05/05/2014 - PacketCompleteness Review
for Boards, Commissions
and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Planning Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
05-05-14
Date of Meeting
I have verified that to the best of my knowledge, these documents are a complete copy of
the official record.
Doreen Laughlin
Print Name
Signature
06-01-15
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – MAY 5, 2014
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 Revised Agenda
MEETING DATE: May 5, 2014; 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard – Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m.
4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:03 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) – COSTCO GAS STATION
CUP2013-00002 7:05 p.m.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and Tigard Triangle Design Evaluation Team approval
for the construction of a members-only retail fuel station located at the existing Costco site. The station is
proposed at the northeast corner of the site currently used for parking. The facility consists of a 73 foot by
102 foot canopy with three fueling islands, nine fuel dispensers and five underground storage tanks. The
proposal also includes reconfiguration of the parking area surrounding the proposed fuel station and
landscaping.
6. TIGARD STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE 8:05
7. TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN UPDATE 8:35
7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:05 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 9:10 p.m.
1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: President Rogers and City of Tigard Planning Commission
FROM: Agnes Kowacz, Associate Planner
Mike McCarthy, Senior Project Engineer
RE: CUP2013-00002 Costco Fuel Station- City response to letter, dated
April 7, 2014, from Cain Petroleum represented by Michael Connors;
Hathaway Koback Connors, LLP
DATE: April 21, 2014
Below is staff’s reply to Mr. Connor’s letter and Greenlight Engineering, both dated April 7,
2014, and two proposed amendments to condition No. 1 and No. 6 of the staff report.
Staff proposes the following changes to the staff report:
Condition of approval #1:
“Prior to final building inspection, the intersection improvements proposed by the applicant to the northbound
and southbound right turn lanes at the SW Dartmouth/99W intersection shall be constructed.”
Condition of approval #6:
“Prior to issuance of a site permit, the applicant shall develop and implement the signed agreements for an
access/parking management plan that includes the establishment of an agreement(s) with neighboring property
owner(s) to use some of their off-site parking for Costco employee parking during peak seasons in order to
replace the 84 spaces removed for the fueling station. The applicant shall submit the signed agreement to the
city.”
The response is outlined in the same format as presented in Mr. Connors letter.
A. Costco failed to demonstrate compliance with transportation standards.
1. The proposed fuel station does not comply with the transportation standards
because it will worsen conditions at the failing intersection located at Highway
99W and SW Dartmouth Street.
Staff has reviewed the proposed Costco Fuel station, its trip generation and
distribution, the effects of these trips on the street network, and the mitigation
2
proposed by the applicant consisting of a northbound right turn lane on SW
Dartmouth Street and a southbound right turn lane on SW 78th Ave as they approach
Highway 99W. Staff review corroborates the conclusion of the applicant’s traffic
analysis that the combination of the Costco Fuel station and the proposed right-turn-
lane mitigations would result in equivalent or better traffic flow than under
background conditions.
2. Costco’s proposed mitigation for the Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street
intersection is inadequate and legally flawed.
Staff review corroborates the conclusion of the applicant’s traffic analysis that the
proposed northbound and southbound right-turn-lanes at the Hwy 99W /
Dartmouth / 78th intersection would provide sufficient additional capacity to mitigate
the impact of additional traffic to and from the proposed Costco Fuel station. The
right-of-way necessary to construct these turn lanes has yet to be acquired, this
condition could be amended through the appropriate land use processes if such
acquisition becomes not possible.
3. Costco is not entitled to a TDT credit for the proposed improvements or
monetary contributions.
A project to improve capacity at the intersection of Highway 99W with Dartmouth St
is listed on page 8 of Appendix C of Washington County’s Transportation
Development Tax (TDT) code, and improvements at this intersection could also be
eligible under the criteria listed in Appendix B of that code. TDT is paid at the time
of obtaining building permits, and it is estimated that the proposed development
would receive a credit based on the cost of the mitigation to be constructed at the
Hwy 99W / Dartmouth intersection in accordance with the county TDT code.
4. Costco’s TIS is flawed and underestimates the traffic impacts from the proposed
development.
City staff has reviewed the applicant’s traffic analysis and found it to be prepared in
accordance with established standards, manuals, and industry practices, and found its
conclusions to be reasonable. The trip generation estimates used are higher than those listed
in the industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation
manual. Please refer to Kittelson’s April 23rd memorandum for the location of information
in their analysis such as that listed by Greenlight Engineering and copied below.
3
Greenlight Engineering, in a memo dated April 7, 2014, evaluated the transportation related
impacts of the proposed Costco fuel station and stated that the application fails to provide
evidence to support approval of the project for the following reasons:
- The TIS fails to evaluate the impacts of the weekday AM peak hours.
- There is no evidence that supports the use of the trip generation estimates.
- The TIS fails to provide queuing estimates at all intersections.
- The application fails to provide resolution to insufficient parking supply.
- The intersection of Highway 99W/Dartmouth Street fails to meet City of Tigard
standards.
- The TIS provides no analysis of proposed modification to Dartmouth/South Costco
driveway intersection.
- Costco frontage lacks bicycle lanes and proposed improvements remove existing
bicycle lanes although clearly required.
- ODOT requirements remain unaddressed.
- Other intersections fail to meet City of Tigard mobility standards.
B. Costco failed to adequately resolve the problem with the lack of sufficient
parking.
In accordance with TDC 18.765 Off-street parking and loading requirements, sales-oriented uses
require 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square foot of floor area and vehicle fuel sales uses
require 3.0 parking spaces plus 2.0 parking spaces per service bay. The Costco warehouse is
a total of 145,824 square feet; which required 438 parking spaces. The vehicle fuel station
required 3 parking spaces (there are no service bays); total required parking is 441. The
parking lot contains 730 spaces not counting the spaces which are proposed to be removed
with the construction of the fuel station (84 spaces will be removed).
C. Costco failed to adequately address or demonstrate compliance with the building
design standards.
Costco decided to go through the Design Evaluation Team (DET) process for two
adjustments from the Tigard Triangle standards; the building placement and front yard
setback standard. The DET met with the applicant and recommended approval of the
adjustments subject to conditions of approval. These conditions were:
1. Minimize the proposed setback by moving the entire structure toward Dartmouth
Street a minimum of 6 to 8 feet or more if possible.
4
2. The landscaping and screening along Dartmouth Street where the gas station will be
located shall be increased to mitigate glare resulting from vehicle headlights, screen
the parking spaces along the frontage and provide a more inviting pedestrian
environment.
The applicant submitted a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with these conditions.
The proposed setback is now 58 feet and 8 inches (originally proposed at 73 feet). The
revised landscape plan shows a denser screening along SW Dartmouth Street where the gas
station will be located.
Additional information:
99W/Dartmouth Intersection Questions:
According to the applicant’s traffic analysis, the proposed fuel station would generate
additional traffic turning left from westbound Hwy 99W to southbound SW Dartmouth
Street. The proposed right-turn-lane would allow northbound and southbound
through/right traffic to be served with less green time, making more green time available to
accommodate westbound left turners. The analysis actually calculates a reduction in delay
for the westbound left turn movement due to this additional available green time.
The eastbound right turn movement from Hwy 99W to SW Dartmouth Street would also
have additional traffic. However, as eastbound right turns can use all of the green time
available for the adjacent eastbound through movement and for the northbound left
movement, adequate and excess capacity will remain available.
Dartmouth St / Northern Costco Access Questions
The right turn from SW Dartmouth Street into the northern Costco access is fairly busy
today, and traffic volumes are anticipated to increase to 295 and 525 vehicles per hour
during the PM Peak and weekend peak hours, respectively. The radius improvements to be
made by Costco at this driveway entrance are anticipated to improve the efficiency with
which drivers can make this movement. The traffic analysis shows that excess capacity will
remain available for this right turn movement due to a lack of conflicting movements.
City of Tigard
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Tigard Planning Commission
FROM: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner
RE: Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Update
DATE: April 22, 2014
The Triangle project team has recently completed Task 4 (Options Development). Two land use
and infrastructure options were developed utilizing information gathered during previous tasks.
This information included issues raised by citizen and technical committee members and the public
such as traffic congestion, lack of sidewalks, need for affordable housing options, lack of amenities
(parks, open space, restaurant/service retail uses), and protection of natural resources. The draft
plan options addressed these issues by showing a mix of uses – including housing at different
densities, opportunities for parks and open space, and new street/pathway connections for cars,
bikes and pedestrians.
This memo gives a brief description of the two plan options and next steps in the Tigard Triangle
Strategic Plan process. A full description of each option can be found in the attached report and
maps.
Description of Options
Option 1 proposes few changes to densities or uses. Multi-family is permitted at 30 units per acre –
similar to the 25 units per acre currently allowed. Areas west of SW 72nd Avenue retain commercial
uses with residential focused mostly east of SW 72nd. A few new street connections are proposed. A
more complete pedestrian connection network within development is proposed in areas east of SW
72nd Avenue. Active residential or commercial ground floor uses would be limited to corners and
high traffic streets such as 68th and 69th.
Option 2 proposes increased densities of 50 dwelling units per acre. Housing is focused within the
center of the Triangle along both sides of SW 72nd Avenue. Building heights are increased to
accommodate 5-6 story buildings. A more extensive street and pedestrian network is proposed on
both sides of SW 72nd Avenue with a new north-south street (SW 74th Avenue) that connects to a
new crossing of Highway 217 at Beveland Street.
Both options propose:
a pedestrian district along SW 68th, 69th and 70th Avenues
eliminate auto-oriented uses (such as drive-throughs, and gas stations)
modify design standards to improve the pedestrian experience along streets
increase maximum floor area ratios that currently limit the amount of building square
footage within a development
identify opportunities for parks and open space with a trail along Red Rock Creek
The options have been presented to both the citizen (CAC) and technical (TAC) advisory
committees. Initial feedback from the CAC indicated a preference for Option 2. Discussion topics
included parking, building heights, parks/plazas, improvements to highway connections, and
impacts on existing development/property owners. The TAC did not indicate an early preference
but did not express any concern over increased density. Questions and comments centered on
stormwater, parks, congestion at intersections and along Pacific Highway, and pedestrian/bicycle
connections across highways. There was also discussion at both meetings about SW Corridor and
the passage of Measure 34-210. Because the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan is an economic
development plan, it will proceed with or without high capacity transit. However, coordination
between the projects is still important, and the SW Corridor plan will be informed by the Triangle
plan.
Next Steps
In task 5, the project team will evaluate how well the options address the project objectives (Getting
Around, Livability/Vitality, Community Character and Market Fundamentals). Analysis will be done
for different development types with various densities, building heights, parking ratios, and floor
area ratios to see which parameters pencil out for the Triangle. The cost of public infrastructure
upgrades will be estimated. This information will then be presented to the advisory committees and
public for final feedback before the Triangle Team makes a recommendation on a preferred plan.
Next Planning Commission Update
The next update will be in June or July to present the following work products:
1. Development Feasibility Analysis Report
2. Options Evaluation Report
Attachments
Land Use and Infrastructure Options Report and maps
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure
Options
March 24, 2014
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Leland Consulting Group
Laurence Qamar Architecture & Town Planning
Nelson Nygaard, Inc.
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 1
Introduction
This memorandum describes preliminary land use and infrastructure options for the Tigard Triangle
Redevelopment Strategy. During the next phase of the project, these land use and infrastructure options
will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria developed in the previous task. Cost elements will be
developed for the necessary infrastructure improvements related to each of the options, and a series of
pro forma analyses will be completed for several building types and densities to test whether the
proposed development scenarios can be constructed in a cost-effective manner or whether public
investment would be required. Ultimately, a preferred alternative will be selected that may be one of
the two proposed options or a combination of elements from each option.
Organization of this Memorandum
This memorandum is organized into the following sections:
· Information Used to Develop the Land Use and Infrastructure Options that identifies the key
information from previous tasks that relate to the proposed options;
· Current Land Uses that identifies the types of permitted uses in the Triangle today;
· Land Use and Infrastructure Options that describes the two options proposed for the Triangle,
including alternations to zoning, design standards, and infrastructure;
· Street Cross Sections that illustrate the proposed street cross sections, if they are different than
what is currently identified in the Tigard Triangle Plan District; and
· Comparing the Land Use Options that identifies the potential number of residential units and
the amount of commercial and retail square footage for each of the options.
There are also several maps attached that illustrate the concepts. These include:
· Open Space and Natural Areas
· Roadway Network
· Bike and Pedestrian Network
· Primary Land Use Functions
· Height and Building Massing Comparisons and illustrations
Information Used to Develop the Land Use and Infrastructure Options
The land use and infrastructure options described below were developed, in part, using the following
information:
· Opportunities and Constraints Analysis;
· Coordination with City of Tigard staff, and other agencies;
· Information gathered from the public open house and online survey;
· Development expert and stakeholder interviews;
· Coordination with service providers; and
· Technical expertise from the project team.
2 Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014)
The project team also considered the following:
· The office market for the Tigard Triangle is saturated, but housing has high demand. With high
vacancy rates in competing markets, commercial development in the Triangle likely has a mid- to
long-term time frame. The accompanying maps assume and portray that some office uses will likely
be (or already have been) developed, but that other uses, such as housing, might also occur in those
areas.
· Parks and trails. The Triangle currently does not have any parks, plazas or a cohesive trail system.
Parks and trails are especially important amenities for housing, and can provide pedestrian and bike
connections where auto access is limited. Park amenities are an attractive component of any district
and increase the likelihood that the area will develop as envisioned.
· Phaseable infrastructure. The Triangle will develop over time, which means that infrastructure can
also be phased to support the desired development pattern. This phased approach reduces initial
costs and increases flexibility in providing services.
· Small, pedestrian-oriented retail/flex space nodes. Office uses and residential projects will need
amenities such as coffee shops, banks, restaurants, dry cleaners, hair salons, etc. to be viable, but
these amenities also must be focused in areas with the greatest visibility and access to patrons. On-
street parking is essential for a pedestrian street with storefront retail.
· Parking. There are many ways that parking can be regulated in the Triangle over time to encourage
a pedestrian oriented development pattern and less reliance on automobiles as the primary mode
of transportation. Given the high number of employees and lack of available housing options in the
Triangle, housing with surface parking appears to be feasible today. However, both commercial and
residential development might not be able to achieve the leases or rents required to build
structured parking in the short term or medium term. A key to success for the redevelopment
strategy is to be flexible about what can develop in the area and to provide a development pattern
that can transition and accommodate market needs over time.
Current Land Uses
The Existing Conditions Report (September 2013) provided an analysis of the existing zoning and
development standards within the Triangle. That information served as the basis for considering a range
of potential land use and infrastructure options. Existing zoning in the Tigard Triangle is primarily
composed of Mixed-Use Employment (MUE), which permits both commercial and multifamily
residential development, and General Commercial (C-G), which permits large format retail development.
The C-G zone also permits a limited amount of multifamily residential uses as part of a planned
development. The Tigard Community Development Code also includes zone-specific development
standards (building height, setbacks, and landscaping) and citywide requirements related to parking,
tree canopy, and street/utility improvements. In addition, there are design standards specific to
properties within the Triangle.
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 3
The land use and infrastructure options generally build upon what is already occurring in the Triangle
but in some cases illustrate uses or design assumptions that will require changes to the development
code. These are necessary to achieve the pedestrian-focused development pattern that is desired by the
City and that supports the pedestrian-focused, branded community identified in the City’s Draft
Strategic Plan.
Land Use and Infrastructure Options
This memorandum discusses two possible land use and infrastructure options for redevelopment in the
Triangle. Both of the options incorporate transit oriented development (TOD) concepts that integrate
urban design, land use planning, and multimodal transportation planning to create a walkable, lively
neighborhood and street environment. Transit oriented development is typified by its mix of housing,
office, retail and/or other amenities integrated into a walkable neighborhood and located within a half-
mile of public transportation. This provides access to services, housing, and employment within walking
distance of one another, while providing access to public transportation and other non-auto modes of
travel to minimize single-occupancy vehicle use.
The proposed options support the City’s desire to create a multi-modal, attractive environment, with
neighborhood amenities, that supports a mix of uses for residents, employees, and students within
walking distance of one another. Each of the options identifies a pedestrian district, which contains the
following elements:
· A connected street and pedestrian network;
· Interconnected pedestrian, transit and bicycle systems;
· On-street parking with focused access to off-street parking located behind buildings;
· Wide sidewalks with landscaping, street trees, lighting and street furniture;
· Pedestrian connections and intersections spaced not closer than 200 feet from intersections,
but not more than 300 feet apart; and
· A mix of land uses that support a high level of pedestrian activity.
The land use and infrastructure options described below and depicted on the attached graphics are not
proposed zoning maps. Rather, the graphics depict areas where various primary land uses might develop
given the existing development pattern and surrounding area, and serve as scenarios for testing various
assumptions. As the project progresses and a preferred land use option is identified, specific zoning
designations will be proposed that implement the desired vision for the Triangle. It is very possible that
one or two zoning districts would apply to the entire Triangle.
As part of the options, new road and trail connections are located where they can build upon the
existing roadways and improve connections through the Triangle. Intersections are generally spaced 200
to 300 feet apart, depending on topography and the existing development pattern. In some instances
where road connections are not feasible, the circulation system includes a system of bicycle/pedestrian
paths to ensure that access is provided throughout the Triangle. These access ways improve pedestrian
options and also permit access to parking behind the buildings. All roads include 11-foot sidewalks and
street trees. Lower-volume roadways have shared bicycle/vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking.
4 Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014)
Higher-volume roadways have designated bicycle lanes that provide a network of through routes within
the Triangle connecting to bicycle routes, to the proposed multi-use path along Red Rock Creek, and to
other locations within Tigard.
Transit Service
Currently, the Triangle is served by one bus route (78) that travels through the Triangle and Downtown
Tigard between Lake Oswego and Beaverton with approximately 30 minute headways (Monday-Friday).
TriMet is also developing the SW Service Enhancement Plan to identify service needs and improve
service within the planning area. The Plan is in the process of identifying potential service
enhancements, with draft recommendations to come in summer 2014.
Pedestrian District
Both options propose a pedestrian district. Within the pedestrian district, vehicular access to off-street
parking areas will be limited to no more than one access point every 200 hundred feet, which can be
combined with pedestrian access ways through the parcel to access parking and permit pedestrian
through movement. The pedestrian district is located along 68th, 69th, and 70th Avenues, with additional
vehicle access provided, if necessary along east/west cross streets. Focusing parking access reduces
conflicts with pedestrians, increases street frontages with active uses, and encourages pedestrian-
oriented building design. For all streets (both east/west and north/south), wide sidewalks, street trees,
and on-street parking are provided.
Parking
While the current market requires on-site parking to be competitive with other areas, traditional parking
ratios as currently required also adversely impact the potential for pedestrian oriented development
because of the amount of land required to provide the parking spaces. This also reduces the potential
square footage that can be developed (unless the parking is structured) increases development costs,
and increases congestion because it supports single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel over transit use or
other non-SOV modes of travel. Both land use options assume that parking will be provided both on and
off site and designed or located in such a way that it does not interfere with the pedestrian-oriented
goals of the plan.
Specific parking strategies and implementation measures will be developed in later tasks and may
include several regulatory, non-regulatory, and development incentives to address how parking is
provided and managed in the Triangle. These may include:
· Reduced minimum and maximum parking requirements;
· Allowing parking to occur off-site, but within the Triangle;
· Tax credits for certain types of development to construct structured parking;
· Public purchase of sites to be used as surface parking now for surrounding businesses and then
gradually transitioning into structured parking or new development;
· Establishing a Transportation Management Association or engaging with Westside
Transportation Alliance (WTA);
· Developing a parking management plan that includes enforcement and/or pricing;
While not all of these strategies will likely be implemented, parking, both in its provision and impact on
the desired urban form, play a critical role in how the Triangle develops.
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 5
Option 1: Refine Site Design Standards – Keep Zoning Standards
Land Use Components of Option 1
Option 1 generally maintains the existing densities allowed in the MUE zoning district, and no changes to
permitted uses are proposed except for restrictions on auto-oriented uses such as drive-throughs, gas
stations and other uses that are not pedestrian oriented. Existing densities within the Triangle, if
developed to the maximum extent possible, are adequate to provide a transit and pedestrian oriented
environment, but the existing design requirements limit development potential even under current
density standards. Changes to design standards would maximize the development potential without
requiring significant changes in the development code. Key components of Option 1 include:
Generally maintaining the currently allowed land use densities:
· Multifamily residential densities would be approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. Multifamily
residential uses are permitted in all areas within the Triangle, although are limited to a small portion
of the building square footage within the general commercial zone.
· Vertical mixed-use buildings (ground floor retail/active uses with office or housing above) would be
located on corners or in the pedestrian district where there is high visibility. The predominant land
use pattern within the Triangle would still likely be horizontal mixed use, such as apartments next to
office buildings. This mix of horizontal and vertical uses allows for specific areas to be targeted for
retail and flex space while not “over-retailing” the area.
· General commercial, office, and institutional uses would be similar to what exists today. Commercial
uses not within designated general commercial zones (C-G) are limited to a 30,000 square foot (ft2)
maximum floor area. This provides for uses, such as a small, grocery store, but not large format
retail, such as Wal-Mart or Costco.
Changing site design requirements to permit more lot coverage:
· Maximum floor area ratios (FAR) would be increased from 0.40:1 to 1.5:1, while the maximum
building height of 45 feet would be maintained. Increased floor area ratios will permit development
to actually achieve a 45 foot height, which is difficult under the current standard of 0.4 FAR.
· The current minimum building frontage requirements would be increased from 50 percent to 90
percent for on SW 68th and SW 69th Avenues within the Pedestrian District. SW 70th Avenue would
still limit access for vehicles to minimize conflicts with pedestrians, but minimum street frontage
requirements would be approximately 20 percent. This change in frontage requirements would
provide areas for off-street parking and necessary services for buildings while increasing building
frontages on other streets. Primary vehicle access would be on side streets which within the
pedestrian district are east/west connections, except on longer blocks, where some access could be
provided.
· There are several blocks that exceed 400 feet in length within the Triangle, which limits pedestrian
circulation and vehicle access. On these longer blocks, pedestrian paths are proposed that provide
connections through blocks and provide access to parking behind buildings. Pedestrian access can
also be coupled with vehicle access, but vehicle access may not be spaced closer than 200 feet and
not more than 300 feet from a street or other vehicle access. This reduces the number of driveways,
improves safety, and maintains a pedestrian focused environment.
6 Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014)
Land Use Option 1 encourages more active ground floor uses in the
Pedestrian District (top left) and maintains the same densities for residential
uses (bottom). Office uses remain the same but parking must be located
behind the building, which improves the pedestrian experience and reduces
driveways (top right).
· Within the pedestrian district,
parking access would be
restricted along 68th, 69th,
and 70th Avenues. Parking
access would be provided
along east/west cross streets,
unless longer blocks require
additional access.
· A setback of 0 to 10 feet,
depending on the type of use
and the location in the
Triangle, would be maintained.
General Commercial
For Option 1, general commercial
land uses correspond to areas that
are currently zoned C-G, which
permits large format retail uses
such as Costco, Wal-Mart, and
WinCo. This option maintains this
land use within the Triangle as it is
today. Distinguishing features of
the general commercial areas are
that it limits housing, and is
primarily auto-oriented and has
large parking lots. Option 1
assumes that redevelopment
within the general commercial area
will continue, however, within the
C-G zone, auto oriented uses (such
as drive throughs, gas station etc.)
within the Triangle would be
restricted. Large format uses would
still be permitted provided it meets
site design standards.
Residential
Residential uses under Option 1 consist of multifamily housing development that is a mix of apartments
or condominiums and townhomes with an overall density of approximately 30 units per acre, similar to
what is permitted under the current MUE zoning designation. Residential uses are assumed to also
include street access with small porches or walkups, and some limited small-scale retail or flex space to
activate the street, albeit at focused locations where there is high visibility or that are adjacent to
employment areas. While the majority of housing under this scenario is located in the central portions
of the Triangle, residential uses could also be constructed in the office/employment and campus and
education areas.
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 7
Pedestrian areas are important where people congregate. Campus and
education development in the southern part of the Triangle would also
include plazas and focused open space for students and employees
(top).Landscaping and an attractive pedestrian realm, such as having large
windows in buildings (bottom) are important components of an active area.
Office/Employment
Office and employment land
uses are predominantly on the
blocks fronting 68th and 69th
Avenues. This option would
continue that development
pattern, but would increase
street frontage requirements on
68th and 69th Avenues. However,
70th Avenue would have a lower
street frontage requirement,
because much of the parking
and other necessary services to
support the developments
would be located along the
street (but would be screened
with landscaping). In contrast to
the current requirements,
Option 1 proposes requiring
active ground floor uses with
some retail and/or flex space on
corners and sections of higher
traffic streets, such as SW 68th
and SW 69th Streets. Although
retail would not be required in
all areas, office/employment
and residential buildings would
all include design features such
as a high percentage of windows
and front entrances from the
street. Residential live/work and
walkup apartments in addition
to areas with ground floor retail
or flex space could also accommodate a variety of uses and provide an active street frontage.
Campus and Education
The southern end of the Triangle is a unique location given its constrained land area and connections to
the regional trail system over I-5 and along Kruse Way. It is also unique because, within a very small
area, there are three commuter colleges (University of Phoenix, George Fox University, and National
American University) in addition to Clear Channel and other office tenants. Under Option 1, campus
development could occur that includes focused open space and plazas, with increased building heights
(up to four stories).
8 Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014)
Infrastructure Components of Option 1
Open Space and Trails
Several real estate experts identified parks and open space as one of the critical needs in the Triangle for
encouraging development of a pedestrian-oriented district with housing. Without key investments in
parks and open space, residential development will be a challenge in the Triangle.
A critical component of this infrastructure option is providing access to recreational opportunities and
natural areas to support and revitalize natural resources in the area. Improving Red Rock Creek as both a
natural and recreational amenity could make it a defining feature for the Triangle, because it links
natural wetland areas to the west with natural areas to the east. A paved multi-use trail would connect
these features as well as connect to the larger bicycle and pedestrian network within and through the
Triangle.
Under Option 1, the trail would connect with the bicycle and pedestrian network at 68th Avenue, 72nd
Avenue, and SW Dartmouth Street. The paved multi-use trail would also link to the trail system near the
future Wal-Mart. Two other parks/plaza spaces would be located in the central and southern parts of
the Triangle to take advantage of existing trees and vegetation.
All streets are pedestrian-oriented, with at least 11-foot sidewalks, landscaping, and on-street parking.
Designated bike lanes are provided along higher-traffic streets, which also connect to the larger system
outside of the Triangle, including connections across OR 99W, across I-5 on Haines Street, and across OR
217 on a new Hunziker Road crossing (this is a current project in the Transportation System Plan).
Shared travel lanes are provided along local streets where lower volumes and slower vehicle speeds are
expected. In some cases where typography is more challenging, uphill bike lanes may be provided to
minimize conflicts with vehicles.
Street Connections
Option 1 generally maintains the existing street grid as identified in the Tigard Triangle Plan District, with
a few additions. In the northern part of the Triangle, Option 1 would connect 74th Avenue to a
SW Atlanta Street extension (identified in the existing Triangle Plan District but not yet built), and then
continue along the west side of the WinCo store property and connect to SW Dartmouth Street. Option
1 also includes two connections in the southern part of the Triangle. One connection extends 69th
Avenue into the campus and education area, and another completes the grid by connecting 70th Avenue
to 68th Avenue. Both new connections provide better connectivity and street frontage for the southern
portion of the pedestrian district. One major change from the existing street network plan is the
removal of the backage road. This east-west road connects SW 68th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street
along the creek corridor. Removal is proposed to limit environmental impacts. Connectivity can be
achieved instead by a possible pathway and the requirement of auto connections between
developments.
Utilities
Storm water, sanitary sewer and water infrastructure were evaluated for each of the land use options to
determine if additional capacity or other system upgrades are necessary to support the development
assumptions. For storm water, each option assumes that low impact development approaches (LIDA)
would be used, which emphasizes conservation and use of site specific natural features integrated with
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 9
engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls such as storm water infiltration for reducing storm water
runoff. Other low impact approaches include green streets, ecoroofs, and minimizing impervious areas.
Green street design features will be considered when cost estimates are developed later in the project.
This option assumes that new streets, in addition to green street design features such as swales and
pervious surfaces, will include storm water conveyance in addition to other utilities. But while additional
connections for storm water are proposed, there has also been a discussion about whether a district-
wide storm water system is feasible in the Triangle, which would likely be a combination of on- and off-
site detention and treatment. Whether or not this is feasible is still to be determined.
The sanitary sewer system was evaluated using three basins. The “southern tip” basin main lines
converge into an existing 10-inch diameter line. The sanitary sewer main lines from the “mid-section”
basin converge into an existing 8-inch diameter line. The sanitary sewer main lines from the “north-
section” basin converge into an existing 12-inch diameter line. The sanitary sewer main line crossing
highway 217, which conveys both the “Mid-Section” and “North-Section” basins, is a 15-inch diameter
line. Assuming the slope is equal to or greater than 1%, the existing sewer lines will have sufficient
capacity to serve future development for all basins. While the sanitary main lines are adequate to serve
future development, new sanitary sewer infrastructure may be necessary where new development
occurs that is not adjacent to existing systems. For each option, this infrastructure will include small
diameter gravity sewer pipes and manholes located within the future roadways and/or easements.
The existing water system also appears to be adequate, but when further development occurs, the
existing water system network can be expanded to meet the demand requirements of this area that
would likely include water main pipes between 8 and 12 inches in diameter located within future
roadways.
Option 2: Refine Site Design Standards and increase Land Use Densities
Land Use Components of Option 2
Option 2 increases land use densities from what is currently allowed in the MUE zoning district.
Densities proposed are similar to other mixed use areas of Tigard such as Washington Square and
Downtown Tigard. In addition, some areas that are currently zoned for general commercial uses would
change to residential/mixed use. Option 2 incorporates all features of Option 1. Key components of
Option 2 include:
Changing some general commercial zoning to residential/mixed use and increasing land use densities:
· Multifamily residential densities would be increased to 50 dwelling units per acre. Multifamily
residential uses would be permitted in all areas except for the general commercial area, which
would still permit a limited number of units.
· Vertical mixed use buildings (with ground floor retail/flex space) would be located on corners in the
pedestrian district and in redeveloped areas that have a large amount of foot traffic and where
there is high visibility. Vertical and horizontal mixed uses would be interspersed with one another
more than they would be under Option 1.
· General commercial uses (except where they transition to mixed-use land uses) and office and
institutional uses would be in similar locations as today, although increased densities would likely
require changes in how parking is managed and the amount required. Increased FAR and building
heights would encourage increased lot coverage and potentially taller buildings.
10 Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014)
There are already some five-story buildings in the Triangle (top), similar to
what is assumed in Land Use Option 2. Increasing land coverage allowances,
making parking requirements more flexible, and increasing pedestrian design
requirements increases flexibility and provides more focused guidance to
developers in how they develop, such as adding plazas and other pedestrian
features, where appropriate (bottom).
· Commercial areas that are not
within designated commercial
zones would be limited to a
30,000 ft2 maximum floor plate.
This provides for some larger
uses, but not for large format
retail—the same as under
Option 1.
Changing site design
requirements to permit more
lot coverage and greater
building heights:
· Maximum floor area ratio would
be increased from 0.40:1 to 3:1,
and maximum building heights
would be increased to 75 feet.
· The current minimum building
frontage requirements would be
increased from 50 percent to 90
percent for pedestrian-oriented
streets. For access streets,
minimum street frontage
requirements would be
approximately 20 percent. This
change in frontage requirements
would provide areas for off-
street parking and necessary
services for buildings while
increasing building frontages on
other streets.
· Within the pedestrian district,
parking access would be
restricted along 68th, 69th, and
70th Avenues. Parking access
would be provided along
east/west cross streets, except as noted under Option 1 where longer blocks will require pedestrian
and vehicle access.
· A setback of 0 to 10 feet, depending on the type of use and the location in the Triangle, would be
maintained.
General Commercial
Although Option 2 maintains some general commercial uses within the Triangle, it reduces the amount
of land currently zoned for general commercial land uses, assuming that some large format retail and
auto-focused uses will transition into mixed use and multifamily residential uses. Changing site design
standards as proposed under Option 2 would not likely have a significant effect on the appearance and
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 11
Land Use Option 2 assumes higher residential densities, up to 50 units
per acre and in taller buildings (above). The additional number of
residents could support a more active ground floor, with a variety of
uses. Additional street connections also increase visibility for
businesses.
character of the general commercial area
that remains because many of those
structures are newer and are not expected to
transition in the foreseeable future. If
redevelopment occurs, then the proposed
site design standards for increased street
frontage would apply.
Residential
Under Option 2, mixed use and multifamily
residential uses would increase significantly.
Housing options would be a mix of
apartments or condominiums and
townhomes with an overall density of
approximately 50 units per acre. The
increased density assumptions are supported
by adjacent public transit, which will
potentially expand under the SW Service
Enhancement Plan. Additionally, a much
more extensive multimodal street grid that
provides both local and through connections
and the visibility necessary for active ground
floor uses will support this development.
While the majority of housing under this
scenario is located in the central portions of
the Triangle, residential uses could also be
constructed in the office/employment and
campus and education areas. Residential
uses could include a variety of ground floor
uses, including units with street access that
have small porches or walkups, and small-
scale retail or flex space to activate the
street, particularly along 68th and 69th
Avenues and busier cross streets, and along a
new section of 74th Avenue that connects at
the existing 74th Avenue intersection with OR
99W and continues south to a new SW
Beveland Road crossing of OR 217. This new
connection is assumed to distribute traffic
through the central portion of the Triangle
and, because of the street’s proximity to
potential new development north of SW
Dartmouth, it would also support a stronger
mixed-use street frontage (see hatched area
on the attached Primary Land Use Function
graphics). As with Option 1, higher volume
12 Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014)
streets without on-street parking, such as 72nd Avenue, would only be required to have active ground
floor uses at some corners.
Office/Employment
Office and employment land uses are predominantly on the blocks fronting 68th and 69th Avenues, and
support a development pattern that is similar to what is already in the area, albeit at higher densities
(structures that are up to five or six stories) than under Option 1 (two- to three-story structures). Areas
that are currently zoned for general commercial east of 68th Avenue would transition to mixed-use office
development, similar to the rest of the area south of SW Dartmouth. Increased employment densities
would likely require parking to be located off-site or to be structured on-site within the building.
Building frontages would be highly pedestrian-oriented, with off-street parking restricted to being
located behind a building or be structured parking with active ground floor uses. As with Option 1, retail
would not be required in all areas, but all buildings would be pedestrian-oriented with specific street
frontage requirements for windows and access. In areas with high visibility, ground floor retail/flex
space that could accommodate a variety of uses would be required. Ground floor access would be
required if residential uses are constructed.
As with Option 1, 70th Avenue would have a lower street frontage requirement, because much of the
parking and other necessary services to support the developments would be located along the street.
Any parking or service access areas would be screened with landscaping.
Campus and Education
The development assumptions for Option 2 for the southern end of the Triangle increase heights and
densities than what is proposed under Option 1. Additionally, parking is more centralized under Option
2 with structured parking, which opens up more land for development. Option 2 assumes that buildings
are five to six stories, which is not dissimilar to some five-story buildings that have already been
constructed in the area, although with higher FAR allowances, new buildings could include much more
square footage than previous construction. Similar to Option 1, Option 2 would have campus-style
development that includes focused open space and plazas, and strong pedestrian and bicycle
connections. Unlike in the office/employment area to the north, active ground floor uses would not be
required, but building location and street frontage requirements would still apply as well as specific
building standards that encourage pedestrian activity.
Infrastructure Components of Option 2
Open Space, Trails, and Bicycles and Pedestrians
The parks and trails system under Option 2 is similar to what is proposed under Option 1, but would be
supported by an expanded multimodal circulation system that includes additional connections for
bicycles and pedestrians. There are two potential locations for additional connections outside of the
Triangle across OR 217. A Hunziker connection is identified in the City’s Transportation System Plan,
although a new potential connection connecting SW Beveland across OR 217 is also shown and is
located in a more central location in the Triangle. While only one of these would be constructed, they
both provide improved multimodal access to the Triangle and would provide additional travel options
for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 13
Both land use options assume campus style development (top) in the southern
area of the Triangle. Active ground floor uses would not be required but
buildings would still need to have large windows and landscaping. Under
Option 2, centralized parking for the area reduces the amount of off-street
parking. Centralized parking could be a surface parking area serving several
buildings or a parking structure (bottom). A structure can still have active
ground floor uses.
There are limited areas for connections
across I-5 as the majority of
development on the east side of I-5 is
single family residential. Additionally, a
potential southern connection would
likely impact a large church. For these
reasons, Option 2 would improve
multimodal access across I-5 on SW
Haines Street. This connection could be
modified to improve bicycle and
pedestrian use and is an important
connection to other development, such
as Portland Community College’s
Sylvania Campus.
As with Option 1, all streets are
pedestrian-oriented, with at least 11-
foot sidewalks, landscaping and on-
street parking provided. Designated
bike lanes are provided along higher-
traffic streets and would also connect
to the larger system outside of the
Triangle. Shared travel lanes are
provided along local streets, where
slower vehicle speeds are expected. In
some cases where topography is more
challenging, uphill bike lanes may be
provided to minimize conflicts with
vehicles.
Street Connections
Option 2 builds off of Option 1 and
expands both north/south and
east/west connections to complete the
portions of the street grid that area
already in place. Option 2 would
include a new north/south connection
at 74th Avenue that continues south to
SW Hermoso Way, which would
connect to a new multimodal crossing
of OR 217. Local east/west connections
would use this new spine to develop a
block pattern as the area develops and as general commercial uses north of SW Dartmouth Street
transition into mixed use/housing. The new connection could reduce congestion on other streets, such
as 72nd and 68th Avenues. Other key connections include connecting SW Hermoso Way and SW Franklin
Street, connecting SW Gonzaga Street to 68th Avenue, and extending 67th Avenue north to connect to
14 Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014)
SW Elmhurst Street. All of these connections
contribute to a better-connected system of
multimodal streets.
Option 2 includes the same connections in the
southern part of the Triangle as Option 1 in
order to provide better connectivity and street
frontage for the southern portion of the
pedestrian district.
Utilities
Sanitary sewer, storm water and water
infrastructure are discussed under Land Use
Option 1 and are adequate to meet the
proposed densities under this option.
Street Cross Sections
Both options use the same cross sections for
new street connections, which are generally
consistent with the street cross sections
adopted in the Tigard Triangle Plan District.
New cross sections are proposed (below)
where additional bike and on-street parking
are necessary to support the desired
development pattern.
Bicycle Corridor Streets
Bicycle corridor streets are appropriate for
streets where higher volumes of traffic are
expected, such as streets that are directly
connected to larger streets such as OR 99W, or
for streets that provide through travel in the
Triangle. These streets balance the need for
vehicle lanes, parking, dedicated bicycle lanes,
and sidewalks to reduce conflicts between
modes. These streets are generally larger
streets that connect nodes in the Triangle or
provide connections to other parts of Tigard.
Examples of bike corridor streets are 68th, 72nd,
and 74th (new street) Avenues; SW Atlanta
Street (new street), SW Beveland Road (new
street), and SW Hampton Street (new street).
Two options for Bike Corridor streets (above)
Local Street (above) and Multi-Use Trail (below)
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (March 14 2014) 15
Local Streets
Local streets are lower-traffic streets than bicycle corridor streets. Local streets have wide sidewalks
with landscaping and also provide shared through travel lanes for vehicles and bicycles. On-street
parking is also provided on local streets to increase sidewalk activity and provide for adjacent uses.
Multi-Use Paths
The multi-use path is intended to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections through the Triangle,
connecting the larger multimodal system at key locations. This path would be wide enough to provide
for both bicycle and pedestrian use, and would have lighting for safety.
File Name: P:\O\ODOT00000801\0600INFO\0670Reports\4T_LandUseOptions\Revised Draft\Revised Draft Land Use Options
3.24.14 CAC.docx
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Designated bike lane
Shared lane
Regional and local trails
Proposed Improvements
Pedestrian District
Planned designated bike lane
Shared lane
O-street multi-use trail
Pedestrian pathway
Highway crossing
1/4-mile radius walkable area
Improved pedestrian crossing
identied in Tigard 99W Improvement
and Management Plan
Proposed Roadway
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Option 1
Bike and Pedestrian Network
Future Wal-Mart
development
Option 1 provides recreational opportunities and natural areas to support
and revitalize natural resources in the area by:
• Improving Red Rock Creek as both a natural and recreational amenity
• A paved multi-use trail connects natural features to the larger bicycle and
pedestrian network
• The multi-use trail would also link to the trail system near the future Wal-Mart.
• Two other parks/plaza spaces would be located in the central and southern
parts of the Triangle to take advantage of existing trees and vegetation. These
park areas would be designed to serve local employees and residents.
• On longer blocks, pedestrian paths are proposed that provide connections
through blocks and provide access to parking behind buildings. Pedestrian
access can also be coupled with vehicle access, if necessary.
• All streets are pedestrian-oriented, with at least 11-foot sidewalks and
on-street parking provided.
• Designated bike lanes are provided along higher-trac streets, which also
connect to the larger system outside of the Triangle, including connections
across OR 99W, across I-5 on Haines Street, and across OR 217 on a new
Hunziker Road crossing
• Shared travel lanes are provided along local streets where slower vehicle
speeds are expected.
• In some cases where typography is more challenging, uphill bike lanes may be
provided to minimize conicts with vehicles.
Within the pedestrian
district, access to
o-street parking
areas will be restricted
along 68th, 69th, and
70th Avenues, with
access provided along
east/west cross streets.
Focusing parking
access reduces
conicts with
pedestrians.
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Primary Land Use Functions
General Commercial
Residential
Oce/Employment
Campus and Education
Open Space
Ground oor ex space/active use
Proposed roadway
Highway crossing
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Option 1 generally maintains the existing densities allowed in the MUE zoning
district, and no changes to permitted uses are proposed except for restrictions
on auto-oriented uses such as drive-throughs, gas stations and other uses that
are not pedestrian oriented. Existing densities within the Triangle, if developed
to the maximum extent possible, are adequate to provide a transit and
pedestrian oriented environment, but the existing design requirements limit
development potential even under current density standards. Changes to design
standards would maximize the development potential without requiring
signicant changes in the development code. Key components of Option 1
include:
• Generally maintaining existing land use densities:
- Multifamily residential densities would be 30 dwelling units per acre.
Multifamily residential uses are permitted in all areas.
- Vertical mixed-use buildings (ground oor retail/active uses) would likely
be located on corners or in the pedestrian district where there is high
visibility, although the predominant land use pattern within the Triangle
would likely be horizontal mixed use, such as apartments or oce
buildings.
- General commercial, oce, and institutional uses would be similar to
what exists today.
- Commercial areas not within designated general commercial zones (C-G)
are limited to a 30,000 square foot (ft2) maximum oor plate. This
provides for some larger uses, such as a grocery store, but not large
format retail, such as Wal-Mart or Costco.
Option 1
Primary Land Use Functions
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Designated bike lane
Shared lane
Regional and local trails
Key features
Plaza/park
Greenway corridor
Multi-use trail/Pedestrian pathway
Proposed roadway
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Option 1
Open Space and Natural Areas
Future Wal-Mart
development
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Proposed Improvements
Local Street (assume 60’ ROW)
Highway crossing
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Option 1
Roadway Network
Future Wal-Mart
development
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Designated bike lane
Shared lane
Regional and local trails
Proposed Improvements
Pedestrian District
Designated bike lane
Shared lane
O-street multi-use trail
Pedestrian pathway
Highway crossing
1/4-mile radius walkable area
Proposed roadway
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Option 2
Bike and Pedestrian Network
The parks and trails system under Option 2 is similar to what is proposed
under Option 1. Option 2:
• Expands the multimodal circulation system.
• Includes an multimodal connection across OR 217, either at Beveland Road or
Hampton Street and connects to the bicycle system across I-5 on
SW Haines Street.
• A paved multi-use trail connects natural features to the larger bicycle and
pedestrian network.
• The multi-use trail would also link to the trail system near the future Wal-Mart.
• Two other parks/plaza spaces could be located in the central and southern
parts of the Triangle to take advantage of existing trees and vegetation.
• In addition, each of the land use options assumes that some larger
developments would incorporate mid-block pedestrian crossings and plazas.
• All streets are pedestrian-oriented, with at least 11-foot sidewalks and
on-street parking provided.
• Designated bike lanes are provided along higher-trac streets, which also
connect to the larger system outside of the Triangle, including connections
across OR 99W, across I-5 on Haines Street, and across OR 217 on a new
Hunziker Road crossing
• Shared travel lanes are provided along local streets where slower vehicle
speeds are expected.
• In some cases where typography is more challenging, uphill bike lanes may be
provided to minimize conicts with vehicles.
Within the pedestrian
district, access to
o-street parking
areas will be restricted
along 68th, 69th, and
70th Avenues, with
access provided along
east/west cross streets.
Focusing parking
access reduces
conicts with
pedestrians.
Only one of these OR 217
alignments would be
constructed.
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Primary Land Use Functions
General Commercial
MF Residential (up to 6 stories)
Oce/Employment (up to 6 stories)
Campus and Education (up to 6 stories)
Open Space
Ground oor ex space/active use
Proposed roadway
Highway crossing
Potential area for central/structured
parking
0 300 600
Feet
P
P
P
P
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Option 2 increases land use densities from what is currently allowed in the MUE
zoning district. In addition, some areas that are currently zoned for general
commercial uses would change to residential/mixed use. Option 2 incorporates
all features of Option 1. Key components of Option 2 include:
• Changing some general commercial zoning to residential/mixed use and
increasing land use densities:
- Multifamily residential densities would be increased to 50 dwelling
units per acre. Multifamily residential uses would be permitted in all
areas.
- Building heights and lot coverage change, which would increase
potential density.
- Vertical mixed use buildings (ground oor retail/active uses) would likely
be located on corners in the pedestrian district and in redeveloped areas
that have a large amount of foot trac and where there is high visibility.
Vertical and horizontal mixed uses would be interspersed with one
another more than they would be under Option 1.
- General commercial uses, except where they transition to mixed-use land
uses, and oce and institutional uses would be in similar locations as
today. Although changes in site design standards and potentially parking
requirements would encourage increased lot coverage and potentially
taller buildings.
- O-street parking could be located o-site, either on a surface lot or in a
structure.
- Commercial areas that are not within designated commercial zones
would be limited to a 30,000 square foot (ft2) maximum oor plate. This
provides for some larger uses, but not for large format retail—the same
as under Option 1.
Only one of these OR 217
alignments would be
constructed.
Option 2
Primary Land Use Functions
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Designated bike lane
Shared lane
Regional and local trails
Key features
Plaza/park
Greenway corridor
Regional trail connection
Multi-use trail/Pedestrian pathway
Proposed roadway
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Only one of these OR 217
alignments would be
constructed.
Option 2
Open Space and Natural Areas
5
217
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW PINE ST
SW P
A
C
I
F
I
C
H
W
Y
SW OAK ST
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
H
U
N
Z
I
K
E
R
R
D
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
6
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW PFAFFLE ST
SW DA
R
T
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
SW
W
A
L
L
S
T
SW
7
8
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW BEVELAND
R
D
SW
8
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW HAMPTON ST
SW CHERRY DR
SW
7
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW VARNS ST
SW
7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
L
E
S
S
E
R
R
D
SW BAYLOR ST
SW
8
1
S
T
A
V
E
SW SANDBURG ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW HAINES ST
SW STEVE ST
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW TECH CENTER DR
SW SPRUCE ST
S
W
G
A
R
D
E
N
P
L
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FRANKLIN ST
SW PAMELA ST
SW HERMOS
O
W
A
Y
SW POMONA ST
SW GONZAGA ST
SW
7
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW SOUTHWOOD DR
SW BARBU
R
B
L
V
D
SW CLINTON ST
SW
8
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
K
N
O
L
L
D
R
SW CORONADO ST
SW SOUTHVIEW ST
SW THORN ST
SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
SW
I
5
F
W
Y
-
H
A
I
N
E
S
S
T
R
A
M
P
SW DOUGLAS DR
SW FIR LOOP
SW ELMHURST ST
SW CRESTVIEW ST
KRUSE OAKS BLVD
SW PALATINE ST
SW MAPLELEAF CT
SW
7
6
T
H
P
L
SW
7
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW ATLANTA ST
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
7
T
H
A
V
E
SW SPRUCE ST
SW OAK ST
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
8
2
N
D
A
V
E
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
6
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW MAPLELEAF ST
SW
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
W
V
A
R
N
S
S
T
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW
7
0
T
H
A
V
E
SW 7
9
T
H
A
V
E
SW
6
3
R
D
P
L
SW
6
4
T
H
A
V
E
SW FIR ST
SW
6
8
T
H
P
K
W
Y
SW SPRUCE ST
99W
LEGEND
Existing features
Freeways
Roads and streets*
Proposed Improvements
Bicycle Corridor Street (assume 70’ ROW)
Local Street (assume 60’ ROW)
Highway crossing
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Only one of these OR 217
alignments would be
constructed.
Option 2
Roadway Network
Future Wal-Mart
development
Page 1 of 9
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
May 5, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
President Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Rogers
Vice President Fitzgerald
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Enloe
Commissioner Feeney
Commissioner Gaschke
Alt. Commissioner Goodhouse
Alt. Commissioner Mooney
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Ouellette
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: None
Staff Present: Kenny Asher, Community Development Director; Tom McGuire,
Assistant Community Development Director; Agnes Kowacz, Associate
Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Mike McCarthy, Sr.
Project Engineer
Also Present: David H Rogers, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Director of Real Estate
Development
Angelo A. Bologna, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., Project
Planner
Sonia Hennum Daleiden, Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Principal
Engineer
Kelly Laustsen, Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Engineering Associate
COMMUNICATIONS – Commissioner Fitzgerald had attended a CCAC meeting & SW
Corridor Open House and gave a brief report. Commissioner Doherty stated that she also
attended the SW Corridor meeting at the Multnomah Art Center and said that public input will
be May 13 in the Public Works auditorium on Burnham St.
Sr. Project Engineer Mike McCarthy gave an update on the Bonaventure project and
particularly the access to Hall Blvd that had come up at the last public hearing. He said the
initial thought was that the access would be a right in/right only, with a raised median and
there was some concern as to the access of emergency vehicles. He said the upshot of the
Page 2 of 9
meeting with ODOT and TDF&R was to make that access a full access where left turns are
allowed in and out. The primary reason for the change is the emergency vehicle access; getting
in and out. It’s a little different from what was first proposed, but staff agrees that this change
is the best idea – as do ODOT and TVF&R. The applicant has agreed as well.
CONSIDER MINUTES
April 21 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the April 21 minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes approved
as submitted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CUP2013-00002 – COSTCO GAS STATION
President Rogers reopened the public hearing and stated the following:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and Tigard Triangle Design Evaluation
Team (DET) approval for the construction of a members-only retail fuel station located at an
existing Costco site. The station is proposed at the northeast corner of the site currently used
for parking. The facility consists of a 73 foot by 102 foot canopy with three fueling islands,
nine fuel dispensers and five underground storage tanks. The proposal also includes
reconfiguration of the parking area surrounding the proposed fuel station and landscaping.
Location: 7850 SW Dartmouth Street, Tigard
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
President Rogers read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial
hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for
bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: All of the commissioners
had driven by the Costco site at one time or another. No one wished to challenge the
jurisdiction of the commission; no conflicts of interest.
STAFF REPORT
Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz was introduced and gave a brief overview of what had taken
place up to this point. She noted that she’d sent a memo to the commissioners in their packets
the previous week addressing issues in Mr. Connor’s letter and Greenlight Engineering’s letter;
both dated April 7, 2014. She said she wouldn’t go over the entire memo but would touch on
the highlights (which follow):
Staff is proposing to change the following:
o Condition #1: change the wording to add “Prior to final building inspection” as
stated in the 4/21/14 memo.
o Condition #6: completely remove, as stated at the hearing.
Regarding traffic/transportation issues - the Engineering Department reviewed the
information submitted and finds the Kittelson Analysis to be in accordance with
standard procedures and also finds the conclusions reasonable. Staff believes the right
turn lanes will mitigate the traffic impacts.
Agnes then entered into the record a memo from Marah Danielson (Exhibit A) and also an
email she’d received from Karen Crichton (Exhibit B).
Page 3 of 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit
will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval
Standards for a Conditional Use as outlined in this report. Therefore, Staff recommends
APPROVAL, subject to the recommended changes to the Conditions of Approval in the staff
report.
QUESTIONS
One of the commissioners asked whether it was within the Planning Commission’s purview to
retain Condition #6. Agnes reminded the commission that Condition #6 addresses the loss of
parking; however, even with the removal of the 84 spaces, there is still adequate parking in
accordance with what the code requires – which are 3 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of floor area. For
the Costco site, 441 spaces are required - and they provide 730. Assistant Community
Development Director, Tom McGuire, told the commissioner that it would not be
enforceable to require more than the code requires and, should it go to LUBA, they would
very likely lose because there’d be no basis with which to require the condition.
Another commissioner asked whether the Cain Petroleum property is within the 500 foot
notification area. Agnes said “Yes, the property is within that area and the notice of public
hearing was sent to them – it’s on the list and was mailed out to them.”
President Rogers said “So tonight staff is looking for approval of the conditional use p ermit
and everything that was included – minus six? Correct?” Agnes replied “Correct.”
APPLICANTS PRESENTATION
David H Rogers, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Director of Real Estate Development
said this proposal would bring to Costco an additional 10 new employees. He added that
Costco pays good, living wages with good benefits. He said they have a good strong
background of retaining their employees as proof that that is so.
He then said this is the time for the technical team to speak.
Sonia Hennum Daleiden, Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Transportation Engineer
introduced herself, said she’d worked with Costco and City staff and ODOT to prepare the
transportation impact analysis for the project. She said they submitted written responses to
what came in at the last hearing and one additional letter that she entered into the record
(Exhibit C) that responds to the Hathaway Koback Connors Letter dated April 28, 2014 .
She went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit D) and said, in terms of parking, Costco is meeting all
applicable city code standards. Parking is tight on site during peak times and Costco has, for
their own business operations, implemented a variety of parking management strategies and
will continue to do that, condition or not, because it’s in their best interests for their business
operations and their members. Costco manages their parking.
Page 4 of 9
Sonia said they did not reply specifically to comments and letters that came in today but they
didn’t see anything new or substantive in those materials that were submitted. A lot of it was
previous information that had already been addressed.
She showed the commissioners three short videos that were filmed on a Saturday – She said
the videos substantiate their belief that the loss of parking is not going to be an issue in terms
of on-site circulation that results in spillback or queues onto Dartmouth. There may be some
increased congestion on-site for vehicles circulating – if there is – Costco would implement
business strategies to address it for the convenience of their members. She noted, “We’re not
seeing anything that results in impacts or queuing back to the public street system.”
TESTIMONY
Michael Connors, representing Cain Petroleum, asked the commission for indulgence in
that he would most likely need time beyond the 3 minute limitation. Mr. Connors submitted a
letter that had been emailed to City staff earlier that day (Exhibit E). He said he would
summarize what he believes to be the key legal flaws with the application – even with the
evidence presented today. He noted that he’d handed out a May 5th letter which he believed
was provided to the commissioners earlier in the day via email. He said he checked with
Costco representatives when he first got there to make sure they had a copy and that, yes, they
had received a copy. He said that he had not seen Costco’s memo – and that they had not
provided him with a copy. He said he would be asking that the record be left open so they
would have an opportunity to review it and respond to it. He went on to address what he
believed were the key legal issues:
Whether or not the City transportation standards apply to this project:
o He explained why he believes they do apply.
Mitigation:
o Does not believe they demonstrated feasibility or that they’ve shown that it is
likely or reasonably certain to occur. He went on to explain why he doesn’t
believe the property owner’s letter proves feasibility.
The recommended changes to condition #1 that allows them to build out the entire
fuel facility before they’re required to start any of the right-of-way improvements:
o Does not believe that’s authorized in the code. He believes it needs to be tied to
them getting their site permit; that they need to have the ODOT permit in hand
and have the IGA in place.
Parking – the proposal removes condition #6:
o He said the impetus was not staff saying “we observed there being stacking
issues” rather; it’s from their own traffic impact study. They did a study
monitoring traffic October, 2013 and their own study said “Parking’s at capacity
and this issue needs to be addressed.” Their own traffic engineer recommended
that they go with this shared parking arrangement with the neighboring
property. He believes the reason they backed off on that is that they’ve realized
they’re not going to be able to provide one. There’s not a shared parking
situation out there - so now they’ve re-characterized that as “it’s not really
required, because we meet the parking standards.” It was a transportation issue
Page 5 of 9
that their own traffic engineer identified from the very beginning and they
haven’t explained why, all of a sudden, they have a different theory on that.
Rick Nys, Principal Traffic Engineer for Greenlight Engineering, was asked by Mr.
Connors to come up to briefly address some of the traffic issues that he explained in an April
28th and May 5th letter. Mr. Nys went over the highlights of his letter (Exhibit F).
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
There were no questions from the commission.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
David Peterson, 888 SW 5th #1600, Portland 97204, an attorney representing Costco,
responded to the four issues raised by Mr. Connors. He believes none of the four alleged legal
flaws with the proposal have any merit.
With respect to:
Numerical city transportation standards:
o He makes a case that they apply but at no point does he identify what those
standards are or where they come from. Either they exist, or they don’t. To
date, there has been no identification of enforceable, applicable, numerical
standards that come from any Tigard regulation that can be applied to this
project. If the August, 2013 Traffic Impact Studies had otherwise, that’s an
unfortunate error but, in fact, there are no standards that apply so the project
cannot be punished for not meeting inapplicable standards.
The question of feasibility of condition of approval #1
o It’s important to note that “feasibility” is not the same thing as “certainty.” The
evidence in the record and the uncontroverted evidence in the record is that the
property owner at the NW corner has initially looked favorably upon the
proposal to dedicate right-of-way – is willing to consider it and willing to work
with Costco to see if something can be arranged. That’s pretty much a
dictionary definition of feasibility. If it ultimately proves unworkable, then the
applicant has a project that they cannot build because they cannot satisfy
condition number one and they’d have to return to the City for an amendment
to find an alternative solution. That’s something we try to build into the
condition. We’re certainly fine with not writing it into the condition because, in
effect, the same outcome would occur if the condition can’t be met.
The SE corner:
o There were a series of emails from ODOT delivered into the record earlier
today to Mr. McCarthy from Barghausen Engineers that show that with certain
modifications to the turning radius at that intersection approved by ODOT,
that no right-of-way dedication is needed.
Page 6 of 9
The changes to Condition of Approval No. 1:
o I talked about the elimination of the language about an alternative already. The
timing of the construction is actually quite common for traffic improvements.
If, ultimately, we can’t satisfy the condition, then we can’t open the fueling
station and, if they’ve built a fueling station that they can’t open – that’s a
stranded asset – and I think they’d be sufficiently motivated to try to find an
alternative solution so as not to have a useless, unopened fueling station sitting
on their site.
Condition of Approval #6:
o We appreciate staff’s recognition that the condition really doesn’t apply to any
applicable approval criteria. Mr. Connor’s is mischaracterizing the August, 2013
traffic impact study. What that study said is that the removal of 84 parking
spaces is going to put some stress on the parking situation during peak hours. I
think everybody recognizes that; but that’s a business issue that Costco needs to
address through the mechanisms that are available to it. There is no approval
criterion here; there’s still something like 300 parking spaces over the City’s
minimum. Secondly, when that condition was proposed by staff, the reason they
were proposing it was to mitigate supposed queuing onto Dartmouth at the
south project entrance. There’s no evidence in the record either of that queuing
– in fact we saw some video today that suggests there is not a queuing problem
and, more importantly, there’s no evidence that would suggest a causal
relationship between removing 84 spaces and exacerbated queuing. The
condition is rightly removed because there is no approval criterion that it’s
causing the project to come into compliance with. I did object to condition of
approval #6 in some of my earlier written materials. I would just like to preserve
that objection for the record, in the event that it is reinstated by the
commission.
At that, Mr. Peterson asked Sonia Daleiden to come back up to speak to some of the traffic
engineering specific issues.
Related to applicable standards, she stated I will take full responsibility for this – our traffic
study did quote some Tigard standards that actually didn’t exist. It was an unfortunate error
that we took from another study. There are two applicable standards – they are ODOT
mobility standard, which is a numerical volume to capacity ratio for intersections on 99W and
then the City of Tigard does have a guideline related to intersections operating efficiently and
safely – but they do not have a numerical operational standard in their adopted code. We are
not saying that our project should not meet City of Tigard standards. We know our project has
to – which is exactly why we are proposing the right-turn mitigations – in order to bring it into
compliance and make a situation where the operations of that intersection will be better with
our mitigation and our project than they would be without any project or without any
mitigation. So we are mitigating the conditions to equal or better than they are without our
project.
Related to the AM Peak Hour – that was in our initial scoping letter that we had written to the
City of Tigard and ODOT. Although it wasn’t documented in revising that letter, follow up
conversations with the City and with ODOT – it was City staff and ODOT staff who
removed that scenario from our scope. They said it wasn’t necessary. It might have been from
Page 7 of 9
what they learned from the Walmart Study. I don’t know why the Walmart Study was required
to look at that and we weren’t but our traffic that the warehouse isn’t open during that time
period – AM traffic on the surrounding transportation system is significantly less during that
time period than it is during in the PM Peak hour and so, for our project, the two critical time
scenarios to look at were the PM Peak and the Saturday. And that’s what we did and that’s
what staff directed us to do.
The Costco trip generation data is substantiated as documented in the RTIA [Revised Traffic
Impact Analysis]. It was based on studies from other Portland Metro area locations a s well as a
database of about seventy Costco gasoline stations around the country. It is conservative
compared to ITE [Institute of Transportation Engineers] or standard rates that would have
been used otherwise. We believe this has been accurately documented.
Regarding the pedestrian path between a certain property and Costco – that property was put
out as just one possible example. We’re not trying to hide anything or get out of giving you a
specific letter that’s been in place at this location in previous years. It’s something we know we
can do and we want flexibility to do it in the way that suits our business the best. It may be
that site, it may be a different site. We may opt to use a shuttle and then the pedestrian
pathway becomes irrelevant because they’re not walking between the locations. There are a lot
of factors which is why we want that flexibility.
Related to the ODOT letter about 217 and 99W, yes that was a letter written by ODOT but if
you follow the chain of additional letters they then go back on that request and agree or state
that they would prefer to see improvements at 99W and Dartmouth and that those make more
sense for this project. They do say they’d like to work with the City if other projects have
impacts at 99 and 217 – but that’s referring to an old letter that’s been superseded by a lot of
conversation and dialogue.
PUBLIC HEARING – CLOSED
DELIBERATION
There was a short deliberation.
Commissioner Doherty said she believes Costco would not have their own employees taking
up spaces. They’re much smarter than that. She’s not concerned with Condition 6.
Commissioner Feeney agrees with staff’s recommendation regarding Condition 1. He also
agrees that Condition 6 should be removed. None of the commissioners had a problem with
what staff had presented regarding changing the staff report regarding Condition of Approval
#1 and #6. Several of the commissioners gave their opinions and the consensus was that they
agreed with staff.
President Rogers asked if there was anything else they wanted to discuss; there was nothing
else. He then asked if anyone wanted to make a motion.
Page 8 of 9
MOTION
Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion - seconded by Commissioner Feeney
“I move for approval of Costco Gas Station application CUP2013-00002 incorporating
staff changes to Condition number one made April 21, 2014 and striking Condition
number six.”
The motion passed unanimously.
TIGARD STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
Kenny Asher, CD Director, spoke to the commissioners giving an overall update on the Strategic Plan.
He went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit G).
There was a discussion about how “walkability” is very important and quite a draw to people looking
for a place to live and work. There was also some discussion on lighting and safety.
President Rogers expressed his support for the plan. Several of the other commissioners concurred for
many different reasons.
TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN UPDATE
Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner, and project manager for the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan
presented a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit H). She went over two different options and
talked about primary land use functions. She spoke about the types of active and interesting
ground floor uses. She showed a scenario of what the Tigard Triangle could look like in the
future. She spoke about the roadway and bike/pedestrian network.
She noted that the next steps would be:
Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation
Feasibility Analysis
Review & feedback – preferred plan (2nd Quarter)
o TAC
o CAC
o Public Meeting
o Web
City Council/Planning Commission updates (July)
QUESTIONS
There was a question about whether there might be extended connectivity and how could
Tigard be walkable even during rainy weather. The idea of Minneapolis and how they deal with
the weather situation – Cheryl said that idea had not been brought up at this point.
Commissioner Fitzgerald said the details would be worked out later and President Rogers
concurred. There were no other questions.
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Tigard Triangle Surrounding Area
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Aerial Exhibit
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Project
Area
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Enlarged Site Plan
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Landscape Site Plan
Ground Photo Exhibit
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Looking south on Southwest Dartmouth Street. Looking north on Southwest Dartmouth Street
Proposed Perspective Rendering View
SW Dartmouth Street
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Overall Site Plan
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
North Driveway Modification
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Off-Site Intersection Improvements
OR 99W and S.W. Dartmouth Street
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Off-Site Intersection Improvements
Cost Estimates
City of Tigard Tigard Costco Fueling Facility
Creating connections is what Tigard’s
20 -year strategic plan is all about,
and its promise is a stronger community.
We have a vision for Tigard—one that creates a unique and
vibrant identity for our city. It builds on Tigard’s current
strengths and creates connections that bring people together.
Building an identity takes time, so we’ve developed a strategic
plan to guide the city through the next 20+ years.
Strategic Plan Goals
Facilitate walking connections to develop an identity.
Every household is within 3/8 of a mile
walking distance to a trailhead.
Fully accessible connections are made
via pathways and/or sidewalk connections.
The system supports and enhances
Tigard’s parks and community events.
Ensure development advances the vision.
Make the best use of undeveloped and underdeveloped land to
advance the vision.
Build a healthy business climate that attracts, serves and employs
more Tigard residents.
Strategically invest in public spaces.
Strategic Plan Goals
Engage the community through dynamic
communication.
Develop messaging that engages the community
and advances the vision.
Encourage and enable two-way communication.
Actively promote the city’s business districts, livable
neighborhoods and accessible parks and trails.
Fund the vision while maintaining core services.
Stabilize city finances so it’s possible to build toward
the vision.
Make strategic investments that support the vision.
Ensure these investments increase city value long term.
We envision a Tigard that…
Brings people of all ages and
abilities together.
Celebrates new and old connections.
Provides access to nature and
healthy living for the entire
community.
Provides better networks for people to
connect, learn and share.
We’ve started down the path…
Existing connections are being analyzed so we can determine what
new connections will serve the most people and improve quality of
life for our citizens.
Employees have identified several quick, easy, inexpensive
projects to help launch the vision and allow us to share and
celebrate the progress with our citizens.
Tigard Walks (www.tigardwalks.com) is identifying
barriers and challenges that Tigard residents face
when walking to work, school, social gatherings
and other neighborhood destinations.
We’ve started down the path…
Best practices are being identified so future growth in Tigard will be
thoughtful, deliberate and unique.
With the support of the Tigard City Council we are sharing the plan
with citizens and stakeholders.
We are identifying opportunities to
interact with citizens.
A majority of responders to the
city survey said the vision statement
resonated with them!
We developed a webpage to promote
the vision and ask for suggestions.
We hope you’ll join us
We invite you to become part of this exciting adventure!
The draft strategic plan can be accessed from a link on the city’s
home page.
Check out the video on YouTube - Imagine
Tigard - you’ll find the link on the strategic
plan webpage. It may help you imagine
Tigard as it can be.
Let us know what you think
Do you have ideas about connections you would enjoy in Tigard?
Please share your thoughts with your city liaison.
Have an idea in the middle of the day or night?
Share it via the city’s strategic plan webpage or leave a message
on the strategic plan hotline.
www.tigard-or.gov/StrategicPlan
503-718-2402
Want to be more involved?
Opportunities to engage are being developed. Information about
strategic plan involvement will appear:
In the Cityscape newsletter.
On the strategic plan webpage.
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
May 27, 2014 Tigard City Council and Planning Commission
Project Schedule and Tasks
We are here
•Primary Land Use Functions
•Road Network
•Bike/Pedestrian Network
•Open Space/Natural Areas
Options Development
Option 1
•30 units/acre
•45 feet height limit
•FAR 1:1.5
Option 2
•50 units/acre
•75 feet height limit
•FAR 1:4
Primary Land
Use Functions
Active Ground
Floor Uses
Roadway and
Bike/Pedestrian
Network
Open Space &
Natural Areas
Next Steps
•Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation
•Feasibility Analysis
•Review and feedback – preferred plan (2nd Quarter)
- TAC
- CAC
- Public Meeting
- Web
•City Council/Planning Commission updates (July)
CITY OF TIGARD
Questions ??