08/04/2014 - PacketCompleteness Review
for Boards, Commissions
and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
Planning Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
08-04-14
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 – AUGUST 4, 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 Agenda
MEETING DATE: August 4, 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. DEVELOPMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
LAND USE REGULATIONS UPDATE 7:05 p.m.
6. TIGARD TRIANGLE UPDATE 7:35 p.m.
7. OTHER BUSINESS 8:05 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT 8:10 p.m.
1
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Date: July 28, 2014
Purpose and Goals
On July 22, 2014, the Tigard City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to
begin work on new land use controls for medical marijuana dispensaries. The purpose of
the August 4 workshop with the Planning Commission is to provide background
information on medical marijuana dispensaries, present an outline of the planned outreach
activities, and solicit input on desired information or outcomes that the Planning
Commission wishes to see in future recommendations from staff.
To facilitate future deliberations, the Planning Commission may wish to consider and
provide direction to staff on the following questions:
1. Are there specific community impacts resulting from Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
that the Planning Commission is concerned about?
2. What does the Planning Commission consider to be the most appropriate location(s)
or type of locations for dispensaries?
3. Is there specific information or research that the Planning Commission would find
helpful in making future decisions?
4. Are there specific or general questions that the Planning Commission would like to
place before Tigard residents and businesses during public outreach efforts?
5. Does the Planning Commission wish to provide any specific direction to staff or the
Planning Commission before they begin deliberations this autumn?
2
Legal Landscape
The legal landscape for medical marijuana remains dynamic and uncertain. Changes effected
under Senate Bill 1531 are still playing out as medical marijuana dispensary licenses are
issued across the state in those cities that have not enacted local moratorium, such as Tigard
and most other Washington County jurisdictions1. The Oregon Legislature is expected to
take up the matter of medical marijuana once again during the 2015 session, which may itself
be pre-empted by Measure 53 which is expected to appear on statewide ballots this fall.
A recent check of the Oregon Secretary of State website revealed three measures pertaining
to recreational marijuana (non-medical) legalization. Media reports indicate that the sponsor
of two of these is no longer gathering signatures, leaving just Measure 53 to be placed before
the ballot. Measure 53, formally known as the “Control, Regulation and Taxation of
Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act” is sponsored by New Approach Oregon and qualified
for the ballot on July 22 with 88,584 verified signatures. The effect of this measure would be
the legalization of recreational marijuana, subject to State oversight and taxation through the
OLCC. No change to existing medical marijuana laws would result. While the full
ramifications of this measure are unknown at this time, some preliminary conclusions can be
made. Of note is Section 59, which would authorize local governments to adopt reasonable
time, place and manner regulations to address nuisance aspects of retail sales operations.
While the act does not define the term “reasonable”, the language does provide some
continuity of the status quo by mirroring language contained in ORS 475, which authorizes
local adoption of “reasonable regulations” on medical marijuana facilities.
At the regional level, the City of Hillsboro has done substantial work on the development of
draft dispensary regulations and is presently in the middle of the public hearings process. In
addition, conversations with staff at Washington County, Beaverton, and Tualatin revealed
that they too are examining time, place, and manner restrictions as part of their work plans.
As a result of this regional activity and in the interest of consistency across jurisdictional
borders, Tigard staff will continue to monitor and coordinate with surrounding cities.
Public Nuisances and Policy Options
While the state legislature has affirmed the right to possess and use marijuana in a medical
capacity, it does not allow users or dispensary owners to create a public nuisance when
exercising that right. As a result, staff believes the City of Tigard has an interest in adopting
community specific regulations to prevent or mitigate known issues associated with medical
marijuana facilities. The following represents a list of potential issues associated with
medical or retail marijuana:
Diversion of marijuana to unauthorized cardholders, particularly minors;
1 Tigard City Council initially adopted a temporary moratorium through December 31, 2014 under
Ordinance No. 14-04. This moratorium was then extended until April 30, 2015 under Ordinance 14-08,
the maximum sunset date authorized under SB1531.
3
Unpleasant odors resulting from growing, processing, and consumption of marijuana;
Unwanted noise generated by visiting customers during early or late hours, and/or
the constant hum of electrical generators and fans;
Crime such as theft, burglary, armed robbery, and kidnapping that can result due to
the presence of large amounts of cash, a product that can be resold for significant
amounts of money on the black market, and potentially vulnerable users visiting the
facilities;
Threats to health, life and property resulting from grow facilities or processing
facilities not constructed to code; and/or
Explosions resulting from the use of butane as a processing agent.
To address these potential issues, staff has identified a range of policy options and summary
comments on each option. Each of these represents a conceptual approach for discussion
purposes only, and does not represent a formal recommendation from staff. On July 22 the
Tigard City Council directed staff to begin work on a combination of options II, III and V
as described below:
I. No Action.
Council could opt to take no action, and implement existing code when presented with an
application for a medical marijuana dispensary. This course presents uncertainty due to
conflicting local, state, and federal requirements.
Tigard Development Code (TDC) Subsection 18.210.030.A requires all development
applications to be consistent with federal law.
Continued federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule II drug may require the
city to deny all land use applications for medical marijuana facilities as not being
consistent with Federal law.
Uncertainty will remain as some facilities may be able to open if no land use permits
are required from the city (i.e. conversion of an existing retail space to a state licensed
dispensary).
II. Remove Federal Consistency Requirement from TDC.
The City could choose to take a wait and see approach, while making minor changes to the
TDC to comply with state law, and reduce the risk of litigation.
Amend TDC 18.210.030 to remove consistency requirement with federal law.
4
Medical Marijuana facilities would be regulated in the same manner as other retail
uses within the city through the TDC. Existing regulations, both city and state,
would result in the following time, place, and manner restrictions on medical
marijuana dispensaries:
o 1,000 foot separation from a primary or secondary school (State);
o 1,000 foot separation from another dispensary (State);
o Prohibited in all Residential zones (State and TDC);
o Allowed in all Commercial zones (State and TDC);
o Size-restricted within the Industrial-Park zone (TDC);
o Prohibited outright in the Light and Heavy Industrial Zones (TDC); and,
o Existing standards regarding landscaping and screening, parking, and
environmental performance standards for light noise, and odors will apply
(TDC)
III. Adopt land use regulations to prevent or mitigate anticipated nuisance issues.
State statute authorizes local governments to establish reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions on medical marijuana facilities above and beyond what the State requires (as
detailed in Option II above). The City may also craft local restrictions in a manner that
anticipates future legalization of retail cannabis. In determining what is “reasonable”, staff
recommends looking at existing precedents both within Tigard and across the region.
Reasonable regulations could include one or more of the following:
o Restrictions on hours of operation;
o Restriction on allowed zones;
o Distance buffers in excess of current state law;
o Limits on size;
o Security requirements (i.e. security lighting, camera locations, etc.);
o Entrance location requirements;
o Environmental performance standards for noise, odors, and light; and/or,
o Regulate as a conditional use in some or all circumstances.
5
The State has already set a precedent for the use of 1,000 foot distance buffers as a
reasonable method to avoid diversion of marijuana and minimizing public nuisances
that may affect minors attending a primary or secondary school.
Distance buffers for dispensaries are being discussed in other communities within
Washington County, and there is precedent in the City’s regulation of adult
entertainment (18.330.050.B.1) which requires a 500 ft. separation between a dult
entertainment uses and specified land uses which may be negatively impacted by adult
entertainment.
Given local precedent, regional trends, and existing state statues, Council may wish to
consider the establishment of minimum distances from residential zones or places
where children are likely to congregate:
o A 500 ft. buffer from all Residential and Parks and Recreation zones would be
comparable to those required for adult entertainment uses as set forth in the
TDC.
o A 1,000 ft. buffer matches distances required by state statute (schools) and
Washington Statute (The voter approved Washington ballot measure I-502,
prohibits sales within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, public parks, recreational
facilities, child care centers, elementary or secondary schools, transit centers,
libraries, or game arcades not restricted to 21 and older).
A preliminary analysis of available land after state rules and a possible 500 foot buffer
from residential and park zones revealed the following differences in land availability:
o Under existing state rules and Tigard zoning, approximately 929 commercial
and industrial parcels could potentially meet location criteria for the opening
of a medical marijuana dispensary.
o Under a conceptual scenario involving a 500 foot buffer from all residential
and park zones, the number of available parcels drops to approximately 462
parcels.
o The geographic distribution of the buffer areas and potentially eligible parcels
are demonstrated on two maps included as Attachments “A” and “B” of this
memorandum.
IV. Prohibition.
The City could try to outright prohibit medical or retail marijuana dispensaries within the
City in conformance with federal law.
Would most effectively prohibit unique nuisance or compatibility issues created
by dispensaries.
6
Likely to result in litigation. May be prohibited by Measure 53 if it passes.
V. Amend Municipal Code to address nuisance and increased cost-of-service-delivery.
The City could opt to address dispensary issues in a non-land use manner through the
nuisance code, business license requirements, or other public safety measures.
Could be implemented independently or in coordination with land use amendments.
Public Outreach
At present, staff is planning a public outreach program ahead of the public hearings process
to solicit input from Tigard citizens and business owners regarding their concerns and
desired outcomes. These efforts will include the following:
Use of Social Media and an article in Cityscape summarizing the project and including
a link to the project website, critical dates, and staff contact information.
A city website presence to provide centralized information regarding the project, links
to information, and portals to two interactive tools:
o An online forum hosted by ConsiderIt, similar to the one being used for River
Terrace. This is a hosted website that provides not only an avenue for
submitting commentary, but is structured to foster dialogue between users and
identify areas of common ground between polarized parties.
o An interactive web map that will let users activate multiple buffer scenarios
(i.e. state rules only, 500 foot buffers from residential zones and parks, 1,000
foot buffers from residential zones and parks) and how that may affect
specific areas of the city down to a parcel level.
Active solicitation of input from potential dispensary operators.
A survey of the Tigard business community regarding medical and retail marijuana, in
partnership with the City's Economic Development Coordinator.
Attachments: A. Prohibited Dispensary Locations Under ORS 475.314
B. Prohibited Dispensary Locations Under ORS 475.314 & Local Buffers
C. Statewide Initiative Petition #53
SSS
SSS
SSS
¥§¨¦
¥§¨¦
B A R B U R B L V D
PACIFIC HWY
S C H O L L S F E R R Y R D
BANGY
RD
BONITA RD
MEADOWS RD
WALNUT S T
C A R M A N D R
BO O NESFERRYRD
UPPERBOONESFERRYRD
DARTMOUTH ST
BONITA RD
170TH AVE
B RI D G E P O R T R D
BURNHAM ST
TAYLORS FERRY RD
B E E F B E N D R D
GREENWAY
LAKE FOREST BLVD
WALNUT ST
KRUSE WAY
DURHAM RD
TIEDEMANAVE
HUNZIKERRD
ROY
ROGERS
RD
121ST
AVE
O LES O N R D
150TH AVE
MCDONALD ST
BROCKMAN ST
BULL MOUNTAIN R D
ELSNERRD
WEIR RD
HALLBLVD
H
A
L
L
BLVD
72ND
A
V
E
GREENBURGRD
GREENBURG RD
PILKINGTON RD
GAARDE ST
M AIN ST
62ND AVE
MURRAY BLVD
175TH
A
V
E
175TH AVE
FOSBERG RD
135TH AVE
125TH AVE
LESSER RD
LESSERRD
TUALATIN RD D U R H A M
K I N GCITY
L A K EOSWEG O
P O R T L A N D
T I G A R D
T U A L A T I N
B E A V E R T O N
5
5
99W
217
99W
Prohibited Med. MarijuanaDispensary LocationsUnder ORS 475.314
City of TigardMetroWashington County
1 3 1 2 5 S W H a l l B l v dTigard, O r e g o n 9 7 2 2 3503 . 6 3 9 . 4 1 7 1 w w w .t i g a r d -o r.g o v
DATA SOURCES:
Print Date: 7/14/2014 File Path: \\192.168.109.215\GIS_Projects\CD_projects\LRPLN\TimL\Medical Marijuana\State Regulations Map 07-10-14 11x17.mxd
ORS 475.314 Prohibitions
Schools - 1000' Buffer
Residential Zones
PR Parks and Recreation Zone*
Retail Not Permitted
I-H Heavy Industrial*
Retail Not Permitted
Remaining Areas
Remaining Areas - Tigard Zoning
C-C Community Commercial
C-G General Commercial
C-N Neighborhood Commercial
C-P Professional Commercial
I-L Light Industrial
I-P Industrial Park
MUC Mixed Use Commercial
MUC-1 Mixed Use Commercial 1
MU-CBD Mixed Use Cen Bus Dist
MUE Mixed Use Empoloyment
MUE-1 Mixed Use Employment 1
MUE-2 Mixed Use Employment 2
MUR-1 Mixed Use Residential 1
MUR-2 Mixed Use Residential 2
Tigard City BoundaryI00.5 10.25 Miles
1:30,000
CONCEPTUAL MAP FORDISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
WashingtonCountyZoning
SSS
SSS
SSS
¥§¨¦
¥§¨¦
B A R B U R B L V D
PACIFICHWY
S C H O L L S F E R R Y R D
L O W E R B O O N E S F E R R Y RD
BANGY
RD
BONITA RD
MEADOWS RD
C A R M A N D R
BO O NESFERRYRD
UPPER BOONES FERRY RD
DARTMOUTH ST
BONITA RD
170TH AVE
BURNHAM ST
TAYLORS FERRY RD
B E E F B E N D R D
GREENWAY
LAKE FOREST BLVD
WALNUT ST
KRUSE WAY
DURHAMRD
TIEDEMANAVE
HUNZIKERRD
ROY ROGERS RD
121ST
AVE
O LES O N R D
150TH AVE
MCDONALD ST
BROCKMAN ST
BULLM O U N TA I N RD
ELSNERRD
WEIR RD
HALL BLVD
HALL
BLVD
72ND
AVE
GREENBURGRD
GREENBURG RD
PILKINGTON RD
GAARDE ST
M AIN ST
62ND AVE
MURRAY BLVD
175TH
A
V
E
175TH AVE
FOSBERG RD
135TH AVE
125TH AVE
LESSER RD
LESSERRD
TUALATIN RD
WashingtonCountyZoning
D U R H A M
K I N GCITY
L A K EOSWEG O
P O R T L A N D
T I G A R D
T U A L A T I N
B E A V E R T O N
5
5
99W
217
99W
Prohibited Med. MarijuanaDispensary LocationsUnder ORS 475.314 &Potential LocalExclusion Areas
City of TigardMetroWashington County
1 3 1 2 5 S W H a l l B l v dTigard, O r e g o n 9 7 2 2 3503 . 6 3 9 . 4 1 7 1 w w w .t i g a r d -o r.g o v
DATA SOURCES:
Print Date: 7/10/2014 File Path: Z:\CD_projects\LRPLN\TimL\Medical Marijuana\Potential Exclusion Areas 07-10-14 11x17.mxd
Schools - 1000' Buffer
Residential Zones - 500' Buffer
Parks and Recreation Zone - 500' Buffer
Retail Uses Not Permitted in I-H
Remaining Areas After All PotentialExclusions
Remaining Areas - Tigard Zoning
C-C Community Commercial
C-G General Commercial
C-N Neighborhood Commercial
C-P Professional Commercial
I-H Heavy Industrial
I-L Light Industrial
I-P Industrial Park
MUC Mixed Use Commercial
MUC-1 Mixed Use Commercial 1
MU-CBD Mixed Use Cen Bus Dist
MUE Mixed Use Empoloyment
MUE-1 Mixed Use Employment 1
MUE-2 Mixed Use Employment 2
MUR-1 Mixed Use Residential 1
MUR-2 Mixed Use Residential 2
Tigard City Boundary
I00.5 10.25 Miles
1:30,000
CONCEPTUAL MAP FORDISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
ORS 475.314 Prohibitions andPotential Local Exclusion Areas
City of Tigard
M E M O R A N D U M
AGENDA ITEM #6
TO: Tigard Planning Commission
FROM: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner
RE: Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Update
DATE: July 28, 2014
The project team is wrapping up Task 5 (Options Evaluation). The two land use and infrastructure
options developed in Task 4 were evaluated based on how well each option met project goals
(Movement & Getting Around, Land Use – Activity Centers, Public Realm – Community Character,
and Market & Implementation). Based on the results of the evaluation a “preferred” plan was
drafted; the plan was reviewed by the Triangle citizen (CAC) and technical (TAC) advisory
committees at their meetings in June.
Options Evaluation
Option 1 proposed few changes to densities, uses or street connections. The pedestrian network was
improved.
Option 2 proposed increased densities throughout the mixed use areas, which were extended west of
72nd Avenue - where only commercial uses are currently permitted. A more extensive street and
pedestrian network was proposed with a new north-south street (SW 74th Avenue) that connects to a
new crossing of Highway 217 at Beveland Street.
Option 2 improved connectivity and circulation for all travel modes and eliminated some barriers to
development such as a low Floor Area Ratio and height limit. Areas for large format retail uses
(General Commercial C-G zone) are decreased. Over time, blocks become smaller, improving
walkability. Redevelopment of these parcels with a greater mix of uses, including residential would
reduce traffic generation. Proposed higher densities would support a wider mix of uses in the
future. Overall Option 2 best supported the project goals and was generally preferred by members
of both the CAC and TAC. A complete comparison can be found in the Draft Land Use and
Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (Attachment 2).
Market Analysis
The team also evaluated the feasibility of the various land uses allowed under the two alternatives to
get a sense of which types would be achievable on their own in current market conditions and those
that might need assistance. The analysis reviewed the effectiveness of different financial tools and
policy strategies and their impact on potential development. The full report is attached (Attachment
3 -Draft Development Feasibility Analysis Report), but a summary of the findings is listed below:
Townhomes and the medium density housing are the development types most likely to be
feasible in the current market without any subsidies.
The high density residential and the low density office could be within the range of
feasibility if rents increase by 25 percent.
The high density and very high density office construction are not within the range of
feasibility with enhanced revenues or with the reduced parking ratio and cash incentives. It
would take an increase in rents and a significant incentive package to make them feasible in
the next decade or so.
The high density mixed use residential development is within the range of feasibility by
utilizing the Vertical Housing Tax Abatement, but would likely need additional subsidies to
be feasible. A Vertical Housing Development Zone (VHDZ) was approved for portions of
the Triangle and Downtown Tigard that provides a maximum 80% tax exemption per year
for five years for qualifying mixed use projects.
The very high density mixed use residential development would be in the range of feasibility
by utilizing the Vertical Housing Tax Abatement if there was also a 25 percent increase in
rents in the area, as is now being seen in the Orenco Station area.
One-story retail is not likely to be feasible given current market rents without subsidies.
Preferred Plan
Based on the evaluation, market analysis and CAC/TAC member feedback, a preferred plan
combining most elements of Option 2 and a few from Option 1 was developed. The preferred plan
includes:
Target residential densities of 50 units an acre in most of the mixed use area with a few select
areas with lower densities of 30 units per acre. These areas represent locations where early,
lower density development could be spurred based on market feasibility, small parcel size
and existing lower density residential.
No maximum densities, the number of units would be limited by other factors such as floor
area ratio (FAR), heights, parking/landscaping requirements
Increased FAR from .4 to 1.5 in the mixed use zone
Increased building heights in the mixed use zone: six stories east of 70th Avenue and four
stories west of 70th
Streets - building upon the existing street system
Targeted pedestrian streets with design standards to improve the pedestrian experience
Key pedestrian streets include SW 69th Avenue and Beveland, Hampton Clinton and
Elmhurst Streets.
Additional opportunities for parks/open space are shown along 69th in response to citizen
comments
Areas for two potential neighborhood parks were identified to provide for active recreation.
Next Steps
The preferred alternative is now being finalized based upon comments received from the committee
members. This final draft will be presented for comment at a public open house in September.
Development code and other implementation tools are being drafted and will be refined over the
coming months as public comments are received. The CAC and TAC members will have one final
review of the plan and implementation measures in the fall before the code adoption process begins.
Attachments
1. Draft land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report
2. Draft Development Feasibility Analysis Report
3. Land Use and Infrastructure Options Maps
DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options
Evaluation Report
June 3, 2014
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Leland Consulting Group
Laurence Qamar Architecture & Town Planning
DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (May 23, 2014) 1
Introduction
This memorandum evaluates the land use and infrastructure options for the Tigard Triangle Strategic
Plan using the evaluation criteria developed and approved by the Citizen Advisory and Technical
Advisory Committees as part of the Opportunities and Constraints analysis. The evaluation is based on
information gathered throughout the project, in addition to a market feasibility analysis that is being
conducted as part of the evaluation and implementation process. A key component of developing the
preferred vision for the Tigard Triangle (the Triangle) is to understand the tradeoffs of each option,
identify the key issues to incorporate into a preferred alternative, and get an idea of the potential level
and type of subsidy that may be required to achieve the vision and a pedestrian-oriented district.
Organization of this Memorandum
This memorandum includes the following information:
· Summary of the land use and infrastructure options
· Evaluation of the options based on the project principles and evaluation criteria, including
committee input on the land use and infrastructure options, organized by project principles
· Recommended Preferred Option
· Actions necessary to implement the Preferred Options
· Financing programs necessary to implement the Preferred Options
As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the project team completed a market feasibility analysis
(under separate cover) of potential building types, assuming a variety of land uses, floors, and parking
options (structured versus surface), to determine the type and intensity of development that might be
feasible in today’s market. That information informed portions of the evaluation process and identified
potential incentives for supporting the desired development pattern.
Input gathered from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is
included for each of the principles and evaluation criteria. This input provides context for discussions
during meetings of those committees about how each option reflects the specific principle, and also
helps identify the most (or least) important components of the options that informed the development
of the Draft Preferred Option Alternative, described later in this memorandum.
Summary of the Land Use and Infrastructure Options
The Land Use and Infrastructure Options Memorandum (March 2014) describes in detail the two
possible land use and infrastructure options for redevelopment in the Triangle. The following is a
summary of the two options, including a summary of elements that are common to both:
Transit Service (Both Options)
Current transit service includes one TriMet bus route (#78) that travels through the Triangle and
Downtown Tigard between Lake Oswego and Beaverton with approximately 30-minute headways
(Monday through Friday). Future service will be dependent on the outcome of TriMet’s SW Service
Enhancement Plan and the SW Corridor planning process, both of which are currently under way.
Pedestrian District (Both Options)
Both options propose a pedestrian district located along 68th, 69th, and 70th Avenues. Vehicular access
2 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
to off-street parking areas will be managed in order to consolidate driveways in the district. Managing
parking access to specific areas 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 and there is a consistent
streetscape element pattern.
Streets (Both Options)
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. Shared travel lanes are provided along local streets where lower volumes and
slower vehicle speeds are expected. In some cases where topography is more challenging, uphill bike
lanes may be provided in order to minimize conflicts with vehicles.
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 Mixed-Use Employment (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:
Key Components of Option 1:
· The 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.
· The current minimum building frontage requirements would be increased from 50 percent to
90 percent on SW 68th and SW 69th Avenues within the pedestrian district. SW 70th Avenue would
still limit access for vehicles in order to minimize conflicts with pedestrians. 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.
· There are several blocks that exceed 400 feet in length within the Triangle, and such a long block
limits pedestrian circulation and vehicle access. On these longer blocks, pedestrian paths are
proposed that will 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 less than 200 feet and not more than 300 feet from a street or other vehicle access.
Infrastructure Components of Option 1
· Improving Red Rock Creek as both a natural and recreational amenity could make it a defining
feature for the Triangle and a paved multi-use trail could connect these features to the larger bicycle
and pedestrian network within and through the Triangle.
· 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.
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (June 3, 2014) 3
· Option 1 generally maintains the existing street grid as identified in the Tigard Triangle Plan District,
with a few additions.
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 also 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 of parking required. Increased FAR and
building heights would encourage increased lot coverage and potentially taller buildings.
· Commercial areas that are not within designated commercial zones would be limited to a 30,000 ft2
maximum floor plate. This size 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 FAR 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 to 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.
Infrastructure Components of Option 2
Open Space, Trails, and Bicycles and Pedestrians
· In addition to the parks and trails system under Option 1, Option 2 would expand the multimodal
circulation system to include the new road connections.
4 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
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.
· A Hunziker connection or a SW Beveland connection across OR 217 would provide better
multimodal connectivity than currently exists.
· Option 2 includes a new north/south connection at 74th Avenue that continues south to SW
Beveland Street, 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.
· Option 2 connects SW Hermoso Way to SW Franklin Street, and SW Gonzaga Street to 68th Avenue,
and extends 67th Avenue north to connect to SW Elmhurst Street.
Evaluation Based on Project Principles and Evaluation Criteria
This section evaluates the land use and infrastructure options based on the project principles that the
TAC and CAC reviewed and agreed upon at the beginning of the project. A summary of the project
principles, criteria, and results is included in Attachment A.
Movement – Getting Around
The plan provides a safe and effective multimodal (auto, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) network
circulation and access to, from, and in the Triangle in consideration of existing development and to
interface with future transit and future transit- and pedestrian-oriented development.
Option 1
Option 1 is very similar to the existing Tigard Triangle Plan District with the exception of extending
SW 74th Avenue south to SW Dartmouth and making some limited multimodal improvements in the
southern end of the Triangle. While Option 1 would improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation through
larger blocks with the addition of pedestrian pathways, the road network is not significantly different
than what is identified in the current Tigard Triangle Plan District, with the exception of the removal of
the Backage Road near Red Rock Creek, with would be replaced with the new trail in the corridor. This
option would provide better connectivity through its pedestrian path system, which would increase
connectivity to the existing transit system, particularly for east/west routes that have the fewest
connections. The addition of a new north/south pedestrian pathway system (identified on the Bike and
Pedestrian Network Map) will also provide better off-street connections, particularly through developed
residential areas that are not likely to transition soon.
Neither of the options is dependent on transit to be feasible, but if transit service does increase in the
future, either with standard buses or through high capacity transit, there are adequate pedestrian and
bicycle connections to reach the bus stops. Future additional transit service could be easily added to the
proposed circulation system under Option 1, although Option 1 does rely more on the pedestrian
pathway system to provide connections to transit than does the complete multimodal system proposed
in Option 2, because Option 1 still would be missing road connections within the Triangle that would
limit some movement.
Multimodal connections under Option 1 are phaseable, primarily because most of the proposed
multimodal improvements are short connections between streets. Option 2, on the other hand, is also
phaseable, but some improvements are much more significant and would likely require construction of
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (June 3, 2014) 5
larger sections of roadway and other amenities at one time. Regardless, Option 1 would increase
walkability, although not to the degree of Option 2. It would also not provide the multimodal
connections for all modes, including vehicles, to provide options for getting around, in, and through the
Triangle. This is particularly true of the north/south connections, where the travel options for vehicles
under Option 1 are generally the same as they are today.
Both options provide similar crossings over OR 99W, OR 217, and I-5. The highways are significant
barriers for access, and while a new crossing of OR 217 is proposed, access is still constrained. Similarly,
access across I-5 is limited to the SW Haines overpass, because the east side of I-5 is composed of either
single-family residential neighborhoods with no direct through access, or church grounds, which also
would not provide a possible location for adding another connection. OR 99W, while a significant barrier
due to the amount of traffic, speed, and roadway width, still provides the most potential for access
improvements to the Triangle. Both options could incorporate better pedestrian and bike facilities to
make crossings safer.
Option 2
Option 2 provides a much more connected system of streets and provides better multimodal
connections than Option 1, because many of the pedestrian paths that fill gaps under Option 1 are
replaced with streets in Option 2. By providing a denser grid pattern, circulation is improved for all
modes. The additional connections are either local or collector connections, with collectors also
providing dedicated bike lanes. On-street parking would also be provided on most streets. Where larger
blocks still exist, the pedestrian pathway system provides access through those parcels.
Unlike Option 1, Option 2 provides an additional north/south through connection via SW 74th Avenue
and a new OR 217 overcrossing. This new collector would provide the benefit of additional access to and
through the Triangle, potentially reducing congestion along the other roads. Also, this new connection
provides an important bicycle and pedestrian connection over OR 217. Although the overpass could be
constructed as part of Option 1, the connectivity provided by the new north/south street connection in
Option 2 is much better than under Option 1.
Option 2 represents a more urban system with multiple circulation options, unlike Option 1, which
generally maintains the existing transportation system—one that is focused on the collector/arterial
system. Option 2 would maintain SW Dartmouth and SW 72nd as arterials, and the added capacity that
the new SW 74th connection provides (in addition to the other options to get around) is a benefit for
the area. A challenge that neither option can correct, however, is the regional congestion on the
highway system that spills over onto the arterial system. Even with the improved connections and
anticipated reduction in trips because of a more balanced land use plan that encourages walking and
bicycling and more services and housing options, regional congestion will continue to be an issue.
As with Option 1, the proposed pedestrian path system further increases connectivity, although several
of the east/west pedestrian pathway connections are replaced with local streets under Option 2.
However, under Option 2, the pedestrian pathway system, in combination with the larger roadway
network, provides a far greater level of connectivity than under Option 1. Option 2 also provides better
connections to existing and future transit, particularly east/west routes that have the fewest
connections. The addition of a new north/south pedestrian pathway, similar to Option 1, will provide
good off-street connections, particularly through developed areas.
6 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
Neither of the options is dependent on transit to be feasible, but future transit service could be added to
the proposed circulation system under Option 2 and be able to connect to the urban pattern of streets
and paths that link transit to residential, employment, and services within the Triangle. Option 2 is a
complete multimodal system.
Multimodal connections under Option 2 are phaseable, although Option 2 offers less potential for
phasing of these connections than Option 1, which generally includes only short street sections. Some
improvements under Option 2 are significant, such as the new SW 74th Avenue, which would likely
require construction of large sections of roadway and other amenities at one time. Both options provide
for similar crossings of OR 99W, OR 217, and I-5. The highways are significant barriers for access, and
while a new crossing of OR 217 is proposed, access is still constrained; although under Option 2, the new
SW 74th connection and Beveland crossing would provide a new through connection from Hunziker to
OR 99W, a significant benefit given the existing congestion. SW 74th could require changes to the
OR 99W intersection, because it would be a full street as opposed to a driveway, as it is currently. Access
across I-5 under Option 2 is limited to the SW Haines overpass for the same reasons as under Option 1.
OR 99W, while a significant barrier due to the amount of traffic, speed, and roadway width, still provides
the most potential for access improvements to the Triangle. Both options could incorporate better
pedestrian and bike facilities to make crossings safer.
Feedback from the CAC and TAC
· Highway crossings are very expensive. Realistically, only one of the two crossing options
proposed in Option 2 would likely be constructed.
· The connection from Pacific to Beveland (SW 74th) would be a really big investment and is a big
project. Considering that Wal-Mart is in place, it may be harder to do now.
· As people travel south on SW 74th headed toward Beveland, it makes more sense to have a
straight connection over OR 217 to Wall Street without a turn onto Beveland. There are pinch
points just south of the more southern OR 217 crossing in Option 2.
· Why not widen SW 72nd to Boones Ferry?
· Adding SW 74th makes sense because of the general zoning changes and because the area
would be more broken up.
· A connection would be beneficial from the Red Rock Creek Trail to Portland Community College
(PCC) in the eastern part of the Triangle. Haines Street is too busy.
· The new connection at SW 74th Avenue uses an existing signal, and new access to OR 99W has
to be done very thoughtfully, but if done carefully could alleviate some congestion.
· Need to show bike/pedestrian connections to surrounding areas – PCC to the Town Center and
up to Washington Square. Regionally, how do you get across OR 99W, 1-5, and OR 217?
· Would like to see a connection from Red Rock Creek Trail to Fanno Creek.
· Rename road designations to match current standards and thus avoid confusion.
Land Use – Activity Centers
The plan integrates land use and transportation planning to ensure a vibrant town center/station
community by identifying the right mix of uses/densities to support the community.
Option 1
Option 1 generally maintains the existing zoning densities, with changes in site design standards to
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (June 3, 2014) 7
improve the pedestrian environment by increasing the percentage of building frontages next to
pedestrian-oriented streets and adding some pedestrian connections. The proposed land use pattern is
generally focused within the pedestrian district, both as a central gathering area with the highest density
uses and as a gateway to campus style development at the most southern end of the Triangle. Unlike
Option 2, Option 1 still maintains the general commercial zoning within the project area, which would
likely have some adverse impact on the Triangle and future development in the two general commercial
areas. Both general commercial areas would likely redevelop with similar uses as today (large format,
auto-oriented uses) and would not be as conducive to walking as they would be if the areas had a more
pedestrian-focused development pattern.
As described under Movement (above), the pedestrian pathways will provide increased accessibility to
transit, including increased accessibility if transit service is increased. Proposed land uses are at a
sufficient density to support a strong transit system, and it is particularly important to consider that,
even under the proposed densities for Option 1, increasing non-auto modes of travel and having
services near residential and employment are essential to minimizing additional vehicular traffic.
The proposed densities under Option 1 would provide for up to four-story buildings in the Triangle,
equating to approximately 30 dwelling units/acre for residential developments. From a transit-oriented
development perspective, this density is generally the minimum density necessary to support a transit
system that offers frequent service (buses every 10 to 15 minutes). However, though the proposed
density may be necessary in order to achieve transit-oriented development, a mix of higher density (e.g.,
apartments) and medium density (e.g., townhouses) could still achieve the desired result. From a
market perspective, a developer takes into account a variety of factors when considering building.
Higher land costs may require building at higher densities than what is proposed under this option in
order to achieve the desired rate of return on the project. Based on the market feasibility completed for
the project, the densities proposed under Option 1 appear to be generally feasible, although some
incentives may be required to support higher density development. In the longer term, 30 units/acre
may be too low as land values increase and developers need a higher rate of return on their projects.
Option 2
Option 2 involves increasing zoning densities across the Triangle and also includes transitioning some
general commercial areas to mixed use. This option also changes site design standards to improve the
pedestrian environment by increasing the percentage of building frontages next to pedestrian-oriented
streets and adding some pedestrian connections. Unlike Option 1, Option 2 focuses on key catalyst sites,
such as redeveloping the theater area and the area in the vicinity of the pedestrian district, where an
urban core of dense office, retail, and commercial uses is proposed. While Option 1 does improve upon
the urban quality of the area, Option 2 considers mixed-use nodes that are activated around improved
multimodal transportation, and potentially increased transit service. Under Option 2, large format
general commercial areas would not be present within the project area, which would have a significant
positive impact on walkability and traffic generation, because the large blocks would be broken into
smaller, more pedestrian-scale areas.
The more complete system of roads and pathways under Option 2 supports the increased densities
proposed and increases access to transit. Proposed land use densities will support a strong transit
system level of service, more so than under Option 1. However, providing for non-auto modes of travel
and access to nearby services without a car are essential to minimizing additional traffic. Option 2,
8 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
particularly given the housing densities it proposes, is much more likely to support a mix of uses than
Option 1, but there is also a much greater likelihood that the resulting development will increase traffic.
This increase in traffic could likely be avoided if the Triangle were to meet the daily needs of its residents
by providing adequate housing, employment, and retail services, available within walking distance of
one another and coupled with strong transit connections.
The proposed densities under Option 2 would provide the potential for buildings of up to six stories in
the Triangle, which would equate to approximately 50 dwelling units/acre for residential developments.
From a transit-oriented development perspective, this density is much more conducive to a transit
system that offers frequent service or better (buses every 10 to 15 minutes). However, though the
proposed density may be necessary in order to achieve transit-oriented development, a mix of higher
density (e.g., apartments) and medium density (e.g., townhouses) could still achieve the desired result,
similar to what could occur under Option 1. In addition, as stated under Option 1, a developer takes into
account a variety of factors when considering building, and higher land costs may require building at
higher densities (similar to those proposed under Option 2) to achieve the desired rate of return on the
project. Based on the market feasibility completed for the project, the densities proposed under this
option generally appear to be feasible, although some incentives may be required to support higher
density development. In the longer term, a density of 50 units/acre may be feasible as land values
increase and developers need a higher rate of return on their projects, thus requiring more density.
Feedback from the CAC and TAC
· The Triangle seems to be a really good location for the big box retailers. Should we be planning
to keep future big box retail out or encourage more, since it is working so well in this location?
· The plan should avoid creating code that limits interim changes and modifications. For example,
surface parking could be allowed in the interim.
· When thinking about SW 74th Avenue, what happens if WinCo is still successful in that location
in 25 years?
· Activating the east side of the Triangle, near SW 68th, with tuck-under parking could work.
Need to make sure that parking podiums don’t work against the pedestrian district concept.
· The area near SW 72nd and SW 74th Avenues has a steep elevation and may be a good
opportunity for tuck-under parking or a central parking garage that has multi-use and housing
on top with nice views.
· This plan could require big box developers to build underground parking in place.
· With a maximum building height of 45 feet, it is very hard to develop four stories. This
maximum building height should be increased to 55 feet.
· A concern was raised about the minimum street frontage of 90 percent for some streets and
requirements for fire access.
· No one wants to develop a four-story building with a podium. They want to develop a five- or
six-story building. A developer needs to get a certain amount of return and have options for a
building.
· Why not allow as much height as possible and let the market and developers decide?
· Regarding the question of how high to build a building, we may need two options to consider:
one that considers what could be done with high capacity transit and one without.
· With taller buildings, we need to maintain the welcoming and friendly feeling. If buildings are
too tall, it can feel like a tunnel.
· Is there an opportunity to make the pedestrian pathways also maintenance access ways? The
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (June 3, 2014) 9
densities of these areas make us start to have to design utilities, more like in a core area.
· There is a lot of land banking, with parking going on there now. Focus for the city is: Where do
you want to put your money and where are good parking locations to not conflict with people
coming off I-5 and taking a left to park? There is a concern about traffic on ramps coming off of
I-5.
Public Realm – Community Character
The plan builds upon existing characteristics that make the Triangle unique and desirable to develop a
community with a clear identity.
Option 1
The urban realm is primarily a constructed environment, focusing on complete streets, walkability,
bicycle connections, and passive and active spaces for residents and employees to get out of their
homes and offices. Within the context of the Triangle, all access points into the Triangle are considered
gateways, but neither of the options outlines specific design treatments to use to identify the Triangle.
Under either of the options, design requirements should identify consistent features for creating an
identity for the Triangle.
Both Option 1 and Option 2 are similar in the types of public spaces proposed; the key difference is that
Option 2 provides an additional opportunity for incorporating plazas and other features that are part of
a large-scale redevelopment on the theater and WinCo sites. Both options have other park and open
space features that are similar, although the larger bicycle and pedestrian system under Option 2 does
provide better access to the Red Rock trail.
Option 1 certainly includes areas that, if developed as envisioned, make the Triangle unique, particularly
development along the central portion of the Triangle. Important amenities that support the public
realm include reimagining Red Rock Creek as a passive recreation area that also provides riparian
habitat and connections to the larger bicycle and pedestrian system. Red Rock Creek is the defining
feature of the Triangle, because it is geographically central and is also a notable natural resource. In
addition, TAC and CAC members identified the need to provide active recreation areas, including places
for kids to run around, and at least one plaza within the central portion of the pedestrian district, if the
Triangle is to truly be a neighborhood.
Option 1, with its lower density assumptions, may provide a more approachable scale than what is
proposed under Option 2. While specific design standards can be implemented to reduce the scale and
appearance of buildings, the three- to four-story maximum building height under Option 1 is still taller
than most existing buildings within the Triangle. Coupled with pedestrian-oriented roads and pathways,
the scale of Option 1 is comfortable and would not require the types of regulatory interventions that
ensure that buildings remain in scale with their surroundings.
Option 2
Option 2 is similar to Option 1, except that Option 2 proposes many more public rights-of-way than
Option 1, and has more potential for increased public space in areas that would not likely develop with
pedestrian-oriented uses under Option 1. All access points into the Triangle are considered to be
gateways, but neither of the options outlines specific design treatments to denote the Triangle. Under
either of the options, design requirements should identify consistent features for creating an identity for
10 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
the Triangle. The current Triangle Plan District calls for architectural treatments at intersections with
OR 99W, which could be adapted to either option.
Option 2 proposes similar types of public spaces as Option 1, but the larger redevelopment possibilities
under Option 2 also provide the opportunity for including plazas and other open space features in the
development, even if such features are phased in over time. Large public spaces, such as community
parks and trails (for example, Red Rock Creek) are similar under both options, although the larger bicycle
and pedestrian system under Option 2 does provide better access to the Red Rock trail.
Both options, if developed as envisioned, have very unique qualities and amenities, such as Red Rock
Creek and its connections to the regional trail system, that are very important. Community parks, the
need for which both TAC members and CAC members identified, are even more critical under Option 2,
because it has densities that are considerably higher than Option 1.
Five- to six-story structures are rare in the Triangle today, and a district composed of many taller
buildings could have an adverse impact on the pedestrian qualities of the area. A CAC member
described it as the “tunnel effect.” To maintain a pedestrian scale, design standards can be implemented
to reduce the apparent scale and size of buildings. Such an additional series of design standards would
help to ensure that pedestrian scale and visual interest are maintained. These additional design
standards are likely unnecessary under Option 1.
Feedback from the CAC and TAC
· Having the pedestrian streets and paths in the middle and the auto traffic in the outer streets
elicited a positive response. Even without transit, this is good for a walkable street plan.
· The Red Rock Creek trail could be connected along the parklands in the north part of the
Triangle.
· In the pedestrian grid area at the center of the Triangle, it would be interesting to consider a
park block similar to Esther Short Plaza (Vancouver) and Pioneer Square (Portland). This park
block could be used by the office occupants and residents.
· A connection from the Red Rock Creek Trail to PCC in the eastern part of the Triangle would be
beneficial. Haines Street is too busy.
· Where does this leave the few homes that are in the middle of this?
· Additional traffic is a concern. Also, there are a lot of crossings over the Red Rock Creek area,
which feels contrary to what is supposed to be an open space natural resources area.
· It seems that the desire is to fit a lot into a small space. Should on-street parking be provided
everywhere?
· Development will happen before there are increased stormwater requirements. If there is a way
to fit stormwater management into pedestrian areas that would help a lot.
· Green streets won’t cut it anymore, and there will be additional stormwater detention
requirements. The Triangle is a dense area, and that is in conflict with stormwater management.
Would like to see a wider buffer along Red Rock Creek. Stormwater and natural resources
treatments will have to be thought through more.
· Where are the kids going to play? There should there be a way in the open space plan to show a
dispersion of pocket parks or a planned neighborhood park for the area.
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (June 3, 2014) 11
Market and Implementation
The plan is marketable to developers and the public, and is implementable. Identified improvements are
feasible both from a financial perspective and a construction perspective, with no “red flag” obstacles.
Option 1
Both options appear to be constructible based on the preliminary feasibility analysis completed for the
project, although not all land uses proposed under both options would likely be constructed today.
Lower-density development, such as townhomes, appears to be feasible now, but it would not be at
high enough densities to support the pedestrian-oriented district the City of Tigard envisions. If
townhomes were permitted, there would need to be higher-density uses nearby in order to provide
enough residents to support ground floor retail, even at a limited scale.
Higher-density developments may have to take advantage of incentive programs, particularly if they
require structured parking. Today, however, it appears that even the residential densities proposed
under Option 1 would require some type of subsidy or incentive to be constructible, regardless of the
type of parking. Office uses, while not feasible for the next several years, even with incentives, because
of the high vacancy rates, will not be constructed at any large scale; however, that market will
eventually rebound and should not be restricted. The more likely scenario is that housing and potentially
mixed use with limited commercial ground floor use will be the dominant type of development for the
foreseeable future. Under Option 1, this development could occur in any part of the Triangle (with some
exceptions in the General Commercial zone), although not to the same degree as under Option 2.
Additionally, the 30 dwelling unit/acre maximum may be a limiting factor if developers are paying more
for land or if other costs, such as parking or fees, require developers to build more units in order to meet
their financial metrics.
Option 2
Market potential and implementation under Option 2 is similar to that under Option 1, but appears to
provide more potential for maximizing development opportunities in the Triangle, particularly as land
values and other costs fluctuate over time. The feasibility analysis showed similar results for
development potential for Option 2 as Option 1: Generally, residential and mixed-use development will
need some type of subsidy or other incentive, at least initially. Option 2 does offer some more unique
sites that could certainly be catalyst sites, such as the theater and WinCo sites. This site, if it transitions
into a mixed-use and residential area, would be a development of large enough scale to affect the
visibility of and potential interest in the Triangle, particularly given the site’s proximity to Red Rock
Creek. This type of development would likely require some type of public intervention, because it would
require new roads, park amenities, and potentially other incentives to provide structured parking in
order for it to be possible. Therefore, although Option 2 offers the most potential, it could also require
the largest subsidies or other public investments.
Feedback from the CAC and TAC
· There may be ways to capture revenue from development in the Triangle to provide for shared
stormwater infrastructure.
12 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
Recommended Land Use and Transportation System Option
The Recommended Land Use and Transportation System Option (Recommended Option) is based on the
evaluation completed for the two preliminary land use and transportation options developed earlier in
the project and input provided by the Technical Advisory and Citizen Advisory Committees. As described
below, the Recommended Option is a combination of both options, taking the most relevant
components from each of the options to provide a plan that meets both the short- and long-term vision
of the area. Attachment B includes the graphic representations of the Recommended Option.
Land Use Components
The Recommended Option organizes the Triangle into several land uses at a variety of densities to
accommodate potential development now and into the future, although the densities would not exceed
residential densities found in Washington Square and Downtown Tigard. Land use components of the
Recommended Option include:
· Townhomes (approximately 16 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) are proposed in limited areas,
primarily adjacent to existing development with similar densities. The market feasibility analysis
found that this type of development is potentially feasible today, and while it does not provide
the densities necessary to support neighborhood-oriented services, its limited use as a catalyst
may help attract additional and more diverse development types. Within these areas,
apartments would also be permitted at a density of up to 30 du/ac to provide some flexibility.
· Maximum building heights vary in the Triangle, with the tallest buildings of up to 75 feet (five to
six stories) located in the pedestrian district and the southern part of the Triangle. West of the
pedestrian district, building heights are reduced to 55 feet (four stories). This preserves views to
the west and provides a varied building pattern.
· In areas that have a maximum 75-foot building height, multifamily residential density of up to 50
du/acre would be permitted. Where building heights are lower, the maximum residential
density would be up to 30 du/ac.
· Vertical mixed-use buildings (with ground floor retail/flex space) would be required on corners
in the pedestrian district and in redeveloped areas that have a large amount of anticipated foot
traffic and where there is high visibility. In all other areas, ground floor retail/flex space would
be permitted, but not required.
· Commercial uses that are not within designated commercial zones would be limited to a
30,000 ft2 maximum floor plate.
Site Design Components
· 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 20 percent. Lower frontage requirements would provide areas for off-street
parking and necessary services for buildings while increasing building frontages on other streets.
· There are several blocks that exceed 400 feet in length within the Triangle, and such a long block
limits pedestrian circulation and vehicle access. On these longer blocks, pedestrian paths are
proposed that will provide connections through blocks and provide access to parking behind
buildings. Maximum block length shall not exceed 250 feet without pedestrian access. Vehicle
access can be combined with pedestrian pathways, but such vehicle access locations would not be
closer than 250 feet from a street or other vehicle access.
· Within the pedestrian district, parking access would be restricted along SW 68th and SW 69th
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (June 3, 2014) 13
Avenues. Parking access would be provided along east/west cross streets and SW 70th, except
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.
Infrastructure Components
Open Space, Trails, and Bicycles and Pedestrians
· In addition to the trails system, there would be two neighborhood parks (approximately 1 acre in
size) located within the Triangle. These parks would have equipment and other amenities found in a
typical park of this size. There may also be an opportunity to combine regional stormwater facilities
with park locations.
· Improving Red Rock Creek as both a natural and recreational amenity would make it a defining
feature for the Triangle and a paved multi-use trail could connect these features to the larger bicycle
and pedestrian network within and through the Triangle.
· 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.
· An expanded multimodal circulation system would include the new road connections.
· A pedestrian pathway system through larger blocks to connect key Triangle locations would be
added.
· Highway crossings.
Street Connections
· Several local connections would be added to complete the street grid.
· SW Beveland would be extended across OR 217 to provide better multimodal connectivity than
currently exists.
· A new north/south connection at 74th Avenue would continue south to SW Beveland Street, 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.
· SW Hermoso Way would be connected to SW Franklin Street, and SW Gonzaga Street to 68th
Avenue, and 67th Avenue would be extended north to connect to SW Elmhurst Street.
Transit Service
The Recommended Option can accommodate existing and potential future transit service. The
proposed increased densities support improved service.
Pedestrian District
The Recommended Option incorporates a pedestrian district located along 68th, 69th, and 70th
Avenues. Vehicular access to off-street parking areas will be managed in order to consolidate driveways
in the district. Managing parking access to specific areas 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 and
there is a consistent streetscape element pattern.
Streets
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
14 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
outside of the Triangle. Shared travel lanes are provided along local streets where lower volumes and
slower vehicle speeds are expected. In some cases where topography is more challenging, uphill bike
lanes may be provided in order to minimize conflicts with vehicles.
Street Hierarchy
Building design standards are organized around the system of street hierarchies that provide an
organized approach to building orientation and site design standards. Figure 1 shows building height
and step back standards, building placement, and illustrations of parking orientation. The street
hierarchy is described in Table 1 with a map (A/B/C Street Network Map) in attachment B.
All streets are pedestrian-oriented streets, with wide sidewalks and landscaping, but not all streets serve
the same purpose. A streets are the most pedestrian-oriented and comprise the majority of streets in
the Triangle. They have the highest building frontage requirements of any street classification. B streets
support A streets in that they provide access to parking and other service entries necessary for
businesses to operate along the A streets. Corners along B streets would still be required to have
buildings, but the majority of B street frontage can be dedicated to off-street parking, either surface or
structured. Parking areas would be shielded from pedestrians by landscaping. C streets are arterial
streets. Frontage requirements are lower on C streets, because active pedestrian areas are more likely
to occur on perpendicular side streets that include on-street parking and slower vehicle speeds.
C streets are primarily for through movement and access to the more pedestrian-focused areas, but
they still provide a consistent pedestrian environment and bicycle facilities to accommodate all modes
of travel.
Table 1. Proposed Street Hierarchy and Frontage Standards
Street type “A Street” (Pedestrian) “B Street” (Access ) “C Street” (Through)
Objective High pedestrian quality and
strong building frontage.
Moderate pedestrian quality
and building services.
Moderate pedestrian quality;
auto emphasis.
Sidewalks
Required. Separated from
curb by planting strip, tree
wells, or rain gardens.
Required. Curb-tight optional.
Required. Separated from
curb by planting strip, tree
wells, or rain gardens.
On-street parking Parallel or diagonal parking
required. Head-in prohibited.
Parking required. Parallel,
diagonal or head-in. Prohibited.
Number of lanes Two Two Three to five
% of building along
street frontage Minimum 90% Minimum 20%. Required at
street corners. Minimum 50%
% of off-street
vehicle parking
along street frontage
0% Maximum 80%. Prohibited at
corners.
Maximum 50%. Prohibited at
corners.
Block length
Maximum 250 ft. to mid-
block lane crossing. Lane
width up to 30 ft.
Maximum 250 ft. to mid-
block lane crossing. Lane
width up to 30 ft.
NA
Typical vehicle speed 15-25 mph 15-25 mph 25-35 mph
Revised DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options (June 3, 2014) 15
Figure 1. Building Front Step-Backs and Street Hierarchy Orientation
16 DRAFT Land Use and Infrastructure Options Evaluation Report (June 3, 2014)
Actions Necessary to Implement the Recommended Option
The Recommended Option will require several changes to the existing Comprehensive Plan,
Development Code, and Transportation System Plan. These changes include:
· Revising the Comprehensive Plan land use designations within the Triangle to be consistent with
the Recommended Option. The most notable change is to amend the plan to change some
commercial designations to Mixed Use.
· Amending the zoning within the Triangle to accommodate the proposed land use categories.
This zoning will likely be one or more mixed-use zones that permit the type of development
envisioned in the Recommended Option. Tigard’s downtown code may be a good example to
use in developing the new code for the Triangle.
· Amending the Tigard Triangle Plan District to incorporate the new site design standards,
including the proposed street hierarchy, street system, design guidelines, height regulations,
and parking standards (still to be determined).
· Amending the Transportation System Plan to include the updated street, bicycle, and pedestrian
system. Planning-level cost estimates for road improvements will also need to be updated.
· Amending the City’s Parks Master Plan, if necessary, to include the new public park and plaza
facilities.
Name: P:\O\ODOT00000801\0600INFO\0670Reports\5DD_OptionsEvaluationReport\Revised Draft 6.3.14\Revised Draft
Options Evaluation Report 06.03.14.docx
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis
Report
May 2014
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Leland Consulting Group
Laurence Qamar Architecture & Town Planning
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 1
Introduction
This memorandum serves as the Development Feasibility Analysis for the Tigard Triangle
Redevelopment Strategy. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the feasibility of various land
use types that were generated by the team under the two options presented in the Land Use and
Infrastructure Options memorandum and supported by the Opportunities and Constraints
memorandum. It measures financial gaps in various development scenarios to get a sense of the types
of development that would be feasible on their own in current market conditions and those that might
be feasible with some assistance. It tests the effectiveness of different financial tools and policy
strategies and quantifies preliminary economic impacts from the potential development.
The goal is to better understand the likelihood of development occurring in the Tigard Triangle and what
subsidies or other interventions might be required for private developers to make the desired types of
investments. The potential value of future development can then be measured against the necessary
infrastructure investments to determine whether private development can pay for all of the
infrastructure or whether public subsidy will be needed to complete the infrastructure improvements
recommended in the earlier phase of the project.
Key Findings
This Development Feasibility Analysis resulted in several key findings:
• Land costs. Up-front land costs are a critical factor in determining whether proposed
development types are feasible. Variations in the land cost assumptions in the pro forma
financial analysis result in wide fluctuations in the “bottom line” feasibility of development. High
land costs or extraordinary costs related to land assembly (which can include long-term holding
costs, for example) will negatively impact feasibility. Due to the recent recession, there are very
few land transaction comparables in the Triangle on which to make a good estimate of land
values. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain what raw land is “worth” in the Triangle. At an
assumed land value of $20 per square foot, no development models are feasible using today’s
construction cost and revenue assumptions. This implies that a) development needs to transact
at land prices less than $20 per square foot, and/or b) revenues will need to increase (e.g.,
commercial lease rates, apartment rents) before new development can be supported at these
land prices. In practice, the land price in a transaction is determined and negotiated through a
residual land value analysis – whereby the land price is the last variable “solved for” after
accounting for development costs, achievable rents, and a risk-appropriate rate of return for the
developer.
• Multifamily is the most viable option. Multifamily residential development is the most viable
land use under today’s market assumptions. Again, land prices are an important factor in this
scenario and there are market trends that determine how much a developer can spend on land
for a multifamily development. As a general rule of thumb, in today’s market multifamily
development will pay approximately $15,000 (and no more than $20,000) per apartment unit
for land. Therefore a 50-unit apartment building could spend up to $750,000 for land. The
amount per square foot of raw land, therefore, is dependent on the project’s density – thus,
$750,000 equates to $8.61 per square foot on a two-acre site or $17.22 per square foot if built
on a one-acre site.
2 DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014)
• Residential rents. Residential rents in Tigard today for a newly-constructed project with surface
parking are estimated to be $1.40 per square foot per month based on market research and
achievable rents at comparable projects throughout the region. It is estimated that rents would
need to be in the range of $1.80 per square foot per month to support a project that includes a
parking structure. Like land prices, rents are a very significant variable in the analysis. If the
market can support rents of $1.60 or $1.80 per square foot per month, many more residential
development types will be feasible.
• Office rents. Office lease rates in the Triangle are currently well below what would be required
to support new construction, even with relatively inexpensive surface parking. Until vacancies
decrease in competitive office markets like Kruse Way and Washington Square, it is not
expected that lease rates in the Triangle will increase to the $30-plus range, the minimum
needed to support new development.
• Vertical Housing Tax Abatement. Several tools were evaluated to test the effect of financial
subsidies on development. The State’s Vertical Housing Program was found to be very useful in
reducing the feasibility gap, especially for denser housing types that require structured parking.
• Ground floor retail. Retail rents do not currently support new construction. However, in mixed-
use buildings, revenues from residential uses may offset losses from ground-floor retail,
especially if that ground-floor retail is limited in size. In practice, if the amount of ground-floor
retail is kept small, a developer (and its financial lender) will typically assume that ground-floor
retail is a “loss-leader” and does not contribute to the project’s profits.
• Subsidies. Where financial gaps do exist, a range of cash-equivalent subsidies would be effective
at making project types feasible. These subsidies could include development impact fee waivers,
public construction of infrastructure (such as utilities or streetscapes), or direct cash subsidies to
developers (e.g., grants or forgivable loans through an urban renewal district).
Analysis Approach
This section describes the approach, methodology, and assumptions used in the analysis. The process
begins by building a financial model template that can analyze the financial performance of various land
use types under a range of physical and policy conditions. These variations include factors such as
densities, parking ratios, parking structure types, and the application of different financial subsidies. By
varying these inputs, the model can illustrate the relative differences in feasibility of different land use
types, which will assist in identifying a preferred alternative for the plan. Likewise, the effectiveness of
different policy changes or financial incentives can assist in making recommendations on public tools for
implementation.
• Land use types. The land use types evaluated in this memorandum were drawn from
information gathered in the Land Use Options memo and informed by the market analysis.
Some options offer slight variations on the same land use type in order to test how different
building configurations perform.
• Data inputs. Leland Consulting Group gathered foundational data such as construction costs,
land values, capitalization rates, and office and apartment rents in order to build the model.
Some of the data sources used include local brokerage reports, CoStar (a provider of
commercial real estate data), interviews with local developers, and other national housing and
construction reports. Data sources for each input are noted in the footnotes in the appendices.
• Static pro forma template. The data was used to build a pro forma template which can easily
model different assumptions, thereby testing the feasibility of the various development types
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 3
and conditions. A static pro forma looks at cash flow in the first year, assuming full lease-up, and
is a “back of the envelope” way of testing a project’s financial feasibility. It does not show debt
and equity assumptions or cash flow over a set period of time as a developer would when
analyzing a specific investment opportunity. It is a simplified analysis that allows for the testing
of the relative difference between fixed inputs. For example the model shows the effect of
changing the parking ratio for housing from an average of 1.5 spaces per unit to 0.75 spaces per
unit, or allowing for a higher FAR for office uses. This memorandum includes a set of land use
types and assumptions that is the result of the testing of many more assumption sets. Those
that are most illustrative of what is feasible and that demonstrate the effectiveness of
incentives were included in the final memorandum.
Caveats/assumptions:
Given the range of variables and the inherent complexity of a pro forma analysis, several considerations
need to be mentioned:
• Site size. For consistency, all of the pro formas are based on a theoretical two-acre
development site. In reality, development will occur on sites of varying sizes, but this model
provides generalized findings that can be scaled up or down proportionately for different site
sizes. However, for very small sites (e.g., smaller than one acre), there may be efficiencies that
are lost (e.g., efficiently-sized parking garages) that increase overall development costs and
reduce financial performance.
• Relative difference between land uses. Pro forma financial analyses incorporate a long list of
variables (inputs). Many of these variables will fluctuate over time based on market conditions
(e.g., rents, land prices) and economic conditions (e.g., construction costs, cap rates). Changes
to any of these variables can have significant impacts on a project’s bottom line. For this reason,
a static pro forma analysis of a theoretical set of project types is most useful in gauging the
relative difference between land uses under the same set of assumptions. While the analysis
can indicate the likely feasibility of development under today’s economic assumptions, changing
market conditions mean that the numerical results should not be used to indicate the actual
feasibility of development in the future. A pro forma for an actual development project has a
shelf life of at best six months and would in practice be updated frequently based on real-time
cost estimates, architectural designs, and capital conditions.
• Rental housing. For residential products, this analysis focuses primarily on rental housing as
opposed to ownership housing. First, rental housing is in high demand throughout the Portland
region today and is likely to be the most feasible land use under current market conditions.
Secondly, in an emerging mixed-use district such as the Triangle, rental housing usually
precedes ownership housing, as the rentals provide an opportunity for the district to build
market momentum and “prove” itself before attracting residents who would need to make a
much more significant ownership commitment when moving there. The only exception is with
the townhome example, which would be more likely to be built under an ownership model.
Infrastructure Assumptions
Typically, developers would be expected to build any onsite circulation improvements necessary for the
new development. They are also expected to pay impact fees or systems development charges to offset
the additional usage of local streets, parks, sewer, and water. Larger developments may be required to
complete a traffic impact analysis which might require a set of offsite improvements, as well, if the
additional traffic going to the site would require intersection or other major street improvements. This
pro forma analysis assumes a “soft cost” allowance of 25 percent of the “hard costs.” Soft costs include
4 DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014)
Vertical Housing Program
The Vertical Housing Program is a State of
Oregon Vertical Housing Tax Abatement
program that allows for a maximum tax
exemption of up to 80 percent of the
improvement over a 10-year term for mixed-
use projects in Vertical Housing Development
Zones (VHDZ) designated by local
jurisdictions. The ground floor of the project is
required to be a non-residential use. For
projects fronting one or more public streets, 50
to 100 percent of the interior street facing
facade of the building adjacent to the public
street must be constructed to commercial
building standards and/or dedicated as a
commercial use upon completion. An
additional tax exemption of up to 80 percent
may be given on the land for qualifying
projects providing low-income housing (set at
80 percent of area median income or below).
non-construction costs such as impact fees, design and engineering, and administrative fees. Hard costs
include actual materials and construction of the site and buildings, including the cost of onsite
improvements. The Options Evaluation Report will evaluate the broader land use and infrastructure
system options for the entire Triangle, considering the financial feasibility of the desired land use plan,
the transportation improvements needed to sustain the new development, and the financial impact to
the City of Tigard.
Case Studies
The density and mix of land uses envisioned for the Triangle are likely to push the envelope of what is
feasible under current market conditions. Therefore, a range of tools and incentives will likely be needed
to ensure that early projects can get off the ground and begin to build market momentum that will allow
for achievable rents and sales prices to occur in the future. This section of the memorandum presents
brief case studies from other suburban jurisdictions that illustrate how different incentives and policies
have allowed mixed-use, urban-scale development to take place. These examples provide inspiration for
the tools and incentives that were analyzed for the Triangle and that will be included in the
implementation recommendations.
Lake View Village, City of Lake Oswego
Lake View Village in Lake Oswego is a very successful example
of a public-private partnership in which the City’s investment
in a central parking structure was instrumental in realizing a
feasible development and revitalizing the downtown. For more
than 20 years, the City of Lake Oswego struggled to develop a
key vacant block at its “100 percent corner” as a vibrant
mixed-use center. To realize success, the City partnered with
the developer, investing 80 percent of the $5.6 million
construction cost for the parking structure. The City maintains
the structure which is accessible to customers of Lake View
Village as well as visitors for events and festival parking for the
nearby Millennium Park. The City also invested in local
streetscape improvements. The development included 50,000
square feet of office and 50,000 square feet of retail and
restaurants wrapped around a 366-space parking structure on
2.5 acres. The City also used eminent domain and public
acquisition of property to assemble the land for the site, while
ensuring that private property owners got a fair market value
for their property. Parcelization and land assembly was a key
barrier to be overcome, and with nine different property
owners involved, it would not have been possible without City
intervention.
Holland Apartments at Orenco Station
The Holland Development Group is currently developing 894 residential units and up to 25,000 square
feet of retail space in three six-story podium-style buildings and one “wrapper” building with a central
parking structure and a new public plaza in the new Platform District at Orenco Station. The developers
are using a variety of financial tools to make the project feasible. The wrapper building is using the
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 5
Vertical Housing Tax Abatement, giving it 80 percent tax abatement over 10 years. The project is
expected to bring in an estimated $300,000 per year in property taxes even with the abatement, after
which it will increase to an estimated $2 million per year. (I put in a call to Holland to follow up on more
specifics…) In interviews, the developer indicated that the Vertical Housing Tax Abatement made the
additional cost of structured parking feasible. Another financial incentive making the project feasible is
the City’s willingness to allow the developers to pay the systems development charges (SDCs) over time.
Rather than paying them in full at the beginning of the project, the developer paid a five percent down
payment (as opposed to the typical 15 percent down payment) and will pay the rest over a 10-year
period starting six months after the certificate of occupancy is issued. Additionally, Holland has agreed
to build the central plaza for an estimated $2.6 million and will apply the construction costs to the $2.4
million parks SDC that it owes for the project.
Source: Oregon Live, Walker Macy, Holland
Development Group
Source: http://www.platform14apts.com/
North Main Apartments and North Main Village, Milwaukie
The North Main Apartments and Village in
Milwaukie is a mixed-use project with 64
affordable apartments, 33 ownership
townhomes, 9,500 square feet of retail, and a
community plaza. The project used a variety of
financing tools to make the development
feasible including City land contribution, Metro
Centers program funds, the Vertical Housing
Tax Abatement, and City-funded offsite
improvements (sidewalk and roads, water and
sewer extensions, utility undergrounding, and
downtown ornamental lighting). The North Main Apartments received a 10-year, Vertical Housing Tax
Abatement for 60 percent on both the building and 60 percent on the land because it incorporated
affordable housing units in that portion of the project. The North Main Village received a 10-year, 40
percent abatement on the building. The $14 million project was completed in 2007 and is one of the few
new development projects to have occurred in Milwaukie over the past decade. The developer
attributes the success to the City’s strong commitment to getting a successful development project
downtown and their willingness to partner and find solutions to the financial gap. The biggest challenges
6 DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014)
to overcome were the financial gaps, parking, and gaining acceptance for affordable housing as a key
component of the project.
Anthem Park at Uptown Village, Vancouver Washington
The project is a 1.5-acre mixed-use housing and retail community with 58 workforce rental apartments,
22 owner-occupied town homes, and 2,500 square feet of ground-floor retail space built around a one-
half acre public plaza that also serves as the roof of the
119-space underground parking garage. The Vancouver
Housing Authority (VHA) owned the site and continues
to own and operate the rental housing, courtyard, and
the open portion of the garage. The townhomes, their
garages and the retail spaces are privately owned
condominiums. The VHA assisted financially by
deferring the land sale and providing gap financing for
the project. Essentially, the VHA traded the excess land
in lieu of developer fees for building the rental housing
piece of the project. The underground parking was
feasible because there was very little excavation
necessary, as the site was already below street level, and the open portion was held by the VHA. The
townhomes have underground garages accessed through the main garage, but tucked under the unit,
allowing for a fee-simple ownership structure. Other financial subsidies making the project feasible
include public street improvements, residential tax exemptions, park impact fee credits, and system
development charge waivers.
Development Feasibility Analysis
This section of the memo describes the land use types to be evaluated, explains the pro formas and
assumptions behind them, shows the financial gaps, and describes the tools that appear to have the
greatest impact on reducing those gaps.
Land Use Types
A static pro forma was created to model the various development types deemed most appropriate for
the Triangle under the two options presented in the Land Use and Infrastructure Options phase of this
project. Development types include residential, office, and mixed-use buildings with a small amount of
ground floor retail. This section presents a graphical representation and brief explanation of each
building type. The models included surface and above-ground structured parking. None of the models
tested underground parking, as the high cost of underground parking (twice as expensive or more per
stall as an above-ground parking garage) would not be supported in the Triangle in the foreseeable
future and there is virtually no precedent for underground parking in suburban communities in the
Portland region.
Residential
Several residential products were modeled based on a density range that would be appropriate for the
Triangle according to the land use options considered in the Land Use and Infrastructure Options portion
of this project.
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 7
• The lowest density housing type considered for the Triangle was two- to three-story attached
townhomes, made of wood frame construction, with parking included in each individual unit.
This is the only model considered as ownership (not rental) housing in the pro forma, as higher
density condominiums would only be feasible in a mature market.
• Medium density apartments in this example are three-story, wood-frame buildings with surface
parking. They would have external stairwells and no elevators.
• High density apartments in this example are considered to be four stories with a mix of
structured tuck-under parking and surface parking. These would be constructed as either fully
wood frame or wood frame above a concrete first floor (“three over one”) and would include
elevators.
• The very high density apartments in this example are five stories of apartments over one story
of structured parking, also known as podium construction (“four over one”). On a larger site (2+
acres), they could also take another form known as the a wrapper form, also known as a “Texas
donut” (illustrated below) with the building wrapping around an efficiently-sized structured
parking garage and courtyard.
Office
Three different office development types were modeled, again ranging in density and type of parking.
• The lowest density office product is a three-story office with surface parking. This is the highest
density office building that can be supported without structured parking. Good site design could
allow for future development of structured parking or another office building on the surface
parking area as denser development becomes more feasible.
• The high density office product is modeled as a six-story office building with adjacent structured
parking.
• The very high density office product is modeled as a building with eight stories of office over
three stories of parking. A lobby and common area would be included on the ground floor.
8 DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014)
Retail and Mixed-Use
Commercial and residential mixed-use developments were modeled using the high density and very high
density office and residential development types with a minimal amount of ground floor retail. Earlier
phases of this project concluded that one-story retail would not be a desired future development type
due to the large amount of one-story retail already in the area. However, it was modeled in the pro
formas for a cost comparison.
Financial Analysis
The financial analysis is based on a static pro forma with each development type (and variations on
those) in adjacent columns in order to compare the effects of different inputs. The full pro forma, along
with footnotes and data sources is provided as an appendix to this report. This section explains the key
data inputs that were used in the analysis and provides an explanation of the results. The results are
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 9
measured as the project’s gross margin, or the profit left over after construction costs have been
deducted from the total project value. Developers will typically want to see a minimum 10 percent gross
margin to even consider investing time and money into a project. Some development types, like
speculative office, may require a higher return due to the inherent risks involved in the project. The
model is scalable but assumes a theoretical two-acre site for a consistent comparison. Sites smaller than
one acre may lose some efficiency, thereby incurring greater development costs.
As many variables as possible were held constant in order to focus the model on testing financial tools
against the base case for each building type. In order to be realistic, the model changes some variables
within each building type, but held them constant for each scenario. Those variables include the
following:
Table 1. Variables Affecting Base Development Types
Source: Leland Consulting Group
• FAR or du/acre. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and the number of dwelling units per acre (du/acre)
were changed in order to reflect the change in density of each development type.
• Capitalization Rates (cap rates). Cap rates are a standard assessment of real estate value and
are used to measure real estate investments against investments in other capital markets. The
cap rate is an inverse relationship between the income stream being produced by the building,
or the net operating income (NOI), and the value or selling price of the building. The higher the
cap rate, the lower the total value. Currently, cap rates for new apartment buildings are around
six percent in the Portland area. Office cap rates are usually higher, because they are riskier,
and are currently around eight percent. The mixed-use developments used the cap rate of the
main use.
• Land prices. As previously mentioned, there are very few recent land transactions in the
Triangle to use for comparable prices. However, there is a rule of thumb that apartment
builders will pay somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 per apartment unit for land.
Therefore the land values for the residential development types were calibrated to be within
this range, varying from $9 to $30 per square foot. In practice, these development types will
only be viable if a developer is able to secure land at these target land prices.
• Construction costs. Construction costs varied by development type based on regional averages.
The first column under each building type is a “base case” scenario which models the building based on
current conditions (rents, parking ratios, etc.) in the Triangle. Inputs used to model the feasibility of a
given development with different financial incentives include the following:
Townhomes Medium
Density
Multifamily
High Density
Residential
Very High
Density
Residential
Low Density
Office
High
Density
Office
Very High
Density
Office
Retail
FAR OR du/acre 14 25 45 80 0.40 1.50 3.00 0.35
Capitalization Rate 6.00%6.00%6.00%8.00%8.00%8.00%8.00%
Base Rents per square foot
(Sale price for Townhomes)
$280,000 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 $18.00
Land Value, per sf $16 $9 $16 $30 $16 $16 $30 $16
Parking cost per stall included in unit $3,000 $17,000 $17,000 $3,000 $17,000 $17,000 $3,000
Construction Costs (shell)$110 $100 $110 $140 $140 $150 $160 $110
10 DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014)
• Cash incentive. Providing a cash incentive is often one part of a financial package that local
governments can use to entice development, especially within an urban renewal area. A cash
incentive can come in many forms: System Development Charge (SDC) waivers, investment in
infrastructure typically borne by the developer such as street or streetscape improvements, and
direct grants or forgivable loans. Regardless of the form of incentive, all of these tools
essentially become cash equivalents to the development pro forma and are modeled as such for
the sake of simplicity. The cash incentive in the residential development types is based on the
estimated fees (sewer and water fees and SDC fees) that would be received by the City of Tigard
if the development were to be constructed. Because the office development types performed
so poorly in this pro forma, a cash incentive of $500,000 was modeled in combination with the
reduced parking ratio, described below.
• Reduced parking ratio. Developers will build the amount of parking required by the market for
a given product type. Without adequate parking, a developer will find it difficult or impossible
to find tenants for an office building or renters for an apartment, especially when nearby
competing properties can offer adequate parking. For example, an apartment development in
the Triangle will have to compete with apartment buildings at Bridgeport Village which have
ample parking in close proximity to the building. Therefore a developer in the Triangle will have
to ensure that there is sufficient parking in order to attract tenants and to get financing for the
project. Based on current market conditions and the limited amenities and transit in the
Triangle, it is unlikely that a project would be viable with a parking ratio lower than 0.75 spaces
per unit. Requiring a high minimum parking ratio, however, can sometimes force developers to
build more parking than is necessary, making development harder to pencil since extra parking
costs do not produce additional revenue. The reduced parking scenario assumes a minimal
amount of parking for the specific development type. The reduced parking ratio is below the
City’s current minimum standards. Therefore 0.75 spaces per unit was chosen as the reduced
parking ratio. The City’s current minimum parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit was the
metric used in the base case. For office development a standard ratio of four spaces per 1,000
square feet was used for the base case and a ratio of three spaces per 1,000 square feet was
used for the reduced parking ratio scenario.
• Enhanced Revenue. The enhanced revenue scenario shows what would happen to the
feasibility of the development if rents were to increase 25 percent over current market rents in
the Triangle, assuming all other variables remain the same. This is useful in illustrating how
stronger market conditions in the future might make certain development types more feasible
(all else being equal, of course). For example, rents near Bridgeport Village, like those found at
the new Eddyline apartments, are now reaching an average of $1.60 per square foot per month,
making market-rate apartment development feasible. Office rents in the Triangle could be
expected to increase over time as vacancies decline in the Kruse Way and Washington Square
submarkets. This enhanced revenue scenario had the greatest impact on the feasibility of the
project.
• Vertical Housing Tax Abatement. This variable models the effects of a Vertical Housing Tax
Abatement by reducing the operating expenses from a standard 40 percent to 33 percent. Real
estate and other taxes account for 10 to 12 percent of total actual rent collections based on a
national survey of apartment operators. The Vertical Housing Tax Abatement Program
sponsored by the State, offers a maximum reduction of 80 percent of the building on market
rate apartments. It also requires a non-residential ground floor use. For buildings fronting on
one public street it requires that 50 percent of the street frontage contain a commercial-type
use or 100 percent if the property fronts on two public streets. The non-residential use could be
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 11
commercial, retail, a restaurant, an apartment leasing office, or a variety of other non-
residential uses. Tuck-under parking could occupy the remainder of the ground floor. Therefore
this scenario is only modeled under the mixed-use residential development scenario.
• Mixed-use. The addition of retail into either a housing or office product decreases the viability
of the project. Retail rents in the Triangle outside of the big-box center west of 72nd are not high
enough to support the cost of new construction. In many mixed-use projects, the developer
uses the ground floor commercial spaces as an amenity to help rent the main use above it.
Banks will also often not include the rent from the retail as income to the project when
considering construction financing. This model shows the effect of adding retail to both high
density and very high density for both the residential and office products. The Vertical Housing
Tax Abatement is modeled under this scenario for the mixed-use residential development
types.
Analysis and Results
Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 show the results of the financial analysis. The developments are
compared based on a gross margin (ranging from positive 25 percent to a negative 90 percent) to assess
the feasibility of each development type. Given the limitations of a static pro forma, any scenario that
shows a positive gross margin should be considered as potentially feasible. A creative developer might
be able to find a way to make the development pencil, for example a sloped site might provide
advantages that make structured parking less expensive, as could a slight increase in rents or reduction
in construction costs. Those between zero and negative 10 percent should be considered potentially
feasible if modest subsidies were applied. As described in the case studies, many dense urban
developments in unproven locations require not just one subsidy, but a package of subsidies and a
creative partnership between the developer and local government to be feasible. Those with a gross
margin lower than negative 10 percent should not be considered feasible until conditions change
markedly.
Figure 1. Feasibility Overview
• Townhomes and the medium density housing show the highest gross margin and are therefore
the development types most likely to be feasible in the current market without any subsidies.
• The high density residential and the low density office could be within the range of feasibility if
rents increase by 25 percent.
Townhomes Feasible in current market
Medium Density Multifamily Feasible in current market
High Density Residential Potentially feasible with enhanced rents or parking ratio reduction
Very High Density Residential Not feasible
Low Density Office
Feasible with enhanced rents
High Density Office
Not feasible
Very High Density Office
Not feasible
Retail Not likely in current market
Mixed-use Residential
High Density Potentially feasible with vertical housing tax credits
Mixed-use Residential Very
High Density Potentially feasible with enhanced rents and vertical housing tax credits
Mixed-use Office
High Density Not feasible
Mixed-use Office
Very High Density Not feasible
12 DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014)
• The high density and very high density office construction are not within the range of feasibility
with enhanced revenues or with the reduced parking ratio and cash incentives. It would take an
increase in rents and a significant incentive package to make them feasible in the next decade
or so.
• The high density mixed use residential development is within the range of feasibility by utilizing
the Vertical Housing Tax Abatement, but would likely need additional subsidies to be feasible.
• The very high density mixed use residential development would be in the range of feasibility by
utilizing the Vertical Housing Tax Abatement if there was also a 25 percent increase in rents in
the area, as is now being seen in the Orenco Station area.
• One-story retail is not likely to be feasible given current market rents without subsidies.
Figure 2. Gross Margin of Residential Development Types
Source: Leland Consulting Group
BASE CASE BASE CASE Provide cash
incentive
Reduce
parking ratio
Enhanced
Revenue (25% rent increase)
BASE CASE
(Current
parking ratio)
Provide cash
incentive
Reduced
parking ratio
Enhanced
Revenue (25% rent increase)
BASE CASE Provide cash
incentive
Reduced
parking ratio
Enhanced
Revenue (25% rent increase)
Townhomes Medium Density Multifamily High Density Residential Very High Density Residential
es3 4%6%10%8%25%-21%-17%-9%3%-45%-41%-33%-16%
4%6%
10%8%
25%
-21%
-17%
-9%
3%
-45%
-41%
-33%
-16%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Gr
o
s
s
M
a
r
g
i
n
(
%
o
f
T
t
o
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
V
a
l
u
e
)
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 13
Figure 3. Gross Margin of Office Development Types
Source: Leland Consulting Group
Figure 4. Gross Margin of Mixed-use Development Types
Source: Leland Consulting Group
BASE CASE
Reduced parking
ratio and cash
incentive
Enhanced
Revenue
(25% rent
increase)
BASE CASE
Reduced parking
ratio and cash
incentive
Enhanced
Revenue
(25% rent
increase)
BASE CASE
Reduced parking
ratio and cash
incentive
Enhanced
Revenue
(25% rent
increase)
Low Density Office High Density Office Very High Density Office
Series3 -27%-16%9%-74%-60%-24%-81%-68%-29%
-27%
-16%
9%
-74%
-60%
-24%
-81%
-68%
-29%
-90%
-70%
-50%
-30%
-10%
10%
Gr
o
s
s
M
a
r
g
i
n
(
%
o
f
T
t
o
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
V
a
l
u
e
)
BASE CASE BASE CASE
Vertical Housing
program
(reduced taxes)
BASE CASE
Vertical Housing
program
(reduced taxes)
High Density Very High Density
Retail Mixed-use High Density Residential
ground floor retail
Mixed-use Very High Density
Residential
Mixed-use Office
ground floor retail
ies3 -3%-13%-1%-21%-8%-75%-78%
-3%
-13%
-1%
-21%
-8%
-75%-78%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Gr
o
s
s
M
a
r
g
i
n
(
%
o
f
T
t
o
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
V
a
l
u
e
)
14 DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014)
Fiscal and Economic Impacts
This section of the report provides a summary of the analysis of the fiscal and economic impacts to the
City of Tigard, Clean Water Services, and Washington County in the form of impact fees assessed on new
development for water, sewer, parks, and transportation. It estimates the City’s annual property tax
revenue from the potential new construction. Economic impacts are also considered in the form of jobs
generated during construction and the annual wages generated by those jobs. An appendix to this
report provides the complete analysis and source data.
Of those development types that are likely to be feasible, Figure 5 shows a summary of the fiscal and
economic impacts associated with each development type. Those development types that are not
considered feasible will not produce any revenues if they cannot be built, therefore only those that were
considered potentially feasible are shown in the summary tables below. However, an analysis was
conducted for all of the development types (and is included in the appendix) in order to give the City a
sense of the revenues in real estate taxes and SDC fees that would be generated in order to make a
decision about how much subsidy would be appropriate to provide in order to generate future revenues
for the City and to provide temporary construction jobs.
Table 2. Fiscal and Economic Impact Summary—Townhomes and Medium Density Multifamily
Source: Leland Consulting Group
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Townhomes
Attached single
family, parking
included in each unit
BASE CASE BASE CASE Provide cash
incentive
Reduce parking
ratio
Enhanced Revenue
(25% rent increase)
Total Fees, Washington County $111,328 $198,800 $198,800 $198,800 $198,800
Total Fees, Clean Water Services $129,037 $230,424 $230,424 $230,424 $230,424
Total Fees, City of Tigard $144,083 $257,238 $257,238 $254,776 $257,238
City of Tigard Annual Real Estate Taxes $19,703 $17,046 $17,046 $17,046 $21,319
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Jobs Generated During Construction
Residential Construction Annual FTE 19 34 34 34 34
Commercial Construction Annual FTE
Total Jobs Generated During Construction
Annual FTE
19 34 34 34 34
Total Wages Generated During Construction
(Annual Wages)
$737,952 $1,317,772 $1,317,772 $1,317,772 $1,317,772
Medium Density Multifamily
Apartments
3 stories,
surface parked
DRAFT Development Feasibility Analysis (May 2014) 15
Table 3. Fiscal and Economic Impact Summary—Townhomes and Medium Density Multifamily
Source: Leland Consulting Group
Conclusion
Under current market conditions, only the townhomes and medium density housing types are feasible
on their own. Some of the high density and very high or mixed-use housing may be feasible with a
subsidy package. Office development is unlikely to occur in the Triangle over the next decade. Based on
this pro forma model, the greatest impact on feasibility comes from rising rents, which will occur as the
broader economy continues to improve, vacancies continue to decrease, and rents begin to rise. There
are tools the City can employ to help facilitate development in the meantime, which will help make
future development more feasible on its own. Incremental change, starting with lower density
developments, will help improve local conditions in the Triangle, and eventually allow for higher density
products to move into the range of feasibility over time.
Based on the case study research, many higher density projects completed throughout the region have
had some assistance from local governments, typically involving more than one financial tool, to make
the projects feasible. Of those tools and based on this pro forma model, the Vertical Housing Tax
Abatement seems to be the most effective for achieving a mixed-use residential development with
structured parking.
File Name: P:\O\ODOT00000801\0600INFO\0670Reports\5DD_OptionsEvaluationReport\Draft Options Evaluation Report
05.05.14.docx
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
BASE CASE Reduced
parking ratio and
cash incentive
Enhanced Revenue
(25% rent increase)
BASE CASE Vertical Housing
program
(reduced taxes)
BASE CASE Vertical Housing
program
(reduced taxes)
Total Fees, Washington County $206,070 $206,070 $206,070 $368,797 $368,797 $647,117 $647,117
Total Fees, Clean Water Services $0 $0 $0 $387,654 $387,654 $710,248 $710,248
Total Fees, City of Tigard $59,929 $58,035 $59,929 $434,460 $434,460 $786,530 $786,530
City of Tigard Annual Real Estate Taxes $14,483 $14,483 $20,301 $30,823 $34,417 $54,698 $61,078
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Jobs Generated During Construction
Residential Construction Annual FTE 57 57 105 105
Commercial Construction Annual FTE 32 32 32
Total Jobs Generated During Construction
Annual FTE
32 32 32 57 57 105 105
Total Wages Generated During Construction
(Annual Wages)
$1,249,170 $1,230,070 $1,249,170 $2,216,958 $2,216,958 $4,061,838 $4,061,838
Low Density Office Mixed Use Residential
ground floor retail
3 story
surface parked
Apartments
4 stories,
structured parking
Apartments
6 stories,
structured parking
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
Preferred Option
Bike and Pedestrian Network
Within the pedestrian
district, access to
o-street parking
areas will be restricted
along 68th and 69th
Avenues, with access
provided along
east/west cross streets.
Focusing parking
access reduces
conicts with
pedestrians.
New bike/pedestrian
connection
The parks and trails system under the Preferred Option:
• Expands the multimodal circulation system.
• Includes an multimodal connection across OR 217, at Beveland Road 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.
New bike/pedestrian
connection
Connection across Hwy
99W to the north
Connection across Hwy
99W to the north
Future connection
across Hwy 217
Kruse Way
Multi-Use Path
Fanno
Creek Trail
Connection at Haines St.
across I-5
Connection to Kruse
Way Path system
LEGEND
´
0 500Feet1,000
Regional Trail
Community/Local Trail
Planned Trail
Regional Active Transportation
Bicycle Network
On-Street
Off-street
Parks and Greenspaces
Tigard Triangle Study Area
Preferred Option
Regional Active Transportation Network
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
Natural Area
Plaza
Potential Neighborhood Park
(approx. 1 acre)
Greenway corridor
Multi-use trail/Pedestrian pathway
Proposed roadway
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
New bike/pedestrian
connection
Preferred Option
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
Collector (70’ ROW)
Local Street (60’ ROW)
Highway crossing
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Preferred Option
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
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
Townhome/Apartments (up to 4 stories)
Mixed Use (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
The Preferred Option generally 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. Key components of the Preferred Option include:
• Changing some general commercial zoning to residential/mixed use and
increasing land use densities:
- Multifamily residential densities would be permitted up to 50 dwelling
units per acre. Multifamily residential uses would be permitted in all
areas.
- Townhome developemnt would be allowed in some areas.
- Building heights and lot coverage change, which would increase
potential density.
- Vertical mixed use buildings (ground oor retail/active uses) would
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.
- General commercial uses, except where they transition to mixed-use land
uses, and oce and institutional uses would be in similar locations as
today.
- O-street parking can 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.
Preferred Option
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*
Primary Land Use Functions
General Commercial
Townhomes/Apartments (up to 4 stories)
Campus and Education (up to 6 stories)
Mixed Use (up to 6 stories)
Open Space
Building Heights to 75 feet
Building Heights to 55 feet
Proposed Roadway
Future Highway Crossing
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Preferred Option
Land Use and Building Heights
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 DARTMOUTH ST
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*
Street Development Hierarchy
A Street
B Street
C Street
0 300 600
Feet
* Existing or planned
in the current Tigard
Triangle Plan District
Preferred Option
A/B/C Street Network
Future Wal-Mart
development
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
August 4, 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
Commissioner Doherty
Commissioner Enloe
Commissioner Feeney
Commissioner Gaschke
Alt. Commissioner Mooney
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Ouellette
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: Vice President Fitzgerald; Alt. Commissioner Goodhouse
Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; John Floyd,
Associate Planner; Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner, Doreen Laughlin,
Executive Assistant
Also Present:
COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Muldoon told the commissioners that there’d been a forum earlier that day at
PSU; it was coordinated by Congressman Earl Blumenauer regarding the future of America’s
transportation infrastructure. He said there would be a link forthcoming and that he would
share the link with the commissioners if there was interest. The commissioners indicated they
were interested, so Commissioner Muldoon said, once it goes live, he will forward the link to
Doreen Laughlin who will forward it to the commissioners.
CONSIDER MINUTES
May 5 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or
corrections to the May 5 minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes approved as
submitted.
Page 2 of 4
UPDATE – Development of Medical Marijuana Land Use Regulation
Associate Planner John Floyd was introduced and gave a summary of what he would be
talking about at this meeting. He went over some key points and summarized a memo he’d
sent to the commissioners in their packets earlier in the week (Exhibit A). He stated that
Medical Marijuana is now legal in Oregon and that the City of Tigard started issuing licenses in
the spring as a result of state legislation. The dispensaries are subject to state licensing
requirements, including location restrictions. They cannot be within 1000 feet of a school and
they cannot be within a residential zone. There are other operational restrictions that the state
applies. He noted that part of the recent legislation stated local governments could pass a
temporary moratorium - and the City of Tigard has done that; City Council took action this
past winter. These temporary moratoriums have to end by May of next year; however, so
there’s a clock ticking. He said it’s not clear if the City could outright prohibit it – that’s a
question that would probably end up in court; it’s an unknown legal landscape.
John said that, absent the moratorium, suppose someone came in today wanting a dispensary -
under the Tigard Development Code (TDC) we would classify dispensaries as just any other
retail use – like a pharmacy or a liquor store. There’s one caveat; however, in that the TDC
requires any application or approval that we issue to be consistent with Federal law. So if
someone came to us, we would have to deny it based upon that restriction. He said there will
be a measure (Measure 53) on the ballot this fall. It would approve recreational Marijuana with
reasonable regulations. He noted that Tigard is not alone in considering local land use
regulations; Hillsboro, Washington County, Beaverton/Tualatin, Salem and McMinnville also
are considering it. There are also a lot of informal discussions happening.
John gave a brief overview of the regulatory options and some planned outreach – to go out
to the community on this. So far as public outreach – the first public hearings begin in
October or November. The city will utilize the city newsletter (Cityscape) and social media.
There will be a project website. There will be active solicitation of the business community
with assistance from the economic development manager. They will utilize “Consider It”
software which is an online forum to facilitate public dialogue and find common ground.
John said the discussion at this time is very high level and he didn’t want to take all the time
but wanted the Planning Commission to have time to ask questions of staff – and he ended
his presentation.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
“You have a buffer zone for school districts – what about school bus stops?”
o John said he will get back to the commission on that.
“Are there going to be different rules for unincorporated Washington County – which
is very close to our city limits?”
o They are talking about buffer zones as well. Staff is coordinating these things.
State regulations, should the Planning Commission feel that existing rules are
fine, prohibit operation of dispensaries within residential zones so much of
unincorporated Washington County is residential. I’d have to double check on
Metzger.
Page 3 of 4
“Have the Feds changed the banking regulations?”
o As a reminder, Medical Marijuana is still illegal under Federal law. The current
administration has placed Medical Marijuana as a very low enforcement priority
but in a year and a half that could be very different with a different
administration. A lot is unknown and can change with different administrations.
“Is there any information out there from other states and cities? Impact studies?
Crime? Impact to property value? Impact to local economies - maybe something we
can see, that’s tangible? Maybe cities that have dispensaries with no zoning compared
to those that do?”
o That’s something I’ll be looking for as the process moves forward. I know
Colorado and Washington are under a lot of scrutiny right now. There will
probably be some reports coming from them. (John’s goal is to look at impact
studies and get back to them.)
“I’m interested in having a lower key sort of presence on the street – not covered in
signs – where those looking for it can find it - but those not seeking it don’t have to put
up with obvious neon type signs.”
o When possible, if the Planning Commission wants to pursue this perhaps a size
restriction could be talked about – a smaller footprint. That’s one route.
“Tigard is in the moratorium phase - are there cities that are just saying an outright
no?”
o In terms of prohibiting – there was one city further south that was trying to do
that on a permanent basis – I believe that might be Grants Pass but I’ve not
kept up to date on that specifically. That’s something I can come back to you
on.
“Has the City Attorney expressed an opinion on this?”
o It’s an ongoing conversation – they’ve not recommended anything. It comes
down to what concerns the community has on this.
“I like the idea of having a buffer. I know we’re talking about residential, schools,
parks, bus stops – what about other similar commercial uses? What about if there’s a
daycare… churches with daycare… perhaps a basketball youth facility… someplace
where children or minors gather? Would there be a buffer there? Screening? Locking
fences?”
o There are ways to mitigate these types of conflicts and that’s something we can
look into and get back to you.
Apparently legal growers can be in residential areas. I’ve heard of people complaining
about the smell. So perhaps children could be playing out in the backyard and smell
something different and ask their parents about the smell…This might be something
you might want to look at.
o It’s a pretty complicated environment. Jim de Sully from PD has been working
with us on this. One of the biggest nuisance issues I’ve read about it is odor
from these facilities. We have environmental performance standards in our
Development Code which could be enforced. This is something that could be
worked on.
1
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Tigard Planning Commission
From: John Floyd, Associate Planner
Re: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Date: July 28, 2014
Purpose and Goals
On July 22, 2014, the Tigard City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to
begin work on new land use controls for medical marijuana dispensaries. The purpose of
the August 4 workshop with the Planning Commission is to provide background
information on medical marijuana dispensaries, present an outline of the planned outreach
activities, and solicit input on desired information or outcomes that the Planning
Commission wishes to see in future recommendations from staff.
To facilitate future deliberations, the Planning Commission may wish to consider and
provide direction to staff on the following questions:
1. Are there specific community impacts resulting from Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
that the Planning Commission is concerned about?
2. What does the Planning Commission consider to be the most appropriate location(s)
or type of locations for dispensaries?
3. Is there specific information or research that the Planning Commission would find
helpful in making future decisions?
4. Are there specific or general questions that the Planning Commission would like to
place before Tigard residents and businesses during public outreach efforts?
5. Does the Planning Commission wish to provide any specific direction to staff or the
Planning Commission before they begin deliberations this autumn?
2
Legal Landscape
The legal landscape for medical marijuana remains dynamic and uncertain. Changes effected
under Senate Bill 1531 are still playing out as medical marijuana dispensary licenses are
issued across the state in those cities that have not enacted local moratorium, such as Tigard
and most other Washington County jurisdictions1. The Oregon Legislature is expected to
take up the matter of medical marijuana once again during the 2015 session, which may itself
be pre-empted by Measure 53 which is expected to appear on statewide ballots this fall.
A recent check of the Oregon Secretary of State website revealed three measures pertaining
to recreational marijuana (non-medical) legalization. Media reports indicate that the sponsor
of two of these is no longer gathering signatures, leaving just Measure 53 to be placed before
the ballot. Measure 53, formally known as the “Control, Regulation and Taxation of
Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act” is sponsored by New Approach Oregon and qualified
for the ballot on July 22 with 88,584 verified signatures. The effect of this measure would be
the legalization of recreational marijuana, subject to State oversight and taxation through the
OLCC. No change to existing medical marijuana laws would result. While the full
ramifications of this measure are unknown at this time, some preliminary conclusions can be
made. Of note is Section 59, which would authorize local governments to adopt reasonable
time, place and manner regulations to address nuisance aspects of retail sales operations.
While the act does not define the term “reasonable”, the language does provide some
continuity of the status quo by mirroring language contained in ORS 475, which authorizes
local adoption of “reasonable regulations” on medical marijuana facilities.
At the regional level, the City of Hillsboro has done substantial work on the development of
draft dispensary regulations and is presently in the middle of the public hearings process. In
addition, conversations with staff at Washington County, Beaverton, and Tualatin revealed
that they too are examining time, place, and manner restrictions as part of their work plans.
As a result of this regional activity and in the interest of consistency across jurisdictional
borders, Tigard staff will continue to monitor and coordinate with surrounding cities.
Public Nuisances and Policy Options
While the state legislature has affirmed the right to possess and use marijuana in a medical
capacity, it does not allow users or dispensary owners to create a public nuisance when
exercising that right. As a result, staff believes the City of Tigard has an interest in adopting
community specific regulations to prevent or mitigate known issues associated with medical
marijuana facilities. The following represents a list of potential issues associated with
medical or retail marijuana:
Diversion of marijuana to unauthorized cardholders, particularly minors;
1 Tigard City Council initially adopted a temporary moratorium through December 31, 2014 under
Ordinance No. 14-04. This moratorium was then extended until April 30, 2015 under Ordinance 14-08,
the maximum sunset date authorized under SB1531.
3
Unpleasant odors resulting from growing, processing, and consumption of marijuana;
Unwanted noise generated by visiting customers during early or late hours, and/or
the constant hum of electrical generators and fans;
Crime such as theft, burglary, armed robbery, and kidnapping that can result due to
the presence of large amounts of cash, a product that can be resold for significant
amounts of money on the black market, and potentially vulnerable users visiting the
facilities;
Threats to health, life and property resulting from grow facilities or processing
facilities not constructed to code; and/or
Explosions resulting from the use of butane as a processing agent.
To address these potential issues, staff has identified a range of policy options and summary
comments on each option. Each of these represents a conceptual approach for discussion
purposes only, and does not represent a formal recommendation from staff. On July 22 the
Tigard City Council directed staff to begin work on a combination of options II, III and V
as described below:
I. No Action.
Council could opt to take no action, and implement existing code when presented with an
application for a medical marijuana dispensary. This course presents uncertainty due to
conflicting local, state, and federal requirements.
Tigard Development Code (TDC) Subsection 18.210.030.A requires all development
applications to be consistent with federal law.
Continued federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule II drug may require the
city to deny all land use applications for medical marijuana facilities as not being
consistent with Federal law.
Uncertainty will remain as some facilities may be able to open if no land use permits
are required from the city (i.e. conversion of an existing retail space to a state licensed
dispensary).
II. Remove Federal Consistency Requirement from TDC.
The City could choose to take a wait and see approach, while making minor changes to the
TDC to comply with state law, and reduce the risk of litigation.
Amend TDC 18.210.030 to remove consistency requirement with federal law.
4
Medical Marijuana facilities would be regulated in the same manner as other retail
uses within the city through the TDC. Existing regulations, both city and state,
would result in the following time, place, and manner restrictions on medical
marijuana dispensaries:
o 1,000 foot separation from a primary or secondary school (State);
o 1,000 foot separation from another dispensary (State);
o Prohibited in all Residential zones (State and TDC);
o Allowed in all Commercial zones (State and TDC);
o Size-restricted within the Industrial-Park zone (TDC);
o Prohibited outright in the Light and Heavy Industrial Zones (TDC); and,
o Existing standards regarding landscaping and screening, parking, and
environmental performance standards for light noise, and odors will apply
(TDC)
III. Adopt land use regulations to prevent or mitigate anticipated nuisance issues.
State statute authorizes local governments to establish reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions on medical marijuana facilities above and beyond what the State requires (as
detailed in Option II above). The City may also craft local restrictions in a manner that
anticipates future legalization of retail cannabis. In determining what is “reasonable”, staff
recommends looking at existing precedents both within Tigard and across the region.
Reasonable regulations could include one or more of the following:
o Restrictions on hours of operation;
o Restriction on allowed zones;
o Distance buffers in excess of current state law;
o Limits on size;
o Security requirements (i.e. security lighting, camera locations, etc.);
o Entrance location requirements;
o Environmental performance standards for noise, odors, and light; and/or,
o Regulate as a conditional use in some or all circumstances.
5
The State has already set a precedent for the use of 1,000 foot distance buffers as a
reasonable method to avoid diversion of marijuana and minimizing public nuisances
that may affect minors attending a primary or secondary school.
Distance buffers for dispensaries are being discussed in other communities within
Washington County, and there is precedent in the City’s regulation of adult
entertainment (18.330.050.B.1) which requires a 500 ft. separation between a dult
entertainment uses and specified land uses which may be negatively impacted by adult
entertainment.
Given local precedent, regional trends, and existing state statues, Council may wish to
consider the establishment of minimum distances from residential zones or places
where children are likely to congregate:
o A 500 ft. buffer from all Residential and Parks and Recreation zones would be
comparable to those required for adult entertainment uses as set forth in the
TDC.
o A 1,000 ft. buffer matches distances required by state statute (schools) and
Washington Statute (The voter approved Washington ballot measure I-502,
prohibits sales within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, public parks, recreational
facilities, child care centers, elementary or secondary schools, transit centers,
libraries, or game arcades not restricted to 21 and older).
A preliminary analysis of available land after state rules and a possible 500 foot buffer
from residential and park zones revealed the following differences in land availability:
o Under existing state rules and Tigard zoning, approximately 929 commercial
and industrial parcels could potentially meet location criteria for the opening
of a medical marijuana dispensary.
o Under a conceptual scenario involving a 500 foot buffer from all residential
and park zones, the number of available parcels drops to approximately 462
parcels.
o The geographic distribution of the buffer areas and potentially eligible parcels
are demonstrated on two maps included as Attachments “A” and “B” of this
memorandum.
IV. Prohibition.
The City could try to outright prohibit medical or retail marijuana dispensaries within the
City in conformance with federal law.
Would most effectively prohibit unique nuisance or compatibility issues created
by dispensaries.
6
Likely to result in litigation. May be prohibited by Measure 53 if it passes.
V. Amend Municipal Code to address nuisance and increased cost-of-service-delivery.
The City could opt to address dispensary issues in a non-land use manner through the
nuisance code, business license requirements, or other public safety measures.
Could be implemented independently or in coordination with land use amendments.
Public Outreach
At present, staff is planning a public outreach program ahead of the public hearings process
to solicit input from Tigard citizens and business owners regarding their concerns and
desired outcomes. These efforts will include the following:
Use of Social Media and an article in Cityscape summarizing the project and including
a link to the project website, critical dates, and staff contact information.
A city website presence to provide centralized information regarding the project, links
to information, and portals to two interactive tools:
o An online forum hosted by ConsiderIt, similar to the one being used for River
Terrace. This is a hosted website that provides not only an avenue for
submitting commentary, but is structured to foster dialogue between users and
identify areas of common ground between polarized parties.
o An interactive web map that will let users activate multiple buffer scenarios
(i.e. state rules only, 500 foot buffers from residential zones and parks, 1,000
foot buffers from residential zones and parks) and how that may affect
specific areas of the city down to a parcel level.
Active solicitation of input from potential dispensary operators.
A survey of the Tigard business community regarding medical and retail marijuana, in
partnership with the City's Economic Development Coordinator.
Attachments: A. Prohibited Dispensary Locations Under ORS 475.314
B. Prohibited Dispensary Locations Under ORS 475.314 & Local Buffers
C. Statewide Initiative Petition #53
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
August 4, 2014 Tigard City Council and Planning Commission
Project Schedule and Tasks
We are here
•Project Goals
Movement - Getting Around
Land Use - Activity Centers
Public Realm - Community Character
Market and Implementation
•CAC/TAC Input
Options Evaluation
Roadway and
Bike/Pedestrian
Network
Photo by Doug Vorwaller
Land Use &
Building Heights
Open Space &
Natural Areas
Development Feasibility
Considered:
•Real Estate Market
•Public Policy and zoning
•Development economics
•Potential tools/incentives
Key Findings
•Land costs are critical
•Multi-family is most viable under current
conditions
•Townhomes/three story apartments are
feasible on their own
•Office is not feasible due to current market
conditions
•Ground floor retail negatively impacts
feasibility
Getting to Feasibility
•Increasing rents – greatest impact
•Vertical Housing program
•Cash equivalent subsidies
•Reduced parking ratios
Incremental Place Making &
Urban Housing
Doesn’t Happen Quickly
•Downtown Portland
(Pearl District) took 15 years
•Small steps
•Developers and market become
educated
•Success builds confidence
•Move into bigger projects
•More expensive construction
•Finalize Preferred Plan
Public Meeting (September)
CAC Meetings (September & October)
TAC (October)
•Implementation Measures
Code & Plan Changes
Funding Tools & Public Investment
Next Steps
CITY OF TIGARD
Questions ??