05/20/2013 - Packet
Completeness Review
for Boards, Commissions
and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Planning Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
Date of Meeting
I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record.
Doreen Laughlin
Print Name
Signature
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – MAY 20, 2013
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 1
City of Tigard
Planning Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS 7:01 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:05 p.m.
5 BRIEFING - DOWNTOWN 7:10 p.m.
6. UPDATE – RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN 7:55 p.m.
7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:40 p.m.
8. CALL FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 8:45 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT 8:55 p.m.
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner
Re: River Terrace Community Plan Update
Date: May 13, 2013
The city has commenced its effort to complete a River Terrace Community Plan. The city signed an
intergovernmental agreement with Washington County to perform this work by moving forward
from the West Bull Mt. Concept Plan that was adopted by the Washington County Commission in
November 2010. The concept plan process included a significant amount of investment, financial
and volunteer time, and a well-documented public involvement effort.
The community plan will build upon and refine the concept plan into the necessary zoning and land
use regulations that will ensure development accords with the publicly endorsed concept. The
planning effort will also result in adopted infrastructure master plans and an infrastructure financing
strategy that will convert the area from rural to urban use. The plan area will accommodate
approximately 2300 dwelling units and a small neighborhood commercial area to provide services to
local residents. A series of parks and trails, as well as a system of well-connected streets, will be
developed to provide recreational opportunities and transportation options for autos, bicycles and
pedestrians. The Tigard-Tualatin School District owns property in the planning area and will
develop a school in the future.
The city has begun work related to zoning and natural resource mapping. Meetings with the
community, the technical advisory committee, and the Council-appointed stakeholder working
group have recently been held for initial review of this work. The city is now in the process of
contracting with a consultant team to help update infrastructure master plans and develop a
financing strategy. The consultant team will outline available tools, funding opportunities, and policy
options the Planning Commission and City Council will need to weigh and consider when it comes
time to adopt an infrastructure financing strategy to ensure a successful implementation of the
community plan.
As part of the community planning process, the Planning Commission will be asked to hold public
hearings and recommend components of the community plan. These include: zoning and land use
regulations, transportation system plan updates, natural resource maps, public facility plans, and an
infrastructure financing strategy. To help prepare for these decisions, staff will schedule a series of
discussions with the Planning Commission focusing on key policy decisions needing deliberation
over the next year. These include:
Individual stakeholder needs versus planning area needs
Land use recommendations from the concept plan
Park locations and how to fund the acquisition, development, and maintenance
Transportation impacts - financing on and off-site impacts and coordinating with Beaverton,
Washington County and ODOT
Infrastructure phasing - not all properties will develop at the same time or have the same
access to existing infrastructure
Financing strategy - striking a fair balance between development versus city responsibilities
All of these policy decisions are important to the community plan process. However, during the
May 20, 2013 workshop, staff hopes to concentrate on the land use/zoning and natural resource tasks
that have gone through the first round of meetings with the community and committees. A summary of
each meeting is attached.
Overview of Meetings
The River Terrace Community Plan effort recently completed a round of committee and public
meetings to receive feedback on tasks related to natural resources and land use/zoning. The project's
technical advisory committee (TAC) and council-appointed stakeholder working group (SWG) met on
March 19/20 and the community meeting was held on April 11. The focus of all three meetings was to
present the three natural resource maps that are regulated by the Tigard Community Development Code
and to also get feedback on different zoning options that are intended to implement the recommended
land use vision from the West Bull Mountain. Concept Plan (WBMCP).
The three natural resource maps (Significant Habitat Map, Significant Tree Grove Map, Wetlands and
Stream Corridors Map) show the inventoried resources in the River Terrace Community Plan area. The
discussion at the meetings focused on the varying types of regulation for each map and the city's intent
to update the existing maps by adopting the River Terrace resources into the respective maps. The
Significant Habitat and Significant Tree Grove maps have voluntary, flexible regulations and incentives
for preserving resources. The Wetlands and Stream Corridors map identifies the general area of a
resource that would need to be delineated and protected through the development process. The
discussion was limited regarding these maps and focused on clarifying the intent of the maps by adding
language or removing unnecessary information from the maps.
The land use/zoning component of the meetings focused on gathering feedback on the translation of
the recommended land uses from the WBMCP into city zoning. In December 2012, the Tigard City
Council adopted the WBMCP recommended land uses into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This action
signified the transition to the community planning phase, as well as the intent to honor the investment
and involvement that occurred during the WBMCP process to agree upon a vision for the area. The
project team presented the explanation of how the zoning options were created; then small groups were
formed to review the zoning options, give feedback, and make a recommendation on the preferred
option.
For the TAC and SWG meetings, two different zoning options were presented. There was unanimous
consensus that the option that included a greater diversity of zoning districts was the better choice.
There were also a number of suggestions for improvement. For the community meeting, the option
chosen by the TAC and SWG was presented, as well as two additional options that incorporated
feedback from the TAC and SWG meetings. A survey form was also available at the community
meeting to capture comments and was made available for two weeks following the meeting to gather
additional feedback for those who could not attend. A summary of all the meetings and the online
survey are found as attachments.
There were a total of 118 people who attended meetings or took the online survey. There was not a
definitive consensus on which zoning option was preferred, but the general location of the concept
plan's land uses seemed to be supported. The biggest difference between community responses was the
location where the person lives and perceived traffic impacts from the adjacent zoning. Responses from
the neighborhoods surrounding the southeast part of the plan area (Area 63) preferred zoning options
that placed more R-4.5 zoning in that area, while responses from the neighborhoods adjacent to the
northeast part of the plan area (Area 64) preferred zoning options that kept the higher density areas
R-25 and distributed more R-7 in the southeast area. Finding an acceptable balance will be important.
There were also some comments regarding the location of the commercial area and the community
parks. The commercial area was placed in its location based on the county's limited arterial access
regulations, a commercial land use analysis and the community's desire for a neighborhood focused
center that is not auto-oriented. There was no consensus on needing to re-evaluate the location, but
comments from the meeting questioned the viability of the commercial area if it doesn't have visibility
along Roy Rogers Rd. Staff is looking for direction from council on whether another analysis of the
commercial location is preferred and the acceptable impact on the timing of the rest of the project
tasks. Many assumptions would need to be refined, particularly the traffic impacts of changing the
recommended square footage of commercial space and moving it into a more auto-oriented location.
The location of the community parks also received some attention at the meetings. The locations will
get evaluated once again during the Parks Master Plan Update task, but moving the location would
impact zoning and infrastructure planning. As with the commercial area, refining the concept plan as
necessary is part of the community planning process, but the impacts of wholesale change of the
concept plan on the timing of completing the community plan needs to be understood. The WBMCP
had the support of its TAC and SWG and was adopted by the Washington County Board of
Commissioners. Significant time and resources were spent to analyze the land uses and gain support for
the trade-offs that occurred during the process.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-718-2442 or Darren@tigard-or.gov
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 6
City of Tigard
River Terrace TAC Summary
MEETING DETAILS: Tuesday, March 19, 2013
9:00-11:00am, Tigard Town Hall
Committee Members in Attendance
Brian Rager, City of Tigard
Steve Martin, City of Tigard
Dave Wells, King City
Allen Kennedy, TVF&R
Paul Whitney, Tualatin Riverkeepers
Paul Shaefer, Washington County
Dave Winship, City of Beaverton
Valerie Sutton, City of Beaverton
Anne Debbaut, DLCD
Ray Valone, Metro
Kelly Hossaini, TTSD
Dick Winn, IWB
Andy Braun, CWS
Jabra Khasho, City of Beaverton
Judith Gray, City of Tigard
Staff Present
Darren Wyss, City of Tigard
Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard
Cheryl Caines, City of Tigard
Consultant Staff Present
John Spencer, Spencer Consultants
Tasks from this meeting:
Contact Metro staff regarding Title 13 updates and applicability to River Terrace
Create a crosswalk diagram for city and county zoning
Send link to the group for the new urban forestry code
Send link to the group for the River Terrace Tree Grove Inventory Report
Send stakeholder working group and community meeting schedules to the group
Send new urban forestry code information to property owners
Contact CWS staff regarding code updates for trails in vegetated corridors
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 2 of 6
Introductions
Darren thanked everyone for coming and reviewed the meeting goals and agenda, then led the group through a
round of introductions.
Roles and Responsibilities
Darren reiterated the role of the TAC is to provide feedback and advice to staff during the planning process. The
TAC will try to build consensus on recommendations, but if this is not possible then the group will vote on a
recommendation.
Darren said there will also be a Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) involved in the RTCP planning process. The
SWG will also provide feedback and advice to the project team. Minutes of SWG meetings will be shared with the
TAC and minutes of TAC meetings be shared with the SWG. TAC meetings will be scheduled in advance of SWG
meetings so the SWG will be able to use information from the TAC during decision making.
Darren said the TAC is going to provide assistance in translating the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan (WBMCP)
into the RTCP. The TAC will hold three more meetings as a group, while subcommittees will be formed for each
specific infrastructure task. Darren will request subcommittee volunteers through email and phone correspondence.
Staff role will be to facilitate meetings and get materials to the group a week in advance. Staff will also be
responsible for providing updates on the project scope between meetings.
Darren said that the project team will be very clear about the questions that need to be answered for each meeting.
Questions will be outlined in the meeting packets. Information will be presented on each work task and input will
be collected from the TAC. At the next meeting, staff will present revisions/refinements based on SWG and TAC
feedback. At that time, TAC members will be asked for a consensus recommendation. TAC members will see
everything at least twice before having to make a decision.
Project Information
Darren reiterated that the RTCP process will use the vision that was outlined in the WBMCP and refine it as
necessary to meet state, city, and regional requirements. Since the WBMCP, all of the area known as River Terrace
has been annexed to the City of Tigard.
There are 11 primary work tasks associated with this project. The Public Involvement task, Natural Resources task,
and Zoning/Land Use task will be led by the City. The PI task will be guided by the Committee for Citizen
Involvement’s adopted Public Involvement Plan. The City will engage a consultant to help with the infrastructure
tasks (including Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater, Transportation, Parks; Infrastructure Financing and Public
Facility Plan). The Request for Proposal (RFP) for this work was being published the day after the meeting; the
consultant will be engaged in May and will attend future TAC meetings to provide information to the group. The
sanitary sewer and water studies will include the urban reserve areas to ensure proper pipe sizing during
development.
Darren said the public involvement program for this planning process will occur over the next 10 months. The
SWG and TAC will each meet five times. In addition, the project will have four community meetings.
Darren noted the most important task in the list is the infrastructure financing. It is vitally important to have
necessary funding mechanisms in place to supply the needed infrastructure for development of the area. This task
will stretch the length of the RTCP planning process.
Darren said the outcome of the RTCP planning process will be having city zoning and land use regulations in place
and a financing strategy that allows the River Terrace area to be developed into a complete community. The
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 3 of 6
schedule has been accelerated to try to meet a timeframe of completion by March 2014, including the legislative
process.
Darren reviewed the TAC meeting topics:
• Meeting 1– Group initiation; introduce Zoning and Natural Resources
• Meeting 2 – Introduce Parks and Water; revisit Zoning and Natural Resources
• Meeting 3 – Introduce Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water, Transportation; revisit Parks and Water
• Meeting 4 – Introduce Financing; revisit Sanitary/Sewer, Storm Water, Transportation –
o Darren noted that although Financing will be discussed with each infrastructure task, meeting 4 will
provide an opportunity to make specific recommendations on Financing
• Meeting 5 – Final review and recommendations
Darren reiterated we are moving forward from the vision of the WBMCP. The project team’s expectation is that the
TAC members are familiar with the content of the WBMCP and a detailed review is not necessary. If a committee
member needs additional information, the team is happy to provide information or meet with group members to
get them up to speed if needed.
Darren concluded by saying he hopes the TAC can come to a consensus on an RTCP that implements the vision of
the WBMCP and move the community plan into the legislative adoption process.
Group Discussion
Several TAC members asked to be sent the SWG and Community Meeting schedules.
Natural Resources Work Task Review
Darren said that the City’s natural resource program is based on the sensitive lands chapter in the Community
Development Code (CDC) which provides guidance for incentives, flexibility, and protections and three separate
maps: Significant Habitat, Significant Tree Groves, and Wetlands and Stream Corridors. The process for developing
these maps followed local and regional guidelines and meet state or regional requirements. The intention is to
update these maps with the resources in the RTCP and then adopt the maps.
Significant Habitat Map
The Significant Habitat Map was originally part of the Tualatin Basin Partnership (Title 13). The City adopted the
map in 2006 with associated development code amendments. When adoption took place, Measure 37 was in play,
so the Partnership made a decision to apply voluntary, low-impact development guidelines. This approach was
accepted by Metro.
Significant Tree Groves Map
Darren said that the Significant Tree Grove Preservation Program is a new program that was done as part of the
City’s Urban Forestry Code Revision project. Mature native tree groves of two acres and larger were inventoried as
part of this process; the inventory in River Terrace was completed in Fall 2012 and followed state Goal 5 guidelines.
During the development process, these voluntary and flexible development standards can be used to provide
incentives to property owners/developers in saving some or all of an inventoried tree grove. The incentives include
transfer of density to non-tree grove portion of property, reduction in minimum density requirements or increased
height and reduced setbacks in commercial/industrial zones. Using the flexible standards and incentives can be a
benefit in meeting the newly adopted city canopy requirements. The new tree code rewards developers for having
trees on their property. It’s important to be aware that the tree code has changed.
The City has brochures covering the elements of the tree code; there were no copies at this meeting but Darren will
email these out prior to the next meeting and copies will be brought to the next meeting.
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 4 of 6
Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map
Darren said that the Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map complies with the Goal 5 Local Wetland Inventory as well
as Metro’s Title 3 program (which is implemented through the Clean Water Services Design and Construction
Standards). Information on the map is approximate boundaries and detailed delineations are performed during the
development process. Wetland inventory conducted during WBMCP process and the State Division of Lands has
approved this inventory in Fall 2012; the City plans to adopt this map into the local inventory. The same contractor
is completing the ESEE analysis for the wetlands and the tree groves.
Summary
Darren said that the intent today is to make sure the group understands the purpose of the three maps, how they
were inventoried and what regulations apply to them. The City’s intent is to update the maps with inventories from
River Terrace and adopt the maps as part of the city’s natural resource program.
Group Discussion
Metro is updating Title 13 inventory. City should coordinate with Metro.
The TAC asked whether the Roshak Pond will be drained, as it was a popular topic of discussion during the
WBMCP process. The pond could be increasing downstream water temperatures and the condition of the
earthen dam is not known. Darren stated it will be evaluated during the stormwater task.
The group asked to be sent a link to the new tree code regulations and the tree grove inventory report.
The group recommended sending new tree code information to property owners.
The group asked about reduction of density incentives for tree groves and whether Metro has concerns.
Darren stated the impacts will be outlined in the ESEE analysis.
The group recommended following up with CWS about code updates focused on trails in the vegetated
corridor and wetlands. The Metro green trail guidelines recommend avoiding these natural features. City
needs to consider how to remedy the two in the process.
Questions about the location and timing of pump stations were asked. Will it be located in a wetland? Is it
possible to site it outside of the UGB to avoid wetlands? Andy Braun (CWS) responded that a pump station siting
study is scheduled for July and both inside/outside the UGB will be analyzed. CWS prefers to site only once and this pump
station will also serve South Cooper Mt. Darren stated these questions will get further attention during the sanitary sewer task.
The group asked about FEMA changes for development in the floodplain. Anne Debbaut (DLCD) responded
she can keep the group informed and have a representative talk to the jurisdictions if needed.
Zoning Work Task Review
Darren explained that the River Terrace zoning must meet two separate Title 11 requirements – Areas 63 and 64
must meet 2002 requirements (10 units per net developable acre); Roy Rogers West (RRW) must meet 2011
requirements (contain 479 housing units). However, some of the 479 units can be placed in Areas 63 and 64 as long
as the City shows they have met both requirements overall.
The Tigard City Council adopted the recommended land uses in the WBMCP in December 2012. These are shown
as colored areas on the map.
The project team has created two scenarios shown in two separate maps – Analysis 1 and Analysis 2. Both of these
meet Title 11 requirements, though the second is better aligned with the WBMCP vision. Darren said the color
schemes used in these maps are from the WBMCP.
The WBMCP assumed a density of 11.5–12 units per acre including the Rural Element. Without the Rural Element,
for just Areas 63 and 64, it was 10.5 unit/acre. It also assumed that low density = 7, medium density = 14, and high
density = 30.
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 5 of 6
Analysis 1
Darren referred the memo in the meeting packet. The County and City zoning designations are different, but he was
able to match up minimum lot sizes. Analysis 1 has been based strictly on the recommended land use in WBMCP
and what the City’s code allows. This offered very limited choices to meet the requirements. This option ended up
with little mix, no R-7, and required an R-40 zone to meet density requirements.
The project team believes that Analysis 1 does not meet the “spirit” of the WBMCP and isn’t realistic. It ended up
with very little mix of housing types and price ranges, and they are not sure if the R40 zone is realistic.
Analysis 2
Darren said that Analysis 2 applied the City’s R-7 zone to low density areas, which results in a better mix of zoning
overall. The highest density area is R-25. The project team would like feedback whether this is more feasible than
the R-40 in Analysis 1.
Staff felt analysis 2 is more aligned with the intentions of the WBMCP and provides more flexibility in
accommodating the units for RRW. It considers existing neighborhoods and keeps larger lots adjacent to existing
neighborhoods with larger lots.
The TAC was split into four groups for an exercise in evaluating how the zoning meets the intent of the concept
plan and which of the two analysis is preferred.
Small Group Reports
Table 1
R-25 more appropriate than R-40
Beef Bend & 150th increase from R-7 to R-12
West edge of 64 change R-4.5 to at least R-7
Change R-7 along Roy Rogers Rd to R-12
Zoning Analysis 2 is better option
Table 2
Provide a crosswalk between city and county zoning
Safety issues on 150th if higher densities placed there
Cautious of R-12 in SE 63
Anticipate low vs. medium density issues
Was transit considered?
More dense around Scholls Ferry – R-12 to R-25 & R-7 above park to R-12
R-4.5 all along edge of existing neighborhoods?
Zoning Analysis 2 is better option
Table 3
Possible commercial zoning for property at SW corner of Roy Rogers & Scholls Ferry Rd.?
Draining pond will add buildable acres
R-40 near commercial center
R-25 below commercial center
Illogical boundary between low & medium density in West 63 & RRW – analyze
Fire protection needs – sprinkle higher density housing
Zoning Analysis 2 is better option
Table 4
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 6 of 6
Make zoning logical (e.g. follow contour lines) and flexible (e.g. not always squared off)
May need density (R-40) for commercial to pencil out
Neighborhood Commercial should serve local needs
More density around park in RRW (R-7 to R-12)
Parks are only 2/3 of city standards
Might need to zone everything higher
Blends nicely with existing neighborhoods
Financing may dictate zoning needs – does this deserve a second look?
Match with what uses may be on west side of Roy Rogers Rd (may require 15 units/acre)
How far is the city willing to take changes? This is a clean approach and things have changed.
What will be marketable?
More density to support commercial area (R-25 south of CN)
Parks and high density proximity
Analyze illogical boundary mentioned by Table 2 & 3
Is there enough room between steep slopes and stream corridor for development on Area 63 property?
Zoning Analysis 2 is better option
Meeting Wrap-Up and Next Steps
Darren asked whether the same meeting day/time works for upcoming meetings. The time generally works for the
group. The city will distribute a meeting invite for the next meeting.
The SWG meeting is scheduled for the Wednesday evening and the next community meeting scheduled for April
11, 2013. Both are being held in the cafeteria of Deer Creek Elementary. Information is available online.
Information for upcoming meetings will be available online and in project e-mails. TAC members will be added to
the list serve. Members of the public should sign up for the list serve.
Darren thanked everyone for coming and adjourned the meeting.
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 1 of 11
River Terrace Stakeholder Working Group
MEETING DETAILS: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
6:30-9:00pm, Deer Creek Elementary Cafeteria
Committee Members in Attendance
Jim Beardsley, property owner – Area 64
Ernie Brown, Tigard Tualatin School District
Joanne Criscione, property owner – Area 64
Michael Freudenthal, neighborhood representative
Fred Gast, developer
Dan Grimberg, developer and property owner – Area 64
Lisa Hamilton, CPO 4B and Friends of Bull Mountain
Jerry Hanford, property owner and neighborhood
representative
Steve Jacobson, property owner – Area 63
Marsha Lancaster, property owner – Urban Reserve
Yolanda McVicker, CPO 4B, Bull Mountain
Kathy Stallkamp, CPO 4K
Richard Shavey, Tigard Planning Commission
John Weathers, neighborhood representative
Matt Wellner, developer and property owner – Area 63
Dick Winn, Friends of Tualatin River Wildlife Refuge
Marc Woodard, Tigard City Council
Committee Members Absent
Nora Curtis, Clean Water Services
Staff Present
Darren Wyss, City of Tigard
Marissa Daniels, City of Tigard
Christine Wiley XX, City of Tigard
Consultant Staff Present
Adrienne DeDona, JLA Public Involvement
Jamie Harvie, JLA Public Involvement
John Spencer, Spencer Consultants
Members of the Public Present
Paul Schaefer, Washington County
Don Roshak
Steve & Linda Price
Ned Braw
Kimmy Asher
J. Roberts, Crandall Group
Elise Shearer
Vima Pistilla
Tony Lozzi
Tom Brian
Crystal Roshak, John L. Scott
Jerry Roshak
Craig Schuck, Riverside Homes
Elizabeth Burnell
Kevin Dressel
Niki Munison, Riverside Homes
Ed Dantholemy
Dana Rasmesse
Don O’Neil, MLG
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 2 of 11
Information requests from this meeting:
• Group members would like information and updates from the South Cooper Mountain process.
o The project team will provide this. Also, Matt Wellner serves on South Cooper Mountain CAC.
• Group members would like to be aware of planning efforts for all other relevant areas, including
unincorporated areas, Metro’s Westside Trail and other efforts.
• Group members would like summarized information regarding the updated tree code and would like
this shared with area residents.
o Brochures will be brought to the next meeting and Darren will email this information to the
group members prior to the next meeting. The City’s website also provides information about
the new program.
• Group members would like to be aware of Beaverton’s zoning maps for the north side off Scholl’s
Ferry Road to make sure development is compatible.
• Revisit upland area preservation requirements for this area (Natural Resources)
Parking lot items and items for further discussion:
• Revisit the issues surrounding Roshak’s Pond during the storm water process.
• Revisit park issues, including parks standards used for zoning analyses and locations.
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 3 of 11
Overview Summary
The following is an overview of the main comments made by members for the two tasks discussed at the March 20, 2013 SWG
meeting.
Overview of Project Information
Preserve WBMCP vision through implementation and development
Need for flexibility in implementation
Infrastructure financing task is critical
How will unincorporated area be addressed?
How will the Rural Area be addressed?
Consider parallel planning efforts, e.g. South Cooper Mountain, and share this information with the
group
Overview of Natural Resources Work Task
Revisit upland areas on the three natural resource maps, including reference to work that Washington
County has done.
Remove the Significant Habitat layer from the Significant Tree Groves Map.
Include note with Wetlands Map that detailed delineations would be done during the development
process.
Explain why the Wetland Map extends outside of the River Terrace area in some places but stops at
the border in others, particularly the eastern border.
Include a matrix of the three maps and city codes associated with them in order to clearly explain what
the maps do and do not do
Would like to review maps incorporating feedback before recommending inclusion
City needs to have outreach to property owners regarding updated tree code
Overview of Zoning Work Task
Zoning should follow property lines
Need for flexibility in implementation
Implementation of R-7 zoning (Analysis 2) is good
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 4 of 11
Introductions
Adrienne DeDona thanked everyone for coming and introduced herself as the facilitator of the group. She reviewed
the meeting goals and agenda, then led the group through a round of introductions.
Roles and Responsibilities
SWG members
Darren provided background information on the process that brought the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG)
together. The 18 member group has been appointed by Tigard City Council to provide on-going advice and
feedback to staff regarding preparation of the River Terrace Community Plan (RTCP). Darren thanked the SWG
members for volunteering time to provide feedback and advice on the project.
The mission of the group, as outlined by Council Resolution, is to:
1. Create an environment conducive to multiple and diverse opinions and ideas;
2. Review and comment on draft materials prepared by staff and consultants;
3. Ensure the community plan is consistent with and supportive of the applicable goals, policies, and
actions measures in the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations in the West Bull Mountain
Concept Plan; and
4. Promote public understanding of the River Terrace Community Plan.
Darren said there will also be a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) involved in the RTCP planning process. The
TAC will provide feedback and advice to the project team. Minutes of SWG meetings will be shared with the TAC
and minutes of TAC meetings be shared with the SWG. TAC meetings will be scheduled in advance of SWG
meetings so the SWG will be able to use information from the TAC during decision making.
Darren said the SWG is going to provide assistance in translating the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan (WBMCP)
into the RTCP. The City of Tigard has made a commitment to move the concept plan recommendations forward
and not start the process over again. There have been three years of prior investment and public involvement and
the City wants to honor that work.
Darren said that the project team will be very clear about the questions that need to be answered for each meeting.
Questions will be outlined in the meeting packets. Information will be presented on each work task and input will
be collected from the SWG. At the next meeting, staff will present revisions/refinements based on SWG and TAC
feedback. At that time, SWG members will be asked for a consensus recommendation. SWG members will see
everything at least twice before having to make a decision.
Facilitator
Adrienne explained her role as the facilitator. She will make sure each meeting follows the agenda, that everyone has
the opportunity to voice their opinions and/or ask questions, and enforce the protocols. She handed out draft
protocols for review. These are similar to the protocols used for the WBMCP planning process. The protocols were
not reviewed at the meeting; members will review them outside of the meeting and they will be further discussed
and adopted at the following meeting.
City staff
Adrienne said that project staff, including Darren, Marissa and John, are here in a support role. Group members
should come to them with any feedback/issues. Darren is project lead. After adopting the protocols, the project
team will identify one point of contact. In the meantime, group members can come to Darren, Adrienne or Marissa
with questions or comments.
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 5 of 11
Adrienne said that she will be conducting stakeholder interviews with each group member in the time before the
next meeting, so members should expect to hear from her. If a group member was involved in the WBMCP
planning process, she would like to hear feedback on that process and whether any suggestions would be applicable
to the RTCP process.
Project Information
Scope and Timelines
Darren reiterated that the RTCP process will use the vision that was outlined in the WBMCP and refine it as
necessary to meet state, city, and regional requirements. Since the WBMCP, all of the area known as River Terrace
has been annexed to the City of Tigard.
Task and Meeting Schedule
A task and meeting schedule was provided. There are 11 primary work tasks associated with this project. One of
these tasks, Land Use, has been completed already as part of the City Council’s adoption of the WBMCP adopted
land uses in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan in December. The Public Involvement task, Natural Resources task,
and Zoning/Land Use task will be led by the City. The PI task will be guided by the Committee for Citizen
Involvement’s adopted Public Involvement Plan. The City will engage a consultant to help with the infrastructure
tasks (including Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water, Transportation, Parks; Infrastructure Financing and Public
Facility Plan). The Request for Proposal (RFP) for this work was sent out the day of the meeting; the consultant will
be engaged by early May and will attend future SWG meetings to provide information to the group.
Darren said the public involvement program for this planning process will occur over the next 10 months. The
SWG and TAC will each meet five times. In addition, the project will have four community meetings.
Darren noted the most important task in the list is the infrastructure financing. It is vitally important to have
necessary funding mechanisms in place to supply the needed infrastructure for development of the area. This task
will stretch the length of the RTCP planning process, and will be a standing agenda item for the SWG.
Darren said the outcome of the RTCP planning process will be having city zoning and land use regulations in place
and a financing strategy that allows the River Terrace area to be developed into a complete community . The SWG
will endorse this plan and the River Terrace area will be ready for development in Spring of 2014. The schedule has
been accelerated to try to meet a timeframe of completion by March 2014.
SWG Meeting Topics
Darren reviewed the SWG meeting topics:
• Meeting 1– Group initiation; introduce Zoning and Natural Resources
• Meeting 2 – Introduce Parks and Water; revisit Zoning and Natural Resources
• Meeting 3 – Introduce Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water, Transportation; revisit Parks and Water
• Meeting 4 – Introduce Financing; revisit Sanitary/Sewer, Storm Water, Transportation –
o Darren noted that although Financing will be discussed with each infrastructure task, meeting 4 will
provide an opportunity to make specific recommendations on Financing
• Meeting 5 – Final review and recommendations
West Bull Mountain Concept Plan
Darren said that the project team’s expectation is that the SWG members are familiar with the content of the
WBMCP. The project team will not review the WBMCP content in detail or revisit the previous process, but are
happy to provide information or meet with group members to get them up to speed if needed.
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 6 of 11
Final Outcomes
Darren concluded by saying he hopes the SWG and TAC can come to a consensus on an RTCP that implements
the vision of the WBMCP, which will result the Tigard City Council implementing what the groups have
recommended.
Adrienne reinforced that any changes to the WBMCP vision would require going back to Council.
Group discussion
• Dan Grimberg said he participated in the WBMCP. His concern is that, when development is done in
segments, specific implementation requirements often clash with the overall plan. Because of this, the
Financing Plan is a very important foundation for the overall planning process. Dan is involved in the
planning process in North Bethany and hopes the RTCP will be more flexible than that. There must be
some trust in developers and flexibility in zoning/land use to allow them to meet market demands.
o Darren agreed that the financial element is very important and will thus be addressed throughout the
project. There will also be technical experts on board to provide information to the group.
o Dick Winn recognized Dan’s concerns are related to implementation, but the SWG’s mandate is
related to planning. It is the City of Tigard’s responsibility to deal with implementation.
• Michael Freudenthal pointed out the unincorporated area in between River Terrace and the main part of
the City of Tigard. He is concerned that this area will be affected by the planning process but has been
under-considered. At some point in the process, he would like to discuss how that unincorporated area is
factored into the planning process.
• Joanne Criscione said that she had worked on the master planning for the rural area on corner of Beef
Bend Road and Roy Rogers Road (called the “rural element”). How will the current planning process affect
what they have already done?
o Darren replied that this work will be a vital consideration of the infrastructure planning, so that
planning for the two areas is complementary, but since it was not brought into Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), the City’s planning process cannot apply regulations and zoning to that area. That
master planning does not affect the density requirements for the RCTP.
• Dan asked whether there will be shared information between the RTCP and South Cooper Mountain
planning processes?
o Darren replied that the Tigard and Beaverton city councils have had a joint meeting about that issue.
Each council passed a resolution for staff on the two planning processes to coordinate and share
information. The RTCP TAC will include a City of Beaverton staff member and the South Cooper
Mountain TAC will have a City of Tigard staff member.
• Dan said that he would like SWG meetings to include information at this meeting from the South Cooper
Mountain process.
o Darren said that this would be possible.
o Matt Wellner said that he serves on South Cooper Mountain CAC and could be a resource for
information.
• Lisa Hamilton said it is important for the RTCP planning process not to function in a vacuum. The process
needs to consider unincorporated areas, South Cooper Mountain, Metro’s Westside Trail and other efforts.
The SWG members need to be aware of the bigger picture and want information.
o Darren replied that the project team is working with Metro on how to connect to the Westside trail.
Natural Resources Work Task Review
Darren said that the City’s natural resource program is based on the sensitive lands chapter in the Community
Development Code (CDC) which provides guidance for incentives, flexibility, and protections and is shown in three
separate maps: Significant Habitat, Tree Groves, and Wetlands and Stream Corridors. The process for developing
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 7 of 11
these maps followed local and regional guidelines and meet state or regional requirements. The intention is to
include these maps in the RTCP so it’s important that the SWG understand them and accept them.
Significant Habitat Map
Darren said that the Significant Habitat Map was originally part of the Tualatin Basin Partnership (Title 13). The
City adopted the guidelines included in the Significant Habitat map in 2006. When adoption took place, Measure 37
passed so the City made these voluntary, low-impact development guidelines.
Group discussion
• Matt Wellner requested that the significant habitat upland areas be revisited since these guidelines were
adopted before these areas were annexed into the city and therefore may not be applicable. His concern is
that at some point in the future the significant habitat areas could no longer be voluntary.
• Dan Grimberg said that the highlighted significant habitat areas should be identified as “areas of concern
that require further study;” since delineation will be required at the time of development. The North
Bethany planning process notes this in their plan. He is concerned about how this will be interpreted.
• John Weathers said that the maps need to be based on actual site visits, not just on aerial images.
• Lisa Hamilton asked whether regulations apply to the dark green significant habitat areas.
o Darren replied that the Significant Habitat Map only has voluntary guidelines associated with it.
Significant Tree Groves Map
Darren said that the Significant Tree Grove Preservation Program is a new program that was done as part of the
City’s Urban Forestry Code Revision project. Mature native tree groves of two acres and larger were inventoried as
part of this process; the inventory in River Terrace was completed in Fall 2012. Voluntary development guidelines
are associated with this map in which saving portions of tree groves provides incentives to property
owners/developers. The previous City tree code was very punitive. The new tree code rewards developers for
having trees on their property. It’s important to be aware that the tree code has changed.
The City has brochures covering the elements of the tree code; there were no copies at this meeting but Darren will
email these out prior to the next meeting and copies will be brought to the next meeting.
Group discussion
• Lisa Hamilton said that she is concerned that property owners may not be aware of changes to tree code
and may cut their trees down in anticipation of development.
o Marissa Daniels replied that the same issue was discussed at the TAC meeting last night. The project
team hopes that the SWG and TAC groups can spread the news to property owners. The City will
send a mailing to residents regarding this. In the meantime, the City’s website also provides
information about the new program.
• Fred Gast said he is concerned that the Significant Tree Grove Map includes an overlay of the Significant
Habitat, however the two do not necessarily correlate. If a person looks at the Significant Tree Grove Map
without understanding the Significant Habitat Map, they could easily get confused or misinterpret.
o Darren said that this layer can be removed from the Tree Grove map.
• Dan Grimberg asked how current is the Tree Grove Map?
o Darren replied the inventory had been done by a consultant in November 2012.
Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map
Darren said that the Wetlands and Stream Corridors Map complies with the Goal 5 Local Wetland Inventory as well
as Metro’s Title 3 program (which is implemented through the Clean Water Services Design and Construction
Standards). The map shows approximate boundaries of wetlands. Detailed delineations of wetlands would be done
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 8 of 11
during the development process. The State Division of Lands has approved this inventory; the City plans to adopt
this map into the local inventory. The same contractor is completing the ESEE analysis for the wetlands and the
tree groves.
Group discussion
Dan Grimberg requested that a note be added to the Wetlands Map that it is a high-level generalization and
detailed delineations will be required during the development process
o Darren replied that this could be done. This is also defined in the City’s code.
John Weathers asked why the Wetland Map extends outside of the River Terrace area in some places but
stops at the border in others, particularly the eastern border where he knows there is significant wetland
habitat?
o Darren said he would follow-up with Washington County about this.
Lisa Hamilton said that there has been a lot of discussion about the Roshak’s Pond; what is the final
decision on whether it will stay intact during development?
o Darren said that this is a critical issue and it will be addressed during the storm water planning task.
The same question came up at the TAC meeting.
Dan said that it is a manmade pond put there for irrigation. He feels uncomfortable that the Roshaks are
not able to speak to this issue.
o Adrienne said that they can speak to this during the public comment period.
Jim Beardsley said that these ponds have done significant damage to some properties. He has discussed this
with the County and Clean Water Services.
o Darren said that this issue will be discussed during the storm water planning task and Clean Water
Services will be involved.
Summary
Darren said that the intent today is to make sure the group understands the purpose of the maps; they are natural
resource inventories that dictate various development guidelines. The City’s intent is to include these existing
guidelines in the RTCP.
Adrienne reiterated that the maps are not a key deliberation piece and are planned to be brought into the plan as-is.
This is the time to ask any questions to be sure everyone understands the maps before moving forward.
Group discussion
Steve Jacobson asked whether the changes discussed today will be included in the maps before they are
included in the RTCP?
o Darren said the project team will discuss the comments and incorporate them prior to the next
meeting. At the next meeting, they will look for a consensus that the maps are fine to include in the
RTCP.
o Adrienne said it would be possible to include a communication piece in the RTCP that conveys the
intent of the maps, and this will take care of many of the comments.
o Steve said these maps are very important because they affect people’s livelihoods.
o Dan Grimberg said that any mistakes made in these maps can be carried forward into future
decisions.
o Darren said that prior to next meeting, he can create a matrix of the three maps and city codes
associated with them in order to explain what the maps do and do not do.
A member of the public added that the ultimate decision on Roshak’s Pond is a big issue.
o Adrienne said this will be a parking lot issue until the third meeting regarding storm water.
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 9 of 11
Zoning Work Task Review
Density Assumptions and Requirements
Darren explained that the River Terrace zoning must meet two separate Title 11 requirements – Areas 63 and 64
must meet 2002 requirements (10 units per net developable acre); Roy Rogers West (RRW) must meet 2011
requirements (contain 479 housing units). However, some of the 479 units can be placed in Areas 63 and 64 as long
as the City shows they have met both requirements overall.
The Tigard City Council adopted the recommended land uses in the WBMCP in December 2012. These are shown
as colored areas on the map.
The project team has created two scenarios shown in two separate maps – Analysis 1 and Analysis 2. Both of these
meet Title 11 requirements, though the second is better aligned with the WBMCP vision. Darren said the color
schemes used in these maps are from the WBMCP.
The WBMCP assumed a density of 11.5–12 units per acre including the Rural Element. Without the Rural Element,
for just Areas 63 and 64, it was 10.5 unit/acre. It also assumed that low density = 7, medium density = 14, and high
density = 30.
Recommended Zoning
Analysis 1
Darren referred to a handout of Washington County’s land use zoning code and the memo on Tigard’s zoning
districts (in the meeting packet). He said the County and City zoning designations are different, but he was able to
match up minimum lot sizes. Analysis 1 has been based strictly on the recommended land use in WBMCP and what
the City’s code allows. This offered very limited choices to meet the requirements. This option ended up with little
mix, no R-7, and required an R-40 zone to meet density requirements.
The project team believes that Analysis 1 does not meet the “spirit” of the WBMCP and isn’t realistic. It ended up
with very little mix of housing types and price ranges, and they are not sure if the R40 zone is realistic.
Analysis 2
Darren said that Analysis 2 applied the City’s R-7 zone to low density areas, which results in a better mix of zoning
overall. The highest density area is R-25. The project team would like feedback whether this is more feasible than
the R-40 in Analysis 1.
Staff felt analysis 2 is more aligned with the intentions of the WBMCP and provides more flexibility in
accommodating the units for RRW. It considers existing neighborhoods and keeps larger lots adjacent to existing
neighborhoods with larger lots.
The TAC felt that Analysis 2 was a better representation of the WBMCP vision. They also discussed including
additional R-25 south of the commercial area to meet the RRW requirements. They also felt that keeping R-7 as the
most dense zoning in south-east of Area 63 was appropriate due to topography and drainage areas.
Darren noted an error in the meeting packet, which states that switching an additional 12 acres R-7 to R-12 would
meet unit requirements. This is incorrect.
Group discussion
Jerry Hanford asked for the comparison of the Rural Element in Analysis 1 and 2
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 10 of 11
o Darren replied that the Rural Element in WBMCP is mostly medium density (R-7 to R-12), but this
will depend on when it is brought into UBG what Metro determines the density should be. The City
hopes that they would align with what is in the WBMCP.
Jerry asked what the Rural Element’s density is for Washington County?
o Paul Schaefer replied that the Rural Element on its own is higher than the area overall; it’s medium
density – 13 unit/acre. This is higher than Areas 63 and 64. This correlates with the County’s R-
15/R-9.
Matt Wellner asked whether the community parks included in the analysis match what was adopted by
Washington County?
o Darren replied that it matches the plans. Parks will also be addressed in an upcoming meeting.
Lisa Hamilton asked which parks standards are being used for these analysis (is it a hybrid)?
o Darren said it is a hybrid and this will be addressed in the next meeting.
Dan Grimberg said that many of these zone lines do not follow property lines. How firm are these lines?
Can they be flexible? Some of these areas do not make sense in regards to development.
o Adrienne said this can be discussed further in the small group discussion.
Small Group Exercise
Adrienne asked everyone to break into small groups to further discuss these issues. She asked the groups to think
about whether the proposed zoning seemed like a logical implementation of the concept plan? What works? What
doesn’t work? Where are opportunities for improvement?
The SWG members separated into three groups. Members of the public formed a fourth group.
Small Group Reports
Group 1
Zoning restrictions and how the zoning flowed from unincorporated area to Areas 63 and 64, and how
zoning matched up at the edges of the map – concerned that some areas do not flow well – should be made
more consistent
Is it more feasible to have the neighborhood commercial area on the border rather than in the middle
Is it more feasible to include the R-40
Zoning should follow property lines
What zoning could be considered for the area slated for the school if the district decides not to build a
school
Group 2
Analysis 2 made a lot more sense
There is a need for flexibility in zoning (fuzzy lines instead of hard, fixed lines)
The RTCP process should be aware of what Beaverton is doing on the other side of Scholl’s Ferry Road;
these two areas need to be compatible; Beaverton should also be aware of the River Terrace plans
Group 3
Move commercial area towards Roy Rogers Road
Does is work to split the R-25 area by Roy Rogers? Might be better to split the high density and commercial
area instead
R7 zoning implementation is good. Match it up with the other side
Where should additional density be located if it is required?
River Terrace SWG – Meeting Summary March 20, 2013 Page 11 of 11
Reiterated the need for flexibility and following property lines
Group 4 – The Public
Address man-made ponds
Revisit and further discuss the park designation and location (near the school)
The need for zoning flexibility in tree groves – R-12 is perhaps too high density for an area with a lot of
trees
Designate higher density along Roy Rogers road and lower density as you move away from arterials
Concerns about traffic coming in through a residential area to get to the commercial area
Explore higher density areas adjacent to the commercial area (south side) to make the higher densities more
concentrated
Connections between parks and open space are very good.
Adrienne said that the project team will take all this information and work with the contractor (once they are
engaged) to revise the zoning analysis options. The team will bring updated maps to the next meeting for discussion
and a consensus recommendation.
Public Comment
Kevin Dressel asked if there will be flexibility in the natural resource maps in the future?
Darren replied that the Wetland and Stream Corridor Map is the only regulatory map with boundaries
approximate and delineation would be required during development. The Tree Grove map only has
voluntary guidelines associated with it as does the Significant Habitat Map
Meeting Wrap-Up and Next Steps
SWG Meeting Time and Location
Adrienne asked whether the same meeting time works for upcoming meetings (third Wednesday of the month).
Dick Winn and Kathy Stallkamp have conflicts. Matt Wellner asked to avoid conflict with South Cooper Mountain
meetings. This time generally works for the rest of the group. The group agreed that the school is a good location,
but the library would be better room. The city will distribute a meeting invite for the next meeting.
The next community meeting scheduled for April 11, 2013. Information is available online.
Information for upcoming meetings will be available online and in project e-mails. SWG members will be added to
the list serve. Members of the public should sign up for the list serve.
Adrienne will be doing individual interviews with each SWG member prior to the next meeting.
Adrienne thanked everyone for coming and adjourned the meeting.
River Terrace Community Plan
Community Meeting #2 Report
4/11/2013
Executive Summary
Overview
On April 11, 2013 the Tigard Community Development Department convened Community Meeting #2 for
the River Terrace Community Plan. Topics covered at the meeting included Natural Resources and Land Use,
and 31 community members in attendance provided feedback to city staff. Feedback was gathered three ways
– comments during the open house portion of the meeting, group discussions about land use alternatives, and
an individual survey form evaluating the land use alternatives.
The main portion of the evening was focused on discussing potential zoning in the River Terrace area. This
discussion centered on three questions:
How closely each map represents your understanding of the Community Plan land use vision?
Which map do you prefer? Why?
What could be improved?
Results
Participants showed a clear preference for refinement of concept plan land uses as opposed to straight
transfer of the concept plan to Tigard zoning. Participants also showed a preference for the analysis which
incorporated Technical Advisory Committee and Stakeholder Working Group comments (Analysis 2 and 3).
In the group exercise, participants preferred some combination including Analysis 2 and 3 equally. However,
in the individual survey, participants preferred Analysis 3 two to one.
Looking deeper into the results it is clear that for participants increased neighborhood traffic and impacts on
adjacent neighborhoods are two important factors when determining zoning for River Terrace. Analysis 2
places slightly more density in the southern portion of the planning area as opposed to Analysis 3, while
Analysis 3 places increased density (R-40 instead of R-25 for a portion of the area) in the northern portion of
the planning area. For this reason, the same comments were used to describe participant’s preference for
Analysis 2 or Analysis 3 depending on which portion of the area they live adjacent to.
Additionally, providing support for the proposed commercial area and natural resources came up as
important considerations. While there were proponents of both analyses who felt their chosen analysis
provided the right amount of support for the commercial area in the individual survey, there was only one
group out of five during the group discussions who felt that R-40 was needed to support the commercial
area. One additional group expressed a preference for R-40, because lower density in the southern portion of
the area was preferred. This lower density is what allowed more consideration for the tree groves and
topography in the southern portion of the plan area.
Feedback on the two analyses is summarized below.
Analysis 2 Analysis 3
Maintains similar zoning with existing
neighborhoods
Less traffic impact to existing neighborhood
Supports the commercial center
Lowers the density on 150th Ave
Expands R-12 density near the school
Less dense on sloping ground
Protects tree groves better than others
Provides additional support to commercial center
Overview
Part 1: Open House
Community members were greeted by city staff. Two separate sets of maps were available on display –
natural resource maps (Significant Tree Groves, Significant Habitat Areas, and Wetlands and Stream
Corridors) and Land Use (Analysis 1, Analysis 2, and Analysis 3). Attendees had an opportunity to direct
specific questions to staff about each map.
Part 2: Project Manager Presentation
Tigard Project Manager Darren Wyss spoke to the two topics of discussion: Natural Resources and Land Use.
Natural Resources
The City of Tigard is responsible for implementing its natural resources program in the River Terrace Area.
The city's natural resources program consists of its sensitive lands chapter in the Community Development
Code and three maps that provide guidance for some incentives, flexibility, and protections from the code.
Darren explained that the city's intent is to update all three maps to reflect inventoried resources in the River
Terrace Community Plan area. Inventories followed established guidelines and meet state or regional
requirements. Darren shared a handout (Attachment 1) which explained the regulations, requirements and
incentives for each map.
Land Use
In December 2012, the Tigard City Council adopted the recommended land uses from the West Bull Mt.
Concept Plan into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The next step is to apply Tigard zoning to the area.
Because the concept plan land use framework was based on Washington County zoning, which differs from
Tigard zoning, additional analysis and community input is needed to finalize zoning for River Terrace. Three
options were presented for review.
Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3
• Initial City of Tigard Staff
Recommendation
• Key features of this map
includes:
Zoning has been mirrored to
complement existing housing
The areas envisioned as low
density residential have been
zoned R-7 in addition to R-
4.5
The area adjacent to the
commercial area is zoned R-
25 instead of R-40.
• Concept Plan refinement
incorporates TAC and SWG
comments
• Key features of this map
includes:
More R-25 along Scholls
Ferry Rd.
More of area 63 in the
southeast corner of the map
has been zoned R-4.5 around
existing homes and natural
features
One property lowered to R-7
in consideration of a
significant tree grove.
• Further refinement
incorporates TAC and SWG
comments
• Key features of this refinement
include:
R-40 zoning in the high
density residential area
adjacent to the commercial
area to further support
commercial development.
More of Area 63 is zoned R-
4.5 to keep lower densities
around existing homes and
resources (slopes and creeks).
Part 3: Group Activity
Meeting participants were divided into small groups to discuss the three zoning maps. City staff facilitated the
discussions and were available to answer questions. Groups were asked to answer the following questions and
report back to the large group.
How well does each map represent the vision of the concept plan
Which do you recommend? Why?
What works or doesn’t work?
Results
Group Activity
Group 1 (Darren)
Preference – Combination of Analysis 2 and 3
Wanted to accommodate lower densities in Area 63 without burdening the existing neighborhood adjacent to
Area 64 with traffic impacts from too much high density.
Concern for safety issues on SW 150th Ave. so preferred lower densities of Analysis 3 in the area
Felt it was important to support neighborhood commercial area with higher densities, but preferred R-25 to
limit cut-through traffic impacts to existing neighborhoods
Felt the high density was located appropriately to take advantage of parks in the area
Discussed how tree removal decisions (both mapped groves and smaller stands) would get made during the
development process
Discussed an existing cell phone tower on property adjacent to Scholls Ferry Rd. (east of Roy Rogers Rd.)
and possibility of extending R-25 on all of the property. Agreed with the R-25 surrounding PGE substation
and should add the property just to the east into the R-25. However, there was concern over the traffic
impacts in the existing neighborhood with the addition of more density.
Group 2 (Gary)
Preference – Analysis 2
R-40 in Analysis 3 may have adverse transportation impacts to Roshak Rd., including safety concerns,
congestion, and spill-over from Scholls Ferry and Roy Rogers Rds.
Neighborhood commercial area may benefit from greater exposure to Roy Rogers Rd, but keep the R-25
zoning just on west side of Roy Rogers Rd and don’t slide any to east of commercial area
Good distribution of R-7 and R-4.5 – sensitive to existing development
Group 3 (Marissa)
Preference – Analysis 3
Likes the consideration of topography and natural resources in Area 63
Would like to see a plan for transit service to the area
Safety concerns at major intersections
Agrees with the location of the R-40 zoning
Would like to see more density along Scholls Ferry if transit service is anticipated
Group 4 (Cheryl)
Preference – Analysis 2
Preferred R-25 over R-40 adjacent to neighborhood commercial area
Felt extending the R-25 on west side of Roy Rogers Rd up to Scholls Ferry Rd would help support the
commercial development – would also allow additional R-4.5 in Area 63 (similar to Analysis 3)
Group 5 (Agnes)
Preference – Combination of Analysis 1 and 3
Higher density (R-25) along Scholls Ferry Rd only with good access
Need R-40 to support the neighborhood commercial area
Zoning is consistent with terrain – lower densities on steeper slopes, higher densities in flatter areas
Higher density on property north of school property – R-12 in Analysis 1
Neighborhood commercial should have a unique design/distinct feeling
Survey Form Responses
Please rate how closely each map represents your understanding of the Community Plan land use vision.
Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3
Average Score:
2.84/5
Average Score:
3.29/5
Average Score:
3.68/5
Which map do you prefer?
Analysis 1
Why do you prefer this map? How could this concept be improved?
Please share any additional
comments or suggestions
Move high density near school
R-12
Keep high density R-25 wrapping around
towards Scholls Ferry
Swap comm/gen CG area out
to main road further away
from existing neighborhoods
and buffer it with R25
The spread of the density
preferred. Less traffic impact
More R-7 in area 63 - less
R4.5; No R-40 in both areas
63 and 64!
Analysis 2
Why do you prefer this map? How could this concept be improved?
Please share any additional
comments or suggestions
Maintains similar zoning with
existing neighborhoods, avoids
traffic issues
Move "CG" commercial areas nearer Roy
Rogers
Avoid R-40
2
5
11
Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3
Less traffic impact to existing
neighborhood off Roshak - R-
25 vs. R-40 - in area 64
Have R-25 on both sides of Roy Rogers
It would help the commercial
center with customers.
Keep R-25 on both sides of Roy Rogers The linear parkway on roads
should be reduced to 20 feet
Bring high density along RR
Rd as noted on map - Cheryl's
group
See map - Cheryl's group I like the general concept
plan. Look forward to more
detail as time allows.
Least of all the evils
Analysis 3
Why do you prefer this map? How could this concept be improved?
Please share any additional
comments or suggestions
The concentration of density if
done right helps keep an
overall open community.
Provide better exposure for commercial to
Roy Rogers Rd.
Having one property half in
and half out of the R-25 is
inconvenient.
Lower density on 150th Ave,
higher density closer to Scholls
Ferry
Make all land on south east side of Scholls
Ferry R-25 or R-40
Nice Job!
Distribution of zoning Access to Scholls @ R-25, light @ Bull
Mtn, R-12 above school
R3 with expansion to R12 by
school, less density by RSH by
150th
Traffic light on Scholls Ferry Rd
Expands R-12 density near the
school
Increase density north next to CG by
Expanding R-7 area next to R-25
Has a good zoning flow better
than existing and new
development
Additional adjustments to zoning as noted
on map - Cheryl's group
Less density on sloping ground
with more density along Roy
Rogers
Perhaps higher density focusing on Scholls
Ferry, but traffic safety concerns may not
allow.
Protects tree groves better than
others
Bus service on Roy Rogers and Scholls
Ferry. Traffic lights on Roy Rogers & Beef
Bend and Roy Rogers & Bull Mtn.
High density along Scholls
Ferry with bus service
Open House Comments and Responses
What is the potential for property just north of Beef Bend Rd. to be included? When? Annexation?
This area is not within the Metro urban growth boundary and cannot be developed to urban level uses at this
time. The area is designated as urban reserve and was concept planned as part of the county’s West Bull Mt.
Concept Plan process. This makes it eligible as an urban growth boundary expansion area if the next Metro
Urban Growth Report analysis finds the need for more land to accommodate projected population and
employment. These decisions will be made in 2015/2016.
What are the benefits of existing trees on property?
The city recently adopted new urban forestry code regulations that require a percentage of canopy coverage
(at maturity) during the development process. Existing trees are a benefit to properties as they will get
counted as double credit if preserved on the site. If the trees are part of an inventoried significant tree grove,
the city has adopted flexible development standards to provide additional options during the development
process. The city’s website has detailed information on the new urban forestry program (www.tigard-
or.gov/trees).
What is open space designation on the zoning maps?
The open space designation identifies land that will be protected by the Clean Water Services Design and
Construction Manual. The Manual outlines the required vegetated corridor buffer for streams and wetlands.
The open space designation is an approximation and on-site delineations will be completed during the
development process.
The neighborhood park (southernmost park west of Roy Rogers Rd.) doesn’t correspond with existing tree grove.
The West Bull Mt. Concept Plan identified recommended park locations to serve all neighborhoods in the
planning area. There will be some flexibility when the neighborhood parks are designed as part of a
development proposal, including the ability to shift orientation or incorporate existing natural resources. In
this case, analyzing the preferred park amenities and the impacts of locating them in a tree grove would be a
logical exercise.
Move the commercial area to main road and the R-25 towards the pond.
The location of the neighborhood commercial area was agreed upon during the West Bull Mt. Concept
Planning process. This agreement resulted from a commercial services assessment, transportation assessment
and community involvement. A re-evaluation of the location would need to go through a similar process to
assess the impacts.
Agree with placing R-25 zoning near Scholls Ferry Rd.
Zoning Analysis 2 and 3 both extend R-25 zoning up to and along Scholls Ferry Rd.
Higher density housing along Scholls Ferry Rd. because of PGE substation and two cell phone towers, including one in middle of
property bordering Scholls Ferry Rd.
Extending the R-25 zoning in Analysis 2 and 3 increased the density slightly from the concept plan.
Additional increases in density or extending it farther to the east will begin a major departure from the
intention of the concept plan recommended land uses. Encroachment into the transition zone from the
existing neighborhood and associated traffic impacts would need to be evaluated.
Attachment 1: RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY MEETING – April 11, 2013
Natural Resource Map Regulations & Incentives
Map Regulations Requirements/Incentives
Significant Tree Groves Voluntary 1. Reduced minimum density-18.790.050D(1)
2. Residential density transfer-18.790.050D(2)
3. Adjustments to commercial & industrial development standards-
18.790.050D(3)
Significant Habitat Area Voluntary 1. Up to 50% adjustment to dimensional standards-18.775.100A
2. Reduced minimum density-18.775.100C
3. Low Impact Development (LID) options- various sections
Wetlands & Stream Corridor Mandatory 1. Comply with CWS “Design & Construction Standards”-18.775.050A
2. Wetland delineation may be required-18.775.050B
3. Comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5 Natural Resources and
Comprehensive Plan process- 18.775.090A & 18.775.130
R-7
R-7
R-12
R-7
R-12
R-4.5
R-7
CG
R-12 R-4.5
R-25R-7
R-12
R-25
R-4.5 R-7
R-4.5
P o t e n t i a l Z o n i n g - A n a l y s i s 1April 2 0 1 3 - R i v e r Te r r a c e C o m m u n i t y M e e t i n g
Analysis 1 is based on unit per acre assumptions and housing stock diversityguidelines in the concept plan. The flexibility to zone low density areas withTigard R-7 district aligns with the concept plan. This also allows the high densityareas to be zoned R-25 instead of R-40, while meeting the requirementfor the opportunity of 10 dwelling units/net developable acre.
Bull Mt Rd
Beef Bend Rd
150th Ave
Roy Rogers Rd
S c h o l l s F e r r y R d
´
Tigard Comp Plan Designation
Tigard City Boundary
Taxlot Boundary
Potential Zoning Boundary
Existing Structure > $300k
Neighborhood Com mercial
Neighborhood Park
High Density Residential
Slopes > 25%
Low Density Residential
Com munity Park
Medium Density Residential
Open Space
Public Institution
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
R-7
R-4.5
R-7
R-7
R-12
R-12
CG
R-25
R-12 R-4.5
R-25 R-7
R-4.5
P o t e n t i a l Z o n i n g - A n a l y s i s 2April 2 0 1 3 - R i v e r Te r r a c e C o m m u n i t y M e e t i n g
Analysis 2 is based on feedback received from the project TAC and SWG.Extending the R-25 zoning up to Scholls Ferry Rd allowed more of Area 63to be R-4.5 around existing homes and a property with a significanttree grove to be lowered to R-7. This option also meets the requirementfor the opportunity of 10 dwelling units/net developable acre.
Bull Mt Rd
Beef Bend Rd
150th Ave
Roy Rogers Rd
S c h o l l s F e r r y R d
´
Tigard Comp Plan Designation
Tigard City Boundary
Taxlot Boundary
Potential Zoning Boundary
Existing Structure > $300k
Neighborhood Com mercial
Neighborhood Park
High Density Residential
Slopes > 25%
Low Density Residential
Com munity Park
Medium Density Residential
Open Space
Public Institution
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
R-7 R-4.5
R-7
R-7
R-12
R-12
CG
R-25
R-12 R-4.5
R-40 R-7
R-4.5
P o t e n t i a l Z o n i n g - A n a l y s i s 3April 2 0 1 3 - R i v e r Te r r a c e C o m m u n i t y M e e t i n g
Analysis 3 is based on feedback received from the project TAC and SWG.Providing R-40 zoning in proximity to the commercial area will help in itssuccess. This allows for more of Area 63 to be R-4.5 and keep lowerdensities around additional existing homes . This option also meets therequirement for the opportunity of 10 dwelling units/net developable acre.
Bull Mt Rd
Beef Bend Rd
150th Ave
Roy Rogers Rd
S c h o l l s F e r r y R d
´
Tigard Comp Plan Designation
Tigard City Boundary
Taxlot Boundary
Potential Zoning Boundary
Existing Structure > $300k
Neighborhood Com mercial
Neighborhood Park
High Density Residential
Slopes > 25%
Low Density Residential
Com munity Park
Medium Density Residential
Open Space
Public Institution
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 1
City of Tigard
River Terrace Online Survey Results
The survey form that was available for the April 11, 2013 community meeting was also
posted online. The survey was open for two weeks following the meeting. The results are
found on the following pages.
River Terrace Public Meeting #1
1 / 6
Q1 Please rate how closely each
map represents your understanding
of the Communi ty Plan land use
vision.
Ans w ered: 27 Skippe d: 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Analys is 1
Analys is 2
Analys is 3
Analys is 1 34.62%
9
11.54%
3
19.23%
5
15.38%
4
19.23%
5
26
2.73
Analys is 2 44.44%
12
11.11%
3
7.41%
2
29.63%
8
7.41%
2
27
2.44
Analys is 3 59.26%
16
11.11%
3
11.11%
3
3.70%
1
14.81%
4
27
2.04
Disappointing (no labe l)(no labe l)(no label)Exceptional Total Average
Rating
River Terrace Public Meeting #1
2 / 6
50%10
25%5
25%5
Q2 Which map do you prefer?
Ans w ered: 20 Skippe d: 7
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Analys is 1
Analys is 2
Analys is 3
Analys is 1
Analys is 2
Analys is 3
Total Respondents: Total Respondents: 2020
Other (pleas e s pecify) Other (pleas e s pecify) (( 5 5 ))
#Other (pleas e spec ify)Date
1 No ne 4/16/2013 4:59 P M
2 none are all that appealing to be ho nest, WA county never lis tened to what we thought the firs t time
s o it s hould come as no surprise that we still don't like the dens ity and the lack of thought on the
increased impact on traffic es pecially in area 63 where the new s cho ol s ite is .
4/16/2013 2:04 P M
3 lower dens ity in area 63 4/16/2013 1:50 P M
4 Trully none. We do not like the density of our neighborhood as is and believe that all of area 63 s hould
be no more than R4.5, otherwis e the helathy balance and quality of the neighborhood is irreperably
compromis ed (no real yards or private s pace, as a lack of building s iz e restrictions and s mall lots
decrease the quality of our neighborhoo ds ) making a more reas oanble/private lot a thing only
wealthier folks can afford.
4/16/2013 1:48 P M
5 All are unacceptable.4/16/2013 12:22 PM
Answer Choices Respo ns es
River Terrace Public Meeting #1
3 / 6
Q3 W hy do you prefer this map?
Ans w ered: 25 Skippe d: 2
#Res pons es Date
1 As a res ident next to area 64, I have concerns that the bulk of density is in 64. I have concerns over
increased traffic in my exis ting neighborhoo d, children s afety and well - it's jus t not fair - look at the
map - all the conges tion will be in area 64.
4/27/2013 4:39 P M
2 avoids higher dens ity. s preads our density more evenly between north and s outh 4/27/2013 11:11 AM
3 The hous es in Scholl's Co untry Es tates fit better with low density hous es. . .not town homes or
apartments.
4/26/2013 5:31 P M
4 It is lower dens ity and compliments the community and home owners that will be impacted by this
development and the wetlands that will also feel the adjus tments .
4/26/2013 3:38 P M
5 Co ncerned abo ut traffic, children safety and overall fairnes s 4/26/2013 1:56 P M
6 We live in Scholls Co untry Es tates o ff of Ros hak, adjacent to Area 64. We s trongly believe that Tigard
s hould z one the apartments planned in Area 64 R-25. R-40, up to 4 s tory apartments , s imply stated
would be an eye s ore and would create a major traffic concern for our neighborhood. Area 63 literally
has half of the dens ity as Area 64 - this is because our neighborhood and all areas adjacent to Area 64
was unrepresented in the Was hingto n County process . There is no reas on why s ome of the dens ity
cannot be s pread to Area 63 by increasing a s mall portion of their z o ning from R-4 to R-7. The new
development in Area 63 has les s of an incentive to travers e through exis ting neighbo rhoods to acces s
major arterials - they s imply would go to Beef Bend Road and then to Roy Rogers or the 99.
Co nversely, the development in Area 64 has a greater incentive and quite frankly would be
encouraged to travers e through exis ting neighborhoods (our neighborhoo d) to acces s Barro ws and
Scholls Ferry Road. Our neighborho od cannot support this traffic and it would be dangerous for
families living along Ros hak and on the s treets intended as "cut throughs ." In s hort - spread the
density and z one the apartments in Area 64 R-25 and do not make it any larger than Analysis 1.
4/26/2013 1:41 P M
7 We live in Scholls Co untry Es tates o ff of Ros hak, adjacent to Area 64. We have been made aware that
there are 2 poss ible analys es being co ns idered with 2 zoning o ptions for the Apartments in Area 64 -
either R-25 or R-40. We s trongly believe that Tigard should z one the apartments R-25. R-40, up to 4
s tory apartments, simply s tated would be an eye s o re and would create a majo r traffic concern for our
neighborhood. Area 63 literally has half of the dens ity as Area 64 - this is becaus e our neighborhood
was not properly repres ented in the first go around. There is no reas o n why s ome of the dens ity
cannot be s pread to Area 63 by increasing a s mall portion of their z o ning from R-4 to R-7. The
development in Area 63 has les s of an incentive to travers e through exis ting neighbo rhoods to acces s
major arterials - they s imply would go to Beef Bend Road and then to Roy Rogers or the 99.
Co nversely, the development in Area 64 has a greater incentive and quite frankly would be
encouraged to travers e through exis ting neighborhoods (our neighborhoo d) to acces s Barro ws and
Scholls Ferry Road. In s hort - s pread the density and z one the apartments in Area 64 R-25.
4/25/2013 1:16 P M
8 put population around the commercial property so it is convenient for them to walk to.4/24/2013 9:58 P M
9 For commercial center to pros per, increas e density is good. Progress Ridge has many condo all
around the lake and it is packed with customers
4/24/2013 9:41 P M
10 Analys is 1 is clo s es t to the Concept plan in terms of dens ity. Even Analys is 1 has 2x the density in Area
64 than in Area 63. The infras tructure planned will not support the dens ity which is even wo rs e in
Analys is 2 and 3 and it does not align with the goal of integration with exis ting neighborhoods s tated
in the plan.
4/24/2013 2:40 P M
11 Better concentration in/around commercial areas and decreas ed density alo ng SW 150th.4/24/2013 9:07 AM
12 There would be more high density along Roy Rogers , a main arterial which is already in place, versus
adding traffic through our neighborhood and adding the eye s ore of tall apt. complexes .
4/24/2013 8:51 AM
13 It s eems mo s t cons is tent with the existing development in the area 4/22/2013 9:17 P M
14 P refer R-12 to R-25 in Northern portion.4/19/2013 9:56 AM
15 No R40 z oning and the Northwes t co rner is more co ns is tent and les s broken up with different
densities (R4.5 eliminated and R7 used in the combined area).
4/18/2013 9:53 AM
River Terrace Public Meeting #1
4 / 6
16 We live in Scholls Co untry Es tates o ff of Ros hak, adjacent to Area 64. We have been made aware that
there are 2 poss ible analys es being co ns idered with 2 zoning o ptions for the Apartments in Area 64 -
either R-25 or R-40. We s trongly believe that Tigard should z one the apartments R-25. R-40, up to 4
s tory apartments, simply s tated would be an eye s o re and would create a majo r traffic concern for our
neighborhood. Area 63 literally has half of the dens ity as Area 64 - this is becaus e our neighborhood
was not properly repres ented in the first go around. There is no reas o n why s ome of the dens ity
cannot be s pread to Area 63 by increasing a s mall portion of their z o ning from R-4 to R-7. The
development in Area 63 has les s of an incentive to travers e through exis ting neighbo rhoods to acces s
major arterials - they s imply would go to Beef Bend Road and then to Roy Rogers or the 99.
Co nversely, the development in Area 64 has a greater incentive and quite frankly would be
encouraged to travers e through exis ting neighborhoods (our neighborhoo d) to acces s Barro ws and
Scholls Ferry Road. In s hort - s pread the density and z one the apartments in Area 64 R-25.
4/17/2013 10:02 AM
17 Co ncentrates highest dens ity development near commerical & preserves lower dens ity development
in accor with natural areas & existing development.
4/16/2013 8:08 P M
18 No ne 4/16/2013 4:59 P M
19 Better balance----no R-40 4/16/2013 4:55 P M
20 Don't prefer any of them 4/16/2013 2:04 P M
21 No ne 4/16/2013 1:50 P M
22 No ne of the maps really addres s the iss ue of dens ity that is to o high in area 63, es pecially when you
consider the heavy burden placed on 161s t ave. While ro ads take years to be developed, the s chool
s ite and all the housing will put a tremendous press ure on those living in Meyers farm, decreas ing
quality of life, increas ing traffic, ris k to children who currently have no where e ls e to play other than the
s treet (s ince dens ity was s o high and builders are not forced to build smaller hous es , and no green
s pace was required) accidents and injuries to children and families will occur.
4/16/2013 1:48 P M
23 larger boundary of low dens ity hous ing in r4 4/16/2013 1:02 P M
24 No ne of the maps are acceptable.4/16/2013 12:22 PM
25 Outlet for the s cho ol dis tric traffic on the NE s ide of their plot means a more balanced flow o f traffic.4/16/2013 12:21 PM
#Res pons es Date
River Terrace Public Meeting #1
5 / 6
Q4 How coul d thi s concept be
improved?
Ans w ere d: 17 Skippe d: 10
#Res pons es Date
1 move commercial/higher dens ity areas more s outh or o n wes t s ide of Roy Rogers Ro ad.4/27/2013 11:11 AM
2 P leas e do not attempt to change Luke Lane from a cul-d-s ac to a through s treet. It will s ignificantly
diminis h livability on Luke Lane and other s treets .
4/26/2013 5:31 P M
3 Still do not agree that Area 64 should be 2x the density of Area 63??? Seems incredibly unfair.4/26/2013 3:38 P M
4 Same thing - s pread s ome of the density to Area 63. It is unfair that Area 64 has been burdened with 2
times the dens ity as Area 63 jus t becaus e we were unrepresented in the initial proces s. Area 63 can
handle traffic just as easily as Area 64.
4/26/2013 1:41 P M
5 Do not z one for any apartments around Roshak Road. All apartment complexes s hould be z o ned fo r
the Roy Rogers area, as that would have far les s impact on the community in terms of property values ,
quality of life, safety of children, and traffic.
4/25/2013 1:16 P M
6 Dog park is need 4/24/2013 9:58 P M
7 If you need more density to meet Metro requirements pus h it s outh or wes t -- acros s Ro y Rogers or
extended further towards B eef Bend. The is the more equitable approach for exis ting neighborhoods
contiguous to Area 64 that are z oned R-4.
4/24/2013 2:40 P M
8 Expand R-7 and reduce/eliminate R-12 along Bull Mtn/Roy Rogers 4/24/2013 9:07 AM
9 By removing the corner of 4.5 density.4/24/2013 8:51 AM
10 1) No 4-s tory appartments - No R40 in Area 64 2) Spread s ome dens ity from Area 64 to Area 63 for
better balance.
4/18/2013 9:53 AM
11 Zo ning Analys is is comprehensive & fair.4/16/2013 8:08 P M
12 The neighborhood commerical area s hould be relocated to the West side of Roy Rogers . Replace the
CG area on the East side with medium dens ity hous ing.
4/16/2013 4:59 P M
13 bes t s o lution---move on!4/16/2013 4:55 P M
14 Lower dens ity 4/16/2013 1:50 P M
15 Make all R7 land in area 63 no more than R4.5.4/16/2013 1:48 P M
16 It appears that whereever there are active farm/vineyard properties as well as es tate property, you
have dropped "park" or "public institution" items . Hence what the developers can't buy, you will
condemn through eminent domain. Right?
4/16/2013 12:22 PM
17 Less 4/16/2013 12:21 PM
River Terrace Public Meeting #1
6 / 6
Q5 Please share any additional
comments or suggestions.
Ans w ere d: 11 Skippe d: 16
#Res pons es Date
1 Love the park and open s pace in area 64!!! Since the neighborhoo d next to area 64 was created
without any park or anything (not counting the jungle gym on barrows), this is highly appreciated.
4/27/2013 4:39 P M
2 The Commerical area would be more succes sful if it had immediate road acces s and visibility. Not be
tucked behind res idential buildings . Adding more curves and dropping the speed limit on Roy Rogers
needs to occur.
4/27/2013 11:11 AM
3 We are concerned and extremely worried about the additional traffic that will bring to our
neighborhood. Our children s afety is our number one concern. We are also concerned that 2 of the 3
choices s eem abhorrently unthoughtful of the existing homeowners and looks only to develo pment
for financial reasons . (This is obvious in all plans regarding the density o f area 64 vers us area 63.)
There could be an opportunity to add value to our homes but we can't find this in plan 2 or 3 fo r
certain. P lan 1 is our bes t option.
4/26/2013 3:38 P M
4 Someone should look into inviting the YMCA to locate in the shopping center planned - that would be
a perfect anchor and would fill a huge need we have for this area. I called them and they are looking to
add a YMCA in Tigard - why not there? More s hopping stores alone are going to have a hard time at
s ucceeding - we have s een this with the s hopping center at Barrows/Scho lls Ferry Road. It has never
been full and has had bus ines s after bus iness fail.
4/26/2013 1:41 P M
5 P leas e, pleas e do not put apartments in o ur peaceful neighborhoo d! We chos e to purchas e a hous e
in Scholls Country Estates for the quality of life it offered to rais e our family.
4/25/2013 1:16 P M
6 Exceptional planning work all around; ho wever it ultimately turns out will be fine.4/24/2013 9:07 AM
7 P lacing all high dens ity in 64 creates a traffic nightmare. With the additio n o f Churchill Fores t, traffic will
conges t at Scholls and Barrows which already has diffculty asndling the flow. It will also incrfease traffic
on Barrows which is not adequate today. 63 sho uld have a greater proportion of high density.
4/19/2013 9:56 AM
8 Once Potential Zoning plan is finaliz ed, add expected trans portation grid concepts .4/16/2013 8:08 P M
9 161st in area 63 is already a dangerous and peo ple drive fas t while kids play in the s treet. Adding a
couple hundred homes , a s chool and athletic fields will have people driving up and down 161s t at all
hours, es pecially since no other roads will be built in the urban res erve area fo r many years. T he
burden o f increas ed dens ity will fall s quarely on the poo r fo lks who live in Meyers farm. Not equitable at
all, while the folks in the pleasant view neighbo rhood , benefit from lower dens ity next to them as well
as no through s treets. Meyers farm res idents s houldn't have to be repres ented by an attorney, like
three folks on finis lane are, in order to be heard.
4/16/2013 2:04 P M
10 P leas e, take an hones t and clos er look at the impact these zoning decis ions will have on the exis ting
res idents in Meyers farm, especially along 161st. Without proper planning and fo rethought, you will
end up decreas ing the livability of this neighborhood. At a minimum, expand the R4.5 area and
implement permanent and s ubstantial traffic calming measures onr 161s t, es pecially between Kes sler
and bull mountain (especially here becaus e the topo that has as a res ult the increases the s peed o f
traffic)
4/16/2013 1:48 P M
11 This was a bad idea 6 years ago. It is s till a bad idea today. The area does NOT need more housing.
es pecially high dens ity housing where there will be NO transit.
4/16/2013 12:22 PM
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\052013 minutes.docx Page 1 of 8
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
May 20, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
President Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the
Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Anderson
Vice President Rogers
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Feeney
Commissioner Gaschke
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Schmidt
Commissioner Shavey
Absent: Commissioner Fitzgerald
Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director; Tom McGuire,
Assistant Community Development Director; Sean Farrelly,
Downtown Redevelopment Project Manager; Darren Wyss, Senior
Planner; Chris Wiley, Senior Administrative Specialist.
COMMUNICATIONS
Commission Shavey told the members there was a SW Corridor Economic Summit
scheduled to take place at the library the following morning. He asked staff if they had any
more information to add. Sean replied staff would speak to the commission about it later in
the meeting.
CONSIDER MINUTES
May 6, 2013 Meeting Minutes: President Anderson asked if there were any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the May 6 minutes; there being none, Anderson declared the
minutes approved as submitted.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\052013 minutes.docx Page 2 of 8
BRIEFING – DOWNTOWN presented by Downtown Redevelopment Project Manager
Sean Farrelly . The PowerPoint presentation is shown as Attachment 1.
The downtown urban renewal district is 193 acres with approximately 200 businesses,
1,000 employees and 500 residents.
The largest expenditure of Urban Renewal funds to date is for the Burnham Street
improvements.
The Knoll was a project that didn’t use Urban Renewal funds but they worked in
partnership with the City and are a good prototype for development.
Façade Improvement Program and Targeted Improvement Program:
Six businesses that have received grants have already completed their projects:
Tigard Liquor Store, Under Water Works, Main Street Stamp and Stationery, the
building where the former Tigard Fitness was located, Main Street Cleaners and the
Diamond property.
Four businesses that have received grants are in the process of doing their façade
improvements now: Sherrie’s Jewelry Box, Rojas Market, Max’s Fanno Creek Pub
and Pacific Paint.
Targeted Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP’s current objective is to attract
restaurants, cafes, bakeries and similar businesses. Presently Symposium Coffee, a
business that is already established in a neighboring city, is in the process of
remodeling a portion of the Tigard Chamber of Commerce building property and
hopes to open on Memorial Day.
One approach the city is using to having successful development in the urban
renewal district is to forge public-private partnerships.
The city will work to identify Brownfields properties to coordinate redevelopment
resources and financing through grants and other government sources.
Main Street Green Street:
The meeting for the Downtown Gateway Public Art Review of Concepts scheduled
for this coming Wednesday, May 22, has been postponed. Our vision and the
topography of the sites present some design challenges for the artist and he needs
more time to develop his concepts. Sean will notify the commissioners when a
reschedule date is set.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\052013 minutes.docx Page 3 of 8
The Burnham Street parking lot construction is underway. The Main Street Green
Street project will result in the loss of some on-street parking spaces and the lot will
mitigate.
Improvements to the Fanno Creek Trail and the Tigard Street Trail leading into
downtown with the key goal to provide improved pedestrian/bicycle connections to
downtown.
The Tigard Area Farmers Market moved to the Public Works parking lot for this year and
there are plans to eventually locate it permanently in the downtown public area, the location
yet to be sited.
The City is partnering with the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce to organize downtown
events. The downtown property owners have met. Commissioner Richard Shavey has
been very supportive of the downtown property owners group. The group is moving
toward a more formalized structure with a view toward partnering on projects with the
Chamber and the City.
A high capacity transit plan which would include downtown Tigard as a station is currently
under study. This could significantly increase the feasibility for residential and mixed use
redevelopment.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Where will public works relocate all their vehicles if residential development is put
in at their current site?
A site for a permanent location is still in discussion.
Electric charge stations – one of the commissioners has already heard reports that
people are parking there who aren’t in electric cars. Is there a penalty? What is the
code?
This is such a new problem, the code may not even address it but staff will look into it.
Brownfields properties – what is the situation in the downtown area?
There are a few properties on the State DEQ list that have underground storage tanks or
other documented contamination. The Brownfields inventory will include those properties
and others that, from a historical perspective or other research, would need to be looked at.
The grant from the State, the Business Oregon grant, will be used to hire a consultant to do
the inventory. Staff will do the public outreach in house. When staff goes through the grant
applications, we may ask for consultant help on some technical issues. If we’re successful in
the grant application, we’ll be using that money to hire environmental experts to do the
assessment and clean up.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\052013 minutes.docx Page 4 of 8
The commission members had questions about funding for the urban renewal plan.
Staff is working with an economic consultant on that. Our Finance Director will work with
the consultant so we have a financing model to work from. Twenty-two million dollars is
the maximum amount the city can borrow. That’s the amount the voters voted on for the
urban renewal plan. The city can borrow that money at any time during the 20 year urban
renewal period but can’t incur any further debt after 20 years, although the city can continue
to pay off the debt past the 20 year period. Any grant funds the city can get will be outside
of the twenty-two million dollars. At the planning commission’s request, staff agreed to go
over the financial model with them when it is ready.
What is the schedule for the remeander of Fanno Creek?
Clean Water Services and the city both have budget work to do yet. The work could
happen next year or the year after.
Will there be a new façade for the bike shop?
There hasn’t been an application for a façade grant for that building.
Have any larger developers shown an interest in the downtown area?
We’ve had conversations with several developers who have looked at the area. They tend
to like bigger parcels for development. Most of the larger parcels downtown are actively in
use and it appears the owners are content to stay there for the time being. We hope if we
can put residential development on the large parcel where Public Works is currently located,
that would be a big push forward for downtown development.
UPDATE – RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN presented by Project Manager
Darren Wyss. The PowerPoint presentation is shown as Attachment 2.
The PowerPoint presentation includes the schedule timeline, the public involvement process,
planning commission’s role in the process and the natural resources and land use zoning tasks.
The timeline for the community plan includes the tasks and the anticipated date for the
completion of each of those tasks. The Planning Commission has seen this before in different
variations. Since the last time the Planning Commission has seen this, staff has moved the
timeline up from June of 2014 to March of 2014. It’s still the same load of tasks. Public
involvement tasks will run through the course of the project. The task to adopt the West Bull
Mountain Concept Plan Land Use has been completed. The Planning Commission made a
recommendation to adopt the land use plan in December 2012 and Council adopted it that
month as well.
Natural Resources and the Zoning tasks are currently in process and have been before the
community for feedback. Staff is currently in negotiations with a consultant to get a final scope
of work and scope of services to help complete the remaining seven tasks. The infrastructure
financing strategy will be key to this process in order to ensure the implementation of the
community plan will be successful.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is comprised of our agency partners; Beaverton,
ODOT, Washington County, and various other utility providers such as Clean Water Services.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\052013 minutes.docx Page 5 of 8
Council appointed a Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) which is comprised of landowners,
developers, representatives from community organizations, the school district and neighborhood
representatives.
Staff will hold a series of meetings with these two groups. Each of the topics that are listed on the
timeline slide will be reviewed twice. The first time the TAC and SWG will complete a preliminary
review of a topic. For instance, the Land Use/Zoning and Natural Resources tasks were brought to
the committees recently for them to provide us feedback. Staff was able to incorporate that feedback
and then present their information at a community meeting.
Staff will come back to the TAC and the SWG a second time for them to review and complete the
land use and natural resources tasks. At that second meeting, staff will also introduce the second set
of tasks TAC and SWG will be looking at, parks and water. The other tasks are all structured to
follow same process. Each of these tasks will also be brought to a community meeting for feedback.
The Planning Commission will be provided updates through the River Terrace Community Plan
process and hold some public hearings to make recommendations to council on various tasks, for
instance, zoning, updates to the TSP, adoption of natural resource maps and adoption of public
facilities plans. The commission, as well as the council, will need to weigh some policy choices
throughout the process. Staff will schedule some joint meetings so this can be discussed with Council
and the Planning Commission at the same time.
An example of policy decisions is weighing individual needs versus planning needs and how much
emphasis is given to each. Other considerations include park locations, how to fund the purchase of
these locations, the development and maintenance of the parks, transportation impacts from the
development, not only inside of River Terrace but the off-site impacts as well. We are working with
Beaverton, Washington County and ODOT on how to pay for those impacts. We also need to
consider infrastructure phasing as not all the properties will develop at the same time or have the same
access to utilities. Along with that would be financing strategy. How are we going to pay for all these
infrastructure improvements that need to be made in the River Terrace area? How do we strike that
fair balance between how much the developers are paying and how much the city subsidizes?
The first meetings focused on the natural resources task and land use and zoning. The natural
resources task involves applying the city’s natural resource program to the River Terrace area. This
includes the sensitive lands chapter in the community development code. We also have three adopted
maps that have some regulations associated with them. The maps show inventoried resources that
followed State guidelines during the inventory process.
The Significant Habitat Map was completed in 2005. This was accomplished through a Metro process
in partnership with the County’s Tualatin Basin partnership. There are no regulations associated with
this map. The Significant Tree Groves Map is also voluntary based and provides flexibility for
property owners during the development process if the property contains an inventoried tree grove.
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\052013 minutes.docx Page 6 of 8
The Wetlands and Stream Corridors map is the only map of the three that has mandatory
regulations with it. This is due to Clean Water Services design and constructions standards and
setbacks. It’s required for all development around streams and wetlands. The wetland
delineations that were done as part of the concept plan process and adopted by the State will be
adopted into our local wetland inventory and integrated into the development process. Since
these maps were created following established regulations there was no feedback involved
however we wanted to make everyone aware it was our intention to bring these maps forward
and adopt them.
The City role in the land use/zoning task is to take what was done in the concept plan and
translate the recommended land uses into city zoning.
Staff applied zoning based on the concept plan to be reviewed by the committees. Meetings
were held with the SWG, TAC and the community. The majority of the meetings were spent in
small groups so the participants could discuss the different options offered in the zoning maps
that staff had brought before them. For the SWG and TAC meetings, the city provided two
different analyses. One was a pretty straightforward transition from the concept plan land uses
to city zoning. That was discarded early in the process. The second map, shown as Analysis 1
(Attachment 2, Slide 10) applies some more diversity from our zoning districts into the concept
plan recommended land uses. This was the choice that the Stakeholder Working Group and
Technical Advisory Committee recommended moving forward. They also provided a lot of
feedback and with that feedback we incorporated some changes to that first map to get to the
second map and the third map (Analysis 2 and 3) so the community would have a few options
to look at, to weigh and consider and give us feedback on the different choices. The first map
that was chosen shows a variation of R12 zoning up in the northern end of the plan and more
R7 zoning down at the southern portion. Based on feedback from the committees, we moved
some R25 up along Roy Rogers Road to wrap around the PGE sub-station and cell phone
tower. This higher density allowed for some of the R7 to be transferred to R4.5 down in the
southern portion where there are a lot of topography and natural resource issues. The third map
was a variation on that to mix some of the R25 into R40 adjacent to the neighborhood
commercial area. There was some feedback that higher densities will potentially be better for the
commercial area, to have higher population density there to provide support for the commercial
area and again this allowed some of the area down in the southern part of the planning area to
decrease to R4.5. All of the options meet the minimum density requirements that we have to
meet in this part of the planning process.
TAC Feedback (Slide 8)
Consensus for Mix of Zoning w/R-7
Density to Support Commercial Area
Higher Density to Surround PGE Substation
Higher Density Below Commercial Area
No R-4.5 West of Roy Rogers
Liked Transition from Existing Development
I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2013 PC Packets\052013 minutes.docx Page 7 of 8
SWG Feedback (Slide 9)
Implementation of R-7 Zoning
Zoning Follow Property Lines
Flexibility in Implementation
Lower Density in Significant Tree Groves
Liked Transition from Existing Development
Community Meeting Feedback (Slide 11)
Traffic Impacts Most Important Consideration
R-25 Preferred Over R-40
Liked Transition from Existing Development
Agreed with Higher Densities to Support Commercial Area
Small Groups – No Consensus
Surveys – Analysis 3 was Preferred
Online Survey Feedback (Slide 12)
Traffic Impacts Most Important Consideration
Existing Neighborhoods Preferred Option with Less
Adjacent Density
Finding Balance is Important
Analysis 1 was Preferred
Traffic impacts and where the density was located seemed to be the key topics of discussion.
There was agreement on the concept plan land uses. There was no definitive consensus on
where the different zoning was placed. Location was driving that preference. People didn’t
want high density close to where they lived. We will need to keep our committees focused
to find a balance that best serves the community’s needs.
Next steps for staff include presenting this same briefing tomorrow night to the city council.
Then staff will be bringing information back to the committees for final consensus about
zoning.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
What kind of infrastructure plans are there to support the anticipated traffic
increase?
Roy Rogers is slated to be five lanes at some point in the future. Bull Mountain and Beef
Bend Road will be three lanes, one in each direction with a turn lane. The traffic impacts
people are concerned about are the streets that are at the edge of what was the former
urban growth boundary and that are proposed to be extended into River Terrace. The
impact of people traveling through the neighborhoods was the concern staff heard the
most.
City
ofn Tigard
Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
Planning Commission
May 20, 2013
Downtown Urban Renewal Plan
Progress Update
tpc 052013 minutes_attachment 1
City of Tigard
Urban Renewal
•City Center Urban Renewal Plan implements Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan
•Voter approved in 2006
•$22 million maximum indebtedness over 20 years
•About $1 million in TIF collected to date
•City Center Development Agency Board – decision maker,
City Center Advisory Commission- advises
tpc minutes 052013_attachment 1
50 Year Future Vision
Burnham Street
The Knoll
tpc minutes 052013_attachment 1
City of Tigard
Façade Improvement Program
•Started 2009
•22 properties/businesses have received/ are receiving
architectural design assistance
•6 grant awarded projects completed
•4 grant awarded projects currently in progress
•7 new applications since January 1, 2013
•Private Investment Leveraged
o $104, 598 in costs for completed projects leveraged
approximately $451,000 in private investment
City of Tigard
Façade Improvement Program
Completed Projects
Tigard Liquor Store: Before
After
Completed: 2010
Grant: $25,000
Under Water Works: before
After
Completed: 2011
Grant: $7,781
Main St. Stamp & Stationery: before
After
Completed: 2011
Grant: $4,485
Former Tigard Fitness: before
After
Completed:2012
Grant : $9,580
Tigard Main St. Cleaners: before
After
Completed: 2012
Grant: $16,620 tpc minutes 052013_attachment 1
12564 SW Main St. (Diamond Property):
before
After
Completed 2013
Grant $18,750
City of Tigard
Projects awarded grants, in
progress
Sherrie’s Jewelry Box
Rojas Market
Max’s Fanno Creek Brewpub
Pacific Paint (formerly A-Boy)
City of Tigard
Targeted Improvement Program
•Established in August, 2012.
•Offers a 50 percent matching grant (up to $75,000) to
help offset the costs of interior tenant improvements
•Targeted business types (currently, the focus is on
new restaurants, cafes, bakeries or similar businesses.)
Symposium Coffee
TIP grant: $24,000 awarded
Façade grant : $12,500 awarded
City of Tigard
Public Private Partnerships
•Façade and Targeted improvement Programs
•Development Opportunity Studies
•Partnering with developer George Diamond on Public
Works site (pending CET Grant decision)
City of Tigard
Brownfields
•“Brownfields” are defined by the EPA as “real property, the
expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.”
•CCDA’s strategy will be to provide and coordinate resources
to facilitate the redevelopment of properties that may be
contaminated.
•An anticipated mix of urban renewal, state, and federal
funds.
•Small grant from Business Oregon
•Federal EPA grant application in fall 2013
Main Street Green Street
Main Street Green Street
Main Street Gateway Public Art
City of Tigard
Public Art Visioning
Burnham Street Parking Lot
Burnham Street Parking Lot
City of Tigard
Fanno Creek Park and Trail
•New Trail Section (Main St. to Grant Ave.)
•Pacific Highway Undercrossing
•Re-meander project
•Public space purchase
Fanno Creek Re-Meander
Pacific Highway Undercrossing
Tigard Street Trail
Tigard Area Farmer’s Market
Move to Downtown
tpc minutes 052013_attachment 1
City of Tigard
Downtown Events
•Partnering with Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce to
organize Downtown events (Third Friday, Street Fair-
August 17th)
•http://exploredowntowntigard.com
•https://www.facebook.com/ExploreDowntownTigard
Potential HCT Station
City of Tigard
Questions?
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
Tigard Planning Commission
River Terrace Community Plan Update
May 20, 2013 Planning Commission Update
tpc 052013 minutes_attachment 2
CITY OF TIGARD
Purpose of the Presentation
RTCP Process
Schedule/Timeline
Public Involvement
PC Role
Natural Resources Task
Land Use/Zoning Task
Committee Feedback
Community Feedback
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD
RTCP Process
Public Involvement
TAC & SWG Meetings
•Land Use/Zoning & Natural Resources
•Parks & Water
•Stormwater, Sanitary Sewer, Transportation
•Infrastructure Financing Strategy
•Final Review
Community Meetings
Planning Commission Role
Public Hearings & Recommendations
CITY OF TIGARD
Natural Resources Task
Update 3 City Maps
Significant Habitat
Significant Tree Groves
Wetlands & Stream Corridors
CITY OF TIGARD
Natural Resources Task
Map Regulations Requirements/Incentives
Significant Tree Groves Voluntary 1.Reduced minimum density-18.790.050D(1)
2.Residential density transfer-18.790.050D(2)
3.Adjustments to commercial & industrial development standards-
18.790.050D(3)
Significant Habitat Area Voluntary 1.Up to 50% adjustment to dimensional standards-18.775.100A
2.Reduced minimum density-18.775.100C
3.Low Impact Development (LID) options- various sections
Wetlands & Stream Corridor Mandatory 1.Comply with CWS “Design & Construction Standards”-18.775.050A
2.Wetland delineation may be required-18.775.050B
3.Comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5 Natural Resources and
Comprehensive Plan process- 18.775.090A & 18.775.130
CITY OF TIGARD
Land Use/Zoning Task
WBMCP Recommended Land Uses
Council Adoption – December 2012
Translate to Tigard Zoning
TAC & SWG Meetings
Provided 2 Different Analyses
Solicited Feedback – Small Group Discussions
Incorporated Feedback for Community Meeting
Community Meeting
Provided 3 Different Analyses
Feedback In-Person & Online Survey
CITY OF TIGARD
Land Use/Zoning Task
TAC Feedback
Consensus for Mix of Zoning w/R-7
Density to Support Commercial Area
Higher Density to Surround PGE Substation
Higher Density Below Commercial Area
No R-4.5 West of Roy Rogers
Liked Transition from Existing Development
CITY OF TIGARD
Land Use/Zoning Task
SWG Feedback
Implementation of R-7 Zoning
Zoning Follow Property Lines
Flexibility in Implementation
Lower Density in Significant Tree Groves
Liked Transition from Existing Development
CITY OF TIGARD
Land Use/Zoning Task
Community Meeting
CITY OF TIGARD
Land Use/Zoning Task
Community Meeting Feedback
Traffic Impacts Most Important Consideration
R-25 Preferred Over R-40
Liked Transition from Existing Development
Agreed with Higher Densities to Support Commercial Area
Small Groups – No Consensus
Surveys – Analysis 3 was Preferred
CITY OF TIGARD
Land Use/Zoning Task
Online Survey Feedback
Traffic Impacts Most Important Consideration
•Existing Neighborhoods Preferred Option with Less Adjacent
Density
•Finding Balance is Important
Analysis 1 was Preferred
CITY OF TIGARD
Summary of Feedback
Agreement on Concept Plan Land Uses
No Organized Call for Changes
No Definitive Consensus on Zoning
Location Driving Preference
Individual Needs vs. Community Plan Needs
Need to Keep Committees Focused
Find Balance that is Supported
CITY OF TIGARD
Questions?