to offer that at a discounted rate or even free, then uh our customers would be paying one fee uh one one fair versus two. Um and and the downside of that would be having to make that transfer. So um trying to work with try in their district and our uh us and ours and making those connections smooth and cutting that cost down initially is kind of our goal to start with. just because you're here. Um, sure.

And we've been talking a lot about Basalt Creek lately. Any update on how that's been going? Conversations Basalt Creek and how that would work with Trimet? Well, the the uh the mayor has uh had a discussion with uh Doug Kelsey, who is the new uh general manager for TRAT, and uh they agreed that uh Doug and I uh would sit down um after we put together a position paper. So Doug has asked us to draft that. We are working with Mark.net and and some others to to draft. It's not a legal argument. I think that may come down the road, but it is just our position on investing in Basalt Creek and what we expect uh from a a transportation standpoint. We are going to be expected to provide that service and I know try has no interest in Frog Pond, Coffee Creek or Basalt Creek, but they do have interest in collecting that that revenue. And so we're going to make a very strong argument uh for for that. Uh stand by it. It'll probably get interesting before uh before too long. But you know and and I also want to point out is that our our project list is scalable. So we can do more of this if that's what uh the customers want and it's and it's you know obviously increasing writership. We can do a lot more of that and less of something else. Um right now ODOT is because it's so new they don't know what they don't know and so they're being very very flexible with this funding but uh there are deadlines and uh we're really depending on try at this point. If they miss the deadline for any reason then we miss the deadline. We cannot submit without try and so um I'm doing every I've been asked to do everything that I can to to

to ensure that that happens. So, I'm I'm working as best I can. So,

that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will be seeing you. Oh, yes, you will. Thank you. Have a good evening.

And I assume that all of us have perused the minutes of the city council. Uh I would point out it's not in the minutes because it just happened. The council has adopted the um Bizalt Creek concept plan that's moving forward. Uh short of any uh obstacle thrown up by Twitin. For our part, we're we're good. um our work session. I note that we have we were revisiting the um the park. Uh

oh, Boonberry. Boonberry Park again next month. Is that right? October. Oh, Sep through October. And that is because in September um you have a public hearing on the smart program strategy and then two work sessions one on the other on you have a hearing that was oh we didn't do

okay I believe that is supposed to also be on your September agenda so you have a full two hearings and two work sessions next month on those items The the big agenda for the fall will be the town center, two work sessions and a public hearing and a report, a resolution maybe. Okay, thank you very much. I think we are ready to adjourn unless anybody has an objection and we are adjourned at 9:13. Less than a half an hour. Yeah, less than a half hour late.

Yeah. How much interesting