Loading...
02/01/2021 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – February 1, 2021 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: February 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: https://www.tigard- or.gov/city_hall/public_hearing_feed.php 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. BRIEFING 7:05 p.m. WASHINGTON SQUARE UPDATE Staff: Senior Planner Susan Shanks 6. BRIEFING 7:50 p.m. RIVER TERRACE II Staff: Senior Planner Schuyler Warren 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:35 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m. February 1, 2021 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, February 1, 2021 Location: Members Remote via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual meeting online: https://boxcast.tv/channel/pyjnvrar8xo1rw6bwbss CALL TO ORDER President Hu called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Hu Vice President Jackson Commissioner Brook Alt. Commissioner Dick Alt. Commissioner Miranda Commissioner Quinones Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Schuck Commissioner (K7) Tiruvallur Commissioner Watson Commissioner Whitehurst Absent: None Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant ; Susan Shanks, Senior Planner; Schuyler Warren, Senior Planner COMMUNICATIONS – None CONSIDER MINUTES President Hu asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the January 25, 2021 minutes; there being none, President Hu declared the minutes approved as submitted. BRIEFING WASHINGTON SQUARE UPDATE Staff: Senior Planner Susan Shanks Susan Shanks introduced herself and went through a PowerPoint (Exhibit A). She explained who the project committee is and noted that the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) is made up of community members, city and county staff, the consultant team, community organizations, business owners and operators, TriMet, ODOT, and Metro staff. She informed the February 1, 2021 Page 2 of 4 commissioners that Commissioner Jamie Watson is a member of the Stakeholder Working Group and that she would be a good resource if the commissioners have questions about the project. Susan summarized the community engagement efforts to date and spoke about their preliminary findings. She noted that they’re planning a very large community outreach in March and April to hear back from folks about what land use and transportation choices make sense for them in the area. She said they were able to conduct interviews not only by staff and the consultants (Verde), but they also reached out to the community using the stakeholder working group members who conducted their own interviews of people in their own networks. This made it very diverse, and the interviews were conducted in English, Spanish and Swahili. 62% of the people interviewed were renters and 38% were owners in this area which is very much in keeping with the renter/owner mix that is representative of this area. It’s not necessarily representative of Tigard but is representative of this area. She went on to explain the various responses they received from the surveys. She noted that in general, people think this is a great place to live – a great location, and a great family neighborhood. They found that people wanted to see better and safer walking and biking as well as more housing options. They wanted more culturally diverse business options and more green space and community recreation center opportunities. After going through the various topics covered on her presentation, Susan noted again that they would be going out to the community in March and April and that at that point, she’ll likely be back with another update. The next step will be producing their set of recommendations, going back to the stakeholder working group with those recommendations and all the public input that they’d received – and then bringing those recommendations back to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. She thought that might happen in the summer or fall of this year. QUESTIONS /COMMENTS There were several questions and comments about various parts of the presentation as well as questions about trends and COVID - and how that plays into the data. There were comments about changes in transportation habits - such as people using Uber and Lyft, and about mixed- and single- use development. BRIEFING RIVER TERRACE II Staff: Senior Planner Schuyler Warren Schuyler Warren introduced himself and noted that as a Sr. Planner he’s working mainly on long-range planning projects. He noted that some of the commissioners had already had at least one briefing on the River Terrace Concept Planning project. This evening he would be providing an update on that, but he said that before that – here at the beginning of the presentation, he wanted to take them back just a bit in time to get everyone acquainted with the area again. To do that he went to the City webpage and spoke using the Story Maps: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0c503d8effe1442989fb366ec21f429e he showed the commissioners exactly what areas he’ll be talking about. The River Terrace 2.0 project will deliver a Concept Plan for River Terrace West and South, and two urban reserve areas also known as Roy Rogers West and East. This concept plan will be compliant with Metro Title 11 February 1, 2021 Page 3 of 4 requirements in support of an application for expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary in summer to fall 2021. He continued with a PowerPoint (Exhibit B). He talked about what all goes into making a Concept Plan and what steps go into drafting one . It begins with collecting community ideas for River Terrace 2.0, which informs the plan. The Concept Plan outlines a broad vision for the area and is the first step in the process for eventual development. A Com munity Plan further refines the vision and provides more specific proposals for future land uses and developments. He noted Community Engagement involved a survey asking the question “What makes a great neighborhood?” (there were 135 respondents), a 12-member Community Advisory Committee, and “Open Office” hours, which is time set aside when he as the senior planner for this project, is available to converse with the community about any questions they may have regarding the plan. The public signed up and it gave anyone interested in doing so an opportunity to ask questions and comment. There were 3 one-hour open office events and 15 participants. The participants were mostly property owners from in and around the urban reserve area. Additionally, there was a public open house. At that open house, they’d presented the preferred alternatives that the design team had come up with for the concept plans. They’d sent out postcards to 27,000 households regarding the open house and also put an AD in “Tigard Life.” They’d had 122 respondents, which was considered a good response. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS Schuyler had requested that the commissioners stop him whenever they had questions throughout the presentation. They’d had many questions and comments throughout the presentation, but at this point there were no further comments or questions. President Hu and other commissioners thanked Schuyler for coming and for bringing so much good information to them. They’re looking forward to him coming before them again with even more updates on the project. OTHER BUSINESS President Hu took this time to go over the whole process of making motions. The commissioners discussed the best way to make these motions. Typically, city staff will give a suggested motion but sometimes the commissioners disagree with staff, so President Hu said it was important that they know how to form their own motions. There was a question about amendments and Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire explained how amendments to motions come about. There was also a question about whether alternate commissioners can make or second motions. The answer was no – but the alternates are invited to fully enter the discussion and give their opinions throughout the meeting. They just can’t make motions, or vote. President Hu reminded the commissioners to not be afraid to make motions. It’s a learning process. One of the commissioners wondered whether someone could be responsible for taking notes throughout the discussion to remind the commissioners what all information was needed to make an informed motion. President Hu sa id that it can feel a bit intimidating to make motions , but as time goes along it gets easier. He noted that five years ago when he first started on the commission, he would have the motion and agenda right in front of him and he would take notes as the discussion carried on. He said it’s up to each commissioner February 1, 2021 Page 4 of 4 to take their own notes on what they’d like in the motion and keep track of pertinent things that were discussed. If they’re nervous about it, he encouraged them to practice making motions beforehand and he told them there was nothing to be worried about and that nobody on the commission was going to “yell” at anyone for making a “wrong” motion or a mistake; it’s a learning process and everyone understands that. They’re among friends and it’s not a big deal if people make do make mistakes. President Hu noted that it’s quite a bit easier to make and vote on motions at “in person” meetings rather than at virtual ones. He hopes the commission will be back to meeting in person safely sometime soon. Commissioner Schuck had suggested that to avoid confusion during these virtual meetings, a roll-call vote might be taken instead of voting by voice. President Hu said he’d rather do the vote by voice if possible. The meeting before this one had had a “split vote” - which was why the Commissioner had brought it up. President Hu said that the next time he calls for a vote, he’ll ask people to vote by voice , but will also ask them to raise their “virtual” hands (an option in the Teams Meeting software). His reason for not wanting to start with a roll call vote is that he doesn’t want commissioners to feel intimidated at all or possibly change their vote mid- stream because of how others had voted. It was decided that during these virtual meetings particularly, voting by voice and raising “virtual hands” is the best way – even if a roll call vote is needed afterwards to clarify. ADJOURNMENT President Hu adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Yi-Kang Hu Planning Commission Meeting Project Briefing #3 February 1, 2021 EXHIBIT A Project Overview Work with project partners and the community to refine the original vision with the goal of facilitating more housing, transportation, and business/employment options that are consistent with Tigard’s strategic vision to be a walkable, healthy, and inclusive community. Project Goal Project is here Project Schedule Project Committee Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) Community Members TriMet, ODOT & Metro Staff Business Owners & Operators Community Organizations City & County Staff Consultant Team Project Team ▪Summarize community engagement ▪Summarize technical analysis ▪Summarize preliminary findings and land use and transportation choices Meeting Objectives Community Engagement Interviews What We Did ▪33 community member interviews ▪Conducted in English, Spanish, Swahili ▪Mix of renters (62%) and owners (38%) ▪26 surveys ▪Most live or work here; others shop ▪Most identify as white Survey What do you like about the Metzger community and Washington Square area? What We Asked/Heard ▪Great place to live ▪Great family neighborhood/community feel What would you like to see change or get better? ▪Better/safer walking and biking ▪More affordable/more family housing options ▪More shopping and culturally diverse options ▪More green space ▪Community/recreation center Technical Analysis & Coordination ▪Analyzed market feasibility of various types and scales of development ▪Completed nonconforming analysis ▪Reviewed zoning code for barriers ▪Held transit-oriented development workshops with Tri-Met & Mall ▪Coordinated with multiple agencies Recent Technical Analysis/Coordination 12 Demand for New Construction Housing (detached house, rowhouse, apartment) Car dealerships (certain locations) Small professional office (medical, dental, etc.) Retail & larger offices (as part of a mixed-use development) Flex/light industrial (warehousing, manufacturing, distribution, etc.) Strong Weak Development Feasibility 2-3 Story Surface Parking / Garages 4-5 Story Surface Parking 6-7 Story Structured Parking 2-3 Story Surface Parking 5-7 Story Structured Parking 8+ Story Structured Parking Feasible Not FeasibleMaybe Feasible Residential Mixed UseResidential Office (Rowhouse, Apartment) Nonconforming Analysis Key Findings & Choices by Subarea Land use and transportation choices: ▪Involve many small changes, with no one overarching theme or big move ▪Move away from vision of vertical mixed- use development everywhere ▪Focus on near-term, achievable, and market-and community -driven outcomes Key Findings and Choices Areas of Focus METZGERNIMBUS/ CASCADE MALL Metzger Subarea –Community Input More green space More affordable and family housing options, and not just apartments Better access to parks and trails and more sidewalks Great neighborhood diversity, more business diversity Metzger Subarea -Findings SW Hall Blvd•Strong residential infill potential for diverse housing •Centrally-located family neighborhood •Businesses buffer residences from Greenburg and provide many local services •Area currently lacks ped connections and infrastructure, useable open space, and good access to Metzger Park, mall, and trails Metzger Park Ash Ck Wetlands •Simplify regulations by reducing number of zones? •Adjust minimum density to better align with market, existing development, and community desires? •Expand Plan District/ Regional Center boundary to east side of Hall Blvd? Metzger Subarea -Choices Metzger Subarea -Choices SW Hall Blvd•Facilitate low-rise residential infill along Hall with commercial node at Locust? •New state law requires missing middle infill housing on large lots •Prioritize new Hwy 217 ped/bike crossing at 95th? •Prioritize new ped/bike connections to Hall & Greenburg? Metzger Park Mall Subarea –Community Input I would like to see more affordable housing for people who don’t earn a lot The mall is very convenient for shopping and it’s family friendly More pedestrian connections to the mall from the neighborhood More stores and green space and less asphalt Better access to transit •Significant redevelopment potential for dense walkable transit-oriented development •Regional shopping destination potentially on verge of major transformation to more complete community – but stakes are high and market is unpredictable •Area currently lacks ped connections and infrastructure, useable green/open space, and good access to Metzger Mall Subarea –Findings Mall Subarea –Findings Mall Subarea –Findings Development Scale Comparison (side by side) Mall Subarea –Findings Development Scale Comparison (merged) Mall Subarea –Choices •Incentivize dense mixed- use development with public amenities? •Allow phased development of different building types consistent with master plan? •Require future street connections? •Prioritize Greenburg crossing improvements for better neighborhood connectivity?Planned street/ped connections TC Mall Subarea –Choices •Provide bus service throughout site rather than at a single Transit Center (TC)? •Move bus layovers elsewhere? •1971 no-build agreement between mall and cemetery -200 feet wide -Approx. 9 acres •Existing surface parking lot •Existing development lacks adequate stormwater facilities •Potential opportunity to amend no-build agreement to convert parking lot to aboveground stormwater facility at time of mall redevelopment for the benefit of all parties and the public Mall Subarea –Potential Opportunity Mall Subarea –Community Input I would like to see more affordable housing for people who don’t earn a lot Better and safer Hwy 217 crossings and access to WES for peds and bikes Fanno Creek Trail is so close, but unsafe to get to without a car Great regional location with easy access to Hwy 217 Too many vacant buildings Nimbus/Cascade –Findings •Strong market potential for new car dealerships and small industrial uses •Home to many small businesses •Area currently has several vacant buildings, many nonconforming businesses, and limited connectivity due to Hwy 217, Fanno Creek, and heavy rail line Nimbus/Cascade –Choices •Adjust zoning to better support small businesses, existing development investments, and incremental site improvements? •Focus on building form and allow more flexibility on uses? −Allow some industrial uses? −Allow car dealerships in locations hostile to pedestrians? (and disallow in existing locations?) •Facilitate good pedestrian environment along Greenburg? 34 Nimbus/Cascade –Choices •Reconsider planned crossing over Hwy 217 and heavy rail? •Explore ped/bike crossing over Hwy 217 and access to regional and local trails to avoid Greenburg interchange? Fanno Ck Trail Access Tigard St Heritage Trail Access Future Bagan Park Closing Remarks Land use and transportation choices: ▪Involve many small changes, with no one overarching theme or big move ▪Move away from vision of vertical mixed- use development everywhere ▪Focus on near-term, achievable, and market-and community -driven outcomes Closing Remarks Next Steps Lots of community feedback! Next Steps Next Steps Thank you. Questions? Planning Commission Briefing and Update on Concept Alternatives February 1, 2021 Una vecindad para todos EXHIBIT B What is a Concept Plan? 2 Community Engagement 3 Participación de la Comunidad Community Engagement •Survey –What Makes a Great Neighborhood? •Online open house with 20 questions related to housing, commerce, and transportation •135 respondents •Community Advisory Committee •Twelve members •Three bilingual meetings so far (three members prefer Spanish). •Parks emphasize natural features such as views and tree groves •Open Office Hours •Three events –one hour each •Total of 15 participants •Public Open House •Preferred Alternatives •Postcards to 27,000+ households •Ad in Tigard Life •122 respondents 4 Updated Project Vision 5 Visión actualizada del proyecto Project Focus Enfoque del Proyecto Focus Statement This work is focused through two lenses that are centrally linked -equity and climate change. You can consider these lenses as a pair of glasses through which this work is conducted and viewed. Like a pair of glasses, they guide the vision of the project. As such, this project seeks to center the voices of communities of color, immigrants, and people with low incomes. These communities are among those most affected by the impacts of environmental inequities, climate change, and systemic racism. When we meet the needs of the most vulnerable communities, the health and wellbeing of all community members improves. 6 Declaración de Enfoque Este trabajo se puede ver a través de dos lentes los cuales están centralmente unidos –equidad y cambio climático. Usted puede considerar esto como un par de lentes a través de los cuales se lleva a cabo y se mira este trabajo. Así como un par de lentes guían la visión de este proyecto. Como tal este proyecto intenta centrar las voces de la comunidad de color, inmigrantes, y personas de bajos ingresos. Estas comunidades están en el grupo que ha sido más afectado por la inequidad medioambiental, el cambio climático, y el racismo sistemático. Cuando cubrimos las necesidades de las comunidades más vulnerables, la salud y el bienestar de todos los miembros de la comunidad mejora. Project Vision Visión del Proyecto Vision Statement River Terrace 2.0 is a neighborhood for everyone and a complete community. It offers housing opportunities to the full diversity of Tigard’s families and households. This community is made complete by providing space for small businesses and a thriving local economy, a variety of housing options, and accessible parks and open spaces. The transportation system treats all modes equally, with walking and biking trails throughout the community, a road system that emphasizes safety and regional access, and a development pattern that supports an efficient public transit system. Public spaces and parks offer places for the community to gather. Natural areas are protected and enhanced to emphasize habitats and scenic views. Public utilities are designed to maximize cost-efficiency and long-term fiscal sustainability. The costs of necessary infrastructure are shared in an equitable manner.7 Vision Statement River Terrace 2.0 es una comunidad completa y un vecindario para todos. Ofrece oportunidades de vivienda a la diversidad de familias y hogares de Tigard. Lo que hace completa a esta comunidad es el espacio que provee para empresas pequeñas y una economía local próspera, una variedad de opciones de viviendas, y acceso a parques y a espacios abiertos. Todos los modos de transporte se tratan de la misma manera, con senderos para caminar y andar en bicicleta a través de la comunidad, un sistema de caminos con énfasis en la seguridad y al acceso regional, y un patrón de desarrollo que apoya un sistema de transporte público eficiente. Los espacios públicos y parques ofrecen lugares para que la comunidad se congregue. Las áreas naturales están protegidas y realzadas para dar énfasis a los hábitats y paisajes. Los servicios públicos están diseñados para maximizar la eficacia y disminuir el costo, así como la sostenibilidad fiscal a largo plazo. Los costos de la infraestructura necesaria son compartidos de manera equitativa Project Principles Guiding Principles •Neighborhoods & Housing •Neighborhoods provide a diversity of housing choices that will serve the full range of housing needs for Tigard’s current and future residents •Neighborhoods integrate opportunities for market rate and regulated affordable housing to facilitate home ownership at all income levels •Neighborhoods are designed to thoughtfully incorporate adjacent natural areas and commercial centers •Neighborhoods are designed to provide opportunity for an average of twenty households per acre •Transportation •The transportation system emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle connections within the neighborhood and to regional trails •Streets are designed for safety and to serve all modes of transportation, including vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit •The transportation system connects to regional facilities and extends existing streets and trails where feasible and economically viable 8 Project Principles Guiding Principles •Commercial and employment •Commercial areas provide opportunities for business and employment to serve River Terrace residents •Residents can acquire many goods and services to meet their daily needs without having to travel long distances •Parks and open space •Community and neighborhood parks are located throughout River Terrace and provide a range of gathering and recreating options •Parks are accessible and connected to commercial centers and neighborhoods by trails and multi-modal streets •Parks emphasize natural features such as views and tree groves •Natural resources •Natural resources are protected and enhanced to the maximum extent practicable •Habitat corridors are maintained to support wildlife ranging and migration patterns 9 Citywide Housing Preference Survey Results 10 Recomendaciones de tipos de viviendas a través de la ciudad 11 0%20%40%60%80%100% Lack of affordable housing is an important issue in Tigard. La falta de viviendas económicas es un problema importante en Tigard. Tigard needs greater variety of housing in terms of housing types and prices. Tigard necesita una mayor variedad de viviendas en términos de tipos y precios de viviendas. Share of Survey Takers Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements. Indique que tan de acuerdo esta con las siguientes afirmaciones. Strongly Disagree Totalmente en desacuerdo Somewhat Disagree Algo en desacuerdo Neither Agree nor Disagree Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo Somewhat Agree Algo de acuerdo Strongly Agree Totalmente de acuerdo 60% somewhat or strongly agree 63% somewhat or strongly agree 12 0%20%40%60%80%100% Single people can find housing they can afford in Tigard. Las personas solteras pueden encontrar una vivienda que puedan pagar en Tigard. Young families can find housing they can afford in Tigard. Las familias jóvenes pueden encontrar una vivienda económica en Tigard. Share of Survey Takers Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements. Indique que tan de acuerdo esta con las siguientes afirmaciones. Strongly Disagree Totalmente en desacuerdo Somewhat Disagree Algo en desacuerdo Neither Agree nor Disagree Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo Somewhat Agree Algo de acuerdo Strongly Agree Totalmente de acuerdo 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Location || Ubicación Not enough large homes || No hay suficientes casas grandes Not enough housing for rent || No hay suficientes viviendas para alquilar Not enough small homes || No hay suficientes casas pequeñas Amenities || Servicios Not enough accessible homes || No hay suficientes viviendas accesibles Not enough housing for sale || No hay suficientes viviendas en venta Cost || Costo Number of Survey Takers Which factors make it most difficult to find housing in Tigard? ¿Qué factores más dificultan la búsqueda de vivienda en Tigard? 14 When thinking about a place to live, what type of living situation would you prefer? Al pensar en un lugar para vivir, ¿qué tipo de vivienda preferiría? I would prefer to own the place where I live. Preferiría ser dueño del lugar donde vivo. 93% I would prefer to rent the place where I live. Preferiría alquilar/rentar el lugar donde vivo. 6% I don’t know No lo sé 1% 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Age or overall condition of home || Edad o estado general del hogar Parks, open space, or trails || Parques, espacios abiertos o senderos Price of home || Precio de la vivienda Trees and natural features || Árboles y características naturales Front or back yards || Patio delantero o trasero Off-street parking || Estacionamiento fuera de la vía pública Size of home || El tamaño de la casa Safe streets and sidewalks || Calles y aceras seguras Number of Survey Takers who Identified Features as “Extremely Important” or “Very Important” When thinking about a place to live, what features are most important to you? Al pensar en un lugar para vivir, ¿qué características son más importantes para usted? 16 17 CAC and Survey Results Key Ideas •Housing •Demand for more affordable housing and housing variety •Residents can acquire many goods and services to meet their daily needs without having to travel long distances •Transportation •Safe, slow streets •Walkability and destinations •Transit needs to be neighborhood scale •Economy •Local businesses desired •Grocery store needed •Neighborhood scale, pedestrian friendly •Large surface parking lots not desired 18 Preliminary Concepts 19 Metas y conceptos iniciales River Terrace 2.0 –Concepts Conceptos Alternativos 20 21 River Terrace 2.0 –Concept A River Terrace 2.0 –Concept A Housing Types and Neighborhood Design 22 •Near the commercial center is larger housing forms like multi-story apartments and condominiums potentially mixed with small office, retail, and community services •Moving away from the commercial center, housing transitions to a mix of rowhouses, triplexes, and quads •Closer to the natural edges are areas with smaller housing forms such as single- detached houses, duplexes, small cottages, and courtyard apartments, all with a maximum height between 1 and 2.5 stories tall River Terrace 2.0 –Concept A Commercial Activity and Character 23 •Large retail anchor with smaller shops surrounding, located to maximize visibility and access from major streets. •This development type lends itself to “horizontal” mixed, use, with single-story commercial located near multi-story residential. This results in larger buildings with surface parking lots that can be occasionally be used for community use (e.g. farmers' markets, festivals, etc.) •Commercial center draws visitors and users from both within the neighborhood and from the larger area of Tigard, Beaverton, and King City. River Terrace 2.0 –Concept A Transportation 24 •Transit route would most likely run along Scholls Ferry, Roy Rogers, and/or Beef Bend, with stops at the commercial centers and along the major roads. •Commercial centers would include large surface parking lots. •Pedestrian and bicycle connections in the neighborhood would include trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes, and would connect to the rear of the commercial area. 25 River Terrace 2.0 –Concept B River Terrace 2.0 –Concept B Housing Types and Neighborhood Design 26 •Housing forms are between 1 and 3 stories throughout. However, taller, 2-3 story building form and “stacked” housing types will likely be concentrated along the corridors, with the majority of lower 1-2 story form and side by side housing types dispersed elsewhere in the neighborhoods. •A mix from block to block of narrow lots, rowhouses, single-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes, small cottages, and single-story courtyard apartments. •Few or no large apartment buildings, more likely to be located along the corridors. •Focus on pedestrian experience with garden-character frontage, planted stoops, and traditional front porches. •Homes front on common greens (shared green space) in addition to streets •Garages are located on alleys where possible. River Terrace 2.0 –Concept B Commercial Activity and Character 27 •Traditional “streetcar suburb” main street with nature nearby. •Few or no large commercial developments, with an emphasis on neighborhood activity. •Intimate pedestrian-scale signage, outdoor merchandising, and sidewalk gathering spaces. •Some small civic spaces like plazas and libraries could be included along the main street. •A mix of smaller-footprint storefronts, offices, and services, some with residential living above including live-work. •Smaller ground floor commercial spaces can be combined in multiple bays for greater flexibility. •Flexible mix of uses along the main streets, with a mix of on-street parking for customers and off-street parking for employees. •Parking lots behind buildings. •Opportunity for gateway treatment where neighborhood corridor meets major streets. •Natural areas are visually incorporated into the core areas. •Rain gardens, native plants, and art could populate the main street River Terrace 2.0 –Concept B Transportation 28 •Main streets are friendly to all modes of transportation, with wide sidewalks, bike lanes, auto lanes, and transit stops. •Transit service could be provided at the edges of the neighborhood along Sholls Ferry, Roy Rogers, and/or Beef Bend OR it could be provided within the neighborhood along the "main street" corridors. •Off-street paths for pedestrians and bicycles connect at the main street for easy access 29 River Terrace 2.0 –Concept C River Terrace 2.0 –Concept C Housing Types and Neighborhood Design 30 •There is a difference between size of housing from the center to the edge of the neighborhood •Largest housing forms are at the center, and include a mix of rowhouses and mid-size apartments that are 2 to 3 stories tall and “stacked” dwelling units. •Moving away from the center, housing types get smaller in form, with quadplexes and single-story courtyard apartments transitioning eventually to single-detached houses, duplexes, and cottages. •The border of development with natural areas is soft and gradual (“feathered edges”) •Shared open space, greens, preserved tree groves, small parks, and natural habitat areas are mostly at the edges of the neighborhood. River Terrace 2.0 –Concept C Commercial Activity and Character 31 •Commercial uses in the centers are most likely to be small retail, offices for residents who telecommute or use flex space, and some neighborhood services like barbers, salons, and small medical offices. •There is a greater opportunity for “live-work homes” for entrepreneurs. •Smaller ground floor commercial spaces can be combined in multiple bays for greater flexibility. •“Pop up” and seasonal markets like farmers' markets may offer event-oriented retail. •Greater potential for small food cart clusters, incubator business space, and co-working opportunities River Terrace 2.0 –Concept C Transportation 32 •Transit service is most likely internal only, with stops at the neighborhood center where commercial activity is centered, connecting to regional transit routes at the edges of the neighborhood. •Trailheads and easy access to nature is built into the neighborhood, with off-street trails and sidewalks connecting the center to the natural edges of the neighborhood. •Commercial activity does not generate much out-of-area traffic, with most workers and patrons of the area coming from within the neighborhood. Preferred Alternative 33 Alternativa preferida Preliminary Preferred Alternative •Commercial/employment center in RT West •Neighborhoods are organized around a Main Street corridor •Main Street balances livability and internal focus with external connections and access. •Flexibility for future north-south collector road •All neighborhoods achieve an average of 20 units per net acre •Connection at Beef Bend reflects and connects with town center in King City concept plan •Achieves parks LOS standard, flexibility for location •Maximum flexibility for transit •Street corridor in center of neighborhood 34 35 Project Schedule 36 Calendario del proyecto Verano 2020 Inicio: Recopilar información sobre la consideración ambiental del transporte, las necesidades de servicios públicos, las necesidades de parques / espacios abiertos, las necesidades de vivienda y las demandas del mercado para el proyecto. Otoño temprano 2020 Análisis preliminar:Evaluar la información preliminar sobre las consideraciones del proyecto. Otoño/Invierno 2020 Exploración de alternativas:Crear escenarios de planes conceptuales alternativos. Invierno 2021 Selección de alternativas:Seleccionar una alternativa preferida con la opinión pública de las partes interesadas. Invierno posterior/Primavera temprana 2021 Alternativa preferida:Refinar el análisis de proyectos y los informes técnicos para la alternativa preferida. Principios de la primavera de 2021 Informe del Plan Conceptual:Elaborar el Informe del Plan Conceptual que debe ser revisado por las partes interesadas. Finales de primavera / principios del verano de 2021 Proceso de Adopción Pública:Implementar el proceso final de revisión pública / adopción para el Plan Conceptual. Thank You Gracias Schuyler Warren schuylerw@tigard-or.gov | 503.718.2437 River Terrace 2.0 –Concepts / Conceptos 38 Project Schedule and UGB Application •Metro has a regularized 6-year cycle for UGB expansion requests (2018, King City West) •There is also a mid-cycle application for UGB expansions which occurs this year •No more than 1,000 acres across the entire Metro region •Must be for residential use, with some “supportive services” •Metro staff has communicated that the level of commercial inclusion should be very low •River Terrace South •Needs to come in with mid-cycle to maximize efficiency and coordination with King City’s Community Plan •More likely to develop earlier due to adjacent development •River Terrace West •Intended to have a higher level of commercial land than South due to advantageous topography •Would not be eligible for mid-cycle at those levels •Will have a completed concept plan and will be eligible to apply in 2024 39 Fiscal Impact of Residential Land •From a 2018 to the Budget Committee by Finance Director LaFrance: •Cost of Community Service studies (COCS) show that residential parcels demand more in services than they generate and that the opposite is true for employment land •An aggregate study of 125 (COCS) by Yale shows that the average residential property demands $1.18 in services for every $1.00 generated in revenue and the average employment land parcel demands only $0.44 in services for every $1.00 it generates in revenue •From 2003 to 2018, Tigard’s share of residential parcels grew from 67.0% to 70.3% because 80 percent of the parcels added over that 15 years were residential, making the financial sustainability for Tigard more difficult. •To make South and West River Terrace financially neutral, in isolation, then 30% of the new parcels (not acreage) need to be employment parcels. •To make all of River Terrace in total more financially sustainable for Tigard, then more than 30% of the new parcels (not acreage) in South and West River Terrace need to be employment parcels. 40 Page 1 of 2 City of Tigard Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Susan P. Shanks, Senior Planner Re: Washington Square Regional Center Update Project Briefing #3 Date: January 25, 2021 for February 1, 2021 Meeting The Washington Square Regional Center Update Project has been officially underway for a year. This is staff’s third briefing to Planning Commission on the project. As a reminder, the purpose of th is long-range planning project is to work with community stakeholders and project partners to refine the original vision —which is now over 20 years old—with the goal of facilitating more housing, employment, and transportation options that are consistent with Tigard’s strategic vision to be a walkable, healthy, and inclusive community. The project is doing this by: • Facilitating diverse community input that is representative of the area’s population. • Working with businesses and residents to understand community priorities. • Analyzing and responding to emerging market trends. Since the last briefing on this project in June 2020, the project team gathered community input and built project awareness, produced a video to help community members understand the basics of zoning, and completed all of the technical work listed belo w. The video is available in English and Spanish and can be found at https://www.tigard-or.gov/zoning. The following technical documents can be found at https://www.tigard-or.gov/thesquare/. • Background and Conditions Report • Market Analysis Report • Subareas Opportunities Memo • Displacement Risk Memo • Ped Bike Transit Audit • Utility Audit • Code Audit (not yet posted) • Development Feasibility Memo (not yet posted) Page 2 of 2 With most of the technical work completed, the project team is currently developing draft land use and transportation choices for community consideration. The draft choices will reflect what the project team has learned from the technical work and heard from the community through Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) meetings, in-depth phone interviews, and an online survey. SWG and project team members conducted a total of thirty-three interviews in English, Spanish, and Swahili. Additionally, twenty-six stakeholders completed the online survey. The project’s SWG met in December 2020 to review the draft choices and provide preliminary feedback. The project team will use this feedback to refine the draft land use and transportation choices before developing detailed graphic materials to explain them to the broader community in early 2021. Some of the land use choices being developed by the project are considering the following questions: • What can we do to support small businesses and make the most of our employment lands? • Where does it make sense to facilitate dense transit-oriented development? • Should auto-oriented uses like car dealerships be allowed in certain locations? Some of the transportation choices being developed by the project are considering the following questions: • Does the planned Highway 217 overcrossing make sense in its current location? • Should the TriMet Transit Center stay in its current location? • Where should we focus our efforts to improve conditions for walkers and cyclists? To both formulate and answer some of these questions, the project team has worked closely with its project partners, including but not limited to staff from Beaverton, Washington County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. The project team also led a 3-part transit-oriented development (TOD) design workshop with TriMet and Macerich, owners of the Washington Square Mall. The purpose of the workshop was to understand the mall’s future development vision, explore different transit service options, and generally identify shared goals. During the upcoming briefing, staff will highlight key findings from the project’s community engagement efforts, technical work, and TOD explorations and preview some of the land use and transportation choices being developed. Planning Commission Meeting Project Briefing #3 February 1, 2021 Project Overview Work with project partners and the community to refine the original vision with the goal of facilitating more housing, transportation, and business/employment options that are consistent with Tigard’s strategic vision to be a walkable, healthy, and inclusive community. Project Goal Project is here Project Schedule Project Committee Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) Community Members TriMet, ODOT & Metro Staff Business Owners & Operators Community Organizations City & County Staff Consultant Team Project Team ▪Summarize community engagement ▪Summarize technical analysis ▪Summarize preliminary findings and land use and transportation choices Meeting Objectives Community Engagement Interviews What We Did ▪33 community member interviews ▪Conducted in English, Spanish, Swahili ▪Mix of renters (62%) and owners (38%) ▪26 surveys ▪Most live or work here; others shop ▪Most identify as white Survey What do you like about the Metzger community and Washington Square area? What We Asked/Heard ▪Great place to live ▪Great family neighborhood/community feel What would you like to see change or get better? ▪Better/safer walking and biking ▪More affordable/more family housing options ▪More shopping and culturally diverse options ▪More green space ▪Community/recreation center Technical Analysis & Coordination ▪Analyzed market feasibility of various types and scales of development ▪Completed nonconforming analysis ▪Reviewed zoning code for barriers ▪Held transit-oriented development workshops with Tri-Met & Mall ▪Coordinated with multiple agencies Recent Technical Analysis/Coordination 12 Demand for New Construction Housing (detached house, rowhouse, apartment) Car dealerships (certain locations) Small professional office (medical, dental, etc.) Retail & larger offices (as part of a mixed-use development) Flex/light industrial (warehousing, manufacturing, distribution, etc.) Strong Weak Development Feasibility 2-3 Story Surface Parking / Garages 4-5 Story Surface Parking 6-7 Story Structured Parking 2-3 Story Surface Parking 5-7 Story Structured Parking 8+ Story Structured Parking Feasible Not FeasibleMaybe Feasible Residential Mixed UseResidential Office (Rowhouse, Apartment) Nonconforming Analysis Key Findings & Choices by Subarea Land use and transportation choices: ▪Involve many small changes, with no one overarching theme or big move ▪Move away from vision of vertical mixed- use development everywhere ▪Focus on near-term, achievable, and market-and community -driven outcomes Key Findings and Choices Areas of Focus METZGERNIMBUS/ CASCADE MALL Metzger Subarea –Community Input More green space More affordable and family housing options, and not just apartments Better access to parks and trails and more sidewalks Great neighborhood diversity, more business diversity Metzger Subarea -Findings SW Hall Blvd•Strong residential infill potential for diverse housing •Centrally-located family neighborhood •Businesses buffer residences from Greenburg and provide many local services •Area currently lacks ped connections and infrastructure, useable open space, and good access to Metzger Park, mall, and trails Metzger Park Ash Ck Wetlands •Simplify regulations by reducing number of zones? •Adjust minimum density to better align with market, existing development, and community desires? •Expand Plan District/ Regional Center boundary to east side of Hall Blvd? Metzger Subarea -Choices Metzger Subarea -Choices SW Hall Blvd•Facilitate low-rise residential infill along Hall with commercial node at Locust? •New state law requires missing middle infill housing on large lots •Prioritize new Hwy 217 ped/bike crossing at 95th? •Prioritize new ped/bike connections to Hall & Greenburg? Metzger Park Mall Subarea –Community Input I would like to see more affordable housing for people who don’t earn a lot The mall is very convenient for shopping and it’s family friendly More pedestrian connections to the mall from the neighborhood More stores and green space and less asphalt Better access to transit •Significant redevelopment potential for dense walkable transit-oriented development •Regional shopping destination potentially on verge of major transformation to more complete community – but stakes are high and market is unpredictable •Area currently lacks ped connections and infrastructure, useable green/open space, and good access to Metzger Mall Subarea –Findings Mall Subarea –Findings Mall Subarea –Findings Development Scale Comparison (side by side) Mall Subarea –Findings Development Scale Comparison (merged) Mall Subarea –Choices •Incentivize dense mixed- use development with public amenities? •Allow phased development of different building types consistent with master plan? •Require future street connections? •Prioritize Greenburg crossing improvements for better neighborhood connectivity?Planned street/ped connections TC Mall Subarea –Choices •Provide bus service throughout site rather than at a single Transit Center (TC)? •Move bus layovers elsewhere? •1971 no-build agreement between mall and cemetery -200 feet wide -Approx. 9 acres •Existing surface parking lot •Existing development lacks adequate stormwater facilities •Potential opportunity to amend no-build agreement to convert parking lot to aboveground stormwater facility at time of mall redevelopment for the benefit of all parties and the public Mall Subarea –Potential Opportunity Nimbus/Cascade– Community Input I would like to see more affordable housing for people who don’t earn a lot Better and safer Hwy 217 crossings and access to WES for peds and bikes Fanno Creek Trail is so close, but unsafe to get to without a car Great regional location with easy access to Hwy 217 Too many vacant buildings Nimbus/Cascade –Findings •Strong market potential for new car dealerships and small industrial uses •Home to many small businesses •Area currently has several vacant buildings, many nonconforming businesses, and limited connectivity due to Hwy 217, Fanno Creek, and heavy rail line Nimbus/Cascade –Choices •Adjust zoning to better support small businesses, existing development investments, and incremental site improvements? •Focus on building form and allow more flexibility on uses? −Allow some industrial uses? −Allow car dealerships in locations hostile to pedestrians? (and disallow in existing locations?) •Facilitate good pedestrian environment along Greenburg? 34 Nimbus/Cascade –Choices •Reconsider planned crossing over Hwy 217 and heavy rail? •Explore ped/bike crossing over Hwy 217 and access to regional and local trails to avoid Greenburg interchange? Fanno Ck Trail Access Tigard St Heritage Trail Access Future Bagan Park Closing Remarks Land use and transportation choices: ▪Involve many small changes, with no one overarching theme or big move ▪Move away from vision of vertical mixed- use development everywhere ▪Focus on near-term, achievable, and market-and community -driven outcomes Closing Remarks Next Steps Lots of community feedback! Next Steps Next Steps Thank you. Questions? City of Tigard Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Schuyler Warren, Senior Planner Re: River Terrace 2.0 Concept Planning Date: January 26, 2021 Background This memo provides guidance as OTAK prepares a revised scope and fee for the River Terrace South and West Concept Plan project. Project Purpose The River Terrace 2.0 project will deliver a Concept Plan for River Terrace West and South, and two urban reserve areas also known as Roy Rogers West and East. This concept plan will be compliant with Metro Title 11 requirements in support of an application for expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary in summer to fall 2021. Working with the community advisory committee and other stakehol ders, the project team has developed several early public -facing work products: a project focus statement, a project vision statement, and project guiding principles. The project team has also developed three concept alternatives that are guided by these c ollaboratively generated guiding principles. Project Focus This concept planning work is focused through two lenses that are centrally linked - equity and climate change. These lenses can be considered as a pair of glasses through which this work is conducted and viewed. Like a pair of glasses, they guide the vision of the project. As such, this project seeks to center the voices of communities of color, immigrants, and people with low incomes. These communities are among those most affected by the impact s of environmental inequities, climate change, and systemic racism. When we meet the needs of the most vulnerable communities, the health and wellbeing of all community members improves. Vision Statement River Terrace 2.0 is a neighborhood for everyone an d a complete community. It offers housing opportunities to the full diversity of Tigard’s families and households. This community is made complete by providing space for small businesses and a thriving local economy, a variety of housing options, and acces sible parks and open spaces. The transportation system treats all modes equally, with walking and biking trails throughout the community, a road system that emphasizes safety and regional access, and a development pattern that supports an efficient public transit system. Public spaces and parks offer places for the community to gather. Natural areas are protected and enhanced to emphasize habitats and scenic views. Public utilities are designed to maximize cost -efficiency and long- term fiscal sustainability . The costs of necessary infrastructure are shared in an equitable manner. Guiding Principles Neighborhoods & Housing • Neighborhoods provide a diversity of housing choices that will serve the full range of housing needs for Tigard’s current and future re sidents. • Neighborhoods integrate opportunities for market rate and regulated affordable housing to facilitate home ownership at all income levels. • Neighborhoods are designed to thoughtfully incorporate adjacent natural areas and commercial centers. • Neighborhoods are designed to provide opportunity for an average of twenty households per acre. Transportation • The transportation system emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle connections within the neighborhood and to regional trails. • Streets are designed for safety and to serve all modes of transportation, including vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. • The transportation system connects to regional facilities and extends existing streets and trails where feasible and economically viable. Commercial and employment • Commercial areas provide opportunities for business and employment to serve River Terrace residents. • Residents can acquire many goods and services to meet their daily needs without having to travel long distances. Parks and open space • Community and neighborhood parks are located throughout River Terrace and provide a range of gathering and recreating options. • Parks are accessible and connected to commercial centers and neighborhoods by trails and multi-modal streets. • Parks emphasize natural features such as views and tree groves. Natural resources • Natural resources are protected and enhanced to the maximum extent practicable • Habitat corridors are maintained to support wildlife ranging and migration patterns. Concept Alternatives Working collaboratively across disciplines, the project team developed three concept alternatives that were intended to address the project focus, vision, and guiding principles. Concept A includes three large commercial centers in highly visible locations at the edge of the neighborhood along major roads. Community parks are located near the nodes. Larger housing types surround the centers and taper to smaller housing at the natural edges. Concept B emphasizes three internal main street corridors that connect to the major perimeter streets. Community parks are typically located at the ends of corridors and provide connections to natural areas. Housing sizes and forms are generally more uniform throughout, although there is variation from block to block. Concept C focuses on three smaller, internal neighborhood centers that connect outward to major streets. Parks are located near centers and provide connections throughout. The largest housing forms are near the centers with lower -profile housing at the natural edges. Public Comments Several opportunities for public input have been planned and complete to date. • Three meetings of a Community Advisory Committee • Four meetings of a Technical Advisory Committee • A public survey • A Spanish-language focus group • Two open office hours sessions with planning staff • An online public open house on the three concept alternatives Project Timeline The next step in the project will be to select and refine a preferred concept alternative. This preferred concept will most likely include some elements from the other concept alternatives, so that the result is a blended concept. This alternative will und ergo final analysis and be presented to the Planning Commission and Council in the form of a concept plan report for adoption later in the spring prior to the urban growth boundary application.