PC Agenda 6-2-25 and PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – June 2, 2025
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2025 - 7:00 p.m.
HYBRID MEETING
IN-PERSON: City of Tigard – Town Hall SW HALL BLVD
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
MS TEAMS: https://www.tigard-or.gov/virtualPC
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:01 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES 7:10 p.m.
a. May 5, 2025
5. RIVER TERRACE 2.0 COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE – HOUSING PLAN 7:15 p.m.
Assistant Director of Community Development Schuyler Warren & Sr. Planner Brittany Gada
6. Tigard HOME Kick-off UPDATE 8:20 p.m.
Associate Planner Trin Miller
7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:50 p.m.
8. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m.
City of
Tigard
P lanning Commission
Agenda
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 1 of 6
MINUTES – May 5, 2025
Location: Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. - Hybrid Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
President Jackson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Jackson, Commissioner Bowerman, Commissioner Sabbe, Commissioner Schuck,
Commissioner Tiruvallur, and Commissioner Murphy, Alternate Commissioner Sprague, Commissioner
Brandt (remote), Commissioner Choudhury (remote). Council President Wolf (remote), Councilor Schlack.
Excused: Vice-President Miranda
Staff Present: Assistant Director of Community Development Schuyler Warren, Senior Planner Agnes
Lindor, Planning Commission Secretary Joanne Bengtson.
COMMUNICATIONS
President Jackson asked if there were any external communications to share. Seeing none, he mentioned that
City Council would be considering food carts on May 6, a subject that came to the Planning Commission in
previous meetings. On March 4, Council discussed closing the loophole on SDCs in cases of temporary
Certificates of Occupancy.
APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES
President Jackson asked for changes or corrections to the draft minutes of February 3, 2025. Seeing none,
Commissioner Schuck motioned to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Bowerman seconded the
motion.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: FEMA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)
COMPLIANCE CODE AMENDMENTS: DCA2025-00001 Senior Planner Agnes Lindor
President Jackson read a brief description of the hearing process, order of presentations and comments.
He then opened the public hearing and introduced Senior Planner Agnes Lindor to present the staff report.
STAFF REPORT/APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Community Development’s Senior Planner Agnes Lindor provided a brief review of the FEMA flood
Insurance Program, national flood maps and how they’re used to determine local regulations and determine
flood insurance need and rates. Because the proposed amendments in this case are Legislative in nature, they
are reviewed under the Legislative procedure. This process requires public hearings by the Planning
Commission (tonight’s hearing) and City Council (scheduled for June 10, 2025).
In July 2024, Oregon jurisdictions received a letter from FEMA stating that all NFIP participating
communities must select one of three pre-implementation compliance measures and notify FEMA of the
choice by December 1, 2024, and start implementing it. Tigard chose number one:
1. Adopt a model ordinance that considers impacts to species and their habitat and requires
mitigation to a “no net loss” standard;
2. Require a habitat assessment and mitigation plan for development on a permit-by-permit basis; or
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 2 of 6
3. Prohibit all development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
We notified FEMA we’d begin working toward adoption of the model ordinance to the city’s Municipal
Code and Community Development Code.
Sr. Planner Lindor stated DCA2025-00001 contains no changes to FEMA’s flood maps, only proposed
updates to the development and municipal codes necessary to incorporate regulatory changes required for
Tigard’s continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The proposed amendments include updates to Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 that add new definitions and
“no net loss” standards; Chapter 18.510, Sensitive Lands, to require a “no net loss” analysis with a sensitive
lands review for development within areas of special flood hazard; and general reorganization and clean-up
of Chapter 18.510, Sensitive Lands.
Sr. Planner Lindor stated she received three additional public comments following publication of the staff
report, which she shared with the commission:
• 5/5/25, a phone call from Mr. Mike Westfall, curious to learn more about the regulations were about
the hearing process, the meaning of “no net loss”, and when these changes would be effective.
• 5/5/25, an e-mail from Mr. Pascal Pascuzzi asking about these regulations and how they would
impact wetlands and any associated buffers. Sr. Planner Lindor stated for the Commission – there’s no
impact to wetlands with these regulations.
• 5/5/25, a written comment from Mr. Robert Ruedy forwarded to Planning Commission late this
afternoon requesting a continuance and stating economic concerns for taxpayers.
Commissioner Jackson submitted comments to Sr. Planner Lindor with scrivener errors, which will be
incorporated into the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Sr. Planner Lindor recommends that the Planning Commission find in favor of the proposed development
code and municipal code text amendments and make a final recommendation to Tigard City Council for its
approval.
QUESTIONS
President Jackson asked if there was a map. Ms. Lindor said no because there are no changes to the map.
While waiting for one to be pulled up to display, she estimated 400 parcels citywide could be affected, with
perhaps 120 of those being owned by the city. The Special Flood Hazard area runs along Fanno Creek,
Summer Creek, Ash Creek around Oak St., most of Cook Park and along the Tualatin River.
Commissioner Schuck asked if the three options were the only ones available to us and why did we choose
the first one? Sr. Planner Lindor said yes, those were the choices, and the city had to choose an option or we
could be dropped from the Flood Insurance Program.
Option #2 didn’t consider Oregon’s requirement for notices and the legislative process that must be
followed. FEMA didn’t expected Option #2 to require any kind of code amendment to process a permit-by-
permit basis. FEMA also stated that Option #2 would not be an option for long-term implementation
measures. Option #3 would prohibit all development and could result in litigation and loss for the city.
This is why staff went with Option #1.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 3 of 6
President Jackson asked if staff knew of any existing non-conforming developments that could be affected.
Planner Lindor said she didn’t, but parcels that are non-conforming today will remain that way. It’s likely that
dwellings on such a parcel were built above flood level, while a yard, garden bed or shed might be in the
special flood area. However, if the resident is in the floodplain and they remove more than 50% of the
structure, they would need to comply with all NFIP national requirements to rebuild.
President Jackson moved to the public testimony portion and provided instructions for in-person and remote
testimony in support, neutral and against, in that order. However, many attendees didn’t indicate or weren’t
sure of their position, so the President called in order of sign-up.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
- Randy Killion, 11825 SW Katherine Street, had questions about whether these regulations apply when
flood insurance is not required and if existing structures can remain.
- Robert Ruedy, 14185 SW 100th Avenue, spoke about land takings, property value and loss of tax
revenues, and compliance with the NFIP. Mr. Ruedy also submitted written comments for the
Commissioners to consider. He outlined his concerns about diminished property values, increasing
taxpayer burdens and density even though his property isn’t in a floodplain.
- Paula Beck, 11765 SW Katherine Street, has questions about existing structures and how these
regulations impact her property (specifically what is permissible and prohibited).
- Mark Gunderson, 10765 SW Ponderosa Place, expressed opposition and concerns about how these
regulations would limit use of property and change his property value.
- Shelly McCargar, 11895 SW Katherine Street, expressed opposition and stated her concerns about
significant erosion occurring along Summer Creek as well as a lot of wildlife activity.
- Michael Westfall, 12180 SW Merestone Court, feels like he doesn’t have enough information to know if
he is against or for these regulations. He would like to know if these regulations will diminish property
values or incur more costs for property owners with the code changes.
- Robert Clapham, 10900 SW 76
th Place, received notice, but his property is not within the floodplain and
feels like he doesn’t have enough information and asked what determines when a property is within the
flood zone.
- Liz Jodeway, 11048 SW Greenburg Road, has concerns about compensation and property values.
- Mike Stevenson, 9400 SW Burnham Street, stated he doesn’t understand what is being proposed and
how this affects his property values.
- Kenny Neal, 10705 SW Ponderosa Place, stated he would like to see some actionable items on what is
proposed and how it will impact properties. He wants clarity on whether these changes will require him
to get flood insurance.
STAFF RESPONSE & QUESTIONS
Asst. Director Warren projected an area map and looked at some of the properties that were the subject of
the evening’s testimony. Sr. Planner Lindor clarified that new regulations aren't going to affect existing
structures, it’s only if there is new ground disturbance proposed on a parcel within the area of special flood
hazard. Mr. Killian’s property has some floodplain, but his dwelling is completely outside the floodplain, so
he probably wasn't required to have flood insurance.
There were questions about the requirement to obtain insurance. Planner Lindor stated that obtaining flood
insurance isn’t a city requirement, it's required by mortgage lenders. There's no requirement on the city's part
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 4 of 6
to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Asst. Director Warren reiterated that these proposed amendments are not changing the FEMA flood
insurance maps. Property owners who question whether their property is truly in a floodplain can contact
FEMA and go through their review process to remove the floodplain designation from their dwelling or their
entire property.
Assistant Director Warren said some residents were confused about why they got notice of this action. Staff
sent a notice to every landowner with even a tiny sliver of floodplain on their property, as well as anyone
who signed up to the ‘Interested Parties’ list which would deliver notice to property owners outside the
floodplain.
Regarding the question of taking, the city is already required by FEMA to have certain regulations that apply
to the floodplain. This package of proposed amendments changes the way those regulations are implemented
– with a tightening of some regulations and loosening other regulations. The current development code
prohibits all development in the floodplain in residential zones. The proposed amendments would create a
process for development opportunities in residential zones that is more streamlined and less expensive.
Applications would be reviewed and decided by professional staff instead of the Hearings Officer, reducing
time and expense.
Sr. Planner Lindor said all materials have her contact information, and she urged people to contact by phone,
email or in person with the Planner On Duty at Tigard Permit Center. Staff will help property owners find
out if/how their properties are affected and answer questions.
President Jackson asked staff to define “No Net Loss”, a recurring question in much of the evening’s
testimony. Sr. Planner Lindor said it focuses on three functions of the floodplain: Floodplain Storage, Water
Quality and Vegetation – primarily trees. If you remove trees from the floodplain, you must mitigate at a
higher rate to replace those trees. If you add impervious surface, you’re required to either take impervious
surface away or treat it per approved stormwater standards. The same applies to adding fill into the
floodplain. If you fill the floodplain, you would be required to remove fill somewhere else within the special
Flood Hazard area on your property. This is the balance of three floodplain functions.
Commissioner K7 asked staff to address the impact of regulations on property value. Sr. Planner Lindor
stated there are too many factors to apply one answer that fits all properties. Asst. Director Warren stated
properties that might be most impacted are owned by the city or an HOA (open space) and considered non-
developable. Staff has looked at this closely and even with properties entirely within the floodplain, it does
not completely remove all economic value from the property.
Asst. Director Warren stated that the federal government functions as an insurer of last resort and the
National Flood Insurance program has helped replace homes in communities impacted by flood, hurricanes,
and serious weather events. Protecting the economic value of a property is supported by Tigard’s
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program - an important economic factor for the livability of
our city and the sustainability of residences within flood hazard areas.
Commissioner Bowerman asked about garden beds, fire pits, things that are not structural and how these
amendments would affect those property amenities. Sr. Planner Lindor said removable features like fire pits
are not within the purview of this regulation.
Commissioner Schuck pointed out the city doesn't draw the floodplain map, and it’s not changing with this
amendment so the speaker who might remodel his house, if he came to the city today with plans to extend
into the floodplain, would be rejected? Sr. Planner Lindor said yes, if he’s located in a residential zone.
He asked if the amendment is approved, would the resident have a chance to remodel if it went into the
floodplain? Sr. Planner Lindor confirmed that if the no net loss standards are met, yes.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 5 of 6
The last question was about public concerns about water flow and impact of wildlife. Sr. Planner Lindor
stated that these amendments have no connection to that issue. If the public is concerned about
maintenance, or erosion issues please contact Planning or Public Works.
The language used in the public notice is required by the State Statute, but staff is happy to answer questions.
Please contact Sr. Planner Lindor or the Planner on Duty at the front counter in the Permit Center.
President Jackson then closed the public portion of the hearing and thanked staff.
Before moving to deliberation, he mentioned Mr. Ruedy’s request for a continuance. In cases of quasi-
judicial hearings, the Planning Commission would be obliged to honor his request for either continuance or
seven days public comment but since this is legislative hearing, we’ll proceed without granting the
continuance. The public will have more opportunities to comment when it goes to City Council for a final
decision in June.
DELIBERATION
Commissioner Bowerman said none of the three choices are optimal and she understands why staff
recommend #1. She said her main concern is knowing that people who may need this coverage won’t have
access to government funded flood insurance if a decision isn’t made. Therefore, Commissioner Bowerman
supports staff’s recommendation as written.
Commissioner Murphy said he’s 100% in support.
President Jackson and Alt. Commissioner Sprague said they’d like to see more outreach to educate the
community about this subject. With so many members of the public asking questions tonight, staff should
take more opportunities to share information to reduce confusion.
Commissioner K7 thanked residents for giving feedback.
MOTION | DCA2025-00001 FEMA Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance Amendments
Commissioner Murphy motioned, “for the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation of approval
for DCA 2025-00001 to the City Council and that we adopt the findings and recommendations of the staff.”
Commissioner Bowerman seconded the motion. President Jackson asked if there were any motions to
amend and none were raised so he moved to the vote.
VOTE
President Jackson asked those in favor of the motion to say ‘Aye’ and Commissioners Bowerman, Sabbe,
Schuck, Tiruvallur, Murphy, Brandt, Choudhury and Alternate Commissioner Sprague, and President Jackson
responded that way. Although everyone voted with an ‘aye’, he asked if there were any “Nays”, and hearing
none stated the motion’s unanimous passage. The hearing date for City Council is June 10, 2025, and urged
everyone to stay involved.
Other Business:
Asst. Director Warren recapped the city’s food cart open house on April 24 in Town Hall. We talked
with prospective and current food cart owners to answer questions about regulations and gather feedback
about their concerns. Staff briefed City Council with results on April 25.
Schuyler announced the addition of Senior Planner Brittany Gada to the CD team. She comes to us from
Beaverton and will be Tigard’s project manager for River Terrace 2.0. She worked on the Cooper
Mountain plan and her experience with land use, development, code writing, and more makes her a great
addition to our team. She’ll give the Commission a progress report on the RT2.0 Housing plan on June 2,
2025. Because the Housing piece is funded by a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development we must complete work by June 30.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes|May 5, 2025 Page 6 of 6
On June 16, we’ll be back with RT2.0 consultants to present the Transportation plan, including a
preliminary report on Tile Flat Road options.
On June 2, our Associate Planner Trin Miller will share a briefing on Tigard HOME. She’s completed the
scoping work and will give you a briefing on work to be accomplished.
Commissioner K7 asked if anything is happening with the Washington Square Mall. Schuyler said there’s
not much to share, just that we’ve had conversations with the mall owners, and they don’t have an
application submitted for consideration. The redevelopment application approved by the Planning
Commission a few years ago is the most recent action.
Asst. Director Warren gave a brief update on SB1537, the Governor's marquee housing bill. The last
legislative session approved changes to mixed-use requirements (residential over retail development and
mid-rise, 4-6 story buildings). One of the mandatory adjustments: if we have a zone that has a mixed-use
ground floor commercial requirement, we're now required to allow someone to develop without that
ground floor commercial. It’s somewhat disappointing, but mixed-use as a rule will continue and
developers will likely see the benefit in it.
MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Tiruvallur made a motion for adjournment; seconded simultaneously by Commissioner
Schuck and Commissioner Sabbe and unanimously approved, concluding the meeting at 8:39 PM.
Joanne Bengtson, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Nathan C. Jackson
River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan Update
Tigard Planning Commission
June 2, 2025
Presentation Topics
RT 2.0 Housing
Plan Update •Housing Plan Overview
•Project Schedule and Engagement
Update
•Draft Housing Approach
•Next Steps
Housing Plan Overview
Housing Plan Purpose and Content
Housing Plan
Overview
•Informs the Community Plan, code amendments,
and other implementation items
•Includes:
•Housing policies
•Regulatory approach
•Supporting Strategies
•Informed by:
•Public engagement
•Advisory committees
•Professional expertise
Project Schedule &
Engagement Update
Project Schedule Update
Housing Plan Engagement
•Public Open Houses – 1 in-person and 1 online
•Advisory Committees:
•2 CAC meetings
•4 HAC meetings
•1 TAC meeting
•Focus Groups:
•Spanish-speakers
•Students
•Housing-specific group (upcoming)
•Meetings with housing experts
Project
Schedule &
Engagement
Update
What have we heard from the
community?
Project
Schedule &
Engagement
Update •Wide variety of housing types with under-supplied
options to meet everyone’s needs
•Meet housing needs while balancing preservation of
natural resources
•Distribute density in areas with good vehicular access
•Housing with shared green space and close to parks
•Walking distance to commercial areas
What have we heard from
developers? Project
Schedule &
Engagement
Update
•Surety, timing, and the ability to innovate are critical.
•Feasibility concerns about housing mix rules, need
for strong incentives
•Density hubs around commercial areas more feasible
than distributed
➢Gap between community priorities and developer
feedback
Housing Plan Schedule
Project
Schedule &
Engagement
Update
•May 30th – Draft submitted to Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD)
➢Met DLCD grant deadline
•June 2nd – Planning Commission meeting
•June 10th – City Council meeting
•June/July – Housing Focus Group
•Mid- to Late Summer – Refine Housing Plan
Draft Housing Approach
Guiding Policies & Principles
Draft Housing
Approach •20 dwelling units per acre for at least 3,000 homes
•Diversity of housing choices to serve all needs and
affordability levels
•Integrate market-rate and regulated affordable
housing
•Facilitate affordable homeownership
•Integrate housing with natural resources, parks, and
commercial areas
Draft
Regulatory
Approach
Proposed
Land Use Map
SW Beef Bend Rd
Complementary Strategies
Draft Housing
Approach •Financial, programmatic, and regulatory
•Support ambitious Concept Plan goals for
affordability and housing diversity
•Reduce risk and cost for regulated affordable and
smaller-scale developers
•Can help bridge the gap between community needs
and preferences and development feasibility
Next Steps
Next Steps
•Gather remaining community feedback
•Refine and finalize the Housing Plan
•Begin drafting code amendments
•Next Planning Commission Meeting – July 16th
Transportation Update
River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan
City of Tigard, OR
This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the
Department of Land Conservation and Development. The contents of this
document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of
Oregon.
May 2025
ECOnorthwest
920 SW 6th Ave • Suite 1400 • Portland, OR 9720 4 • 503-222 -6060
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 1
Acknowledgment s
ECOnorthwest prepared this report with support from the guidance and input of several
partners, including members, staff, and leadership of the City of Tigard . Most notably we
are appreciative of the involvement and input of Schuyler Warren and Brittany Gada . Other
firms, agencies, and staff contributed to other research that this report relied upon,
specifically Code Studio. This work was financially supported by funding from Oregon’s
Department of Land Conservation and Development and support from Metro.
That assistance notwithstanding, ECOnorthwest is responsible for the content of this report.
The staff at ECOnorthwest prepared this report based on their general knowledge of the
economics of recreation, amenities, and regional economies. ECOnorthwest staff
contributing to this study included Becky Hewitt, Celia Beauchamp, Mary Chase, and Ciara
Williams. ECOnorthwest also relied on information derived from government agencies,
private statistical services, the reports of others, interviews of individuals, or other sources
believed to be reliable. ECOnorthwest has not independently verified the accuracy of all
such information and makes no representation regarding its accuracy or completeness. Any
statements nonfactual in nature constitute the authors’ current opinions, which may change
as more information beco mes available.
For more information about this report please contact:
Becky Hewitt
hewitt@econw.com
ECOnorthwest
503-222-6060
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Context ..................................................... 1
2. Density and Zoning Strategy ................................................ 7
3. Preliminary Form -Based Code Approach ............................ 14
4. Complementary Strategies ................................................ 18
Appendix A. Summary of State and Regional Requirements ....... 27
Appendix B. CAC Engagement Activity ...................................... 35
Appendix C. Additional Housing Strategies ............................... 38
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 1
1. Introduction and Context
Introduction
River Terrace 2.0 is an urban growth area that will become a new neighborhood in the City
of Tigard. In 2021, the River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan laid out an ambitious vision for how
this area will contribute to local and regional housing production and set a new standard
for equitable, climate -resilient development. The vision is for an innovative approach to
greenfield development that creates a livable and sustainable mixed -income community
while delivering housing in the near term.
This type of innovation can be challenging to implement due to financial, regulatory, and
other types of barriers , and will require both thoughtful regulations and intentional support
outside the zoning code to succeed . ECOnorthwest and Code Studio worked with the City of
Tigard to translate guidance from the Concept Plan into direction for development
regulations and recommendations for non -zoning strategies to support the desired housing
and land use outcomes for River Terrace 2.0. The team also worked with several advisory
committees to refine concepts, including a Housing Advisory Committee, Community
Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee (see section below for more detail).
This report refines the original vision for housing in River Terrace 2.0 to set the course for
development with housing strategies and a density and zoning approach . The Housing Plan
will inform the creation of a Community Plan , code amendment s, and other implementation
actions to achieve the housing objectives of Riv er Terrace 2.0.
Policy objectives for housing in River Terrace 2.0
The River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan envisions the future of development in the community
with specific goals related to housing affordability , housing mix, and density as well as
commercial uses. In addition, the River Terrace 2.0 community planning effort has set
goals for climate resilience, including several focused on housing and development.
The Concept Plan principles and goals and climate goals that informed this housing plan
have been articulated as policy objectives below.
Density and Housing Options
Deliver an overall density of 20 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) and at least
3,000 units in River Terrace 2.0 to achieve City and regional goals for housing
production.
Design an integrated mix of densities and housing types throughout River Terrace
2.0 , limiting reliance on designated high-density areas to achieve the average density
goal.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 2
Provide a diversity of housing choices to serve a full range of housing needs for
Tigard’s current and future residents.
Integrate opportunities for market -rate and regulated affordable housing across a
wide range of income levels with market -rate and regulated affordable
homeownership and rental units integrated into future neighborhoods.
Walkable Neighborhoods
Design residential areas to support and provide walkable access to future
commercial centers and mixed-use nodes .
Design future neighborhoods and commercial areas to maximize walkability and
transit service potential .
Locate private parking and automobile infrastructure away from the street and
public view as much as possible, while prioritizing space for high -quality, permanent
transit stations.
Incentivize or support commercial uses and businesses focused on daily goods and
services for RT2.0 residents , emerging small businesses with green practices, and
spaces or businesses that can serve as resiliency hubs.
Climate -Resilient Development and Integrating Natural Areas
Design future n eighborhoods to thoughtfully incorporate adjacent natural areas and
provide equitable access to nature for future residents of all types of housing.
Integrate green infrastructure and shade into future development .
Encourage housing with shared walls and ceilings/floors and smaller unit sizes per
person that reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions .
Incentivize electrification, energy efficiency, and climate -friendly and carbon -
responsible building techniques beyond those required under building code, such as
passive heating and cooling, high -efficiency envelopes, and zero -emissions climate
control system, while disincentivizing natural gas hookups.
Promote microgrid renewable and shared energy opportunities for neighborhood
resiliency at key locations.
State & Regional Legal and Planning Framework
State and regional housing and land use regulations also provide important context that will
guide housing development standards and approval processes for River Terrace 2.0. Some
state regulations have either changed or been adopted since the River Terrace 2.0 Concept
Plan. In general, these rules require local jurisdictions to allow for a wider range of housing
types, provide flexibility for affordable housing, and remove bar riers for housing
development.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 3
KEY STATE STATUTES AND RULES
Several state laws and rules apply to how the City regulates housing in River Terrace 2.0.
Housing must be allowed under clear and objective standards and procedures.
Under Oregon statute, cities may only apply clear and objective standards to housing,
and those standards and the procedures for approval must not create ‘unreasonable
cost or delay’ through discretionary review.
Middle housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) must be allowed on every lot
that allows for single dwelling s. This includes housing types like duplexes, triplexes,
quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses. The City of Tigard is above the
population threshold of state legislation (25,000 residents or more) required to allow
all identified middle housing types. The City’s current code complies with this rule.
Affordable housing must be allowed in commercial zones regardless of other existing
development standards. By state requirement, affordable housing owned by a public
agency or nonprofit must be allowed without a zone change or conditional use permit
on commercial, religious, or public land regardless of other existing development
standards. Additionally, afford able housing developments automatically qualify for
height and density bonuses.
Cities must provide flexibility on certain types of standards for affordable housing
and other qualifying housing to make development more feasible. This includes
adjustments for height and density requirements to allow for development of regulated
affordable units.
Appendix A includes a more detailed summary of relevant state and regional rules.
What input informed housing recommendations?
These recommendations were developed through an iterative process with City staff and
Advisory Committee members. The development process focused on achieving community
goals while supporting development feasibility . Appendix B includes supporting materials
and photos from related activities. Engagement for developing these strategies included:
Housing Advisory Committee : a group of experts with multiple perspectives on
housing and the development process. This group met four times to discuss the
following topics:
➢ Housing Opportunities and Barriers : Challenges around developing desired
housing mix and densities and potential solutions .
➢ Other Development Considerations: Implications of planning for parks,
natural resources, and stormwater on development .
➢ Housing Strategies: Refinements to zoning and other strategies and feedback
on what will be most effective for achieving goals .
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 4
➢ Land Use Concept and Recommended Strategies: Initial concepts for zoning
and strategy recommendations.
Community Advisory Committee : a group of residents from around Tigard reflecting
a range of lived experiences. This group discussed housing at two meetings:
➢ Housing Mix and Density: Participants engaged in an interactive game to
envision different pathways for achieving the plan goals around density,
housing mix, affordability, and other objectives while evaluating tradeoffs.
➢ Land Use Concept and Zoning Strategy : Feedback on a preliminary land use
map and code concepts related to housing mix.
Technical Advisory Committee : R epresentatives from adjacent jurisdictions and
partner agencies, including TriMet, ODOT, Metro, Clean Water Services, and others.
This group provided feedback on a preliminary land use map and concepts related to
housing mix and housing strategies.
Housing Conversations. Stakeholders participated in one -on-one conversations with
the project team to give expert technical insight on community land trusts and
considerations for various ownership models.
Open Houses. A broad community audience gave feedback on desired housing
outcomes and highlighted importance of homes for purchase at a range of prices
that are affordable to households of all sizes and incomes and visitability.
What are the key development challenges for achieving River
Terrace 2.0’s housing goals?
A bold, innovative vision for future development like that for River Terrace 2.0 can be
challenging to implement as it stretches the development industry outside of the models
that are familiar and established . This plan aims to set the course for implementation that
considers these challenges for desired types of development to identify appropriate
solutions to help overcome those barriers for River Terrace 2.0.
Historic regulatory environments have hindered middle housing
development in areas like River Terrace 2.0 .
Decades of regulatory norms in the United States have prioritized single -detached homes
on fee-simple lots in suburban areas like River Terrace 2.0. As a result, much of the
infrastructure for delivering housing, from financing to construction, is geared for this
housing type alone. This means that there is a lack of institutional knowledge of how to
successfully develop middle housing, and developers often find it more challenging to
finance middle housing types compared to large -scale multi-unit or single -family
subdivisions. Lenders and investors may be concerned about the desirability of other
housing types and consider developments that emphasize new forms of middle housing too
risky for financing.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 5
Regulated affordable housing most often takes the form of higher -density multi-unit
buildings. Most units developed through the predominant funding source for affordable
housing in the United States today , the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit or LIHTC, are built
as apartments (multi -unit rental housing).1 LIHTC developers generally must achieve
sufficient density to justify pursuing a project, satisfy program requirements, and attract
other public and private financing sources to make the project financially viable. As a result,
affordable housing development under this program typically tends towards larger
apartment buildings.
Middle housing types are often more associated with infill
development in established areas than greenfield contexts .
Middle housing types like duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, and cottage
clusters are more typically developed in areas where infrastructure and services are
already in place. Existing road networks, water and sewer systems, transit access, schools,
and nearby commercial amenities or job opportunities can reduce development costs and
increase the market appeal of these housing types. Infill development in more established
areas allows developers to more easily integrate middle housing into walkable
neighborhoods with lower demand for parking. Another contributing factor is that many
production builders that have experience and access to capital to develop at scale in a
greenfield context have limited experience developing and marketing middle housing
(particularly for forms beyond townhouses), while small builders that have more experience
with middle housing often do not the same access to capital and ability to operate at scale
as the production builders.
Planned community features that will reduce reliance on cars (including future transit
service and walkable commercial services) will likely lag initial housing development,
which could make it harder to market housing designed for walkable places in early
development phases. The area’s location at the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
and the more auto-oriented character of surrounding existing development may create a
perception during early phases of housing development that the area is more auto -
dependent than it will ultimately be when fully developed and served. This could make
housing with little or no parking less desirable initially, and deter developers and
homebuilders from producing low - or zero-parked housing in early phases.
Land and infrastructure costs (including System Development
Charges) can be challenging for developing regulated affordable
housing and other needed housing options .
Holding costs and infrastructure needs can pose financial challenge s for regulated
affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers typically rely on a complex
funding stack that often includes public subsidies and/or equity from tax credit investors
1 Urban Institute 2023 https://www.urban.org/urban -wire/lihtc-provides-much-needed-affordable -housing-not-
enough-address-todays-market-demands.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 6
through LIHTC. Assembling this funding stack takes time and means that affordable housing
developers may need to hold the land for an extended period before development , which can
increase the cost of development. Areas with comparatively high costs for System
Development Charges (SDCs) can also make it harder to deliver affordable projects, which
are often subject to subsidy limits and other funding requirements that limit their ability to
absorb these costs . In addition, neither land nor off -site infrastr ucture costs can generally
be covered with LIHTC, making it important to keep these costs low for much affordable
housing development . Uncertainty in infrastructure costs (and other costs) also creates
challenges for affordable housing developers who may have few options to close late -
emerging funding gaps. This can make building affordable housing i n newly planned areas
like River Terrace 2.0 where infrastructure may not yet be in place at time of development
particularly challenging .
High land and/or infrastructure costs can also make middle housing types less feasible
and less affordable in greenfield development areas. Compared to market-rate single-
detached homes (which can sometimes absorb higher cost s), prior analysis by
ECOnorthwest shows that the lower sales prices typical of smaller middle housing units
often result in tighter financial margins. While middle housing allows developers to spread
fixed costs such as land and infrastructure across a larger number of units, each unit tends
to have less ability to absorb these costs compared to a larger and higher -priced unit where
a marginal increase in sales price may be less of a deterrent to buyers. This can make the
feasibility of developing middle housing more sensitive to increases in land and
infrastructure costs. Costs like SDCs that are charged per unit can also disproportionately
impact smaller middle housing units.2
2 OREGON SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY: WHY SDCs MATTER AND HOW THEY AFFECT HOUSING
(December 2022), by ECOnorthwest, Galardi Rothstein Group, and FCS GROUP; prepared for Oregon Housing
and Community Services (OHCS).
https://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/development/Documents/Oregon%20SDC%20Study_FinalReport_121422.pdf
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 7
2. Density and Zoning Strategy
A well-calibrated approach to land use and zoning will be critical for meeting the objectives
of River Terrace 2.0 for housing diversity and density. This section includes an
implementable strategy for achieving the City’s goals for housing mix and overall density of
20 dwelling units per net acre. The neighborhood typologies presented in the housing
component of the River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan are the foundation of this strategy, with
refinements to specify and expand on the City’s approach . The strategy presented in this
plan informs future code amend ments.
The zoning strategy assumes the City will create area-specific zones applicable only in
River Terrace 2.0 that have been configured to meet Concept Plan goals, rather than
changing citywide standards to meet project goals . This strategy also assumes the City will
create a Plan District with requirements that are not zone -specific or are better addressed
outside of the framework of specific zones .
This chapter also provides an overview of two options for approval processes which offer a
clear and objective pathway for residential development in all zones, as well as a more
flexible option for planned development.
Land Use Map
Exhibit 1 shows the Concept
Plan’s original land use
concept developed for River
Terrace 2.0, including the
general location and
distribution of three housing
typologies: Main Street, Even
Mix, and Feathered Edge as
well as the Commercial and
Neighborhood Nodes.
The proposed land use map in
Exhibit 2 below generally
aligns with the Concept Plan
but has refined the potential
locations and land areas of the
higher and lower intensity
residential areas and the
commercial and mixed use
areas. This land use map will
be further refined with the
Exhibit 1. Concept Plan Land Use Map
Source: River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 8
creation of a zoning map, which will be the regulatory map applied to these areas with
adoption of the Community Plan .
Exhibit 2 . Proposed River Terrace 2.0 Land Use Map
Residential Areas
To achieve Concept Plan goals of a mix of housing types and achieving an overall density of
20 dwelling units per net acre, residential areas in River Terrace 2.0 would be divided into
three different residential zones with varying levels of development intensity that emphasize
compact development and housing variety in all neighborhoods. These new zones would
have some parallels to existing residential zones used elsewhere in the city ; the lower
intensity residential , medium intensity residential , and higher intensity residential
designations are similar to the existing RES -C, RES-D, and RES-E zones. Residential
development in all zones would have the option of meeting a set of clear and objective
standards to proceed through a staff -level administrative review process or a more
flexible pathway through a discretionary review process (additional detail included in
Section 3 of this report ).
Key features for all proposed residential zones include:
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 9
Minimum Density: All zones would require developers to meet an overall minimum
density, calculated across all developable land within each development site. The
minimum density requirement would vary slightly across the different zones.
Integrating Under -Supplied Housing Options: All residential zones would require
development to integrate under -supplied housing options based on a menu of
options, such as:
➢ Small units (e.g., <1,200 square feet)
➢ Less common housing forms (e.g., quads, ADUs, units with shared open space
like courtyards and cottage clusters, etc.)
➢ Accessible/adaptable units (e.g., s ingle-story and zero -step units , units that
meet accessibility/adaptability standards under building code)
➢ Climate -resilient units (e.g., based on certifications that consider
electrification, energy efficiency, and /or climate -friendly and carbon-
responsible building techniques )
➢ Deed-restricted affordable units
The required share of units that must offer under -supplied housing options would
vary across the different zones (see potential percentages by zone below in the
summary of proposed residential standards). The requirement would provide
incentives to include deed -restricted affordable units. While incentive s have not yet
been confirmed, an example could include allowing those units to count double
towards meeting the housing options requirement (in addition to financial incentives
available for regulated affordable units). Th is requirement would also be structured
to ensure that larger phased developments include units meeting housing options
rules as development occurs, rather than deferring them to later phases.
Pedestrian -F riendly Design Standards: Residential development in all zones will be
subject to design standards that prioritize pedestrian -friendly design on street -facing
portions of the development . Examples of this include limitations on street -facing
garages and driveway access, building width limits, and window and entrance
requirements. The approach to these standards is described further in Section 4.
Proposed Residential Standards
The potential new residential areas in River Terrace 2.0 are summarized in brief in Exhibit
3 . Note that ranges are provided for some numerical standards that will be further
calibrated as the land use map is refined to become a zoning map and as the standards
themselves are refined to determine how compliance will be measured.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 10
Exhibit 3 . Summary of Proposed Standards in River Terrace 2.0 Residential
Standards Purpose Direction for Clear and Objective Standards
Lower
Intensity Res.
Medium
Intensity Res.
Higher
Intensity Res.
Overview of Intended
Development
A mix of small
form
residential lots
allowing 1-3
units and other
middle
housing, with
some
undersupplied
housing
options
Middle
housing, small-
lot single -unit
detached
housing, multi-
plex housing
with a
substantial
share of
undersupplied
housing
options
Larger-scale
multi-unit
housing and
higher-
intensity
middle
housing with
some
undersupplied
housing
options and
options for
small-scale
commercial
Allowed Residential and Nonresidential Development
Dwelling Unit Types
To allow and
encourage a
range of housing
types that align
with the intended
scale and
intensity of
development
Small Form
Residential
(up to 3 units),
Cottage Cluster,
Quad, Rowhouse
(up to 4 per
building)
Small Form
Residential
(up to 3 units),
Cottage Cluster,
Quad,
Rowhouse,
Courtyard Unit,
Multiplex,
Quad,
Rowhouse,
Courtyard Unit,
Multiplex,
Apartment
Undersupplied
Housing Option
Requirement
To include
housing that
serves a range of
households with
different housing
needs integrated
within future
neighborhoods.
Outside range:
5-25% of units
Likely range:
10-15% of units
Outside range:
20-50% of units
Likely range:
25-35% of units
Likely range:
15-25% of units
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 11
Standards Purpose Direction for Clear and Objective Standards
Lower
Intensity Res.
Medium
Intensity Res.
Higher
Intensity Res.
Nonresidential uses
To provide
opportunities for
compatible
nonresidential
uses that meet
residents’ needs
within future
neighborhoods.
Childcare,
institutional
Childcare,
institutional,
small “corner
store” allowed
abutting a
Collector Street
or
Neighborhood
Route
Childcare,
institutional,
small ground
floor
commercial or
“corner store”
allowed abutting
a Collector
Street or
Neighborhood
Route,
accessory
commercial
uses
Scale and Intensity
Minimum Density per
Project (du/net acre)
To ensure
compact
development at
transit-
supportive
densities and
deliver an overall
average of 20
units per acre
across RT 2.0
[12-16] [18-20] [24-28]
Maximum Height
To create a
building scale
that is
pedestrian -
friendly and
encourages
active
transportation
2.5 stories (3
stories as a
bonus)
2.5 to 3 stories
(4 stories as a
bonus)
3 stories (4 or 5
stories as a
bonus)
Setbacks (front) 5-20 feet 5-15 feet 0-10 feet
Maximum Building
Width at Street
House-Scale Rowhouse-Scale
1/4-block max.
width
Apartment-
Scale,
1/2-block max.
width (or other
articulation /
break)
Commercial and Mixed -Use Areas
To implement the Concept Plan goals for walkable, neighborhood -serving commercial
development, the preliminary recommendation is to designate three areas for commercial
development - one larger area that will consist of primarily commercial uses, with very little
stand -alone residential development, and two smaller mixed -use areas that would allow
more flexible mixes of residential, commercial, or mixed -use development. Smaller mixed -
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 12
use areas include requirements for ground floor retail on key frontages that would align
with commercial standards.
The purpose of having one large area that allows very little residential use is to protect that
land for future larger -scale commercial development of community-supported uses like a
grocery store . Commercial development typically follows after much of the residential
development has been completed ; if earlier development of this area is desired then
incentives should be considered . One of the factors suggesting the attractiveness of this
type of commercial area in River Terrace 2.0 is that m any of the adjacent areas that have
recently been developed have planned for but not successfully delivered commercial areas,
creating potential to capture demand from the housing in those areas as well as future
residential in R iver Terrace 2.0.
Exhibit 4 . Summary of Proposed Standards in River Terrace 2.0 Commercial/Mixed Use
Standards Purpose Direction for Clear and Objective Standards
Mixed-Use Commercial
Overview of
Intended
Development
Mixed -use buildings,
neighborhood-serving
commercial development,
and higher -intensity
residential development
Community-serving
commercial development,
mixed-use buildings with
substantial ground -floor
commercial
Allowed Residential and Nonresidential Development
Non-Residential
Use Types
To provide
opportunities for
a range of
commercial and
nonresidential
uses that meet
the daily needs of
nearby residents
Childcare, Institutional,
Retail, Services,
Office/Employment, more
flexible home -occupation
options
Childcare, Institutional,
Retail, Services,
Office/Employment
Residential
Allowance
To balance
residential uses
with needed
commercial and
employment
areas to support
a walkable
community
Commercial ground floor
frontage required on key
street frontages;
other areas allow
standalone residential use
using higher intensity
residential zone
residential development
standards
Only allowed in mixed -use
buildings with ground floor
commercial on the primary
street frontage.3
Standalone residential use
allowed for regulated
affordable housing only.4
Scale and Intensity
Height To create a
building scale 3 stories (4 as a bonus) 3 stories (5 stories as a
bonus)
3 Consistent with SB 1537 (2024), Sections 38 to 41.
4 Meets requirements of ORS 197A.445.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 13
Standards Purpose Direction for Clear and Objective Standards
Mixed-Use Commercial
Building Width
at Street
that is
pedestrian-
friendly and
encourages active
transportation
1/2-block max. width (or
other articulation / break) 1-block max. width
Residential
Density
To ensure
compact
development at
transit-supportive
densities and
deliver an overall
average of 20
units per acre
across RT 2.0
Same as higher intensity
residential for standalone
residential
N/A
Approval Processes
Tigard will offer two development approval processes for most development in River Terrace
2.0. As required by law, a clear and objective path will be made available. In addition, where
variation from the standards is desired, applicants may choose an alte rnate path through
the Planned Development process. While this latter process will require more time in the
permitting process, it will also create more flexibility to tailor a project the way the applicant
feels is most fitting. This trade -off will be at the applicant’s discretion.
Residential development in all zones will include an option to meet a set of clear and
objective standards through a staff -level administrative review process . The concepts
informing the clear and objective pathway are identified above in Sections 2 and 3. Specific
final numerical requirements and clear and objective language will be established as part of
the code drafting process.
Alternatively, developers may choose a more flexible path through a discretionary review
process. Residential standards listed in Section 2 may be relaxed or adjusted through the
Planned Development process. This flexible option will allow variation from some of the clear
and objective standards, provided that the development meets the purpose of the standards
and provides public benefits that exceed minimum code requirements .
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 14
3. Preliminary Form -Based Code
Approach
Approach
The key feature of the proposed form -based approach is the improvement of the walkability
of the community through managing form elements not typically included in traditional
zoning. The intent is to deliver housing goals for River Terrace 2.0 through a hybrid form -
based approach with three key levels of regulation:
Zoning Districts will set the boundaries for areas treated similarly with regard to
minimum required density, use , and housing types. Will be mapped like existing
zoning districts. Specific parameters of these standards are outlined above in
Section 2.
Frontage Types will set rules for the form of elements facing streets such location of
parking, yard depth, yard landscaping, entrances, and windows. Concepts for
frontage-based standards are further summarized below.
Dwelling Unit Types will apply the City’s existing housing types with different
development and design standards, in some cases splitting existing categories into
multiple subtypes with differing standards . The approach is further discussed below.
Frontage Type Standards
Frontage is a term used here to denote the relationship of a street and adjacent property.
The following standards are proposed to be tied to frontage on different street types :
Options for site access or driveway entrances
Whether parking or service areas are allowed in front or side yards
Whether the site has landscaping or buffer behind the sidewalk (screening the
building or other site elements) or buildings with entrances and windows
There are several different street types included in the River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan
which serve different purposes, including:
Arterial Roads. Major roads carrying primarily regional traffic . Scholls Ferry and Roy
Rogers are arterials ; no new arterials are planned for River Terrace 2.0.
Collectors. Primary routes connecting to Arterial roads and providing connections
throughout River Terrace 2.0.
Neighborhood Streets. Secondary routes connecting parts of the neighborhood to
collectors and providing connections between adjoining neighborhoods.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 15
Local Streets. Streets p roviding access to individual properties .
Access Streets. Local street alternatives or alleys that provide property access and
space for utilities/services with minimal vehicle use s (these are addressed primarily
through alleyway standards).
Not all of the streets within River Terrace 2.0 have known locations at this time: future
collectors have mapped routes, but locations of other more internal streets will be
determined during subdivision review. The flexibility in tying standards to street type will
allow developers and the City to apply appropriate standards as new streets are platted,
without the need to rezone the property in order to apply additional rules for the relationship
of the street and proposed yards and buildings, because they will be pre -packaged as part of
the frontage rules.
Exhibit 5 . Summary of Standards by Frontage Type
FRONTAGE TYPES ACCESS/
DRIVEWAYS
STREET
INTERACTION
PARKING/ SERVICE
AREAS SETBACKS
Arterial Roads None allowed Landscaping/
Buffers
Parking Lots Located
Beside or Behind
Buildings
Deeper Side
Setbacks
(min)
Collector Roads None allowed
Street -Facing
Entrances and
Windows
No Parking or Service
Areas Between Building
and Street
Front
Setback
(min/max)
Neighborhood Routes
and Key Bike/Ped
Connection Streets
Limited
Access/
Driveways
Street -Facing
Entrances and
Windows
No Parking or Service
Areas Between Building
and Street
Front
Setback
(min/max)
Local and Access
Streets
Allowed/
Consolidated
Street -Facing
Entrances and
Windows
Parking Allowed in
Driveways/ Parking Lots
Located Beside or Behind
Buildings
Screened Service Areas
Allowed Adjacent to
Street
Front
Setback
(min only)
Note that alleys can be used to provide access to properties that cannot take access from
other types of roads; alleys are not “frontages” in this context, as they typically abut the
rear of a property. Parking and service areas will typically be oriented towards alleys where
available.
Housing Type Standards
Tigard already uses a series of housing types to apply particular form -based rules within
each zoning district. This technique varies the rules depending on the housing type. For the
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 16
purposes of supporting mixing housing types within a single proposed development, several
new subtypes are proposed within the City’s existing set of dwelling unit types to manage
the following:
The extent of single -unit dwellings
The scale of apartment buildings when mixed with other smaller building types
The potential for required ground floor commercial
Exhibit 6 . Summary of Standards by Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPES CONFIGURATION KEY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Accessory Dwelling Unit Attached or Detached Unit Size (max)
Height (max)
Small Form Residential
[NEW subtypes]
1 Unit
1 Unit + ADU or 2 Units, 2
Units + ADU, 3 Units
Lot Dimensions (min/max)
Lot Coverage (max, variable with # of units)
Rear Setback (min)
Landscape Area (min)
Cottage Cluster Detached
Lot Dimensions (min/max)
Courtyard/Common Open Space Area (min)
Landscaping (min)
Building Orientation Courtyard/Open Space
Parking Area Design
Pedestrian Access
Unit size/floor area (max)
Courtyard Unit Attached
Lot Dimensions (min/max)
Courtyard Area (min)
Landscaping (min)
Building Orientation (to courtyard/open space)
Parking Area Design
Pedestrian Access
Unit size/floor area (max)
Quads
Stacked
(2 Units Up, 2 Units
Down)
Lot Dimensions (min/max)
Common Open Space Area (min)
Landscaping (min)
Parking Area Design
Pedestrian Access
Rowhouse
[NEW subtypes]
Attached Side to Side : All
Street-Facing
Attached Side to Side :
Mixed Street + Internal -
Facing
Lot Dimensions (min/max)
Height in Stories (max)
Common Open Space Area (min)
Landscaping (min)
Parking Area Design
Pedestrian Access
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 17
DWELLING UNIT TYPES CONFIGURATION KEY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Apartment
[NEW subtypes]
Multiplex
Multi-Unit
Lot Dimensions (min/max)
Height in Stories (max)
Common Open Space Area (min)
Landscaping (min)
Parking Area Design
Pedestrian Access
Mixed -Use Development With Ground Floor
Commercial
Lot Dimensions (min/max)
Height in Stories (max)
Parking Area Design
Pedestrian Access
Landscaping (min)
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 18
4. Complementary Strategies
The 2021 River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan set ambitious goals for affordability and diverse
housing types in this new UGB expansion area. In most housing markets it is difficult to
achieve a fine -grained housing mix at a variety of price points without intentional
interventions like public investment, incentives, or targeted programs. The City of Tigard has
made a commitment to achieving these goals and can proactively implement strategies that
support housing diversity, affordability, and density targets.
The recommended strategies in this report build on both the Concept Plan and the 2019
Tigard Affordable Housing Pla n, which outlines strategies to support housing affordability
citywide. It also includes recommendations that build on strategies the City has
implemented in the years since those plans and focuses on those most likely to have the
greatest impact in a gree nfield development setting. It is also informed by recent similar
efforts by other jurisdictions seeking to support affordability and/or spec ific housing
options in new development areas, including Beaverton, Wilsonville, Bend, and Hood River.
Recommended strategies fall into four categories of potential tools:
Local Funding Sources and Direct Financial Support . Providing local funding for
desired housing options is often the most direct way that jurisdictions can guide
development toward community goals. However, finite resources, restrictions from
different funding sources, and competing citywide priorities can limit the flexibility
and scale of these tools.
Financial Incentives & Cost Savings. Beyond direct funding for housing
development, there are several incentives and cost saving options that can encourage
affordable housing and middle housing. While incentives are not guaranteed to
produce desired units, they can influence what types of housing are feasible or
appealing for developers.
Programs and Other Initiatives . A range of local efforts like technical assistance and
building partnerships can also support housing goals. These actions typically help to
facilitate a range of private or nonprofit sector partnerships. They are often effective
when paired with other strategies like local funding or incentive programs.
Regulatory Incentives . Flexibility in standards or additional allowances can reduce
costs, increase certainty for projects, and make a wider range of housing more
financially feasible for developers. Like financial incentives, these incentives do not
guarantee that desired housing types will be built but can make them more feasible.
Oregon state law already requires jurisdictions to provide additional regulatory flexibility
and incentives for affordable housing in several ways. Tigard is compliant with these
requirements but could integrate additional considerations or flexibility in the plan area.
Section 2 of this report covers density and zoning recommendations designed to support
housing goals.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 19
Recommended Strategies
The following recommendations describe strategies that the City could use to maximize
impact in River Terrace 2.0. Some actions build on existing housing strategies that are
available citywide or being used elsewhere in Tigard with modifications to make them
stronger tools for achieving specific plan goals. Others may have broader citywide
implications that should be carefully balanced with other objectives.
Key strategies for achieving the River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan goals include:
Use funding from the City’s existing Construction Excise Tax (CET) that supports
the City’s affordable housing programs to offer financial incentives or gap financing
for deed-restricted affordable housing (in addition to existing exemptions from
System Development Charges).
Scale any new area -specific system development charges based on the size of a
housing unit to reduce the impact of those fees on middle housing and smaller
housing units. Consider using CET to “buy down” existing citywide SDCs for middle
housing and smaller housing units .
Modify the City’s existing Middle Housing Revolving Loan Fund program terms to
make it a more valuable incentive and a more powerful tool to support desired
middle housing development.
Explore property tax exemption programs for low-cost homeownership housing,
mixed-income housing, and/or vertical mixed -use development.
If the City offers tax exemptions for low -cost homeownership housing or mixed -
income housing, consider expanding exemptions from system development charges
for affordable housing to apply to affordable units covered under those programs .
Use public benefits as part of the planned development process to incentivize
desired outcomes in exchange for flexibility on other standards.
Support community land trust participation through capacity building and support.
Each of these strategies alone can be effective for achieving housing mix and/or affordability
goals. Implementing a range of actions can help to provide multiple pathways for
incentivizing desired housing types for market -rate developers and reducing challenges for
affordable housing providers.
1. Use CET funds for financial incentives . gap financing , or pre-
development costs .
CET is an existing source of local funding for housing incentives and affordability programs.
The City of Tigard currently imposes a 1% Construction Excise Tax (CET) on commercial and
residential developments (assessed on the value of construction) to generate funding for
affordable housing. Certain improvements are currently exempted, such as affordable
housing, ADUs, school improvements, and care facilities.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 20
Tigard’s CET already backfills SDC exemptions for affordable housing, supports affordable
home ownership, and provides a flexible source of funds to allow the city to pursue the
strategies in its Affordable Housing Plan . Planning staff estimates that CET will generate
roughly $500,000 per year going forward, which can be leveraged in River Terrace 2.0. CET
could be used intentionally in River Terrace 2.0, but since the resource is shared throughout
Tigard , funds spent in River Terrace 2.0 must be balanced a gainst affordable housing needs
in other areas of the city.
As a powerful tool for direct local funding, the City should pursue allocating CET revenue
to fund incentives or gap financing for affordable housing in the River Terrace 2.0 area ,
including pre-development costs to reduce risks for affordable housing development . The
City may make this allocation based on the estimated future CET revenues from market -rate
development in River Terrace 2.0 (“capturing” the value of future development) or using
available CET to proactively ensure funding. These investments co uld support upfront
elements of affordable housing that can often be difficult to finance from common funding
sources like Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). These include site acquisition fees,
entitlement, or other specific costs that affordable housing development faces. The City
could offer this support through pre -development grants or zero -cost services to cover due
diligence and vetting preliminary designs.
2. Apply new system development charges based on the size of a
housing unit.
The cost of SDCs tends to impact smaller and lower -cost units more than larger and more
expensive ones. For middle housing in Tigard, total SDCs per unit are roughly 75% of the
amount for single -unit detached housing. Depending on the type of middle housing and
other aspects of these units, costs for SDCs can still be proportionately higher. This
contributes to difficulties for making middle housing types feasible and achieving plan goals
for a fine -grained housing mix throughout River Terrace 2.0.
New infrastructure funding sources (e.g., area -specific supplemental SDCs or other
infrastructure fees) will likely be needed to pay for infrastructure development in River
Terrace 2.0. As part of establishing the methodology and rate structure for any new fees,
this project will at a minimum continue the existing pattern of differentiating rates for
single-unit detached and middle housing types . The City should also consider tiered SDCs
by unit size, particularly where there is evidence that smaller units will have less impact on
public infrastructure. This adjustment would only impact the incremental new fees in River
Terrace 2.0, not existing SDCs with citywide rates. The City could potentially use CET
(Strategy 1) or other funding sources to “buy down” the cost of existing SDCs for smaller
units and/or middle housing in River Terrace 2.0.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 21
3. Modify the City’s existing Middle Housing Revolving Loan Fund
program terms .
The City of Tigard currently offers a Middle Housing Revolving Loan Fund that provides a
direct funding source for middle housing. However, it has not yet been used for any projects
since its inception in 2021. The program includes short -term construction loans to develop
for-sale middle housing that meet small form and square footage requirements. The fund
can be used for acquisition, pre -development (including infrastructure), and construction. At
least 30% of the developed units must be affordable to buy ers at 100% of area median
income (AMI) or below and made available first to buyers through specific affordable
homeownership nonprofits. If 100% of units are offered at this affordability level, the
development is eligible for an interest rate reduction. City staff estimates that the fund could
finance one or two modest -sized middle housing projects at a time.
The City should consider modifying the program eligibility requirements and engaging
with developers to make it a more effective program for promoting middle housing either
in River Terrace 2.0 or citywide. This may include adjustments like increasing the income
threshold for affordability, expanding the program to apply to rental middle housing, and/or
adjusting loan terms to make the program more attractive to developers.
4 . Explore property tax exemption programs .
There are several state-enabled, locally-adopted programs that provide partial property tax
exemptions for specific types of qualifying development that could align with Tigard’s goals
for River Terrace 2.0. Additional information on these programs and how they could apply
within R iver Terrace 2.0 is provided below. Property tax exemptions reduce general fund
revenue, but cities can set a limit for the amount of foregone revenue on an annual basis or
apply a unit cap.
SINGLE UNIT HOUSING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
Note: This program is also called ‘HOLTE’ or Homebuyer Opportunity Limited Tax Exemption
HOLTE provides a 10-year exemption on the improvement (building) value of qualifying new
or rehabilitated for -sale housing. Any housing type (including single -unit detached, middle
housing, and condominiums) may qualify if the units are sold individually, prov ided the sales
price is no more than 120% of the city’s median sales price. Cities may include required
design elements or public benefits that would be required for qualifying properties , such as
minimum bedroom count, income qualification requirements, o wner occupancy
requirements, and green building requirements.
This program supports affordable homeownership for low- and moderate -income households
by reducing their property tax bill and increasing their borrowing power. However, the
expiration of the abatement after 10 years can create challenges for homeowners if not
supported through that transition. While the a ffordability does not necessarily last over the
long-term (unless the program is limited to buyers working with a CLT or nonprofit
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 22
developer), by incentivizing smaller entry -level units, it increases the supply of such units
that are likely to remain comparatively more affordable than larger units over time.
HOLTE does not create an effective incentive for developers on its own, since the tax
abatement goes to the homebuyer, but it can be paired with other incentives such as SDC
exemptions, downpayment assistance, or other programs. It could be offered for middle
housing in River Terrace 2.0 that meets the sales price criteria and additional income -
related or other criteria. The exemption applies only to City taxes (which represent a
relatively small share of the total tax rate) unless there is sufficient suppo rt from
overlapping taxing districts to apply the exemption to all districts.
MULTIPLE UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION (MUPTE)
Note: This program is sometimes called ‘MULTE’ or Multiple -Unit Limited Tax Exemption
MUPTE provides a 10 -year partial property tax exemption on new or rehabilitated multi-unit
rental housing (or middle housing rentals like duplexes, triplexes, etc.) that meets locally set
criteria. It can be used for market-rate multi-unit or middle housing with specific features
located in certain geographies (such as core areas, light rail station areas, or transit -
oriented areas), or for mixed -income or fully regulated affordable housing. If used for
housing with affordability restrictions, the exemption can last longer than 10 years and
continue as long as the restrictions remain in place. This program is flexible, with City
discretion over many aspects of eligibility, including the level of affordability requirements,
the minimum number of units in the property, and any design requirements or other public
benefits required. Regardless of the local eligibility criteria, the exemption applies to 100%
of the residential portion of the property’s improvement value but does not apply to the land
value.5 A number of cities in Oregon have implemented tax abatement programs under these
statutes, though the program names vary between jurisdictions. Some cities use the
program to incentivize affordable housing or housing in specific areas with specific design
features rather than affordability.
MUPTE can provide an effective incentive if the affordability or public benefit requirements
are established appropriately and if there is sufficient support from overlapping taxing
districts for the exemption to apply to all districts. MUPTE reduces gener al fund revenues
for the City, and (if there is sufficient support from other districts) for all overlapping taxing
districts.
Because the City is planning for future transit service through the River Terrace 2.0 area,
Tigard should explore designating portions of the area for MUPTE as a transit -oriented area
(defined in statute as “an area defined in regional or local transportation plans to be within
one-quarter mile of a fixed route transit service”). The City should also consider the
exemption as an incentive for small -scale rental housing (e.g., multiplex) development, for
5 This program applies only to the City’s taxes unless the boards of other taxing districts representing at least
51% of the combined levy agree to the exemption, in which case all districts are included.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 23
rental middle housing or multi-unit offering climate -friendly design (e.g., green building
certification), and/or for mixed -income rental housing.
VERTICAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ZONES
A Vertical Housing Development Zone (VHDZ) provides a 10 -year property tax abatement for
qualifying multi -story mixed-use development. The abatement is scaled to the share of
residential use in the building (roughly 20 percent of the building value exempt per floor of
residential use) but requires ground floor commercial use (at least 50 percent of the ground
floor that fronts a primary public street must be committed to nonresidential use). The
program also offers a small additional tax abatement for affor dable or mixed-income
housing.
Tigard’s VHDZ program has been moderately successful in supporting market -rate mixed-
use development in the areas where it is currently available —Downtown Tigard and the
Tigard Triangle. The additional affordability incentives associated with VHDZ are gene rally
not enough to incentivize mixed -income or affordable housing development.
The City should consider adopting one or more new VHDZs in River Terrace 2.0 in relevant
areas. This would be most appropriate in the planned neighborhood mixed -use nodes and/or
in the larger planned commercial area.
5. Consider expanding SDC exemptions for affordable housing.
SDCs are one -time fees charged on development to help pay for the public facilities
(transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, and parks) required to meet growth-related
needs. Tigard currently offers exemptions for ADUs6 and affordable housing7 on City
Transportation and Parks SDCs. Other SDCs (including City water SDCs, sanitary sewer and
stormwater SDCs set by Clean Water Services and Washington County’s Transportation
Development Tax ) do not currently offer comparable exemptions ,8 but rates are generally set
outside of the City’s control. Middle housing already generally pays lower rates than single -
unit detached housing for most SDCs.9 The City also collects SDCs later in the development
process than many other jurisdictions, which reduces developers’ financing costs associated
with the SDCs.
An exemption for these fees is a financial incentive that can help make affordable
development more feasible, but often not sufficient on its own to fully offset the higher
costs and lower returns associated with income -restricted housing. In Tigard, SDCs overall
add roughly $25,000 to $50,000 per unit to development costs depending on housing type.
Exempting SDCs for income -restricted affordable housing can help reduce the funding gap
6 To qualify, the ADU must be within city limits, 1,000 sq ft or less, and have a restrictive covenant stating that
it will not be used as an STR for 10 years.
7 To qualify, the affordable unit must have an agreement or contract of affordability, be affordable at or below
80% AMI, and remain regulated affordable for 20 years.
8 If ADUs share a meter with the primary unit, there is only one fee for water, sanitary, and stormwater SDCs
but TDT still applies.
9 Tigard SDC Rate Sheet: https://www.tigard-or.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/96/638569101383070000
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 24
for affordable housing. The value of the existing exemptions and reductions is approximately
$14,000 per unit, which represents roughly half of the total cost of SDCs for multi-unit
buildings or ADUs.
The City should consider extending the existing exemption for affordable housing to units
that qualify under other affordability programs but would not meet the existing
affordability criteria, such as the units that qualify for tax exemption programs if they are
implemented (see Strategy 4 above). Like reduced fees for smaller units (Strategy 2), the
City could also explore using CET (Strategy 1) or other funding sources to “buy down” or
backfill these costs.
6. Use public benefits as part of the planned development process .
Section 2 of this report details an approach to density and zoning in Rive r Terrace 2.0,
including considerations for two types of plan review processes: a clear and objective
pathway and a discretionary review option. The discretionary pathway allows a mechanism
for greater flexibility when development meets established objectiv es for the area. Tigard’s
existing planned development process requires that development provides some form of
public benefit to warrant the requested flexibility. Examples of public benefits could include
affordable units, public open space, green building features, accessibility features, and
others as allowed by the development code .
The City should continue to require the inclusion of public benefits in planned
development s for the discretionary pathway in River Terrace 2.0 . Existing p lanned
development regulations could be modified to require or incentiviz e certain types of public
benefits be provided in River Terrace 2.0 planned developments that align with Concept
Plan goals. While this might not ensure that a developer will choose to provide one type of
public benefit over another unless explicitly required , it presents an opportunity for
negotiation between City staff and developers about more flexible standards.
7. Support community l and t rust participation and capacity building.
A Community Land Trust (CLT) is a model where a nonprofit community organization owns
land and provides long -term ground leases to low -income households to purchase the homes
on the land, agreeing to purchase prices, resale prices, equity capture, and other terms. The
CLT model lowers the cost of homeownership by reducing or eliminatin g the land acquisition
cost (and sometimes other costs) from the building ownership costs and decreases the
likelihood of displacement in areas where land values are increasin g.
The City has an existing partnership with Proud Ground as part of the Middle Housing
Revolving Loan Fund to provide down payment assistance to homebuyers (Strategy 3).
However, limited capacity with nonprofit partners can limit the impact of housing support
initiatives. The City should consider strategies to ease capacity issues with Proud Ground
and other partners, such as offering support for pre -development and planning processes.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 25
Additional Strategies Analyzed
Exhibit 7 8 summarizes the full list of strategies evaluated, including existing, planned, and
potential strategies that could address goals for desired housing types and/or income -
qualified housing. Planned strategies are identified in the River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan
and are currently being developed within other components of this project. Some existing
housing strategies are available citywide and will automatically apply within the River
Terrace 2.0 area. The City could make potential modifications to some of these actions to
make them stronger tools for achieving plan goals (detailed below with releva nt actions).
Other existing strategies are being used elsewhere in Tigard and could be applied w ithin
River Terrace 2.0 but would require the City to intentionally implement them in the plan
area (marked with an asterisk (*) below). Some actions would have flexibility to be applied
to desired housing types and/or income -qualified housing depending on how the City
configures a program.
Strategies shown in grey text below were evaluated as lower priority actions. Appendix C
includes additional detail for existing and lower priority strategies.
Exhibit 7 . Summary Assessment of Existing and Potential Strategies
TYPE STRATEGIES
APPLICABLE GOALS
STATUS DESIRED
TYPES
INCOME
QUALIFIED
Local
Funding
Sources
and Direct
Financial
Support
Construction Excise Tax (CET) X X Existing *
Land Acquisition & Site Control X X Existing*
Middle Housing Revolving Loan Fund X X Existing
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU )
Financing X Potential
Tax Increment Financing (TIF )
District Infrastructure Investments &
Development Assistance
X X Potential
Financial
Incentives
& Cost
Savings
System Development Charge (SDC)
Exemption s & Discounts X X Existing /
Planned
Vertical Housing Development Zone
(VHDZ) X Existing *
Site Readiness & Infrastructure
Investments X X Potential
CET Exemption & Discounts X X Existing
Non-Profit Low Income Housing
Property Tax Exemption X Existing
Multiple Unit Property Tax
Exemption (MUPTE)
(sometimes called ‘MULTE,’ Multiple Unit Limited
Tax Exemption)
X X Potential
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 26
TYPE STRATEGIES
APPLICABLE GOALS
STATUS DESIRED
TYPES
INCOME
QUALIFIED
Single Unit Housing Property Tax
Exemption (sometimes called ‘HOLTE,’
Homebuyer Opportunity Limited Tax Exemption)
X X Potential
Small Home Construction Incentive X Potential
Development Fee Reductions for
Affordable Housing X Potential
Regulatory
Incentives
Incentive Zoning to Support
Affordable Housing X Existing /
Planned
Zoning for Multi -unit Housing X Planned
Annexation Agreements X Potential
Programs
and Other
Initiatives
Support Community Land Trust
Participation X Potential
Match-Making & Information Sharing X X Existing
*Existing citywide strategy that the City would need to choose to apply in River Terrace 2.0.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 27
Appendix A . Summary of State
and Regional Requirements
State Housing Goals
Oregon has had a statewide planning program since 1973. This program is built on 19
Statewide Planning Goals that cover a wide range of topics. Goal 10 guides housing
planning in Oregon and establishes the overarching objective “to provide for the housing
needs of citizens of the state.” (OAR 660 -015-0000(10)) Goal 10 guides the approach for
Oregon jurisdictions to plan for housing needs and implement hou sing initiatives. As
required by state law, Tigard has adopted its Comprehensive Plan including housing
policies to implement the applicable statewide goals at a local level.
State Statutes and Rules
Key sections of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) that
relate to housing are summarized below. The City of Tigard’s existing Community
Development Code is consistent with these requirements. They are identified here to ens ure
new regulations for River Terrace 2.0 maintain consistency . The table below summarizes
these relevant sections with an emphasis on sections which have changed with recent
legislation and relevance for River Terrace 2.0 as an area planning effort.
Exhibit 1. Applicable State Statutes and Rules
ORS/OAR
REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY RELEVANCE FOR RT2.0
Clear and Objective
Standards, Optional
discretionary
pathways
ORS 197.307(4) &
(6)
OAR 660-008-0015
Cities may only adopt and
apply clear and objective
standards, conditions, and
procedures for housing
development within UGBs.
These may not create
‘unreasonable cost or delay.’
Discretionary pathways for
approval processes must meet
required statutory conditions.
This includes retaining the
option for a clear and objective
process and compliance with
statewide goals. Approval
processes that have
Tigard’s existing Community
Development Code (CDC) is
consistent with these
requirements.
New standards for River Terrace
2.0 must comply with this rule
and provide clear and objective
standards related to housing.
This includes subdivision,
partition, and engineering
standards, where providing
clear and objective standards
can be more challeng ing. Any
discretionary pathways (e.g.,
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 28
ORS/OAR
REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY RELEVANCE FOR RT2.0
discretionary standards must
still at minimum authorize the
same density level in the
applicable zone.
planned developments) must be
optional.
Middle Housing in
Master Planned
Communities
ORS 197.758
OAR 660, Division
46
All cities with a population of
25,000 or more (including
Tigard) must allow “middle
housing” (including duplexes,
triplexes, quadplexes, cottage
clusters, and townhouses) in
‘areas zoned for residential use
that allow for the development
of detached single-family
dwellings’ within a UGB. Siting
and design standards for
middle housing must not
discourage the development of
Middle Housing through
unreasonable costs or delay,
based on specific criteria
defined in rule.
New urban areas like River
Terrace 2.0 have specific rules
that allow cities to regulate
development of middle housing
by allowing development of all
middle housing types in OAR
660-046 and/or providing
urban water, sanitary sewer,
stormwater, and transpor tation
systems that accommodate at
least 20 du/net
acre. Jurisdictions may require
applications for residential
development within new urban
areas to develop a mix of
residential types (including at
least two middle housing types
beyond duplexes). Jurisdic tions
may also provide variable rate
The City of Tigard adopted new
standards to allow for a wider
range of middle housing in
2018 before the requirements
of HB2001 took effect. The City
made additional adjustments to
be in compliance with HB2001
in 2022.
River Terrace 2.0 is considered
a Master Planned Community.
The City intends to allow a full
range of middle housing types,
plan infrastructure for at least
20 du/ac, and require a mix of
housing types. The City may
also consider use of variable
fees for infrastructure in this
area .
The City will need to structure
housing mix requirements
appropriately to ensure that
they meet the requirements of
the rules.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 29
ORS/OAR
REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY RELEVANCE FOR RT2.0
infrastructure fees, SDCs, or
impact fee s to incentivize
middle housing.
Middle Housing Land
Divisions
ORS 92.031
Middle housing land divisions
that meet specific statutory
requirements must be
approved by cities and counties
through an expedited land
division process. This includes
applications that result in
exactly one dwelling unit on
each resulting lot or parcel.
Tigard CDC Chapter 18.840
Sublot Plats is the city’s local
implementation of this
requirement. Middle housing
land divisions must be done
sequentially and cannot be
combined with a partition or
subdivision application under
the current code and state
statute . There is currently
legislation pending that would
allow concurrent middle
housing land divisions with
subdivisions. If passed, the city
could explore streamlining this
process by allowing concurrent
applications .
Planning for partition and
subdivision requirements in
River Terrace 2 .0 should
consider the interaction with
Middle Housing Land Divisions.
Accessory Dwelling
Units
ORS 197.312(5)
OAR 660-046-0205
A city above a population
threshold of 2,500 may not
prohibit the development of at
least one accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) per detached single -
family dwelling.
Tigard meets the threshold for
a Large City (25,000 or more
residents) and may allow ADUs
on parcels with duplexes,
triplexes, or quadplexes.
ADUs are defined as ‘an
interior, attached or detached
Tigard’s Community
Development Code allows for up
to two ADUs per property (one
detached) with standards
regulating their size, height,
setback, and lot coverage. The
City offers a streamlined
permitting process with no land
use approval requirement .
Development standards in River
Terrace 2.0 will also need to
include allowances for ADUs.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 30
ORS/OAR
REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY RELEVANCE FOR RT2.0
residential structure that is
used in connection with or that
is accessory to a single -family
dwelling.’ Jurisdictions must
have ‘reasonable local
regulations relating to siting
and design’ but may maintain
owner -occupancy or off-street
parking requirement s.
Affordable Housing
in Commercial and
Industrial Zones and
Siting
ORS 197.308,
197.286 to 197.314
Local governments are limited
in the standards and conditions
of approval that may apply to
certain affordable housing.
They are required to allow
development of such housing
on lands not zoned for
residential uses and at
increased densities. Affordable
housing 10 owned by a public
agency or nonprofit must be
allowed without a zone change
or conditional use permit on
commercial, religious, or
public land within the UGB.
SB8 (which passed in 2021)
authorized this state rule and
created a statewide density
bonus for affordable housing.
This requires local
governments to approve
heights and densities for
affordable housing either in
consistency with an existing
local afforda ble housing
bonuses or up to 200%
percentage of existing density
Affordable housing development
must be allowed throughout
River Terrace 2.0 including
commercially zoned areas.
State rules for affordable
housing density bonuses must
also apply for any applicable
projects in River Terrace 2.0.
10 defined as properties that are ‘available to own or rent to families with incomes of 80 percent or less of the
area median income… based on information from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development; or the average of all units on the p roperty is made available to families with incomes of 60
percent or less of the area median income.’
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 31
ORS/OAR
REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY RELEVANCE FOR RT2.0
and additional floors. This
incentive is scaled based on
existing density of the
property.
Child Care and
Rental Homes
ORS 90.385,
329A.280,
329A.330
Oregon SB 599 passed in 2023
prohibits property owners from
restricting tenants from using
residential dwellings as a
family childcare home.
Residential dwellings in River
Terrace 2.0 must be permitted
for use as a family childcare
home.
Limited Land Use
Decisions for Zoning
Adjustments
ORS 197.195
SB 1537 was passed by the
Oregon legislature in 2024,
which includes a requirement
for local governments to
approve certain adjustments to
land use regulations for
housing development within the
UGB as a limited land use
decision.
This applies for development of
housing on land zoned for
residential or mixed use that
will do at least one of the
following: enable development
of housing that is not otherwise
feasible (due to cost or delay)
under unadjusted land use
regulations, reduce the sale or
rental price per unit, increase
the number of housing units in
the application, enable
provision of accessibility or
visitability features that would
not otherwise be feasible, or
create affordable units in
alignment with ORS 456.270 to
456.29 5.
Applicable standards may be
adjusted to the extent detailed
These standards for approving
adjustments to land use
regulations for eligible types of
housing development will apply
within River Terrace 2.0. If a
property owner or developer
applies for an adjustment that
meets the criteria, the City
must approve the request. The
city is currently applying for an
exemption to the state process
and would provide for the
adjustments through the land
use process.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 32
ORS/OAR
REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY RELEVANCE FOR RT2.0
in the legislation including
setbacks, landscaping, parking
minimums, minimum or
maximum lot sizes, lot
coverage, building height, and
design standards.
Flexibility for Ground
Floor Commercial
Requirements
ORS 197.195
SB 1537 also requires that
local governments provide
adjustments for housing that
meets certain criteria (see
above) to allow for ground floor
residential uses in commercial
or mixed-use areas that
otherwise require ground floor
commercial. One building face
may retain non-residential
requirements. Currently, these
provisions are scheduled to
sunset on January 2, 2032.
This requirement means that
commercial areas of River
Terrace 2.0 will not be able to
exclude ground floor residential
if it meets the criteria of SB
1537.
Metropolitan
Housing Rule
ORS 197.040
OAR 660-007-0030,
660-007-0035
Jurisdictions in the Metro
region must provide for an
overall minimum density in
their residentially zoned land
and allow for at least 50
percent of new housing units to
be attached or multi-unit
units.
Tigard is included in the list of
cities in the Metro region
required to provide for an
overall density of ten or more
dwelling units per net buildable
acre.
Tigard already complies with
these rules, and the planned
density and mix for River
Terrace 2.0 will ensure the City
maintains compliance.
Sources: Oregon Revised Statues, DLCD Key Housing Statues and Legislation, Tigard Community
Development Code
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 33
Metro Rules
Metro is the regional government body for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington
Counties which assesses the capacity of the urban growth boundary (UGB) at least every six
years and, if necessary, increases it to ensure the region’s capacity for housing and
employment for the next 20 years. Tigard is within Metro’s jurisdiction. Metro’s 2040
Growth Concept is a 50 -year plan for growth in the Portland metropolitan area, adopted by
the Metro Council in 1995.
Metro guides growth and consistency with Oregon Planning Goal 10. Metro does this
through Title 1 its Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). Each jurisdiction
within the Metro area is required to determine its housing capacity and adopt minimum
density requirements that meet Title 1. The U GMFP guides requirements for existing land
and land added to the Metro UGB. Exhibit 2 summarizes key rules related to housing
development and new master planned areas added to the UGB like River Terrace 2.0.
Exhibit 2. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Requirements
UGMFP RULES SUMMARY RELEVANCE FOR RT2.0
Housing Capacity
and Densities
3.07.120(b)
Cities and counties within
Metro must adopt minimum
dwelling unit densities for
each zone in which dwelling
units are permitted (except for
mixed-use zones).
The City of Tigard is compliant
with minimum densities in its
residential development
standards; these must also be
consistent for housing
development in River Terrace
2.0 .
Accessory Dwelling
Units
3.07.120(g)
Consistent with state law
(detailed above) cities within
Metro must allow at least one
ADU for each detached single -
family dwelling and may be
subject to some reasonable
regulation for siting and
design.
Development standards in River
Terrace 2.0 will also need to
include allowances for ADUs in
the master planned area.
Conditions of
Approval
3.07.1455,
3.07.1120,
3.07.620
Ordinance No. 23 -
1488
Land added to the Metro UGB
is subject to specific
conditions, including
assignment of a jurisdiction
for adopting amendments,
comprehensive plans, and
land use regulations to allow
urbanization.
In 2021, the City of Tigard
submitted a proposal to the
Metro Planning Department
seeking to add approximately
490.6 acres of land in River
Terrace 2.0 to the UGB through
Metro’s mid-cycle amendment
process with the concept plan
consistent with Title 11.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 34
Jurisdictions must establish
design type designations
consistent with Metro’s 2040
Growth Concept within two
years.
The City of Tigard is required
to complete a comprehensive
planning process in
coordination with Metro
Planning and Development
staff for land added to the
UGB by Ord. 23 -1488 by
February 2027. This process
must include broad -based and
equitable public eng agement
and address:
• Concentrating mixed -use
and higher density
development in existing or
planned centers
• Increasing use of transit
• Increasing active
transportation options
Conditions of Approval for River
Terrace 2.0 require that the City
plan for at least 3,000 homes in
the newly added area, which will
be added as a Neighborhood in
Metro’s Growth Concept Map .
The City may also propose the
addition of Corridors.
These rules also require that
River Terrace 2.0 must be
consistent with standards
adopted by CWS that reduce and
mitigate erosion impacts caused
by stormwater.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 35
Appendix B. CAC Engagement
Activity
For the third meeting of the River Terrace 2.0 Community Advisory Committee, the group
participated in an activity to consider distribution of different housing priorities. The group
was split into three smaller groups with one staff notetaker for each. Ea ch team was given a
set of markers that had one or more of the housing types on them along with the density
provided. The group was then meant to place the markers on a game board representing
the neighborhood “map” to decide how best they would layout the housing mix for RT2.
They were tasked with considering what housing types should go where and reaching a
housing density of 20 u/a or at least 1,000 units for the whole board.
Housing Activity Discussion Results
GROUP 1
Group 1, placed 1,004 units. Group 1 thought it would be good to place higher density
near the main street. They thought this would make the neighborhood safer, and keep more
people closer to transit. This could be especially helpful for people who are younger and
may be more likely t o take transit. They also thought this could help invite people into the
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 36
neighborhood. Group 1 wanted to keep lower density units (like cottage clusters) further
back in the neighborhood, and provide more family friendly units here. This also means
that the lower density units would be closer to natural areas which would have less of an
impact on wildlife. This also keeps wildlife further from traffic for protection. Density would
be closer to services and parks for better access. A main priority for this group is that the
neighborhood be inviting. They see this in mixed use are as that are welcoming with trees, a
courtyard, and easy access to parks and trails.
GROUP 2
Group 2, placed 1,004 units with one open space for pocket parks. Equal split between
rentals and owner occupied.
Group 2 decided to maximize the number of people who can be near nature/parks and put
higher density here. They used some single family units with ADU throughout. Group 2
really prioritized a mix of height profiles and configurations, with no monolith bloc ks.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 37
GROUP 3
Group 3, placed 1,024 with one free square.
Group 3 placed the housing types that come with greenspace (single detached, cottage
cluster, courtyard) further from the shared greenspaces like parks and natural area. They
would like to provide access to this public greenspace for apartments, multiplex or others
that don’t have their own private area. This group went for a highly mixed neighborhood
with the same types not appearing next to each other. They want a lot of smaller units and
only placed single family units that come with an ADU. They would l ike many ADUs for
elderly family members to be close by. They would also like some ADUs to be near the
commercial areas, so older people or those with disabilities can still access services. This
group suggested that having some of the single family units near the main streets might
also help keep costs down on those units, making it more accessible to lower -income
families.
The priority for this group was mostly on affordability and also climate, but they were not
concerned with market feasibility.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 38
Appendix C . Additional Housing
Strategies
The City of Tigard has additional tools available for supporting development of affordable
housing and diverse housing types desired in River Terrace 2.0 , beyond the priority
recommendations listed in Section 4. Some of these strategies are already applicable for
development citywide.
CET Exemptions & Discounts
Description: In Tigard, ADUs and affordable housing (80% AMI or less) are fully exempt
from the CET (described above); middle housing receives a 75% discount on the CET. These
options slightly reduce the cost of development by approximately 1% of the permit value of
construction.
Impact: CET exemptions and discounts in Tigard intend to incentivize and eliminate barriers
to development types not supported by the current housing market. The amount of the
exemption/discount is relatively small (roughly $1,200 to $2,300 per affordable housing
unit based on typical permit value per unit) but is targeted to housing types that are most
cost sensitive.
Status and Considerations: This tool is available on an ongoing basis for affordable housing,
ADUs, and middle housing in Tigard. The City could consider expanding the full exemption
to middle housing eligible for the Middle Housing Revolving Loan Fund either in River
Terrace 2.0 o r citywide.
References:
• City of Tigard Code, Chapter 3.90: https://ecode360.com/43650013#43650031
• Tigard Affordable Housing Plan, 2019
Nonprofit Low -Income Housing Property Tax Exemption
Description: Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 3.50 allows nonprofit -owned low-income
housing properties to qualify for a property tax exemption. To qualify as low -income, the
initial occupant(s) must have income at or below 60% AMI, then no more than 80% AMI in
the subsequent, consecutive years that they occupy the unit. The exemption application
must be filed annually, but the exemption may last as long as the property qualifies. It can
also apply to land held by nonprofits for future low -income housing development.
Impacts: In 2024, City Council granted exemption to 15 non -profit, low-income housing
owned and operated by Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH), Reach, New
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 39
Narrative, NW Housing Alternatives, and Resident Resources. This reduce d general fund
revenues by $405,235.11
Status and Considerations: This exemption can currently support nonprofit affordable
housing development in River Terrace 2.0, as in the rest of the city. If the City were able to
support a nonprofit in acquiring land in River Terrace 2.0, the exemption would reduce their
holding costs during pre -development.
References:
• City of Tigard Code, Chapter 3.50, https://ecode360.com/43649669
Zoning for Multi -Unit Housing
Description: Most units developed through the most prominent funding source for
affordable housing in the United States today (the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit or LIHTC)
are built as apartments (multi-unit rental housing).12 LIHTC developers generally must
achieve sufficient density to justify pursuing a project, satisfy program requirements, and
attract other public financing sources to make the project financially viable. As a result,
affordable housing development under thi s program typically tends towards larger
apartment buildings. Although regulated affordable housing may come in other forms
through other funding sources (including Oregon’s Local Innovation and Fast Track or LIFT
program), allowing for multi-unit housing and minimizing development barriers in the code
can support affordability goals by ensuring LIHTC -funding projects do not face regulatory
obstacles.
Impact: Zoning that permits multi-unit housing outright can remove regulatory barriers for
income-qualified development. Development would still need to secure land and financing
but would expand the range of sites that could be suitable.
Status and Considerations: This project is establishing zoning for River Terrace 2.0, which
will include specifications for where and how multi-unit housing can be built in the area. This
project will ensure that zoning allows multi-unit development at a scale that is efficient for
LIHTC-funded development, both in commercial areas (where affordable housing must be
allowed under state law) and in some or all residential areas in River Terrace 2.0.
References:
• Wilsonville Frog Pond East and South Affordable Housing Analysis, 2022
• Bend Stevens Road Tract Concept Plan Affordable Housing Memorandum , 2022
11City Council Business Meeting (April 2024),
https://public.destinyhosted.com/tigardocs/2024/CCBSNS/20240402_2323/5465_tax_exemption_matrix.pd
12 Urban Institute 2023 https://www.urban.org/urban -wire/lihtc-provides-much-needed-affordable -housing -not-
enough-address-todays-market-demands.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 40
Incentive Zoning to Support Affordable Housing
Description: Incentive zoning seeks to encourage developers to provide a community benefit
(such as affordable housing), in exchange for the ability to build a project that would not
otherwise be allowed by the code. State law already requires additional regulatory flexibility
and allowances for affordable housing as a baseline, including adjustments to setbacks,
landscaping, parking minimums, minimum or maximum lot sizes, lot coverage, building
height, and design standards.13
Impact: Zoning incentives can support affordable housing development by allowing it to be
built at higher intensity than market -rate development, allowing for land costs to be
distributed across more units, and/or removing other requirements that could increase
development costs.
Status and Considerations: The City already has incentives in its code such as density and
height bonuses and expedited review processes available for regulated affordable housing
(which are now superseded by state requirements). Opportunities for incentive zoning in
River Terrace 2.0 could focus on flexibility on building scale, tree preservation, housing mix,
or other requirements in addition to or instead of maximum density, given that the density
targets for the area are above what is typical for most m arket -rate development.
References
• Tigard Affordable Housing Plan, 2019
• Beaverton Cooper Mountain Community Plan, 202 4
Match-Making & Information Sharing
Description: The City can play a proactive role in c onnecting affordable housing developers
and developers experienced in building middle housing to development opportunities .
Impact: Alleviates some of the capacity burden on smaller and non -profit developers
associated with seeking out opportunities and information. Increases likelihood of executing
on the River Terrace 2.0 vision with intentional outreach to and partnership with deve lopers
aligned with the vision.
Status and Considerations : The City of Tigard has engaged affordable housing developers
and developers experienced in building middle housing in the planning process for River
Terrace 2.0. The City does not currently have full visibility into ongoing land assembly
activity in River Terrace 2.0 but could reach out to property owners to attempt to identify
those that might be willing to partner wi th or sell to a nonprofit or middle housing
developer. In the meantime, preparing developers through educat ion about the vision and
the available funds and incentives is a good starting point.
13 Cities must provide density and height bonuses for affordable housing under ORS 197A.445(9), and
additional flexibility on certain types of standards for affordable housing and other qualifying housing
development as a temporary measure through 2032 pursuant to SB 1537 (2024), Sections 38 -41 .
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 41
References:
• Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan, 2021
Land Acquisition / Site Control
Description: Involves purchasing land for affordable housing with the option to bank the
property for extended periods of time without development plans to preserve for future use
as affordable housing or other strategies to support site control for affordable housing
developers. There are several potential approaches including:
• Purchase properties for the purpose of building affordable housing and convey that
land to affordable housing developers.
• Provide funds (grants or loans) to support land banking done by another organization
(such as a Community Land Trust or affordable housing developer) with the purpose
of building affordable housing in the future.
• Ask the current owner to ground lease the property to the City and have the
development pay for it in future or seek an option on a property rather than acquiring
it outright.
Impact: Site control allows the City to determine the type of development that occurs or to
connect property to a developer that will build in line with the City’s vision. If sites are
purchased early, before land prices escalate fully, this can reduce costs for affordable
housing development. Land acquisition can be a key step in enabling affordable housing.
Considerations : Acquisition requires a funding source, identification of a willing seller, and a
disposition strategy. The City of Tigard has pursued land acquisition and disposition on a
limited basis primarily in existing TIF districts. Acquiring and banking land in th e River
Terrace 2.0 area would require an intentional decision and site selection process before
moving forward. The City could use its funds (e.g., CET, CDBG, or other) to assist.
References:
• Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan, 2021
• Tigard Affordable Housing Plan, 2019
• Wilsonville Frog Pond East and South Affordable Housing Analysis, 2022
• Beaverton Cooper Mountain Community Plan Market Analysis, 2020
• Hood River Affordable Housing Strategy, 2022
Site Readiness & Infrastructure Investments
Description: Funding or construction of infrastructure or other site development actions that
prepare the site for development. The City could identify outside funding sources to pay for
key infrastructure needed to serve sites that are committed to affordable or mixed -income
housing development. The City could also potentially build key infrastructure improvements
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 42
directly to reduce the time and uncertainty associated with infrastructure design, permitting,
and construction.
Impact: City-led site readiness would remove significant costs and unknowns associated
with the pre-development phase and development completion timeline. This strategy is
especially effective for challenging sites with slopes or other difficult -to-develop featur es.
These cost savings for the development can reduce the overall cost of the housing unit(s).
Considerations : This w ould require an outside funding source for infrastructure and a
mechanism to ensure that the sites benefitting from the investment deliver affordable
housing or other needed housing types.
References:
• Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan, 2021
• Hood River Affordable Housing Strategy, 2022
Small Home Construction Incentive
Description: City of Hood River launched a Small Home Construction Incentive that
reimburses small home developers who spend more than 7% of the home’s construction
cost on development fees. The reimbursement is paid when the project is completed and
put on the tax rolls. The incentive is funded with the additional tax revenue generated from
each new home through an existing TIF district .
Impact: SDC rates often do not vary with the size of the home. This can result in small er
home types paying a higher share of construction cost in development fees than a large
single -family home (in Hood River, this was estimated at 14% for smaller homes vs. around
7% for large single -family homes). This incentive remove s an unintended barrier to the
creation of smaller homes that are often more attainable for first -time home buyers.
Considerations: The program is new and untested to date. Tigard could implement a
similar program, but it overlaps with existing programs such as SDC reductions and the
Middle Housing Revolving Loan Fund and may be duplicative of those programs. However,
the City could p otentially use CET funds to further “buy down” SDCs or other development
fees for small housing units in River Terrace 2.0.
References:
• Hood River Newsletter, Fall 2024 : https://cityofhoodriver.gov/addressing -housing-
needs-fall-2024/
Development Fee Reductions for Affordable Housing
Description: Reduce or exempt development fees, such as permit fees , for regulated
affordable housing .
Impact: Reducing or exempting certain development fees or permit fees for affordable
housing can reduce the upfront cost of development. Building permit fees in Tigard can cost
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 43
roughly $500 to $5,000 per unit for residential development given estimated permit values
and current fees. Other fees are variable depending on the specifics of the project.
Considerations: Although this strategy was evaluated in Tigard’s Affordable Housing Plan, it
ultimately was not recommended because its relatively small impact towards reducing
development costs. The Plan found that Permit fees generally represent a lower share of
overall cost to the developer than SDCs, sometimes by a factor of five or more, and
therefore fee reductions will tend to have a proportionately lower impact than SDC
reductions.
References:
• Tigard Affordable Housing Plan, 2019
Tax Increment Financing (TIF District) Infrastructure Investments and
Development Assistance
Description: TIF Districts are tools that allow jurisdictions to make investments that address
identified problems in specifically defined areas based on the growth in property value in the
area. In Oregon, these districts must be established within a geographic bounda ry and
include a corresponding plan and report to be adopted by the local governing body of a
jurisdiction. These materials must demonstrate that the TIF District meets the definition of a
“blighted area”14 and include required elements such as a description of current conditions,
proposed projects, and financial analysis. There are legal limitations on the amount of a
jurisdiction’s area and assessed value that can be included within TIF districts. TIF dist ricts
allow for funding capital investments, including infrastructure and development assistance
programs that encourage private investment in the area.
Impact: A TIF district can provide substantial funding for infrastructure investments and
development assistance programs, depending on its scale and the pace of growth in the
area. Development assistance and infrastructure can be targeted to help overcome barrier s
for new development that meets certain local goals. TIF districts can also support affordable
housing development, but because such development often does not pay property taxes, this
must be balanced against investments that support increases in taxable value to help repay
the investments over time.
Considerations: Tigard currently has two TIF districts in City Center (Downtown) and the
Tigard Triangle. Both have been relatively successful in supporting public and private
investment in these areas through infrastructure investments and development assistance
programs. Given the limitations on TIF, further analysis would be needed to determine
whether an additional TIF district would be possible for River Terrace 2.0. TIF districts in
greenfield areas can be challenging because even with bonding there a re limits on the
jurisdiction’s ability to invest in needed infrastructure or other supports until development
14 “Blighted areas” are defined in ORS 457.010 as “areas that, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning,
inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any
combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community ”
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 44
begins to generate additional property value. However, Hood River adopted a TIF district to
support development in the Westside Concept Plan expansion area that will support
infrastructure investments and development incentives to support middle housing.
References:
• Oregon City Urban Renewal Study, Urban Renewal Development Assistance
Programs, https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/oregoncity -meet-
44ea0f5aad8b4b119f5dfb0d8ff21a64/ITEM -Attachment -001-
4d64654fa22740d48c232abeb3d4e377.pdf
• A New Tigard Triangle, Planning for Equitable Economic Development:
https://www.tigard -
or.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1156/637624825843800000
• Tigard Website, https://www.tigard -or.gov/your -
government/departments/community -development/housing/affordable -housing
• Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 467 – Urban Renewal:
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors457.html
ADU Financing
Description: Collaborate with local nonprofits such as Craft3 to provide affordable loans to
homeowners interested in adding an ADU to existing single -family home lots. Craft3’s loan
programs offer interest rates that vary by household income, with the lowest rates for
homeowners who agree to rent their ADU at an affordable rate to households with incomes
less than 80% of the area median.
Impact: ADU financing could support future homeowners to increase housing options in
River Terrace 2.0. However, lots may to be too small to accommodate ADUs if not included
with the initial development. Lending options have also expanded for homeowners looking
for ADUs since this option was initially considered as a strategy including through
community development financial institutions (CDFIs).
Considerations: City of Tigard already offers SDC and CET exemptions for ADUs as well as a
Revolving Loan Fund for middle housing. The existing resources are aimed at developers in a
greenfield context, whereas a new financing program could target homeowners developing
ADUs.
References:
• Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Concept Plan, 2021
Annexation Agreements
Description: Use annexation agreements to negotiate affordable housing commitments from
property owners when land is later developed. The City can negotiate a form of an
inclusionary policy that is tailored to the greenfield development area and selected
developer’s needs.
Tigard River Terrace 2.0 Housing Plan 45
Impact: The ability to secure affordable housing commitments from property owners
through annexation agreements depends on the circumstances.
Considerations: Effectiveness of a nnexation agreements will be impacted by the timeline for
annexation. The City intends to annex the area all at once, making annexation agreements
unlikely to be a viable option.
References
• Beaverton Cooper Mountain Community Plan, 202 4
The 5 E’s –Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫Environment ⚫Economy ⚫Engagement ⚫Excellence
Presented by Trinity Miller, Associate Planner | June 2, 2025
The 5 E’s –Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫Environment ⚫Economy ⚫Engagement ⚫Excellence
Tigard HOME (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility and Enterprise)
•Long-range planning project will deliver policy and code amendment
recommendations for Tigard’s residential neighborhoods.
•Facilitate flourishing self-contained communities where housing, economic, and entertainment options are easily accessible to a variety of mobility types (walking, biking, rolling).
•Seek community input to determine how to provide community members with more options for entertainment, employment, amenities, services, and housing at a neighborhood appropriate scale.
•Project was awarded grant funds from Metro
The 5 E’s –Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫Environment ⚫Economy ⚫Engagement ⚫Excellence
Purpose and Need
•Public engagement for long range planning projects in Tigard has consistently indicated that residents desire:
•More amenities within walking distance of their home;
•More freedom regarding how they use their home or property;
•More straightforward processes for sharing what they make with their neighbors; and
•More attractive and safe pedestrian connections.
The 5 E’s –Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫Environment ⚫Economy ⚫Engagement ⚫Excellence
•Currently, limited ability to become complete neighborhoods
•Lack of walkable access to commercial amenities, work or services.
•Mitigate potential nuisances and hazards
“Sea of Yellow” Residential Zones
Becoming Complete Neighborhoods
The 5 E’s –Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫Environment ⚫Economy ⚫Engagement ⚫Excellence
This project aims to:
•Bring more nearby shops and services to
neighborhoods
•Expand home and property use options
•Simplify neighborhood business rules
•Create safer, more connected walking
paths
•Reduce climate impacts through a
reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Tigard HOME Goal
The 5 E’s –Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫Environment ⚫Economy ⚫Engagement ⚫Excellence
Outside of Project Scope
•Urban Agriculture & Livestock (Adopted November 2022)
•Employment and industrial areas (Tigard MADE)
•Plan Districts and mixed-use zoning districts
The 5 E’s –Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫Environment ⚫Economy ⚫Engagement ⚫Excellence
Engagement Plan
Hosting Tables Pop-up Events Community Based Organization Outreach Community Dinners
The 5 E’s – Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫ Environment ⚫ Economy ⚫ Engagement ⚫ Excellence
Wednesday, June 18th
5 PM – 7 PM
Universal Plaza
•Join the Community Development staff for a dinner and conversation about the Tigard HOME project!
•Want to help shape self-contained neighborhoods in Tigard?
Upcoming CD Get Together
The 5 E’s – Tigard’s Community Promise: Equity ⚫ Environment ⚫ Economy ⚫ Engagement ⚫ Excellence
Thank you!