06/07/2010 - Packet Completeness Review
TIGARD for Boards, Commissions
and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Planning Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
O U). -2010
Date of Meeting
I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record.
Doreen Laughlin
Print Name
ce":":\-7D.
Signature
8-17-11
Date
" City of Tigard
E d
Planning Commission Revised Agenda
TIGARD
MEETING DATE: June 7, 2010; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS—7:02 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:05 p.m.
5. WORK SESSION— 7:10 p.m.
DOWNTOWN DESIGN BOARD DISCUSSION
6. WORK SESSION—7:30 p.m.
PACIFIC HIGHWAY VISION PRESENTATION
7. OTHER BUSINESS —8:oo p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT—8:15 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—JUNE 7, 2010
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of1
!Pi " City of Tigard
TIGAf D Memorandum
To: President David Walsh and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
Re: Formal Designation of Planning Commission Downtown Design Review
Advisory Committee
Date: May 26, 2010
The Downtown Design Code Amendments,which took effect in February 2010, include
provisions for a Type III Discretionary Design Review process. This process provides a
"safety valve" for well-designed projects that can't meet the clear and objective standards.
The review criteria (the Building and Site Design Objectives) are broad statements that could
be achieved in multiple ways. Photos are provided that show development that exemplifies
the design objective. A new review body, the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB), is
designated as the review authority and has discretion in deciding whether an application
meets the criteria. The body would issue the final order,with findings and conclusions, to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications.
One option for establishing the Design Review body proposed at the Planning Commission
workshop on October 5, 2009,was to designate a subcommittee of the Planning
Commission as the review authority for applications using the Type III process. Staff
recommends this option. However, the City Council will need to take formal action allowing
the Planning Commission to delegate decision making authority to a subcommittee. The by-
laws of the Planning Commission authorize the Commission to appoint Advisory
Committees for the consideration of special assignments, but not to delegate decision
making. As an interim measure until the City Council formally authorizes the Planning
Commission to designate a subcommittee to serve as the legal review authority, staff
requests the Planning Commission designate an Advisory Committee as the DDRB.
If the Planning Commission agrees with this course of action, three current Planning
Commissioners,with backgrounds in architecture and design, have expressed an interest in
serving on the Advisory Committee/Subcommittee: Commissioner Karen Fishel, and
alternate Commissioners Richard Shavey and Donald Schmidt. The minimum membership
of the Advisory Committee/Subcommittee could be set at three,with more slots open if
there is interest among Planning Commissioners. Meetings will be scheduled on Mondays
when Planning Commission is not in session.
1
At some point in the future, a separate Downtown Design Review Board, independent from
the Planning Commission,will be created, but in the short to mid-term a designated
subcommittee would be the most efficient way to have a review authority in place.
Potential Issues:
• In the short term, there may be few applications for Downtown development to
bring to the subcommittee. Even when development activity returns to "normal"
levels, it is thought that most applicants will use the clear and objective standards
track with a decision by staff. The Advisory Committee/Subcommittee can meet in
the next few weeks to review the criteria (the Building and Site Design Objectives),
decide on procedures, and discuss other issues. This will be in place in anticipation
of applicants who want to use the process. Another potential task is to provide
advice for future revisions of the clear and objective standards of the Downtown
code.
• To retain a core number of Planning Commission members with architectural and
design experience, these disciplines could be specifically recruited for in future
openings (keeping within the Tigard Municipal Code's limit on more than two
members being engaged in the same kind of occupation, business trade or profession
(Chapter 2.08)).
2
City of Tigard
TIGAf D Memorandum
To: President David Walsh and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager
Re: Pacific Hwy Corridor Vision Document
Date: May 26, 2010
In January 2009, the City of Tigard engaged the University of Oregon Portland Urban
Architecture Research Laboratory (PUARL) to produce a document visualizing how the
Tigard Pacific Highway corridor could be transformed by High Capacity Transit (HCT).
The project was worked on by students, professors, research assistants and City staff over a
period of four semesters. A physical model was also created showing the existing conditions
of the corridor potential future development.
The Pacific Highway Corridor Urban Design Vision is intended as a tool to be used in future
planning work for the 4.5 mile length corridor. The project is not a "plan" but rather an
illustrative tool to use in making future land use planning and transportation decisions. It is
intended to be an informed starting point for guiding the future of the Pacific Highway
corridor.
The accompanying executive summary consists of two chapters: I) Findings and
Recommendations and II) Future Form of the Corridor.
I. Findings and Recommendations:
The study's findings and recommendations about the corridor are organized into the following
categories: 1) national and regional trends;2) transportation; 3)land use; 4) economics and
market; 5) urban design; and 6) environment.
Findings: In general, the Pacific Highway corridor is traffic congested and unable to function
well as either a high capacity transportation corridor or commercial marketplace. Competition
from more convenient and accessible commercial formats (such as Washington Square and
Bridgeport Village), changing demographics and markets, and the need for alternative
transportation will be the major factors in shaping the corridor's future urban form.
1
Recommendations: The recommendations of the study include the following:
Transportation
• The need for a high capacity, uncongested, mobility corridor cannot be reconciled
with the highway's commercial businesses' desire for unrestricted access. This
requires developing short, medium, and long range transportation and land use
solutions,including high capacity transit, to ensure the corridor's future
transportation and economic viability.
Land Use
• A much wider range and higher density of mutually supportive land uses are needed,
including medium and high density housing, employment, commercial, professional
services, institutional, and civic uses.
Economics and Market
• Further study is necessary regarding regional market trends including, but not limited
to, retail, entertainment and residential preferences, as well as employment and
economic trends at the state and national levels.
Urban Design and Environment
• Businesses and property owners, the City of Tigard, and ODOT should cooperate on
a sustained effort to increase the appearance and overall aesthetics of the corridor on
both public and private properties.
II. Future Form of the Corridor
The study divided the corridor into three sections: 1) Tigard Triangle (1-5 to Hwy 217),
2)Viaduct/Central (Hwy 217 to Watkins Avenue), and 3) South Tigard (Watkins Avenue to
Durham Road/King City). In these three areas, a total of 12 potential station areas are
identified. Future urban form was envisioned in the short term (5-10 years), medium term (10-
20 years), and long term (20-50 years).Within each of these areas, the study makes specific
urban design proposals based on the above categories. These are illustrated in the executive
summary.
The document was presented to City Council on May 11, 2010. Images from the project, as
well as the physical model will be used at public engagement forums, such as for the Tigard
High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan. It will also be used as a tool for discussion with
regional and local partners.
2
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 7, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner Anderson;
Commissioner Doherty;
Commissioner Fishel;
Commissioner Gaschke;
Commissioner Hasman;
Vice President Vermilyea; and
President Walsh (7).
Alternate Commissioner Schmidt; and
Alternate Commissioner Shavey (2)
Absent: Commissioner Caffall; Commissioner Muldoon (2)
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director;
Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; and
Doreen Laughlin, Senior Administrative Specialist
Others Present: Marland Henderson, City Councilor
Carolyn Barkley
3. COMMUNICATIONS
There will be a first meeting of the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee
(UFMPCAC) on Wednesday,June 9th. Alternate Commissioner Don Schmidt will be in
attendance.
It was noted that a short discussion regarding the possible removal of a commissioner will
occur at the end of the agenda under "other business".
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\6-7-10-2 WS's-Downtown Design Board;Pac Hwy Vision Presentation\Records Division Packet\4-tpc minutes 6-7-10.doc
Page 1 of 4
4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES
May 17th Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the May 17th minutes; there being none,Walsh declared the minutes approved
as submitted.
5. WORK SESSION —DOWNTOWN DESIGN BOARD DISCUSSION
Redevelopment Project Manager, Sean Farrelly, said he was here to ask for the
commissioner's help. He noted that in February, 2010, the Downtown Design Regulations
took effect. The regulations included two paths.
1. An application could be approved with clear and objective standards —which would
be a staff decision.
2. An alternate path—Type 3 discretionary decision—the review body would be a new
review body called the Downtown Design Review Board.
Farrelly said the Downtown Design Review Board would have the authority to issue final
orders, conditions of approval, etc. In the next 3 to 5 years staff believes the most efficient
way would be to set up a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. The long-term goal
would be to have an independent design review board but staff believes it's not likely to be
necessary in the next 3 to 5 years so a sub-committee would most likely be the best way to
go. Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Shavey, and Commissioner Schmidt have
expressed a willingness to participate on the board. Meetings would be scheduled on
Monday nights when the Planning Commission is not in session. He asked that any other
commissioners who may be interested in serving on this committee identify themselves, as
they would be more than welcome. This review board would be designated as an advisory
committee.
There was some discussion as to the Review Board protocol. Farrelly noted this group will
meet a few times in the summer to go over the process and review the design criteria and be
ready in the event an applicant chooses to use this path.
The question was asked whether Farrelly was looking for a motion and a formal
recommendation to Council or if the Planning Commission has the authority to create an
advisory committee. Farrelly answered that they have the power to create an advisory
committee. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with this direction then they could
declare the Advisory Committee tonight and then staff would go to Council and ask them to
allow the Planning Commission to delegate review authority to this committee, in which
case, it would no longer be an advisory committee but would be a sub-committee with
review authority. It was decided they would do this.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\6-7-10-2 WS's-Downtown Design Board;Pac Hwy Vision Presentation\Records Division Packet\4-tpc minutes 6-7-10.doc
Page 2 of 4
6. WORK SESSION —PACIFIC HIGHWAY VISION PRESENTATION
Sean Farrelly explained that he was going to present to the commissioners the study "Pacific
Highway to a Sustainable Future,"which is an urban design vision for the future of the
Pacific Hwy/99W Corridor. It was inspired by the City's desire to have High Capacity
Transit (HCT) in the Corridor but not totally dependent on that. The idea is to improve the
look of the Corridor regardless of whether HCT comes in or not. He pointed out a model
that he'd set up which was only 1/4 of the model (it's in four sections). He expects the model
will get a lot of use this summer when public outreach regarding the HCT land use plan will
be starting up. At this point, Farrelly went over a PowerPoint presentation on the "Pacific
Highway to a Sustainable Future" (Exhibit A). The presentation is an Executive Summary
of the Tigard 99W Corridor Urban Design Vision.
There was a brief time of questions and comments in which both Sean Farrelly and Ron
Bunch responded. It was pointed out by one commissioner that history supports that real
estate value is attached or determined by how close the property is to transportation.
The question was asked "What does staff want from the Planning Commission regarding
this?" Farrelly answered, "We want your continuing involvement in this project. We'll be
coming back to brief you on the High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan as it develops. We'll
keep you up-to-date on what's going on as important stakeholders in the process."
7. OTHER BUSINESS
President Walsh reminded the commissioners that they'd all received a questionnaire to help
in developing the pertinent training from Elaine Cogan of CoganOwensCogan (COC), and
encouraged them to return the questionnaires to Elaine Cogan. He asked Doreen Laughlin
to send a "gentle reminder" to the commissioners via email to help this happen.
Walsh reminded the commissioners that the next meeting would include a public hearing on
the Transportation System Plan.
Commissioner Vermilyea gave a heads up that he may need to resign from the Planning
Commission due to him possibly moving outside the City of Tigard. He said it wasn't certain
but that he'd keep the commissioners posted. [Note: After the meeting, Laughlin double-
checked the Planning Commission membership requirements and found that Tigard
Municipal Code 2.08.020 Appointment-Membership states "The City Planning
Commission shall consist of nine members, not more than two of whom may be
nonresidents of the City, to be appointed by the Council to serve a term of four years." So,
since everyone presently on the commission are residents, his moving out of the jurisdiction
wouldn't be a problem.]
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\6-7-10-2 WS's-Downtown Design Board;Pac Hwy Vision Presentation\Records Division Packet\4-tpc minutes 6-7-10.doc
Page 3 of 4
There was a short discussion about the Planning Commission personnel issue. President
Walsh said he was pleased with the [email] recap from Craig Prosser/Susan Hartnett. He
thought they covered it well. He asked if anyone had questions about the process. There
were none.
Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, gave a brief talk about how members of
boards and commissions are representatives of the City and the City very much values its
reputation. He noted that a more detailed code of conduct for boards, commissions, and
committees will soon be drafted and presented.
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm.
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President David Walsh
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\6-7-10-2 WS's-Downtown Design Board;Pac Hwy Vision Presentation\Records Division Packet\4-tpc minutes 6-7-10.doc
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 7,2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner Anderson;
Commissioner Doherty;
Commissioner Fishel;
Commissioner Gaschke;
Commissioner Hasman;
Vice President Vermilyea; and
President Walsh (7).
Alternate Commissioner Schmidt; and
Alternate Commissioner Shavey (2)
Absent: Commissioner Caffall; Commissioner Muldoon (2)
Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director;
Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; and
Doreen Laughlin, Senior Administrative Specialist
Others Present: Marland Henderson, City Councilor
Carolyn Barkley
3. COMMUNICATIONS
There will be a first meeting of the Urban Forestry Master Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee
(UFMPCAC) on Wednesday,June 9th. Alternate Commissioner Don Schmidt will be in
attendance.
It was noted that a short discussion regarding the possible removal of a commissioner will
occur at the end of the agenda under "other business".
I;\1.RP1,N\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\6-7-10\ipc minutes 6.7.10.Aoc
Page 1 of 4
4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES
May 17th Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the May 17th minutes; there being none,Walsh declared the minutes approved
as submitted.
5. WORK SESSION—DOWNTOWN DESIGN BOARD DISCUSSION
Redevelopment Project Manager, Sean Farrelly, said he was here to ask for the
commissioner's help. He noted that in February, 2010, the Downtown Design Regulations
took effect. The regulations included two paths.
1. An application could be approved with clear and objective standards—which would
be a staff decision.
2. An alternate path—Type 3 discretionary decision— the review body would be a new
review body called the Downtown Design Review Board.
Farrelly said the Downtown Design Review Board would have the authority to issue final
orders, conditions of approval, etc. In the next 3 to 5 years staff believes the most efficient
way would be to set up a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. The long-term goal
would be to have an independent design review board but staff believes it's not likely to be
necessary in the next 3 to 5 years so a sub-committee would most likely be the best way to
go. Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Shavey, and Commissioner Schmidt have
expressed a willingness to participate on the board. Meetings would be scheduled on
Monday nights when the Planning Commission is not in session. He asked that any other
commissioners who may be interested in serving on this committee identify themselves, as
they would be more than welcome.This review board would be designated as an advisory
committee.
There was some discussion as to the Review Board protocol. Farrelly noted this group will
meet a few times in the summer to go over the process and review the design criteria and be
ready in the event an applicant chooses to use this path.
The question was asked whether Farrelly was looking for a motion and a formal
recommendation to Council or if the Planning Commission has the authority to create an
advisory committee. Farrelly answered that they have the power to create an advisory
committee. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with this direction then they could
declare the Advisory Committee tonight and then staff would go to Council and ask them to
allow the Planning Commission to delegate review authority to this committee, in which
case, it would no longer be an advisory committee but would be a sub-committee with
review authority. It was decided they would do this.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\6-7-10\tpc minutes 6-7-10 doe
Page 2 of 4
6. WORK SESSION — PACIFIC HIGHWAY VISION PRESENTATION
Sean Farrelly explained that he was going to present to the commissioners the study "Pacific
Highway to a Sustainable Future," which is an urban design vision for the future of the
Pacific Hwy/99W Corridor. It was inspired by the City's desire to have High Capacity
Transit (HCT) in the Corridor but not totally dependent on that. The idea is to improve the
look of the Corridor regardless of whether HCT comes in or not. He pointed out a model
that he'd set up which was only 1/4 of the model (it's in four sections). He expects the model
will get a lot of use this summer when public outreach regarding the HCT land use plan will
be starting up. At this point, Farrelly went over a PowerPoint presentation on the "Pacific
Highway to a Sustainable Future" (Exhibit A). The presentation is an Executive Summary
of the Tigard 99W Corridor Urban Design Vision.
There was a brief time of questions and comments in which both Sean Farrelly and Ron
Bunch responded. It was pointed out by one commissioner that history supports that real
estate value is attached or determined by how close the property is to transportation.
The question was asked "What does staff want from the Planning Commission regarding
this?" Farrelly answered, "We want your continuing involvement in this project. We'll be
coming back to brief you on the High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan as it develops. We'll
keep you up-to-date on what's going on as important stakeholders in the process."
7. OTHER BUSINESS
President Walsh reminded the commissioners that they'd all received a questionnaire to help
in developing the pertinent training from Elaine Cogan of CoganOwensCogan (COC), and
encouraged them to return the questionnaires to Elaine Cogan. He asked Doreen Laughlin
to send a "gentle reminder" to the commissioners via email to help this happen.
Walsh reminded the commissioners that the next meeting would include a public hearing on
the Transportation System Plan.
Commissioner Vermilyea gave a heads up that he may need to resign from the Planning
Commission due to him possibly moving outside the City of Tigard. He said it wasn't certain
but that he'd keep the commissioners posted. [Note: After the meeting, Laughlin double-
checked the Planning Commission membership requirements and found that Tigard
Municipal Code 2.08.020 Appointment-Membership states "The City Planning
Commission shall consist of nine members, not more than two of whom may be
nonresidents of the City, to be appointed by the Council to serve a term of four years." So,
since everyone presently on the commission are residents, his moving out of the jurisdiction
wouldn't be a problem.]
There was a short discussion about the Planning Commission personnel issue. President
Walsh said he was pleased with the [email] recap from Craig Prosser/Susan Hartnett. He
h\LRPI.N\Planning Canmission\2010 PC Packets\6.7-10\tpc minutes 6-7-10.Aoc
Page 3 of 4
thought they covered it well. He asked if anyone had questions about the process. There
were none.
Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, gave a brief talk about how members of
boards and commissions are representatives of the City and the City very much values its
reputation. He noted that a more detailed code of conduct for boards, commissions, and
committees will soon be drafted and presented.
8. ADJOURNMENT
President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm.
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commi ..'o Secretary
I•" S Irresident Dav'd Walsh
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2010 PC Packets\6-7-10\tpc minutes G-7-l0.doc
Page 4 of 4
_4r.,::: ,...-01 - .
orv.
ii, litet- ...,....
, ....sees, lei
,_ _Af- do I liirr*.'Alt I. 6W
if‘tA111,;°‘' I
oil
.4...), .., .
II 1116.
I
ill
1 N \\,, ..
_ I 1
'','',, L i.
::----f----.
J
7
----\ ' ', N )
14/1100 .41
Pa to a Sustainable Future
.. i J hwa Y
• .
/ ri Tigard 99W Corridor
I
%-b--
t Ell ---- Urban Design Vision
uMwstar7%
or ORT.CON Executive Summary,May 2010
Tigard Planning Commission Presentation
June 7, 2010
Introduction
• The Pacific Highway Corridor Urban Design Vision
is intended to bean informed starting point for
future planning work to improve the corridor.
• It communicates a vision of potential
redevelopment brought about by High Capacity
Transit to local and regional decision-makers, and
stakeholders.
• The project is not a "plan" but rather an
illustrative tool to use in making future decisions.
Introduction
. . _
......„, to ....... .-. - . .t, -
• The City engaged the "; �. _1. I,� ,
University of Oregon .,.•�.. :�' �'" ■�
Y g E
. � .' t -_ :�+�1��b. rte
Portland Urban Architecture -r,,,, ,,,),.
Research Laboratory , irz 1
to demonstrate how the . ,1 � J; �► 74 �s - ��•
livability of the corridor could - 4 .\ � sy Ry` ,- A
be improved with HCT , N � ` �: _ ,.
• Study Area.
4.5 mile corridor Ia
. go CI. .
a rox. 2000 acres c - ,0; 7, <. w .��r. .`id•
` '
• No specific alignment of f: �., `. ',� - l:, z .., • 4.— • _
HCT assumed ; ;.i ' _ If !
yr• ' ar �
: • .w ,AI
Regional Context
_,_ , • g . _
/ •
�� BA Q� It
F-
� RD l OwF
HWy O q
CpN i
Aloha ; `-\ �, BEAVERTON 1 HILLSDD4 • \
�O\FzO I I Z _ 4 N�IY
1G i .. , Beaverton° . i Y
f •
Coopef - Q I e."' �O I
;Mtn' '`
cc 00.f�,°� m 1 4 ii
�O � - 1 / .•
FERR't;- i'•%' r' ®"' `n
1O Bull Osvae4 ,4 II Mtn
_. r
5� ;r _/--�-._ c y._40000 (:),. .King ��
City -
O
Rivera:ove- _ A�
• T�.-tin�'�,� '�„ �- ,!,
O� _. -1-1-49.673, Rive, 2 '.1
S
North'Alignm_ent u_ 49
•
High i Transit Ca act p Y
.__
TANASBOURNE R•; r ,,r,r
_._u--
ORENCO HOLLYWOOD
�CE NTRAL—� 84 FA
'y CEDAR MILL C I 1 Y - VAI L'.:'AY
• i' - kr�
SU`rJSET TC ROCk:WO6b'
D ALOHA 1 / _ —' • 20
_ei..........._. .........„------.20 -___ _ 1 . ?)
BEAVERTON rt 0� uyl li_I
"�
RALEIGH HILLS HILLSDAL I LENTS 1 FO STEP
(99� �� PLEASANT VALLEY)
•WASHINGTON SQ WEST PORTLAND W' Il �•
II HAPPY VALLEY
„I.71 1
\MILVVAUKIE 1
_4....0:3,
CLACK a�
Potential plan nGARD : -1 i--_
p MURRAY!$CHOLLS a1Ge+f�•influence area J ? l
Bug +/ � - I I DAMASC
Scho+:s — -- �.
LAKE GROVE Southwest Metro
KIN CITY Corridor Refinement I —(
1 / ; Plan area
I
s. f ,,
+ -100.10 L E G E N D
I .�/
♦�� ` High capacity transit
TUAI4TIN f_ G �
( ;J T o Existing
''� SHER `OOD r +` L z WEST_t NN � 'c ® Under advancement
a¢
z t'3
.y 4 �� 2040 Design Types
— s 3 wESr uNN [ ] Central City Main Street
Pri 7‘)
[_] Regional Center Corridor
i \ �- - Town Center
[
Urban growth
-- -�'-r-- 1 I ,� f boundary
(� OWILSONVILLE I
i Om. zsml Smi Q , March2010
Corridor Findings
_ , ,i1 _, . .
. _ . . _ •• In general the Pacific `' Y i • . ,-,�. ; -
g
Highway corridor is J:it
traffic congested and _ ,
\ ► -= �-
j 1 R
unable to function well ,,
' ",..PIlirift
as either a high capacity
transportation corridor T
or commercial '�
marketplace . = _ -
1
I '
L,. _pea ,
III
Corridor Findings
Findirup
4. Findings: Local Conditions and Circumstances
1.TRANSPORTATION c.)The auto oriented strip Almost all land uses fall within the broad
commercial development 'general commercial"category of the
_---_- - a.)Pacific Highway is dominated pattern is not conducive to other standard zoning code lexicon consisting
. by the automobile. transportation modes: almost exclusively of retail,eating and
- - I The configuration of land uses along A ong Pacific Highway and other auto drinking establishments,entertainment.
g - '6i Pacific Highway is the result of dominated corridors.automobile access auto repair,motels(transient lodging),
i -_-F e I: !-Tapp. development responding to design to businesses,and ease of parking,is of and personal services. Within the
I - e- p� requirements imposed by the autonobi'e. primary importance. The result is that the commercial strip there is traditionaily very
_ j Businesses have been arranged focus on accommodating automobiles little permanent housing,public parks,
_ - _: ---- ---_____ to account for speed of cars,and has almost eliminated the pedestrian. open space,civic,institutional,or public
convenience of access and parking, bicyclist,and transit user from the education land uses.
Figure 17.Pacific Highway's multiple lanes of traffic and limited pedestrian crossings create rather than the aggregation of land uses. environment.
edge'cor, 1, rc
The typical commercial strip,like Pacific
r _ Highway,was not developed to function 3.ECONOMICS AND MARKET
- — - as a destination,but to rely on capturing 2.LAND USE
' - a small percentage of large volumes a.) In its current form.some
r ..,,t` -pf',j.. � 'r•ier of traffic.Conversely,the traditional a.)The auto dominated strip of today's strip commercial
r. downtown relied on aggregating land corridor on Pacific Highway development on Pacific Highway
.,,,. , _ Y _ • uses so that customers could make one represents a highly fragmented may not be economically viable
�+...._r_.. a--_ _ — - ••— e,I�l1 •_.-7 stop serve many purposes. land use pattern: in the long run:
7-Wm! ' - - . . law..-- Strip commercia-businesses are often Many business properties along Pacific
---� - � -- - - b.)Pacific Highway is in danger developed to stand alone. This does Highway and other auto oriented
y/' 7? i of becoming an edge between not create synergy with surrounding corridors are showing their age. Many
Figure+5.inters:ate Avenue.n.ts current form'aid,��g�:ra;C is a wen developed seam the west and east parts of businesses and other land uses.An buildings have obviously transitioned
Tigard.(Fig.17-18) example is that these businesses are through several different uses over the
When commercial corridors are of a most often oriented away,and even years. Also,numerous vacancies are
certain size,typically six to seven travel walled or fenced off.from surrounding apparent- Competition from other types
lanes,and allow speeds in excess of 40 residential land uses. These conditions of retai'formats,the business cycle
miles per hour,they become barriers,or require each business to have its (recessions),and problems of traffic
edges.between parts of a community own access and parking.producing a congestion all contribute to the sense
This type of road creates districts that highly fragmented,low density.land- that some parts of the Pacific Highway
have much less interaction between one use pattern. Getting around in this Corridor are not thriving as business
another than would otherwise occur. environment requires vehicle travel. locations.
The exception is the occasional strip
In many ways,the large scale and ma.l that offers compatible goods and Some real estate economists have noted
geographic extent of Pacific Hwy also services,i.e.hardware and consumer nationwide trends.such as changing
t, . . , forms a formidable barrier. However, goods,groceries,cleaners.coffee shops, incomes,demographics,and consumer
i r, - there still exists the opportunity to ensure restaurants.etc.(Fig.19) Still,the expectations are likely out of step with
that the corridor becomes a`seam' duration of stay in these locations are much of the commercial strip's offerings.
• '~r � that knits the east and west parts of the typically much more limited than a ful. As above,these and other conditions
0 ,-• - � ` �- community together This is especially service,high amenity life-style center, may affect the long term economic
' :` possible as the prospect of high capacity shopping mall,or an intact downtown. viability of the traditional auto-oriented
transit(HCT)unfolds,and the viability commercial strip.
of other transportation modes such as There is a characteristic absence of land
Figure 19.Tigard Marketplace shopping center has many stores that offer compatible goods commuter rail,bus,walking,and biking use diversity within the Pacific Highway The recession of 2007-2010 has also
and services. improves. and other commercia;corridors like it. changed consumer spending habits.
CI
Corridor Findings
The corridor's future urban form will be shaped by:
• Competition from more convenient and accessible
commercial formats
• Changing demographics and markets
• The need for alternative transportation, -, , ,._,
__________
_____,.. _
iiiiii .......„
__
---,--:,--_ -, -
..,,,„,,,w-/...._, ...--
- ...._.v.n.74,---g---I._.... ■....ve,
_ ____
v
- �.�;
Recommendations
IFindin.s & Recommendations
Overall Corridor Vision
5. Recommendations
• 1.TRANSPORTATION .11Jt i• -
Overall Vision -1 • - f
a. Recognize that ODOT's need for a .� Iga
The Vision for the Pacific
high capacity,uncongested,mobility • se,. • • ' r■; , TtV ^•
Highway Comdor is a Comdor cannot be reconciled with the r k L y
highway's commercial businesses' - :t.. •a Vii. I /" i,� 4ii■
prosperous and high amenity I _ �
desire for unrestricted access to _ jp�
urban environment made up Pacific Highway. This requires ' I • 9•of a wide range of mutually developing short,medium,and long J • I J• •p '` 4M`
supportive residential, range transportation and land use far �� di I I) I Y "7/ f
commercial,employment and solutions,including high capacity ■ I a • / •
civic land uses. Served by an transit,to ensure the Corridor's future f 1 I n�1 !�4 4r.:Figure 26.High Capacity Transit Bus Rapid $` -
e�cient and safe multi-modal transportation and economic vitality. Transit in Eugene 11'• �• • I• M
transportation system that (Figs.26-28) � ` ` I 1•^ vj - •rf A-,0.. /# I���
provides easy and safe access �' I "- -"ih' •• „ /' �"��
b. Adopt land use regulations and t,W',•j •\, i %
to all parts of the Portland P I ;y ° " f _ '
design standards that require multi- •.hy, •. - \�.••...mat
Metropolitan Region. modal transportation connectivity I t ' ' SAS .-
The Pacific Highway Corridor �- , i
between land uses when new erg . •. l /is envisioned as a destination 1 I I r�; ��i�tti
development occurs.Concurrently, 1'I / .\:_
where people choose to live, develop a long term program to _' -••.1 h I � -
work,and visit because of its connect neighborhoods to existing
(^iii t•.
transportation advantages and development through appropriate - - _- -—- - -__- Figure 29.Site plan of an envisioned development at Canterbury Square with increased
central location in the Portland connections. (Fig.29) - pedestnan and auto connections to existing single-family residential neighborhoods.
Metropolitan region,and its high - -
level of livability and employment c. Develop and implement local
street connectivity plans between Figure 27.High Capacity Transit:Light Rad �.;;It
opportunities. The Corridor i`ity W Transit
will be a place where residents the various districts along Pacific ? %�
Highway to reduce congestion i _
and workers can easily access i
and promote the economic and _ _ __ i -': � 'l••,.
required goods,services,and transportation synergy of land uses. K
leisure opportunities without ' ._t ,. ..g:. �, f
reliance on an automobile." \ r ,d
d. Implement the recommendations of I s . . A., _ rP I ,-
Ultimately,when it is fully the Tigard 99W Improvement and s7 t
developed,the Pacific Highway Management Plan as a short,and i \. ,
Comdor will serve as a national mid-term solution to improve the I ' :.1 I..�,I r g " K:'4',...'•.* _ ,' i^ }t r,,t•model of the transformation of appearance,safety,capacity,and "'=- t y� ,es••-•.'I l ,,- r •T. '4.P�.,s' t.•an auto dominated commercial usability for transit and other modes. s ova r • { •� '-.,?•(.4 i i i J
corridor into a healthy,vibrant t : 1�'" , l.(:�I•• 1 J , :\0<\ q S d d t y r h�1,-,,,•and economically sustainable i f'WP ,l ■, rt ✓ F a r •r ' t 4•urban environment that _� n r _ r'"e _ - ---
accommodates thousands of ti'rt. �l ^t,i
jobs and households." "'
Figure 26.Envisioned high capacity 1=14 station road t ha Vied Stied area
MI
Corridor Recommendations
• Transportation:
The need for an uncongested, mobility corridor cannot be reconciled with
the highway's commercial businesses' desire for unrestricted access. This
requires developing short, medium, and long range transportation and land
use solutions, including HCT, to ensure future transportation and economic
viability.
• Land Use:
A much wider range and higher density of mutually supportive land uses are
needed.
• Economics and Market:
Further study of regional commercial market trends and residential
preferences, as well as employment and economic trends at the state and
national levels, is needed.
• Urban Design and Environment:
Stakeholders should cooperate on a sustained effort to increase the overall
aesthetics of the corridor on both public and private properties.
,
•-
Three Corridor TRIANGLE ---
o $tit 24 r, ,
,0'1 2,4 9zr iSita _A.., vir
Sections •'4,.it:I, ;.' ..(%1
s an
ik /-l5I•
•,
, tcaL,:::•t di..*I:■0;s0
Hall Blvd , i. i
i
.
we .40;ori ,
, . . •iL v
•- 40V:, I, '. i c :
CENTRAL/ --..,,,- • :;- -..., t•-- • x Mt's'L-.
Ni„41:---1,0•'"•tik;' ,vi. ' Of. •
VIADUCT „,„6.--:-..;..k. ,: ::- , 9 s!..., ,• , •
, *.i.. r.,9e ,, lee.-,,sj I
• . . :4>.,. ./ .••4.;
• • ...• ' •• ...., ..)N , , ..r.is .....* -,,,
,
',..-/. /:' • ::-i.../* 44., •' , ,41,. ...,it,,„
lisb WN`':"! : N .:i•V' ,,' 4 ' ...1.1/11 ,-- 4.- •:11,'-jv i) '
' .t ,)''' ' -t %. - • 9
•• „../ , • • . ct a r :
• '- 4i, I.:- ,. 4- •• . 'otallit g'Z' %• Ca- I
Gaarde St. -- , .
. .-, - . • . .
- gi, „. .. ' . ' ff g,•,\1,, t— ,-, I
t a I
4PF"' . '..' ' -- --' s ■ %
• ' 4 -:,.,
-5 2.- '
A":; ..--
,IS, I '
\
.I. =
.,...
1
...,..... ••
■ •
s •
• • r
I I
% %% 41"i
‘ • '
f 1' •.;:? '!::::u
Ave. Down tow
- n------------ •
. Q , „.
111 i.$ Watkins
. .,.
.
r--
1
,,, . r _.„,
, ,er 4 SI:eii.... I
McDonald St.
,' riff ,
,
etsfe`? . - •,'
,t4.
if:, ,IriiV.A % SOUTH
.:! . I; ,
V:i. 461i,„ _f, lis TIGARD
•jece,4 igl,2 •7!
•'4 7".-'" 1 ' Durham Rd.
w . •„.."p10 I
1 0 I
Twelve " Lx
Triangle `.•• l ;s •Jr '�.
•
Opportunity 7.Downtown/Viaduct • U /'
•
••
•
Sites •
8.Walnut Street •
• 1.Interstate 5
9.Watkins Avenue o • •
?-^ ,
2.SW 69th Avenue
y r
10.McDonald/Gaarde h • ~ • t., .•
Street r 3.SW 72nd Avenue
11-Canterbury • •t , ,
Squar r '? '
12.Durham i . ,•,' 4.SW Dartmouth Street
Road! ,,} �--:- - - central/
Ring City 7.. . ' Viaduct
;? `' _5.Highway 217
•4,-t.c74� 4i 6.Hall Bcu:evard
N I
x { 'P S
,K ,• .4
4/,•";• , • . f••
South Tigard
It: ' W u
t
Future Form of Corridor
5::,,wrax:•overnr levevo or PacZ:H1rAaj )-5!o Hwy 217.
' .. . 11.1 .....•..iiAlle . ' . •,`‘
.'—' - '--.1r ."•-.' -- si . N . V -- ••••-
-•--.-•__. • •. .-Asi-r, .... ""` - ., • 6:• _iiit.: I
TIN,
.I.:. - • •z--.7.4 , ,..; ' k t '•......, . .... _ -, - , . N.. ...._ - • ■, -
I i. ••‘, 4...-
---.N. Nvi i - -",\ .......%■ri i \ • t- .• 11.1
1 1
'''... ......."- .. *4.809 :-.7.-,.- .,. .... ..•;. .647.2a.
.. ... ..""' ..'
S. .... ••••••. .......... %. ... •••.
'1..
:
""."111111111111111 ..' 4. ' 1..
IV 41.0410p ea ,
1 ■ ‘111161.
I e
IP ill •
5-10 years I 10-20 years 20-50 years
. s . .... ....;,:.....-,:x... -- ....._, , . ,„ • Is
-lip ila lle ...n
- ?a-yr.-4::.4",t - ....44 ;A.. . 14. -.... .•
, ,7„-.1 •• • •.......-:$4" 4. ...---4 - %1; as 41k "//
.,.--•, I . .• •_....... _... __,,,, , elip.- -1, ..
1. 1.3.•. S .°4.#i
-,.• -V ji. { ,i; „, ft*`'...:,..../..:-.&.A r .1.e. j:i 1 )1:10.14;4* 4;:irtit i •.-eis 1 i 3 ie
li/I".;f _,:i; t'• .04. ...ft. 7.•••‘....?it., r ari :1 t 4-. r, , .-.....lir, 0 4,, ,.,ro lit. 7 r.1 ,..1,r . . • 4.4•110. 4.la
• • - 11 r,1 ...•.'I %,411,117. ..• 1 1 i trg..r <I a 1m
IT,
'a• -- '1•11 496 %. • ; . %,"V‘ *- it%ii 1....$ . db do, A„ . ...,0., .111 ;446. .. 1 4‘.414, .....is%.
Ix..• . • .. .
*:- NO IL -""" rer • I. Is r
et- 1 . - _ v. •1111 I . li Ill. I VA Illst re:8111
4100 .,.. .
..• .
ca•fer:F.:or Area Par°00 1-:.25,1 rars,or.^7anon N.T.1 a Ft):,A•ea
Tigard Findings
TRIANGLE-,�: o r ___„i w,
•Has the greatest potential for ® ��a
' t
transformation by HCT _ � � `
,�. I � t,to ' �, �,Ily°�, '
F :NSw� � In� �
Hwy 217 646_4,0;itt _ 1 eti_ r !` I-5 '
F � / i
'Currently limited to an Floor <- ��y- ' ''„,
__ III I'll.l�l d ♦ _
Area Ratio of 0.4 due to s ' --a� , i ��.i ®` r •
potential traffic impacts on %,♦ ir,J8gr
, i road facilities. ♦, t-J i
/ 0,
L7[f_e_j1®
•HCT in conjunction with '
l /L�az��Y :1,1-11141 o 1 other measures would likely .....,,En
r-
these traffic issues.
L. i
■ u
• I i sl r
GI '
, \
1-5 Interchange
Tigard Triangle /7/ / / \ X
Redevelopment ' -- ,...ps --.3.--,, ,,...„._ -...4-------,......_,
,,,. _.- ---- , ., . ...
•Establishing a synergistic
mix of residential, /" zjst 4
employment and ,...Alatil ,, r.,.App- -- 1
commercial land uses , 456,„ Amipliw
rs
Current Conditions 0.1- 0.25 FAR
/7/ / / .,,'`__
i4i 1 , i
• ■4.--j.*17-a.-4- - WO :' ft.14°
,i) A I . ■
, 01 101 kr_ R,-- ,,.
ir -4"4:i.„'• _
101 . 4111P 4.4* ,,.. .
s
Future 6-8 FAR
Tigard Triangle \�• , ∎ •\\•\ ,
Redevelopment •‘ ■ \. , \ •
\ \ • •\ ■
• k \ •� • 4
• , ` • ' • . • '
•Develop backage roads and • • •
street hierarchy 4 , • • • •• •
Y 1 \ •\ I
'Step down building height ,�,� •` •� • •
g g • •
• • •
'Utilize natural feature of • 00 • •
•
Red Rock Creek 0 • •
9, •
•
•
I
M
�
• d
[I M I i s ,, .i, iM
� ` ---- 0,
Awe Sc Ftlen6f Mess season at F Mc+ Hy to Cie ligartgle suti-dialGt Fgv,re 55.&ropasslpeueaalao Meet-760 soiled 51 F►opveieu RJrA DeePr ark 534Esartr meth attetprriani scaled
T. ar d Triangle Redevelo ment
,— . .
- ,
,,,,. ..
. ..it , . f
.4 : ,111 •
p
lilt! , +�� .
P , -S. ,• V.�•�...Y �I 1 .rf rw + •'• 1' •7!1��j •, 1. .:!
.•
C,..• ��I• 4,1 __ ..,..ice ......••• -
1 'iv i ti ��3 .
' ,.,e. A ni riil� - --
ifik..
f ..M • .
1
I
.
ft
•
Central/Viaduct
• Construction of viaduct Hall Blvd
and advent of strip , .
6 • r.
commercial development „•, ,-. ,,o�
stymied development of CENTRAL/ _ 4-:; c; , c` :lilt
Downtown. VIADUCT ,, �- �� 4..d
•Downtown is isolated from ,- . , •,
) lis,
surrounding community. - 0 L! \ , t- ."� ■ t
•
' 01----, '
. .-....,.,
. t , ■ % iiiii) •
Downtown - - - - - -
Central/Viaduct \ II •`# :4-'
Nor
Redevelopment _ �,',s�: 1 s.al
- 4::: .7,e, ' a ' dr4PTI % li 'l- \
..-=-'=.11 Azrttli:g. „.' .''•.:.:----.-. . , ..: ' P.
,ir ",..., 4M' 34A77.--4,-7.,;(# 0.1-1 ti,ii ..--- , -,-.fikiii..-
i es • .s.:,:e., 4 . A. , - .1 A ...
H CT would create ,� �,- A, r i
r•the conditions to �� \- , ".• ~../ ' ..., ..k_if, ;t• • 7••
allow the envisioned 4 t` ° -� `i c, . L
Sri �. ti• 10' , , .. .•urban village in the � . •;• . �_, . / ,•
Downtown to r , ' . I .,., ; � . , s;I, ; !►�;...,
flourish . �, ` ,,� T
1r may• , w�, ...
Ap��[
III I ~ : �
•4,4%t 1 / , , .\
lig 0 z� ;_ .
POTENTIAL FUTURE URBAN FORAM 2058 Ti
WY CM KA FO CCWITC,011.434)■ (t104,Cty•X(T
t r
:L� ,
Central/Viaduct kt, kf
Redevelopment •. �� 4'-. . 1 'P• �S1#•
# iN, ,/ '
, , . 1
...,......., , ,,,,,
• Future replacement of �' �� p - �' •
�n� 4 }fir
viaduct creates ;- ��„�,;� P e - � ,. +
opportunities ;. I
6 41
for greater connections ,� 0 Fa
■ I�across Downtown. �'�''' ` #
4e I
•Well developed street p
or/$? /
environment
'Enhance the green of Fanno „' .. ! 5 ,� I, �� ,_,,.,... -t
s} ; b :1� `` IrO” _) p,„..
�.' � ''yam . f k. N \ r� ``� +mfg :-__ a!t-
Creek Wit.. i�`�,,, ;- . . --/P.•
413
x 4‘'
' ,
I,II
_*- i. ,ti ' ,.,`\,I/i I 1 7* 3. ,II ',``: � it i L sal
iiii 'k r„.......i.,,i111 Plis*I.. '4.•%,:. -— * ' ,.: - , ,‘.._
• 11.. ail(—.,11,'
. ```` ;�a• M` r '�► is r?- "L., y 'e
\ Milk,
South
Gaarde St.
• Significant amount of natural
features along Pacific Highway 3 ,. •
1 .
• Newer development, lower = _` .1011i.•.. L
intensity, more residential , ' Watkins Ave.
, I , ' • '-
• Poor street connectivity and I ;; .c=- '( =s r"
limited travel options to �% ? y� ,
the automobile u
1 McDonald St.
..1,00 aiii,„,iii ,
7
•4 ,,,lairlisi- • SOUTH
41/111 TIGARD
"/,�' 7; i� ; Durham Rd.
1 _.r r R ,
South Tigard . .,
...ter♦) **it.:3 "A.47-
Redevelopment ,, , ,
1 is ....._,,\
t..
1 lity.. .
•Three nodes identified for ��
compact urban development K T-ii=i \
• Medium intensity = X a:/ ilL rid; IF
residential, commercial, and J117. . . ,,
employment development,
with higher scale buildings 4% r. C r 1 L
at HCT station areas. (. '.1 " or
.. ciii 4,■S4 % IriT
Washington
Square
6B urban
5 =. K
Tigard w ��•
.x-,
x ..,,.
... 1217 L ••— it '�`•
Rio .
0 • `iC 1
U 6C t
urban
King n rel >
.. city
------ ^--- 6D urban
0
South Tigard
,_ if-, f.._......__,A ___Redevelopment �•�,.,,,
— vo Er —.440
... t„ _.„.„
'Compact housing communities �;,,,,, � ,� , -,
�, /� �..-, na; p1B uV° iii
at nodes. `A.\�� ►►��1 a,.�
i goo
•Multi-modal transportation and -----,_,...-1 -.c%r .. ,�.�,,,
enhanced natural features in the
r� ', ''
corridor. h, "
L.
C..... '
li I 3 1 f 7
�� 4I a •z; ,, I B
.:1/ I iu try iy � � �'~' _ 1 w... '
., , ,Q �' / � -{
�` �pp�� �� l 16514 r R`a, r ; ,... , 4 ', i, ,4t -
� n ,•"'i —10.'`� � �flh I rail! 3:�; i�.,� '�� [:. s.1��I.��f��.;t���77 �:w �I
i1 i V r��4�ii ll � �. � d ( ro
, /0 ,. , „..liw
South Tigard Redevelo ment
p
� �. , � _
, _ .�_
`� ��: - `r ,.. y. -jam . ..r---= 7.4;.+ + Z�r.
',� Pr. / -V, + Ve r X11 x•71► --
��=/r �f gal � +Ji 14reutu III11�� 4►
•a•s✓ >• �• I � �r�..•may./= i �CT'��
-.fit ar• u! .r.. r r. I�/ ice'.40 ,.
••.q yt(1 •d 1 41 •.' ���_,,���.-.1 /ir M`.. r 1,`J16�l`;�./'/f".
'!fit '�-le:.- '
ir�— ��y - Vr1 1� ��'�. ♦ ✓�/� iy. 11111! �.����l{
i ,,... .✓I 7.1 .� ;�� 7 11-. ..... I/4.9 ek,, . / •o rl //l11/VJ .\ Y"'.ra �•� 1
∎� 4�l1°11 ° .., 1► .''p/ .0 4�� ip • e�.�i•Y ,.� u•e r oe i.:4:1%-:',nnl�lnwa \��; i fJ Iw°1.
tummy- mss I ��/ � -�� �/Lt/I � �
�� ��� _ ... " r�- �i`Q1�^'/1 0°'.Y'791D\ � \� -• ��\i` PIJ L ' .=art >--
_m �'-`t <��t',Vic'
�/•��� ell.`�. 1..ss.'.��/e".a�G/„v.0 4-4,1,n rE ,ry� /�aNI�Ir4 r ���
._ i•� s�l��� �', ' p�� ri < ` mar �. Z w 1,ir sP �'yn.. yr� ��_ E' �� � ' ... � . � �j 'Mr"tc. - : t 1 < n .�� �.t � '.rr. ,9 D' rri �''4,, t �%-- r ♦ H r. nt alt -T y,�� ,:714.114.;-.1!"--;:z
r*-r, "� ♦ :}.✓/�- ". to 'L/ ./ ♦ \r- ii..l. aEh fard rf
r ' - 6,;.;-:,,,,..:.,:i,'„,•-4o, �.. w�.r =t-.: i 4 f _'c �., fY Ylif•l ru•'✓(�
� ��!i.. .�• r/'"1 �is�rfl,,,6 / .#� r.l��I,11A IAP, 1rr 14. • ,„ /Y�a '_
a>1� Ctd4'1Pt',11� . ♦ 0i , ri•••• i y,. l;ukr ,�Ns i4.10,„, e '� Of, . _I
• +.._ ....ma . A l� �` C I•�••.�r/%�� �eE6i�.s •': { ..lr L.^t • ' c .�:�a�. Z.. t � '�'�i1 �.,.f.?I.1'R '� �4r/'��s�/ y , r € �l P ,, ,, r 1 1
"`7 11 �/ �� �'Ii,.�i r 4./ll"r1� � F ''. • ,4�I ''•f� I ��I'll
■
^�/ �� ,.�s� '�.. ... f"'r'�..�i,?�,� e" /!�t''''''' ,,R�YA,1, . f �w� ��►`a
� '�— ■ — iJr,w �4 /n\; `±�/inNl Sr r 7►i .,��-` 1� 7y - l\ \1�� 1`
'�� • -.1 , , .` r ,�1111� I t �r.#14 eq) 21:4rl�1!_'1' l4O, 1jo E k,S� 9 i ` :
I / ♦ Y \�`�+dl.I�1� iI ' `{�./'l�1 Jr..-' •••• N i° ri1 G �P Ain;r2 dAC ► _ .'e y, a r
R1Tf' 4r,,m� ^,111,,,,,1 ,//".'t w1 A '-4' /1Mr C-.1 r_. .� l /1� 1-rJ- 4p _ ".1,,,,.,`5", 1.. I 1i� ' tetl I "/
---� 'IF 11 {IiL �-� L11 ��r��` j O�11 SlNI,EZL � �,� i 1? II;� I ale il'
.,. is-- 1/ I �:1 �I „Ia 91 ate ..�-►a r..34?d�,ki�"�r,� � .0A4. -i " 4,,,,:t ,,,7,.., , _'1�\
'`� ' -- 4 brrp , ✓ it,iF�ihlr �P+���,,J b4 6:- .Ba9 i�.-/.-•e- .��. r, ( `F �+'A ♦�.; lI .'
w VRI tv,1/1r � 1p„; .'�Uli i 4;' ;. 4 V W 04.11,10"---- `11����I�.�tI / �� ,/ . Il r ,;.
�^ . WNy,T► f� ! i i/ r , NM A !•r /d, s A
•,Y �1 ti //i•.1 �• 'J:4`,.w� i ��.. ! _�, (� NI!. �(i��'• ”'Yy1G =� I�1�‘,I
Rr•S` •1 111Y �"y41 1 . v r° '� + i VA J I. j•
{ (Q1 %v .� i. y, ill /
c 1 ?,. I -., Vr s,,, 'h\ 1w76 trieg ,..•• . N?; ,oi• *i ,m 6 ,, .� ' ✓.••lAlr
• e * or tfc• • \■ li iogo"11,, t mi 1 ling 1 ;raj �.a�r� 0
.4 t. %1 0 �. �' r ✓�a e UP, •. oft/IU .Ya• e
•1r.,.. /40 �►i..444, ` e4• ..rNbir,ifJo,r 1 1�1� a• �a 1 �l.�r l(n r 6 1 tai ,
,..;;,....:14%:57:1 p - '''' of � 'c 441` i~.^'y �Il.IY- P�t!•^rf�1�1 AY���. 71` � r ryr r/• ...I ,n ;14,1 r . ,j RF. 31 �� In . c r,l ►yr��cwt• l IhtitNA4• rd1f.` ► T�r'��► -,.•r,..L el 'f �♦ J• �.�. r'
'•0∎41•A./14;Vie' 41- 4,..p.,s: l 1 �: ,,,or 'r/v,!/y. 1,, ����-.t .,i :�1 +\. ;� r; r■ " �■
I .. l r
Next Steps
• The Vision will be used as a tool in the Tigard
HCT Land Use Plan .
• Alternatives Analysis
• Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statements
Thank you .
\<- ______ -- - -T. , 53-z--. ..a._`'Y ip i , .J
a ig _
�, III r k 4 '4' °IV.it
pftf
/ //' /
I I
Questions, impressions and comments? ��