03/07/2016 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – March 7, 2016
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: March 7, 2016 - 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 FROM FEBRUARY 8 7:04 p.m.
5. UPDATE – TIGARD TRIANGLE (Cheryl Caines, Susan Shanks, Lloyd Purdy) 7:05 p.m.
6. UPDATE – CODE AMENDMENT PROJECTS (John Floyd) 7:50 p.m.
7. UPDATE – CCI (Susan Shanks) 8:05 p.m.
8. OTHER BUSINESS 8:15 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.m.
Working Session Report
September 14 -17, 2015
PlaceMakers, LLC
DPZ
Crabtree Group
Tigard Triangle Lean Code i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1
COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................... 2
TIGARD TRIANGLE ZONING MAP DRAFT 1 .................................................................................................................................. 3
T5 HIGH BULK STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
T5 MEDIUM BULK STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
TIGARD TRIANGLE NETWORK PLAN .............................................................................................................................................. 6
TIGARD TRIANGLE THOROUGHFARE PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 7
FRONTAGE SETBACKS: COMMON YARD AND FENCED YARD ................................................................................................... 8
FRONTAGE SETBACKS: SHALLOW AND URBAN ............................................................................................................................. 9
FRONTAGE TYPES: PORCH, STOOP, COMMON ENTRY .............................................................................................................. 10
FRONTAGE TYPES: GALLERY, ARCADE, SHOPFRONT ............................................................................................................... 11
TIGARD TRIANGLE LEAN MATRIX ................................................................................................................................................ 12
TIGARD TRIANGLE LEAN MATRIX ................................................................................................................................................ 13
T5 MEDIUM AND T5 HIGH PERMITTED USES ............................................................................................................................. 14
THOROUGHFARES: TYPICAL, SKINNY, AND TRANSIT ................................................................................................................ 15
THOROUGHFARES: ARTERIALS ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
MEETING 1 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 14 | 9:00 A.M. ............................................................ 17
NARROW TRAVEL LANES ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
ON-STREET PARKING ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17
GOAL 2 AT THE STATE LEVEL ABOUT PUBLIC PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 17
ANNOTATED CODE OUTLINE ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................................... 17
TRANSECT LANGUAGE..................................................................................................................................................................... 17
MEETING 2 | TOUR TRIANGLE | SEPTEMBER 14 | 10:00 A.M. ......................................................... 17
DRIVING TOUR .................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
MEETING 3 | LANDOWNERS | SEPTEMBER 14 | 11:00 A.M. .............................................................. 18
MEETING 4 | DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS TRIANGLE STRATEGY | SEPT. 14 | 1 P.M.................. 18
LEAN CODE: GETTING TO YES ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
THRESHOLDS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
PARKING ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
SKINNY STREETS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19
SAFETY ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19
HEIGHTS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
DENSITY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
STRATEGIC PLAN............................................................................................................................................................................... 19
URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
MEETING 5 | LEGAL | SEPTEMBER 14 | 2:00 P.M................................................................................20
ESTABLISH THRESHOLDS ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS? ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR LEVEL 1 COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................. 20
LEVEL 2 FOR LARGE SITES .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
INTERPRETATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20
ii Working Session Report | September 2015
HOMEWORK ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
LAND USE DECISION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
NEW CHAPTER 900 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20
MEETING 6 | STORMWATER | SEPTEMBER 14 | 2:00 P.M. ................................................................20
DEGRADATION OF THE CREEK ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
STANDARDS/REGULATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
THE STREAM AS AN AMENITY: PILOT PROJECT .......................................................................................................................... 21
THRESHOLDS AND COLLECTING MONEY .................................................................................................................................... 21
MASTER SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER ........................................................................................................................................... 21
GREEN STREETS, STRUCTURAL SOILS, TREED PARKING .......................................................................................................... 22
MEETING 7 | TEAM MEETING: DNA OPTIONS | SEPTEMBER 14 | 3:00 P.M. ...............................22
DNA .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
PROTOTYPES IN THE REGION ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
WHAT TO REINFORCE IN THE TRIANGLE NOW ......................................................................................................................... 22
MEETING 8 | PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE | SEPTEMBER 14 | 6:30 P.M. ..................................................22
WHAT PLACES IN THE REGION ARE EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU’D LIKE TO SEE IN THE TRIANGLE? .................................. 22
WHICH IS YOUR PRIORITY – FLEXIBILITY OR PREDICTABILITY? ............................................................................................... 23
WHAT ARE YOUR ASPIRATIONS OR CONCERNS FOR THE ZONING UPDATE? ......................................................................... 23
MEETING 9 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 9:00 A.M. ............................................................23
ZONING MAP FIRST DRAFT FOR TODAY AT 4 P.M. .................................................................................................................... 23
CHARACTER OF STREETS FOR THE TRANSIT LINE ..................................................................................................................... 23
STREET SECTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 24
LAST NIGHT’S PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 24
MEETING 10 | PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | SEPTEMBER 15 | 10:00 A.M. ...............................24
TREE INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................................................... 24
SIDEWALKS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
THRESHOLDS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
MEETING 11 | LANDOWNER MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 10:00 A.M............................................24
MEETING 12 | TRANSPORTATION | SEPTEMBER 15 | 11:00 A.M. ....................................................24
MEETING 13 | LANDOWNER MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 11:00 A.M............................................24
MEETING 14 | ODOT | SEPTEMBER 15 | 3:00 P.M. ..............................................................................25
MEETING 15 | LANDOWNER MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 4:00 P.M. ............................................25
MEETING 16 | LANDOWNER GROUP MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 6:00 P.M. .............................26
ZONING MAP ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
SETBACKS............................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
HEIGHTS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
PARKING ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
LANDSCAPING ................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
MEETING 17 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 16 | 9:00 A.M. ..........................................................26
LAST NIGHT’S PUBLIC INPUT .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Tigard Triangle Lean Code iii
DENSITIES .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
MEETING 18 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 16 | 5:00 P.M. ...........................................................27
NETWORK PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
REGULATING PLAN .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27
THOROUGHFARE ASSIGNMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................................................... 27
LEAN MATRIX SCENARIO ILLUSTRATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 27
MEETING 19 | CLOSING AND PUBLIC COMMENT | SEPTEMBER 17 | 6:30 P.M. ..........................27
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 1
Executive Summary
One of Tigard’s goals is to be the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest. That’s a tall order,
thanks to some inspiring competition. To achieve this, suburban development patterns need to be repaired
from auto-centric to more walkable, bike-able, transit-friendly streets. Today, the most walkable part of
Tigard is downtown on Main Street. The Lean Code intends to help the Triangle step it up.
While the planning horizon of the Lean Code is 20 years, to enable incremental growth and home-based
businesses as well as larger developments, the Lean Code is based on thresholds that differ for “small,
medium, large, and extra-large” projects. For the smaller developments, certain requirements including
stormwater and traffic impact studies are lessened to spark growth. A Lean Matrix (pages 12-13) is underway
to spell out how this cutting the red tape would apply to redevelopment projects of varying sizes.
The Lean Code is a form-based code, shaping the form of the built environment first, then allowing a mixture
of compatible uses. The code relies heavily on graphics to spell out rules for a predictable development
environment, and aims to be understandable by landowners and businesses as well as attorneys and architects.
These regulations are based on character, with wider streets like 72nd Avenue allowing taller buildings up to
six stories, and narrower streets like 69th Avenue having buildings up to four stories. Both of these streets are
seen as the most walkable in the Triangle, having a main street sort of feel making up the spine of the
pedestrian street networks seen on the Network Plan (page 6).
Since mixed-use is allowed, more flexibility is available so that a rezoning is not required for a change of use,
providing it is within the range of uses allowed in the Permitted Use Table (page 14). The two new zoning
categories, T5 Medium Intensity and T5 High Intensity, are mixed-use that reflect current allowed uses, but
are expanded based on public input. The use categories are kept as broad as possible; so that the City does
not have to amend the Zoning Map (page 3) every time a millennial has a good idea. Existing big boxes with
little redevelopment pressure will stay zoned as Commercial General. The Triangle zoning categories are:
C-G Commercial General: No changes to the standards, only improvements to the process
T5 Medium Intensity: 4 stories
T5 High Intensity: 6 stories, along 72nd Avenue, where there is a wider right-or-way width
T5 Medium Transit Bonus: if transit gets approved, this district automatically increases to 6 stories,
with a 20-foot step-back for the fifth and sixth stories, to alleviate a canyon effect on narrow streets.
The Transect shows how the character of place changes from the most rural to the most urban environment.
It’s a spectrum showing where different plants and animals – as well as economies and people – thrive. T5 is
on the more urban end of the T1-T6 Transect, reflecting the urban aspirations of the Triangle.
Frontage Types (pages 10-11) describe what happens between the building and the sidewalk, encouraging the
buildings to shape the shared public realm, making for informal gathering places and a sort of outdoor living
room. This includes what sort of encroachments and building faces are allowed.
The Triangle has many reasonably-sized blocks, but it also has some blocks that are much too big – or
incomplete – to be walkable. So the Triangle Thoroughfare Plan (page 7) shows how the streets can be
completed over time, as development occurs.
2 Working Session Report | September 2015
Community Planning Process
The Tigard Triangle Lean Code Working Session during September 2015, provided an opportunity for the
City of Tigard department leaders as well as the Triangle landowners, business leaders, and developers to
work with the PlaceMakers / DPZ / Crabtree consultant team to establish a framework for the new Lean
Code to implement the Triangle Strategic Plan. In advance of the September working session, a Lean Code
Analysis on legal context was completed, along with a Lean Code Annotated Table of Contents Draft 1.
During nineteen meetings in the Working Session, over 100 people contributed ideas about the development
and market context. The City of Tigard Departments of Community Development, Engineering, Public
Works, Legal, Finance, Fire, and Police worked together to help develop a lean framework. The Oregon
Department of Transportation came to the table as a sounding board for transportation analysis impacts. A
smaller working group of Community Development, Engineering, and the consulting team developed a
matrix of thresholds to enable development, with a small-medium-large-extra-large approach to development
proposals. Drafts of the following documents received two rounds of public input as well as city staff review:
zoning map
street network plan
thoroughfare plan, which designates street classification and section requirements such as width, on-
street parking, number of lanes, etc.
frontage types, which illustrates how different types of development will look on the sites.
The Lean Code aspires to empower incremental placemaking by creating tools and techniques so that more
people can actively build their community, focusing on change to create a walkable, bike-able town center.
This sort of removing the red tape to building interconnected neighborhoods helps local development
advances the community vision. A first draft of the Lean Code will be delivered to the Community
Development Department by October 28 and will be considered for adoption in early 2016.
The Lean Code accounts for changing transportation system impacts anticipated as the Tigard Triangle
develops. Initially the code assumes that conditions will continue to approximate a typical suburban
condition, utilizing the ITE trip generation manual for trip estimation. As the Lean Code anticipates the
fulfillment of Metro’s requirements for reduced transportation system impact, the use of a 30% reduction
over ITE trip generation standards is provided for. As Tri-Met considers future high-capacity transit service
within the Tigard Triangle, the Lean Code provides for the use of up to date mixed-use trip generation
reductions developed by UC Davis in coordination with Portland State University. Trip generation rate
standards are therefore organized into the following three levels:
Level 1: Current Triangle: Traffic study using ITE trip generation standards required for those uses that
would generate over 1,000 new trips via ITE estimate.
Level 2: Triangle implementation meets Metro requirements for 30% reduction over ITE: Traffic
study using a 30% reduction of ITE trip generation standards required for those uses that would generate
over 1,000 new trips via ITE estimate, 30% reduced. Requirements from Metro include a traffic management
plan, zoning out of auto-oriented uses, etc.
Level 3: Triangle receives Tri-Met rail transit: Traffic study using UC Davis trip generation tool required
for those uses that would generate over 1,000 new trips via UC Davis tool estimate.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 3
Tigard Triangle Zoning Map Draft 1
4 Working Session Report | September 2015
T5 High Bulk Standards
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 5
T5 Medium Bulk Standards
6 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Network Plan
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 7
Tigard Triangle Thoroughfare Plan
8 Working Session Report | September 2015
Frontage Setbacks: Common Yard and Fenced Yard
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 9
Frontage Setbacks: Shallow and Urban
10 Working Session Report | September 2015
Frontage Types: Porch, Stoop, Common Entry
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 11
Frontage Types: Gallery, Arcade, Shopfront
12 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Lean Matrix
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 13
Tigard Triangle Lean Matrix
14 Working Session Report | September 2015
T5 Medium and T5 High Permitted Uses
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 15
Thoroughfares: Typical, Skinny, and Transit
16 Working Session Report | September 2015
Thoroughfares: Arterials
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 17
Meeting 1 | Team Meeting | September 14 | 9:00 a.m.
Kickoff meeting before team tours Triangle site.
Narrow Travel Lanes
Walkable environments depend heavily on smaller than 11’ travel lanes, to tame the traffic and create an
environment that is safe and comfortable to the pedestrian. Because of the traffic congestion in the Triangle,
there has been reticent to go on street diets. However, it’s not hydraulics: wider lane widths do not mean
more capacity. In fact, just the opposite is true, because as speeds slow down, cars can travel closer to each
other without losing capacity. Paying particular attention to topography and stormwater, Paul will design a
collection of street sections appropriate for the walkable environments of Tigard.
On-Street Parking
The Tigard Triangle Lean Code will have additional definitions specific to the Transect Zones and
development standards. There is a possibility that some will conflict with the definitions in Chapter 18.120. It
will be best to develop an internal set of definitions to the Lean Code rather than augmenting 18.120.
Goal 2 at the State Level Public Process
Very clear parameters are required to allow expedited approval processes. Work sessions this week with
stormwater, public works, and engineering will begin to define and enable these clear thresholds.
Annotated Code Outline
This week is all about refining and adding content to the code outline, and revising where needed so that
code writing can occur over the next six weeks. City Staff is generally comfortable with the starting point of
the Annotated Code Outline draft, and will make any necessary edits this week.
Oregon Department of Transportation
The State of Oregon Transportation Planning Rule states that zone changes it not have a significant impact
on the surrounding ODOT routes, frequently requiring City street upgrades to comply. A sensitivity analysis
of the Triangle has been completed in 2015, which does show a significant impact on surrounding routes, due
to congestion at each of the entry points into the Triangle. The City much show if the Lean Code would
modify these findings, and if so, how those impacts would be mitigated. Using projects that are already in the
plan, ODOT is asking how to further define and fund queuing lane extensions at the intersections,
particularly the intersections of 72nd and 217 and 99th and 217. Any planning for transit has to go to a public
vote, so can’t make assumptions on it until it is voted on and approved. Trip Generation Rates for Smart
Growth Development estimate a 30% reduction, which are appropriate for the Triangle as a town center.
Transect Language
Need some explanation of the gradient of intensity. Most zones have multiple uses beyond residential. Okay
with the word “Transect” but need some dialogue regarding the character this week.
Meeting 2 | Tour Triangle | September 14 | 10:00 a.m.
Team toured Triangle site.
Driving Tour
Reviewed the Triangle site with planning department staff and the consultant team.
18 Working Session Report | September 2015
Meeting 3 | Landowners | September 14 | 11:00 a.m.
Meeting with landowners to understand development concerns.
Meeting 4 | Department Directors Triangle Strategy | Sept. 14 | 1 p.m.
Meeting with Department Directors to clarify Triangle Strategy.
Lean Code: Getting to Yes
Brainstorming session for how to speed up development that complies with the strategic plan. Type 1
development and Type 2 development reviews can impact streets and police, etc. Future infrastructure capital
improvements impact finance.
Thresholds
Considering thresholds for various types of development – from redevelopment on smaller parcels to more
extensive developments – based on size of development and what is happening on the site. Connectivity,
major stormwater, public open space are a big deal on large site, but can get lean on smaller sites.
Timing is an important part of the threshold considerations. Some infrastructure can wait for collective
upgrade, some are more expedient, some can be fee in lieu for small sites that can contribute to offsite
remediation. Example: for a 400 SF addition to an existing building to add a coffee shop. Off-street parking
could certainly be more flexible, to count on street parking, however stormwater is more complicated.
Need to be clear on when the various thresholds are available. Would be easier if the Lean Code were
supported by a number of master plans: stormwater, parking, streets, etc. In the zoning map, instead of just
having colors on parcels, we’d like to codify the locations of future streets, so that if develop adjacent to this
area, you will put in half of the street.
A Consolidated Review Committee is strongly recommended, so that empowered decision makers from each
department sits at the table with the applicant. In this lean framework, need to open the possibility of
construction and development to a group of people to whom development is otherwise closed because of
professional hurdles. At least in the application process, so that a “completed application” doesn’t necessarily
include traffic studies and wetland studies for the smaller thresholds. If the City can provide some of that
missing professional help in the front end, can save time in the end.
Parking
On-street, off-street, what are the requirements and how can we work with the Metro Guidelines. How can
we reduce curb cuts and add on-street parking? How can we allow parking reductions, but within thresholds,
dependent on size and use? Some developers may have more parking than the maximums allow, so we don’t
usually recommend maximums. Parking configurations are also important, for placement on the lot. Perhaps
a Triangle Parking Management Plan is also something needed at some point, whether it’s striping, or shared
parking and shuttles. Can also build standards that trigger different outputs once transit comes into play. May
be better served with a credo that City Staff all knows, pointing out that there will be less room for cars over
time, as the place becomes more beloved, and more people want to be there. But in the mean time, can also
do other interventions, like consolidating curb cuts, mixing compatible uses that have natural shared parking.
For a long time, San Diego’s parking maximums were equal to LA’s parking minimums. Now each new
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 19
parking space in San Diego has to be justified via proof of hardship. Paris has been removing thousands of
parking spots per year in their core for awhile now, to allow room for pedestrians and cyclists.
Skinny Streets
How can design speed match posted speed, so that people drive the posted speed? On the pedestrian streets
only, 10’ travel lanes help this happen, along with on-street parking, street trees, and wider sidewalks. How
can those pedestrian streets connect in a network or at least a loop? This forms an A-Grid of walkable streets,
supported by a B-Grid of more service-oriented streets, where the standards relax slightly. If we try to make
all of the streets great, it’s harder to concentrate redevelopment and see a near-term change. Walnut Street
just west of 99 just got restriped to 10’ travel lanes, and no complaints. Doing 32’ curb-to-curb with parking
both sides. But in places with more bus traffic, going with 10’ 6”.
Safety
Fire district is a special service district of 3-counties, and will be with us tomorrow for the streets. 20’ clear.
Big turning radius. 300’ as the hose would lie.
Heights
FAR will go away, and no ODOT height limitations. Instead of regulating height in feet, we like to regulate
height in stories, with a maximum height for each story, usually 14’ floor to ceiling for residential, and 26’ for
commercial. We regulate floor to ceiling because the floor plenum can be radically different based on the use
and the HVAC demand. We calculate to the bottom of a structure for a loft, but if exceeds 14’ then it’s two
stories. The best practice in walkable urban environments (not in regional cores) is not to exceed 6 stories,
but 5 stories is better. The Triangle is likely to be at least two and possibly three zoning districts, with
different heights in each district.
Density
Strongly suggest that we don’t regulate dwelling units per acre, since the bulk standards (lot coverage and
building height) plus parking control for density.
Strategic Plan
Some points needs to be tweaked, such as cross block connections, A-B-C Grid
Urban Renewal District
The Urban Renewal District idea is an implementation tool of the Tigard Triangle Strategy, and not directly a
established by the Lean Code. However, this week’s engagement with both City Staff and the development
community has pointed to the benefits of establishing a Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal District to undertake
a number of implementation initiatives, including:
Master Drainage / Red Rock Creek Restoration Plan
Parking Management Plan for the Centre consistent 3.08.410 of the RTFP and a subsequent parking
structure(s) as part of the plan
Transportation System or Demand Management Plan consistent with 3.08.160 of the RTFP and
subsequent street improvements and connections to ODOT facilities
Sewer Main Extensions
Master Service Provider Letter
20 Working Session Report | September 2015
Meeting 5 | Legal | September 14 | 2:00 p.m.
Meeting with Legal Department to understand legal constraints.
Establish Thresholds
• To clarify Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3
Administrative Waivers?
• Possible to provide for administrative waivers, nothing limiting at state enabling legislation
• Waivers for topography and stormwater
Objective Standards for Level 1 compliance
• Parametrics - possible
• Purpose statement is important - broad is good
o Triangle Area
o Block
o Street
o Building
o Open Space
Level 2 for Large Sites
• Requires notification but not hearing
Interpretations
• Council is entitled to deference in interpretation
Homework
• What is clear and objective?
Land use decision
• Land use decision means that it requires discretion, if its just checking boxes its not a land use
decision (Type 1)
o Subdivision is a land use decision -> we can add clear and objective subdivision regulations
o Partition = subdivision of 3 lots or less in Oregon law
New Chapter 900
• New Chapter 900, tied to through the plan district, point to parts of the existing code
Meeting 6 | Stormwater | September 14 | 2:00 p.m.
Meeting with Stormwater Management to understand lean stormwater intervention possibilities.
Degradation of the Creek
Red Rock Creek stream channel is eroding. Regionally what we do with the stream corridor, so that we do
not have to deal with stormwater on a lot-by-lot basis, but contribute to a regional solution. Freeways, big
boxes, and slopes are creating the perfect storm, that new development or redevelopment cannot solve.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 21
Standards/Regulations
The purpose of the regulations are to ensure that development and redevelopment don’t cause additional
negative impact, more than is already there. Post-Q is to not exceed Pre-Q. But Pre-Q is pretty bad for most
of the Triangle. MS4 permit doesn’t allow us to create resilient stream conditions. New MS4 is to be adopted
early next calendar year. If solely rely on regulations, will be no improvements downstream (all retain and
release). Currently working on a stormwater master plan Citywide (budgeted for this year and next year), to
develop a floodplain management plan (storage, trails, management), that would get integrated with the
regulations. Need to set ourselves up so that the DEQ Permit does not apply generic terms that will be less
appropriate to these particular constraints, by developing a stormwater and district for the triangle.
Problem vs Solutions
The problem is that Red Rock Creek is degrading and eroding and a mess due to subwatershed degradation.
There are several strategies that could address this problem:
Stream Channel Restoration
Regional detention/local treatment
Greenway widening/trails
On-site BMPs
Pay-in-lieu (with facility assured)
Designate the projects as “regional”
Tigard Triangle surcharge fee
Master Service Provider Letter
Green light projects at certain thresholds
Add to toolkits, such as: structural soils, simple green streets, tree infrastructure, green roofs
The Stream as an Amenity: Pilot Project
“Tigard Triangle is already set up as an urbanized area, that we are establishing Red Rock Creek Watershed
District as a pilot to demonstrate how to do things in a different way, to demonstrate a more holistic
approach to stormwater management. As part of the Hydro Modification plan, this area will be one of the
first phases.” Currently, the creek is more like a hazard than an amenity. Work toward a restored stream
channel. Six sewer main breaks in the last five years due to stream erosion. Stream enhancement, stream
channel restoration, regional detention facility, upstream treatment and infiltration where possible, buffers
within the corridor as greenway widening with trails.
Thresholds and Collecting Money
Regional benefits between the Tigard Triangle District (or maybe calling it the Red Rock Creek Watershed
District) and its residents and developers. If the monthly rate payers are all paying an additional fee that’s
going toward redevelopment without doing a lot of onsite stormwater management, it would be incentivizing
redevelopment. Justify a fee on properties in this area because they are having a huge impact, but there’s also
a way to partner up with specific sites and landowners on stream restoration and park system. This isn’t just a
drainage ditch behind your property, this is your property. Or certainly its biggest amenity. Then others want
to be a part of it. There’s a variety of ways we can structure the fees.
Master Service Provider Letter
Where there’s a wetland, Army Corp of Engineers protect the resources, and we protect the barrier that’s
protecting the resources. But don’t end up with a very development-friendly scenario, because it’s lot by lot.
22 Working Session Report | September 2015
In Beaverton, predetermined where impact and mitigations will happened, with an agreement in advance of
development.
Beaverton Creek is a straightened stream channel. Our rules have a requirement to pull the development back
from the top of bank a certain amount (25’, 50’), (which can provide development challenges). Looked at the
developments in existence now, and mapped what would likely not redevelop. Master Service Provider Letter
is in draft to determine buffers and encroachments and alternatives, as well as identified mitigation areas. If a
developer wants to then develop as per the master plan, can do what the MSPL says, and/or pay into a pot
for the mitigation that the City has in play without going through an individual Service Provider Letter
process. Looking at how we can incentivize more de-paving to provide a green ribbon of parkway through
the Tigard Triangle. The master effort leans the process for individual property owners..
Green Streets, Structural Soils, Treed Parking
Establishing a toolkit for dealing with infrastructure is important. Need more options that fit within the
footprint. If have new structures going up built to new earthquake standards, could justify structured soils and
green roofs. Maybe could give a density bonus for some of these green interventions.
Meeting 7 | Team Meeting: DNA Options | September 14 | 3:00 p.m.
DNA
Intensity of development. Streetscape type. Transparency on the ground floor. Parking onstreet or behind the
building. Frontage types. Percentage of frontage buildout. Heights. Uses. Signage. Pedestrian streets (A-Grid)
get more stringent requirements, and get looser on the service streets (B-Grid). Landscaping numbers and
location, but not plant type (point to approved plant list).
Prototypes in the region
Burnside, Mississippi Avenue, the Alphabet District
What to Reinforce in the Triangle Now
One-story red brick buildings on Beveland Street
Meeting 8 | Public Open House | September 14 | 6:30 p.m.
The public open house started with a short presentation of the Tigard Triangle Strategy Plan implementation
via the Lean Code, then round-table working sessions addressed these three questions.
What places in the region are examples of what you’d like to see in the Triangle?
Bridgeport – people can park and walk
Northwest 23rd Avenue
Orenco – scale and feel is great, provided it’s in the right area
Something halfway between Johns Landing and South Waterfront
St. Johns – people know their neighbors; lots of gathering places
Take advantage of the natural areas within the Triangle by connect-ing with cycling amenities and
walking paths and sidewalks. Encourage small-scale businesses instead of big box. More residential.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 23
Which is your priority – flexibility or predictability?
Challenging to come to consensus.
Flexibility: more landowners prefer flexibility, to let the free market decide if it wants to build a café
or a house, instead of designating it only for apartments or offices or any single-use category.
Predictability: more business owners prefer predictability so people can predictably make investment
choices.
What are your aspirations or concerns for the zoning update?
Aspirations: Ensure connectivity of streets especially 68th, 72nd to 77th Ave. and Hwy. 99; keep the
fir trees; more access to Red Rock Creek; co-hesive; functional; attract small business; ensure mixed-
use everywhere in-stead of any single-use zoning; parking structures at perimeter of Triangle.
Concerns: Increased traffic and other transportation issues are inhibiting investment; existing uses
should be protected; incompatibility between us-es and scales; don’t put maximums on parking; have
larger developments mitigate their impacts; 72nd and Dartmouth has considerable congestion.
Meeting 9 | Team Meeting | September 15 | 9:00 a.m.
Findings, set basic code metrics.
Zoning Map First Draft for Today at 4 p.m.
One zone with subdistricts for intensity. Core Residential confuses people. Using Transect designations is
keyed to intensity. At this moment, considering two zones: one that covers the existing single-family
residential As long as we don’t go below 45’, we aren’t downzoning anyone. We could go with 3-story and 5-
story (or maybe 6-story). The 3-story would have more intensity than the current FAR, because we’re
allowing more lot coverage.
If you have a 10,000 SF lot, and the existing FAR of 0.4, would never get to 45’ unless did a tiny tower. So if
had 60% or 70% lot coverage on 10,000 SF lot, would be 6,000 SF of buildable on one story, so at 3-stories,
this is a significant up-zoning.
In an area the size of the Triangle, at 300+ acres, is two neighborhoods. Need a diversity of intensity in a
neighborhood. Helps build identity. Helps us not be legal, non-conforming to most of the single-family
housing stock, except along 72nd. However, for most minor modifications, we’ll have standards that make it
easy to modify and expand an existing structure, but still may have some challenges with insurance and
financing for legal, non-conforming.
Height, lot coverage, setbacks, and frontages would be different in the two zones.
Character of Streets for the Transit Line
The one-way couplets make these not as walkable of streets, but the car traffic doesn’t have to be one-way,
just the transit.
Otherwise, should consider reclaiming 72nd as an A-Street. Would need 10’ lanes instead of 11’ and on-street
parking. Need to deal with the topography at Dartmouth. The current traffic loads are high enough to
68th is the service side, and 69th and 72nd are the pedestrian streets.
24 Working Session Report | September 2015
Street Sections
The newly designed street sections that we are providing this week may be applicable elsewhere in Tigard.
Last Night’s Public Engagement
Very civil, helpful conversation. Notes separately.
Meeting 10 | Public Works Department | September 15 | 10:00 a.m.
How does a lean code and successional development of infrastructure impact Public Works staff (those who
review, inspect, and maintain public facilities)? Understanding these issues and trying to find solutions to
eliminate them.
Tree Infrastructure
Structural soil in the tree-well. Small redevelopment may not trigger. Would want barrier on the street edge,
but it can be under the sidewalk. Would have to do under drains, so would have to deal with ensuring they
don’t get root-bound. Would deal with runoff of street.
Sidewalks
Have to figure out street section for sidewalks and trees. Gets away from soil volumes. Instead of a LIDA
facility, it’s trees with a surface around them, cutting maintenance costs significantly.
Thresholds
Have to figure out what triggers the ditch improvements and culverts. Or if using the ditch as stormwater,
must use a particular design v-notch or trapezoidal.
Jump-start vibrancy by encouraging low-hanging fruit: marked on map.
Meeting 11 | Landowner Meeting | September 15 | 10:00 a.m.
Meeting with landowners to understand development concerns.
Meeting 12 | Transportation | September 15 | 11:00 a.m.
Discussions to help the PlaceMakers team understand transportation concerns and obtain feedback on street
section concepts.
ODOT Process: 1. New Zoning Map, 2. Compare to Sensitivity Analysis, 3. Debate the Assumptions with
ODOT, 4. If delta increases, amend the TSP.
Meeting 13 | Landowner Meeting | September 15 | 11:00 a.m.
Meeting with landowner to understand development concerns.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 25
Meeting 14 | ODOT | September 15 | 3:00 p.m.
Joint meeting with ODOT. The changes in the Tigard Triangle will impact the surrounding state highways.
This meeting will focus on how to address those impacts, including better defining interchange and queuing
lane projects within the Transportation System Plan and funding for those improvements.
Rezoning has to address the Transportation Planning Rule if it has a significant impact on the surrounding
ODOT routes, to ensure adequate infrastructure for 20 years. A sensitivity analysis of the Triangle has been
completed for one likely build-out scenario, which did show a significant impact on surrounding routes,
however but it was based on Euclidean zoning instead of the current form-based Lean Code. The City
becomes responsible to improve safety and capacity, with mitigation put in the Transportation System Plan
with some sort of funding mechanism identified. With the new zoning, would need to demonstrate if the
current TSP is adequate or if it needs other mitigation.
217 southbound at 99 W or 217 northbound at 72nd.
Trip generation calculations in the ITE are based on single-use zoning where everything is a car trip. Trip
Generation for Smart Growth development from University California at Davis for CALTRAN, which has
been replicated for Orgeon, which shows reduced trip generation from internal trip capture. Will have to
demonstrate the trip capture.
Without some major consolidation of the very small parcels in the study area, it’s unrealistic to assume that
we will get the maximum intensity. Does ODOT have parameters for areas that are significantly built out?
This is much more of an incremental smaller scale development, with a fewer big projects.
Start with the study that was done, but make whatever assumptions are appropriate
The TSP requirement is 0.85 or 0.9 queuing analysis at intersections. 0.99 within the area.
, because it’s already so congested at each of the entry points into the Triangle. So we have to show how we
are going to mitigate those impacts. Using projects that are already in the plan, but ODOT is asking us how
to further define and fund. ODOT is used to dealing with FAR and height limitations, and they’re also used
to dealing with safety issues at the intersections. Finding financing to extend the queuing lanes at the
intersections, particularly the intersections of 72nd and 217 and 99th and 217. Transit was not taking into the
account in the sensitivity analysis. Any planning for transit has to go to a public vote, so can’t make
assumptions on it until it is voted on and approved. We permitted to zone in anticipation, based on the
Strategic Plan. Trip Generation Rates for Smart Growth Development – Paul Crabtree will share. 30%
reduction because it’s a town center.
Shifting emphasis from capacity to safety.
ITE 9 has some mixed use as well as the CALTRAN. ODOT is currently consulting with the LCD on City of
Portland for the TSP and Multi Modal Area (MMA) on the last 14 months to establish assumptions for
analysis both downtown and on the east side of Portland, but more for trip generation, but not sure about
how much for trip counts and trip capture.
Meeting 15 | Landowner Meeting | September 15 | 4:00 p.m.
Meeting with landowner to understand development concerns.
26 Working Session Report | September 2015
Meeting 16 | Landowner Group Meeting | September 15 | 6:00 p.m.
Meeting with landowners to understand development concerns.
Zoning Map
Additional transit trigger area in SW, Bev/Hermoso pocket. Most people liked the zoning map. Desire to see
neighborhood sale community amenities like coffee shops and restaurants.
Setbacks
Prefer to have 0’ setbacks on front and back setbacks – on narrow lots, every foot matters. Concern about
ROW on 70th and 72nd when streets expand.
Heights
High Intensity: Some prefer shorter, but others prefer as high as possible at 6 stories to support mixed-use as
well as preserve some greenspace for parks and recreation. Some prefer to make high intensity area step back
after 4 stories tall, if we are going to 6 stories. Others prefer not having the step-back. It would be helpful to
see what these different heights look like. 82% of jobs in Tigard are held by non-Tigard residents so we need
more residential.
Medium Intensity: most prefer 4 stories.
Parking
Parking management is essential if we go with 6 stories, so as not to have a sea of parking. But have shared
parking. No maximums, need minimums, and need shared parking. Reduce parking requirements further near
the transit after transit
Landscaping
Please remove the 15% minimums. Almost impossible on smaller lots – this would be a good thing to make a
trigger based on lot size.
Meeting 17 | Team Meeting | September 16 | 9:00 a.m.
Findings, set basic zoning districts.
Last Night’s Public Input
Reviewed and discussed.
Local Improvement District
Right now, not collecting money for projects, although outside of this scope, should establish a list of
projects. But are requiring a traffic study for each large applicant, with no clear triggers, but depends on how
many trips the project adds. Consider as simple as lot size and amount of change proposed.
Densities
Considering the acreage in each zoning district and utilizing the numbers currently enabled, would enable
2400 to 3000 residential units compared to 2195 in 1995. And that’s before we take into account that mixed
use will reduce residential.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 27
Meeting 18 | Team Meeting | September 16 | 5:00 p.m.
Present current product to PWD & CDD for review.
Network Plan
Even if a lot is too small to require the dedication of right-of-way on the matrix, but if the lot is a required
connection on the Network Plan, the lot still has to dedicate public right-of-way for streets.
Regulating Plan
Modify per group input.
Thoroughfare Assignment Plan
Add trails.
Lean Matrix Scenario Illustrations
A Lean Matrix was drafted Discussions between the Town Staff and Laurence Qamar are underway to
develop hypothetical plans to illustrate each of the scenarios within the Lean Matrix.
Meeting 19 | Closing and Public Comment | September 17 | 6:30 p.m.
Public presentation of work done during the week and opportunities for public comment.
This week, we’ve heard a lot of interest in incremental growth: to enable home-based businesses and small
developers. So the Lean Code is based on small, medium, large, and extra-large development. For the small
developments, stormwater and traffic impact studies are lessened.
The first night, we discussed whether people were more interested in predictability or flexibility. While people
valued both, the majority of people favored predictability so that everyone can know what the rules are and
get development built in a predictable development environment.
There are two zoning categories that are mixed-use that reflect current allowed uses, but are expanded
somewhat based on public input. New uses include things like group homes. The use categories are kept as
broad as possible, so that we don’t have to amend the zoning ordinance every time a millennial has a good
idea.
Frontage types describes what happens between the building and the sidewalks. This includes what sort of
encroachments and building faces are allowed. This code is more graphic to not have to have a land use
attorney to interpret it.
C-G: No changes to the standards, only improvements to the process.
T5 Medium Intensity: 4 stories
T5 High Intensity: 6 stories, along 72nd Avenue, where there is a wider right-or-way width.
T5 Medium Transit Bonus: if and when transit gets
One of Tigard’s goals is to be the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest. That’s a tall order,
because there’s some great competition. To achieve this, the suburban development patterns would need to
28 Working Session Report | September 2015
be repaired from more auto-centric patterns to more walkable, bike-able patterns. The urban form of the city
contributes massively to walkability. The most walkable part of Tigard now is downtown on Main Street.
The Transect shows how one thing changes from the most rural to the most urban environment. It’s a
spectrum of different environments, where different plants and animals as well as economies and people,
thrive.
The Triangle has many reasonably-sized blocks, but it also has some blocks that are much to big – or
incomplete – to be walkable. So the Triangle Thoroughfare Plan shows how the streets can be completed
over time, as development occurs.
Q1: You talk about walkability, and in the beginning you mentioned fences. Those two don’t mix. We have
very small lots within the Triangle. It would be nice to have no fences. It would be nice for my customer to
be able to walk to the next store.
A1: Fences only are appropriate in the residential portion of the neighborhood. It helps people to feel
comfortable on the front porch in places where there is a very short front setback.
Q2: Is there a way that the City could address shared driveways in the code?
A2: As we develop the access standards, we will address shared or tandem driveways. However, the actual
negotiation for a new structure would be between the two property owners. The code will not require shared
driveways, but it might be able to point to sample agreements, should
Q3: Will there be landscape requirements, and can they be reduced?
A3: There will be requirements for pervious surfaces, in part for stormwater management. Any landscape
standards would only apply to the front.
Q4: What are the parking standards, and will they be shared or reduced if transit comes? And also for senior
housing and affordable houses.
A4: We are still developing the parking standards, but we will certainly recommend shared parking standards.
Right now the parking standards are quite suburban in nature, so they will likely become significantly less as
the area urbanizes. We usually do a 50% parking reduction for senior and affordable housing. Chapter 18.765
in the Tigard Community Development Code has the current parking standards, but these will be modified in
the Lean Code.
Q5: Please define “green street.”
A5: It’s a way stormwater can be captured and pretreated within the right-of-way, including rain gardens and
swales. The question is if we can do it in a way that is not unreasonably expensive, then it would definitely be
a practice to encourage.
Q6: How can I get a copy of all the boards that are on exhibit tonight?
A6: They will be posted on the City of Tigard website. Or leave email addresses into the sign-in sheet, or
contact Cheryl Caines.
Q7: Are the overepasses of 217 approved?
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 29
A7: In the 2009 Transportation Plan, an overpass for Hampton to Hunsiger was approved to move up to
Beveland. There are so many lights along 72nd, that they begin to interfere with movement along 217. At
some point, it will move up the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) list, as traffic demand increases and traffic
delays worsen, or if spending on transit comes through earlier.
Q8: How long can we continue to provide input?
A8: Until the first week in December.
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
1 Code does not include any mention of critical facilities. The following
language must be added per NFIP: " CRITICAL FACILITIES: Construction of
new critrical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located ourside of the
limits of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (100-year floodplain).
Construction of new critical facilities shall be permitssigle within the SFHA
if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed
within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE
or tot he height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and
from the critical facilityshould also be protected tot he height utilized
above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that
toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters.
Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation
shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible."
775 40 Letter from National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) dated September 14, 2014
Insert required language Package 1: Mandatory Changes
2 Floodplain regulations lacks a severability clause as required by NFIP.
Unclear if general severability clause in 18.210.010 satisfies this
requirement.
775 40 Letter from National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) dated September 14, 2014
Insert required language Package 1: Mandatory Changes
3 Existing standards do not include wireless facility modification standards
adopted in 2012 which exempt modifications that do not substantially
change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station.
798 Section 6409 of the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act.
Amend to include new
requirements
Package 1: Mandatory Changes
4 In November 2009, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling on wireless siting.
The ruling established a timeframe for local governments to act on a
request to place, build, or modify personal wireless facilities. The
timeframes are 90 days for an application to collocate a wireless facility
and 150 days for an application to site a new wireless facility. The FCC
allows for a 30-day period to notify the applicant of missing application
information. However, this is counted as part of the 90/150 timeframe.
798 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Under existing City of Tigard
procedures collocation should
not be an issue. However,
there may be an issue with
new facilities. We should
consider the necessity of
amending 18.390.070, Special
Procedures, to add the
federally established timeline
to our review procedures for
new wireless facilities.
Package 1: Mandatory Changes
5 As part of the 2015 legislative session, ORS 227.181 was amended to
establish local timelines and procedures for LUBA cases sent back on
remand.
390 HB2830 Amend to create procedure
and include new requirements
Package 1: Mandatory Changes
Package 4: App & Proc
6 As part of the 2015 legislative session, new noticing requirements were
adopted for projects eligible for expedited subdivision review
HB3223 Amend to include new
requirements
Package 1: Mandatory Changes
Package 5: Review Types
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
"Transitional Housing" use classification vilates FHA, ADA, and state rules
regarding housing. Also, the code does not have a process for
accomodating and resolving identified conflicts.
130 Cascadia Respite.Remove "Transitional Housing"
use classification to comply
with FHA, ADA, and state rules
and create a process to waive
code requirements when they
are found to be in conflict with
state or federal requirements.
Package 1: Mandatory Changes
Package 4: App & Proc
7 Definitions for structure and building need to be revisted as they are overly
broad and capture practically everything built with intention, and may
apply to improvements not intended at time of adoption.
120 Amend code to add clarity Package 2: Terminology
8 The term Unified Sewerage Agency needs to be updated to Clean Water
Services
Multiple Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend Code to reflect current
name of agency
Package 2: Terminology
9 Remove deleted chapters that are no longer active.385/797 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to retire chapter
numbers or repurpose for new
use.
Package 2: Terminology
10 References to Water Resource Overlays exist in multiple chapters. This is
an outdated reference to a repealed part of the code that no longer exists.
Multiple
Chapters
Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to remove
reference
Package 2: Terminology
11 The phrase "Tree Removal" needs to be changed to "Urban Forestry Plan"755 70 E.8 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend Code to reflect current
titles
Package 2: Terminology
12 When calculating dates, the code switches between calendar and business
days. Moreover, the term "business days" is not defined and can lead to
questions regarding holidays and Friday closures by the City.
Multiple
Chapters
Amend code to create a
measurements chapter
Package 2: Terminology
13 Measurements are scattered throughout the code. Consider creation of a
dedicated chapter for measurements of days, structures, density, etc.
N/a Portland Code 33.930 (Measurements) is a good
example
Package 2: Terminology
14 The existing code is not strict about seperating and distinguishing between
submittal requirements, development standards, and approval criteria.
All Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
15 Identify commonly used terms and search code for multiple or conflicting
terminology in order to add clarity and reduce confustion
Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
16 Citations to DEQ rules are outdated. This is a problem as the Visible
Emissions and Odor standard subsections state that DEQ rules for sisible
emissions and odors apply.
725 30 B/D Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 2: Terminology
17 Amend definitions related to "Lot", including a definition for "Tract" and a
specific date for "Legal Lots of Record".
120 See email from City Attorney to Lina - July 6, 2015 -
regarding Legal Lot of Record Date
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 2: Terminology
Package 5: Review Types
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
18 This Section lists the exemptions from site development review. Subsection
A.7 is for "Family day care". That term is no longer used by the state.
There are currently two state categories that deal with "family day care"
situations one is a Registered Family Child Care Home. The other is a
Certified Family Child Care Home. Both of these terms deal with child care
conducted in home situations as opposed to child care centers.
360 20 A.7 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to reflect current
state requirements.
Package 2: Terminology
Package 5: Review Types
19 There is no threshold, floor, or criteria through which staff can approve a
modification to existing development without requiring a minor
modification. Can lead to expensive and time-consuming permits for small
changes with no impacts. The lack of a definiton for "modification" adds
to the ambiguity. A list of specificed exemptions similar to 18.610.010.C.3
could resolve this perpetual issue of making judgement calls.
330/360 An example are changes of land use with no
change, or a reduction in parking demand.
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 2: Terminology
Package 5: Review Types
20 Distinction between approval criteria and development standards is not
always clear or made. Update code to bring clarity.
Multiple Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
Package 5: Review Types
21 The code is silent on Tracts, yet are commonly created during land division.
Definitions and standards need to be established.
400 series Water quality tracts, open space tracts, tree
preservation tracts, purposeless tracts to avoid
adjacency standards, private streets, etc.
Amend code to create
definition and standards.
Package 2: Terminology
Package 6: Dev. Standards
22 The River Terrace entrance standards do not address lots access from an
alley, and the actual entrance is from a park rather than a street. The
definition for front lot line, and the River Terrace design standards, need to
recognize some lots have a door facing a park or pedestrian right of way.
Multiple See email from Susan Shanks 10-28-14 regarding
18.660.070.I.3.
Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
Package 6: Dev. Standards
23 Definition of lot coverage is not the same as the footnote found in each
zoning district section regarding lot coverage.
120 30 A.107.i Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to create
consistency
Package 2: Terminology
Package 6: Dev. Standards
24 Regulatory language should be removed from the definitions section.120 All Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
Package 6: Dev. Standards
25 The code does not define what constitutes a porch or deck, or what
constitutes an "open" porch versus a non-open one, yet regulates them
differentially. Also, what about a substantial masonry or concrete
horizontal structure?
120/730 50 D.3-4 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
Package 6: Dev. Standards
26 Terms for trails are not used consistently or defined, nor is it clear if their
purpose is recreation or transportation, this is due in part to language used
in the TSP and carried over to the code. Term "multi-use pathway"
appears alongside "multi-use trail" and "neighborhood paths" in TSP.
Consistency is needed, as are clear definitions and the role such facilties
are intended to play.
120 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
Package 6: Dev. Standards
Package 7: Trails
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
27 Section confusingly addresses off-street "Bikeways" and on-street bike
lanes. Code requires dedication of multi-use paths an off-street paths. The
terms should be defined and and used consistently, with cross-sections
showing width of easements, screening, trail improvements and so forth,
mindful of rough proportionality and safety which can take precedent over
proportionality.
810 110 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code Package 2: Terminology
Package 6: Dev. Standards
Package 7: Trails
28 Expand upon 18.120.020 to create a style guide, including chapter
structure
All Package 2: Terminology
Package 3: General Admin
29 Responsibility for violations should be expanded to specifically include both
the occupant and the owner of the property, to reflect current
enforcement practices.
230 20 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin.
30 Stop Order Hearing procedures are confusing at best. Needs to be
rewritten for greater clarity and consistency.
230 70 B Lamar Billboard Stop Order Hearing request
illustrated the need to revise this procedure.
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin.
31 Consolidate chapters 18.210-230 into a unified chapter 210/220 Notes from 2011 Project Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin.
32 Add a provision regarding "most current versions and citations", such as
that provided in Portlands 33.10.040.C
210/220 Notes from 2011 Project Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin.
33 Add language clarifying when applicable regulations are determined, such
as Portland 33.700.080 (Regulations that Apply at Time of Application).
210/220 Notes from 2011 Project Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin.
34 Add standards for historic conditions of approval that may or may not be
relevant given the passage of time and changes to local and state land use
requirements
210/220 An example would be conditions regarding tree
preservation prior to urban forestry update.
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin.
35 Clarify what use classificationss are allowed in the right-of-way, particularly
transportation faciltities
220 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin.
Package 8: Municipal Code
36 Compare TDC to admin and review procedures of Portland, Milwaukie, and
possible 1 or 2 other codes for "known unknowns" and "unknown
unknowns."
Multiple Portland Title 33, Milwaukie Title 19 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin. Package
4: App & Proc
37 The code does not adequately address how accessory uses and structures
related to the primary use or structure and are to be differentially
regulated through differential processes and development standards
Multiple Examples include accessory structures in
downtown or sites with small utility installations,
and the relationship between a brewery (industrial)
and an associated taproom (eating and drinking
establishment). See also 18.520.030.C and
18.530.030.C
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 3: General Admin. Package
4: App & Proc
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
38 Code lacks a permit revocation or reconsideration process. 390 70 Notes from 2011 Project. Lamar Billboard
enforcement case is one example of permits issued
in error. See Portland Code 33.700.040 as an
example of possible code language. Per City
Attorney (2/4/15), this should include both a pre
and post revocation appeal process. Consider both
building permit and land use revocation, and
whether separate processes are necessary.
Amend code to create
procedure
Package 4: App & Proc
39 In procedures for Type III Final Orders, the phrase "shall be forwarded in
appeal" is unclear. Clear appeal procedures need to be adopted.
390 50 G.1 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to create clear
appeal procedures for Type III
decisions.
Package 4: App & Proc
40 Code lacks a procedure for dealing with a LUBA case on remand, including
when an applicant has abandoned the case.
390 Title 18 Code Improvement Database and
Director's Interpretation DIR2010-00004
Amend code to create
procedure
Package 4: App & Proc
41 Code lacks a procedure for withdrawel of application by applicant.390 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to create
procedure
Package 4: App & Proc
42 Pre-application and applicaiton requirements are hidden within the
"Special Provisions subsection" at the end of the chapter. These should be
moved forward, updated, and more clearly titled to increase legibility.
390 80 C Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
43 Neighborhood meetings are required for certain decision types by
administrative practice, but the code is silent regarding such meetings.
Consider standards such as those used by Portland in 33.700.025
390 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to create
standards and procedure for
neighborhood meetings.
Package 4: App & Proc
44 The code requires that various types of land use notices "...shall be sent by
mail...". Code does not address electronic communication, particularly
when notifying parties of record who have beeen primarily communicating
by email.
390 all If O.R.S. allows, notification should also be allowed
by e-mail or other electronic means. Many people
submit testimony by e-mail and do not give their
address. In the case of the Fields CPA, there were
over 50 e-mails.
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
45 The code requires notice be published in a newspaper of general
circulation. Noticing in the newspaper is of questionable effectiveness,
and there may be more effective means available under state
requirements.
390 all Is spending $200-$700 per notice the most
effective way to reach potentially affected parties?
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
46 Text says the "administrative rule of necessity" but the City Attorney does
not know what this refers to and suggests ti be clarified or deleted
390 50 D.7.d Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to add clarity Package 4: App & Proc
47 Type III procedures require the applicant to post notice on site. Current
practice is for staff to post.
390 50 C.1.d Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
48 Type II procedures do not require notice be posted on site. Do we want to
start doing that?
390 40 C.1 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
49 Create a more uniform chapter structure for land use type administration.390 all Portland Code. 33.730 (Quasi-Judicial Procedures)Package 4: App & Proc
50 Create standards and procedures for how a pending application may be
amended once review/hearings begin.
All See Milwaukie Code 19.1003.6 (Modifications to
Applications Under Review) and Portland Title 33
Amend code to create
standards.
Package 4: App & Proc
51 Add language regarding when and how City is to determine whether an
application is quasi-judicial or legislative, such as Portland 33.700.070.H or
Milwaukie 19.10001.4
390 Notes from 2011 Project Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
52 Update "Application Requirements" for all four decision types to remove
outdated requirements, and consider relocation of impact study
requirement to 18.810. Portland 33.730 might be a good template to use
390 Notes from 2011 Project Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
53 Consider relocation of permit expiration standards from to a central
section in 18.390, similar to Portland 33.730.130 (Expiration of an
Approval)
Multiple Notes from 2011 Project Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
54 Code lacks a clear procedure for amending conditions of approval.
Consider language such as that used in Portland 33.730.140.
390 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
55 Create appeal procedures and standards, including a policy evaluation of
whether the City should adopt de novo standards for evidence in the
record.
390 Heritage Crossing is on example of a project with
significant evidence and changes during appeal
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc
56 Review assigned decision-making bodies with Planning Commission and
Council
300
Series
Package 4: App & Proc
57 The code does not use consistent names for Decision Types. Some section
use Type IIIA (18.775.020.G.1), while others use Type III-HO for the same
process (18.Table 17.310.1).
Multiple
Chapters
Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to bring
consistency between chapters
Package 4: App & Proc
58 Establish applicability of code and review procedures for by-right
development that does not require land use. Portland Title 33.700.010
has a good example of this.
Multiple Notes from 2011 Project Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 4: App & Proc Package
5: Review Types
59 Code lacks a "General Adjustment" procedure to modify development
standards in a manner that still meets the goals and intent of the code,
without rising to the significance of a full administrative variance.
370 20 Portland has a good model in 33.805 (Adjustments)Amend code to create
procedure
Package 5: Review Types
60 Thresholds for major/minor modifications does not address scenario
where a structure is demolished and a new structure of exactly the same
size is proposed. Is this a major or minor modification?
360 50 B Title 18 Code Improvement Database. See Item
#10 which includes letter from Ron Bunch dated
April 8, 2010 regarding Carls Junior at 11433 SW
Pacific Highway
Amend threshold standards to
address demolition and
replacement of primary
structures
Package 5: Review Types
61 Code now states that preliminary plat shall lapse if: a final plat has not
been submitted within 1 1/2 years. Do we want to change "submitted" to
"recorded"?
430 30 C Title 18 Code Improvement Database. Amend Code based on policy
decision
Package 5: Review Types
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
62 Sign code adjustments allowed in 18.370 must be consistent with the
standards of 18.780.130.G. Some of these allowances conflict with the
adjustment allowances. Clarification is needed.
370 20 C.7 Title 18 Code Improvement Database.Amend code to bring
consistency between chapters
Package 5: Review Types
63 Code lacks a lot consolidation process. Practice per DIR2011-00002 is to
require lot line adjustment
410 Title 18 Code Improvement Database and
Director's Interpretation DIR2011-00002
Amend code to create
procedure
Package 5: Review Types
64 Phased development of a conditional use is limited to 3 years. Many uses,
particularly private schools, that require a conditional use cannot always
fund and construct within this short time frame. Examples include MET and
St. Anthony's.
330 20 D Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review standard and amend
code
Package 5: Review Types
65 Major Modification thresholds should address changes imposed externally,
such as by ODOT, that could in theory trigger a major modification.
Historical practice has been to process externally imposed changes as a
Minor Modification out of fairness.
330/360 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
66 The Planned Development chapter lacks a modification procedure, such as
when a builder wants to make architectural changes or switch from an
attached to a detached housing type.
350 Amend code to create
procedure.
Package 5: Review Types
67 It is unclear why there are three different adjustments to minimum density
requirements, and whether this is the best way to approach the issue.
There are also outdated references to the Water Resource Overlay areas
that no longer exist.
370 20 C.2-4 Title 18 Code Improvement Database. See also
18.630.020.F
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
68 Adjustments chapter does not address how sideyard corner lot setbacks
are to be addressed.
370 20 B.1 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
69 It is unclear that a change of use for buildings on Main Street are exempt
from design standards.
610 10 C.3 Title 18 Code Improvement Database clarify under C.3 that design
standards to not apply to "a
change of use for buildings
located on Main Street"
Package 5: Review Types
70 The thresholds for a major modification are duplicative in that b and h are
the same standard.
330 20 B.2.b/h Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to remove
duplicates.
Package 5: Review Types
71 All three plan districts have a Type III discretionary review process.
Moreover, the Washington Square Plan District refers to the process
defined in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. Consideration should be given
to creating a singular review process to be placed within the 18.300 series.
All Amend code to create a unified
and consistent process.
Package 5: Review Types
72 Decision-making considerations for Type IV reviews do not address a
situation in which competing Comp Plan goals and policies are applicable.
There should e language that says "on balance" the proposed amendment
is in compliance with all comp plan goals and policies
390 60 G.4 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
73 Amend threshold criteria for major modification to include changes to
pedestrian facilities that significantly increase out-of-direction travel for
pedestrians.
330/360 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
74 Strategic Code Plan Audit recommended additional approval criteria to
Conditional Use and Site Development Review to address walkability.
330/360 The revised approval criteria could read: "The site
plan identifies methods for promoting walkability
or transit ridership, such methods may include
seperated parking bays, off-street walking paths,
shortner pedestrian routes than vehicular routes,
linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc."
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
There is an error and discrepancy regading the appeal procedures for
zoning map amendment that includes a comprehensive plan amendment.
Chapter 18.380 states appeals are to be heard on the record, which is
contrary to 18.390. The reference to "on the record" is an error and
should be removed as no other appeals are heard on the record.
380 30 A.3 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
75 Consider an expansion of the Adjustment to Street Standards to include
multi-use trails and other transportation improvements, rather than just
streets, with a finding that in approving the adjustment, there will be no
adverse impact on pedestrian connectivity. [Implement through General
Adjustment?]
370 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
76 Both partition and subdivision chapters require dedication of land for a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain, in accordance with the
"adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan." This language is vague and
not tied to a specific, adopted plan. The adopted and relevant plan needs
to be referenced here.
420/430 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Amend code to better
implement specific, adopted
plans and maps.
Package 5: Review Types
77 Preliminary Plat Approval Criteria 3 requires streets and roads to conform
to adjacent development. Can this be modified to include bike/pedestrian
connections as well such as trails and other pedestrian facilities? Is this
necessary?
430 40 A.3 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
78 The level of "Development" that triggers trail exactions should be
evaluated and opportunities to incentivize trail dedications should be
considered.
All
Reviews
Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
79 The CUP and SDR processes inadequately address the creation of new
accessory uses that do not require a physical change to the building, such
as a church run daycare.
330/360 DIR2010-00001 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
80 Crition 3 for a Major Modification is "a change that requires additional on-
site parking". As addressed in DIR2010-00002, this has been interpreted to
mean the physical construction of more parking spaces, and not a situation
where a change in use occurs but existing on-site parking allows the
applicant to meet minimum parking stall requirements. It would be good
to clarify the text to more clearly specify the current interpretation.
360 50 B.3 DIR2010-00002 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
81 The Site Development Review process allows for exceptions to setbacks,
parking requirements, outdoor areas, and landscaping requirements as
part of normal review, without a need for an adjustment or variance. This
provision is not included under the Conditional Use Chapter, and in regards
to parking is more expansive than that allowed under the Planned
Development Review. This should be relocated to become more generally
available.
360 80 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types Package
6: Dev. Standards
82 Remove conditional use review requirement for trails in residential zones
when shown on an adopted map?
330 70 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
Package 7: Trails
83 Landscaping, buffering, lighting, urban forestry, and other approval criteria
required in the Conditional Use and Site Development Review chapters
may be challenging to meet for trail projects. Consider exempting Multi-
Use trails and Neighborhood Paths from some or all of these standards.
Multiple Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 5: Review Types
Package 7: Trails
Package 8: Municipal Code
84 L-1 landscaping standards referenced in regards to parking and signage, but
not defined in the Downtown Plan District, as is done in the other plan
districts.
610 020/055 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Add L-1 standards to 18.610 or
relocate L-1 standards to a
central location for all plan
districts.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
85 Incorrect references for MUE zoning for Single Units, Detached, Accessory
Units and Multifamily Units. All are indicated with N/A and should be R[21]
520 Table 1 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Change from N/A to R[21]Package 6: Dev. Standards
86 In calculating Net Development Area, #5 should be rewritten to clarify that
the entire lot containing an existing dwelling should be removed the total
area of that lot, and not just the minimum lot size. Also, this section mixes
development standards that should be placed in the subdivision section or
a lot standards chapter
715 20 A.5 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to add clarity Package 6: Dev. Standards
87 Accessory structure standards do not address setbacks on corner lots,
where you have a non-interior side-yard setback.
510 60 A.1.e Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to add clarity Package 6: Dev. Standards
88 State legislation has superceded local authority regarding minimum spacing
between marijuana facilities.
735 40 Amend code to comply with
ORS
Package 6: Dev. Standards
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
89 Allowed housing types for MUE Zone (N/A) is inconsistent with footnote 21
which specifies allowed housing types.
520 Table 1 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to bring
consistency between Table and
footnote
Package 6: Dev. Standards
90 Incorrect reference. Citation directing reader to 18.330 should be changed
to 18.360.
795 20 B Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to correct error.Package 6: Dev. Standards
91 Incorrect description of 99W/Hall Corridor. Description states
development of up to eight stories is allowed, but Table 18.610.1 restricts
height to a 45 foot maximum. (ODOT requested change in table during
major update of chapter, but not carried over to text)
610 20 A.1 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to correct error.Package 6: Dev. Standards
92 Plan Districts with minimum building heights do not provide guidance or
allowances for smaller accessory structures
Multiple Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and Amend code Package 6: Dev. Standards
93 Solar panels on multi-family residential, industrial, or commercial buildings
could be interpreted to be service facilities that would require screening
under 18.745.050.E2. Given the nature and function of soalr panels it
would be detrimental to their use to require screening on buildings.
745 50 E.2 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and Amend code Package 6: Dev. Standards
94 A 10-foot buffer is required along arterials, however, it is unclear whether
the buffer belongs to the arterial or the yard with respect to placement of
a fence.
745 50 F Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review intent of arterial buffer
and whether fences can be
placed back of sidewalkat, back
of buffer, or inbetween.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
95 Garage setback does not respond when things like sidewalks or other
pathways are placed within the property. Current practice is when
sidewalks are proposed within an easement on a property, a condition is
added to measure the garage setback from the back of sidewalk. This
should be codified in some manner to ensure 20' of clear space in front of
garage, keeping the area clear of obstructions and pedestrian easements.
510 Table 2 Title 18 Code Improvement Database and Strategic
Plan Implementation Audit
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
96 Should A/C units and similar be allowed within side yard setbacks, if so
under what terms. Practically, some accomodation may make sense, eg.
allowed, but minimum 3 feet clear must be maintained as with other
allowed projections sited in subsection D. Presently governed by DIR2013-
00003
730 50 D Title 18 Code Improvement Database and DIR2013-
00003
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
97 There are four options for complying with solid waste requirements. The
Waste Assessment Method relies upon a form, standards, a process, and a
staff position that do not exist. See also TMC 11.04.105 and Metro Code
5.10
755 40 D Title 18 Code Improvement Database Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
98 Lot standards are scattered throughout the code, and are often missed
during early stages of review. A consolidated chapter would be very
useful.
All A good example are the lot standards in
18.810.060. Can feel like "gotcha" with
unexpected conditions applied at the end of the
process.
Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
99 Bridgeport Village requires at least one pedestrian connection for every
200 feet of linear street frontage
640 300 H.2 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
100 Use table needs to be updated to reflect new definition for Utility Corridors 650 Table 1 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Update Table to reflect current
Use Classification Title
Package 6: Dev. Standards
101 There is no specific requirement for pedestrian and bicycle connections
between developments through parking lots as subsection F stats "On-site
pedestrian walkways shall comply.."
705 30 F Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
102 Required walkway standards to join new development with adjacent
properties is weakened by the undefined and vague terminology such as
"Unless impractical" and "as feasible", and hidden under a section title
"Director's authority to restrict access" which is a strange place to locate
such a standard.
705 30 F.1 / L.3 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
103 "Conflicts with subdivision requirements" is unclear regarding what sort of
conflicts are envisions. Block length?
705 20 D Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
104 In defining density, the City's definition of net development area excludes
parks dedicated to the public and all land dedicated for public right of
ways. This could serve as a deterrent or barrier to developing
neighborhood amenities and bike/pedestrian connections.
715 20 A.2-3 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
105 Section should clarify whether public trails and paths in easements are
subtracted from the site area when calculating net development area.
715 20 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
106 The pedestrian circulation requirements are helpful, but apply only in
limited circumstances (when multifamily or attached single-family abust
detached single-family). Consider applying this standard more broadly,
such as during all SDR or CUP review.
720 30 I Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
107 This chapter is titled "Exceptions to Development Standards" but many of
the requirements are mandatory. Consider a new title and/or
reorganization to move requirements to more logical locations.
730 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
108 The code provides for lot size averaging, but only addresses minimum lot
size. Related standard such as lot width and depth requirements are not
addressed in this standard. More clarity is needed regarding this
allowance.
430 20 D DIR2013-00002 (Lot Size Averaging)Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
109 FAR and floor area limits are hidden at the end of the chapter. Moreover,
the standard uses an outdated use classification of "transient lodging"
rather than "Commercial Lodging". Should be relocated as a line item or
footnote to Table 18.520.2.
520 50 C Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
110 Building division changed exemption for fences from 6' and under to 7' and
under. Need to update or remove the following phrase in 18.745.050.C.4:
“All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to
building permit approval.”
745 50 C Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
111 Table 18.520.1 appies footnote 32 (exemptions for underground utilities)
inconsistently. It is unclear why this is not applicable to all commercial
districts.
520 Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
112 Bridgeport Village on-site circulation standards with 200' pedestrian
spacing could be used on larger scaled sites outside of the plan district.
Adding the rquirement of providing a reasonably direct connection could
ensure that circulation system is not too circuitous.
640 30 H Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
113 Require easements for pedestrian access where consistent with adopted
transportation plans.
705/810 50 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
114 This section regulates the creation of lots. Should be moved into a
consolidated chapter regulating lot creation and standards such as lot
depth and how through lots address arterials should be reconsidered.
810 60 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
115 Multi-use trails are a conditional use in residential zones, and a permitted
use in non-residential zones. Status of trails and paths other than multi-
use trails (e.g. neighborhood paths) is unclear in the code. Is this a matter
of definitions, or should different trail classifictions be treated differently?
510-530 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
Package 7: Trails
Package 8: Municipal Code
116 Urban Forestry chapter is triggered by land use reviews applicable to trails
(i.e. SDR, CUP). It is unclear how these standards will apply to construction
of a new trail, paricularly on sites containing another use.
790 20 A Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
Package 7: Trails
Package 8: Municipal Code
117 Many chapters inadequately address trail improvements in the section
regarding "where these standards apply"
Multiple Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 6: Dev. Standards
Package 7: Trails
Package 8: Municipal Code118Clarify whether multi-use trails not in ROW are are regulated and required
by 18.810 as public improvements
810 10 and 20 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit.Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 7: Trails
Package 8: Municipal Code
119 Title 15.04 governs work in public right of way, which includes all trails,
paths, and all other public ways and areas managed by the city. If these
facilties are in the right of way, are they still regulated by the TDC? The
relationship of this section to the TDC needs to be clarified.
15.04 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Package 7: Trails
Package 8: Municipal Code
ID No.Problem Statement Chapter Section Subsection Example/Source Recommendation Project Package
TITLE 18 AMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES UPDATE
CONSOLIDATED LIST OF AMENDMENTS (2-4-16)
120 City Attorney finds our easement vacation process unnecessarily complex
and unclear.
15.08 PUE vacation for Ash-Burnham.Amend code to create
procedure.
Package 8: Municipal Code
121 Code lacks a defined process for the vacation of easements. Presently
administered through ROW vacation process. City attorney recommends
we update the procedure.
390 Title 18 Code Improvement Database Amend code to create
procedure
Package 8: Municipal Code
122 Title 15.08 governs street vacations. This code is also used to process
easement vacations, and the City Attorney has recommended the chapter
be revisited for improvement. In addition, there is a need to maintain
public connections after a street vacation, and more direct language would
be useful, such as TSP policy 3.4 (The City shall develop and maintain
neighborhood and local connections to provide circulation in and out of
the neighborhood).
15.08 Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit Review and amend code as
appropriate.
Package 8: Municipal Code
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner
Re: Tigard Triangle Lean Code Update
Date: February 22, 2016
During the week of September 14, 2015, Tigard hosted a planning workshop with a consultant
team to develop a framework for a new code and gather feedback on preliminary zone and code
changes. There were 19 individual meetings during the week-long workshop. Over 100 people
participated including city staff, agency representatives, Triangle business and property owners,
Tigard citizens, real estate professionals, and community leaders. Reaction to the preliminary
zoning and lean code was generally positive. Topics of discussion at the public meetings
included building heights, parking requirements, and flexibility/predictability tradeoffs. A report
summarizing the workshop is attached (Attachment 1 - Working Session Report).
Triangle zoning will continue to be a mix of commercial and mixed use. The code will be form
based and lean. Form based codes focus primarily on the relationship between the street and
site, how buildings relate to one another, and the street scale and design. The use of the term
lean comes from a practice known as Lean Urbanism that seeks to accelerate revitalization by
minimizing regulation.
Staff is currently reviewing the second draft. There have been small group discussions focusing
on integration with the existing code and working through major issues. In addition, the
consultant team will be in town on March 16th to work through some scenarios with staff by
applying the new code to Triangle properties/developments. The major issues so far include:
Stormwater
Stormwater requirements are mandated by other agencies and a master plan for the Triangle is
years away, so the city's flexibility with these requirements is limited.
Parking
On-street parking is not currently permitted on some streets within the Triangle but is a
common element in pedestrian friendly street designs. Staff is discussing the possibilities of
allowing on-street parking on some of the busier streets in the Triangle.
Urban Forestry
The current Urban Forestry requirements may not fit well with a lean code and an urban
development pattern. However there are existing trees that make the Triangle a unique place.
Staff is seeking means to protect those trees without imposing additional requirements.
Street Improvements
The Lean Code seeks to limit the requirements for small scale developments, including street
improvements. However this raises questions about how to deal with phased-in improvements.
How will street improvements be built/paid for in the future? If partial improvements are
required, then should they be at ultimate location? Would we be willing to require some
improvements that may be removed/replaced in the future?
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e
Title 18 Administration and
Procedures Update
March 7, 2016Planning Commission
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Project Summary –Title 18
Known problems
Deferred Maintenance
Incremental Change / Unanticipated Side Effects
Poor Code Construction
Focus is terminology, process, administration, and
reorganization
Consolidated list
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Project Summary –Strategic Plan
Advance Tigard’s Strategic Plan
Align land use authority with Vision
Remove barriers to bike/ped infrastructure
Predictive Flexibility
Improve terminology/standards/process
Implement recommendations of 2015 Code Audit
(Angelo Planning Group)
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Examples of Desired Outcomes
Clear thresholds for land use review
New Chapters:
Measurements
Lot Standards
New Procedures:
General Adjustment
Permit Reconsideration
Modifications to Land Divisions
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Sources of Change
1.Federal/State Legislation
2.Title 18 Code Improvement Database
3.Director’s Interpretations
4.Strategic Plan Code Implementation Audit
5.Recent Litigation
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Eight Packages
1.Mandatory
2.Terminology
3.Administration/Enforcement
4.Applications and Procedures
5.Review Types
6.Development Standards
7.Trails / Strategic Plan
8.Municipal Code
C I T Y O F T I G A R D
Looking Ahead
Complete first draft –establish full range of known
issues
Targeted internal/external review of first draft
Citywide Outreach
Legislative Adoption
City of Tigard
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Susan P Shanks, Senior Planner (susans@tigard-or.gov or 503-718-2454)
Re: Tigard Triangle Citizen Advisory Council (Urban Renewal Plan)
Date: February 18, 2016
The City of Tigard successfully competed for a Community Planning and Development Grant
(CPDG) from Metro in November 2015. The $145,000 grant award will be used to build upon
and implement the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan (TTSP), a long range redevelopment plan
adopted by the city in March 2015.
The TTSP envisions a diverse mix
of uses, improved connectivity for
all travel modes, and an enjoyable
walking environment. Various
implementation strategies were
identified in the TTSP and several
will be undertaken by the city with
these grant funds, including
development of a Streetscape
Design Plan and an Urban
Renewal Plan. Development of an
Urban Renewal Plan is necessary
prior to the creation of an urban
renewal district, which, through
tax increment financing, would
provide the Triangle with a long-
term funding source for completing infrastructure projects and undertaking public-private
development projects, similar to what has occurred in downtown.
Since the creation of an urban renewal district requires citywide voter approval, the city will
be convening an ad hoc Citizen Advisory Council (CAC) to guide the development of the
Urban Renewal Plan. In order to ensure broad representation, we are asking each of the
city’s standing committees to send one representative to serve on the CAC. We are grateful
for your current service to the city and appreciate your consideration of this request. We
anticipate convening the CAC in May 2016 on a monthly basis for approximately 6 months.
PortlandStateU N IV E R S ITYDeltaPlanningstrategic thinking tor livableplaces
ProjectPurposeUse the State of Place analytic tools to produce recommendations for specific actions the City of Tigard can take to improve the performance of the built environment in the Tigard Triangle that will maximize this area’s potential as a complete, walkable community where all its citizens can live healthy interconnected lives.Concept sketch, Tigard Triangle Strategic plan
ProjectArea
ProjectNeed
Deliverables1. A community walkability profile of the existing built environment in the Triangle, using technical tools and detailed public perspectives on current local conditions.2. A package of regulatory, design, and investment proposals to facilitate walkability in the Triangle.3. A portfolio of design recommendations.
Stage 1: CommunityProfile•State of Placetraining•DataCollection•State of Placeindex•Identifyopportunities
Urban DesignFeaturesForm ConnectivityParks and Public SpacesRecreational FacilitiesPedestrian and Bike Amenities TrafficSafety
Stage 2: CommunityEngagementProvide the broadest and most inclusive process possiblewith:•Stakeholderinterviews•Surveys•Online feedback•City boardsand commissions•CommunityWorkshop•State of Place Prioritization Report
SurveyQuestionsHow important are following improvements to enhance your experience in the Tigard Triangle?More destinations to walk toMore plazas or public spacesVeryimportantVeryimportantSomewhat importantSomewhat importantNotimportantNotimportantMore housing options Veryimportant Somewhat important NotimportantBettersidewalks Veryimportant Somewhat important NotimportantImproved pedestrian crossings Veryimportant Somewhat important NotimportantMore street trees/greenery Veryimportant Somewhat important NotimportantMore publicart Veryimportant Somewhat important NotimportantSlower automobile speeds Veryimportant Somewhat important NotimportantShared parking lots Veryimportant Somewhat important NotimportantMore trails and off‐streetpaths Veryimportant Somewhat important Notimportant
State of Place PrioritizationReport•Identifies community priorities•Based on input from key stakeholders•Used for developing and evaluating alternatives
Stage 3: DevelopAlternatives•Opportunities identified in Stage1•Priorities identified in the prioritizationreport•Incorporate public input•Will test with the public at the community workshop
Stage 4: Final Recommendations•Incorporate input from the community workshop•Will include design concepts of the recommendations•Present to City Council on May24, 2016http://uli.org/wp‐content/uploads/ULI‐Documents/Shifting‐Suburbs.pdf
Timeline
Measures ofSuccessA successful processwill:•Produce the broadest and most inclusive public engagement process possible.•Show that makeup of those that participate in the public engagement process reflect the makeup of the greater Tigard Triangle community.•Return at least 100 of the community surveys distributed in the Triangle.•Turnout at least 40 attendees to the April communityworkshop.
Measures ofSuccessSuccessful productswill:•Produce recommendations that will improve the performance of the built environment according to the State of Placemetrics.•Show that public input informed the final design recommendations.•Produce findings that are clear, coherent, visually compelling and accessible to a general audience.•Produce a final product that is both feasible to implement in the near term and will inform future planning in the Triangle.