07/17/2006 - Packet • •
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION i
JULY 17, 2006 7:00 p.m.
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER- TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD T I GA RD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
4. APPROVE MINUTES
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2006-10001/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR)
2006-10001/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2006-10001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW
(SLR) 2006-10003, 10004, 10006 &2006-00006/TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRE)
2006-00011 &00012 SCHOLLS FERRY TOWNHOMES
REQUEST: The applicant is seeking approval for an 88-lot Subdivision and Planned
Development (PD) on 8.46 acres. A Zone Change is required to apply the PD overlay. The
lots are proposed to be developed with attached single-family homes. Lot sizes will range
\t' from 1,046 to 2,661 square feet. There are two existing single-family homes on the subject
site that will be removed in concert with development. In addition, applications for sensitive
tv lands review have been submitted because the subject site has slopes greater than 25%,
\`\ drainageways, wetlands and 100-year floodplain; and Tree Removal Permits are required to
remove two (2) trees located within sensitive areas. LOCATION: 11035 and 11115 SW
135th Avenue, 13620 SW Barrows Road;WC"IM 1S133CA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300 and
1000. ZONE: R-25: Medium-High Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district
is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family at a
minimum.lot size of 3,050 square feet and multi-family units at a minimum lot size of 1,480
square feet. A limited number of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a
wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380, 18.390,
18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and
18.810.
6. -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:
1. Community Attitudes Survey Results
2. Issues and Values Summary Report
3. Natural Hazards (overview) — car,e 6i e
•
7. DOWNTOWN
1. Downtown Development Code: Program
2. Overview: Scope, Timeline, Planning Commission Role
8. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP)
1. Criteria, Selection Process,Tigard Priorities
9. 2006 TIGARD ALMANAC/TIGARD STREET MAP
10. NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM �G����
1. Statewide Planning Goal 5: Riparian and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Resources J
11. OTHER BUSINESS
12. ADJOURNMENT
•
Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call
Hearing Date: .7 -/ - U (o
Starting Time: ') '• tSU jo�,,� .
COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President)
•✓ Mitchell Brown
✓ Gretchen Buehner
Rex Caffall
Teddi Duling
LZ Patrick Harbison
Kathy Meads
Judy Munro (Vice-President)
David Walsh
Jeremy Vermilyea (alternate)
STAFF PRESENT:
Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee
Gary Pagenstecher Barbara Shields
Cheryl Caines Denver Igarta
Emily Eng Duane Roberts
Kim McMillan Beth St. Amand
Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar
Sean Farrelly
• •
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
July 17,2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Buehner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Red Rock Creek Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Commissioners Brown,Buehner,Duling,Harbison,Meads, and Walsh
Commissioners Absent: President Inman, Commissioners C'affall and Munro, alternate Vermilyea
Staff Present: Barbara Shields,Long Range Planning Manager,Beth St. Amand, Senior Planner,
Duane Roberts,Associate Planner,Darren Wyss,Associate Planner, Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner,
Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Planning Manager Barbara Shields talked to the Commission about the Long Range Planning work
program. She advised there was not enough time to accomplish all that needed to be done and asked
if the Commission could hold one extra meeting a month through the end of the year. The
Commission agreed to hold extra meetings on July31,August 28,and September 25th. They will
decide on the remaining meeting dates at their next meeting. The July31 meeting will be dedicated to
Goal 5.
The Park and Recreation Advisory Board met to discuss their mission statement. They added the
words "advocate and advise" to the statement- "The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board is to advocate and advise for parks and recreation opportunities in growing Tigard". They are
seeking a new representative to the CCI.
The Committee for Citizen Involvement has not met since the last Planning Commission meeting.
The Planned Development Review Committee's proposed code revisions will be reviewed by
Council tomorrow night.
The Transportation Financing Committee has not met since the last Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 17,2006—Page 1
•
• •
The City Center Advisory Commission is working on concepts for zoning in the Downtown. They
will be working on design review issues for the Downtown. They will be meeting twice a month.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the June 19,2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The
motion passed unanimously.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 SUBDIVISION(SUB) 2006-10001/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR)
2006-10001/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2006-10001/SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW
(SLR) 2006-10003, 10004, 10006 &2006-00006/TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRE)
2006-00011 &00012 SCHOLLS FERRY TOWNHOMES
REQUEST: The applicant is seeking approval for an 88-lot Subdivision and Planned
Development (PD) on 8.46 acres. A Zone Change is required to apply the PD overlay.
The lots are proposed to be developed with attached single-family homes. Lot sizes will
range from 1,046 to 2,661 square feet. There are two existing single-family homes on the
subject site that will be removed in concert with development. In addition, applications
for sensitive lands review have been submitted because the subject site has slopes greater
than 25%, drainageways,wetlands and 100-year floodplain; and Tree Removal Permits are
required to remove two (2) trees located within sensitive areas. LOCATION: 11035 and
11115 SW 135th Avenue, 13620 SW Barrows Road; WCTM 1S133CA, Tax Lots 100,200,
300 and 1000. ZONE: R-25: Medium-High Density Residential District. The R-25
zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached
single-family at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet and multi-family units at a
minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited number of neighborhood commercial
uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted
conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code
Chapters 18.350, 18.380, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765,
18.775, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
NOTE: The applicant requested this public hearing be cancelled (Exhibit A). They will submit a
revised application at a later date.
9. 2006 TIGARD ALMANAC/TIGARD STREET MAP
This agenda item was taken out of order.
Associate Planner Darren Wyss distributed copies of the new street index maps. He also handed
out copies of the draft 2006 Tigard Almanac (Exhibit B). A lot of information in the almanac will
be used for the Comprehensive Plan update. He asked the Commission to review the almanac
and e-mail any edits to him by the end of July.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 17,2006—Page 2
• •
7. DOWNTOWN
1. Downtown Development Code: Program
2. Overview: Scope, Timeline, Planning Commission Role
This agenda item was taken out of order.
Associate Planner Sean Farrelly gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Downtown Code Revision
Project (Exhibit C). The following CCAC members and former Downtown Task Force members
were present to hear the presentation: Roger Potthoff,Josh Cheney, Mike Marr, Chris Lewis,
Brian Lewis,Marland Henderson,Lilly Lily, and Lisa Olsen. Also present was Steve Petruzelli,an
interested citizen.
Farrelly advised that there are some interim standards in the CBD zone that were meant to be in
place until the Development Code was fully revised. They address things like transit usage, bike,
and pedestrian circulation, but the standards are minimal. There is one section that states new
Downtown development should take into consideration land uses around it; however,the Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan ((DIP) cannot be applied because it was not adopted as an
ordinance.
Farrelly noted that there is a lack of guidelines and some recent development in the Downtown is
inconsistent with goals of the TDIP. He said the goals of this project are to implement the TDIP
by making revisions to the Development Code and to address land uses, design guidelines, overlay
zones, and nonconforming uses.
Farrelly reviewed the public involvement process and the project timeline. Commissioner Meads
suggested staff utilize the Cityscape to inform citizens of the project.
Downtown property owners, developers, design professionals, and decision makers will be invited
to participate in Downtown Dialogues (small focus group meetings). Staff will contact potential
participants and see who would be willing to participate. Farrelly distributed copies of the timeline
and objectives for the Downtown Dialogues (Exhibit D).
Roger Potthoff said there may be people outside of the Downtown area who feel very strongly
about the design guidelines. He does not want to disenfranchise them and suggested they be
included in the public involvement process.
Questions were asked about new development between now and when the new code amendments
will be adopted by Council (June 2007). Can the City place a moratorium on development in the
Downtown? Commissioner Buehner said the CCAC will write a letter that will be given to any
potential developer to let them know this process is happening. It was advised that the City does
not have the authority to place a moratorium on development. Whatever code is in place when a
development application is made is the code that would apply to the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 17,2006—Page 3
• •
It was asked if there might be some requirements that could be put in place in the interim.
Commissioner Buehner suggested the CCAC take this issue to Council to see if they have any
recommendations for interim code changes. It was agreed that this is an urgent matter that needs
to be addressed soon.
8. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(MTIP)
1. Criteria, Selection Process, Tigard Priorities
This agenda item was taken out of order.
Associate Planner Duane Roberts discussed two MTIP applications that the City recently
submitted. He advised that MTIP is the Metro process for distributing federal discretionary
transportation funds to jurisdictions within the region. Metro allocates the funds every 2 years.
Both of Tigard's projects are in the Downtown area- redesign of the Transit Center and design
and construction of Main Street Improvements. The latter would retrofit Main Street to full green
street standards.
Roberts advised the grant amounts total approximately$2.5 million. The City would contribute
$500,000 for the projects. Metro will hold public hearings October through December and will
adopt their final list in February 2007. Staff will advise the Planning Commission of the hearing
dates for Tigard projects.
It was noted that there seem to be a large number of proponents in the City that strongly support
sustainability. Lisa Olsen said CWS is interested in some pilot programs and they like our concepts
for the Downtown.
Commissioner Buehner suggested the City communicate with utilities well in advance of beginning
the projects to avoid problems and delays.
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:
1. Community Attitudes Survey Results
2. Issues and Values Summary Report
3. Natural Hazards Overview(this item was removed from the agenda)
Senior Planner Beth St. Amand noted that the Commissioners received two follow up items in
their packet- a revised public involvement program for the Comprehensive Plan update and
notice that on August 8th, Council will consider a resolution designating the Planning Commission
as the Steering Committee for the Comp Plan update.
Commissioner Buehner asked about the agreement that was made when the City withdrew from
the Tigard Water District in 1992/1993. She believes there are "holes" in the agreement. As part
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 17,2006—Page 4
• •
of the Comp Plan update, could we address the zoning of where we have our water facilities
(reservoirs,pumping stations) and make recommendations to Council to revamp the agreement to
make things clearer?
St. Amand gave a PowerPoint presentation on the community survey results (Exhibit E). She
advised that the survey will be taken every 2 years. The services portion will remain the same. The
second half will be available for current topics.
In reviewing the survey results, St. Amand noted that overall satisfaction was fairly high- 7.8 out
of 10. In 1993,the satisfaction rating was 7.7. The Library received the highest rating for
satisfaction (8.9).
What people liked most about living in Tigard were location and atmosphere; what they liked least
were traffic and growth. Traffic congestion and transportation issues were a major theme
throughout the survey.
St. Amand remarked that there were some items on the survey that need follow up to clarify what
people meant with their answers. For example,the question regarding growth received equal
responses - 43% said accommodate, 43% said limit. St. Amand asked the Commissioners what
their sense was on this question. Commissioner Buehner said she has heard comments over the
past several years about smart growth and being thoughtful in the process. People recognize that
growth is going to happen, but we need to plan for it.
St. Amand noted that issues and values have not changed since 1993. The top two issues have
been growth and traffic. She advised that the population has grown about 2% a year.
Commissioner Walsh said it would be interesting to know how much of the traffic issues were
related to the 99W/217 corridor versus the rest of the City. He noted that traffic on 99W was an
issue all the way to Newberg. He wonders why there isn't a regional approach to traffic; why does
each community along 99W have to deal with the problem piecemeal. Commissioner Buehner
advised that the Transportation Task Force is working on 99W issues. She invited others to
attend their meeting.
Commissioner Buehner suggested sending out the survey information to citizens and let them
know it will be the basis upon which we develop the Comp Plan revisions.
St. Amand noted that if Bull Mountain incorporates, Tigard will be landlocked. She said it wasn't
clear what people meant by their responses to growth and density. It's interesting to note that the
longer people lived in Tigard, the more likely they were to choose "limit" as their choice for
growth.
Commissioner Harbison asked if staff planned to go back and clarify some of the answers. St.
Amand said the City may do something like that next year. There maybe focus group discussions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 17,2006—Page 5
• •
St. Amand said the question is "How is Tigard going to grow?" Are we going to limit or
accommodate? What is our role in the region? How can we absorb more residents? How does the
choice that the community makes affect the available design solutions and how will it impact the
community's values?
Commissioner Walsh wonders, if we embrace the density,say we have to do it, make it a central
theme and accommodate the growth, are we going to like where we're living when we're done.
What can we influence and what can we not influence? Commissioner Buehner thinks this is an
important comment that should go out to the public to set up a realistic expectation.
10. NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM
1. Statewide Planning Goal 5: Riparian and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Resources
This item was rescheduled to July 31st.
11. OTHER BUSINESS
None
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
/ l� .�
Jerree Lewis, 'lanning Commiss on Secretary
/ • . 4,0id&D
A ST: Commissio er retchen Buehner
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 17,2006—Page 6
• -5(1/).-1 19R40
RECEI V
ED
sfa 5FA Design Group, Li" C ��� 1 2 2006
STRUCTURAL I CIVIL I LAND USE PLANNING PLANNNf FT!GARD
EER!NG
July 11, 2006
Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Request to Cancel Public Hearing - Scholls Ferry TownHomes, SDR2006-
00005.
Dear Cheryl:
As you know we have been working to resolve issues related to required street
improvements along Barrow Road, which could impact the protected wetland resources
related to Summer Creek. Based on discussions with you, Kim, and Dick, we have
concluded that our best approach is to request an adjustment to the street improvement
standards, rather than file for a Plan Amendment(Goal 5). This action will result in a
revised application, which in turn will require re-notification for the public hearing.
Therefore,we are formally requesting that the hearing scheduled for July 17th be
canceled, and rescheduled, once we get the revised application submitted.
Thank you for your continued assistance.
Sinc ely, ��%i`�
Ben Altman •
Senior Planner/Project Manager
SFA Design Group
9020 SW Washington Square Drive,Suite 350•Portland,Oregon 97223•503-641-8311 • Fax 503-643-7905•www.siadesigngroup.com
• ii
dir4--r-' " )714/ I.
2006 Almanac
City of Tigard
Oregon
`A Place to Call Home"
41
• No .
•• 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 503-639-4171
TI GARD www.tigard-or.gov
I • •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
Physical Form
I Location and Climate 2
Transportation 2
Natural Features 3
I Parks and Open Space 4
Annexations 5
Built Environment
I Land Use 6
Buildable Lands 6
New Construction 7
I Housing Units 9
Housing Prices 10
Population Profile
I Growth Over Time 12
Age Structure 13
Race and Language Spoken 14
I Educational Attainment 15
Households 15
Income and Poverty 16
I Economic Climate
Businesses in Tigard 18
Sales 19
IPayroll 19
Unemployment 20
Travel to Work 21
IProfessions 21
Property Taxes 22
Appendix
IMap 1-1 Transportation Network
Map 1-2 Public Transportation
I Map 1-3 Natural Features
Map 1-4 Parks and Open Spaces
Map 1-5 Community Services
I Map 2-1 Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
Map 2-2 Buildable Lands Inventory
Map 2-3 Residential Development
I Map 3-1 Population by Block Group
Map 3-2 Hispanic Population by Block Group
Map 3-3 Household Income by Block Group
I Map 3-4 Owner Occupancy by Block Group
Map 3-5 Block Group Identification Number
1
I
. . • .•
: FL,
..: •
1
• .•
[..••:••••••
fil.:31IFEririiir•j."El •• •
••••••:.
• •••••••••• ••'••
•
1•••„?......L.1 •
• ; • •
.:
. .
:
. . .
.: • •
• ,1711131:::9
• •
•
•
•
• --
• • :
- •• „
• •• •• .
• • • - •• • • • • •• • • • • • • • •;-11.1.d
IWOMMOMMO
. - .
... • . „ . .
. . .
•••••• ••• • i••••• •.'••
Ne< 1.-••
••
. .
. . ,p.cr • •• •
- 14.
• -
4 . ••• • • ' •
!••••••
•
• .
• • •
• • •
. . . . . . . .
. .
• . • . „ . .
•• • . • • • • • • . • . . • • • •• •
*
"": " " •nar
•••••-•••• •:".imi**;14.11'
••••
„ ••,••••,,, •
.••••••• •••••,••••••
rr.n.xxxxx ••:: •• • .x •
• • . .
• . • .• .
. • .. • . . . .
. „ •''.••••• •
•••••••:•••:;•••• •• • •
* •
. . . • ••1'..y.:Ep.,1, "
• ••.•••. ••-,••••,,,-• •
• •
••• • •• ,• .41
•
• •• „ „ • •-••••••1••,..„i••,••,..
•• •.• . 4H•l•
• •••• •••-• •• ••,• • -101
•
•
. •
„ . . . . x
•
•• ..44*:*;1111
.••••
"..
• •
I
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Land Use I
The City of Tigard currently is Table 2-1. Land Area by Zoning Designation I
divided into four primary land use
classifications: commercial, industrial, Square
mixed-use and residential. Almost Acres Miles Percent
I Commercial 797 1.25 10.6%
70% of land within the city is planned
to accommodate residential use Industrial 859 1.34 11.5/o
ranging from low density single Mixed-Use 700 1.09 9.3% I
family homes to high density multi- Residential 5140 8.03 68.6%
family dwellings. The other three City of Tigard 7496 11.71 100.0%
Source:Community Development Department,June 2006
I
classifications each comprise around
10% (see Table 2-1) of the community's land use. These general classifications are
further divided into zoning districts (see Appendix Map 2-1) with specific rules
and regulations. More information about each district can be found in Title 18 of
I
the Municipal Code: www.tigard-or.gov/business/municipal code/title-18.asp.
Buildable Land
I
The City tracks buildable lands through a yearly inventory process. The purpose of
the buildable lands inventory (BLI) is to identify undeveloped land that is available
I
and compatible with development policies and practices. At the end of 2005, less
than 10% of land within the city was
Table 2-2. 2005 Buildable Lands Inventory considered buildable. The majority
I
Zoning Acres of land on the BLI was zoned
C-C Community Commercial 0 residential (72.5%), with lower totals
C-G General Commercial 40.84 for commercial (8.5%), industrial I
C-N Neighborhood Commercial 0 (11.5%), and mixed-use (7.5%). See
C-P Professional Commercial 9.16 Table 2-2 for the breakdown.
CBD Central Business District 1.07
I
I-H Heavy Industrial 0 Commercial Land - Three of the five
I-L Light Industrial 25.55 commercial districts contain
I-P Industrial Park 43.59 buildable land and 83% of that is
I
MUC Mixed Use Commercial 3.38 zoned General Commercial. No
MUE Mixed Use Employment 28.11 Community and Neighborhood
MUE-1 Mixed Use Employment 1 8.30 Commercial land is available.
I
MUE-2 Mixed Use Employment 2 0.75
MUR-1 Mixed Use Residential 1 3.90 Industrial Land - No buildable land
MUR-2 Mixed Use Residential 2 0.71 remains in the Heavy Industrial
I
R-1 30,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 3.35 district and in Light Industrial, 69%
R-2 20,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 1.36 (17.64 acres) is located on one
R-3.5 10,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 24.25 property. Likewise, 80% (34.7 acres)
I
R-4.5 7,500 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 205.45 of the buildable Industrial Park land
R-7 5,000 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 123.61 is owned by one individual.
R-12 3,050 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 44.03
I
R-25 1,480 Sq Ft Minimum Lot Size 33.50 Mixed-Use Land - Mixed use districts
R-40 40 Units per Acre 0 all contain some buildable land, but
Total 600.91 the majority is zoned Mixed Use I
Source:Community Development Department Employment (63%).
2006Tigard Almanac - 6 - Draft Version I
I * 0
I . .
. . . .
I • . .
• . . • .
•
I T•••••.::...... :::: ....'. .... ...:•;• ........:•,.:.1...:••: ..•:.1 .......',...(:.:".: l'....,......:.....1.,••:i.... :.... I .•••..:...,.......,.. •....,... ••••.,....!•••,••
•. . .• .
• •
.. • . . •
•
• . . • •
.. .. ....
••••
• • . .
I ....
•• ...
•
. .
. .
.... .....
.. •
... . . ...
• .
. . . .. ' . • • •
. .. •
• • . .
I . .
. . .• • . . .
.. . . . . . ... :
. . • .
. . . ..
. •
• ..
• • •
• • •
• • •
I ... ... . . ••..
• .
. .. . . . . . • . . • . .
• • • • •
I . . .
.. : . . . . . . .. • •
• •
•
I ... . . . . . . .. . . .
.. . . .. .. .. : . .. : ....
. . • : .
• •
I • .
• • •
. . • • •
• •
. . . . .:••
. ------• - •• ••••••• • ••• ••• ••••• •••••
• • • • • •• • • • 1.N ,.'''.:/"':
• •
. : .:,..' .. •0 1 '.1'... .!•,:f:X.
. • • • • •• • . . . . .
. . ..
I
• •
• .
•
. . •
• :. .. . ..
. . • •
. • . • .••.•• • r111.4.P.:i'll. •. i...4.:•77. ......,„:41,..t.,. - ,......1....g..`..'.' :...,.
•• I i '...,..4 ....:, ...:'...!...... ....'.. .- ......,........
. • • . . .
• .
. . .. . :. •
• :.••
•
I . ••
•• • •• .
• •. • .
• ..
•
. '.........1 ID.,...... ',:.:.—I. !....i f...........,,..• F..>?.....,.......,.........ri.:........-I I .......1 i ...::::.......-I'.....,-..ri.:(....r...1.:•:::•••• ....:S....n.(....E....• *I........1'.......•....;
•
I. • • .. . . . .....
. . ... .
. .....
• •
.. . -
.. .. .... .. ..
. .
. •
...
.. . . . . . . . . . .
.. . .• •
•
. ... . .
• . . .... ..
. . .
. ... .. . . ...
. . .
. • •
..... • • r • .. • ..
I ..
. . . .
. •
• • • • ...
.... • •
.. •
• .
. . ..
. •
• • • •
. .. .
. . .
• •
. • • •• . . . • .
. • .:.
. • .
I • • . . .
• • .. . . . .
• ..
• •
... • • • • - •
I ••
• • .
.•.. • •
.. .
.. : . . . . .•
•
• •
• ..
. . . . .
I .
• • .
• • .• .• .
. .. .
. .. •
• •
. . • • . .:: . •
• •
. . .
•
I . • .. . .
• •
I
I
I
I
........_ ...*.
-•••••••••••••••••••••.*:
...*:
I
...„;
••,, .. .. , ..,. ...
•-• / .: I •
....%;. • • .
::: ••••• .4.....
- - . -
.1,, , •••••....
...... - / /..
I
„. , •••.
..... .. . ,
.l.... 4. •
. .
'll!-•
I
.. .:.• , .. .. . H.H. .. .. .
i. .. .... . . . . .. • .. .
I
• -. ..... ... ... ..... . . .. .. .... .
.... .. ... .. .. . ... ...
„„ : ::„„: .-„:„. .... .: :, •••„... .....: •„:„•...... :-,•.:...
I
I
.,it... ....4
....--•.. .... I
i ............ • ....---— .....•
_./ , ....;
.,.
.....4 .. / . .„
t„.. •
.•-- , .. _Ai:,'• I
7.: / .. 'I,.... „... •
;-• .
>l2l. •
. ll' • • ...„.„. ••• •-- ••••• ..-•---l's-...'"••... •
III. •• --ill ,
- • • • - - , • -
I
. . . .. .. . . .. . . ..
,., •-.-...: .••:• . :• • . ••• -• •-.....
i •-•;:iiigT • ......•
, ..... :51, ...:. t : :,:. ••••••••
• •••:+4.. '1 :::::'
•,..,...414- 1 al
: •Jlif L... „: .....:.
:•••:...ii:ii!ei.„..'.4m :i..,::: 1 .,.....:
..... ...„. . 4 .........,
ili.,•:,:'...)•••!'• • 41•1;•1. I .......'
: .g• • niii: • • i ""
1
; •• :•'•"':••••• E r 1 i 4,7,',.: .• \
P: 1 ,....... P......il., :,... t.
: ...Nil I il "4' "' • "" \
• ' R. „:::
•: IP.11.41,1 ." •. \ „•••• •
*IS .:‘,..: „., •:•'; \ „„'''' ..
.14 .•.:...,
3.4: '.I: • PIL•.:".4 74: t•••••I. 1 . „
1 ' ' .„•,1.1::,.
3,•7:ii, irt,.,..., .••• •,:•,..
•- •• .4,...: •:•••• :::::• :: ••••• :• „„,•••••••:::::::::::„. ••
I41:4 , ::::,...,.I. ::::: u; • •• ••••,•,:,•,""••••••":"•••••••:••••:••• . ..
, 44, :::.•,:::...„, 4.. •••,....
1 k 1'gl:'::: ' .......................::::,,,,,,, •
' ' 1 C"....ifi... 4...,.....;
.....:. •I ..fe:.1".. ...2.:
•ri.".• .•••,:::'.: -
• „,:••„::::•:•,•:• :••••::::::1
,
; • • : :!:::10,••1••••':::•
... ...... :•••„:„..:
•••••• , .
....: ., :• ..............,,,,a41::1:1,4•• •
, .
• •••••:••••••1 '
• ,,.. ... • 4
, : •
• 1
• • • --••1 •• •
. .... .,
••.•: I : . •.: . •., • :••••••••• ••• •..... • . . „.•••• ........... .
, „.. . :4.,...... .. .
• •, ••, :• :
,..,,, . • , •..
...... ..•••„•:: • ,.„ . .
:,,,..„4„::::„...:.. ,... ..•
• „:„. ,
.• . •• ,. .
: 4
• •••••:,:i •-•••,.: s. •:i:••„.4, • :
:•:•::.1, •:.••• •:: - ,..„,• •
. ... . •
• • ..... • „
• .:•,„,„,.:
„ :••:?:::::11„,.......I.,..• • ::. :: „
•:•.,4,44 •• • : :1:4••
. • ::, ..„.4.„,, „ . • .:
.:.•:4 •:•,..1,,,:4,6:::.t„:.„,..,..„: •• ..4.•••• •
••-•:, • • • : • : : : : -7„::::•....:•": :•:\ •.'": 4,•,,::
•••:•••., • • • • . • . : :• , PM.. ..• • .
•A• •• • •• ••1401: '
..'"•'.r:4......:Af''....4k. 4.,•101111. [
• •••'+' ••4••.:'•igiOli.•••••':"..•:'44311H i
1•:•:•.11.1nri!!'•.):4
!!'• • I 1 .
•• I 1 1 • 4:
1 1 1 r1ii& 1 r-'1'1""1
I !
t11::
• • ; ! I 1
•• 1 1 ! I i 011' ;
**. • •••••,!••••;; .
• '
...; •
1.• 1. I ,;; . :•• • , •; ..;
PC. t, 1,;!!!•,:• 11)C1:::!if
. . • :; . • • • •:
••••••••. •**: •• •
. .;
; ; ;• ; • ; •
•.•; ;•:
. .
— –
• ; •.; ....; • • •.• • .•
;;. .• . •
;.• ;.; ;;; ;;., ; ; : . ;;;!! ;;;•. 1.„..1.:: ;
; .. .. . - • •
..
• • •• • ••",
, •
• ••• • • •....*****.
•115+1•1:04r• •....
.. . .
„ . ..
•• • •••.1
. :. : • •
•• •••• • • •
••. •• .• -• . ••••:
• • •• ••• . .
sitt
. ..•
.:*
s •
I
POPULATION PROFILE
Growth Over Time I
The City of Tigard has Table 3-1. City of Tigard Historic Population I
experienced a steady
Year Population Change Year Population Change
population growth since its 1961 1084 1984 18,450 3.36%
incorporation in 1961 (Figure 1962 1804 66.42% 1985 20,250 9.76% I
3-1). The population as of 1963 1844 2.22% 1986 20,765 2.54%
July 2005 was 45,500 1964 1980 7.38% 1987 23,335 12.38%
1965 2203 11.26% 1988 25,510 9.32%
residents, which is a 2% 1966 2480 12.57% 1989 27,050 6.04%
I
growth from the previous 1967 3700 49.19% 1990 29,435 8.82%
year. Population increases 1968 4700 27.03% 1991 30,910 5.01%
have varied from a yearly 1969 6300 34.04% 1992 31,350 1.42%
I
change of less then 1% to 1970 6499 3.16% 1993 32,145 2.54%
1971 6880 5.86% 1994 33,730 4.93%
almost 50% (Table 3-1) since 1972 7300 6.10% 1995 35,021 3.83%
incorporation. The large 1973 8720 19.45% 1996 35,925 2.58% I
population increase between 1974 10,075 15.54% 1997 36,680 2.10%
1999 and 2000 is the result of 1975 10,075 0.00% 1998 37,200 1.42%
1976 11,000 9.18% 1999 38,704 4.04%
I
the Walnut Island annexation 1977 11,850 7.73% 2000 42,260 9.19%
discussed in the Physical 1978 13,000 9.70% 2001 43,040 1.85%
Form section of the Almanac. 1979 14,200 9.23% 2002 44,070 2.39%
Tigard represents 1980 14,900 4.93% 2003 45,130* 2.41%
1981 15,500 4.03% 2004 44,650 -1.06%
I
approximately 9% of total 1982 17,700 14.19% 2005 45,500 1.90%
Washington County 1983 17,850 0.85%
population. See Appendix Sources:Portland State University Population Research Center I
Map 3 1 for population City of Tigard 1996 Data Resource Report
*This total is the result of a data collection error that was corrected in the 2004 count
distribution
Table 3-2 displays the average annual growth rate (AAGR) of Tigard and a I
comparison to some neighbors since the year 2000. Tigard has experienced an
AAGR of
I
1.53%, which is
Figure 3-1. City of Tigard Population Increase similar to
Beaverton and I
50000 slightly behind
45000 Washington
40000 County as a I
c whole.
35000 Sherwood and
cno 30000 Tualatin have I
Ce 25000 experienced
m20000 - greater average
15000 growth over the I
E z 10000 time period,• while the State,
5000 Portland, and
I
0 Lake Oswego
1961 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 have seen
Year smaller I
population
growth rates.
I
g
2006Ti and Almanac - 12 - Draft Version
EILLITI71,1•=1 .••
•• ••••• •• • •••• ••
„
1221M12,171i :
. . . „
•
11.•••23111::::::1111!1:11:7F•r•!!!',.......:!,•"•!!!7•71A
II. • •,••• ••••••,•••••••„••••• ••••• .• •••• . .:
• . • I. . •••,. • •
• • .•
. . .
•• • i• • • • •:
.•:. • • •: • •.
[. ••••••••••••••••••••••-•r•-•:. •••• • •
• • . ., •
„.„
. [1.2.72,••,•••`•,7•77,T7•7•77.....-• ••• i•-•1 r"-"""'"'"'"'"""--•-•-"*"
*•••••••. "
• •••. •• • „••••• • •„. •• .
•••• ••
.•'•'•'
• •
....
5
. .
. ••• • • • • . •
. •
• '...'•••.* ••1 •• • :.• ••••
*. .•
•:** • •:*
.•••••• I....• • • '•1'• **
• •
I
I
...,... •.• •• •
• +v....A.A....A.,. .,....... ,,,,. .•••••••• .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....•........
• •••:..• .:
I
•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,• ,•.• .
.: . .
.,
I
• ,
.• , ,., :..•..• • •. ,, ..
I
I
•
■ i:::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ma...7
. • , ... ., . :; , •- ,....•• 4...
%I.0:12.4.:w
:4,........... .....,
,•,• ••'..;;;;:.,.,i■•'.i i r.,..;;;;.:::.;;I;..,..,;•;:f...,f.,...,,,..,
1'•...•,...;',',..:...,*....,..,........,.:4.,,,,,f,.,;;;...,...,.,..,
. • :40: 6.::;:1:. ,,,,••,, ,..,,,:,•••.•,•••.•••••.••.•.•.•••••••
WI,;.. : , .. •• .......... ,.:•:•,..,.,..,....,
. .f..... ... .......
• . ..
-• ••• . ..
• . , . •• .• ...• • •, ..••,..•• .. ._...........,.., . ,
„ I
: :”)r,:I... .: :::: '-•.........-•:I:::::4"I•''•:''. :::I''•::-..1 ,..,.::::.:.. ,.. I
•••••••.••••••••.• ••••.•••••••••• .................w................................................................ ....... AX.C<XXXX XXXXXXX XX X X XXX Y
........!....::... .'•..::: ....I.... .1:.;.',...•,•••.;....• '..••••...IX...••• ..i' .• • ••i•, I
.......... XX. ....•••••••••••(•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••X
•• ••
I
• • I•
..•..• : I
• >7'..
.• ., ,4.1 ,4 ,4.. . i
1
• i' '4 i I
: . •
i :o!: , 114 .• 4 i I
..., x . .
• A '
• : • 1 •
. •• •• ..•
•••
. , •
„.„
•• :;:. •
„
1.... 11 :..I
••••••••..1 .
•.:„
•••• : ••
. .
„ .
••• •
:: •
. .
•::„ . : ,
. •
. •.:••• ••• . •: •
: •
„.:.:•.: .
. '
:::••••11/ •
• ; •. • , •
.:•
,:••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •
• •
I
POPULATION PROFILE
Income and Poverty I
Table 3-8. Median Household Income by Age
In 1999, median income for Tigard Age of Householder Median Income I
households was $51,581. Households Under 25 years $25,451
with the householder between the ages 25 to 34 years $50,247
of 35 to 64 were higher than the 35 to 44 years $62,683
I
community median, while households 45 to 54 years $66,049
with the householder under 25 earned 55 to 64 years $59,904
only half of the community household 65 to 74 years $40,542 I
median income (Table 3-8). See 75 years and older $29,890
Appendix Map 3-3 for Income 1999 Total Median Income $51,581
distribution in the community. Source:2000 U.S.Census I
Table 3-9. Household Income Breakdown Households earning $50,000 - $74,999
Income Range Percentage per year comprise the largest percentage
I
Less than $15,000 8.8% of income groups (21.7%). Households
$15,000 to$24,999 11.6% earning $100,000 or more make up 15.7%
$25,000 to$34,999 11.4% of the community and 8.8% earn less
I
$35,000 to $49,999 16.3% than $15,000 a year (Table 3-9).
$50,000 to$74,999 21.7%
$75,000 to$99,999 14.5% I
$100,000 or more 15.7%
Source:2000 U.S.Census
Comparing the median household Table 3-10. Household Median Income Comparison I
income to other jurisdictions, a Jurisdiction Dollars
Tigard residents earn slightly less Lake Oswego $71,597
I
than Washington County as whole, Sherwood $62,518
but $10,000 more per year than Tualatin $55,762
Portland households and all Oregon Washington County $52,122
households. Tualatin, Sherwood, Tigard $51,581
and Lake Oswego have higher Beaverton $47,863
community median household Portland $40,146 I
incomes, while Beaverton residents State of Oregon $40,916
earn slightly less (Table 3-10) Source:2000 U.S.Census
The number of Tigard residents living in poverty increased in all categories, except I
individuals 65 years and older, from 1990 to 2000 (Table 3-11). Female
householders, with no husband present, are the most afflicted with poverty. Close
I
to 20% are below the federal poverty level, and that increases to 25% with related
children under 18 years of age, and 45% with related children under 5 years of age.
Families with related children under 5 years of age saw the greatest increase in
I
poverty at 227.8%.
I
I
I
2006Tigard Almanac - 16 - Draft Version
' • •
POPULATION PROFILE
Table 3-11. Poverty Status
Below Poverty Level
Category 1989 1999 Change
Families 3.7% 5.0% 35.1%
with related children < 18 years old 4.5% 7.6% 68.9%
' with related children < 5 years old 3.6% 11.8% 227.8%
Female householder, no husband present 12.2% 19.6% 60.7%
with related children < 18 years old 18.5% 25.2% 36.2%
with related children < 5 years old 36.5% 44.7% 22.5%
Individuals 4.8% 6.6% 37.5%
18 years and older 4.7% 6.1% 29.8%
65 years and older 3.6% 3.6% 0.0%
Source:2000 U.S. Census
1
' 2006Tigard Almanac - 17 - Draft Version
• •
I
ECONOMIC CLIMATE
Businesses in Tigard I
The City of Tigard issues licenses for businesses operating within the city limits.
I
As of February 2006, there were 3,124 businesses licensed in the City with a total
of 30,616 employees. From this total, there were 420 home based businesses that
employed 640 persons.
I
The largest of the businesses licensed with the City can be seen in Table 4-1.
Renaissance Credit Services tops the list with 1,116 employees, with the Meier &
I
Frank department store second at 704 employees. These are the only two
businesses in the City with more than 500 employees. The 20 largest employers
are spread among a variety of business sectors, from Finance/Banking/Real Estate
I
to Department Stores to Manufacturers.
Table 4-1. Top 20 Employers in Tigard I
Number of
Business Name Employees Business Sector
I
1 Renaissance Credit Services 1116 Finance/Banking/Real Estate
2 Meier& Frank 704 Department Store
3 Nordstrom 461 Department Store
I4 Oregon PERS 347 Government Agency
5 Costco Wholesale 341 Wholesaler
6 Providence Health System 303 Medical/Dental
7 Ikon Office Solutions 277 Sales/Manufacturer's Rep
I
8 FLIR Systems Inc. 250 Manufacturer
9 The Cheesecake Factory 250 Restaurant
10 Home Depot 241 Retail I
11 North Pacific Group Inc. 238 Wholesaler
12 US BancCorp Equipment Finance Inc. 234 Finance/Banking/Real Estate
13 Gerber Legendary Blades 232 Manufacturer
I
14 Landmark Ford 224 Auto Sales/Service/Lease
15 The Coe Manufacturing Co. 221 Manufacturer
16 Rockwell Collins Aerospace 216 Manufacturer
17 Sears, Roebuck&Co. 206 Department Store
I
18 University of Phoenix 196 Service Industry
19 Williams Controls Inc. 189 Manufacturer
20 Fred Meyer 186 Department Store
I
Source:City of Tigard Finance Department
The top ten business sectors within the community are shown by number of
I
employees and total number of businesses in Table 4-2. Contractor tops the list
by number of businesses (305), but is second in number of employees (2589).
IFinance/Banking/Real Estate business sector employs the largest number of
people at 2901, with 194 businesses. Hair/Beauty/Nail Salon, Consulting Services,
and Janitorial/Carpet/Windows all make the top ten in number of businesses, but
Ido not make the top ten in number of employees. Wholesaler and Computer-Sales
& Related are both in the top ten numbers of employees, but do not make the top
ten numbers of businesses.
I
I
2006Tigard Almanac - 18 - Draft Version
I •
ECONOMIC MIC CLIMATE
I Table 4-2.Top 10 Business Sectors in Tigard
By Number of Businesses By Number of Employees
Number of Number of
I Business Name Businesses Business Name Employees
1 Contractor 305 1 Finance/Banking/Real Estate 2901
2 Service Industry 269 2 Contractor 2589
I 3 Retail 205 3 Manufacturer 2504
4 Finance/Banking/Real Estate 194 4 Retail 2237
5 Medical/Dental 124 5 Restaurant 1996
6 Hair/Beauty/Nail Salon 120 6 Department Store 1873
I 7 Consulting Services 114 7 Service Industry 1708
8 Restaurant 111 8 Wholesaler 1517
9 Janitorial/Carpet/Windows 100 9 Medical/Dental 1167
I 10 Manufacturer 99 10 Computer-Sales& Related 975
Source:City of Tigard Finance Department
I Sales
The U.S. Economic Census, which takes place every five years, provides data on
I industry sales within the City of Tigard. Table 4-3 shows the industries operating
in Tigard (the industry description does not align perfectly with the City's business
license sector data) and compares 1997 and 2002 Economic Census data.
I Wholesale Trade is generating the most money in Shipments, Sales & Receipts, but
has the total has fallen since 1997. Retail Trade employed the most people in both
1997 and 2002, and also ranks second in the amount of money generated. (The
I business sector information from the City and industry description information are
not identical because of different methodologies in collecting the data)
I Table 4-3. Sales Over Time, by Industry in Tigard
Shipments, Sales &
Number of Businesses Receipts ($1000)
I Industry Description 1997 2002 1997 2002
Manufacturing 110 107 566,387 539,058
Wholesale Trade 246 235 3,212,540 2,915,377
I Retail Trade 335 313 1,429,402 1,498,597
Information n/a 71 n/a n/a
Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 110 127 117,485 250,688
I Professional, Scientific&Technical Services 247 298 233,983 n/a
Administrative, Support& Management 117 127 196,685 175,763
Educational Services 16 18 14,234 14,922
I Health Care & Social Assistance 139 154 112,591 235,198
Arts, Entertainment& Recreation 12 17 5,885 9,092
Accommodation & Food Services 130 151 88,391 93,162
I Other Services (except public admin) 91 126 . 48,513 99,519
Source:2002 U.S.Economic Census
IPayroll
The U.S. Economic Census also collects information on employees and payroll for
Iindustries in Tigard. Table 4-4 shows the comparison between 1997 and 2002.
t2006Tigard Almanac - 19 - Draft Version
. ;
•
•
••••••••.:
••••
• ••
:••••••d •
• • • . • H. •
.........
. .
4,••••••iiiii 1•••••••••••,...1 IR:44111:111;11: •••••.:••••••:::!...:::::::•••••••••.;: • •
•
, • •..„.,,••• ,
•
.....
• •
I
ECONOMIC CLIMATE
Table 4-6. Profession of Tigard Residents I
Industry ok
Education, Health & Social Services 15.34 I
Manufacturing 14.92
Retail Trade 12.63
Professional, Scientific, Mgmt.; Admin.; Waste Mgmt. 11.98 I
Insurance, Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 10.35
Entertainment, Recreation,Accommodation & Food Services 8.21
Construction 6.08
I
Wholesale Trade 5.71
Other Services (Except Public Administration) 4.34
Information 3.13 I
Public Administration 2.66
Transportation &Warehousing, Utilities 3.97
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting, Mining 0.67
I
Source:2000 U.S.Census
Property Taxes ,
Table 4-7 shows property taxes for Tigard and a few neighboring jurisdictions. I
The Local Operating Levy includes the city service rate and any local option levies,
while the Total Tax Burden includes any urban renewal levy, voter approved debt
and regional, county and education related levies. Tigard has a local operating I
levy of 4.2883 and a total tax burden of 16.3448 per $1000 assessed value, which is
slightly higher than Tualatin's rate, but less than Portland, Beaverton, Lake
Oswego, and Sherwood. Tigard currently has no local option levies and 0.2023 per I
$1000 of voter approved debt.
Table 4-7. Property Tax Rate Comparison
IJurisdiction Local Operating Levy* Total Tax Burden *
Portland 7.1703 19.8002
Beaverton 6.8161 19.2232
I
Lake Oswego 4.8381 17.3270
Sherwood 4.7002 17.0026
Tigard 4.2883 16.3448 I
Tualatin 3.4689 16.1315
Source:City of Tigard Finance Department
Rate per$1000 assessed.valuation of property
I
I
I
I
2 - 22 - Draft Version I
2006Tigard Almanac
\t:PA
•
7
Fr
.
... .,..h...g •
xxxxxx
0:xxx�x...�xxxxxxx..... xxx�;x................ �x.�.-x�•.
xxxxxxxxxxxx :::.xxxxxxxx::::xx;.x,�;,��„�,x;;;;;...
'.•
0 14
I ***0, 9 .#4...
I : IV
zT
4,
•
L
3'
�
SW
. x
4xx
•
I ,..741
I ,x..
xxx �
.......... : ......,...
:4 ••.:....
..................„...........,../ ,....„ .,
.,•••••• •.. .... A..
... .... ,
i ..„,.. .....•
. ,.
,in - ........... • • .
.... „,,,.. , ,.....,.,...
..i., snn \f„,,, 1.... - •:!..., 1
...
.: ,.. ,„..i.„... . .„,.,..„..iii.4.1.
lif.''...!;.•'•'..:.„:1•''144.**'..1 .. • if. .'''•i: ......,04:1;:i. i
f . .. .• ..: i ''..•
......±.......04,4.T....',........... ...........,.... .! r.. ''..1 ' ... .„.>.:....... ViiF i ..\:„Litkir;11 1
...... .;
, ••.•:•....••• ..x • ... : .4•?/ • ,
...t „,.., ...„„1: • -, ..,....• •• .,„..,..4. .!
0.1!..••144• ••'''....... ..'• .. • „..,,,. '''..
•••••.X.: : '... )i••• •„. i „••„••'.• I
.: ••••i•.• •x••1.1 i
•'•••''.. • ....... ..'•••;....441.
.4N. •• ..,...e. • I
.........'..47:. • , .•'....'...;•*: ...111.•••• • i
.'..i11131i.:•!""ii....'4'1/2...'... •.........4"' • t'''''''''... ... . I .** . f....Y..' I
**:" . ...:.:'''• '''''..,... ..."''' • 1
ir . '''''... ....'''....... .... 1....,;:i.p!!!'••••• ;
• .!!'''''''
. A' ..••••'...... ....1.• .. ........ • .
••:d.. .. : ,......,..,..
... .• •••....,....,... .--..... ..,:-•
.•:.:..., .,••••••• .i .. • i
0.....,....ii.t. ..x'.. ..., ' .,...........§......,......... -•••••...
, I ...,. /.....-../..
.,. i ......,. ....,......,... .. . .
.1.• \ I ,.......,Y.:1,...-.:',..,:. 0:
+• . • - ''''''‘, .1.,...NN •
....„ .....•
..„ .. ..:::::„..• . . : :, 1 ‘--........., i ....
.... ...,... ...... 4
. ..•••• ..., ••••4,......••••,..... ,x......• . ,
....,• i.. ••••kit.1
•••.' „1/2 •••••••' !.1
•••• ... ,., • .„.4.,.. .'N O' N.,
1 ,•••••' ..A..' :: •: .. ---....... •-•. •••••: ..... NN .. ..::: N.. ' il. N..--....,,,
: '• i ..... .# 'Nf.'''''''...f.' • ...,,,,, .
•'.....;et.'t N. : -L-'•
.! • '. r KT ...4 • ..'•1•.1..,'....••••••:',..:1.1.......................!1 1.......1::l'i,:.,....,...:,......i. Li i T,
.4-. „g ---- : •____ .,,,- .........r ; ....., ... „ ,„.. .„. • .4,•„.
,•.... I
Ar.. .• • ...f I
, ., i.I.,Ci. ..ir...-.....NN,...x: }•'•.,,,„k.,.•.1. .....,,,,,,•4. ,.,,;, . „„.••„„,/ ...... ..„.•
,... ,,,,,....., . ' ''•-• .• I,:
.„„.:„..•.:Nr Th. \\....,4,,,,,,,,,..:141'''''. , .'..
• ' •• -- goof'
. . .,„., • ••••r ... •
•-• •-••• •• "•••
••: ••• •• • -
• „„ „ •-•
lg. .-. # .„.: • :,. .„.•,..„,..,.., .,,•,...
/
.g../. . . J. .
, . ...
• • , • •
. • ........r :::-...t.•
/ (.,,N,,,,,....,4t,to., .• ,
4
x •
n..4 .
• ••• • •• e..I :•i• ... •
i!I:LT'!•.'••..;‘.... /ii iii„ .....:,"
.1. N•'•!.... . 1.i...1••••••.liff
• •• ••••••iii.
. .,..•e .•....t. ...le f A..•.
1 • .. ••X••.• • .. l•••ille, . ...••••.. 1 .i..'i ..••••
.... 1. .....oarp 10 .. ......::::ei.,.....::.. - ....,... ....... ' ."' ..1.....,!,," A r.:;:.":•?.....• ..-, „I :.:::: :
51“ , •.. •.• ••••• ...............„„tirr.....,....„.ai,W......r xj...'.. .'•
iri.,1 ••'''t ... ... '.......... '..i.'j ....-• . .4.,•• ','
! .... ,7"4:4....t....„„,!.....„.....o. „,..„. •::.„... ...::•'.. 4 ,:„. „of • . .„1.. . .. ...„.,..„..:
. Iry
.,.. •,,,,,,,.. 4..,•. -• .
1... ..'; ii: ,ii .• ....... .. ..„..i. .....,i, ./..... ,,.7.' ,Aretrift. •""': ..x, ... . . : 0
.....'••• • •i ......i!. , / •....... ..''... dflt .....,`..* ••'" ...! .. ...... ... t..t .tr'. • .,... ''th••• •
i :,••• if• t,:„.. ......„1. . .....„.„,„,,t,;::.::::::::•:. : 1 •:„....„: .:•• / -• .. „... • ......„:„.0„:. ••
1••,. „:. • -..:A .1 .....F....F., .... i. ..F. FriliFF'. ... ... ....,.....•:„....FF..•••••• F .,,.......flo.......:FF.:-....FF!•"••
.,. .......!
Fr
i ....4... FF.! F.,,, :, . .. ..• .......„. ......igni-..:0.'4,.........-*-: ......
1 ..4iF. • .. ...F... ....., F.i...'......;,,,..,.::,...ii....,.... • ./.....F.4.F......AFFV .."...• .....
1 • :11 ...A • •'••••••••:4•••FiFF'..... - F.... .....-..... • .. ...r,,
.1 • • .... ' • ......-..." em••• • . .. : ti,„ .„... .A ....A
1 • . i ..4. e• i• • il
• •• ale . i.e . ••• i ....=;=, ... ...... I
.i
le°0,41/....,Nii...,/ LL ./..L. ' , „t„.0.1. ,,.......,..t...,'•
. ....... • .......41 „IP • e., .. 1
' I
: : .,.I .' .•
• • •• • .•
•' •••'.. ' ••••••• 1
.. ..f• ' .•• "*"
, ••. t...•• .1•••••••
• r,
•
-
•1;11.) g.
•
„.„
•••:•„•;•;•••,A4x-'..... •
• •I
•
.„. •
1.•:•••?1,1
„
• „
„
„ .
•-•• •
. • ••
„
•
i fiA..\\''
.. . , . .
: •1 ....
.-:•i ...••••, r.,„..
I ..„, •••• ..... ,jiiii..11
.: ...
i •„1 i. .. ••• i !
.. :"1- .. ''S
' • i,„.,1-11.11,......,.. 1 ).1........,11. k..1,.......1
...........:71 '.... ' ...; ........ I .., .. ...... , ...:
...JANE" ,.... ••-•••••••••••...,4:„....h.. ...,....,...... . .
. , ,-
...------;" '''''''.:T-Ilk .............. •::-........1114,071. .........../.. -„Iii...i,
,...,. • .__,.....-: ••••„; f. ••••••••••,••;:: ..I.10iiiiiiii111,--- 1 !.....\ii. .. - (;, killtp
•••• • 1:•1•1•••••:•:••••,•••„ 1 ........:.,.•,„ .. • .....,...111HEIHEigi..... .... i ,I i ••• .
• ••-I-- ,..II-Ii i \I.' : 1 ;1•1.,..,‘-il,;,..11 II1kIll‘s i
. • : I \ ...........,--.".., ...IIIIII, 1 le,.f,,, •••••• ••,:-..---••••••,,•••••••T•• ••••••10•••••• 1 • ..• •••. ••••••'.. " - ••• •
' •• ..
A j ''..•••••• • .1 •': .........." .7... ,1\ ( •,..t .•''l .....f...„..,‘ 1•••••••••••/' 1.1 1..........i. f• •••••-' •••••••• H.••• •i• ; .1. .., i - ... i
'••••••;.•-.1.: f j:1-4,• rt......2......A i..1 L.: — -,?.. ••• i 1 • ". ,..,....i...t ...,..... ... .... . .... • ••: : :. •:—iii
,..' iff 'I. ,..I..1.1.,, ,.1 • ,i;•II ,..., „ .1 \,...1., II... f I i' I \'••••••• !Ii • , I., , ..‘„,
\••• • I • , ......, ir: ;„;;;•iii.... 1c--1 ...., .4
.. ,... . .1 •‘,.. I. i.--. .. 1 •, ...--....54---- 1•••1
...•••••••1....". ••.1;'.. •••'•••ii 1"."i 0
, '.., ,- "'IA.- ,'••• .•,• . 'I • 1...
. i ..,... ..: ..i.. .... .\. i 1 • I --Ir.r..\/;•1 \I•Is...-"I.I., t • II.
,
As I;:::.• I . , . . .. . ... ../.. I' i • •
, •••• -, f•••,, I./.1.-i.,„ ...).. .!.4. i , Iii: 'Ai:I I, • 1,,:iii•
,f••••• .. .. i. . • Aii
.
, . . . .
• ,
,. ,.i'
, ........ ........„• : , ,,.. ... ;
. In : „I I i ........ ..;/,.. . ........ --,,,, . , , . .
. .. ... „.
, I .'I ,. I
- . ........ :• ...1......(''')1.... ..... ''') •
... . ::
1 ..... .. . 1 „..
i. .... ,,>'"*.r...:'... ./ 1 .. ....; 1-....r.-7 I ... •• •
. ,
,
,, . . ,:. ... .. . .
;
, .
;
.,
I .1 • \ ..,.
--.. ..,: ....,.•1/4...
.... ...—
. 1 .. .L.......L..:...I ....:..•.1; .-11,•• :.."...:,.'•, ..•.„.....,...
.• .: --....
... ; -1•••••••••-:'"7"...'.''.'.."''...::::::r 1••••••••••••,•••••••••-....: ... ,........„..... ..
i ...... i t• l'1
:.. . . •
•••— ....•.'.!••• I IL? ' '‘.. E;H••••••••••••••••••••••••:.
:. , • • , -.... ,
. . •.' ...'1.,1 . ,:.,••[;•;••,•••‘.7. : I„ : ,
.................; • .• •••• „• „..7 i —•,•••••• •••, .• .... ..1. i...•••••••:!...1
,
. . 1. ,
..„ i i •i r,. ....! .-1 ,.. .••••• i i ••••
• r ______„,, , ,
. . . ,
• ••.. .•-•,.........r, , „,••••••••••,, I .. ••
.....• . : . • :
•..„-- ,,c.„ 1 ! , ,......... I r i......... 1 • • .. • 1
€ • [ ••••••
..,./. ;,:
' ' . : .,. : . •. 1 I I ' *1 • 1; ..!
t . ; :...... 1.• •• • i . • 1. •I
• •••• . • • ••:••••••€ : •• .,••
, ...• I "...1C 1;••••.1 • IA 4/7
. /
M
.... ,... ; . ....\ i ..
I.:\ /
f.'• -;,. .... .....„ • /1 • , ,-- : ii.. (.;,.
: • : • t ; • .. i,;.;., ; •; ;„,.,,.•
i i . . ........„............... ,ii ‘-' .i.
.......,,,......„,„„,......., „...„......., ,
•• .i k .•
-...... , ...... ....,.
. . . ..,„.....-, ;
1 I ' -• ' I ‘..... .'.
1 . ....- ' .......... i i s.. ',....t
1•••••••••••••1 : I. i .... .... i 1 ' 1 1 ' ....•'..''')// ,,,•••10 ,
i 1..... t•••••••• j ! .. •••• i
..1. . . .. .....: : I . • . ........ : ....
• -• I....• ...11. I .• i . ,1 •I•• 1 •-•••'•••• ‘.....3 .... I :•1
•1'. ......, I...•••...... ..
•••-.i. i•.' ...,•''• • •••••1 1.• '11
.; ! , ............• ''... - 1 - :: -1/
: .,.. ..: .f...; ,
1 . i...„/. \ ,
i ....;..'....1 ;
....,.. . ..... .. .......i
..............................
•• • •"******"""'"""•••'• "'•"'••• •••• .
....
..
,.-...-
* .
„-,
0 ..
•
I
....„.„ „.4.
.....
.....
. ..
• • ,
r I .......i! •.••;:••••.• ••••••• 1:: •
I ,„,,„, ... ; ._.... ....... . .... .... ..., ....... ......
. ...„
......, ....
..„..., ......
„.. .....„ ,
......
„, _ ........ .::::::::::: -....',.).....,..,,...,...: i••••••• •• .
••• .... ........•
.....
-7 ....... „:„.„ ••• .......
...., •„„„....„ .
................................
... ... ... ... ... .
... .
I
• • .
...•....•
...E...... .
. • •!.......
• •
• • ••• •,„„
I ..
,. WO..
i.0:1' •• ...• ••:•,......'
. ..•
• . .
i: f• .
I
Lia...H.. .• ...I:,
.•
.•
.• i 0.
•
I ..: • • :."..' lif . ..•
•••••.,• 4 4
.1;
•'•
iki , . I.. • •:::•.• II''••
:r...: ...,;•••• .ff,,, .. Aj
lg.•;;.xx.• }"..2.,
I
..A.. ..
4 .1i
ff • ..• :::. ilff
4:7
.:.
•:6
. •',* 4.:::* IPliti
:0' ••4
., ... ..... ...,..,..
•
:...
• .
I
•• .
•
71. :1::::,,,4 • • •
••:. .
. • •:••.•
.g . .
• 'ff ff.ff 4 • .„
•
• •
• ''.' I P.' • .
.. .•
..... ......':
''....
" .•
"•" ..."
- • • .1....
•• 2 ":.:
•"'V.:,
..,..1
. ..•
I . :::.:. . ••••
..„,
. • - '.at...,..i..d.
r• : ...• ..'
•
•:••••.it::•••.4 .4; ,7
•.:
."-.
.., • "44.;
.." •
•
I
:::J.i.o.,•<,
•
I . ..... .• "
• , liL.. •• .M...... .- ..
• l'•••; ..t :k„.......4.•,•:•,,•
fkrjAeif.....! .•
• • • '41 IV"
• •
,.. .. , •••..1,•••••.:::,.
I . . .
•.•
.• ,..tM gM.iirl
. A..:
•:..;`;;:,..?.,...,,• •••..••1•••• , . 1,,,si.• k.66 , ..,.
tOs• 6.646Am 4''‘ ,AO*.."..7.:: • .
.. .
...:::::: •••••••••••-• 1.....!..1,..4 §.0. - 7•411!!••••2,• ... • '44 4.!Pl.!
!...2..2 .
'•:•••.:4•.....• 1••4:4:7'.- ..*V.: fikti. • 6••
I C6
'...6.
461 • .• .. ... 74; ,,,,,,.: . -70,
• ...••:66i — • ••
.666• ••• i 2,,. i..:::.., '.......07:., • ' ..... :n
...
t L.• :..4 4'4'**:.. ,. ..,,ii
fa.. „ i 41.11.:::-..,.......6A,to „.04,,•
I • .,:---,I-., Xik4 l'Ir*".. - ,:i;„L....1
...4...:::1ii '..,••'• , _... .4". 1P.FA4, .
• 1 t ..* 4.--4: -It'x' •
• 1 i•ii,I ,.4.1
..
I f%I • . ...:
•
• • .
I •
......................................... . ..
I .........................................................................................................
' -":1"..
..j.: -.. • \LI!) ..'; , 1 I
...:. . . ,:
.. • Pf..q.11.11.,:11-10.11 1
.„.. ..
'
..... : -1,..„.,„
-4:4). i
,
4 4
„pp,..p .:4 ...„.„. pp . .............!
.,.4„ ,,......,„....„,..4
•-• , , p.:- ._ ...- -
_••••• •••••••••• -I ..-„,f i ...1 .f. :!•:. .:f i ...........1 .
. - ,....„,' . .,:i!.......71
• .. ....,;,:••
.... • ... / ' \ ....' n''''...•'''',„„,... I „,•••••• ....... I
....„, ...., i I :I..; ... ..
- . . / . • . . 1
.., . „:, ,....• I
//I .t•. • ..• • ....•••• '......!.. ....,.....7 ... :
....
.I• •-,,,,,,.,.. iiii, .ri"ii
„S . fii: I ••
i • . „,• ••• : ill iii,
i. •• l , SS. CS,. „S
si , i , l ,
Silli-/ il 'SS •••*, il iNilliiil l • 0
/ . . •. l'w • . . ..... : • :.;:. .c,..4, ...
.......;•..... ' ..t....• li. •
is • i Y. i i• , S ',
,:i , : l'...,,:rs,(..),tes pet ....q Mao
•il • -I
.:••••• i• . .... . ,
•7 1 :.•••••...:::::••••••• 1..,.., •••,......000
/
..„,„..„./.'•''' -,....: '......
.......'-./ 1/2 - : '17el3 i•iiS WALNuT • ••••,,,I.:','''.. ' I ' ---••• ,AC• ' ...• ..''•-• ••••'.• ....Mt::: ..... !,....... 4:_i l..)::..1
• •44.r.,„,........r...r.rm.........,...- ,j, ... , N. .. • -
• • ..,.. .. ri.
f ; ---- \ ' •••••• ...• •• '"',,.... • .-.• f
.... - 1 „,. i. ••for...• •••• lc! f.,...c.o.)
i I • .......< •••;•.... ....„.i.•'•-• „
.......:,„.• :„
1 ',;.•:•.....E., i i•-•••••... . ... . . ... • ...„,i .:.:
..f.• ,.......•
• •• .A.), I ............. :„....• 44,.„.„ .1..! ..
...ii '-...•
i,..:„.A.ARpf.......,s7 mcD4-,..ri•A;D.•••-..1.--
. .. ,, .. 4. ....,..;... AA A a.,.............. ..............,..x.••• ...
?...'.•„
— •••• ••••••%
.. /..,
i • 4, ../ \
r , ..
.:..../ ....." u,......... -- - -• i :
'• • . , ...:. ... -....- ..., I .i• ----*
.........- -y .,•!!
.......-- i .1••• - ,................... ......ii
i
............................................... ............................................................. .................................................................................... ........
- •:.
e^ •:• :
...,.
I: <•••---.
•."7.:• • ::. :
..... I
-•••••<, ..
..... .... ... •:•• .....
...`"` 1 •j •-!')
.....
r••••- ,„.., ...... • ..
..... • • .... "- •••
. ....... ::: •`•," :77
•
E.7.4.
I .......,:: ../.: - „••••••••••„, •
4 . •.....• ....• ...
...
...,, " .
....... ...
,„...... _
....
....
.....
......,„
..................................
. ••••• 7. ..........................................
.'+'•••;::::•:. .. . •
.• •
•
•
. .
.. ..
.. . • .
. • .. •
/ . ...... ....
.•
..•
•
..: -
..... .
":i all . • •• .
•••...u:•.......1,744,....--•••••••••••'.......•:::•••••,..,..., •
• .
......... 4
.1, . ., .4,..,,,.......,..... ..
.• .
..
„:„.. . .. ' . .•
•
..... '1•?4. . .
"'v. RAV ..,„/ .•
....
.....„:„....„. .7:. +„ „, ...
\a •
..4'14............:
. ./ • \ .•
.•
.•
.•
..' '.:, .•
- :
... „..
• .•
\ ;
O''i/°
•
. .
• .•
.•
.•
'1, /„./..•
n,v.... ..„,..,......
I. .A. • ./'•• .
• .
. .
. .. ... ii ,. ,../..
......0• .
1 ./.
., .
. •
•
I .. .,,,F .,. •
F ..... •
.xx• •
'''•
• ....
.. . . •
...! • .
. .. . . •
1 • ..
•"""'•...• •
I .
• ..
...
• . .
Atli' • • •
• \ .....
•... . .•
.. •
• .44•44:".4.p.--./:; • 401 •••• • • • \ \•••• ..,...: I .. ...
• .
I• ... .• . ;* .N., C.4 j ,:„....i........,1 •.
.••• .
'-1:+2,-, .• •••......
. ....
i , ...,,.....' : .... ••• ...
,, N. .e I • •
I. .....
“;......•..i 4j '• II
.\N,,..i:, ...... •
...:.,•
. •. ...1
.. .
• ••••
• .., ,:.,..
'•)•:. .•
• ... . .
I •.
. .
.• •
. .
. .....,,,..
--....,,. .•
.•••
:::.; • '`...:....,
. .:.. ,
I ...
...
...
..... •.
. %.•,......_.•..j... :
.•
.,
. •• • . ..r.........
•
. .. .•
I •...::: . •
• •
. •,,', ,•' •••• ........ .,
. . .. .
. .
/
..
.• . •••
••••..„,..., ....i'..ci,,.:.i...;;:, •
.., -•••
••"""'• . .•
•. , ..,.....„.. ,
. .
..,
.'•..,....
. .
• ...'''••...
I .• •...,....,
•..,. .• •
• . ..
.,
•.
..
I ..
.f....?: • ........ .
..
...
• :.::
I • ... .
••
. •.
I • •
• .
I •
...............
.... .... ........ ..............................................................
..
. . . . ..... . , , '
• 14, —1. ,
: :\•I•1.11) '•'!.. ••:1 ;
3
. .
1 1•,:t.•)1 IR•:• !
..ii
. . :•):`,,
••4• • ••
i : 11,.C",...' '',.. (. 1 ric)i.ii) ;
./. .
..••....••• •'. •... ••••• .....—— ..
.../
•• •••• ....' ..1. :-....,::. ! „....... :•• •: •. ::: 1 .... : :I :
-• i % 1 _4.4:4.:•.. ..:::::••
.„•••••-- • ••,,
../ ...., ..; ::. .....:...
• • et I.....
...... Y
- >
.....- ' ...,....' jp.i......•
.M.:
LU 1 ,gg . g>>>, poc.• -- 4.
.... gg
, > g Med i.a ut 1•••Mwm....M r...
:'.. i < M /4 ., .•:•..... '..... rk%. mm'' i: Int•mtim 1•••.$1.
..! I ,„<it-•/ '.. •-, .1 ,::.;'..,:ii. \ .. .
./ •- 1
. •„4.„ i,--
1,,,, „..7 ... ..:4,-. .N.i..• .. ..
. ..
•••..-4'1
mot::,•• ...../.. ••• .....4,.. . .. . 30 (..'•••:....10 1.1:-::
,- ,,,,
.5 c --. ...
--r ••. ......i.". • 'ggli
•> ..„..., „. ill, • ' ...1.......1, ,..„...'„:i13
,.....„
, „:.A.• --•••••._44:::::•••••:•:•••:•:•:•=•••••1
/....< '.... 4•14 4 .''..1.k. : : 'E . .:t......, i2.••:...)..... •,„:„ •
...- • 4 ,. - L.NO.r „•-•••„,•, /•••• , . .4h : : ii
. .. . . ... • • ,
r.
.._ • .., - i ., /
. ... „ „.........._ .., .. .,.
- .. - - . . / , •:. . .. . .. , .....-.•••••..' I'•••••:ILI I
. ._„:___.. ...„ , ..:::_.-•••••-• •.. i ::: . „. ..„,........„...„,,....- :::
• , : •• ii
•• 1 'il•• .„., ?„...„. • 'tisk.:1°- ' •••••"1" •
'Ai.••• '.I,
, }"po • -. ••••."..." •1 • • . : •• '••.1 • •••••••••.•• • • ' 1•1,...„..\
• • • .1 • .• •••• • ,2,1, „.. ' ••%„„
.S.
. 1.„ 1..
,g.' - ,
r''...-
.4 , • •"..1.., ji..
— „ „.. • •.•••....; •-••••4.••••.:1 -„...4 1
• •-•• '-'•••••.1.4..1. ••
..„ . 4,..„. : .•... ..•„ .
x•••••• •
;
:•• • :c3AARDE,.;41- / 1../',D,„PNALD ST
....-7.1
•••(•.)
, .
,•••,!1.C....).!......./NT iti.„ , ,,,,,,,
/
,...,.. . ..
„....„.„ . .......„.. I. ..
...,1.1- •
>II
_.1 I: <
<
• • \ 1:•1),j•c•
i
i ...—- il• . ;
•:;.: . L__,,, . !.: •:•• 1.. -• ' • •
-------.....
„. ,
'4..... i....31 i
—,: M
::•••'• 1 :11••
:iir ,.......1
....A•••m• ,
••• : • ••,:•,,:mm..1
.:( • •„........... 4.44....................,..4.4,--,••••••••m:::.:::::::::::...„—,4::.„4 . :' .:
...
• • . • ggggi.; '
... ....'..
rr
• I
OP.
,
.. ....... -.
i '4•\•••.1011. 00 -1 1
.. 1 I 10*.d.DRD ( •)‘Ri.140f* :
...R.DIDIDRRADRD N.•
.1....•
,. 1.Rk,
VIII
..).* ..
.•
i ." P.) i•313(4..1.„ ip
...,'.
......,„„ .. „... .....
•... •„,„ „..•-•
.
• . ••••••.:10of: „-h-„ii,„
. . , ....J....4 ....-
...„,: . „„:„....
_
1 .„ •-•••••:.„ ..1 .„:„.„..•• •• . .:, .,..- „: „...1
. .„ •• • ..../.7. ?. . ...•••••••••• 1 .„-•-• I „:1••• • •-• • : •
., •••••
_ .. , ;,.... .....,
... , r••••••••••••••••••••-...... -- .
•'•-'••,,, i
-••1'.,. . :. -.••••••.,„.... ,.. ....,,,,i ; ,..../ ..•
..„ ..
::.
U....i . .
.... ....,..,
'
... .‹ "K'N'' /"'.% ✓'.;*. •'.....:: I Ni,......,--- 0
.-- •••4•7?..3..7 '••• ..- •••• 'il• ....x.-••
.•••• -:•!.., ,...)
.„... o . •••. . .1„--••••• --...., , :ii• •• .
•••• ••••••.:•,•; •....., 44,../7 ...,....„..-.41._
Dr; I **•-•.. ..•••••****. A 'RR
...• o
DT 1
IR IR ,
....
-
- ...— ..... _--
_ _ . .0
o.........": "---..: .._ l'.. **,..1,,,4„...V,RFAINUT 0....R•R° :..D.R.7.47.7- • • . •. .1' ----.4., .../••• 4-•••• ''''. ' •• '•-,.. , lir
. 3. I .!....• .4....,,
• .- • •• 1 -"'',.4;,•,,,. 1.1
- . . • . .1 ,/ .4.....4( ').•••...\ . 4 I •hy. ...41:•..
! •.1...--•••,,,,
•.18,
••
,
1-04 .1 „..
..,
• ••••••• / „•-• 5. „ .... 1.: I t.... .-'.
k 0
0----- *L, .4
7 j ......, '••: .'.'..,. •il
7 it' i ....... :.' 1:44M.1 •
•.••!•••,..
•!••,ii,•,,%,..., i,..•,••• :..•
b„kr"( '' 1'1, 0 fl",4 A't.,0
...._......,..................:.________R
•...D . ,
0 • i
i Y••
... ..*.AIIITAIN.................,..........4,.. r,
ik
i.... ' RD :',/ ...." ••;`.: • .. •.... . i
,.
.. .,......... D•.. x.:0••••••••••• D.: I 0 D :10:•„; :A !. ..DDD
- •••••••••••: : • —.
••••• D.• i D .:`.1 I 1 .o... •A --
o
........,._-.1 1 I
...........2.•:". i
1 1 .4-....-.....---••••••••k . A ,
......;;.... f„
z..:.I A
„„.,-.--..-....' i
i ......... ........ .. ..... ...; I I!
:AI 04: :1
r...I
)
„Sit
, ..........0'..:.'5......r... j: .....,(
. . : : • • 1."0..".. • •
'
....R. .... A.
,,..
rw
i .
1.4,g•
I
.1 •. ,
f .
I.
• .., •„, ...
,.
... „...% __ ... .: .. .. ...........
........................................................................„.,........................................,.....,........................................... — ;
,-- .- .... .....
•
-.. -
0 .
- ...‘ .
* ,,„,„... ;„ 5••••
...
•
-' - - •
I. '.1.... •*".:41. ........- ...... ..... ..... ....... „.., ..,....
. .. .
.r.
•
„;,.... ...... •.. ....
, • .. .
.., .....„ ....4.: ::::„.. ..
ki-
I - .....fr 72-....... ....;::'. ..:. -.•
,..
"..
........
. .4
11 <
iku "1
• •""'""""'••
I ....... <0.4.40;
• Ilikhnii.. * •
•''' ' •• „. . . ...
•:::....... ••
.. .
.. ..
.44.............
. •
. .
. •
I . .
•••-- ...,........................4.4414h4.,.... .
4i, • • ..
..• .f.14, • ...".
..• 4i.,,,, I ii
41.. ..
..•
..•
" • • ........ .F
•
.4.4h • ..1,,„ T
.• • '••'.4'4.TT.1:14., .. .1.
I •.'1, ...
.,,
...
.,..
...
..1,..
4.,
......g,4 :
.•
...I
•••••• . ..44,„....
....
...
".......
...
....
... •••41;111,1%.1
. •.... ... .
.... .
. • ..... .
..• if.. :.
.: • .... ...44.".. :
1• •1'•• ..............
..4.
.. .• —• .I! .
.•
: ....
.. .
.. ..........• ......................
.• ._ ......... ............................................................................ .
I .•
..•
..•
.•
..• :1 •
ii.... . ..
;.
..:.
..
:::I....:•
. ..,:•...••
....
..
...
•• .
•
.•
.•
.•
.• .!.
.•
. .. •.
i 1•1• %. :.!'
'4.
... .
.•
• I I
..:. i ..... :1. ............:..... .'"4..i.h .1.. „:v
•
2
111 1. •
.• .1 ..!„...., ..
•
•
• 'tr. .,,::.:''.. .I;
• .
•
•
•
I ..1"
.. •
. .•••
. • ,i114('''' ........
•
•
.1'. • •,..
:.• - ill .•
:..
...,
•.
...
. ..•
. .
..,.:. :.•
.. .. ..•
... ..
••
.. .:.
1:1'. ....
. ... ..,:,..
.. .;
;,..
.:••• •• .....•
. „. .
"' .:. ..
...“. ...
••
•
,i I. "' • ••
••••• .:
.:.• :: ..•
I'.... • .•.. .:.:.••••v••• .0... ...
.... '111:;••11: iL1I ..
.: ..
..• ....
:....•
...g. „..4„. ..•
..• ..••••
::: . ..• .
.. • '''' ..... .• .1 ' II,„: ..•
..•
... .
: .....•••••„,§17:- :
1.14,- .... .111 .. Iri••••:.
, ,„, ..'4"...,„„ • 11 ' .4,,i1 :..,
....1 i.'• .. .. „
— .:, •• j.1 I:
••••••••• ‘4•11.,•,,— 4' ..4.. ... .. •
. ..
• T. 4.4. ..... ; ;
...., „ 11 :.•.1:
... -
I; •., ..,
, . .'‘It......,.. '1,..,..j li, •• i I
.,.. I:: 1. 4,....,,..„:... . ..
...:
...
. 11 .. ..
,.,..,...
.,. dr.o,,,I '''',,,.. •'..1 .;
I .. )1.
..„4.
. I
..•
.., .1
- ....,
..... ..4.,. .
111 -
1 •'..k.' 4,,,, .
•
• ill ''....x.-,„,..1.1•••• .::,,,,
• .1 ..•
;55"111111111"".1.15••••••;;;;;51,.
:.•
•
I • - '••••''''",n4..,.., ..• '
x ,‘„,•—
••
ii.
• 1.1.
,•• if
li
•
x:r••11. •'''F•
.111.411,
'4'1.44''''41•'''''.-.' 1
....
..,
;.•
„. .
•
...• ..I...!
. ....
• .................,
I .. :.
.1•111
.. •' II
• '11.1
. .
/ .:••• i.41 1.
I ••
..• ..,,,,,,..4..
1„II, .:.„„. .. . •• :„
• • -
•251.5"
:.•
•
it.i. .•••.:
• 4. .
'44,...,4 •
• ''.h ..•
:I. ..•
I • 111 ....
.'"•• 1 ...'1„,..1.... •'''',„4,/,.......,04.• .4.1
...
•
.. 1, ...I..........;
.•
41
4 .•
'"%•::. ; . .. ::
•• II ...
_lb
I
.1%.... ..1...1;!. ..: II
:1.
• :: ................
:..•
..••.••
..• ..
..
•
I •
...
• 'lig:. ;
.k,
'44,441,, .•
•:.•
.••..
..••••.
..•
..•
..•
..•
.. i'.
•
•• .
• ..4'iliii,,,,,„ i.1 .
•
I
'4111 .....
.••••••
..••••••
..•
..•
..•
..•
..•
I . ........................................................ .:• ..11'.
................. . •
V � k
Designing Downtown
Downtown Tigard Code Revision Project
Sean Farrelly,Associate Planner
Long Range Planning
City of Tigard
July 17,2006
��-`t.�,��'• �' Designing
a.. • ' . • a ` Downtown
• +
■ A project to
. implement the
- !!;{, ‘. Downtown
Improvement Plan by
"i % " " revising the
• ���. a . e' Development Code
% for the Tigard
�3,y Downtown Urban
fay Cm C.=Reveal lfa.•• J�.....�r.�. Renewal area
nn Tyra,.
Tigard Downtown
Improvement Plan
(TDIP)
' Irf- I • Envisions the eventual
V.t�t creation of a vibrant,
„P= compact,mixed-use area
• with housing,retail and
a
employment opportunities.
• TDIP recommends
— •Q a
— Development Code
Y ° •'9-- revisions.
1
• •
_"-- ' ,--737,.,;':.-: — Current Zoning
_�4 —, ‘s `':
'" '- • 80%of area is zoned
-- `;:/..v - CBD .
• CBD zone has some
interim standards to
- . address transit usage,
bike,and pedestrian
1l . ti / circulation.� `
• Urban Renewal District
":,:-.7.-L includes additional zones
r 'b..f®. c.--...... of R-4.5,R-12,R-25,
• ............ and C-P.
Current Downtown Zoning
• Current CBD zoning
Illgallows for a wide mix of
uses(including residential.)
• However,lack of
guidelines has resulted in
some development that is
inconsistent with TDIP
goals.
Crown Cupets.Man&Tref
Designing Downtown
Project Goals
• To implement the vision of the TDIP by making
appropriate revisions to the Tigard Community
Development Code,with input obtained from
stakeholders through inclusive public
involvement.
• Address land uses,design guidelines,overlay
zones,and nonconforming uses.
2
•
Public Involvement
•CCAC to make initial recommendations
•Brochures sent to all Downtown
Property/Business Owners
•Planning Commission Public Hearings
•Downtown Dialogues
•Open House
•Information posted on website
Project Timeline
•Aug.23-CCAC makes recommendations
• Sept.18-Planning Commission kick-off meeting
• Oct.30-Nov.2-Downtown Dialogues
•February 2007-Open House
• May 2007-Planning Commission Code
Amendment hearings
•June 2007-City Council Code Amendment
hearings
Downtown Dialogues
• Downtown Dialogues:Small heterogeneous
focus groups with property owners,developers,
design professionals,and Tigard decision
makers.
• Forums will gather feedback and test proposals
on zoning,design guidelines,and overlay zones.
3
• • •
Project organization chart
City Center
Advisory Commission
Rale La,Chrea-,,,I
ISadurc tome,111.crecaoWerun LAW let
t.,44.14•
•DD11.oi1.aw lFonrgetdouow 1 P nnitailne g lrea,C.,...on.D.mma e Vmned,ar iV.o
i n e 4
n
emrn
owww..
CM Council
' •rsal C....1r
Designing Downtown
•Questions?
•Suggestions? •
13 P"
lffl I" '4
-EZ
4
• • b)i 14 i rJ (-1- D
DRAFT
Downtown Dialogues
t RR .„„..„ ._
,Ft2' ' 4III��'� �y' ., V - IMIIIRWil
'MAR T .f.. - `- 'I , 'I 1111 i ��■ �!'=
► cry' y3'r4. ` Q 1c ._,
! f -- .Haul°-' itu. �•,... ��. � 41---; /. ,i 1` 111ii !! Std..4�rl-:�� I 'GIII' i.,�; ,-t
__ � 1/� - 'S..raa l
"Downtown Dialogues"will play an integral role in the public involvement program of
"Designing Downtown" (the Downtown Tigard code revision project.)
Objective:The Dialogues will provide a forum to gather feedback from stakeholders.
These focus groups will also foster connections between property owners,
developers and design professionals.
Q The Downtown Dialogues will consist of a series of three focus groups,held
with small heterogeneous groups (8-12 people) of property owners, developers,
designers/architects and City of Tigard decision makers. They are tentatively
scheduled for the week of October 30`h - November 2"d at the Tigard Public
Library Community Room.
El Dialogue participants will be suggested by the City Council, CCAC,Planning
Commission, and Staff. Outreach to property owners in the Urban Renewal area
will be undertaken,including a letter from the Mayor and a brochure inviting
participation in the process.
El The primary goal of these meetings will be to get a "reality check" from
stakeholders, developers, and design professionals. Alternative proposals on the
following topics will be tested:
- Zoning: the number of zones and type of land use allowed.
- Design guidelines: the level of detail and how they will be
administered.
- Overlay zones: the type of regulations and how they could be
implemented.
El A secondary goal will be to foster connections between developers and property
owners.
El A consultant may be hired to review and prepare materials and facilitate the
meetings.
Product: A report outlining the feedback and suggestions obtained and recommendations
for next steps.
• •
DRAFT
July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
RFP for consultant x
Receive CCAC recommendations x
Select facilitator x
Develop materials x x x x x
Collect names for potential x x
participant list
Send invitations to potential x
participants
Confirm invitations x
Reserve room x
Meeting Logistics x x x
Hold Dialogues x
Report
• • t
Introducti •
%
City of Tigard The goal of the research wa gain insight
into what residents think abo .
• Important issues for the com. eh- •sive
Communit rvey Results plan update
une 2006 • Satisfaction with City services
O • Importance of various City characteristics
• Perceptions of the City's livability
0 • Preferred information sources
Satisfacti • • 0
IV!ethodology o •Satisfaction with Tigard as a plac- •live,1-10 scale
•Satisfaction with community planning scale
• Scientific telephone survey
• Sample of 400 residents of Tiga d 10 011111.
-Margin of error-+1-4.9%at a 95%I- el of 8
confidence 6 0111
-
• Fielding took place on May 22nd -Ju e 4 0111. -
�
5th, 2006; 5:00—9:00 p.m. 2/. -
0 /
As a place to live Community planning
Satisfac • Ratings % Satisfac • . 1 Ratings c
•City service satisfaction,1-10 le (Continued)
to-, .City service satisfaction,1-10 sca=
10 I
8 ' 8 i
,1I ■ ■ ■ ■ f"7
1I ■ II II III 11 1
2 II ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1
4
Interaction City. .• FY mil Centel w>.,00n Soeet Mnaye•a.t
Library City Police City parks etaet� rnin. .wrta.. ae6ibMn .taunt try City
1
• .
Tigard's •• ••sitives Tigard's Ne• : •ves
What residents like most ab•• living in Tigard:
Location-61% What residents like least about ■• in Tigard:
•Location/accessibility—49% •Traffic—45%
•Small/rural feel—18% •Growth—7%
Atmosphere—29%
•Nice/quiet community-20%
•Safety/low crime-6% The area's traffic and congestion problems
were mentioned as the most important issue
•Trees/Green space-6% 0/ as Tigard plans for the next 20 years.
Tigard, as • - lace to Live % Livability acteristics
0
Importance ratings on a 1-10 s e
50% \ Protection of trees and natural resource areas 8.4
40%' • • . Level of neighborhood traffic 8.2
Maintaining existing lot sizes in est.neighborhoods 7.8
30%'M ■ Pedestrian and bike paths 7.7 \
Compatibility between existing and new development 7.6
20%'' ■ . f ■ , Bus service 7.4
'' ■ ■ II Neighborhood rags to improve looks community 7.4
10% Neighborhood parks within% h mile of home 7.2
0%
Variety of housing types 7.0
Better Worse Stayed the same Commercial services 5-minute walk from home 6.1
•Past few years•5 years in the future I
Growth 1 igard % Conclusion
As more people move to the reg•8 should
growth be promoted,limited,or acco.,`odated? -Traffic and congestion manage t are the top
concerns of residents.
50%/ -Most of Tigard's services were rated in ••sl' -
40%/' _` terms.
30%/1 _- -Few think of Tigard's livability in negative ter is,and
/, , most think Tigard will get better(or at least stay he
20% same)into the future.
10%', '1 -Overall,residents appear to be proud of their cit
0% . i and cautiously optimistic for the future.
Accommodate Limit Promote
2
•
•
• •
What Does Tell Us Tigard Issues • • • Values
About Tigard Iss• -s/Values?
1. Issues, Values Stay Cons: t. 1. Transportation/Traffic.
-In 1993, same Top 2 issues, diffe anking Issues: Congestion, street impro - •-nts
(Growth 1st,Traffic 2nd). (esp. Downtown), 99W.
-Almost identical overall rating. (7.7/7.:
-Tigard appeal still location and atmosph_ e. Values:
-Library top-rated service. -Accessibility: Make traveling easier
2. Today, Traffic is Priority Issue. through City.
1.Traffic and 2. Growth, almost by a 2:1 -Minimize neighborhood traffic and protect
margin,.from 2004-06. livability.
-Focus traffic on main routes.
Tigard Issues • • • Values Tigard Issues . • • Values
2. Future Growth and Dev- •• •ment 3. Community (Housing/Ec,..omy)
Issues: Growth/Density, Popula'1•• Issues: Appearance, developmel
Overcrowding compatibility, traffic
Values: Values:
-Difference in opinion; needs clarity: -Home as suburban retreat (emphasis o
43% LIMIT growth recreation, natural areas, low traffic)
43% ACCOMMODATE growth -Maintain neighborhood densities,
10% PROMOTE growth character
*The longer in Tigard, the more likely to"li it" -Commercial important; improve appearance
-Housing choices: Direction not clear
Tigard Issues . • • Values Tigard Issues • • . Values
3. Community (DOWNTOW 4. Natural Resources
Issues: Appearance, transportati• Issues: Not consistently ranked ent
(access, pedestrian environment) approach effective?); funding
Values: Values:
-Important to residents; used regularly -Natural Features and Areas (as identity)
-Like convenience, character, services -Strongly valued for residential
-Vital, unique Downtown important for neighborhood livability and for Downtown
community, economy -Approach not clear: preserve, respect,
-Gathering place protect?Tied to funding.
•
3
. •
Tigard Issues . • ' Values Summary
ues
5. Public Facilities The key issue is -eas- ongestlon
determining how
Issues: Roads (effectiveness,
Tigard will grow: livability Maintain a hborhood
maintenance , lannin , recreation, •u: ' 9 9 compai le= -
� planning, Limit or compatible,r-c.,
safety, future costs Accommodate?And natural areas)
how will this choice -Improve Downto n
Values:
affect available
-Value current levels of service
design solutions and Areas-Natural Resource
-Library, Police, Parks top-rated our values?
-Maintain level of
services
4
• •
• , COM/vtUNITY
a CITY OF -TIGARD
NENATSPAPEIS OREGON
6605 SE Lake Road, Portland,OR 97222• PO
Box 22109• Portland, OR 97269 '
Phone: 503-684-0360 Fax: 503-620-3433 TI G A R D
Email: ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC AEARIT¢arc Planning
legaladvertising @commnewspapers.com The followin will be considered by the
g
Commission on Monda Jul 17 2006 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Civ,c Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon.
State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Both public oral and written testimony is invited.
g y g The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance
with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopt-
depose Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, ?Al by the Planning Commission and City Council and available at'
depose and say that I am the Accounting City Hall or the rules of procedure setfoorth in Chapter 18.390.
Manager of The Times(serving Tigard, Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public
hearing or verbally at the public hearin only. Failure to raise an
Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of issue in person or by letter at some point pnor to the close of the
general circulation, published at Beaverton, in hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to
the aforesaid county and state, as defined by afford the decision-maker an onnortunit.!on a ou nt'd pn,C-bi£F
ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that �o xatlg taissaf nano uinn £put al►tl uo led t u4 Ptal ;soli-09.4'1-394£
b t paioas ails'91 Jo pun oi ay1 ui au1 sia oig `its
City of Tigard o uno.i a l i t ul`£put S J V D pagQt>� p•Public Hearing Item 'mu np t7 30 �Ct}iaY�I aaioZ aql Jo_punoi �utwoiu ai11 UT
<puno.i uoou
TT10826 uilta3ap Aq luauituinol Atld 2uissaid
-�altui alp pauado s.iapoig aagt 3111 L9 wor'}p t
anuguo0
a copy of which is hereto annexed, was - .A.ioPin aq1 do
published in the entire issue of said au
newspaper for a a IuV • •
successive and consecutive weeks in the •I Q
llowg issues pJt1 a i •Jj June 29, 2006 "
uo6aiO s,uawoM900Z ay16u!u
•a11i1�nalewy alenpel6 I u
awes ays /�ydoal ayl splo4 � 00 �S
WU( 1/04k- uinn �gae6b a 'sbapoa8 �loe�l — AHdOal S.A3V111
y6�H p 1
` OOluamel.au3 Aq o1o4d
Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) £ - , , »
/ t
Subscribed and sworn to before me this atim.. ._ ; � t,.
June 29, 2006 e-- 4,= t
____ .. to__Ici.).).).0.)tr, . . . .. ,
NOTAR oBLIC FOR OREGON
My commission expires Iot,02c i n0O /
J„ t
Acct#10093001 ..- -`-.1�-`�- �-�- `- --�-7
Patricia Lansford )� OFFICIAL SEAL J
City of Tigard 1 - ., �� SUZETTE I CURRAN (())
13125 SW Hall Blvd. '�' >� COMMISSION NO 37306C3 )
Tigard, OR 9723 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV.28,2007()
Size:2 x 12.5
Amount Due $226.25
'Remit to address above
•
• . .
r• , COMMUNITY
N1EWSPAPERS q OF TIGARD
6605 SE Lake Road, Portland,OR 97222• PO a OREGON
Box 22109• Portland, OR 97269 '
Phone:503-684-0360 Fax:503-620-3433 T(GAR D
Email:
legaladvertising @commnewspapers.com CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CCommission Cen e Town Hai, 13 25 17.2006 at 7:00 PM at the SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon.
State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Both public oral and written testimony is invited.
The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance
1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopt-
depose and say that I am the first duly ed by the Planning Commission and City Council and available at
Manager an The Times(servin Tigard, g City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390.
Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of hearing verbally atthetpublic hearing prior Failure to raise an
general circulation, published at Beaverton, in g Y p g only.
issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the
the aforesaid county and state, as defined by hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to
ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue
precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that
City of Tigard issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community
Public Hearing Item Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is
TT10826 directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion.
A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submit-
ted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are
a copy of which is hereto annexed, was available for inspection at no cost. If you want to inspect the file,
published in the entire issue of said please call and make an appointment with either the project plan-
newspaper for ner or the planning technicians. A copy of the staff report will be
1 made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days
rior to successive and consecutive weeks in the at a reaso able cost.
and copies for all items can also be provided
following issues Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division
June 29, 2006 (staff contact: Chery Caines1 at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,
Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171.
SUBDIVISION (SUB)2006-00001/PLANNED DEVELOP-
MENT REVIEW(PDR)2006-10001/
e/IketY 1:04)__ ZONE CHANGE (ZON)2006-10001/SENSITIVE LANDS
REVIEW(SLR)2006-10003, 10004, 10006
&2006-00006/TREE REMOVAL •
Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager)
' PERMIT(TRE)2006-00011 & 00012
>SCHOLLS FERRY TOWNHOMES<
REQUEST: The applicant is seeking approval for an 88-lot
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ' `c'' Subdivision and Planned Development (PD) on 8.46 acres. A
June 29, 2006 ation Zone Change is required to apply the PD overlay. The lots are pro-
--C.
posed to be developed with attached single-family homes. Lot
AN 0 sizes will range from 1,046 to 2,661 square feet. There are two
NOTAR )•UREIC FOR OREGON --ai - existing single-family homes on the subject site that will be
^oved in concert with development. In addition, applications
My commission expires �AO� 02 for sensitive lands review have been submitted because the subject
_ ! nn+-7 site has slopes greater than 25%,drainageways,wetlands and 100-
0 year floodplain;and Tree Removal Permits are required to remove
Acct#10093001 two(2)trees locatec1within sensitive areas. LOCATION: 11035
Patricia Lunsford (~�`����-,.,-�•�� 1S133CA, Tax 135tH
100, 200, 300 and 1000. ZONE:WCTM
City of Tigard ''. OFFICIAL; Medium-High Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning dis-
13125 SW Hall Blvd. ` SUZETTE I C
�" `�'" trict is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and
Tigard, OR 9723 ` `.i NOTARY SI0N' new attached single-family at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square
�""� COMMISSION NI g Y
'9 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES I feet and multi-family units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square
-''•��'�1�-`-�-�.-`, feet. A limited number of neighborhood commercial uses is per-
Size:2 x 12.5 mitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are
Amount Due $226.25 permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
`Remit to address above Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380, 18.390,
18.430, 18.510, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775,
18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Publish 6/29/2006 TT10826
'--1-31: koi.,---,CS.::-<7'a,Z;A''' ''';'-:/ TH-L,::: ;,:i" --1.71:3a1 6'(':ii:Iiii-' i\17
I
. �Ni '[c 1 � / <�,s k + 44 - „r >. JUI 600
p ^ 77 rt? \ -`.i-•' ,,�
.Ii21xY,�llxgl}
�1': W 1 'IRR KxK(MO
I Ct
I ( .. ::.•, ! 4 3 iti��1 ti Ian 7 N..- �a
4 'I I
A q!
/,�
! ,I i*---,-*
r_A.:1 v,,.: ,..,,,,,i,,„:v=3 ______,...
-lir 1 -'.:- (. ' la '
•
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
. TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Beth St. Amand, Senior Planner
RE: July 17, 2006 Meeting
DATE: July 7, 2006
At the June 19, 2006, meeting, staff will address three Comprehensive Plan Update items:
1. Community Attitudes Survey results, 2. Issues and Values Summary Report; 3. Natural
Hazards (overview). Each item will be previewed below.
Also, in response to the Commission's requests at the June 19, 2006, meeting, the following
items have been addressed:
• On August 8, 2006, City Council is scheduled to consider a resolution designating the
Planning Commission as the Steering Committee for the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
• A copy of the Public Involvement Program- Version 2 (distributed for the 6/19/06
meeting) has been enclosed as Attachment A with all changes from Version 1 noted.
July 17 Agenda
1. 2006 Community Attitudes Survey Results
Riley Research Associates conducted this phone survey from May 22 June 5, measuring 400
residents' satisfaction with City services and their preferences for community planning. The
survey results show that Tigard's citizens are generally satisfied with living in Tigard and with
its services. Their major concerns are traffic and planning for the future to maintain or
improve livability. The Comprehensive Plan Update will be based upon the community
values identified through this survey, along with recent City surveys and Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow. A copy of the final report is attached (Attachment B).
Planning Commission Action Required:The survey results will inform the Comprehensive Plan
Update. The consultant's PowerPoint will be presented for your comment. No action is
required.
2. Issues and Values Summary
What do Tigard residents value? From 2002 to 2006, the City conducted 11 surveys of its
residents, from written surveys distributed at the library to 12-minute phone surveys, to.find
I:\LRPLN\Beth\Comp Plan\Planning Commission\7 7 06 memo for Comp Plan.doc
• •
out what citizens think about various topics. The 2006 Community Attitudes Survey is the
most recent entry.
Collectively, the data forms a solid foundation for the City's Comprehensive Plan Update
(Tigard 2027). To aid and inform all citizens, elected officials and staff involved with the
Comprehensive Plan Update, the Issues and Values Summary provides a unified review of
all results (you will receive via email). Taken together, what themes emerge from the last four
years, and what areas does the Comprehensive Plan process need to consider more closely?
Areas of conflicting views for further examination have been identified, as well as areas that
clearly stand out as priority.
Planning Commission Action Required:Are these results consistent with your experiences as
Planning Commission and as citizens? Provide comments to staff to finalize this draft report.
3. Natural Hazards Overview
Senior Planner Beth St. Amand will introduce Natural Hazards. We will define the topic
(What is a Hazard?) and review the inventories and data available, and provide a preliminary
analysis of the current conditions. As a reminder, the purpose of the session is to familiarize
the Commission with base conditions and ask for your comments: Are there additional items
we need to address? What questions do you have on these facts? Policy issues will be
addressed next year in Phase III.
Planning Commission Action Required:Provide comments to staff to aid in preparation of the
report (September meeting).
Attachments:
A. Public Involvement Program
B. Community Baseline Survey 2006: Report
C. Draft Issues and Summay Report, 2002-2006 (to come)
D. Natural Hazards Preview (to come)
I:\LRPLN\Beth\Comp Plan\Planning Commission\7 7 06 memo for Comp Plan.doc
• •
• o RILEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
/ Research for Marketing, Public Relations, and Planning
g
June 16, 2006
TO: Tom Coffee, Beth St. Amand
CITY OF TIGARD
FROM: John L. Campbell/ Michael J. Riley
RILEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
RE: COMMUNITY BASELINE SURVEY 2006
www.rileyresearch.com
9900 S.W.Wilshire, Suite 250,Portland,OR 97225
phone[503]222-4179 fax[503]222-4313
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW 1
INTRODUCTION 3
METHODOLOGY 3
RESULTS 4
APPENDIX: Questionnaire
RILEY RESEA RCH
• •
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
Satisfaction
® Satisfaction with Tigard as a place to live is relatively high with a vast majority of the
residents (79%) giving a rating of 7 or higher. The overall mean rating given was 7.8 on a
ten-point scale. (Q1)
® With ratings of 5 or 6 considered neutral, most of the City's services were rated on the
positive side.
® The library received the highest mean satisfaction ratings of the different topics listed (8.9
for both the overall perception of the library and personal experience with the library). (Q6-
17)
® The overall perception of City Police (7.9), personal experience with City parks (7.9),
personal experience with City Police (7.8), and overall perception of City parks (7.8) all
followed the library by about one point. (Q6-17)
Satisfaction Ratings Mean No interaction
Overall perception of the library 8.9 17%
Personal experience with the library 8.9 22
Overall perception of City Police 7.9 14
Personal experience with City parks 7.9 16
Personal experience with City Police 7.8 41
Overall perception of City parks 7.8 13
Interaction with City staff 7.6 48
City water and sewer services 7.5 13
The Permit Center 6.6 71
Recreation and leisure activities 6.6 29
Street maintenance 6.4 2
In regards to traffic,the ability to get around the City 5.3 1
% In regards to planning, a majority of residents (60%) gave a rating of between 5 and 8 on a
ten-point scale with a mean rating of 6.1. (Q18)
Perceptions
® A majority of residents mentioned location (61%) as what they like most about living in
Tigard, consisting of 49% mentioning the location or accessibility and 18% mentioning the
small or rural feel of the area. (Q2)
® Roughly one in two of the residents (45%) mentioned traffic as what they like least about
living in Tigard. (Q3)
® The area's traffic and congestion problems were mentioned as the most important issues as
Tigard plans for the next 20 years. (Q19)
® About one in two residents (46%) believe the City of Tigard has stayed about the same over
the past few years; another one in four (23%) think Tigard has gotten better, while another
one in four(23%)think it's gotten worse. (Q4)
oz RILEY RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
•
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW(CONTINUED)
Roughly one in three residents (33%) believe Tigard will become a better place to live in the
future, but nearly an equal percentage (34%) believe it will become worse. Just over one in
four(27%)think Tigard will remain the same. (Q5)
Preferences .
® Protection of trees and natural resource areas (8.4) as well as the level of neighborhood
traffic(8.2)are viewed as the most important of the livability characteristics listed. (Q20-29)
Livability Characteristics Mean Importance
Score
Protection of trees and natural resource areas. 8.4
The level of neighborhood traffic. 8.2
Maintaining existing lot sizes within established neighborhoods. 7.8
Pedestrian and bike paths. 7.7
Compatibility between existing and new development. 7.6
Bus service. 7.4
Strengthening regulations to improve the appearance of the community. 7.4
Neighborhood parks within a half-mile of home. 7.2
Variety of housing types(like single-family,townhouses, and apartments). 7.0
Neighborhood commercial services within a 5-minute walk from your house. 6.1
% Residents are divided, with equal percentages of residents thinking growth should be
accommodated (43%) or limited (43%). Only a small percentage thinks growth should be
promoted (10%). (Q30)
® The most frequently mentioned sources for local government information were the
Oregonian (44%), the Tigard Times (29%), the Cityscape Newsletter (29%), and television
news (22%). (Q36)
RILEY RESEARCH 2
• •
INTRODUCTION
The city of Tigard asked Riley Research Associates to conduct a baseline survey
among residents. This survey will set the foundation on current perceptions and a
template for subsequent benchmark studies on a two to three year basis. The key
subjects of the study included insights into: •
• Satisfaction with City services
• Importance of various City characteristics
• Perceptions of the City's livability
• Residents preferred information sources
METHODOLOGY
Riley Research Associates worked in association with the city of Tigard to create the
questionnaire. The scientific telephone survey was conducted among residents of the
city of Tigard. If residents were unsure if they live inside the city limits, cross streets
were asked for and checked to ensure they lived inside the city limits.
A total of 400 questionnaires were completed. This size sample yields a margin of error
of +1-4.9% at a 95% confidence level. Fielding began on May 22nd with pretests, then
officially commenced on May 23`d, and concluded on June 5th, 2006. The calls were
made between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. using a RDD (random digit dial) call list
provided by an independent broker that was specified by zip code.
The results are displayed in a question-by-question format. A copy of the questionnaire
can be found in the Appendix. Cross tabulations with demographic breakouts and
verbatim responses are included as separate documents.
o RILEY RESEARCH
ASSOCIAESTES 3
• •
RESULTS
Q1. How satisfied are you with the City of Tigard as a place to live, on a ten-point scale
where one means "very dissatisfied" and ten means "very satisfied"?
Satisfaction with Tigard as a place to live is relatively high with a majority of the residents (79%)
giving a rating of 7 or higher. The overall mean rating given was 7.8 on a ten-point scale.
The following groups gave significantly higher mean ratings than their counterparts:
✓ Those without children at home (7.9 vs. 7.5 those with children at home)
✓ Residents who have not attended city meetings (7.8 vs. 7.3 those who have attended)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 1%
2 0
3 0
4 2
5 8
6 8
7 14
8 30
9 18
10-Very satisfied 17
Don't know 1
Mean 7.8
%RILEYY RESEARCH 4
• •
Q2. What do you like most about living in Tigard?
A majority of residents mentioned location (61%) as what they like most about living in Tigard,
which consisted of 49% mentioning the location or accessibility and 18% mentioning the small
or rural feel.
Just over one-quarter (29%) mentioned Tigard's atmosphere, which included 20% mentioning
the nice or quiet community, 6% mentioning the safety or low crime rate, and 6% mentioning the
trees and green spaces.
Three groups are more likely than their counterparts to mention "location" as what they like most
about Tigard:
✓ Residents age 40 to 49(70% vs. 53%to 64% other age ranges)
✓ Residents who have not attended meetings (62% vs. 53% those who have)
✓ Newcomers to Tigard (69% residents of 3 years or less vs. 57% to 62% other lengths of
residency)
Total
Total Participants 400
Location 61%
Location/Accessibility 49
Small/Rural feel 18
Atmosphere 29
Nice/quiet community 20
Safety/Low Crime 6
Trees/Green space 6
Amenities 10
Schools 7
Parks 3
Library 3
Don't know/Other 15
Miscellaneous 5
Don't know/Na 9
O RILEY RESEARCH 5
to ASSOCIATES
• •
Q3.What do you like least about living in Tigard?
Slightly less than half of the residents (45%) mentioned traffic as what they like least about living
in Tigard. Other various topics were mentioned in small percentages, they include: growth (7%),
the City Council or City Government (4%), the crime rate (3%), and the lack of parks (3%).
A number of residents mentioned there is nothing they like least about living in Tigard (12%)
The following groups are more likely than their counterparts to mention traffic:
✓ Those who have voted in at least one of the last two elections (47% vs. 40% those who
haven't)
✓ Homeowners (47% vs. 41% renters)
✓ Residents who live closest to Templeton Elementary (59% vs. 30% to 53% other
schools)
Total
Total Participants 400
Traffic 45%
Nothing I like least 12
Growth 7
City Council /Gov't 4
Crime rate 3
Lack of parks 3
The Police 2
Taxes 2
Run down areas of town 2
Downtown area 2
High home prices 1
The rain 1
Lack of rec services 1
Miscellaneous 12
Don't know/Na 10
o RILEY RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES 6
•
Q4. As a place to live,would you say that in the past few years,the City of Tigard has
become better,worse,or has stayed about the same?
Just under half of the residents (46%) believe the City of Tigard has stated the same as a place
to live over the past few years. Another quarter (23%) think Tigard has gotten better and
another quarter(23%)thinks it's gotten worse.
An interesting results was found when look across the demographic groups. Those age 18 to 29
and those 60 years or older appear to be more optimistic about the current status of Tigard as a
place to live (31% and 32% respectively report Tigard has become "better" as a place to live vs.
16% to 27%1 of the other age groups).
Total
Total Participants 400
Better 23%
Worse 23
Stayed the same 46
Don't know 8
Q5. Looking 5 years into the future, do you believe the livability of Tigard will become
better,worse, or will it stay about the same?
Roughly one-third of the residents (33%) believe Tigard will become better as a place to live in
the future. A nearly equal percentage (34%) believes it will become worse as a place to live.
Just over one-quarter(27%)thinks Tigard will remain the same.
Similar to the previous question, those age 18 to 29 and 60 years or older appear to be more
optimistic about Tigard's future as a place to live (43% and 41% respectively think Tigard will
become a better place to live vs. 25% to 35% of other age ranges).
Total
Total Participants 400
Better 33%
Worse 34
Stayed the same 27
Don't know 7
While there is not a statistically significant difference in the groups the finding in telling, nonetheless.
%RILEY C RESEARCH 7
• 0
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City
services on a ten-point scale,where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means "very
satisfied." If you've never visited or had interaction with the service,just let me know.
The library received the highest mean ratings of the different topics listed (8.9 for both the
overall perception of the library and personal experience with the library). The overall perception
of City Police (7.9), personal experience with City parks (7.9), personal experience with City
Police (7.8), and overall perception of City parks (7.8)all followed the library by about one point.
The ability to get around the city, in regards to traffic, received the lowest score of the bunch
with a 5.3 out of 10.
Mean
Satisfaction No
Score interaction
Overall perception of the library 8.9 17%
Personal experience with the library 8.9 22
Overall perception of City Police 7.9 14
Personal experience with City parks 7.9 16
Personal experience with City Police 7.8 41
Overall perception of City parks 7.8 13
Interaction with City staff 7.6 48
City water and sewer services 7.5 13
The Permit Center 6.6 71
Recreation and leisure activities 6.6 29
Street maintenance 6.4 2
In regards to traffic, the ability to get around the City 5.3 1
/ASSOCIATES o RILEY RESEARCH
8
• S
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
The Permit Center that provides building permits and zoning information
While a majority of residents (71%) have had no interaction with the Permit Center, of those
who have, the following groups gave significantly higher mean ratings than their counterparts:
✓ Females (7.0 vs. 6.2 Males)
✓ Those who haven't attended city meeting (7.0 vs. 5.5 those who have attended)
✓ Non-voters (7.4 vs. 6.5 voters)
✓ Home renters (7.6 vs. 6.5 homeowners)
✓ Newcomers to Tigard (7.9 3 years or less residency vs. 6.2 to 6.7 other lengths)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 3%
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 5
6 2
7 4
8 4
9 3
10-Very satisfied 5
No interaction 71
Don't know 2
Mean 6.6
/0 ASSOCIATES RCH 9
•
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service,just let me know. (Continued)
Your overall perception of the City Police.
A majority of residents (59%) gave the overall perception of the City Police a rating of 8 or
higher on a 10-point scale. The mean rating given was 7.9.
While on the whole the ratings were relatively consistent across the demographic groups, a few
groups gave significantly higher mean scores than their counterparts:
✓ Voters (8.0 vs. 7.6 non-voters)
✓ Home renters (8.3 vs. 7.7 homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 2%
2 1
3 2
4 1
5 5
•
6 7
7 9
8 23
9 12
10-Very satisfied 24
No interaction 14
Don't know 1
Mean 7.9
o RILEY RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
• •
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
Your personal experience with the City Police.
Roughly one in five residents (41%) have not had personal experience with City Police. Of those
that have had interaction, a mean rating of 7.8 out of 10 was given.
Two demographic groups gave significantly higher mean ratings than their counterparts, they
were:
✓ Voters (8.0 vs. 7.4 Non-voters)
✓ Home renters (8.2 vs. 7.7 homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 2%
2 1
3 3
4 2
5 1
6 3
7 5
8 15
9 10
10 -Very satisfied 17
No interaction 41
Don't know 1
Mean 7.8
az RILEY RESEARCH
a ASSOCIATES 11
• •
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service,just let me know. (Continued)
Your overall perception of the library.
Just over two in five residents (43%) rated their perception of the library a ten out of ten. The
mean rating given by residents was an 8.9.
The following groups are more likely than their counterparts to give a rating of ten:
✓ Females (48% vs. 37% Males)
✓ Residents age 60 or older(61% vs. 35% to 48% other age groups)
✓ City meeting attendees (51% vs. 42% non-attendees)
V Renters (48% vs. 41% homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 0%
2 0
4 1
5 3
6 1
7 4
8 13
9 15
10 -Very satisfied 43
No interaction 17
Don't know 2
Mean 8.9
0/RILEY RESEARCH 12
ASSOCIATES
• S
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
Your personal experience with the library.
Roughly one-fifth (39%) rated their personal experience with the library a "ten."The overall mean
rating of 8.9 was given.
The following groups were more likely to rate their personal experience a ten compared to their
counterparts:
✓ Females (43% vs. 34% Males)
✓ Residents age 18 to 29 (52%)and 60 plus (52% vs. 26% to 40% other age groups)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 0%
2 0
3 1
4 1
5 4
6 1
7 4
8 12
9 15
10 -Very satisfied 39
No interaction 22
Don't know 2
Mean 8.9
a ASSOCIATES RESEARCH 13
• •
Q6-1 7. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service,just let me know. (Continued)
Your overall perception of City parks.
A majority of residents gave a rating of eight or better for their overall perception of City parks.
Residents gave an overall mean rating of 7.8 out of 10.
The following groups gave significantly higher mean ratings than others in their groups:
✓ City meeting non-attendees (7.9 vs. 7.3 attendees)
✓ Non-voters (8.2 vs. 7.7 voters)
✓ Renters (8.4 vs. 7.7 homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 1%
2 1
3 2
4 2
5 6
6 7
7 11
8 23
9 12
10-Very satisfied 22
No interaction 13
Don't know 2
Mean 7.8
%RILEY RESEARCH 14
ASSOCIATES
• •
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
Your personal experience with City parks.
Just over half the residents (55%) rated their personal experience with City parks an eight or
higher on a ten point scale. The mean rating given as a whole was 7.9.
The following groups gave significantly higher mean ratings:
✓ Residents age 18 to 29(8.3)and 60 plus (8.4 vs. 7.8 to 7.8 other ages groups)
✓ Renters (8.5 vs. 7.8 homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 1%
2 1
3 1
4 3
5 7
6 6
7 10
8 20
9 13
10 -Very satisfied 22
No interaction 16
Don't know 1
Mean 7.9
RILEY incH 15
• •
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service,just let me know. (Continued)
Recreation and leisure activities.
Interestingly, just over one-quarter of the residents say they have had no interaction with
recreation or leisure activities in Tigard.
Multiple groups gave significantly higher mean ratings for recreation and leisure activities, they
are:
✓ Those without children at home (6.9 vs. 6.2 with children)
✓ City meeting non-attendees (6.9 vs. 5.3 attendees)
✓ Non-voters (7.0 vs. 6.6 voters)
✓ Renters (7.3 vs. 6.5% homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 3%
2 3
3 2
4 6
5 12
6 4
7 8
8 11
9 5
10 -Very satisfied 13
No interaction 29
Don't know 6
Mean 6.6
RILEY R RCH 1 6
• •
Q6-1 7. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
Street maintenance.
A majority of residents (63%) gave street maintenance a rating of between five and eight out of
ten. The overall mean rating given was a 6.4.
The ratings were relatively consistent across the demographic groups. Only City meeting non-
attendees gave a significantly higher score than attendees (6.6 vs. 5.7, respectively).
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 5%
2 1
3 6
4 6
5 15
6 12
7 17
8 19
9 8
10 -Very satisfied 9
No interaction 2
Don't know 1
Mean 6.4
0/RILEY RESEARCH 17
ASSOCIATES
• •
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
Your interaction with City staff.
Slightly less than half the resident have had no interaction with City staff. Of those who have a
mean rating of 7.6 out of 10 was given.
Two groups gave significantly higher mean ratings than their counterparts:
✓ City meeting non-attendees (7.7 vs. 7.1 attendees)
✓ Voters (7.6 vs. 7.2 Non-voters)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 1%
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 5
6 2
7 10
8 14
9 8
10 -Very satisfied 9
No interaction 48
Don't know 2
Mean 7.6
.%RILEY RESEARCH i 8
ASSOCIATES
• •
Q6-1 7. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
City water and sewer services.
Roughly half of the residents (51%) gave City water and sewer services a rating of eight or
better. The mean rating given was a 7.5 out of 10.
Only females gave a significantly higher rating across the demographics groups (7.7 vs. 7.3
Males).
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 3%
2 1
3 1
4 2
5 8
6 4
7 15
8 21
9 11
10-Very satisfied 19
No interaction 13
Don't know 2
Mean 7.5
o RILEY RESEARCH 19
to ASSOCIATES
• •
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on
a ten-point scale, where one means"very dissatisfied" and ten means"very satisfied." If you've
never visited or had interaction with the service, just let me know. (Continued)
In regards to traffic, your ability to get around the City.
A majority of residents (57%) gave a rating between four and seven for their ability to get around
the City. The overall mean rating given was a 5.3 out of 10.
Residents age 40 to 49 (5.0) and 50 to 59 (4.8) gave significantly lower ratings compared to
other age groups (5.6 to 5.8 other ages).
Two groups gave significantly higher scores than their counterparts; they are:
✓ Males (5.4 vs. 5.1 Females)
✓ Renters (5.6 vs. 5.2 homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 8%
2 7
3 9
4 12
5 17
6 11
7 17
8 9
9 4
10-Very satisfied 5
No interaction 1
Don't know 1
Mean 5.3
%RILEY CIATES RESEARCH 20
• •
Q18. Please rate how the City is doing in regards to planning the community, on a ten-
point scale,where one means "very dissatisfied" and ten means "very satisfied".
A majority of residents (60%) gave a rating of between five and eight on a ten-point scale. The
overall mean rating given was a 6.1.
The following groups gave significantly higher mean scores than their counterparts:
✓ Females (6.3 vs. 5.9 Males)
✓ Residents age 18 to 29(7.1 vs. 5.6 to 6.3 other age ranges)
✓ City meeting non-attendees (6.2 vs. 5.7 attendees)
✓ Non-voters (6.7 vs. 6.0 voters)
✓ Renters (6.9 vs. 5.9 homeowners)
Total
Total Participants 400
1 -Very dissatisfied 4%
2 2
3 4
4 5
5 16
6 13
7 14
8 17
9 4
10-Very satisfied 5
Don't know 18
Mean 6.1
RILEY RESEARCH 21
• •
Q19.What is the most important issue for the City of Tigard as it plans for the next 20
years? (Open-ended question)
Roughly two in five residents (37%) mentioned the traffic and congestion problems in the Tigard
area as important issues to consider while planning for the next 20 years.
Small percentages mentioned the following as important issues for consideration:
✓ Street and road improvement/maintenance (9%)
✓ Schools and school funding (9%)
✓ Population/overcrowding (7%)
✓ Public safety (6%)
Many more individual issues were mentioned; please see the Verbatim Appendix page 4.
%�ASSOC RESEARCH 22
• •
Q20-29. How important are the following characteristics to the livability of Tigard's
residential neighborhoods, on a ten-point scale, where one means "not at all important"
and ten means "extremely important?"
Protection of trees and natural resource areas (8.4) as well as the level of neighborhood traffic
(8.2) are viewed as the most important of the characteristics listed. The characteristic viewed as
least important is having neighborhood commercial services within a 5-minute walk from home
with a rating of 6.1 out of 10.
Mean
Livability
Score
Protection of trees and natural resource areas. 8.4
The level of neighborhood traffic. 8.2
Maintaining existing lot sizes within established neighborhoods. 7.8
Pedestrian and bike paths. 7.7
Compatibility between existing and new development. 7.6
Bus service. 7.4
Strengthening regulations to improve the appearance of the community. 7.4
Neighborhood parks within a half-mile of home. 7.2
Variety of housing types (like single-family, townhouses, and apartments). 7.0
Neighborhood commercial services within a 5-minute walk from your house. 6.1
fa ASSOCIATES 23
• •
Q30. As more people move to the region, do you believe the City should promote growth,
accommodate growth, or attempt to limit growth?
Equal percentages of residents think growth should be accommodated (43%) or limited (43%),
while only a small percentage thinks growth should be promoted (10%).
The following groups are more likely than their counterparts to prefer accommodating growth:
✓ City meeting attendees(51% vs. 42% non-attendees)
✓ Homeowners (45% vs. 39% renters)
The following groups are more likely than their counterparts to prefer limiting growth:
✓ Females (47% vs. 39% Men)
✓ City meeting non-attendees (45% vs. 35% attendees)
✓ Voters (46% vs. 36% non-voters)
✓ Residents who have lived in Tigard more than 20 years (54% vs. 33% to 47% other
lengths)
The following groups are more likely than their counterparts to prefer promoting growth:
✓ Males (14% vs. 7% Females)
✓ Residents ages 18 to 29 (24% vs. 5%to 14% other ages)
✓ Non-voters (21% vs. 6% Voters)
Total
Total Participants 400
Promote 10%
Accommodate 43
Limit 43
Don't know 4
0/RILEY RESEARCH 24
fo ASSOCIATES
• •
Q31. How many years have you lived in the City of Tigard?
Total
Total Participants 400
3 years or less 20%
4 to 9 years 26
10 to 20 years 32
More than 20 years 22
Refused 1
Q32. Which of the following elementary schools is nearest to your home, and if you don't
know please say so? (Aided)
Total
Total Participants 400
C.F. Tigard 19%
Durham 17
Woodward 15
Templeton 12
Alberta Rider 10
Metzger 9
Don't know 20
%RILEY RESEARCH 255
ASSOCIATES
• •
Q34. Do you rent or own your home?
Total
Total Participants 400
Own 75%
Rent 23
Refused 1
Q35. Have you voted in any of the last two elections?
Total
Total Participants 400
Yes 74%
No 25
Refused 2
o RILEY RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES 26
• •
Q36. How do you generally learn about what's going on in local government? (Unaided /
Multiple Responses)
The most frequently mentioned information sources were the Oregonian (44%), the Tigard Times
(29%), the Cityscape Newsletter(29%), and the TV News (22%).
Multiple groups are more likely than their counterparts to use the Oregonian as an information
source for local government; they include:
✓ Females (47% vs. 41% Males)
✓ Residents age 60 and over(64% vs. 30% to 46% other ages)
✓ Residents with children at home (50% vs. 36% no children)
✓ Homeowners (47% vs. 38% renters)
✓ Tigard residents of more than 20 years (56% vs. 36% to 45% other lengths)
The following groups are more likely to read the Tigard Times for the local government
information:
✓ Residents age 50 to 59(39% vs. 14% to 39% other age ranges)
✓ Those without children at home (32% vs. 24% those with children)
✓ City meeting attendees (37% vs. 28% non-attendees)
✓ Voters (33% vs. 16% Non-voters)
✓ Homeowners (32% vs. 18% renters)
The next list of groups are those who are more likely to use the Cityscape Newsletter for local
government information:
✓ Females (32% vs. 25% Males)
✓ City meeting attendees (39% vs. 27% non-attendees)
✓ Voters (34% vs. 15% non-voters)
✓ Homeowners (34% vs. 14%
✓ Tigard residents of more than 20 years (43% vs. 24% to 26% other lengths)
Total
Total Participants 400
Oregonian 44%
Tigard Times 29
Cityscape Newsletter 29
TV News 22
Word-of-mouth 9
InternetNVeb 7
County newsletters 6
Public Access TV 2
KUIK Radio 1
KKCW/K103 1
Miscellaneous 4
Don't know 4
Refused 1
0/�ASSOCIATES RESEARCH 27
. •
Q37. Have you attended any City of Tigard meetings in the last year?
Total
Total Participants 400
No 86%
Yes 13
Refused 1
Q38. Do you currently have children under the age of 18 living with you?
Total
Total Participants 400
No 63%
Yes 36
Refused 1
Q39. And finally,which of the following categories includes your age? (Aided)
Total
Total Participants 400
18-29 10%
30-39 17
40-49 25 0
50-59 30
60-69 7
70+ 10
Refused 1
Gender
Total
Total Participants 400
Female 53%
Male 47
,,a RILEY RESEARCH 28
ASSOCIATES
• .
APPENDIX: Questionnaire
Hello, my name is of Riley Research calling on behalf of the City of Tigard. We are
calling to hear your opinions and satisfaction with City services and priorities. Your feedback will aid
the City in providing services and long-term community planning. (IF NECESSARY) All of your
responses will be completely anonymous and combined with hundreds of others.
S1. To start off, do you live inside or outside the city limits of Tigard? (IF OUTSIDE, POLITELY
DISCONTINUE.)
Inside -1
(Don't know) -2
S2. (IF DON'T KNOW TO S1)What are the cross streets nearest to your home?
Community Services
Q1. How satisfied are you with the City of Tigard as a place to live, on a ten-point scale where one
means "very dissatisfied" and ten means "very satisfied"?
1 —Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10—Very satisfied 99-Don't know
Q2. What do you like most about living in Tigard?
Q3. What do you like least about living in Tigard?
Q4. As a place to live,would you say that in the past few years, the City of Tigard has become better,
worse, or has stayed about the same?
Better -1
Worse -2
Stayed the same -3
(Don't know) -4
Q5. Looking 5 years into the future,do you believe the livability of Tigard will become better,worse, or
will it stay about the same?
Better -1
Worse -2
Stayed the same -3
(Don't know) -4
%RILEY ATRESEARCH
• •
Q6-17. Moving on, I'd like to ask you to rate your satisfaction with the following City services on a ten-
point scale, where one means "very dissatisfied" and ten means "very satisfied." If you've never
visited or had interaction with the service,just let me know.
1-Very dissatisfied 10-Very satisfied
The Permit Center that provides building 98-No 99-
permits and zoning information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 interaction DK
Your overall perception of the City police 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Your personal experience with the City police 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Your overall perception of the library 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Your personal experience with the library 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Your overall perception of City parks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Your personal experience with City parks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Recreation and leisure activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Street maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
Your interaction with City staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
City water and sewer services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
interaction DK
In regards to traffic,your ability to get around 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 98-No 99-
the City interaction DK
Tigard is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan. This 20-year plan guides City decisions
regarding land use, the provision of public facilities and services, and community
livability. Your feedback on the next series of questions will help shape the plan.
Community Planning
Q18. Please rate how the City is doing in regards to planning the community, on a ten-point scale,
where one means "very dissatisfied" and ten means "very satisfied".
1 —Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10—Very satisfied 99-Don't know
Q19.What is the most important issue for the City of Tigard as it plans for the next 20 years?
%RILEY RESEARCH
• •
Q20-29. How important are the following characteristics to the livability of Tigard's residential
neighborhoods, on a ten-point scale, where one means "not at all important" and ten means
"extremely important"?
1-Not at all important 10-Extremely important
Neighborhood parks within a half-mile of home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
Variety of housing types(single family,townhouses, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
apartments)
Pedestrian and bike paths 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
The level of neighborhood traffic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
Compatibility between existing and new development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
Neighborhood commercial services within 5 minute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
walk from your house
Maintaining existing lot sizes within established 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
neighborhoods
Protection of trees and natural resource areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
Bus service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
Strengthening regulations to improve the appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99-DK
of the community
Q30. As more people move to the region, do you believe the City should promote growth,
accommodate growth, or attempt to limit growth?
Promote -1
Accommodate -2
Limit -3
(Don't know) -4
Now we'll finish up with some demographic questions.
Q31. How many years have you lived in the City of Tigard?
Q32. Which of the following elementary schools is nearest to your home, and if you don't know please
say so? (READ LIST)
Alberta Rider -1
C.F. Tigard -2
Durham -3
Metzger -4
Templeton -5
Woodward -6
Don't know -7
Q33. (IF DON'T KNOW TO 032) What are the cross streets nearest your home?
Q34. Do you rent or own your home?
Rent -1
Own -2
(Refused) -3
RIA SEC RESEARCH
• •
Q35. Have you voted in any of the last two elections?
Yes -1
No -2
(Refused) -3
Q36. How do you generally learn about what's going on in local government? (UNAIDED, MULTIPLE
RESPONSES)
Tigard Times -01 Word-of-mouth -06 KKCW/K103 -11
Noticias en Espanol -02 Internet/Web -07 NPR/OPB -12
Oregonian -03 KUIK Radio -08 Cityscape Newsletter -13
El Hispanic -04 Public access TV -09 Don't know _ -18
County newsletters -05 TV News -10 Refused -19
Other(list): -20
Q37. Have you attended any City of Tigard meetings in the past year?
Yes -1
No -2
(Refused) -3
Q38. Do you currently have children under the age of 18 living with you?
Yes -1
No -2
(Refused) -3
Q39. And finally,which of the following categories includes your age? (READ LIST)
18-29 -1 60-69 -5
30-39 -2 70+ -6
40-49 -3 (Refuse) -9
50-59 -4
Those are all the questions I have, the City of Tigard would like to thank you for your valuable
opinions. Have a great evening.
Record Gender
Male I -1 I Female I -2
RILEY RESEARCH
• •
PROPOSED
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
III m
FOR THE
CITY OF TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
TIGARD MARCH 2006*
Introduction
In 1983,Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was created to plan for 1980-2000. It's now 2006, and
Tigard is updating its Comprehensive Plan for the next 20 years. This effort involves the
Planning Commission, City Council, and Committee for Citizen Involvement,as well as the
citizenry at-large. The Planning Commission will act as the Steering Committee.
What is the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan will guide Tigard's planning, actions, and investments over the
next 20 years. State law requires that each jurisdiction complete and maintain a
Comprehensive Plan. Through the Plan, the community balances its needs and values with
its resources, determining how the city will look and operate in the future.
Comprehensive Plan sets a policy direction for the City. It will reflect the community's values and
guide City decisions on
. land use,
. provision of public facilities and services,
• community livability.
The Plan will be based on a fact base of current conditions, community values and goals
(identified through Tigard Beyond Tomorrow,past and current surveys), and state and
regional requirements. It will be built upon previous efforts,most notably Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow. Through a citizen-driven process,the Plan will convert the community's vision
for its future into an action plan for City staff and elected officials. Other major initiatives—
including the Capital Improvement Program, the City budget, functional/facility plans, City
policies and the Development Code—build upon the Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan is grouped into six major topics:Natural Resources;Environmental Quality;Community
(Housing and Employment);Public Facilities and Services;Transportation;
Future Growth and Development.
Comprehensive Plan Schedule
The proposed work program includes six phases and the following dates:
March 2006: Phase 1
\.--. ...... -•:i.:.i- l' -::- - . -- ';. . -' `.;: ... -: :::. :: . .
Early 2007:State of the City, 2006:Currant Conditions Report
*Version 2. (Revisions June 2006)
•
Dec. 2007: Estimated completion date.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
Thc Committee for Citizen Involvement's role i
determined by state law. State Planning Coal 1 a33ign3 Timeline
Phase 1:
involvement program. Thc City of Tigard's CCI Phase 2:
reviewed the draft Public Participation Program at it3
:. _ : • . ::: : Phase 3:
:. - r_ - Phase 4.
.: Phase 5 and 6: —
Tigard's Comprehensive Plan policies (2.1.1,2.1.2,2.1.3) currently state that the City shall
maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and provide the following: 1) citizen
involvement opportunities for all phases of planning process (Involvement);2)
opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and involve a broad
cross-section of the community (Outreach);and 3) information on land use planning issues
is available in an understandable form for all interested citizens (Information). To achieve the
above Plan objectives, the Comprehensive Plan Public Participation Program groups outreach tools by
Information, Outreach, and Involvement. The Comprehensive Plan will create a specific list of tools for each
phase and incorporate them into the schedule and work program. To achieve this objective, the
- -- •-
Review of this Document
The Committee for Citizen Involvement's role is determined by state law. State Planning Goal 1 assigns the
CCI responsibility for assisting in the development, implementation and evaluation of a jurisdiction's public
involvement program. The City of Tigard's CCI reviewed the draft Public Participation Program at its
2/16/06 meeting and was supportive of the program's approach. The CCI provided comments for
refinements which were noted and have either been included when appropriate or will be addressed as
individual elements are developed and put into action.
In addition, the Planning Commission reviewed the program at its 3/20/06 meeting and provided
suggestions that were noted and have either been included when appropriate or will be addressed as individual
elements are developed and put into action.At this meeting, the Planning Commission also agreed that the
general structure of the proposed public involvement program fits with the Comprehensive Plan (Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes, 3/20/06).
• •
Plan Components
CHAPTER 2: CITIZENLINVOLVEMENT, SUM MARY.OF GUIDING POLICIES:
The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement programand provide the
following
1) Citizen involvement opportunities for,all phases of planning:process.(Involvement), = •
2) Opportunities that are appropriate to+the scale of the planning effort and;involve a broad cross-section.
of the cominuni y (Outreach);"and _
3) Information on land use planning issues in:an understandable form for all interested citizens;
(Information). . _
Tigard Comprebensive'Plan _
I. Information
The Information component makes basic facts available to the public:who,where, and
what. Citizens will be able to utilize existing communication channels (Tigard Times meeting
calendar, City of Tigard website and events calendar) to locate basic information at their
leisure. The City will provide facts, contact information, and key points of the project's
progress through to the primary communication channels. Materials will be written clearly
and be available prior to meetings, as well as after.
Tasks
1.1 Get the Word Out: Initial effort to provide citizens Information: Overview
with basic foundation to understand Comprehensive > Participation Level: Basic
Planning and a historical context for changes from 1983- > Duration:Throughout process
2006. Use Cityscape and Press Releases to local papers. > Implementor: City with CCI input
Continue publicity with `Did You Know...?"facts throughout ➢ CCI Role: Provide feedback
process. (Phases I and II)(Phase 1) suggestions for additional news
outlets.
1.2 Set up and maintain News Network Use the ➢ Staff resources: Utilizes existing
venues for press release distribution and meeting communication channels. Requires
following p g city staff time to prepare information
notices:Tigard Times, Oregonian,Regal Courier,website, materials. Cost for printing and
Community Connectors, Cityscape, the Chamber distributing materials.
newsletter, CPO Newsletters, the City's enhanced
neighborhood program,Washington County Update newsletter,local organization
newsletters (American Legion, etc.), and TVTV Tigard Reader Board. The City will use this
distribution list for press release distribution and meeting notices throughout the process.
(All Phases).
1.3 Make Materials and Process Accessible.
A. Produce materials that are clearly written and clearly explain land use planning. Use
language to engage citizens and explain how the planning process impacts them.
B. Have draft documents available at the Library Reference desk and Permit Center. Have
overview materials available to facilitate citizens'entry into the planning process throughout the schedule.
C. Also have documents,meeting schedule,and updated timeline available on the City's
website,arranged by topic so that citizens can easily find their areas of interest. le
•
the
D. Hold meetings and events at accessible times, such as evenings or weekends.
E. Utilize the City of Tigard's volunteer translator to help reach non-English speakinggroups.
(All Phases)
1.4 Produce Citywide Updates.
A. Phase 2: State of the City (Current Conditions, Issues and Values Report). Distribute
executive summary citywide through water bills or other vehicle. (Phase 2)
B. Publish tabloid document for all households that summarizes the draft Comprehensive
Plan. (Phase 4-5).
1.5. Maintain Interested Parties list and distribute electronic NewsList newsletter.
Send notices of events, project updates, and Planning Commission meetings. Collect names
through initial effort, CCI efforts,use Tigard Beyond Tomorrow members. Primarily
electronic mail,but paper available. (All Phases)
II. Outreach
Outreach is a concerted effort to bring more detailed information to the public and get
citizens excited about the project. Strategies include having informational meetings with City
boards and committees and specifically targeting and delivering information to specialized
groups or areas.
Outreach will be conducted at the beginning of the process (introduce concept, distribute
s ey),and at key decision points (alternatives, etc.) to update citizens and explain the
process.
2.1 Provide City Board and Committee updates.
Match boards and committees with the most relevant topics Outreach: Overview
and target their involvement and comments. In addition, ➢ Participation Level: Intermediate
provide regular updates, including Willeeeur-at end of
each phase to-update-thern-to explain on the findings ➢ Duration:At key points
➢ Implementor: City with CCI input
and the process, and promote the next phase. ➢ CCI Role:Provide feedback
suggestions for additional groups and
2.2 Provide Neighborhood program updates. identify underrepresented groups to
Will occur at end of each phase to update them on target.
the findings and the process, and promote the next ➢ Staff resources: Staff time to visit
phase. Also explore connections with schools meetings.
through the neighborhood program.
2.3 Target additional outreach as needed. This outreach falls into three categories:
A. Identify gGroups that may be underrepresented in the process-apprep -a
par-ti opie. One example suggested by the CCI is to seek out minority groups and/or
send meeting notices to newspapers serving specific populations.
s •
B. Specific stakeholders or groups on a per-topic basis. For example, natural resources groups on Natural
Resource issues.
C. Local civic organizations to promote the general process.
III. Involvement
Involvement is the highest level of participation. Citizens express their opinions,use their
knowledge of the Plan and City to evaluate choices and help shape decisions, and share their
experiences through the following: 1) Provide written or verbal comments. 2) Attend
periodic workshops/open houses to supply their observations and to evaluate how their
personal patterns will be affected by the proposals. 3)Attend the Planning Commission
monthly meetings and offer public comments. In addition, the City has already done a great
deal of work soliciting citizen opinion, and this project builds upon those results.
3.1 Use Citizen Surveys. Base Comprehensive Plan on Tigard Beyond Tomorrow, all
citizen survey results, and new Community Attitudes survey results. The new survey
will have specific questions on issues and values relating to the Comprehensive Plan.
3.2 Meet with Tigard Beyond Tomorrow focus group session. Discuss results of
State of the City and possible alternatives. (late 2006)
Involvement: Overview
3.3 Conduct Open Houses at Town Hall or Library. ➢ Participation Level: High
Have citizens "walk" through each topic. Use ➢ Duration:Throughout process
photos/discussion to determine people's preferences to ➢ Implementor: City,Planning
help develop alternatives in small focus groups. Commission,and CCI
➢ CO Role: Help with event
3.4. Incorporate youth and schools. Conduct sessions implementation,provide feedback.
with children on specific topics to get their ideas. Explore ➢ Staff Resources: Includes staff time to
set up meetings,prepare materials.
tie-ins with computer work (i.e., SimCity), or specific class Costs will be incurred for materials.
work, or essay and drawing contests.
3.5. Planning Commission Work Sessions. The
■
Planning Commission acts as the Plan Steering
Committee. The Commission holds public meetings that are open to all citizens. The
Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed monthly. In addition,the Commission may
invite the citizenry at-large to have a joint session or Open House.
3.6. City Council Updates with Planning Commission. Use regularly scheduled
joint meetings to provide Plan process updates.
3.7. Hold Public Hearings. These will take place at Planning Commission and City
Council for adoption purposes.
3.8 Hold CCI meetings throughout the Plan Process. These meetings provide the
CCI with the opportunity to evaluate the current Public Involvement Program and
provide additional suggestions during implementation.
• •
•
Summary
These three components are all interrelated. Each plays a key role in building community
support for the plan by offering citizens different levels of participation,based upon their
interest and their time commitments. By incorporating broad-based public participation
early and throughout the planning process, the Public Participation Program creates
opportunities to increase the public's knowledge,understanding, and involvement in the
plan.
0
Public Participation Program* Phase 2 b egins 'Phase 4 begins
Phase 1 1 begins) 'Phase 3 begins I - 1Phase 3
April May June July _Aug Sep Oct. Nov. Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sepllec
1.Information
1.1 Get the Word Out • •
-
1.2.Set up News Network • •
Issue Press Releases • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1.3 Make Materials Accessible All Phases
1.4 Produce Citywide updates I • •
•
1.5 Maintain interested parties list All Phases
2.Outreach
2.1 Board/Committee updates • • • •
-
2.2.Neighborhood updates • • • •
2.3 Additional outreach As needed
3.Involvement
3.1 Use Citizen Surveys •
3.2.Tigard Beyond Tomorrow • •
3.3 Conduct Open I louse/Tours - • •
3.4.Youth and Schools To be determined.
3.5.PC Work Sessions I I • • • • • • • • •
3.6 Council Updates To be determined.
•
0
1).1-......,....t....-.)..1:-.. .
..: .--... ..#.
, .
• •••••••• .....
.. - ..• . , - 4.'..
• ••..
X''''''!'".'. .•.''''....'....1
.41W..k.ryt . .... .. , ••i. .
..'• • • .
..t...1 .. .'- ....k ....i.
... -.... iiz.'.:..7.1"S;;;.4'.....4...v.4.1.:::::..,' ....,:f*.•.1..ii.....' - .. . . .
. ,. ... . .............
... Y. ' ' '''''''' '**".' • ..•*4 til, 7.s..1.....• ' '4 : .*
-- - .......- • • .... . - .....a .t
i.'.."'-'4.`e..*-..k.11...I. *:••••11:i..,:: ....i...-.!..-...........: .......!- . . - ,-..- . , . ... .. .... ;,..... A,••• .
..... ..-.; ....k,..11:-.."...1.-...1..........:.•1.•'..,..,?.1.•1iii:..,......i.,106 •4•••.......1 - • •••'. ....'..... .. .- ..„ .a...:01.. —....-...... 1J -
, .
.. •• .....
- .... " -
1.-.....' . . ..
.. ....... . ., ..
. . - ,- .. •........
. . .- .. ...... ..... . .
.... .........-- •• •...- -•--A.,.....% .. -
.:......... ....... ....,.,,,.... .. -..
• — ........ ...........
..... . , ....•••
• _ , ... .... .::::.......... ....•..•••••..............,...........:•:.:::::....• ...
.,.....:.„,:!!!„;.......,„„,......„„„„„„„„„„„„;,.... ......:...::.. ......... J.,...i..............;..:.4..47.4' ........,.,„_.. . ...
__........„,...,,........................
..... ..............------------------------.---------------------.-----------------..
f...-- --.1 ... ....,.
..., .....
A ...... A. A. . ...
Is. s... t..-..... r....-..i...' s A.N1) ''‘..T'A... 1...., t.......... i....4..,. ........
......-'..i.li.}...2-21:Jf..)f-
• •
P r e f a c e
What do Tigard residents value? From 2002 to 2006, the City conducted 11 surveys of its residents,
from written surveys distributed at the library to 12-minute phone surveys, to find out what citizens
think about a variety of issues from parks to city services.
Today, that body of work represents an important historical record of Tigard residents'values and
identified community issues. Viewed individually, each survey provides detailed information to
inform decision-making about a particular topic. Collectively, the data forms a solid foundation for
the City's Comprehensive Plan Update (Tigard 2027). The City's updated Comprehensive Plan will
guide decisions on land use, the provision of public facilities and services, and community livability
for the next 20 years.
As the community develops alternatives for its future through Tigard 2027, it will build upon these
issues and values. Every topic is inter-related; choices made for one topic will affect another,but all
will be based on this commonality of values.
To aid and inform all citizens, elected officials and staff involved with the Comprehensive Plan
Update, the following document provides a unified summary of all results. Taken together,what
themes emerge from the last four years, and what areas does the Comprehensive Plan Update need
to consider more closely?Through this cohesive review, areas of consistency and contradiction
became apparent. Areas of conflicting views for further examination have been identified, as well as
areas that clearly stand out as priority.
A Note About Surveys
It should also be noted that the method of data collection should be considered. Surveys that are
"self-selected" are considered to capture less of the public opinion spectrum;often,those on either
extreme of an issue are motivated primarily to respond. Surveys that are "randomly selected" in a
"scientific" survey attempt to eliminate some bias in respondent selection and capture the range of
opinion on an issue. Where applicable, this analysis attempts to link each type of survey on a
common issue to examine consistency. A survey index is located at end of the document.
1
• •
I n t r o d u c t i o n
In 1993, the City of Tigard asked its residents to "talk" about their community in the first Community
Attitude Survey entitled "Tigard Talks." Residents were,in the words of the report, "fairly pleased" with
Tigard as a place to live. Residents rated Tigard's livability as a 7.7 out of 10, citing location and atmosphere
as their top reasons for enjoying life here. Top rated services included the library, senior services, police,and
parks.
Thirteen years later, the City of Tigard conducted its second Community Attitudes Survey. The news
remained positive: the City's livability rated a 7.8 out of 10, and Tigard's citizens consistently gave living in
Tigard and its services high ratings. A majority of residents also mentioned location (61%) as what they like
most about living in Tigard,with atmosphere (community character (nice/quiet), safety, trees) coming in
second. Once again, top-rated services included the library,police and parks.' And when residents were
asked about what they liked least about living in Tigard, the second-highest response was "nothing I like
least."
In a world where life moves fast and change can be swift,it's encouraging to view these two surveys and see
that after all,values have stayed constant in Tigard during the last thirteen years. The ideals that draw and
keep residents here continue to make this a place that people call home.
However,when Tigard's residents were asked in 2006 about the City's future livability, they were almost
evenly divided, saying either it will be better (33%),worse (34%), or stay the same (27%). Over time, the
issues faced by a community can shift and change happen incrementally. Surveys allow the City to monitor
citizens' experiences and concerns and respond accordingly. A comparison of the top citizen-identified
issues (Table 1) shows that over the last 13 years, the top three issues for Tigard are consistent,but the
ranking has changed. Whereas in 1993 growth and development ranked as the top threat to quality of life
(the question as asked then),in the last three years citizens have consistently ranked transportation and
traffic concerns as the biggest issue.
Table 1. What is the Most Im•ortant Issue for Ti•ard?
1993 Tigard Talks Survey 2004 Tigard Beyond 2005 Tigard Doninti L, .. 2W Corninunity&82fie•
`..(Q: Biggest threat to Tomorrow Community Improvement Survey
�ac'x`y
=qu4ht74of,life). Sunrey r .t#
•
Random,mailed survey of Self-selected survey(409) Random,scientific survey of Random,scientific survey of residents
resident voters 483 res onses resident voters 401 400
1.Development and 1.Traffic Congestion 1.Roads,traffic and 1.Traffic and congestion
Growth(41%) transportation(37%) problems(37%)
2.Traffic and 2.Growth 2.Growth,population and 2.Street and road
Transportation(27%) annexation improvement/maintenance*
(9%)
3. Safety/Crime 3.Environmental 3.Education 3.Schools and School Funding
Preservation
4.Taxes and Costs 4.Downtown 4.Infrastructure/Public 4.Population/Overcrowding
Services
5.Poor Planning 5. Community 5.Public Safety
A. .earance
6.Education/Schools 6. Safety
*2005 included this to.icin roads,tr,jtc,tran sortation.
The 2006 survey did not ask about senior services.
2
• •
As we embark on the Comprehensive Plan Update, these values and issues will guide Tigard's path to the
future. The following report takes an in-depth look by topic, as defined by our citizens through their words
and responses over the last four years.
Transportation is Number One
Issues
Clearly, Traffic Congestion ranks as Tigard citizens'number-one issue. In the 2004 Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow Community Survey,2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, and the 2006 Community
Attitudes Survey,Tigard residents named traffic congestion as the top community issue. In addition, one in
two residents mentioned traffic as what they like least about living in Tigard (2006 Community Attitudes
Survey). While some of the responses mentioned 99W, others focused on neighborhood traffic: In both the
2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey and the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey results,
neighborhood traffic ranked as the first and second most important residential neighborhood characteristics.
Citizens also recognize the effect of transportation and traffic on Downtown. In the 2004 Downtown
Survey, respondents identified Transportation one of the top two areas for improvement. Specifically,
residents cited modification of the 99W/Main Street relationship, improving traffic flow, accessibility and
improving the pedestrian environment.
In the 2005 Citizen Leadership Communications Survey, 17 open-ended responses addressed
transportation, despite the survey's communications topic. These comments focused on traffic, traffic
control, and neighborhood traffic.
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
Residents also recognize that the transportation system needs The vision statement does not
improvements. Nine percent of respondents ranked street and road address transportation. However,
improvement/maintenance as the most important issue for Tigard the 2005 Traffic and Transportation
(2006 Community Attitudes Survey and the 2005 Tigard Downtown Direction statement includes the
Improvement Survey). Street improvements to provide better access following(bold highlights key
to Downtown produced the most support for Tigard Downtown points):
Improvement financing in the 2005 Tigard Downtown -Tigard takes proactive role in
Improvement Survey. regional transportation planning
-Have adequate funding sources to
Summary of Values build and maintain system
Tigard residents value their travel time and want to be able to travel -Streets safely handle traffic
from point A to point B easily and without being mired in traffic; for designed to serve
specific roads, 99W is most frequently cited as a problem, -Local traffic served by well-
particularly its effect on accessibility to the Downtown area. connected street network/primary
Considering 99W's central location throughout Tigard,it affects a roads accommodate through-traffic
majority of trips throughout the City and citizens' daily experience. to minimize traffic impacts on
At the same time,residents want to preserve their neighborhood local neighborhoods
livability by minimizing neighborhood traffic levels. Residents also -Alternative transportation
recognize that the street system needs improvements, particularly in methods available and encouraged
the Downtown area. These conclusions are consistent with the
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow direction statement.
Future Growth and Development
Issues
While traffic and transportation run away with the top ranking, growth and growth management take
second place in the community's consciousness. Growth has two components: an general perception of
overall City growth, and a more personal perspective that considers neighborhood effects of development,
which will be considered under "Community."
3
• •
While the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey named growth as Tigard's second most
important issue (density, control or manage growth,and overdeveloped/crowded conditions),it fell to
fourth in the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey issues list,preceded by traffic congestion, street
improvement/maintenance, and schools and school funding. When respondents were asked what they liked
least about living in Tigard,growth ranked third,behind traffic and"nothing I like least."
In the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, 27% of residents cited growth,population and
annexation issues as the most important issue facing Tigard, almost half as many as the top choice (47% for
roads, traffic and transportation). Respondents addressed small lots, overcrowding, and a need for better
community and growth planning. Regarding growth through annexation,while the majority of Tigard
residents were supportive of annexing Bull Mountain (2002 Bull
Mountain Annexation Public Attitude Survey), specific comments Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
reflected a concern how growth would impact city services and taxes, The vision statement does
including future funding sources. not address growth.
However, the 2005 Growth
In the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey,when residents were asked and Growth Management
"as more people move to the region, do you believe the City should Direction Statement states
promote growth, accommodate growth,or attempt to limit growth?", the following (only growth
they were evenly divided between accommodate and limit (43%),with related statements included):
10 percent advocating for promoting growth.These results turn on the -Growth will be
definition of"accommodate" and how residents perceived it. It could accommodated while
either lean more toward "promote" (allow) or reflect a resignation that protecting the character
growth will happen regardless. In any case, this question shows the and livability in new and
difference in opinion for the City's future growth. established neighborhoods.
Summary of Values
Growth is on Tigard residents' minds, although traffic and transportation is still the clear priority. Perhaps
the difference in growth and traffic management reflects personal experiences.Almost every person who
has to travel within Tigard experiences traffic on a daily basis. It also could relate to location of, and age of,
homes; those residents located in older neighborhoods may have experienced new development within their
neighborhood,while new residents are part of growth. The 2006 survey shows that the longer a respondent
lived in Tigard, the corresponding percentage of"limit"growth responses increased: While 33 percent of
new residents said "limit"growth, 54 percent of 20-Year-and-Over residents said limit. 2
This question reflects a difference in opinion for the City's future growth. With the failure of the Bull
Mountain annexation,Tigard is essentially land-locked with growth focused on remaining parcels within
Tigard's boundaries. How will Tigard grow? To answer this question, the Comprehensive Plan Update will
focus on this critical topic to define the terms (accommodate),and understand the needs of existing
neighborhoods and long-time residents, as well as those of new neighborhoods and residents to the area.
The section regarding neighborhood characteristics (under"Community") also shows that perhaps certain
amenities can affect how people accept or perceive new development/growth.Additional exploration of
these characteristics will be done during the growth alternative phase to address future development and
design. Lastly, it is important to citizens to consider the impacts of new growth on existing City residents
and services.
•
2 The highest percentages of"limit"by geographical area isn't as clear,as 20 percent of respondents were unable to identify their
neighborhood school.
4
• •
Community ( Housing and Employment)
Housing
To assess growth's impacts on neighborhoods,both the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey and the 2004
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey asked respondents to rate the importance of residential
characteristics to neighborhood livability. Table 2 shows that the top four characteristics are almost
identical,with the exception of compatibility and protection of trees and natural resource areas. While
compatibility is ranked fifth in the 2006 survey, natural resources have taken a higher priority.
Table 2: Residential Livabili Characteristics
2004 Characteristics Score 2006 Characteristics Score
(Somewhat (from f-
or Very 10;10
Important) highest)
1. Compatibility between 92% 1.Protection of trees and natural 8.4
existing and new resource areas.
developments
1.Neighborhood traffic 92% 2.Level of neighborhood traffic 8.2
management
3.Pedestrian and bike paths 89% 3.Maintaining existing lot sizes 7.8
within established neighborhoods
4.Maintain existing lot sizes 87% 4.Pedestrian and bike paths 7.7
within established
neighborhoods
5.Undeveloped open 84% 5.Compatibility between existing 7.6
space/greenways within half and new development
mile of home
6.Large lot sizes 83% 6.Bus service 7.4
7.Small neighborhood parks 82% 7. Strengthening regulations to 7.4
within a half mile of home improve the appearance of the
community
8.Variety of housing types 54%said 8.Neighborhood parks within a half- 7.2
within new developments somewhat or mile of home
very
unimportant
9.Small lot sizes 70%said 9.Variety of housing types 7.0
somewhat or
very
unimportant
10.Neighborhood commercial 6.1
within a half mile of home.
Overall,Table 2 shows that residents value their neighborhoods as a suburban retreat,a place away from
high levels of traffic, that allows for recreation,views of trees and other natural areas. They also value
maintaining existing densities and the character of their neighborhoods, especially in relation to new
development.As neighborhood commercial within walking distance ranked lowest on livability indicators
(2006 Community Attitudes Survey),yet pedestrian and bike paths ranked highly, it could be inferred that
most residents already perform their errands by car or bus and want recreational trails in neighborhoods, as
the survey shows is a strongly held value, and could want to keep their neighborhoods separate from
commerce. This conclusion will be tested during the Comprehensive Plan Update.
While a variety of housing types ranked significantly in the 2006 survey, it was considered unimportant to
almost half of respondents in the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow survey. This difference could be due to
the additional 2004 wording within new developments,which would possibly bias residents to focus mostly on
their dislike or like of new developments. It could also be based on a respondent's definition of"variety":
while the 2006 survey intended to refer to a diversity of product (single-family, apartments,condominiums,
townhouses),the respondents could have meant aesthetics;i.e., facades and colors.
5
• •
Downtown
Downtown has been a focus of the community. Although only one survey identified Downtown as a top
issue for Tigard (2004 TBT), other surveys reflect that the community values Downtown. In the 2005
Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, 58% of respondents feel that it is either extremely important or
important to have a vital downtown area that is uniquely Tigard. Eighty-four percent said that improving
Downtown will be good for the whole community, and investing in Downtown will help attract business
and stimulate the Tigard economy. Eighty-one percent of 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community
Survey respondents said that redeveloping/reenergizing Tigard's Downtown area was very and somewhat
important.
The passage of the Urban Renewal measure in May 2006 by 66% of Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
voters also shows strong community support for Downtown's The vision statement does
revitalization. Downtown issues, as identified earlier,include not specifically refer to
transportation and access, as well as appearance (2004 Downtown Downtown. The Community
Survey). In the 2004 Downtown Survey, 62% of respondents felt that Character and Quality.of Life
the look and feel of Downtown should change. Both the 2005 and direction statement includes
2004 Downtown-related surveys show that Downtown is very well "The Main Street Area will
used; approximately 60% of respondents visit at least once a week, be seen as a focal point for
mostly to shop,use the post office, eat,or personal services. the community."
What do people like best about Downtown?The 2004 Downtown Survey named the old-town historical
character; convenience/location and businesses as primary reasons. Seventy-nine percent of the 2005 Tigard
Downtown Improvement Survey respondents said they would be more likely to use the Downtown if it had
more shops and restaurants. Many of the responses for Downtown also asked for a gathering place for the
community.
Business
The 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey also asked
questions specifically on business. A high percentage of respondents felt Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
that retaining existing businesses and attracting new businesses was very The vision statement states
and somewhat important,with Downtown a slight priority over other that"small and local
commercial areas. Respondents felt very strongly about the beautifying businesses thrive.Business
the appearance of existing commercial areas. This emphasis on owners are involved and take
appearance was also seen in the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, responsibility for the impacts
where respondents gave a 7.4 out of 10 to "Strengthening regulations to their businesses have on the
improve the appearance of the community"under residential
community.„
neighborhood livability characteristics. Lastly, as mentioned above, a
high percentage of 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey
respondents believe that Downtown plays a major role in Tigard's
economy, agreeing that investing in Downtown will help attract business and stimulate the Tigard economy.
Summary of Values
Residents value their neighborhoods as a suburban retreat, a place away from high levels of traffic, that
allows for recreation,views of trees and other natural areas. They also value maintaining existing densities
and the character of their neighborhoods, especially in relation to new development. Regarding housing
choice:more work will need to be done to clarify the conflicting results on these questions.
Downtown is important to residents;many use it on a weekly basis. They value it for the convenience,the
services, and its feel. But they also recognize that changes are needed,particularly in transportation,
pedestrian environment,and appearance. Many are seeking it as a gathering place, a center for the
community.
6
• •
Regarding business, residents believe that having commercial businesses is an important part of Tigard's
mix, but emphasize beautifying its appearance.
Natural Resources : Preserve / Protect / Respect
Issues
Four surveys asked specific questions regarding natural resources (wetlands, open space, greenways, trees):
the 2004 Recreation Survey,2006 Community Attitudes Survey, 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement
Survey and 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey.
In the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey, environmental preservation—which included
comments addressing preservation or the need for more open space,greenways, trees and parks - was
ranked as the third most important issue for the Tigard community,although it did not rank in the 2005 or
2006 surveys.
The other surveys identified community values. When the 2004 Recreation Survey asked residents if they
liked that the city is "considering the protection of natural wetlands and greenways" and if they favored the
idea "that would preserve our natural resources," 69% agreed. Reasons Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
for support included need to preserve open space and it's good for the The vision statement includes
environment. Slightly less than half of respondents favored a bond the following statement:
measure focused on this issue; 22%were willing to pay an additional
amount per year. In general, the concept is supported, not funds (bond "A community value `to
or fees). The 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey shows respect open spaces and o
stronger support for Downtown projects: 86 /o of respondents said natural features'encourages
they would support projects that preserve and restore greenspaces in access to these by our
and around Downtown Tigard. However,that question did not tie the
citizens."
concept to a specific funding source.
In the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey,protection of trees and The 2005 Urban &Public
natural resource areas was viewed strongly as the most important Services Direction Statement
does not address this topic
neighborhood livability characteristic (8.4/10). In addition, respondents
specifically;however, it does
cited the city's "small/rural feel" (18%) and trees/greenspaces (6%) as p y' '
what they liked most about Tigard. In the 2004 Tigard Beyond include the goal "Open space
Tomorrow Community Survey, 84% of respondents ranked & e areas shall be
preesserrved ved and protected."
undeveloped open space/greenways as an important residential
characteristic.
Summary of Values
When asked,Tigard's citizens consistently value natural features and areas, linking them with Tigard's
identity. The strongest support is recorded when these spaces are linked with residential neighborhood
livability or Downtown. This reflects residents'personal experiences with these areas. While there is strong
support for the concept, there is less support for specific funding measures. Combined with environmental
protection not ranking consistently in the top issues, this could show that while residents value these
features, the current approach could be viewed as effective and these areas are not viewed as threatened.
The Comprehensive Plan Update will need to examine this topic further.
The words "respect,"preservation" and"protection" have all been used in conjunction with natural
resources,in the surveys and in Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. The Comprehensive Plan Update process will
need to clearly define each of these terms and further explore citizen support for these approaches. Most
importantly, the financial considerations tied to these proposals must be examined, as well as trade-offs
associated with additional preservation and its effect on growth.
7
•
• •
Public Facilities and Services
Issues and Values
Survey questions on City services primarily focus on two
areas: current performance and future services. For current Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
performance, a low rating could identify an issue for the The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow vision
community. The City's 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, statement includes the following related
which focused on performance ratings, reflected an overall statements:
satisfaction with current services. Of the 13 services tested, • Tigard is a safe, dynamic
eight scored 7.5 or above (includes Library,Police, Parks, community supported by
Sewer/Water). The next three—the Permit Center', coordinated and efficient public
recreation and leisure activities, street maintenance—all services. Funding for services is
scored around 6.5, and community planning received a 6.1. stable and recipients pay their share.
The last service,ranked 5.3,was ability to get around the • Citizens are educated about how to
city. While still above the halfway point,both street access public services and
maintenance and recreation activities have been identified as understand their responsibility to
issues in other surveys. These survey results do indicate participate as members of the
community concern over street conditions, the lack of community.
recreation activities, traffic/transportation, and the • Many leisure time and recreational
effectiveness of the City's planning efforts. opportunities are available for our
community.
Regarding future service provision, the 2005 Tigard The direction statement for Public
Downtown Improvement Survey ranked Safety includes: the following (repeated
infrastructure/public services as the fourth most important themes from statement not included):
issue facing Tigard. This included more parks and recreation • Public Safety service providers shall
facilities;water treatment and supply;and more police, fire plan for their service delivery in
and library.These results were not replicated in the 2006 such a way as to minimize the
Community Attitudes and 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow negative impacts of the regional
Community Survey. It could be due to one survey allowing populations that travel to and
multiple answers and the latter two only allowing through our community each day.
respondents to choose the Most Important response. The • Stable funding will provide
sections below focus on specific services named by citizens: uninterrupted public safety services
at desired levels.
Public Safety. Ranked as the fourth most important issue in
the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, consistent with the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community
Survey. While citizens rank their perception and experience with the Police Department highly, the
identification of public safety as an issue differs. Residents may have identified it as an issue,when it may be
actually a strongly held value. This is an area that needs further definition to properly inform the
Comprehensive Plan process.
Recreation and parks. In the 2004 Recreation Survey,respondents supported the creation of a Recreation
Division over a special Recreation District,but struggled with the tax increases that would come with
proposals for additional recreational opportunities. Even though slightly more than half of respondents
opposed a bond measure for a Community Recreation Center,information that it would enhance
recreational opportunities for all residents significantly increased support for the proposal (although not
supportive of additional costs associated with it).
Library
The Library yearly survey (2003-2006) shows that users value this facility, and accessibility and convenient
hours in particular. Over half of respondents visit the library at least 4 times a month, and rate the majority
of services as good or excellent. These results are consistent from year to year.
3 71%of respondents had no interaction with this service.
8
• •
Summary of Values
Tigard residents value the current level of service they receive. As the above surveys show, the police,library
and parks are all well-valued services by City residents. Future service improvements or provision will need
to consider the cost and impact to existing residents and.systems.
Other Topics Identified by Residents
• Education. Although the School District provides education, not the City,education has been
identified as an issue. The 2006 Community Attitudes Survey included schools and school funding
as the third most important issue for the City of Tigard (9% of respondents),which is consistent
with the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey (25%, multiple responses allowed). Tigard
Beyond Tomorrow,which included school district staff in the visioning process,includes education
in its vision statement: both for life-long learning and the responsibility of each citizens to promote
and support quality education. The Schools and Education direction statement emphasizes quality
education and stable funding for efficient delivery of services. The current Comprehensive Plan does
not address schools, and the update does not currently include this topic.
• Communication
The 2005 Citizen Leadership Communications Survey addressed this topic. Residents have not
identified this as an issue specifically in previous surveys as an issue or a value;Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow addresses communication as a goal of Community Character and Quality of Life.
However, the 2005 Communications Survey found that there is no one best way to stay in touch
with the City's residents; a multitude of approaches are needed. This diverse approach will be
followed throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update.
• Community Appearance
This issue was named as part of the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey,both for
residential and commercial concerns. "Strengthening regulations to improve the appearance of the
community" had support in the recent 2006 survey under residential neighborhood livability
characteristics.This is an issue that will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Update to
determine what residents mean by this statement and what they support.
•
9
• •
Table 3. Surve Index
Survey Name Date Number of Type of Survey
Responses
1. "Tigard Talks" Community 1993 483 Random' mailed survey of voters
Attitude Survey
2. Bull Mountain Annexation 2002 305 (151 City of Random phone survey of voters
Public Attitude Survey Tigard residents)
3.a. Library Community Survey 2003 1481 Self-selected
3. b. Library Community Survey 2004 1261 Self-selected
3. c. Library Community Survey 2005 2834 Self-selected
3. d. Library Community Survey 2006 2366 Self-selected
4. Recreation Survey 2004 383 Random phone survey of voters
5. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow 2004 409 Self-selected
Community Survey
6. Downtown Survey 2004 588 Self-selected
7. Tigard Downtown 2005 401 Random phone survey of
Improvement Survey "supervoters" (voted in most recent
elections)
8. Tigard Citizen Leadership 2005 Over 230 Self-selected
Communications Survey
9. Community Attitudes Survey 2006 400 Random phone survey of residents
'Surveys that are"randomly selected"in a"scientific" survey attempt to eliminate some bias in respondent selection and capture
the range of opinion on an issue.
10
• M id 7
- • MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner
RE: "Designing Downtown"Work Plan
DATE: July 7, 2006
The "Designing Downtown" project is the process of updating the land use
regulations for the Downtown Urban Renewal Area. Amendments to the Tigard
Development Code will likely include new zoning designations, allowable land uses,
and design guidelines. These revisions are intended to encourage detailed, human-
scaled design that is pedestrian-friendly, creates a sense of place, and supports the
Downtown catalyst projects.
The objective of the July 17th presentation is to discuss the work plan, process and
timeline and the role of the Planning Commission in the "Designing Downtown"
project.
Enclosed are the Draft Work Plan (Attachment 1) and a brochure to be included in a
mailing to property/business owners (Attachment 2.)
• •
DRAFT
"Designing Downtown Tigard"
Work Plan
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The citizen-led Tigard Downtown Improvement (1'DIP) envisions the eventual creation of a
vibrant,compact, mixed-use area with housing,retail and employment opportunities. In May
2006,Tigard voters authorized an Urban Renewal District for the area,which will eventually
provide funding for many of the specified catalyst projects.
The Plan is now in the implementation phase.To meet Plan objectives, revisions to Tigard's
Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan are being considered.
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The original Downtown Plan area is currently zoned CBD (Central Business District.) The
regulations allow a mix of uses,including commercial and residential. 14% of the land area is
occupied by nonconforming industrial uses, (six of these properties are specifically
permitted to continue as Industrial uses in the Tigard Community Development Code.) The
Tigard Urban Renewal Area encompasses the original Plan area and several additional tax
lots,which are zoned R-4.5, R-25, and C-P (Professional/Administrative Commercial.)
While the current CBD zone allows the mix of uses necessary for a successful downtown,
the regulations lack the language to guide new development to be consistent with the
preferred urban form.As a result, the area has developed without many of the pedestrian-
oriented qualities specified in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. For example,a
recently developed building has a blank wall facing Main Street. Other recently constructed
buildings feature parking lots rather than pedestrian-oriented main entrances fronting the
sidewalk.
New development would probably still occur in theDowntown area, even without code
changes. However,new buildings could lack the qualities preferred by the TDIP. The
resulting development might not support, or even actively preclude, the identified catalyst
projects. For example,housing could be developed in the Hall and 99W intersection area
that was intended for regional retail in the TDIP. For this reason, changes should be made
to the current Development Code.
In order to ensure the successful implementation of the TDIP, the "Designing Downtown"
project will start in July,2006. The project will address five main areas:
1. Land Use: The TDIP Land Use Technical Memo recommended the creation of five
downtown zones and two overlay zones.
2. Design Guidelines: New code language, such as design guidelines,will be critical to
ensure development that is sustainable and creates a sense of place. The new
regulations could help encourage development with detailed, human-scaled design
that is complementary to the TDIP objectives.
• .
DRAFT
3. Overlay Zones: The TDIP recommends additional overlay zones to protect the
"footprints" of two future catalyst projects, the Urban Creek and the Fanno Creek
Open Space. The creation of an Urban Creek Overlay Zone would present a major
challenge, as the project is still at the conceptual level and the route of the"creek"
could impact portions of multiple properties under different ownership. However,
without this overlay protection, new development may render the creek unfeasible.
4. Nonconforming uses: The future of existing nonconforming uses, and the treatment
of any new nonconforming uses created by new regulations,will be addressed. This
will help ensure continued viability of existing uses in areas of Downtown that may
not be ready to change or redevelop their property to reflect the new uses planned in
the TDIP.
5. Comprehensive Plan: Language from the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan will
be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
Measure 37
Measure 37 could potentially complicate the implementation of a new land use program, as
an owner could claim that a new land use restriction reduced their property's values
compared to when the property was purchased. (It is not clear how long Downtown
properties have been held by the current owners.) While the Downtown Plan will likely
result in increased property values,there is no guarantee as to how soon this will occur.
However if new zoning restrictions generate a Measure 37 claim, the likely"worst" outcome
would be a waiver of the new zoning requirements and reverting to the CBD zoning.
Outreach to property owners will be crucial to determine the viability of the new zoning
regulations,particularly if they restrict currently allowed uses. New regulations could be
structured with incentives if new development adheres to the design guidelines and/or
supports the catalyst projects.
3. SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE
PART I: Recommendations on Land Use Policy
Task A. Project Management
Objectives:
• Effectively manage this project within the given resources and timeline
• Coordinate with internal staff(Current Planning)
• Ensure intergovernmental participation to ensure compliance with state and regional
plans and policies
• Coordinate public meetings
• Hold bi-weekly Project Team Meetings and Public Involvement Planning Meetings as
needed
• •
DRAFT
Task B. Public Involvement
Objectives:
• The "Designing Downtown Tigard" Project will employ a public involvement process to
obtain input from property owners,residents,and other stakeholders. Stakeholders will
be invited to public forums,including the City Center Advisory Commission, Planning
Commission and City Council meetings.
In addition,innovative small group sessions ("Downtown Dialogues") will be arranged
with developers,property /business owners,urban designers and architects to provide a
"reality check" of the code revisions.
Public outreach will consist of two main phases:
Phase 1 (July 2006- October 2006):
1) City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) -The CCAC will be the key
advisory body for the project. After reviewing examples of codes from neighboring cities,
the commission will make recommendations on the following:
• Downtown zoning: The CCAC will recommend the number of zones, the
allowed uses, and the general location of the boundaries of the zones.
• General concept for design guidelines: The CCAC will recommend policy
that will be the basis for code amendments. Their recommendations will be
on the level of detail (Washington Square/Tigard Triangle-style or more
comprehensive), format (traditional or visual), the review procedure
(discretionary or objective), and the general direction for guidelines on site
development and building massing, facade articulation,and materials.
• Urban Creek and Fanno Creek Open Space Overlay:The CCAC will
recommend the boundaries of zones and how the regulations could be
implemented (i.e. incentives.)
• Nonconforming uses: The CCAC will make recommendations on
developing code language to address Downtown nonconforming situations
that will assist in the transition period.
Downtown interested parties, such as property owners and business owners,will be invited to
attend CCAC meetings and future Planning Commission meetings. The CCAC will be the
principal contact with downtown stakeholders.
Product: The CCAC will produce a series of recommendations which will be the basis for the
proposed code amendments.
2) Planning Commission: Staff has scheduled the project. The first presentation will review
the work program and background information of the Downtown and TDIP. Later
presentations will review the recommendation of CCAC and other issues. Input will be
obtained from the Commission on the direction of the code updates.
• •
DRAFT
3) Other Phase 1 Public Involvement:
A) Initial presentation to City Council on work plan.
B) Presentation to the Committee for Citizen Involvement to get feedback on public
involvement program.
C) Letters outlining goals and objectives to all property and business owners in the
Urban renewal area.
D) A brochure outlining goals, objectives and a brief work plan for project.
E) Information posted on website
F) Fliers and posters posted in Downtown businesses and government buildings
G) Press release/packet for Tigard Times and the Oregonian
H) 3-D computer simulations of potential Downtown development under
different scenarios for use at various meetings.
Phase 2 (October 2006-April 2007):
1) Downtown Dialogues-A series of at least 3 dialogues will be held with small
heterogeneous groups of property owners, developers,designers/architects and Tigard
elected officials. These will take place in the first week of November.
The meetings will be organized according to areas of interest: mixed use,residential, and
commercial. There are several clusters of redevelopable land. Property owners in these
clusters will be asked to come to a Dialogue with developers and designers who
specialize in the kind of development desired for the cluster. For example,residential
developers would have interest in the area along Burnham;commercial developers for
the regional retail cluster.
The primary goal of these meetings will be to get a "reality check" of the land
use/design guideline code language proposals and refine them in response to feedback.
A secondary goal will be to foster connections between developers and property owners.
These Dialogues may be facilitated by a consultant.
2) A Public Open House will be scheduled in January to provide an update and to obtain
additional feedback from the community, especially downtown business and property
owners.
0 0
)1 I‘Fi.: V.H1.1.-.111/4111.:;:,;:,, ..1E•..t.,- 1...Vi.-.,. ,..-:InH . ..k•,..;.. ( .,R.:1 I.
a
. . .. :
. .
• • •- '' ' ''
. .. . .
Preliminary Project Schedule
Designing Downtorre Tigard Project
_
•.' j IMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII aIIIIIIIIIIIIIIaii ........•'••••-•-
aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NIB Nig imiamilimi ..:::: •:::::
• Mill1111111111111=1111111111111111111111 NIX •.., • •
all1111.111M1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111MIBM11111 1111111111111111111=11 1
1111M
"•••.- •.-; •••• • IIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIINIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111 1
.....4..............,....
ag III 11111 1111 11111111111 IIIII aelliaillIlaiianillIllaolIlm..alllailaiill=
...
•-• MI -11 ... Ill Millilli
- • ............
_ ..... ... at MOM .
1
:
I M
1 11•••• ...: liaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIII'+'•••• - •••••• 1
: .
: 11 .i 11111111111111111MIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIM11111111111111111111N11/1-1' 11111M111- 1111111.
:
i•111... .. • - - ......4.............4............ MIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIILIIIIIIIIMMIIIIIIIIPIIIIIIMI 1
L i i• Illimill i i 1 i 11111111.111111 I Mil I.
1111111111 MIIIIII . . :
D. ::• • . . ,
'
rier 4-- ... . . : i re— Sr- 1„ 4, t' +.- 4
: 1
• < . i :
,
i I i '.< Ili i
..I
:
....4 1 . i. .1 i .1 ...1 I i.
111 i (2411.11d
:•
•.
.. .
•
••• ••:.
....0.414.:....:
. .•
....
.::::.;•,,,.....:::::•::.:
•...... :
•,:::,,.,,.,::::::::::::.......:.
....,„
::::::,:.••:•••:•::
,.„
. .:
•
..•
...:
0 i '•'1'..:.
,f • ''',' • .,.,.....14 '4. • I
i. #*
....,...,....."...........,,....„ - . , , .11 tr 1.., . . I
f ....
.,
. .1 ..'.,..... ** • .1
......4.r..4,7,It«:`'`•::"...:...1.17,:.-..k.' „4 • ....A i i.• • 1 .
'1.X.,..c.*::t?.1...6,:****;14......... f'.. .'*** .7":ti.'......I'1.),1 t ••:. :
....„
•
. ......***** :"./....Ni. ''' 4,-7' )1•2•/'....1.:•'.-:::: .,. :, ... :•••••51.:::‘111.:0: , :
•
..•
„.:
„..t.'.:.':••• 1\1 ....4.•• :..-)..,',,,,;:.s...,--T.: ......1....c.7::::•le,..'..4-;.1,....',„•',1!:• •
.*.
..?
));...... "C'a•-•:.......''' .i:. .. '"'...'''...'Y.41' ' 1. i
S
••
....,
_....
-•
,nt
. .
.. -
...
...
•/... . • !N. . SINE i4l:''':
l• 1... lk .4'...44'.
.. ••. . . .. . .. . ...
• •• • •
•• :,.,
Proic(t•••'
.. ..
.• •
•-:.• : •
- ........
T. 4,, ';...'..::',..‘'t.i.:,..t..:::•,.:,...i..... 1•.:i....:.i.,..::::,„
.... ...
• : I ;>.i,.....i, }...H.4 ' .
,....:i :: ,. ,„ 11 :,...• • . ..........c..c .....:„1,.. .
.... .....
Designing Downtown We want you to get involved!
pi � This summer the City of Tigard will start the process to
update the Development Code for the Downtown area.
'nRME 9. gw The City wants stakeholders and residents to provide
pridil
`` Mat KET LF,!
-��+ -.. . _ � feedback on any proposed changes. Here is a tentative
7 �" r �1,. ' "'W 1 , 4 timeline for the process:
• =.. 111 /ad J ul y- October 2006: The City ty Center Advisory
Commission (a citizen group) will make
> Urban Renewal recommendations on the basic framework of the
In May 2006,Tigard voters approved an Urban Development Code changes. The Planning Commission
Renewal District for the Downtown area. Over the will provide additional review
next few years, funds will become available for road
and sidewalk improvements,an expansion of the November 2006: Small group meetings ("Downtown
Fanno Creek Public Area and other projects from the Dialogues") will be held with Downtown property and
Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan business owners, as well as developers, and designers/
architects. These groups will provide a "reality check"
> Development Code Changes for the proposed changes.
The rules for permitted land uses and the
specifications for new development (including building Winter 2006/2007: The Planning Commission will hold
heights and setbacks),may be revised for the Urban public hearings on the proposed changes.
• Renewal Area. "Design guidelines" to create standards
for the appearance of new development,will also Spring 2007: The Tigard City Council will hold public
being considered. hearings and decide whether to adopt the proposed
changes.
> Downtown's Future
These changes would encourage development that You are invited to attend upcoming City Center Advisory
creates a sense of place and follows sustainable Committee,Planning Commission, and City Council
practices. Over the next few years Downtown Tigard
will be transformed into a vibrant area with housing,
meetings. Please contact Associate Planner Sean Farrelly
(e-mail seanatigard-or.gov or phone (503) 718-2420) to
shops, restaurants, employment opportunities, be notified of upcoming meetings, or you can check the
recreation, and open space. City of Tigard's website http://www.tigard-or.gov, for
their meeting times and agendas.
To: Planning Commission
From: Duane Roberts
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP)
The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (M1.113) identifies how federal
transportation money is to be spent in the Portland metropolitan region. The Surface
Transportation and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Programs are federal programs that
annually provide Metro about $30 million dollars to finance a wide variety of transportation-
related projects and programs. Metro distributes this money to local jurisdictions, public
agencies and special districts based on applications submitted by project sponsors. Competitive
categories for MTIP funds include: Transit-Oriented Development, Green Street
Demonstration,Road and Bridge Construction,Pedestrian Improvements and eight others.
June 30th was the due date for submitting applications for the current, or 2008-11, MTIP
funding cycle. As in previous cycles, Metro established current-cycle funding ceilings for each
County, Portland, and the Port of Portland. Washington County has established MTIP dollar
limits for each member jurisdiction and for the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District.
Tigard's target allocation is $2.7 million. Under Metro-established guidelines, Tigard was
allowed to submit no more than two project proposals.
In June, Council authorized the submittal of two Downtown-related projects for MTIP
funding. The two take into account the Council goal of"Implementing the Downtown Plan"
as well as the likely competitiveness of the projects based on the grant program selection criteria
and the advice of program management staff given in a City/Metro pre-application meeting.
Redesign of the Transit Center Site. One of the proposed projects is a master plan for a joint
redevelopment project with TriMet for the existing Bus Transit Center site. The overall goal
would be to upgrade and modernize the existing facility to improve its efficiency and
compatibility with a revitalized downtown area. It would be redesigned to be more functional
for TriMet bus use,include plaza and other pedestrian improvements,and if space is available,a
development project.
Design/Construction of Main Street Improvements. This project would provide engineering
drawings and construction funds to retrofit a portion of Main Street in Downtown to full
"Green Street" standards. This project meets the preferred funding categories as identified by
Metro. The project would incorporate recently developed Streetscape design standards for
Main Street with Green Street Standards to meet funding objectives.
The grant amounts requested for the Station and Green Streets projects are$160,000 and
$2.54 million,respectively. The local match amounts are $40,000 and$500,000 each.
Public hearings on MTIP project proposals will be conducted all during October-December
2006,with the adoption of"final cut" list taking place in February, 2006.
I:\LRPLN\DUANE\P1anCom.grants.06.doc 1
. • •
Oregon Department of Transportation Grant Programs
(ODOT)
Also on June 30th, ODOT accepted applications for Tranportation Enhancement (1'E)
Program funding assistance for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010. The'1'E program provides federal
highway funds for projects that strengthen the cultural,aesthetic and environmental value of the
transportation system. Typical projects include sidewalk and streetscape construction, bike
lanes, shared-use paths,viewpoints and interpretive sites.
In July, ODOT will accept applications for Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Program funding
assistance for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009. Eligible projects include sidewalk infill, pedestrian
crossings,intersection improvements,and minor roadway widening for bikeways.
Earlier, Council authorized the submittal of 1'E and Bicycle/Pedestrian applications for the
same project. Both programs are highly competitive. Seeking assistance from the two grant
programs is intended to "hedge our bets", as it were, and to maximize the project's chances of
being selected for funding. The project in question includes the construction of a retaining
wall, the installation of 310 feet of sidewalk, and associated drainage facilities along Hall
Boulevard near Bonita Road. All improvements would take place within the existing state
owned right-of-way of Hall Boulevard.
Under a 2004 memorandum of understanding entered into by the City of Tigard and TriMet,
the City and transit agency are partners in a multi-year effort to identify and implement transit
access and service improvements within the Tigard area. One of the highest priority
improvements identified by the City and agency is a re-route of Line 38 to serve Bonita Road
and Hall Boulevard. The re-route would provide the first-ever transit service on Bonita Road
and would serve a low-income and minority area of the City.
As part of this re-route, TriMet is proposing to install a new bus stop and shelter on the east
side of Hall, at 14500 SW Hall Boulevard. The problem addressed by the present proposal is
that gaps exist in the sidewalks leading to the proposed bus stop. One of these gaps includes a
narrow shoulder and steep slope where pedestrian safety is a major concern. The substandard
road causes safety problems for both pedestrians and vehicles using it. A continuous,
uninterrupted sidewalk would help provide a convenient,safe,and more secure pedestrian route
to the transit stop.
In the case of both aid programs, the grant amount requested is $250,000. The required
local match shares are the same, 10.3%. To improve the two proposals chances of being
picked for funding, the City identified "over-matches" of$62,000, or 20% of the total
project cost. The funding source,in the case of both applications,would be the Community
Investment Program Sidewalk Fund or Gas Tax dollars. Bike/Ped project selections will be
made by an advisory committee in the fall.
Final Transportaiton Enhancement projects will be selected in January, 2007.
I:\LRPLN\DUANE\P1anCom.grants.06.doc 2
/o
MEMORANDUM
TIGA
D
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Denver Igarta, Associate Planner
RE: July 17, 2006 Meeting
DATE: July 7, 2006
At the July 17th Planning Commission meeting, a brief update will be given on the City's
efforts to implement the Tualatin Basin Habitat Protection Program in compliance with
Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 "Nature in Neighborhoods". The Tualatin
Basin Partners for Natural Places is an alliance of local governments in Washington County
(including the City of Tigard) which has collaborated for since 2002 to protect the Basin's
natural resources.
Most recently, the Basin Partners formulated a strategy to encourage the use of habitat friendly
development practices, which cover a broad range of development techniques that reduce the
detrimental impact on fish and wildlife habitat relative to traditional development practices.
Two issue papers were prepared by the Basin Partners recommending development code
amendments to reduce the environmental impacts of new development and remove barriers
to their utilization. Subsequently, City staff conducted a gap analysis to evaluate the adequacy
of existing City of Tigard regulations to meet the recommendations outlined by the Basin.
The attached gap analysis report summarizes the findings from the City of Tigard code audit.
Of the "code concepts" recommended by the Basin Partners, eleven were determined to be
substantially met by existing City of Tigard regulations. The remaining ten recommendations
would require some amendments to the local development code to fully meet the Basin's
habitat friendly guidelines.
Based on the gap analysis, a number of outstanding issues were identified which must be
resolved before all the Basin recommendations can be implemented. Since the City of Tigard
is currently engaged in a process to significantly update its Comprehensive Plan, the code
amendments required to implement the Basin's Habitat Protection Program will be
integrated into the comprehensive planning process. Policies developed as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update will instruct the City's implementation of the Basin's habitat
protection program and will address the outstanding issues identified by the gap analysis.
Attachment 1: City of Tigard Gap Analysis
Attachment 2:PowerPoint Presentation Slides
I:\LRPLN\Denver\Goal 5\Council-PC\Planning Commission\7 1106 PC memo.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
01 -J TUALATIN BASIN GOAL 5 PROGRAM
• CITY OF TIGARD GAP ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The following report summarizes the findings of a recent review of existing City of Tigard
regulations relative to implementation recommendations presented by the Tualatin Basin to
encourage habitat friendly development practices.
The City of Tigard is currently engaged in a process to significantly update the City's Comprehensive
Plan. Due to the anticipated revisions to the policies and content of the current Plan, this gap
analysis did not examine the Comp Plan in detail as it relates to the recommendation contained in
Issue Paper #2 of the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Program Implementation Report.
The structure of this report follows the order presented in the table of recommended approaches
and methods presented in Issue Paper #2. As part of the gap analysis, a matrix was created to
present a side-by-side comparison of Tualatin Basin recommendations with City of Tigard
regulations and to document the findings in a condensed format,please refer to Appendix A.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Of the "code concepts" recommended by the Tualatin Basin, two of the habitat friendly methods
are repeated in two separate sections and six other methods were not accompanied by specific code
guidelines for local jurisdictions to incorporate into their land development ordinances. Of the
remaining 22 Basin recommendations, eleven were determined to be substantially met by existing
City of Tigard regulations. In order to fully meet Tualatin Basin guidelines, some amendments to the
local code would be required for eleven of the proposed habitat friendly development methods.
In order to meet eight of the Basin recommendations, the City would need to adopt Habitat Benefit
Areas map, in particular the recommendations related to onsite density transfer, lot dimension
standards, building height, setbacks, sidewalk width, net buildable area, minimum density and
minimizing paving (refer to Table 1). In addition, seven recommendations would require additional
flexibility within the development code, four recommendations would require removal of barriers in
existing regulations, and two methods would require additional language to encourage their use.
Table 1. Tualatin Basin Recommendations Reg iring Tigard Code Amendments
Basin Recommendation Adopt More Code Remove Language to
Habitat Map Flexibility Code Barrier Encourage Use
Onsite Density Transfer X
Setback Flexibility
Building Height Flexibility
Lot Dimensional Standards
Reduced Sidewalk Width X
Net Buildable Area
Permit Stream Enhancement Outright
Allow Pervious Paving Materials
Encourage Soil Amendments
Reduce Minimum Density X
Minimize Paving in Habitat Areas X
1ALRPLN1DenveAGoa151Program ImplementationlCurrent PracticeslGoa15—RepM.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF TIGARD GAP ANALYSIS
I. Planning & Development Recommendations
A. Land Division
1 On-Site Density Transfer / Lot Size Averaging
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
At a minimum, all jurisdictions should consider allowing all development potential to be
transferred from a qualified Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) to the remainder of the
development site; provided that the transferred density shall not more than double the
density allowed on the buildable portion of the site. For development sites with split
zoning, transfers should be permitted across zoning districts. This transfer would not
apply to those areas already protected by existing natural resource regulations (e.g.,
DSL/COE, CWS).
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.715.030—Residential Density Transfer
The units per acre calculated by subtracting sensitive land areas from the gross acres may
be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations:
The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which
would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these
regulations; and the total number of units per site does not exceed 125% of the
maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive
plan designation.
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.2 - To retain existing trees over 12" in caliper in
the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be
averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as
long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that
allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot
size allowed in the zone.
Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.430.020.D; 18.715.020; 18.775.110
Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation
The Tualatin Basin recommends allowing all (or 100% of) development potential to be
transferred from habitat areas to the remainder of the site, while the existing Tigard
regulations only allow 25% of the density to be transferred. Where the Basin standard
would allow for up to 200% of the density that would have been allowed on the
remaining ; Tigard regulations allow up to 125% of the entire sites maximum-density.
Based on the comparison of the City's current standards with the Basin
recommendation, it was determined that the regulations fail to meet the guidelines for
local jurisdictions.
2 Lot Dimensional Standards
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Lot dimensional standards — Jurisdictions should consider allowing lot dimensional
standards (width, depth, and frontage) to be reduced by up to 40%.
1ALRPLNVDenveAGoal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices\Goa15_Repon.doc
" r
ATTACHMENT 1
Tigard Community Development Code —
Relevant Code Section: 18.775.100
May approve up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard (setback height, or lot
area) within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area... to reduce adverse impacts on
wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for
slope of flood hazards. Type II Procedure.
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.3 —
To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land
division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of
that required by the underlying zone.
Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.360.080.A. 1; 18.620.030.2; 18.730.030
Current Gap:Almost Meet Recommendation
The Tualatin Basin recommends allowing up to 40% reduction to lot dimensional
standard, while the existing Tigard regulations allows up to 50% adjustment to reduce
adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat,water quality and
the potential for slope of flood hazards. If the Tualatin Basin program maps are adopted
and this provision is applied to habitat benefit areas, the existing standard would exceed
the Basin recommendation.
B. Site Design
1 Increased Flexibility for Setbacks
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Encouraging protection of Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA) may require flexibility in terms
of setbacks. Except for lot lines adjacent to property zoned single-family residential,
jurisdictions should consider allowing the minimum building setback established by the
base zone to be reduced to any distance between the base zone minimum and zero,
unless this reduction conflicts with applicable fire or life safety requirements. Codes
should also allow this level of flexibility for setbacks that are internal to new single family
residential developments.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.775.100
May approve up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard (setback height, or lot
area) within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area...to reduce adverse impacts on
wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for
slope of flood hazards. Type II Procedure.
Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.360.080.A.1; 18.620.030.2; 18.730.030
Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation
The Basin recommends that jurisdictions should consider allowing the minimum
building setback established by the base zone to be reduced to any distance between the
base zone minimum and zero (except for lot lines adjacent to property zoned single-
family residential). The Tigard Development Code currently allows up to 50%
adjustment to any dimensional standards, including setback, within or adjacent to the
vegetated corridor area.
I:ILRPLNUenveAGoal Wrogram Implementation\Current PracticeMGoa15_Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
The existing City of Tigard regulations fail to meet the recommended standard by only
allowing up to 50% adjustment for multifamily residential, commercial, industrial and
mixed use lots. Also, inventoried habitat benefit areas must be added to the setback
adjustment criteria in order to meet the Basin recommendation.
2 Increased Flexibility for Lot Coverage
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions should consider allowing lot coverage to be increased up to 80%, provided
the square footage of the additional coverage doesn't exceed the total square footage of
the Habitat Benefit Area (HBA).
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.510.2 & 18.520.2
Maximum lot coverage for commercial development ranges from 80% to 90%; light and
heavy industrial is 85%; and residential maximum coverage is 80%. Maximum site
coverage for industrial park districts is 75% but may be up to 80% if defined
requirements are satisfied.
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
All relevant Tigard zoning classifications allow lot coverage to be increased up to 80% or
greater, thus meeting the Basin's recommended flexibility for lot coverage.
3 Increased Flexibility for Building Height
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Except for areas within 40 feet of property zoned single-family residential, jurisdictions
should consider allowing an increase in the maximum building height established by the
base zone of up to 12 feet, unless this increase conflicts with applicable fire or life safety
requirements.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.775.100
May approve up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard (setback height, or lot
area) within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area...to reduce adverse impacts on
wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for
slope of flood hazards. This provision provides for adjustments of 15 feet or greater for
residential, commercial and industrial buildings. Type II Procedure.
Current Gap: Almost Meets Recommendation
While the Tigard Development Code allows up to 50% adjustment, this flexibility is only
applicable to areas within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor. If the Tualatin Basin
program maps are adopted and this provision is applied to habitat benefit areas, the
existing standard would exceed the Basin recommendation.
C. Parking Design
1 Reduced Parking Ratios
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider reducing
parking ratios for non-residential development by up to 10%.
1ALRPLN\DenvehGoa151Program Implementation\Current Practices\Goa15_Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.4
For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are
preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic
uses, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a
20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one
development.
Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.765.070.F
Current Gab: Meets Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code allows for up to 20% reduction in required parking for
commercial, industrial or civic uses, thus exceeding the 10% recommended by the
Tualatin Basin.
2 Shared Driveways & Parking Areas
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions should review their codes to confirm that they encourage the use of shared
parking and on-street parking credits as a means of reducing the amount of required on-
site parking.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.705.030 C; 18.765.030.0
Owners may agree to utilize same access and egress... Owners of 2 or more uses,
structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading
spaces...
Other Relevant Code Sections. 18.3 6 0.0 8 0.B
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code was reviewed, and two sections (18.705.030 C;
18.765.030.C) were identified that address the issue of joint access, egress, parking and
loading areas. Existing regulation meet the Basin's recommendation.
3 Flexibility in Parking Lot Landscaping/Additional Parking Lot Landscaping
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas, jurisdictions should consider allowing a reduction
of up to 15% of the required landscaping and/or parking lot landscaping square footage;
provided that the square footage of landscaping reduction does not exceed the size of
the Habitat Benefit Area (HBA).
Jurisdictions may also wish to consider allowing some flexibility in their parking lot
landscaping standards (the number, dimension, spacing of landscape islands and required
trees) to retain individual mature trees in, or adjacent to, the parking area.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.5
For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are
preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required
IALRPLN\Denver Goal 51Program ImplementationkUrrent Practices\Goa15_Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of
landscaping may be reduced for any one development.
Relevant Code Section: 18.745.050.E.1 (Table 18.745.1 & 18.745.2)
Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally
distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide
a canopy effect; and the minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet
and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel
guard or curb. Tree spacing requirements for parking lot landscaping and screening
buffers apply when exiting/abutting uses are residential. For parking lots with 4-50
spaces a 15' minimum and 30' maximum tree spacing is required. If lots have more than
50 spaces a 10' minimum and 20' maximum tree spacing is required. No provisions for
adjustment are specified in the Tigard Development Code.
Other Relevant Code Section: 1 8.765.040.J
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code allow for a 1% reduction in the required amount of
landscaping, for every 2% of canopy cover preserved, totaling a reduction of up to 20%.
This provision applies citywide and allows for 5% more reduction than the flexibility
suggested (15% reduction) in the Basin recommendation.
4 Smaller Car Spaces and Stall Dimensions
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider allowing up to
40% of the required parking spaces to be compact.
A general DLCD guideline for parking space dimensions is 7' 6" width and 15' length
for 90' compact stall. The suggested standard vehicle parking space is 8' 6" wide by 18'
long (or 16' feet long,with not more than a 2' overhang).
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.765.040.N
Stall width dimensions may be distributed as follows: 50% standard, 50% compact
spaces Current minimum 90° compact stall dimensions are 7'6" width and 16' 6" depth,
and standard stall dimensions are 8' 6"width and 18' 6" depth.
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code allows stalls to be distributed 50% compact and 50%
standard spaces. The Tigard standard exceeds the 40% compact distribution suggested
by the Basin report. The stall width for 90' compact spaces matches the DLCD guideline
(7' 6" width), and the stall length is slightly longer (at 16' 6"). The standard stall width
matches the Basin recommendation (at 8' 6") and the stall length is slightly longer(at 18'
6"). The Tigard Development Code standards for parking spaces and stall dimensions
meet the Basin's recommendation by allowing a higher percentage of compact spaces,
and roughly matching the suggested stall dimensions.
5 Increased Use of Pervious Materials
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
1ALRPLNIDenveAGoa1 Wrogram Implementation\Current Practices\Goa15—Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Consider amendments to remove barriers to, and encourage the use of, pervious paving
materials in parking areas and low traffic private streets. For example, many existing
codes require parking and street areas to be hard-paved surfaces with asphalt or
concrete.
Technical design specifications will need to be adopted Basin-wide to facilitate the use of this method.
Additional steps are needed for sites that are not bigbysuitable in terms of soil permeability. Concerns
about slope stability and impacts to adjacent properties should also be addressed.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.765.040 B &H
B. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface.
H. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet
storage areas, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle,
boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces. Off-street parking
spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or
concrete surface.
Relevant Code Section: 18.765.050.D
Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material,i.e.,
pavers asphalt, concrete, or similar material.
Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code requires access drives and off-street parking areas to be
improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; although, outdoor bicycle parking facilities
may be surfaced with pavers. The existing Tigard regulations serve as a barrier to the use
of pervious materials on access drives and off-street parking, thus fail to meet the
Tualatin Basin recommendations.
D. Landscaping/Hardscape Design
1 Locating Landscaping Adjacent to Habitat Areas
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider allowing a
reduction of up to 15% of the required landscaping and/or parking lot landscaping
square footage; provided that the square footage of landscaping reduction does not
exceed the size of the HBA.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.5
For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are
preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required
amount of landscaping may be granted. Up to 20% of the required amount of
landscaping may be reduced for any one development.
Other Relevant Code Sectionx.• 18.745.2(Table); 18.745.030.E; 18.745.050; 18.745.060
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code allows for up to 20% reduction (greater than the 15%
recommended) of required landscaping in exchange for preservation of existing tree
I:ILRPLNIDenveAGoal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent PracticeslGoa15_Repon.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
canopy (1% reduction for each 2% of canopy). This provision is applied citywide for
trees over 12 inches in caliper. Although, this standard doesn't refer directly to habitat
areas, it is applied beyond the designated Habitat Benefit Area to the entire city.
Therefore, the existing regulations exceed the Basin recommendation.
2 Increased Use of Native Plants
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions should consider adding language to encourage the use of native plants and
the preservation of existing trees throughout the Basin.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.745.060.C.1.d
Where re-vegetation is required...the use of native plant materials is encouraged to
reduce irrigation and maintenance demands.
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A
For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are
preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% density bonus (up to 20%
reduction), a 1% commercial/industrial/civic use parking reduction or landscaping
reduction (up to 20% reduction). To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper , lot
size averaging and lot width & depth reductions are allowed.
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
Section 18.745.060 of the Tigard Development Code includes language promoting the
use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance
demands. Section 18.790.040.oudines incentives for the preservation and retention of
existing vegetation, including allowing density bonuses, lot size averaging, lot width and
depth reduction, commercial/industrial/civic use parking and landscaping requirement
reductions. The existing regulations meet the Basin's recommendation.
3 Improved Soil Amendment
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions should encourage the use of soil amendments to improve the permeability
of soils within landscaped areas. For the purposes of calculating ffective impervious area,
performance standards and technical specification for soil permeability should be adopted basin-wide.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.745
Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation
There is no reference to soil amendment in the Tigard Development Code. Although
there are no statements encouraging soil amendments, there also appear to be no barriers
preventing the practice. Existing regulations do not encourage the practice and therefore
fail to meet the Basin recommendation.
4 Reduction of non-ADA Sidewalks within a Site
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
1ALRPLN\DenveAGoa151Program ImplementationlCurrent PracticeslGoa15_Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider creating an
exception in their pedestrian connectivity standards that allows a reduction in the width
of required sidewalks and pedestrian accessway to the minimum necessary to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.810.070 & 18.810.1 (Table)
The width required for sidewalks based on street classification including a minimum of
5' for local residential streets, 6' for collectors (residential & industrial zones), 8' for
collectors (commercial zones) and arterials (residential & industrial zones), and 10' for
arterials (commercial) and the central business district.
Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation
A sidewalk width of 60 inches (5 feet) is necessary to provide adequate space for two
wheelchairs to pass. Sidewalk width reduction is not addressed by current regulations
and therefore fail to meet the Basin recommendations.
5 Increased Use of Habitat-Friendly Fencing
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
There are no guidelines to implement this practice.
Tigard Community Development Code
There is no mention in code for this practice
Current Gap — N/A
6 Preservation of Existing Trees and Maximize Forest Canopy
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions should document their existing tree cutting and mitigation standards.
Avoiding the cost of mitigation can be a significant incentive for preserving existing
trees. However, most tree preservation standards don't make a distinction between
native species and non-native species and trees are typically not required to be replaced
with native species. Jurisdictions could consider encouraging or requiring that a certain
percent of mitigation trees be native species. Alternatively, as an incentive, jurisdictions
could allow somewhat smaller specimens to be planted if native species are used (e.g., 2"
caliper instead of 2.5").
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A
For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are
preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% density bonus (up to 20%
reduction), a 1% commercial/industrial/civic use parking reduction or landscaping
reduction (up to 20% reduction). To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper , lot
size averaging and lot width& depth reductions are allowed.
Relevant Code Section:1 8.790.030B
Tree Removal Plans must include a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree
removal over 12 inches in caliper.
IALRPLNOenver Goal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent PracticeslGoa15_Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Relevant Code Section: 18.745.040 - Street Trees
A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street,
private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption
of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section
18.745.040.C.
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
The Tree Removal chapter (18.790) of the Tigard Development Code includes
provisions and incentives for tree preservation and mitigation of removed trees (>12
inches in caliper). The existing regulations meet the recommendation by the Basin.
E. Lighting Design
1 Redirected Outdoor Lighting (Reducing Light Spill-Off)
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
There are no specific guidelines to implement this practice
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts
Section 18.520.060b (Other site development standards) outlines design guidelines for
commercial developments, including a requirement that "all lighting fixtures shall
incorporate cut-off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties".
Current Gap — N/A
F. Density Reduction for Regionally Significant Habitat
1 Reduce Minimum Density
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Local jurisdictions should adopt procedures to allow a waiver of the minimum density
requirements. These procedures would be used at the option of the subdivider and
should only allow for a reduction in the minimum number of units required to be built
based on the amount of area protected. This reduction would not be limited to only
Habitat Benefit Areas, but could include all regionally significant habitat on the property
that has been protected through a public dedication or restrictive covenant. Procedures
should include a standard protocol for notifying Metro by Report to Metro by April 15
of every year of the impact of this provision. Jurisdictions should work with Metro to
ensure that "lost" units are allocated back to the Basin.
Metro Functional Plan,Title 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods) Section 3.H.2.
The amount of reduction in the minimum density requirement that may be approved
shall be calculated by subtracting the number of square feet of regionally significant fish
and wildlife habitat or significant resource that is permanently protected from the total
number of square feet that the city or county otherwise would use to calculate the
minimum density requirement for the property.
Tigard Communis Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.500 (Zoning Districts Legislative Notes)
URPLN DenverlGoal Wrog ram ImplementationkUrrent Practices\GoaI5_Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Section 18.510.040 includes the adoption of minimum densities, which are pegged at
80% of the maximum density allowed in each zone, to insure that land in each zoning
district develops at or near the density intended. The adoption of minimum residential
densities is mandated by Metro's 2040 Growth Management Functional Plan.
Relevant Code Section: 18.500 18.510.040.C. (Density Adjustments)
Applicants may request an adjustment when, because of the size of the site or other
constraint, it is not possible to accommodate the proportional minimum density
required.
Relevant Code Section: 18.630.020 E/F (Washington Sq. Regional Center)
18.630.020.E. Adjustments to Density Requirements in the Washington Square Regional
Center: The adjustment process provides a mechanism by which the minimum density
requirements may be reduced by up to twenty-five percent (25%)... for unusual situations
and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the code. Type I procedure.
Approval criteria: a) Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the
regulation to be modified; b)The proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the
area; c) If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the
adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone;
d)Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
Adjustments are prohibited for the following items: a) To allow a primary or accessory use
that is not allowed by the regulations; b) As an exception to any restrictions on uses or
development which contain the words "prohibited" or "not allowed"; c)As an exception to a
qualifying situation for a regulation, such as zones allowed or items being limited to new
development; d) As an exception to a definition or classification; e) As an exception to the
procedural steps of a procedure or to change assigned procedures.
18.630.020.F. Modifications to Dimensional and Minimum Density Requirements for
Developments That Include or Abut Designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian
Setbacks: The minimum and maximum dimensional requirements and the minimum
residential density and mixed-use and non-residential floor area ratio...shall be subject to
modification when modification is necessary to assure that environmental impacts are
minimized...for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the
code, while assuring potential environmental impacts are minimized. Type II procedure.
Approval criteria: a) Evidence is provided that the modification(s) are necessary in order to
secure approval under any of the following applicable regulations: Federal Endangered
Species Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, Section 404 or 401 of
the Federal Clean Water Act, and Oregon Removal-Fill Law; b) The proposal will be
consistent with the desired character of the area as specified in the Plan; c) If more than one
modification is being requested,the cumulative effect of the modifications results in a project
that is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone; d) The modification(s) proposed
are the minimum required to grant the applicable permit(s) listed in criteria "a".
Modifications...do not circumvent or supercede any local, regional, state or federal
requirements in regards to natural resources.
Current Gan: Fails to Meet Recommendation
Existing regulation do not provide for density reduction specifically for habitat benefit
areas below the designated minimum. In order to meet the recommendation, the City
1ALRPLNIDenveAGoa151Program ImplementationlCurrent PracticeslGoa15—Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
would need to incorporate language into its comprehensive plan and development code
supporting density reductions for regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas.
2 Reduced minimum buildable lot sizes
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
No specific guidelines have been recommended to implement this
practice
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.2 - To retain existing trees over 12" in caliper in
the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be
averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as
long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that
allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot
size allowed in the zone.
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code allows for a reduction of lot size below the minimum
allowed by the underlying zone as an incentive for tree retention in commercial,
industrial or civic zones.
3 Modified Definition of Net Buildable Areas (Acre)
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions could amend their definitions of"net acre" or "buildable area" to exclude
Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA) (at the option of the developer). However, this may
require an amendment to the Functional Plan (Section 3.07.1010) definition of "net
acre" as the definition does not"net out" lands for which the local zoning code provides
a density bonus or other mechanism which allows the transfer of the allowable density or
use to another area or to development elsewhere on the same site.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.715.020
Definition of net development area deducts sensitive lands.
Current Ga4LL Almost Meets Recommendation
The current definition of net developable area excludes sensitive lands. The
recommendation would be met if Tualatin Basin program maps were adopted and this
provision was applied to habitat benefit areas.
Il. Engineering & Design Approaches
A. Street Design
1 Minimize Paving in Habitat Areas and through Stream Corridors
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions should consider allowing reductions in required pavement (and sidewalk)
width (and right-of-way dedications) for sites with Habitat Benefit Areas. Allow narrow
paved widths through stream corridors.
Tigard Community Development Code
I:ILRPLN\DenveAGoal Wrogram ImplementationlCurrent Practices\Goal5_Report.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Relevant Code Section: Figures 18.810.4, 18.810.5 & 18.810.6
"Skinny street" roadway widths (20', 24' & 28' pavement widths) are permitted on some
local residential streets (citywide) where cross section and review criteria are met. Criteria
is based on a traffic flow plan, the number of vehicles per day, adjacent uses and permits
certain types of parking.
Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation
"Skinny street" roadway widths are already permitted citywide for some local residential
streets. The City may consider the applicability of "skinny" roadway widths for
neighborhood streets adjacent to regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat and
through stream corridors.
2 Increased Use of Pervious Materials
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Consider amendments to remove barriers to, and encourage the use of, pervious paving
materials in parking areas and low traffic private streets. For example, many existing
codes require parking and street areas to be hard-paved surfaces with asphalt or
concrete.
Technical design.specifications will need to be adopted Basin-wide to facilitate the use of this method.
Additional steps are needed for sites that are not highysuitable in terms of soil permeability. Concerns
about slope stability and impacts to adjacent properties should also be addressed.
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.765.040 B &H
B. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface.
H. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet
storage areas, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle,
boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces. Off-street parking
spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or
concrete surface.
Relevant Code Section: 18.765.050.D
Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e.,
pavers asphalt, concrete, or similar material.
Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation
The Tigard Development Code requires access drives and off-street parking areas to be
pe c
improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces;although, outdoor bicycle parking facilities
p P g Y g
may be surfaced with pavers. The existing Tigard regulations serve as a barrier to the use
of pervious materials on access drives and off-street parking, thus fail to meet the
Tualatin Basin recommendations.
3 Maximize Street Tree Coverage
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Jurisdictions should document their existing standards to ensure that they are requiring
street trees be planted appropriately.Jurisdictions may also wish to document any street
tree planting efforts they have engaged in.
IALRPLNIDenver Goal 51Program Implementation\Current Practices\Goa15_Repon.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Tigard Community Development Code
Relevant Code Section: 18.745.040 Street Trees
1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum
caliper of two inches at four feet in height
2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows:
a. Small or narrow-stature trees (<25' tall, <16'wide): spaced no greater than 20%
b. Medium-sized trees (25-40' tall, 16-35'wide): spaced no greater than 30%
c. Large trees over (>40' tall, >35'wide): spaced no greater than 40%
d. Trees shall not be planted < 20' from an intersection, nor ,2' from driveways, fire
hydrants or utility poles;
j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a
type which will not interfere with the lines;
k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb;and
1. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or
walkway:
Other Relevant Code Sections.- 18.7 9 0.0 40
Current Gab: Meets Recommendation
Tigard has a Street Tree Planting Program, available to Tigard neighborhoods or
homeowners, which provides free street trees for public right-of-way areas along city
streets. Financial support for this program is provided through the Tree Mitigation Fund.
A Street Tree List was developed to assist Tigard homeowners, businesses, and
developers in choosing appropriate trees for proper urban planting sites to reduce the
cost of tree maintenance,utility conflicts, sidewalk and roadway repairs, and tree removal
requirements. The street tree list identifies trees which are "native" to the area.
Tigard Development Code standards which related to street tree planting have been
documented (refer to the preceding paragraph) in this report.
4 Use of Stormwater Management Facilities (Modify Drainage Practices)
Tualatin Basin Recommendation
Technical design specifications will need to be adopted Basin-wide to facilitate the use of this method.
CWS and the Basin jurisdictions should consider developing and adopting Basin-wide standards for the
construction and maintenance of stormwater management facilities, including working with building
officials to idem UBC and Plumbing code issues. Specifications should include project monitoring to
hep ensure that these facilities are functioning as designed.
Existing Regulations
Design standards related to the use of stormwater management facilities are contained in
the Water Quality Facility Design section of Clean Water Services Design and
Construction Standards. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, currently being updated, also
includes polices related to storm drainage.
Current Gap: Meets Recommendation
No barriers to the use of these facilities were identified in the audit of the Tigard
Community Development Code. Numerous water quality facilities have been
constructed in the City of Tigard.
I:\LRPLN\Denver\Goal 57rogram Implementation\Current Practices\Goa15_Report.doc
Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation
rl
dab
c
Why Protect Habitat Areas?
Impacts our quality of life:
■ Health of native fish and wildlife
■ Supply of clean water .
■ Access to nature
■ Threat of natural hazards
■ Urban growth — need to integrate
;.. the built & natural environment
Makes Tigard...Tigard!
■ Contributes to the "sense of place"
1
044 ,((i
1 1 � •;1 T
016
• �# IBJ.. �'riir������..
�Y
.ti.•,
ifefAM COP8140 P. eIIAT ..........
Insensitive�'Dewelopment
q�.v No(y4J
w•
Loss of V.e�getafion ,..
6+�kY ��0�ex►a°`
-C�ou�It aim�n a.Ye�d R u n'o f f`
.Altered Hydrolo'grY
T
Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation
Goal 5 Steps
a iVatufe in .,, �:
Tualatin Basin Partners
Why form a Basin alliance?
r ■ Fish and wildlife know no political boundaries
■ Tualatin River Watershed covers 13 Cities (nearly 80% of the
watershed is in Washington County)
■ Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop a Basin-
wide protection program (10 Cities, County, THPRD, CWS&Metro)
■ Clean Water Services serves as the storm and waste water
ra► agency for most urban portions of the Basin
■ Take the opportunity to integrate the Goal 5 effort with
watershed restoration measures identified in the CWS
Healthy Streams Plan
3
Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation
Basin Program Approach
Existing Regulations;
Approach , Flexibility in development code
t by Class Habitatdrlendly,d®velopment l Tree ordinance
- f .::w.
Technical.assistance;8°aducatlon
r Target restoration
2
C
G CD
N
C
N
0
fD
Q� �{ 0
t�ri1j113k�; G
N
Restrictive Program Approach Liberal
Habitat-friendly Development
Reduce detrimental impacts of 0&
r development on inventoried habitat
How?
■ Remove barriers to the
` ;" implementation of habitat friendly
�practices
■ Develop guidelines to encourage
habitat-friendly development
practices
4
Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation r
Site Example
Hi a.
�Y',}
%N
i
v
i
i I
Tigard Code Review
Review existing regulations for consistency with
"habitat-friendly development" recommendations
r for the Tualatin Basin.
Summary A of Findings
■ 11 recommendations were determined to be
substantially met by existing regulations
r ' ■ Lot Coverage Flexibility ■ Use of Native Plants
K ■ Parking Ratios ■ Tree Canopy Preservation
■ Shared Driveways & Parking ■ Minimum Lot Size Reduction
■ Parking Stall Dimensions ■ Maximize Street Tree Coverage
■ Parking Lot Landscaping ■ Use Stormwater Management
■ Location of Landscaping Facilities
1
Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation
Tigard Code Review
Summary of Findings (cont.)
■ Amendments to local ordinances would be required
for the following 11 proposed methods:
■ Lot Dimensional Standard
Adopt
Map
■ Building Height
■ On-site Density Transfer U Code
Flexibility
■ Setback Flexibility ®
■ Reduce sidewalk widths to minimum(ADA)
> '' ■ ModifyNet Buildable Area
Remove
`, N. ■ Permit Healthy Stream Plan Project Outright Barrier
■ Allow Pervious Paving Materials
Language to
■ Improve Soil Amendment 2 Encourage
■ Reduce Minimum Density
■ Minimize Paving in Habitat Areas&Stream Crossings ,
Key Questions to Guide
Code Revisions
■ Deduct Habitat Areas from "net development area"
.r
■ Allow adjustments of dimensional standards to Habitat
Areas (outside Vegetated Corridor)
■ Allow a waiver to minimum density for Habitat Areas
■ Allow density transfers for Habitat Areas (outside
Vegetated Corridor)
■ Permit outright projects in the CWS Health Streams Plan
■ Promote recommended techniques (e.g. pervious paving,
soil amendment, narrow ROW, etc)
2
Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation
Next Steps
■ Coordinate "habitat friendly" code amendments
with the City's Comprehensive Plan update process
■ Resolve outstanding policy questions
■ Define plan of action for amending the Community
Development Code
F. a ■ Recommend code amendments for consideration
''►'.'i1; by the Planning Commission and City Council
■ Adopt "habitat friendly" code amendments
Denver Igarta,Associate Planner
Email:denver@tigard-or.us
3