MAY 2, 2005


The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob Drake in the Forrest C. Soth City Council Chamber, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton, Oregon, on Monday, May 2, 2005, at 6:39 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Catherine Arnold, Betty Bode, Dennis Doyle and Fred Ruby. Coun. Cathy Stanton was excused. Also present were City Attorney Alan Rappleyea, Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, Finance Director Patrick O'Claire, Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Engineering Director Tom Ramisch, Operations/ Maintenance Director Gary Brentano, Library Director Ed House, Human Resources Director Nancy Bates, Police Chief David Bishop, Development Services Manager Steven Sparks, Senior Planner John Osterberg, Senior Planner Don Gustafson and Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.

Mayor Drake explained that after the Proclamations, Council would consider the Consent Agenda and the Ordinances, and then the regular agenda.


Asian Pacific American Heritage Month May, 2005

Mayor Drake read the proclamation for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in its entirety. He introduced Holden Leung, Executive Director of the Asian Health & Service Center.

Holden Leung said it was an honor to be invited for the proclaiming of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month by the City. He said the Center was awarded a grant from the Oregon Arts Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts, which helped start the "Arts Build Communities Project." He said the goals of the project were to encourage Asian immigrants to share their artistic talent with the communities, to engage people from diverse Asian communities in the arts classes in Portland and Beaverton, and to display Asian art exhibits in public venues and hospitals in Portland and Beaverton. He said art exhibits featuring Asian artists were currently on display at Beaverton City Hall, St. Vincent's Medical Center, the Beaverton Resource Center and the Portland Medical Center. He thanked the City and their sponsors for support of this project.

Coun. Bode said she was fortunate to work with Asian employees every day at the Virginia Garcia Clinic. She said they were charming and genuine people, with an engaging sense of humor; she felt it had enriched her life. She said their presence and involvement in the community was a bonus for Beaverton.

Leung recognized all the artists present whose work was displayed.

Coun. Doyle congratulated Mr. Leung for all his work at the Asian Center. He said he was happy the artists chose a medium of expression that did not need language. He thanked them all for coming and asked them to keep up their good work.

Mayor Drake presented the framed proclamation to Mr. Leung.

Emergency Medical Services Week

Mayor Drake read the proclamation for Emergency Medical Services Week, May 15-21, 2005 in its entirety.

J. D. Fuiten, owner and Robert Sabo, dispatcher, Metro West Ambulance, said they were personally honored that the City trusted Metro West Ambulance to serve the community. Sabo said Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Week was May 15-21, 2005, and this proclamation was important to the many emergency medical technicians in the community. He invited the City Council to a barbecue on Friday, May 20, 2005, at the Emergency Medical Services Headquarters in Hillsboro.

Mayor Drake presented the framed proclamation to Mr. Fuiten.

Mr. Fuiten presented a plaque to Mayor Drake thanking the City for its support of EMS personnel in the City.

Mayor Drake also proclaimed: Days of Remembrance, May 1 – 8, 2005; Municipal Clerks Week, May 1 - 7, 2005; Building Safety Week, May 8-14, 2005; and National Day of Prayer, May 5, 2005.

Mayor Drake welcomed members of Boy Scout Troop 162, from the Pilgrim Lutheran Church, who were working on their citizenship badges.


Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the Consent Agenda be approved as follows:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 18 and Special Meeting of April 22, 2005

05086 Approval of the City of Beaverton 2005 Action Plan and 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan Submission to Washington County

05087 Traffic Commission Issues No. TC 574-576

05088 Authorize the Mayor to Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Shared Use of a Public Communication Network to Access the Portland Police Data System (PPDS)

Contract Review Board:

05089 Contract Award for Printing and Mailing of City Newsletter

Coun. Bode said she would abstain from voting on the minutes of April 18 and 22, 2005, as she not at those meetings.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Doyle and Ruby voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0) Coun. Bode abstained from voting on the minutes of April 18 and 22, 2005.


Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 05091, be read for the first time by title only at this meeting, and for the second time by title only at the next regular meeting of the Council. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Doyle and Ruby voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

First Reading:

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea read the following ordinance for the first time by title only:

05091 An Ordinance Annexing Property Located Immediately North of the Sunset Highway and Generally Southwest of NW Barnes Road to the City of Beaverton: Expedited Annexation 2004-0015 (Ordinance No. 4353)

Second Reading:

Rappleyea read the following ordinances for the second time by title only:

05080 An Ordinance Annexing Nine Parcels Located in the Cornell Oaks Corporate Center to the City of Beaverton: Annexation 2005-0002 (Ordinance No. 4349)

05081 An Ordinance Annexing Five Parcels Located in the Vicinity of the Cornell Oaks Corporate Center, Owned by Leupold & Stevens, Inc., to the City of Beaverton: Annexation 2005-0003 (Ordinance No. 4350)

05082 An Ordinance Adopting TA 2004-0009 to Amend Development Code Section 50.25.7 (Completeness Processing Amendment) (Ordinance No. 4351)

05083 An Ordinance Amending Beaverton Code Chapter 2 by Repealing Sections 2.03.141 to 2.03.148 Providing for a Historic Resource Review Committee (Ordinance No. 4352)

Rappleyea referred to Ordinance Nos. 4349 and 4350 regarding the Cornell Oaks Corporate Center (Agenda Bills 05080 and 05081) and said supplemental staff reports were added to these staff reports and he asked that these reports be added to Exhibit C for each of these ordinances, as part of the findings.

Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 05080, 05081, 05082 and 05083, including the Supplemental Staff Reports on Agenda Bills 05080 and 05081 as noted by the City Attorney, now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Doyle, Ruby voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)


05084 Asian Pacific Heritage Month Art Exhibit

Mayor Drake said the Asian Pacific Heritage Month Art Exhibit was currently displayed on the second and third floors of Beaverton City Hall and the public could view the exhibit Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

05085 Highway 217 Corridor Study Presentation and Update

Bridget Weighart, Manager of Corridor and Freight Planning, Metro, updated the Council on the status of the Highway 217 Corridor Study. She presented a Power Point presentation entitled "Choices for Highway 217" that described the options under consideration in Phase 2 of the Study (in the record). She said the pictures in the presentation illustrated concepts since details would need to be worked out.

She said Highway 217 was the major north/south connection in Washington County; it currently carried 120,000 vehicles per day and was important to businesses and commuters as it connected businesses and shoppers throughout the region. She said in a 2001 Prioritization Study, Metro recognized Highway 217 as one of the five corridors most needing improvement in the region. She showed a computer animation of traffic on the north/south corridor (in the record). She said the Study was developing multi-modal transportation solutions for traffic problems on Highway 217 and the other corridors. She said Metro was leading the Study in partnership with ODOT, Washington County, TriMet and the cities of Beaverton, Lake Oswego and Tigard. She said the Highway 217 Policy Advisory Committee, made up of community members, business representatives and elected officials, provides guidance to the Study team and Metro Council.

Weighart said Phase 1 of the Study considered six alternatives to improve the highway. She said in December of 2004 the Policy Advisory Committee narrowed the Study's focus to three options. She said all the options included interchange improvements and a new traffic lane on Highway 217. The options were: 1) Adding a new general travel lane in each direction; 2) Express toll lane; and 3) Express tolled ramp meter bypass. She said the Study would be expected to conclude in the Fall of 2005 when the Policy Advisory Committee makes a final recommendation on which options should be carried forward for planning and design. She said the Study was about improving the entire corridor. She said the Policy Advisory Committee was studying improvements to arterial roads and bike routes that would proceed with any highway option. She said all options would include a general increase in transit services. She said the tolled highway options would include new bus service on Highway 217 that would benefit from express routes.

Weighart said the Study identified two major problems on Highway 217: safety and congestion. She said the safety problem was linked to the closely-spaced interchanges. She said the Study team was examining braided ramps and consolidated interchanges as possible solutions to this problem. She said concerning congestion, the conclusion was reached that a new lane was needed. She reviewed how braided ramps would appear, with traffic ramps that entered the highway crossing under ramps exiting the highway; creating the braid. She said without braided ramps, traffic entering and leaving a highway would have to merge in short distances which would be unsafe. She showed a computer animation of traffic flows on braided ramps and commented that braided ramps were under consideration for several locations on Highway 217. She said another solution to closely-spaced interchanges was to consolidate interchanges, the way Canyon Road and the Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway ramps operate today. She said this option was less expensive than braided ramps and provides off-highway access between the arterials.

Weighart said Highway 217 was congested and a new lane in each direction would be required to keep traffic moving; if nothing was done, Highway 217 would be operating at capacity for eight to ten hours each day by the Year 2025. She reviewed in detail three options for addressing the congestion problems: 1. Addition of a general travel lane in each direction open to all traffic on Highway 217; 2) Building a new express toll lane in each direction on Highway 217; the tolls would be collected electronically and the current existing lanes would still be available for all drivers; and 3) Tolled ramp meter bypass option that would offer drivers an express lane on the freeway ramps where they could bypass the line at the ramp meter by paying a toll. She said under this scenario a new lane would still be added to Highway 217 but it would be a general travel lane available to all drivers She showed computer animations of each of these options. She said express toll lanes have been successfully implemented in other communities in the United States and internationally. She said the express toll lanes have been widely accepted because they provide a reliable trip and revenue for building transportation projects. She said express toll lanes would be considered for other transportation corridors in the region.

Weighart said one of the key challenges to the Study was to determine how to pay for the improvements. She said the cost for any of the options would be around $500 million, and it could not be paid with existing sources from State and Federal grants over the next twenty years. She said only $40 million could be expected from existing funding sources for any project on Highway 217. She said the express toll lanes and toll ramps could provide revenues for the improvements; however, there would still be funding gaps that would have to be filled from other sources. She said the funding gap for the express toll lane was $124 million and $404 million for the toll ramp meter. She said the funding gap for the general travel lane was $457 million. She said these funding gaps could be filled by increased gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, property taxes or a street utility fee. She said Phase 2 of the Study would examine the assumptions used to arrive at the funding gaps and may result in some revisions.

She said Phase 2 of the Study was focused on developing a better unders tanding of the tradeoffs between options. She said Metro will hold open houses for citizens in the fall to share what would be learned during Phase 2. She said the progress of the Study can be tracked on Metro's Web site, along with information on when open houses will be held and how citizens can provide input on line. She said citizen feedback would be important to help form decisions concerning which options merit further consideration. She said after citizens have an opportunity to provide comment, the Policy Advisory Committee will recommend to the Metro Council alternatives for further study and implementation. The Metro Council will adopt final Study recommendations during the Fall of 2005.

Coun. Arnold asked what resources would fund the $40 million for the general road improvements.

Weighart replied that was ODOT's (Oregon Department of Transportation) estimate of what would be expected from the State from such sources as gas taxes or Federal funds. She said this project was not in the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan.

Coun. Arnold asked why the State would allocate funding when nothing could be built with it.

Weighart replied pieces of the Highway 217 project could be broken up into smaller projects which could be built.

Coun. Arnold asked about the time frame for the availability of the funds for the general travel lane.

Weighart said the Policy Advisory Committee would study this over the next several months. She said the Committee would make recommendations on the funding and timeframes, but they did not have the answers yet.

Coun. Arnold referred to the express toll option and said she assumed the difference came from the anticipated revenue from the toll. She asked when this would happen.

Weighart said Phase 1 was projected for 2014; ten years from now. She said the $400 million estimate was developed by looking at anticipated revenues over 30 years, with the assumption that it could be bonded. She said they will look at this estimate more closely in Phase 2.

Coun. Arnold said it sounded as if larger trucks would not be able to use the express toll lane.

Weighart said that was the assumption at this phase of the Study because drivers would not want to sit in a toll line and be delayed. She said delivery vans could use the lane.

Coun. Arnold referred to the option referring to drivers bypassing the timed lanes for entering the freeway and asked if they would lengthen the amount of time for the other two lanes.

Weighart said because that option assumes the addition of a new lane on the highway, it would also assume that you would allow more traffic onto the highway. She said the drivers on the metered ramp would not see a greater delay than before; there would be a number of different ways this could work depending on the volume of traffic.

Coun. Bode said the presentation was interesting and it brought up a question in terms of social policy for the State. She said the State's beaches were open to everyone; now they were looking at traffic lanes that would not be open to everyone. She said the ability to ride in the toll lane will limit people according to their income. She said when you review sources of revenue; anyone who owns a car has paid a registration fee, regardless of income and also paid gas taxes and property taxes if they own a home, it seems they are looking to become exclusive in limiting the highway. She said Highway 217 won't belong to everyone; three of the lanes are open to everyone but the added lane would belong to those with a higher income. She said another concern was that if it becomes more expensive for a delivery van to go from one point to another, it will drive up the price to all consumers because they will pass the toll charges on to the consumer. She said she saw it as interesting that they were speaking in terms of traffic congestion when the bigger question was social policy for the State and fairness for all the people who pay gas taxes, registration fees, and property taxes. She said she would like to see Metro be responsible and develop a social policy that drives their decisions on how Highway 217 develops.

Mayor Drake thanked Weighart for the presentation.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:27 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:39 p.m.


David James, Chair, Five Oaks/Triple Creek Neighborhood Association Committee, said he sent a letter to the City Council that included a copy of Washington County's Traffic Study for Cornell Road. He said he wanted to highlight several things about the Study. He said there was a map in the Study that showed the area of Cornell Road that would be widened, from Evergreen Parkway to Bethany Boulevard. He said the Traffic Study indicated the junctions of Cornell Road at Evergreen Parkway, 173rd Street and 167th Street, are operating acceptably today. He said the Study says the Bethany junction will not be failing in 2025 if it is left as it is today. He said the Study highlights that the two junctions outside the project area, 158th and Cornell Road, and Bethany Boulevard and the freeway, are failing today and they are causing problems for the Cornell Road/Bethany Boulevard junction. He said if this section of Cornell Road is widened, the traffic volume coming into the problem areas will increase. He said this project will be discussed at the next meeting of the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC). He said when looking at Cornell Road, one has to ask if this is really the highest priority. He requested that Council ask the WCCC to re-examine this project and its priority, to see if it would be the highest priority project.

Mayor Drake asked Engineering Director Tom Ramisch if he had any comments.

Engineering Director Tom Ramisch said he saw the Executive Summary for the Traffic Study that was attached to Mr. James letter. He said he had the Traffic Engineer look at the Study and while there are some intersections outside of this project area that are troublesome, the Cornell Road stretch also has its own problems and the improvements that the County is planning under the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) are valid and warranted. He said the MSTIP program cannot address all the needs in the County. He said they have asked the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) to address how County staff evaluated and prioritized the projects. He said that will be addressed at the next WCCC meeting. He said there weren't sufficient funds to fix everything in the area at one time. He noted part of this project would involve the State. He said it takes a lot of money to fix these problems so the projects are done one at a time as funding permits through MSTIP.

James said his comments were not to expand the boundaries of this project to include the problem areas. He said the proposed Cornell Road widening of a one-mile section would cost $7.5 million and he wanted to ensure Council would review this project to see if it really has the highest priority or should this funding go to a more deserving project.

Coun. Doyle said he understood Mr. James' question. He said this was a valid question and it would get a thorough hearing.

Henry Kane, Beaverton, said he would submit a letter concerning the Highway 217 proposal later this week and it would include a copy of a New York Times article from April 28, 2005. He said his letter would elaborate about why toll lanes on Highway 217 would not be a good idea. He said limiting access and adding toll roads would force more traffic onto neighborhood streets. He said he preferred to have City staff look at this and not just Metro staff, as Metro was only concerned with the big picture. He said his letter would address financial aspects of this proposal.

Mayor Drake said Mr. Kane’s picture was two dimensional, rather than three. He said it was not just Metro Transportation staff working on this proposal; ODOT, Washington County and Beaverton staff were also involved. He said in any study one looks at all alternatives before deciding on a final option and it would not be prudent to pre-ordain an answer. He said he was involved in this from the beginning and Mr. Kane had attended the meetings. He said one of the best transportation engineers in the state, DKS, was consulted and was a regular participant on this project. He said this was not done in a planning vacuum and there were many challenges with this project. He stressed City staff and exceedingly credible people from the community, business and industry were involved in this project. He said this was a huge team effort and they waited until they had something concrete to consider, not just conceptual ideas, before bringing this to Council. He said the solutions were not easy and would be expensive.

Coun. Doyle added that the Committee’s task is to present a recommendation to Metro and it will be intensely discussed at that time.


Coun. Ruby said on Thursday, May 5, at 7:00 p.m., the speaker at the Beaverton Forum series would be Dr. Norm Winningstad, a pioneer of high technology in this area. He said he was pleased the City assembled a fine list of speakers for the Forum series.

Coun. Doyle said Council was informed by Chief of Staff Linda Adlard that the City was applying for an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of $30,000 to begin a program entitled Beaverton Safe. He said this program was a campaign of public outreach and education to address financial fraud targeted towards senior citizens. He said he served on the Washington County Advisory Committee that dealt with these issues for seniors and disadvantaged citizens. He said he hoped this grant would be approved so something could be done about this growing problem. He wished Ms. Adlard luck on the application.

Mayor Drake said Ms. Adlard and her staff deserved a great deal of credit for preparing this application. He said there were two prongs to this issue; the enforcement issue and the need for education to teach and advise seniors to be more proactive in helping themselves. He said this program will dovetail the Police Department's program; it will not be a duplication of programs. He said this has become a big issue and the goal is to help seniors help themselves so they are not victims of fraud.

Coun. Arnold said as liaison to the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee, the Committee was concerned about this problem and was working in conjunction with the City on this issue.


There were none.


05090 APP 2005-0002 Appeal of Garden Grove Preliminary PUD (CU 2004-0021), and Decision on Final PUD Development Plan

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing.

Community Development Director Joe Grillo read a prepared statement defining the process that needed to be followed for the hearing, including the various required disclosure statements (in the record).

Grillo asked if any Councilor had a potential or actual conflict of interest.

There were none.

Grillo asked if any Councilor had an ex parte contact to declare.

Coun. Arnold said she visited the site twice.

Grillo asked if any Councilor wished to declare any site visits beyond the one just mentioned.

Mayor Drake and Coun. Doyle stated they had visited the site.

Grillo asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the right of the Council to consider this matter or challenge the right of any Councilor to participate in this hearing, or wished to request a continuance of the hearing to a later date.

There were none.

Development Services Manager Steven Sparks and Senior Planner John Osterberg reviewed the staff report. Sparks said the Planning Commission approved the Garden Grove Planned Unit Development (PUD). He said the City Development Code contained two types of PUDs; the Preliminary PUD and a Final PUD. He said the Preliminary PUD was used by an applicant to show the Planning Commission how a site might be developed, in general terms and concepts; the applicant then receives general feedback from the City in support or opposition to his concept. He said the next step was the Final PUD, which implements the Preliminary PUD approval. He said in this case, the applicant applied for a Preliminary PUD but presented a Final PUD application to the City. He said prior to the appeal hearing originally scheduled for April 4, 2005, staff discovered this mistake and the hearing was continued to this evening to provide legally-sufficient notice for the Final PUD. He said at this time, staff was asking Council to hear the original appeal and also take action on the Final PUD.

Sparks said the approval criteria for the Preliminary PUD and Final PUD were virtually identical. He said the main difference was that in the Final PUD there were two criteria related to the Preliminary PUD. These two criteria were: 1) Is it substantially the same as what was approved in the Preliminary PUD; and 2) Has the Final PUD application been filed within two years of the prior approval. He said since both of these criteria were not applicable to this application, staff believed this was a correctable oversight on everyone's part, and it could be corrected by redoing the notice on the public hearing to include the Final PUD and the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, to be heard as a de novo hearing. He said staff was recommending denial of the appeal and approval of the Final PUD.

Mayor Drake clarified that the minor error was corrected by re-noticing and holding a de novo hearing.

Sparks replied that was correct.

Coun. Arnold referred to the proposed Homeowners' Association (HOA) and asked about the City's experience with HOAs for smaller sites and how well did they function.

Sparks said the bulk of the City's experience with HOAs was with larger developments such as Murrayhill. He said prior to two years ago, PUDs had a four-acre size limitation; if developments were four acres or less, an applicant could not do a PUD. He said with the Code update, that restriction was removed and therefore the City was seeing PUDs on smaller sites, which will have HOAs. He said due to the short time span, most of the PUDs the City has approved over the past two years were currently under construction and did not have active HOAs as yet.

Coun. Arnold said since the Code was just updated, the City would see over time how well it was working.

Sparks said all HOAs, regardless of size, had common issues of adequate funding, reasonable dues for amenities and maintenance, and active membership. He said it would depend on the people within the HOA. He said he could envision a 20-unit condominium project where everyone was very active and he had seen HOAs with thousands of units fall apart due to lack of interest.

Coun. Arnold asked if the HOA were to become inactive, how would that be remedied and who would be responsible for maintenance of the property.

Sparks responded the HOA would remain responsible for the tracts; as the plat was recorded, tracts would be set aside and the ownership of those tracts would be identified as the HOA. If the tract was overgrown with weeds and the City received complaints about it, part of the City's Code Enforcement Services would be to identify the property owner and notify them of the situation. He said if there was no active HOA, notices would be sent to every property owner to remind them of their obligation as an HOA to maintain the tract in question. He said he did not recall a circumstance where the HOA had not complied.

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea said he had some experience with defunct HOAs. He said sometimes with defunct HOAs the taxes were not paid, so eventually the property ends up in public ownership; with Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) those properties would not be buildable. He said there was usually some solution for these parcels.

Coun. Bode asked if the HOA was part of the criteria being considered at this meeting.

Senior Planner John Osterberg said the HOA was indirectly related to criteria. He said there were s tandards under the open space regulations for PUDs that refer to how open spaces or parks were to be dedicated to either a park district or an HOA. He said there was Facilities Review criterion that addressed the matter of maintenance of privately held common facilities and open spaces. He said this matter was subject to the criteria for approval of a PUD.

Mayor Drake said initially one has to assume the applicant will follow through. He said they have had examples where HOAs did not maintain their properties and there was an enforcement mechanism for compliance; in most instances the land was maintained.

Sparks said the Facilities Review criterion Osterberg referred to was at the top of page 95 of the staff report.

Coun. Ruby referred to Planning Commissioner Maks' comment at the hearing that he was not impressed with the design and it reminded him of army barracks. He asked staff if they knew why Commissioner Maks abstained from voting at that hearing.

Sparks said Commissioner Maks had not declared any conflict or bias before the hearing; he did not elaborate on why he abstained.

Mayor Drake said that over time he has observed private streets were fine until the streets needed maintenance. He asked staff to comment on why developers use private streets and a portion of a street could be private versus public.

Sparks said he recalled this street could not meet public street s tandards for width and angles. He said the City does allow private streets with a cul-de-sac at the end of a street to provide turn-around space. He said private streets are the homeowners' responsibility and sometimes people do not read all their papers when they purchase a home and don't realize private streets are not maintained by the City. He said it was an issue they struggled with constantly because with in-fill development, one cannot always provide a public street. He said on this property, the frontage along the southern property line was Multnomah Boulevard and the ultimate alignment between Canby Street and Multnomah Boulevard was a straight north/south line, with no bend in the road. He said they were planning ahead for the future to provide a straight road between Canby Street and Multnomah Boulevard; that could be maintained by the City.

Mayor Drake said he recalled a situation where a citizen wanted to know why the City was not sweeping his street. He said it turned out it was a private street that was developed in the County. He said he was concerned about future calls from citizens asking why the City was not maintaining the street.

Coun. Arnold asked if this was a flag lot.

Sparks replied it was not a flag lot. He said a flag lot was a driveway stem out to the street with a building parcel in the back; flag lots were usually for two or three parcels.

Coun. Arnold asked if the HOA was responsible for paying for maintenance.

Sparks said that was correct. He said the CC&Rs and HOA Rules define how the HOA would fund maintenance of its facilities. He said the City had no involvement in that process. He said the City's involvement was to ensure there was nothing illegal in the CC&Rs or HOA Rules.

Coun. Arnold asked if the HOA could decide not to comply with the CC&Rs.

Osterberg replied at the time of the Final Plat Application, as part of the Land Division Application, staff would review a copy of the final CC&Rs. He added this was not before Council at this meeting. He said staff would review the CC&Rs to ensure they do not state that the City will maintain these facilities. He said the HOA would not be able to change the CC&Rs arbitrarily as it is a recorded document. He said the focus would be to ensure the CC&Rs were consistent with the land use decision.

Rappleyea said the City has had little direct involvement with the CC&Rs; it is a private contract between property owners. He said the City reviews the CC&Rs to ensure they are legal and to ensure that any specific clause the City has required is included. He added it was a very rare instance when the City would get involved in the CC&Rs.

Coun. Doyle asked if staff was satisfied there was adequate parking for the proposed 15 units.

Osterberg replied staff was satisfied; parking would meet Development Code s tandards. He said parking would be provided with each single family home; each home will have a driveway and garage. He said parking might be tight during times of special gatherings, such as family events or holidays. He added on-street parking would be provided on one side of SW Kelsi Street.

Coun. Arnold questioned which lots would have on street parking.

Osterberg said Lots 11 through 15 would have on-street parking in front of the parcels. He said where the street width is 20 feet; there would be no street parking.

Coun. Doyle noted this was no different than other areas in the City, especially on cul-de-sacs.

Coun. Bode referred to the traffic analysis and said 85% speed would be 28 miles per hour (mph). She asked if the City did the analysis.

Osterberg said City crews did a brief traffic count, not a full analysis. He referred the question to Transportation Division Planner Don Gustafson.

Gustafson said the development generated fewer than 200 trips per day which was the threshold to require a traffic analysis. He said they estimated it would be 150 trips per day for the 15 units. He said the traffic counts were done with traffic counters, for 24-hour periods, for three days (one weekday and two weekend days). He said the posted speed limit was 25 mph and the 85 percentile meant that 85% of the traffic on the street was going 28 mph or less.

Kirsten Van Loo, Principal Planner representing CES Northwest, applicant, introduced Carl Jensen, Principal Engineer, CES Northwest. She thanked staff for catching her error in filing for a Preliminary PUD instead of a Final PUD. She said it was her mistake as the City's process was a bit different from other PUD processes.

Van Loo said this property was very difficult to work with because of its dimensional shape. She said in addition they had a public arterial controlled by the City of Portland on the south end of the site, a local street with limited frontage on the north end ( Canby Street), there were three large areas taken out of the property through prior sales, and on the northeast corner there was a viable non-conforming commercial use. She referred to an earlier question of why they had a public street connected to a private street that was then connected to an emergency vehicle connection. She said the original design was to extend SW Kelsi Street in a circuitous pattern south to Multnomah Boulevard. She said City of Portland staff opposed a public connection all the way through in that alignment because it created a dangerous off-set intersection with the extension of SW Kelsi Street on the south side of Multnomah Boulevard. She said because of this, they were not permitted to take a public street all the way through in their original alignment. She said SW Kelsi Street was stubbed into the middle of the adjacent property to the south because that was the long-term extension of that street into Multnomah Boulevard. She said she could not say when that would happen and this was the only alignment the City of Portland would allow for this project. She said alternatively, Portland gave them permission for an emergency vehicle connection, pedestrian connection and bicycle connection in the location shown on the plans in the staff report.

Van Loo agreed this was a difficult project and they have worked on it for three years. She said it started as a subdivision and they found they could not meet any of the dimensional criteria on any lot and build a public street. She said during the time the applicant was resolving encroachment issues on this site, the Code changed and they were given the opportunity to do a PUD which was one of only two viable options for developing this property. She said the only other option was to submit an application for a subdivision with a long list of variances. She said it was hard to gain approval for variances and the new PUD ordinance appeared to be tailor-made for this project. She said the project was designed and went before the Planning Commission; the Commission had concerns regarding open space and sent the project back for additional work. She said they remodeled the project to meet all the dimensional criteria required for open space. She said they took the project back to the Planning Commission and addressed all the requirements for open space, public streets and street trees. She said the Planning Commission was satisfied with the changes and approved the project.

Van Loo said there was parking on both sides of SW Kelsi Street on Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. She said there was no on-street parking on the rest of the street. She said the project was unique in that they had to deal with a very constrained site. She said there were also constraints off-site, so they had to change the project from having an open water-quality detention facility to underground detention and underground water quality, to deal with vertical elevation challenges to get the storm water off the site. She said the project had three open spaces; one large site to buffer the project from Multnomah Boulevard; one central tract in the center of the project; and a landscaped area at the entrance. She said the open space at the entrance was done because the underground water quality treatment facility was under that open space and it provided a street presence to buffer the lots from the street. She said there were no corner lots in this project; all were interior lots. She said the project was compatible with surrounding areas and each lot was wide enough to provide a 40-foot wide footprint as the maximum width, which provides a huge variety of options for building houses between 1600 and 3000 square feet. She said there were a variety of lot sizes from 3700 to 6000 square feet. She said she appreciated the Planning Commission's concern about the barracks design but stressed there was no building proposal yet. She said they felt strongly they could find 15 different footprints to put on these lots. She said they submitted the draft CC&Rs which were in the staff report. She said it was the intent of this developer to put together a HOA that would maintain all of the tracts and the private driveway. She said the numbers in the proposed budget were reasonable and within the norm for HOAs.

Mayor Drake said he realized this was not site-specific, but he wondered if common-wall housing could be put on these lots; where the common wall would be the divider between the two lots with a utility easement on either side.

Van Loo said she supposed someone could do that if the project was sold to another developer. She said it was never their intent to do common-wall housing or attached housing on this project. She said it might be possible but the materials in the record would not facilitate such a development without some type of amendment.

Coun. Arnold read Code Section 60.35.05 concerning the purpose of the PUD and said this showed the PUD was intended to bring in good development. She asked how the open space design in this project added to the neighborhood and immediate area.

Van Loo replied the Garden Home area was a unique part of the greater metropolitan Portland area between Beaverton and Portland. She said it was developed with large lots and over the past 50 years the land surrounding this parcel has been developed. She said the subdivision to the east was built in 1971 and the s tandards for developing property in 1971 were radically different from today. She said the smaller subdivision to the northwest was developed in Washington County in the early 1980's, with a private tract serving four lots that will not be used. She said the land across the street to the north developed over time as individual lots, not part of a subdivision. She said the subdivision to the northwest was platted in the mid to late 1980's. She said the land to the west was platted as large lots 50 to 70 years ago. She said when she read the definition of a PUD and it said they were supposed to preserve the value, spirit, character and integrity of surrounding areas, she read that to mean they should not harm the area and they should develop a product that achieves the City of Beaverton's and Metro's goals while being compatible and similar to surrounding area. She said in this area the surrounding projects were primarily detached single-family homes. She said they were proposing detached single-family homes of approximately the same square footage. She said the project had three-quarters of an acre of maintained open space in three areas: an entrance treatment; a central pocket park; and a half acre of open space to buffer the project from Multnomah Boulevard and provide emergency vehicle access for the entire community. She said she believed this design solved many difficult planning and engineering problems while providing a compact urban form within an area that has a full range of urban services, such as churches, schools, pubs, restaurants, bus stops and a recreation center all within walking distance. She said this was the best plan they were able to develop to meet the goals of the property owner, the community and the developer, and still meet the Development Code requirements.

Coun. Arnold said she was not sure there was an area where people could walk safely as there weren’t any sidewalks or crosswalks. She noted the various amenities in the area; this was not an area where people would walk to these facilities. She said she was not sure about the "condensed urban form" discussion.

Mayor Drake said even if this area was developed as R5, with larger lots, none of the conditions Coun. Arnold noted would change other than the area on Canby.

Coun. Arnold asked if they had looked at R7 or R5 development.

Van Loo said they spent considerable time in three pre-application conferences with City staff exploring every potential option for development of this site. She said they considered everything from Comprehensive Plan changes, de-annexation, zone changes, PUDs and variances.

Coun. Arnold said under the PUD the minimum number of units allowed was 7 and the maximum was 17; the applicant was proposing 15 units. She referred to the HOA budget on page 292 of the staff report. She said in her mind this was a subdivision and the PUD language was being used to make a subdivision. She said when she read the purpose of the PUD, she was looking for the benefits of this development. She said she was concerned about maintenance of the open space and if the open space was really adding benefit as required by the PUD criteria. She said she was wondering about the cost reflected in the HOA budget and she asked Van Loo if she could elaborate on it.

Van Loo said she could not; for the budget was developed by her client. She said her client was a professional developer who had been in the business for 30 years and it would be inappropriate for her to examine those numbers.

Mayor Drake said that may be more detail than what Council should be concerned with at this time because nothing wrong had occurred. He said that was more detail than what would normally be provided.

Coun. Arnold said her concern was that the open space was supposed to provide benefit to the community. She said she was concerned about the cost because she spoke to two property management companies and a planner who dealt with smaller HOAs. She said she was concerned that the open space be maintained and look nice and that it not end up back in the City's lap. She said when she spoke with others about the cost, she was told it was about $10,420 annually which came to $700 per unit per year, which seemed a high rate for homeowners to pay.

Mayor Drake said based on the experience of HOAs; that was not outrageous.

Coun. Arnold asked how the open areas would be developed and how would they add value to the neighborhood.

Van Loo said the open spaces would be landscaped and the preliminary plans were in the staff report. She said the entrance area would be landscaped in zeroscape, Tract D would be grass and trees, and Tract C would be like an arboretum with pasture grass and a variety of native trees. She said the pedestrian walkway would be grasscrete to support emergency vehicles and pedestrians and still look residential in nature.

Mayor Drake said the landscaping plans were in the staff report (pages 163-170) and were very detailed.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 9:03 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. and stated the City Attorney had a statement for Council.

Rappleyea said during the break there was discussion about the prior testimony. He said Coun. Arnold mentioned she talked to a few people and she had not included these in her ex parte contacts. He said Coun. Arnold wished to clarify that now.

Coun. Arnold said she talked to three sources to gain neutral information. She said she spoke to two property management companies to get an idea of the cost to run an HOA. She said she spoke to a Metro planner to see how they look at meeting density requirements and if that applied to the criteria in this application. She said the Metro planner had prior experience in a city where there were small HOAs.

Rappleyea asked if the applicant wanted to ask for a continuance to address any issues that were raised by Coun. Arnold’s statement.

Van Loo said she did not wish a continuance. She said this issue was discussed at length at the Planning Commission level and it was one of the four reasons why the project was brought back to the Commission. She said Commissioner De Harrport, who was a developer in Beaverton, was concerned about CC&Rs and HOA maintenance costs. She said it was at his request that her client generated the material in the packet. She said Commissioner De Harrport was satisfied with the materials based on his and his family's professional experience in the industry. She said that was how the issue was satisfied at the Commission level.


Susan Greer, Portland, appellant, said she filed the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Garden Grove PUD, because the proposed 15 lot development and the City's review of the application failed to adequately address important features of the Comprehensive Plan. She said her main concerns were traffic impact on existing streets and residences, and the high-density row-house layout of the proposed development. She said the houses were six feet apart at the foundation and three feet apart at the eaves.

Greer recalled the nature and history of the Maplewood neighborhood. She said it was originally platted in 1875; the Maplewood area was well known for its Swiss/German dairies, its timber and as a freight and passenger railroad intersection with its own station. She said the Maplewood Water District, founded in 1911, was Oregon's oldest water district when part of the community was annexed into Portland in 1964. She said this history shows Maplewood and Garden Home were not pop-up subdivisions in prime, flat agricultural land within the Urban Growth Boundary. She said the Maplewood/ Garden Home area was more than commuter subdivisions. She said the residents valued and utilized the natural and enhanced resources in the area. She said residents knew each other and walked or biked to local resources and community facilities. She added the residents supported various parks and recreation districts with their tax dollars. She said the neighborhood consisted of a diverse housing mix ranging from modest to high-end homes, which range in age from turn-of-the-century farm houses to new contemporaries. She said the neighborhood was annexed to Beaverton in the late 1990's though they were not assigned to a Neighborhood Association Committee.

Greer said SW Canby Street residents had seen the construction of over 50 residential units in the last 15 years; many yielding as many as 500 additional vehicle trips per day. She said residents and pets must negotiate this narrow residential land when walking or biking, without benefit of curbs, sidewalks, speed bumps, safety signing or street lighting. She said this area and SW Canby Street were long overdue for action on traffic calming policies. She said a few feet of sidewalk fronting SW Canby Street, from the Garden Grove PUD, did little to compensate for the hazards, noise and air pollution resulting from the additional 150 vehicle trips per day on SW Canby Street.

Greer said she had several conversations with City of Portland planners. She said this site plan had been around since 2001. She said two concepts were presented to the City of Portland for intersecting with Multnomah Boulevard: a full access intersection and a pedestrian emergency intersection which was indicated on the current site plan. She said Portland preferred a full intersection, to be built in the future, which would align SW Kelsi Street with Kelsi Street on the other side of Multnomah Boulevard.

Greer said this was a difficult site, especially with the wetlands, but she felt it should have been developed as a subdivision with less density. She said a traffic analysis that covered three days, two of which were weekends, did not show what traffic was like on SW Canby Street. She said SW Canby Street connected to Vermont Street, Oleson Road and Multnomah Boulevard and people use it as a cut through for those streets. She asked that the Planning Commission and Council review and revise the PUD ordinance because the proposal would barely meet the requirements of the ordinance and would offer little innovative site design, and would have to address Zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan objectives in a manner responsive to the unique characteristics of the parent neighborhood.

Coun. Doyle asked Greer if the entire neighborhood where she lived was in the City of Beaverton.

Greer replied it was an unusual area and a detailed map was needed to determine which lot was in which jurisdiction; either Portland, Beaverton or the County.

Coun. Arnold referred to Greer's letter of appeal which stated this development did not meet Comp Plan Policy 3.13.1C that addressed compatibility. She asked Greer to elaborate on why she felt it was not compatible with the neighborhood.

Greer said traffic was a big concern as well as the capacity of the retention vault which is proposed to handle the runoff. She said Hideaway Park, which was downstream from this development, was already experiencing flooding on the east end of the park, which is where the runoff from the development will flow. She said they were also looking ahead to when the Oleson Road improvements begin and people will use SW Canby Street even more to get around the Oleson Road stoppages and construction.

Catherine Darby, Beaverton, said she has lived in Beaverton for 17 years. She said this development borders her property to the west and south, next to SW Kelsi Street and Lot 15. She said many of the properties in this area are quarter-acre lots. She said she was concerned with the high density of this development and that it would not keep the neighborhood feeling of the area. She said the proposed open space was more of a buffer area rather than being used as recreational facilities for the entire general area. She said she was concerned that houses can be six feet apart at the foundation and two feet apart at the eaves. She said she would favor the development if the open space was more central to the development and if there were only 11 to 12 houses. She said she supported the Urban Growth Boundary and development of this area, but not to this high a density. She said this would impact their neighborhood greatly. She asked that the Council send this back to the developer for a better development plan.

Mayor Drake asked Darby if two units were joined at the property line would that be better; as it would create ten buildings.

Darby replied it would be better if there was more space between the houses.

Mayor Drake said he thought it would be less invasive.

Darby said she was pleased with the location of the access road as it was a buffer for her parcel. She said her real concern was the number of houses and the way the open space was laid out. She said the road and Lot 15 buffered her land from this development.

Barbara Neil, Portland, said the lots were too small for the area which was zoned R7 and she did not believe it was the intent of the PUD ordinance to give away unbuildable land and allow it to be zoned to half the size of the current zoning. She said the difficulty in planning this development was in putting 15 lots on 2 ½ acres. She said they could have done the same thing with seven or eleven lots. She said 15 units in the middle of a community would look like Army barracks. She said she felt what they had was a good PUD rule administered at its worst. She said it was bad planning and against the intent of the PUD ordinance, which was to preserve the value, spirit and integrity of the surrounding area. She said only the builder and contractor benefit from this plan. She said she considered it political negligence to approve this plan and asked that Council lower the density. She referred to Goal 6, Manage Growth and Respond to Change Consistent with Maintaining Livability, and said putting barracks in the Garden Home neighborhood was not the answer.

Mayor Drake asked Neil if there was ever a single family home or farmstead at that site.

Neil said there was large horse ranch northeast of there.

Mayor Drake asked if this site was a remnant parcel from the ranch.

Neil replied she did not think so.

Jeremy Inman, Canby Lane, Portland, said he wished to echo what everyone else said. He said he was concerned with traffic issues. He said the traffic on these streets was fast and hazardous. He said he would like to have the traffic enhancement policies for this development reviewed or the number of lots should be reduced. He said reducing the density was the only way this would be an acceptable development to the neighborhood. He said Tract C, the open space tract, was set on Multnomah Boulevard which has a lot of traffic. He said if that open space is intended to be used as a kids play area, he would question the safety of that environment. He said this was a busy road with the majority of traffic traveling 45 mph and higher.

Coun. Arnold said in the application there was a Comprehensive Plan criterion that referred to meeting the "big picture" plans, such as Metro Title 1. She asked if that came from staff or the applicant.

Osterberg said there were three different policies that overlap in similar subject matter, such as dealing with Metro Title 1 and minimum density s tandards. He said staff addressed those and he wanted to add the comment that staff addressed those by stating what the applicant was proposing. He said it could have been clearer by simply stating that all of those Plan policies that deal with that subject matter could have been addressed with a brief finding that those policies were simply met by the Development Code and were implemented by the Development Code's Residential Minimum Density S tandards. He said if an applicant meets the Development Code, they would be meeting those policies.


Van Loo said when the land was annexed from Washington County to Beaverton it was zoned R5, which meant this site could have between 14 and 17 lots. She stressed they were not at maximum density. She said they were at the same density as if it had been developed in Beaverton in the late 1970's or early 1980's. She said the houses could be a minimum of six feet apart, as that was the minimum side yard setbacks. She said that did not mean the eaves would only be three feet apart; the eaves have to be more than three feet apart to meet Uniform Building Code requirements. She said those were the minimums and that did not mean every house would be built exactly to the minimum side yard setback. She said that was why they have a variety of lot sizes. She said the appellant was correct in stating she had not seen any elevations, so the comment that these units were packed in was inappropriate as there were only lots at this time.

Van Loo said the traffic issue was addressed earlier. She said real traffic counts showed there was less traffic than there was five years ago; trips of 900 to 1,000 vehicle trips per day on a local street were well within acceptable s tandards for local street trip generation. She said the addition of 150 trips per day will still keep this local street well under the threshold, which is between 1200 and 1500 vehicle trips per day for a local street. She said they designed the proposed profile for the extension of SW Kelsi Street through to Multnomah Boulevard, which was in the plans before Council, and it is achievable. She said this was verified in their preliminary engineering plans. She said the development of this property will detain and contain water, and it will slow and minimize the impacts of flooding from gully-washer flooding downstream. She said they did do a proposal for consolidated open space, with open space at each end of the site and the remainder of the land was divided into small open spaces between each lot to provide the concept Mayor Drake proposed earlier. She said the Planning Commission did not like the idea. She said they presented a PUD to the Planning Commission at the encouragement and support of the City's planning staff who have years of experience. She said they reviewed the Code and did the best job they could and it was approved by the Planning Commission. She asked the Council to support this project.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that Council deny the Appeal of Garden Grove Preliminary PUD (APP 2005-0002) and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve CU 2004-0021 as a Final PUD and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order that embodies the Council's decision.

Coun. Bode said this was a first-time experience of reviewing criteria for many people concerned with the proposal. She said she sometimes found the criteria to be competing in nature, especially when speaking about the benefits of urban density. She said this proposal was within Metro 1 goals for infill and urban density. She suggested citizens might want to have future discussions on urban density if they were unsure of its benefits. She agreed this area of Multnomah was a charming place. She commented on the variety within the proposed development and said this proposal did meet the PUD criteria and was within density requirements. She said based on that, she would have to uphold the oath she took to follow the law and support the motion. She thanked everyone for their participation and comments.

Coun. Arnold said she would not support this motion because maximum density was based on the old days of minimums, which said this could not be smaller than 7,000 square feet. She said the maximum was achieved by taking the area, looking at the minimum, and that minimum became the maximum, which was a gross number. If there was a rectangular piece of property already on a street, one could go for the maximum density; but on a site where streets have to be built, you could not get the maximum density. She said this looked like a way to get the 20 percent open space PUD requirement. She said the Planning Commission denied it and sent it back for more work, including redoing the open space so it was not part of the yards between the homes.

Coun. Arnold said when she reviewed the PUD requirements, she did not see that this proposal preserved any natural features or provided a benefit as described in the PUD purpose statement. She read from page 27 of the staff report "…although the application met the Development Code CU/PUD criteria for approval, the PUD proposal was not particularly creative in design and layout and did not provide the amenities that they have in mind when considering the best PUD developments. The three Commission members indicated that PUD development s tandards may need to be addressed through a future Development Code text amendment; but as proposed, the Garden Grove PUD meets all of the Code criteria for approval." She said she thought they ruled that it met the criteria because they interpreted the Code to say if they had 20% open space; it wouldn’t matter if it was weeds. She said it did not have anything to do with meeting the maximum density requirements for Metro. She said she did not feel this met the criteria and she felt the neighbors had valid complaints. She said because of this she would not support the motion.

Coun. Doyle said as he read through the staff report, it did indicate the applicant had met the criteria because the PUD process allowed them to meet the density. He referred to the section read by Coun. Arnold and noted they had met the criteria. He said there were two ways to look at everything and this was just a difference of opinion.

Coun. Arnold said she also heard Commissioner Johansen say "that if the purpose of a PUD was to stuff as many units on a piece of property as we can, then this met the requirement, but I don't think it is." She said Johansen's comments were in the staff report.

Question called on the motion. Couns. Bode, Doyle and Ruby voting AYE, Coun. Arnold voting NAY, the MOTION CARRIED. (3:1)


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

Catherine Jansen, Deputy City Recorder




Approved this 6th day of June, 2005.

Rob Drake, Mayor