MEMORANDUM

From:       Karl Mawson [Community Development Director, City of Forest Grove, Oregon]

Date:       August 4, 1998

Subject:    Commercial Design Standards

A number of questions of staff were raised at the last work session. Below are brief responses to those questions.

1) What are the sizes and values of commercial development now being reviewed by the city?

Attached is a list of commercial projects covering the last two fiscal years. I believe the information was requested to help determine two thresholds; one which would determine whether a development was required to go through any design review, and of those requiring design review, a threshold which would determine whether staff or the Planning Commission would complete the first review. The line dividing staff and Planning Commission review is less important for two reasons. First, there is roughly an equal amount of staff work, although staff work would typically be completed earlier. Second, as proposed staff would have the option of kicking-up a request if it appeared controversial or was likely to be appealed.

2) Do many other communities have design review?

Yes, although the variety of processes and approaches make direct comparisons difficult. Portland, Beaverton, Tualatin, Lake Oswego, West Linn, Troutdale and Wilsonville have a design review process. (Wilsonville, because of its rapid growth, has
two design committees which can meet on alternative weeks.) Hillsboro might say it does not rate design review, but its very detailed station area standards clearly regulate exterior design.

3) Does staff think the Commercial Design Standards are a good idea?

Staff strongly supports Commercial Design Review. Having design standards results in all developers considering unique characteristics of the site and surrounding property. The requirements affect both the small developer (who may have neither design expertise nor the desire to hire those who do) and the large developer (whose design team of architects, landscape architects or engineers may be most concerned about duplicating building and site plans which were originally created in another community.) Perhaps the most dramatic examples are chain fast food restaurants, which have created unique community designs. Of course there is an additional cost in developing a new design, and such a cost could eliminate a project considered marginal by a company. (By the same token if a company's market study shows a favorable market opportunity, the initial cost of architectural assistance is a very small part of a five-year financial plan.)

4) Does staff have any concerns and/or suggestions regarding the proposal currently before the council?

Yes, staff has some concerns, but they should be placed in the context of a current revision of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The consultants, as part of the state grant, have agreed to review and suggest language on the site and design review process. They will do this whether or not Council adopts the commercial design standards, but:

• Adopted standards makes their job easier as it is then easier to determine what the community would accept, and
• All or part of its adopted language would be included in their draft.

[The consultants referred to were hired to do a Transportation System Plan as required by the state Transportation Planning Rule]

A)    A purely discretionary approach has some inherent problems. It provides limited certainty for developers, depends very much on the expertise of the reviewers and can be strongly affected by the presentations and/or politics on a particular evening. These trade-offs may be worth the flexibility allowed in a discretionary approach. A "clear and objective" alternative could be pursued in the future, and the adopted TPR [Transportation Planning Rule] standards do this to some extent.

B)    Staff has more concerns on the details of the current proposed point system. An example should make this clear. The standard requires at least 15 points in each subsection, including General Site Design. Although it should be clear that "partial credit" is allowed, let us assume for now that these are pass and fail, and each criterion is worth 25/12 or slightly under 2.1 points for each. Let's also assume the developer complies with c, d, e, f, j and k, easily obtaining the required 15 points. Based on the criteria not needed the developer can: cut all the trees even though some could be saved (a), ignore the needs and concerns of adjoining property (b), provide no protection to the adjacent residential property (g), and provide no outdoor amenities in terms of appearance (h) and pedestrians (i). The development would have to be approved despite ignoring exactly those aspects which could be of greatest public concern!

Point systems can work, but they are perhaps better when a) they are part of more specific standards and b) there are some standards (or limited alternative standards) which must be met. Staff would prefer the ordinance be approved as envisioned by the Planning Commission with additional efforts taken to develop an alternative development path.
 

Given the complexities of large development, staff prefers the longer review periods. Although perhaps not applicable for commercial development, the City was told that up-front time periods (especially the completeness check) did not usually cause a problem with applicants. Because the time requirements are known up-front, they are considered in the applicant's time schedule.

Median Value  = $10,500