MARCH 5, 2007


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, March 5, 2007, at 6:35 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Catherine Arnold, Betty Bode, Bruce S. Dalrymple, Dennis Doyle and Cathy Stanton.  Also present were City Attorney Alan Rappleyea, Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, Finance Director Patrick O'Claire, Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Public Works Director Gary Brentano, Human Resources Director Nancy Bates, Police Captain Stan Newland and City Recorder Sue Nelson.


There were none.


Couns. Bode and Stanton informed the Council concerning homelessness in Washington County.  It was noted there currently were 78,000 people in Washington County who were uninsured.  Last week Washington County held a Project Homeless Connect Day and those who were homeless or living in shelters were able to come in and receive help from a consortium of service providers in the County.  All of the service agencies in the County participated and provided help in medical, human and veteran's services.    

Coun. Bode said this was an eye opener as she realized the extent of homelessness in her city. She said many people came looking for help and behaved respectfully.  She said the County was currently working on a nation-wide project to develop a ten-year plan to end homelessness and help the homeless enter the workforce so that they can take care of themselves and their families.  She referred to the Council's goal for livability and she questioned the kind of livability the homeless endured.  She said she left the meeting more committed to supporting Washington County's effort to get rid of homelessness. 

Coun. Stanton said this was a ten year federal plan to eliminate homelessness by finding housing and services for those in need.  She said the current federal poverty level was $20,000 for a family of four.  She said she defied anyone to say that they lived comfortably on $20,000 a year in Washington County.  She said there was a great deal of need in this county as demonstrated at Project Homeless Connect Day.  She said by connecting the homeless to these services we can help them transition to a stable environment.    
STAFF ITEMS:           

There were none.


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

07047  Resolution Supporting City 2007-2009 Transportation and Growth Management
Grant Application (Resolution No. 3891) (Note: There was a brief discussion on this item at the end of the meeting.)

07048  Proposed Memorandum of Understanding Relating to Extensions of Public Water and Sewer Services to Measure 37 Related Urban Developments in Rural Washington County

Contract Review Board:

07049  Ratification of Beaverton Central Plant Contract Award for Underground Piping and Mechanical Rooms to Connect Buildings E and F

07050  Exemption from Competitive Bids and Authorize a Sole Seller and Brand Name for the Purchase of Leica Survey Equipment and Transfer Resolution (Resolution No. 3892)

Coun. Stanton referred to Agenda Bill 07048 and said this project had been going on for one and a half years to address what Measure 37 (M37) means for properties inside and outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).  She said due to the uncertainty of the language of M37, the cities on the edge of the UGB were concerned that someone would file a M37 claim against them to force them to provide service.  She said the County and the cities developed this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify what they could and could not do legally at this time.  She said this was critical work and it took a long time to develop this MOU.  She thanked County and City staff for their participation in this effort. 

Question called on the motion.  Couns.  Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0)


07032  APP 2007-0001 Appeal of Pointer Road PUD 

Mayor Drake said this public hearing was continued from the meeting of February 12, 2007, and discussion was limited to the number of lots.  He said the deadline to submit written testimony was March 1, 2007, at 5:00 p.m.  He said comments were submitted by both sides and were in the Council packet.     

Community Development Director Joe Grillo read a prepared statement defining the process to be followed for this hearing.  He said if anyone in the audience had an issue to raise, that they should do so now.

No one raised any issues.    

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea reiterated that the Council closed the record for new evidence as of March 1, 2007.  He said no new evidence could be presented at this time; only closing arguments would be heard and discussion was limited to facts that were already in the record. 

Mayor Drake asked if the Council needed to make a decision at this meeting. 

Rappleyea replied a decision had to be made tonight to meet the City's obligations under the 120-day rule. 

Coun.  Bode asked if Dan Cox was representing the twenty or so citizens who signed the petition he previously submitted (in the record).

Mayor Drake said Cox was the appellant.

Coun. Arnold asked if during testimony Cox was representing himself as the appellant or was he representing the citizens. 

Rappleyea said Cox had the right as the actual appellant to make his closing argument.  He said the applicant who has the final burden of proof to sustain the application would make the final closing argument.

Mayor Drake asked for closing arguments.

Dan Cox, appellant, referred to his letter of March 1, 2007, that was co-signed by more than 20 neighbors.  He said he wrote that letter as the appellant and those who co-signed were indicating their agreement with his comments in the letter.  He asked for a raise of hands from the audience of those he was representing.  (Approximately 30 people raised their hands.)  He said he made a good-faith effort to negotiate the number of lots with the applicant.  He said he told the applicant they would like to come to this meeting in support of this application; all that was required was a compromise on the number of lots.  He said the applicant would not reduce the number of lots.  He said that while they respected the applicant this decision was disappointing as they had expected to negotiate in good faith and reach a compromise that the Council could support. 

Cox said the applicant was willing to discuss other issues but not the issue of the number of lots.  He said he told the applicant that without a discussion about reducing the number of lots they could not discuss the subordinate issues that were up for consideration.  He said he had a transcript of a voicemail from the applicant stating that if he was forced to develop fewer than ten lots he would be unwilling to work with the neighborhood in any capacity.  He said the applicant's hard line had confirmed their worst fears about his suitability to develop this site.  He said nothing in the law or applicable rules entitled the applicant to ten lots.  He said the Planning Commission found that this site grew more incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood as the lot sizes fell below 7,000 square feet, as required in R-7 zoning.  He said the West Slope NAC had voted to reduce the number of lots to less than ten.  He said they felt they have successfully made their case that for this site for ten lots was too many. 

Cox said they all favored the development of the greenhouse site and they understood the need for infill development.  He said given the applicant's unwillingness to negotiate they were requesting the approval of eight lots plus the condition described in his March 1, 2007, letter.  He requested that if the Council approved ten lots, that they clearly state why they approved that density because he and the neighbors would not think the City wanted to send out a message that it favored density at any cost.  He said if the Council mandated fewer than ten lots and the applicant found the ruling incompatible with his business model they would encourage the applicant to step away from the project.  He said they offered these comments in the best interest of West Slope and he thanked the Council for listening.

Karl Mawson, Compass Engineering, representing the applicant, said this development met the zoning and Comprehensive Plan standards.  He said it was less than the maximum density allowed although it was greater than the minimum density required.  He said he wished to compare this site with other sites.  He said when development begins on most sites the area is vacant.  He said this site had wall to wall greenhouses and environmental concerns.  He said most sites have impervious surface and with development the amount of pavement increases but in this case the amount of pavement would be decreased.  He said most infill sites are located on a busy street; however SW Pointer Road was not a busy street.  He said many sites that go through a PUD have three-plexes, four-plexes or townhouses.  He said in this case they proposed single-family homes that were more compatible with the neighborhood.  He said most sites were very visible to adjoining neighbors but in this case it would be difficult for the neighbors to see this site.  He said in looking at the number of lots most of them were already set; there were only a few that could be made larger.  He said these houses would not be visible to anybody but those who live in the project.  He said infill development was tough but this was one of the best cases of infill development in Beaverton.    

Ron Wilson, representing R. K. Wilson the developer, said that within a mile radius of this site there were 3,500 households.  He said those who opposed the development were less than 1% of the neighborhood.  He noted there were letters in the Council packet from people who support the development.  He said regarding the issue of 7,000 square foot lots in this development if the open space was added with the lot sizes it would add up to 7,154 square feet per lot.  He said he went to the NAC meetings and had talked with the appellant several times.  He said he offered many options to negotiate the neighborhoods support; however the applicant was not interested.  He said he felt he was expected to just keep giving.  He said the appellant lives in a neighborhood less than one mile away that averages 3500 square foot lots.  He asked that the Council uphold the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission's decision.  He said urban infill was difficult and they were trying to live within the development requirements.

Mawson said there was concern about the street and the traffic, and he suggested some remedies in his letter (in the record).  He said after a year’s delay if it turned out that traffic was a problem they could revisit that issue, since they do own part of that road.    

Mayor Drake asked Mawson what he meant by "a year's delay."

Mawson said he did not mean a delay.  He said that they had projected a problem on that private easement; they had predicted what would happen.  He said street use was based on convenience and time.  He said he thought by making the exit a right-turn only (so that people would be breaking the law by turning left) and then adding speed humps he did not think this would be a problem.  He said they could wait for a year to see if this would be a problem and then add additional speed humps if needed.     

Coun. Arnold asked who he was referring to as “we.” 

Mawson said that “we” would be everyone for they could not project how many drivers would break the law and make a left turn to go through that easement.  He said he did not think many would do that; however there were people present who disagreed.  He was suggesting that they could revisit that at a later time, if it turns out to be a big issue.

Coun. Arnold said if the property was developed and the homes were sold the developer would have no responsibility there. 

Wilson said this was one of the issues that he tried to work out with the appellant to get their support for the density but they were not able to agree. 

Mayor Drake reminded them to limit the testimony to the subject to the number of lots. 

Coun. Stanton confirmed with Mawson that "we" meant him and Wilson. She asked Mawson if he was referring to speed humps on SW Pointer Road. 

Mawson said he was referring to the lower leg of the access easement lane, south of Wilson Way, which the developer owns. 

Mayor Drake said that was private property and he asked the City Attorney to comment on the City's ability to compel such a condition. 

Rappleyea said one of the problems last time was requiring a gate on someone else's property (off-site improvement).  He said this proposal was for speed humps on the developer’s property and that would be a legitimate condition.  He said if he tried to put up a gate across property where other people have easements, then there would be legal issues due to impeding access.    

Coun. Stanton said that putting the speed humps on the easement lane would impact those who live on that lane. 

Mawson said that was correct; if they put speed bumps on that lane to address the residents' concerns about increased traffic; it would impact the residents. 

Coun. Stanton commented that the lane was the only street the residents could use.

Coun. Bode asked for clarification that the discussion was to be related to the number of lots and not include any side agreement that the developer might have or anything that the developer might do on his property. 

Rappleyea said the testimony should be limited to the number of lots.  He said once the hearing was closed, the Council could discuss anything about the entire project.

Mawson said he thought the access was related to the amount of traffic that was related to the number of lots.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.  

Coun. Bode said she was hopeful that the two parties would talk and she gave them credit for having the conversation.  She said the developer made a good comment when he said that urban infill was tough to live with and everyone has to live with Metro's directives.  She said West Slope did have certain characteristics that were its own.  She said she went and looked at a neighborhood that had single-story homes with infill development for multiple storied structures; she did not find it was compatible, it was disruptive.  She said based on the livability issue and the fact that someone else had imposed all the rules on everyone, and then provided wiggle room by saying it was an R-7 zone, she was going to support the appeal. 

Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council support APP 2007-0001, Appeal of the Pointer Road PUD, and overturn the Planning Commission's decision and deny the project. 

Coun. Stanton asked staff if all the lots but one were 7,000 sq feet or larger.

Liz Jones said all the lots were 5,000 square feet, except for one which was close to 5,000 square feet.

Coun. Stanton asked how many units would be allowed on that site under a normal PUD.

Steven Sparks said based on the gross parcel area for the site, the maximum density was 14 dwelling units.  He said page 53 of the staff report showed the maximum density was 14 and the minimum was 7 units.  He confirmed that the development could be 7 units or better.

Mayor Drake asked if the motion was to deny without prejudice.

Rappleyea explained that without prejudice meant the applicant could reapply for a new application immediately.

Coun. Arnold said infill was difficult and people rarely liked it.  She said usually PUD’s were townhomes, condos or homes on lots of 3,000 to 4,000 square feet.  She said 5,000 square feet might seem small, but in comparison to what was happening in other PUD developments it was not.  She said this application had the equivalent of 7,000 square feet of usable space with 5,000 square foot lots.  She added R-7 lots were no longer being done.  She said she did not feel this project was unreasonable.  She said she was concerned about safety and compatibility.  She said people heading west might try to access the easement lane; however, anyone heading east would not as that would be opposite of the direction they were headed.  She said using the easement lane was not easy because you were almost in driveways; the only section where speeding could occur was on the section the developer owned.  She said logically the only place where it would make sense to put speed humps was on the section of the lane that the developer already owned.  She said there was concern with traffic safety on the easement lane.  She said she saw that major safety issues already existed on the greenhouse property due to open buildings, broken glass panes, open barrels, transients seeking shelter in the buildings and water runoff with pesticides.  She said when she weighed safety in terms of the existing hazards on site verses the chance that someone might get hit, she leaned towards the development.  She said for those reasons she would not support the motion. 

Coun. Doyle referred to Coun. Bode's comment regarding a development she visited where she saw multi-storied buildings in a single-story neighborhood.  He asked her if that was the basis for her motion, rather than favoring 8 units over 10 units on that site.

Coun. Bode said that her reasons for her motion were the moveable definition of livability, that she did not feel that 10 units on that site supported livability, and the impact on the neighborhood would not be compatible.  She said that without prejudice meant that someone could return with a new application.  She said was not in favor of developing 10 homes and she would like to see an alternate proposal.  She said she found it interesting that the neighbors agreed something had to be done on that site and they would accept housing if they could agree on the number of units.  She said she felt that was a good faith effort on the part of the community to work with the developer.

Coun. Doyle asked Coun. Bode if she felt 8 two-story homes would be appropriate. 

Coun. Bode said the motion on the table was to support the appeal.  She said they were not discussing any private agreements or future proposals.  She said the motion was without prejudice so that another application could be submitted. 

Mayor Drake said the only issue on the table was a10 lot PUD; the applicant did not bring in any other proposal or extend his 120-day deadline.  He said the only action to take was to approve or deny the application.    

Coun. Dalrymple said he would not support the motion.  He said the Code allowed a maximum of 14 units; the proposal was for 11 units and in the Planning Commission process that was reduced to 10 units.  He said the Code was compromised from 14 to 11 to 10, and now they were asking for less.  He said this process was getting too restrictive to the rights of the developer.  He said they were trying to step beyond where they should be stepping; they should think more closely about what the opportunity was in the Code for the developer.  He said he understood that infill was tough, however the City was mandated and the Code was Code.  He said they were now seeing the repercussions of people not getting involved when Metro was putting these regulations together.  He said because of those issues he could not support the motion. 

Coun. Bode asked staff if they looked at the total square footage of this site to determine that 14 homes could be placed on this site.    

Sparks explained that the 14 dwelling units were based on the total square footage of the parcels that were subject to the application. 

Coun. Bode said that out of that 14, they would have to take out land for roads.  She said it would be impossible to build 14 homes because there would be no road.

Sparks said someone could propose a 14-unit building that would meet development requirements in terms of building height and setback.  He said a 14 unit apartment or condominium development could be proposed.

Coun. Dalrymple noted that on page 53 of the staff report, 96,951 square feet was the total site area of which 16,496 was taken out for the private road and 19,480 square feet was subtracted for open space.  He said that left 60,975 square feet as net acreage, upon which the minimum calculation was done based on the 80% to get to the 7 units.  He said he did not explain that in his previous statement.  He said it was important to understand this especially after the clarification from Steven Sparks. He reiterated he felt they were being too restrictive. 

Coun. Stanton said she seconded the motion because while 10 units was the median between 7 and 14, it would be too much, too close together.  She said she did not buy all the points in Cox’s letter of March 1 but that did not matter for she did not believe this development would fit.  She said compatibility as a neighbor went beyond square footage, setbacks and building heights.  She said the idea of speed humps on the access road was abhorrent and they would only impact the people who should not be impacted by this development.  She said she would support this motion to reverse the Planning Commission's decision and support the appeal because she did not like the speed humps and she felt that with a different configuration they could have all the houses they wanted without them being on top of each other. 

Coun. Bode said her decision to support the motion came from her experience on the Planning Commission.  She said when a project comes to Council they were still dealing with livability, the character of the neighborhood and the density range. 

Mayor Drake explained he does not vote unless there is a tie, but he wanted to voice his opinion on this project.  He said West Slope was a unique neighborhood; eleven years ago this neighborhood circulated a double-majority petition to annex to Beaverton.  He said he hoped the residents' experience with the City had been positive over the past eleven years.  He said he has had a lot of contact with the neighborhood over the years and he has known Mawson from his previous professional life.  He said it was unusual for a neighborhood to say that something bigger and newer was not compatible; usually people do not want small unit development.  He said this was a unique complaint about a project, yet it fits with the uniqueness of the neighborhood.  He said if he was able to vote he would support the motion to deny the application, because the project as currently configured was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.    

Coun. Bode reconfirmed that voting without prejudice meant the developer or someone else could reapply within one year with a new application. 

Coun. Arnold said the residents have to consider how much they like the current site.    She said nothing would be built if it could not be sold for cost and a little profit.  She said it was unknown how long the greenhouse might stay there.  She said she knew traffic was a concern and she had hoped the two parties would have returned with an idea for a gate on the access easement road at SW Pointer Road.    

Mayor Drake repeated the motion was to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and to accept the appeal without prejudice.

Question called on the motion.  MOTION CARRIED with Couns. Bode, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE; and Couns. Arnold and Dalrymple voting NO. (3:2)

Rappleyea said the Final Order would be brought to Council at the meeting of March 19, 2007. 

Coun. Stanton said for the record, that a big point in this decision for her was that the suggestions of a gate or speed bumps would impact the people who already lived in the neighborhood.  She said new development has to take the impact that it creates; it cannot penalize adjoining property owners.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:40 p.m. 


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.


07051  TA 2006-0003 (PUD Text Amendment)

Senior Planner Colin Cooper introduced himself and Development Services Manager Steven Sparks.  Cooper said TA 2006-0003, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Text Amendment was remanded back to the Planning Commission to address the issues raised at the City Council Work Session of November 13, 2006.  He said the Commission considered these issues, made revisions to the proposed text, and those changes were contained in Land Use Order No. 1941 which is in the staff report.  He said staff recommended approval of these text changes and first reading of the ordinance. 

Coun. Doyle asked how many PUDs the City received in a year. 

Sparks said when the text was adopted in 2004, PUDs dropped from ten a year to two or three.  He said feedback from developers indicated this was largely due to the 20% open space requirement. 

Coun. Stanton asked if the 20% contiguous open space was still required. 

Cooper said the existing standard was that 20% of the gross site area should be dedicated to open space.  He said one of the concerns with the PUD applications that were received was that the 20% open space was separated into unusable parcels.  He said the standard was revised in the proposed text amendment to require a minimum ratio so that the open space cannot be more than three times in length as it is in width; that ratio would create a usable buffer or play area.    

Coun. Arnold referred to sloping and asked what the requirements were in terms of grade.    

Cooper said the consultant originally proposed that no more than 40% of the area being dedicated to open space would contain slopes greater than 5% to ensure that it was usable space.  He said at the Council Work Session the question was raised if that was too much.  He said the Commission increased the amount of area that could be dedicated in open space from 40% to 60% that could have slopes of 5% or greater.  He said that would leave 40% of the open space having slopes of 5% or less to be used for more active open space uses.  He said that provided more flexibility for the development community. 

Coun. Arnold asked if there was a maximum on the slope. 

Cooper said there was no maximum because many of the areas would be highly constrained natural areas, such as ravines. 

Coun. Arnold asked for clarification concerning how or if the slope was included in the amount of area for open space.

Cooper said that if there was a 20,000 square foot open space dedication, with the revisions to the text 60% of that area could contain a slope of 5% or greater. 

Coun. Arnold said when she was talking about area, the area on a flat surface from Point A to Point B, was different than the area of a slope going down.  She asked how the 20% was calculated on that basis.

Sparks explained that area was not calculated based on a slope; area was calculated from a straight, horizontal, flat view. 

Coun. Dalrymple referred to page 18, line 39, Planning Commission Draft Minutes of February 7, 2007, that stated that "the Commission came to a consensus to replace the existing language with the existing Code language that allows the Commission discretion to approve a phased PUD plan for up to 5 years."  He said rather than just saying 5 years, it gave the Commission discretion for 5 years.  He asked how that discretion would be made known to an applicant and how would it be reviewed by the Planning Commission.   

Cooper said the current Code would be maintained so an applicant reviewing the standards would be aware that they have up to 5 years and the burden of proof was on the applicant to demonstrate that there was a legitimate reason.  He said in his 10 years with the City, he knew of no application where the Commission had declined a reasonable phasing rational for the 5 years. 

Sparks said a typical response in the pre-application process was that the applicant would get 2 years; if an applicant had planned for a 5 year phased project, staff would ask that the applicant be very clear in what they are requesting of the Commission.  He said most PUDs were small scale projects, with exception of the Teufel Nursery.  He said the Teufel Nursery was a two-phase project.  He said the first phase was the residential section and the applicant said it would start within 2 years; he then put a

foundation on the site which met the vesting requirements.  He said it could take the applicant 10 years to build out the residential portion of the two phases but that was okay since he had vested his land use approval.  He said the second phase was the commercial phase and the Preliminary PUD process was used; the applicant could propose a Final PUD for that phase at anytime.  He said if he had wanted to, the applicant could have requested a longer period of time for that second phase. 

Coun. Dalrymple referred to a discussion at the work session regarding density, lot dimensions and compatibility with adjoining development.   He asked if adjacent parcels were not developed to the Comprehensive Plan level (when discussing compatibility with building height), would the proposed PUD that borders that area be restricted to a height less than what they would normally be allowed if the designated Comprehensive Plan level was provided on that adjacent property.  He asked if that was discussed. 

Cooper said that was addressed as Item 6 in the January 10, 2007, memorandum to the Planning Commission (in the record).  He said the Commission discussed the issue and did not change the proposed language, for the Commission felt its interpretations have been consistent in assuming that the development adjacent to the proposed development could be redeveloped to the Development Code height so that new development would not be penalized in that regard.

Coun. Dalrymple asked staff to comment regarding Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District's (THPRD) response to the issue of pocket parks.

Cooper said staff met with THPRD staff.  He said THPRD would not accept dedications less than 2 acres, unless they were adjacent to existing parks or were significant linear connections between an existing and future park.  He said many of the open space areas seen in PUDs would not qualify for dedication to THPRD.  He said THPRD's policy was based on history and operational efficiencies associated with maintaining its parks.  He said THPRD said that the City's process of contacting THPRD as part of the Facilities Review Process, was working well and THPRD would be happy to take advantage of opportunities that arise for the dedication of land to the District. 

Coun. Dalrymple thanked the Planning Commission and staff for doing a good job in reviewing these issues.  He said he was satisfied with the results.   

Coun. Doyle noted that page 9 of the staff report, the Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2007, lines 23-26, referred the possibility of crafting language that creates a graduated transfer of density.  He asked if that would happen down the road. 

Cooper said they looked at a number of different possible formulas but they became too complicated.  He said the current Code  allowed transfer of density from slopes greater than 25%.  He said it was agreed to leave this language as is. 

Coun. Stanton read from the Final Order that the Commission discussed the issue of  transferring density from steep slopes "and concluded so long as the resulting development is required to go through an architectural review there is no significant issue by allowing a full transfer of density to the remaining developable portion of the site."   She asked who would do the architectural review.

Cooper said architectural review for single-family residential development was included in the proposed PUD standards; for multi-family development architectural was a component of design review.  He said the proposed text would require PUDs to meet architectural standards that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Sparks said the City currently requires design review for single-family homes; the Code has 12 design features and single-family home development needs to incorporate 2 of those 12.  He said this would expand that administrative review.

Coun. Stanton referred to the administrative review and that it was not always the same two design features that were incorporated into the PUD homes.  She asked if there was a standard or process to ensure that a variety of design features were selected.    

Cooper said this was called anti-monotony language and it was being done more often.  He said the Commission discussed this but felt the language provided sufficient flexibility to let developers know if they were not happy with a proposed project.   

Sparks said that the development community was very interested in design variety for  marketing purposes, so they often have three or four different housing types sprinkled throughout a development.    

Coun. Arnold noted that if the City had to cleanup property in a PUD that the homeowner's association failed to maintain, the  City would put a lien on the property.  She asked if that lien would be put on the open space property.

Cooper said the City could only lien the property on which the work was done.

Coun. Arnold said she thought this would be a problem in the future and she hoped something could be done now to prevent that from happening. 

Coun. Stanton said she remembered Thunderhead Way that was owned in common by eight homeowners who did not know they had a homeowners' association to maintain this property.  She said after the City tried multiple times to get the property mowed, the City planned to put a lien on each of the property owners since they held that property in common.  She questioned staff's comment that it could only lien the property on which work was done and not the people who own the property.      

Rappleyea said it would depend on the language of the Homeowners' Association rules; the general principle in property law was that if the City mowed a property, it could put a lien on that property.  He said homeowners' associations put liens on properties if the property owners do not pay.  He said there could be language in specific homeowners' association documents where liens could be filed on the individual property owners.

Coun. Stanton said she wanted staff to ensure that such language was in every homeowner’s association document as the City processes PUDs.  She said in the case of Thunderhead Way, if the City had not been able to show the property owners that they were responsible for maintaining that site and that the City could put a lien on their own property for not doing so, there would have been no way for the City to deal with this property.  She said this concerned her.  

Mayor Drake said Thunderhead Way involved about 60 homes and there was a condition that this small single-lot storm detention pond be operable as a condition of development.  He said most of the homeowners were happy to upgrade the facility.  He said the City assessed the homeowners to upgrade the facility and then ownership of the pond was transferred to the City. He said it was a bit of a nightmare. 

Coun. Arnold asked if language could be included in the homeowners' association document to put onus on the homeowners to maintain common areas.

Rappleyea said that could be a condition of development and that would make each property owner responsible for the maintenance.  He said that could also be included in the homeowners' association document so that it would be clear that this was their responsibility and the City could place a lien on the owners' property for not doing so.

Cooper said that the City had that ability through Chapter 10 and also in the proposed PUD language there is a review of the proposed homeowners' association rules by the City Attorney. 

Coun. Stanton said she was looking forward to this new Code. 


Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Bode, that the rules be suspended, and
that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 07052, 07053 and 07054 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, Dalrymple, Doyle and
Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0) 

Coun. Stanton said she supported Ordinance 4430, the PUD Text Amendment just discussed in work session.

Coun. Arnold abstained from voting on Agenda Bill 07054 (Ordinance No. 4432)

First Reading:

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

07052  TA 2006-0003 (PUD Text Amendment) (Ordinance No. 4430)

07053  TA 2006-0010 (Sunset Transit Center and Teufel Town Center MPR Text Amendment) (Ordinance No. 4431)

07054  TA 2006-0012 (Merlo & Tektronix MPR Text Amendment) (Ordinance No. 4432) 

Second Reading:

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

07041  An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Six Properties Located in Central Beaverton; CPA 2006-0017/ZMA 2006-0023 (Ordinance No. 4424)

07042  An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located East of SW Hocken Avenue and West of SW Cedar Hills Boulevard on the South Side of SW Jenkins Road; CPA 2007-0002/ZMA 2007-0001 (Ordinance No. 4425)

07043  An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located South of NW Walker Road and North of Baseline Road, on the East Side of SW 173rd Avenue; CPA 2007-0003/ZMA 2007-0002 (Ordinance No. 4426)

07044  An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located South of NW Waterhouse Avenue, North of NW Blueridge Drive and East of NW Turnberry Terrace, on the West Side of NW 158th Avenue; CPA 2007-0004/ZMA 2007-0003 (Ordinance No. 4427)

07045  An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located West of NW 167th Place, East of NW 173rd Place and South of the Sunset Highway, on the North Side of NW Cornell Road; CPA 2007-0005/ZMA 2007-0004 (Ordinance No. 4428)

07046  An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located Both North and West of NW Cornell Road, East of NW Bethany Boulevard and South of the Bethany-Cornell Onramp to the Sunset Highway; CPA 2007-0006/ZMA 2007-0005 (Ordinance No. 4429)

Coun.  Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun.  Arnold, that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 07041, 07042, 07043, 07044, 07045 and 07046 now pass.  Roll call vote.  Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0)

07047  Resolution Supporting City 2007-2009 Transportation and Growth Management Grant Application

Coun. Stanton referred to this agenda bill that was approved earlier under the Consent Agenda.  She said Metro would make a decision regarding adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in December 2007; if the grant begins in 2007, there would only be one year to complete an updated City Transportation System Plan (TSP) once the grant was approved, making adoption of an updated TSP due December 2008.  She said she was curious about the process as that would only leave one year for the City to come up with its own updated TSP.  She said she had no problem with an extension or did staff think Metro would take longer than December to make its decision.  

Grillo said the Regional Transportation Plan was supposed to be done at the end of this year.  He said normally he thought they were given approximately a year.  He said he did not know what the conditions would be behind that decision.  He said he could get further clarification from the transportation staff and report back to the Council.  He said to the extent that they were applying for TGM grants to update the City's Transportation System Plan to 2035, if a decision was made this year and there was only a year to come into compliance, the City would indicate that it was making significant progress towards compliance. 

Coun. Stanton said her concern was that 2007-2009 might be the grant cycle, but the City would need to work faster than that to meet Metro's requirements.


Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council move into executive
session in accordance with ORS 192.660(2)(d) to conduct deliberations with the persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations.  Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (5:0)


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 8:30 p.m. to setup for the executive session. 


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

The executive session convened at 8:35 p.m.

The executive session adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

The regular meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Sue Nelson, City Recorder




Approved this 19th day of March, 2007.

Rob Drake, Mayor