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.