AGENDA BILL. Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon

Transcription

1 AGENDA BILL Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon SUBJECT: An Appeal of Planning Commission FOR AGENDA OF: BILL NO: Recommendations to Approve CPA , Peterkort Station Community Land Use Map Amendment, and ZMA , Mayor's Approval: ~~ Peterkort Station Community - Sunset Zoning Map Amendment; APP DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: CEDD ~ DATE SUBMITTED: CLEARANCES: City Attorney ~3 CAO Planning PROCEEDING: Public Hearing EXHIBITS: A. Proposed Text Amendment B. Existing County Designations C. Proposed City Land Use D. Proposed City Zoning E. Appeal Staff Reports F. Appeal* G. Planning Commission Staff Report of November 30,2011** H. Planning Commission Record post November 30, 2011 * BUDGET IMPACT EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATIOI'J REQUIRED $0 BUDGETED $0 REQUIRED $0 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing, deny Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve CPA and ZMA HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: The six subject parcels are generally within one-half mile of the Sunset Transit Center Station and within the Sunset Transit Center Station Community identified on the City's Land Use Map. All six parcels have been annexed into the City of Beaverton, five parcels in 2005 as part of Ordinance No and one parcel in 2011 as part of Ordinance No The parcels have continued to carry Washington County Transit Oriented zoning designations in the interim. INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: This hearing is to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve two legislative proposals, CPA , Peterkort Station Community Land Use Map Amendment, and ZMA , Peterkort Station Community - Sunset Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA). The appeal was filed by Jake Mintz, Richard Battaglia, Gail Murphy, Robert Douglas, Eric J. Thompson, and Susan Chow. The appeal contends that the proposals did not satisfy Titles 1, 6, 7 and 12 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 9 of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton, and Section C. of the Development Code of the City of Beaverton. The subject parcels are shown on the map attached to this report. Agenda Bill No: 12030

2 The City is the applicant and the property owners are in agreement with the land use designations and zoning districts proposed by the City. Applying City of Beaverton land use designations and zoning districts on the subject parcels will result in review of future development proposals per City of Beaverton regulations and processes. The Washington County - City of Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) requires the City after annexation to apply City plan and zoning designations to the annexed area that most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of the former County designations. The UPAA further provides that the City "shall determine whether City adoption [of County adopted policies which formerly applied to the annexed areas] is appropriate and act accordingly." The findings and recommendation contained in the staff reports identify the City's Station Community Plan Map Designation along with the City's Station Community - Sunset Zoning Map District as the most appropriate for the parcels. The Planning Commission record including the staff report of November 30, 2011, one memorandum of December 5, 2011, two memoranda of December 7, 2011, and the Planning Commission Land Use Order No of December 15, 2011, are referenced in the Ordinance and were provided to the City Council and the appellant. These materials are available for review upon request. The approval criteria for the CPA proposal are contained in Section of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton and the following Comprehensive Plan Policies: 1.3.,2.4.,3.2., 3.4., 3.5., 3.8., 3.10.,3.13.,3.14.,3.15.,4.2.,5.4.,5.5.,5.6.,5.7., 5.8., 5.9., 5.10., 6.2., 6.3., 6.4., 6.5., 7.3., 7.5., 8.2., 8.3., and 9.2. The approval criteria for the ZMA proposal are contained in Section C of the Development Code of the City of Beaverton inclusive of the guidance contained within Comprehensive Plan Section 3.15, Urban Planning Area Agreement. * Provided by City Recorder January 16, 2012 ** Provided by cover memo November 30,2011 Agenda Bill No: 12030

3 EXHIBIT~A:_ TA Station Community - Sunset Text Amendment Proposed modifications to the Development Code of the City of Beaverton are included, below Proposed deletions are in strike out form and proposed additions and replacements are underlined. Notes regarding proposed language changes provided in italic Arial font LAND USES 1. Dwellings A. Attached p 66 D. Planned Unit Development add superscript 66 within table, for the text of superscript 66, see , below USE RESTRICTIONS 66. The requirements identified in Section apply AOOTHER SC-S ZONING REQUIREMENTS 1. Within the SC-S zoning district, a Conditional Use Permit - PUD (Planned Unit Development), pursuant to Section of the Development Code, shall be required for development of a parcel equal to or greater than 1/2 acre in size. 2. Within the SC-S zoning district, the following development targets shall be satisfied: A. A minimum of 1,899 residential dwelling units. B. A maximum of 5,115 residential dwelling units. C. A maximum of 10,960,500 square feet of non-residential development. 3. All land use applications, with the exception of Sign Applications, submitted for development proposals within the SC-S zoning district shall demonstrate, through the submittal of a land use analysis, that the minimum and maximum development targets identified in Section have been or will continue to be satisfied on the properties that comprise the SC-S zoning district. 4. No more than 80 percent of approved non-residential development approved through a Conditional Use Permit - PUD (Planned Unit Development) application may be constructed prior to constructionofthe minimum dwelling requirement for the TA Station Community - Sunset Text Amendment, Proposed Language 1

4 properties located within the SC-S zoning district. Once the minimum dwelling unit requirement for the properties located within the SC-S zoning district is constructed and has received receiving Certificate of Occupancy, construction ofthe remaining ~20 percent non-residential development may resume CONDITIONAL USE Purpose. The purpose of a Conditional Use application is to review uses that may be compatible in the underlying zoning district but because oftheir size, operation, or other characteristics require review on a case-by-case basis. These uses are subject to the regulations in this Section because they may, but do not necessarily, result in significant adverse effects upon the environment, overburden public services,. alter the character ofthe surrounding area or create nuisances. Conditional uses may be approved, approved with site-specific conditions designed to minimize or mitigate identified adverse impacts, or denied. A Planned Unit Development is a special kind of Conditional Use that permits the modification of the development standards in the underlying zoning district to achieve innovative design, preserve natural resources, reduce energy consumption and/or otherwise address unique site opportunities and constraints. Such approval allows the modification of such design standards without the necessity for separate Adjustment or Variance applications. Within the SC-S (Station Community-Sunset) zoning district, a Planned Unit Development is required to ensure that specific development requirements are satisfied. This Section is carried out by the approval criteria listed herein. [ORD 4473; February 2008] Application. 4. Planned Unit Development. [ORD 4432; March 2007] A. Threshold. A Planned Unit Development is an application process which: L May be chosen by the applicant when one or more ofthe following thresholds illmoc ha. ~b. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied to Commercial, Industrial, Multiple Use, and Residential properties that are 2 acres or greater in size within any City zoning district except Residential Agricultural. When a land division of 2 acres or greater in size within any City zoning district except Residential-Agricultural requires collectively more than 3 of the following" land use applications or combination thereof: fr:l} Minor Adjustment; lr.21 Major Adjustment; e-:-j} Flexible Setback; or th1} Variance TA Station Community - Sunset Text Amendment, Proposed Language 2

5 2. Is required when development is proposed within the SC-S (Station Community - Sunset) zoning district on a land area greater than 1/2 acre in size. B. Procedure Type. The Type 3 procedure, as described in Section ofthis Code, shall apply to an application for PUD approval. The decision making authority is the Planning Commission. C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a PUD application, the Planning Commission shall make findings of fact based on evidence provided by the applicant demonstrating that all the following criteria are satisfied: 1. The proposal satisfies the threshold requirements for a PUD application. 2. All City application fees related to the application under consideration by the decision making authority have been submitted. 3. The proposal meets the Site Development Requirement for setbacks within the applicable zoning district for the perimeter ofthe parent parcel unless otherwise provided by Section The proposal complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The size, dimensions, configuration, and topography of the site and natural and man-made features on the site can reasonably accommodate the proposal. 6. The location, size, and functional characteristics of the proposal are such that it can be made reasonably compatible with and have a minimal impact on livability and appropriate development of properties in the surrounding area ofthe subject site. 7. The width of proposed lots or staggering of building setbacks within detached residential developments vary so as to break up the monotony of long blocks and provide for a variety of home shapes and sizes, while giving the perception of open spaces between homes. 8. The lessening of the Site Development Requirements results in significant benefits to the enhancement of site, building, and structural design, preservation of natural features and the surrounding neighborhood as outlined in Section The proposal provides improved open space that is accessible and usable by persons living nearby. Open space meets the following criteria unless otherwise determined by the Planning Commission through Section : a. The dedicated land forms a single parcel of land except where the Planning Commission determines two (2) parcels or more would be in the public interest and complement the overall site design. b. The shape of the open space is such that the length is not more than three (3) times the width the purpose of which is to provide usable space for a variety of activities except where the Planning Commission determines a TA Station Community - Sunset Text Amendment Proposed Language 3

6 greater proportioned length would be in the public interest and complement the overall site design. c. The dedicated land(s) is located to reasonably serve all lots for the development, for which the dedication is required. 10. For proposals within the SC-S (Station Community - Sunset) zoning district, the requirements identified in Section and are satisfied. -UhlL If the application proposes to develop the PUD over multiple phases, the decision making authority may approve a time schedule ofnot more than five (5) years for the multiple development phases. If a phased PUD has been approved, development of the future phases of the PUD shall be filed within five (5) years or the PUD has received an extension approval pursuant to Section of this Code. However, all PUD phases must commence construction within five (5) years of the date of decision of the PUD. Refer to Section ~~ Applications and documents related to the request, which will require further City approval, shall be submitted to the City in the proper sequence. D. Submission Requirements. An application for a PUD shall be made by the owner ofthe subject property, or the owner's authorized agent, on a form provided by the Director and shall be filed with the Director. The PUD application shall be accompanied by the information required by the application form, and by Section (Application Completeness), and any other information identified through a Pre-Application Conference. E. Conditions ofapproval. The decision making authority may impose conditions on the approval of a PUD application to ensure compliance with the approval criteria. F. If the application proposes to develop the PUD in a single phase, the decision shall expire two (2) years after the date of decision. Refer to Section Phasing of the development may be permitted with approval ofthe Planning Commission. A deed restriction for those areas of the parent parcel in which deferred development will occur shall limit the number of future units developed to an amount consistent with the minimum and maximum density or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted for the overall development. G. Appeal of a Decision. Refer to Section H. Expiration of a Decision. The PUD decision shall expire five (5) years after the date of decision. Refer to Section Extension of a Decision. Refer to Section TA Station Community - Sunset Text Amendment, Proposed Language 4

7 1:6,505 Path: S:\EXHIBITS\CPA_ZMA\CPAZMA2011 \CPAZMA peterkortEastMAP,m~XHIBIT B IVICINITY MAP EXISTING COUNTY LAND USEI 1S103AD00600 Existing TO: R y..., Legend (:;:':'::"" \:';::::(1 SITE..-_... City Limits L Taxlots SPLIT ZONES I i / PETERKORT CPA/ZMA PROPOSED ZONE & COMP PLAN MAP CHANGE Beaverton ORE G 0 tj COMMUNITY AND ECOMOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 11/9/11 N Tax Lot #'s VARIOUS IA Application # CPAlZMA ~ 5

8 1:6,505 Path: S:\EXHIBITS\CPA_ZMA\CPAZMA2011 \ZMA peterkortEa5tPPrOP05edM~~r BIT G [VICINITY MAP PROPOSED CITY LAND USE Location..., ~..- Legend... City Limits Taxlots ~~aye!t~1'! PETERKORT CPA/ZMA /9/11 N PROPOSED ZONE AND LAND USE MAP CHANGE COMMUNITY AND ECOMOMIC DEVELOPMEN Planning Division Tax Lot #'5 VARIOUS Application # ZMA

9 1:6,505 Path: S:\EXHIBITS\CPA_ZMA\CPAZMA2011 \zma peterkorteastpproposednf IVICINITY MAP PROPOSED CITY Z_O_N_E_S_I /..., Legend ~ ZONESC-S.. City Limits D Taxlots,I, Beaverton o R G 0 N PETERKORT CPA/ZMA PROPOSED ZONE AND LAND USE MAP CHANGE COMMUNITY AND ECOMOMIC DEVELOPMEN Planning Division 11/9/11 N Tax Lot #'s VARIOUS Application # ZMA

10 Beaverton EXHIBIT_[ HEARING DATE: February 7, 2012 STAFF REPORT TO: STAFF: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: SUMMARY: City Council Leigh M Crabtree, Associate Planner\.\~V$ APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) North ofhighway 26, south ofjohnson Creek, along both the north and south sides of Barnes Road from Cedar Hills Boulevard to Highway 217. The subject parcels are specifically identified as the following Washington County Assessor's Map and Tax Lots: 1S102B000500,lS102CA00500,lS102CA00600,lS102CB00100, 1S103A002200, 1S103AD An appeal of the Planning Commission's Recommendation to Approve CPA and ZMA has been filed contending that the proposals did not satisfy Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 9 and did not satisfy Development Code Section C.3 regarding Title 1, Title 6, Title 7, and Title 12. APPELLANTS: Jake Mintz, Richard Battaglia, Gail Murphy, Robert Douglas, Eric J. Thompson, and Susan Chow. APPLICANT: City of Beaverton DECISION CRITERIA: Appeal of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment will be reviewed per the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Section Approval Criteria for the CPA is listed in Section ofthe Comprehensive Plan. Appeal of the Zoning Map Amendment will be review per will be reviewed per the provisions of Development Code Sections and through Approval Criteria for the ZMA is listed in Section C of the Development Code. RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL ofapp (Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community Sunset), uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve CPA and ZMA StaffReport January 31,2012 SR-l APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 8

11 AERIAL VI CINITY MAP PETERKORT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF BEAVERTON SUBJECT TO INTERIM WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICTS EXHIBIT 1 Staff Report January:31, 2012 SR-2 APP :3 Appeal ofpeterkol't Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 9

12 EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICTS Extstr\g TO R80- CO Ex!sting TO BUS 1S 103AD00600 EXlstlrlg TO. R TO Hi-oO 1$102CBOOWO..., Legend D~SITE Iii CIty Urnits...- Taxlots I SPlIT ZONES.../,. '.'It,...'.. Staff Report January :31, 2012 SR-3 APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 10

13 PROPOSED CITY OF BEAVERTON LAND USE DESIGNATIONS & ZONING DISTRICTS "....,""!.'...",.' ltijj' Yi... " EXHIBIT..,..,.,..,..,..,..,.,..,..,---, , , , ,--, 3 ZONE SC-S AND LAND USE S City Lirmts Taxlots I, Staff Report January 31,2012 SR-4 APP Appeal ofpeterkol't Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 11

14 APP Appeal of Peterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) BACKGROUND The City of Beaverton submitted a set of five applications in October of The proposals were related to application of City land use designations and zoning districts for 13 parcels with an associated text amendment. The five applications were organized into three packages for noticing and staff report writing, as follows: TA Station Community Sunset Text Amendment, CPA Peterkort Station Community Land Use Map Amendment with ZMA Peterkort Station Community - Sunset Zoning Map Amendment, and CPA Peterkort Corridor and Neighborhood Residential- High Density Land Use Map Amendment with ZMA Peterkort Corridor Commercial and Rl Zoning Map Amendment. Standard noticing procedures of the Comprehensive Plan for the City ofbeaverton and the Development Code of the City of Beaverton were followed and included: 1. The required inter-agency DLCD notice was mailed to DLCD, Metro and Washington County on October 20, forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the initial hearing; 2. The required inter-agency DLCD notice was also mailed to the Chair of Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 1, the Chair of the Central Beaverton Neighborhood Association Committee (NAC) whose boundaries include the properties for which the change is contemplated, and the Chair of the Committee for Citizen Involvement on October 20,2011, at least forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the initial hearing; 3. Legal notice was published in the Beaverton Valley Times on November 17, Notice was posted in Beaverton City Hall and in Beaverton City Library on November 17, Notice was mailed to property owners included in the proposed change area, by certified mail, on November 17, Notice was mailed to owners of property within 500 feet of the subject parcels for which the change is proposed on November 17, Notice was placed on the City's web site on November 16, On November 30, 2011 the staff reports were made available to the public and were distributed to the Planning Commission. Staff provided a revised Transportation Planning Rule report to the Planning Commission via on December 5,2011 with a cover memo. Staff started to receive written testimony within the week prior to the Planning Commission hearing. On December 6, 2011, upon the request of Paul Schaefer, staff forwarded his written testimony to the Planning Commission via . Additional written testimony submitted to the Planning Division prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2011 was submitted with a cover memo to the Planning Commission at the hearing. Also on December 7,2011, staff submitted revisions to the proposed Development Code text modifications with a memo. Jake Mintz presented his written testimony to the Planning Commission with his oral testimony. The Planning Commission commenced with the Public Hearing on December 7,2011. At the hearing the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of all five applications to the City Council. Land Use Order No summarizes the Commission's Staff Report January 31,2012 SR-5 APP Appeal of Peterkort Station COIllIllunity - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 12

15 BACKGROUND recommendation to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. Each of the Land Use Orders was signed December 14, 2011 and were mailed to those parties who participated in the Planning Commission's decision with the Notice of Decision on December 15, An appeal of the Commission's recommendation to approve the SC-S text amendment was filed on December 27,2011 by Jake Mintz, Richard Battaglia, Gail Murphy, Robert Douglas, Eric J. Thompson, and Susan Chow. The Appeal Submittal is included as Exhibit F to the Agenda Bill for APP The appeals designated Jake Mintz as the contact representative for the appellants. The appellants contend that the proposal does not satisfy Titles 1, 6, 7 and 12 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 9 of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton, and Section C. of the Development Code of the City of Beaverton. On December 26, 2011 staff mailed a letter notifying the appellant that the appeal was accepted by the Community and Economic Development Department. Notice of Appeal was mailed on January 17, 2012 to the appellant, all other parties who participated in the Planning Commission's decision, and community members who provided their mailing addresses on the sign-in sheet at the CP01 January 3, 2012 meeting.. The full Planning Commission record, including draft minutes of the Planning Commission hearing, has been provided to City Council members and the appellant. These materials are available for review at the Planning Division counter during regular business hours or online at the Planning Division's web page, The analysis and findings provided in this report will discuss the specific criteria being appealed as identified by the appellant in response to the requirements of Section of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton and Section of the Development Code of the City of Beaverton. Pursuant to Section of the Comprehensive Plan and Sections and of the Development Code, the appeal hearing shall be de novo, which means any new evidence and argument can be introduced in writing, orally or both. A de novo hearing does not limit participation; therefore, community members that did not participate in the Planning Commission process have the opportunity to participate in the appeal hearing. Staff Report January 31, 2012 SR-G 13. APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA )

16 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE BACKGROUND SR 5-6 ATTACHMENTS A Analysis and Findings related to Appeal of CPA Peterkort SC Land Use Map Amendment CPA1-CPA3 Analysis and Findings CPA 1 - CPA 3 Summary CPA 3 Conclusion CPA 3 Recommendation CPA 3 B Analysis and Findings related to Appeal of ZMA Peterkort SC-S Zoning Map Amendment ZMA1-ZMA4 Analysis and Findings ZMA1-ZMA3 Summary ZMA4 Conclusion ZMA4 Recommendation ZMA4 EXHIBITS 1 Aerial Vicinity Map SR 2 2 Existing Washington County Land Use Districts SR 3 3 Proposed City of Beaverton Land Use Designations & Zoning SR 4 Districts 4 nla 5 Zoned Development Capacity Table 6 City-County Coordination 7 Letter from Mr. Don Odermott, P.E., Transportation Consulting Group, Dated January 23, Written Testimony 8.1 Susan Rosenthal 8.2 Lori Manthey-Waldo 8.3 Lorraine Heller 8.4 Angela Hamilton 8.5 Kira Goodwin Kvamme 8.6 John Poelstra 8.7 Multiple Comment Cards Received Staff Report January 31,2012 SR-7.14 APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA )

17 ATTACHMENT CPA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS For APPEAL of CPA Station Community Land Use Map Amendment Staff presents, below, responses to criteria relevant to the appellant's contentions in the appeal submittal dated December 27, Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan The adoption by the City Council of any amendment to the Plan shall be supported by findings of fact, based on the record, that demonstrate the criteria of this Section have been met. The City Council and Planning Commission may incorporate by reference facts, findings, reasons, and conclusions proposed by the City staff or others into their decision Criteria for Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments: B. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the applicable Titles of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan; Chapter 3.07 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan The following discussion addresses Metro UGMFP Title 1: Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation Sections Appellant Contentions The appellant contends that the City proposal does not meet the requirements of Metro's Title 1 regarding requirements for housing over the properties proposed for SC-S zoning. The appellant further alleges that, "The county's transit oriented residential districts require housing earlier in the development process, not later as would be allowed through the text amendment," and that the City will not have a requirement for residential construction until 80% of approved non-residential development is constructed. The appellant states that, "Absent the text amendment, there would be no housing." City Response The appellant's statement is more appropriately discussed in the appeal of the associated Text Amendment (TA 011-(003) application. The Text Amendment has been proposed, in part, to modify the Development Code to require a minimum of 1,899 dwelling units over the parcels proposed for Station Community - Sunset (SC-S) zoning. TA also includes a requirement that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application must be submitted to the City of Beaverton prior to development and construction of any of the parcels proposed for SC-S zoning. With a PUD or any subsequent land use applications, with the exception of Sign Permits, an applicant will be required to submit a land use analysis to verify that the development targets of the SC-S zoning district, including the required number of minimum dwelling units, will continue to be met. This proposed CPA and ZMA will apply the SC-S zoning designation to the parcels in close proximity to the Sunset station. With the proposed text amendment, the subject zone will be required to accommodate 1,899 dwelling units. The Staff Report January 31,2011 CPA-1 15 APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA )

18 ATTACHMENT CPA appellant's claim that the action to apply the SC-S zone to the subject parcels cannot guarantee housing is not accurate. Staff also refers to the City Response regarding Title 1 of the UGMFP within the staff report for APP as to the appellant's contentions. The following discussion addresses Metro UGMFP Title 6: Centers, Corridors, Station Communities and Main Streets Sections Appellant Contentions... The proposal if implemented would have the net result of allowing an extremely dense (in terms of non-residential floor area, not residential densities) Regional Center by allowing nearly 11 rnillion square feet of non-residential uses to be constructed. The area was planned as and needs to be developed as a less dense Station cornmunity, as reflected in the vision for this area adopted in October, Amendrnents that allow Regional Center-type/ style development on lands planned for...station Community -type/style development are not consistent with Title 6. City Response Staff refers to the City Response regarding Title 6 of the UGMFP within the staff report for APP as to the appellant's contentions. Summary Finding Staff finds that, for the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011 and the reasons identified above, the proposed Land. Use Map Amendment complies with applicable Titles of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, staff finds the proposed Land Use Map Amendment satisfies criterion B. C. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable local plans; Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton Chapter 3 Land Use Element 3.15 Urban Planning Area Agreement The Washington County Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA), including Exhibits A and B, which is dated October 25, 1998 and was signed by the City on May 15, 1989 and signed by the County on February 10, 1989 is hereby incorporated as section 3.15 of this Land Use Element. Staff Report January 31, 2011 CPA-2 APP Appeal of Peterkort Station Community Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 16

19 ATTACHMENT CPA Appellant Contentions The appellant contends that, "the city's SC-S zone is not the most comparable zone to the underlying county transit oriented residential districts." Additionally, the appellant contends that the proposals do not implement design provisions required by ASC 11 for development of residential uses at or near the station, and that the City provides a loophole to review of lands under one-half acre in size. City Response Staff refers to the City Response for Section 3.15 of the Comprehensive Plan within the staff report for APP as to the appellant's contentions. Summary Finding Staff finds that, for the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011 and the reasons identified above, the proposed Land Use Map Amendment is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the requirements of Criterion C are met. Therefore, staff finds the proposed Land Use Map Amendment satisfies criterion C. SUMMARY For the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011 and the reasons identified above, staff finds that the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment satisfies the approval criteria for a Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment pursuant to Section of the COfnprehensive Plan for the City ofbeaverton. CONCLUSION Based on the facts and findings presented, staff concludes that proposal, CPA (Peterkort Station Community Land Use Map Amendment) meets the criteria for approval. RECOMMENDATION Based on the facts and findings presented, staff recommends DENIAL of APP (Appeal of Station Community - Sunset), upholding the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve CPA Staff Report January 31, 2011 CPA-3 APP Appeal of Peterkort Station Community Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 17

20 ATTACHMENT B ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS For APPEAL of ZMA Station Community-Sunset Zoning Map Amendment Staffpresents, below, responses to criteria relevant to the appellant's contentions in the appeal submittal dated December 27, Section of the Development Code ofthe City ofbeaverton C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a Discretionary Annexation Related Zoning Map Amendment application, the decision making authority shall make findings of fact based on evidence provided by the applicant demonstrating that all the following criteria are satisfied: 1. The proposal satisfies the threshold requirements for a Discretionary Annexation Related Zoning Map Amendment application. Facts Staff refers to the Facts and Findings presented in the Planning Commission staff report dated November 30,2011 for ZMA Findings Staff finds that, for the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011, as referenced above, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment satisfies criterion All City application fees related to the application under consideration by the decision making authority have been submitted. Facts: Staff refers to the Facts and Findings presented in the Planning Commission staff report dated November 30,2011 for ZMA Findings Staff finds that, for the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011, as referenced above, criterion 2 is not applicable to this Zoning Map Amendment satisfies criterion The proposed zoning designation most closely approximates the density, use provisions, and development standards of the Washington County designation which applied to the subject property prior to annexation. Staff Report January 31,2011 ZMA-1 APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 18

21 4. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with any guidance contained within the UPAA concerning the application ofnonspecified zoning district designations ATTACHMENT B Appellant Contentions In reference to Section 3.15 of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton, the appellant contends that, "the city's SC-S zone is not the most comparable zone to the underlying county transit oriented residential districts." Additionally, the appellant contends that the proposals do not implement design provisions required by ASC 11 for development of residential uses at or neal' the station, and that the City provides a loophole to review oflands under one-half acre In SIze. City Response Staff refers to the City Response for Section 3.15 of the Comprehensive Plan within the staff report for APP as to the appellant's contentions. Finding Staff finds that, for the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011 and the reasons identified above, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment satisfies criterion 3. Appellant Contention In reference to Metro's Urban Growth Management Function Plan, the appellant contends that the City proposal does not meet the requirements of Title 1 and Title 6. City Response Staff responded specifically to the appellants contentions regarding Title 1 and Title 6 within the CPA attachment to this report and in the staff report for the concurrent appeal of TA However, as the appellant called out Titles 1 and 6 in their submittal for both the CPA and the ZMA staff is compelled to address Titles 1 and 6 within the ZMA attachment. Staff has chosen to address the contentions under criterion 4 for the ZMA application as related to UPAA Section lila, which states: The CITY recognizes and supports the COUNTY's Community Plans and land use designations and agrees to convert COUNTY land use designations to CITY land use designations upon annexation in accordance with Exhibit "B" of this Agreement. In addition, the COUNTY will advise the CITY of adopted policies which apply to the annexed areas and the CITY shall determine whether CITY adoption is appropriate and act accordingly. Exhibit "B" of the UPAA is a crosswalk of County and City zones. However, the exhibit does not translate the County's Transit Oriented zoning designations to City of Beaverton land use designations and zoning districts. This situation is the result of not updating the UPAA since Both the County and the City have identified the need to update the UPAA, including Exhibit "B"; however, both jurisdictions have not been able to match up their work plans in Staff Report January 31, 2011 ZMA-2 APP :3 Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA Z/ZMA ) 19

22 ATTACHMENT B order to accomplish this task. For the subject proposal, since Exhibit "E" does not identify a translated zoning designation, it remains that a public process be followed to identify the appropriate City zoning designation. City staff has been coordinating with County staff, see Exhibit 6, to identify key requirements of the County code. The City has proposed a zoning designation for the subject parcels that closely match the County's zones for the same parcels. The City has not carried forward the County's proscriptive standards for developing the parcels. However, the uses and the densities for those uses are the very similar. Staff also refers to the City Response for Section 3.15 of the Comprehensive Plan within the staff report for APP as to the appellant's contentions. Finding Staff finds that, for the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011 and the reasons identified above, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment satisfies criterion Applications and documents related to the request, which will require further City approval, shall be submitted to the City in the proper sequence. Facts: Staff refers to the Facts and Findings presented in the Planning Commission staff report dated November 30,2011 for ZMA Finding Staff finds that, for the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011 and the reasons identified above, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment satisfies criterion 5. Staff Report January 31,2011 ZMA-3 APP :3 Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA )

23 SUMMARY ATTACHMENT B For the reasons identified in the Planning Commission staff report of November 30, 2011 and the reasons identified above, staff finds that the Zoning Map Amendment satisfies the approval criteria for a Discretionary Annexation Related Zoning Map Amendment pursuant to Section C of the Development Code of the City of Beaverton. CONCLUSION Based on the facts and findings presented, staff concludes that proposal, ZMA (Peterkort Station Community - Sunset Zoning Map Amendment) meets the criteria for approval. RECOMMENDATION Based on the facts and findings presented, staff recommends DENIAL of APP (Appec of Station Community - Sunset), upholding the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve ZMA Staff Report January 31, 2011 ZMA-4 APP Appeal ofpeterkort Station Community - Sunset (CPA /ZMA ) 21

24 Exhibit E.4 ~ N/A This Exhibit was illtentionally left blank.

25 ~ ~ Peterkort - Parcels Proposed for SC-S zoning district - Zoned Capacity without TextAmendment LAND INFORMATION TUD Descriotion Parcel : Acres I SF Gross Parcel Area Calculations Net Parcel Area Calculations (Gross subtract Open Space, Slopes, Easements)1 oartial I oartial WASHINGTON COUNTY density minimum -, maximum DU's l FAR (sf) I DU's I FAR (sf) CITY OF BEAVERTON density minimum I maximum DU's I FAR (sf) I DU's I FAR (sf) 18102CB00100 Sunset (west), Hillside (e~st)ra.s.c. 11 S(w),HS(e) I TO-BUS, TO:R40-80, : SC-S I Gross ,620 I 268 I none 5461 none Net (City minimum density calculation based upon 80% net) ,367 I 1S102CA Sunset (Homestead) [A.S.C. 11] S(H) I TO-BUS I: SC-S Gross ,263 I none I none Net (City minimum density calculation based upon 80% net) 1S102CA00600-Sunset (east I TO-BUS I: SC-S 53 I 56,454 I 79 I none I Gross ~ I 30,492 I none I non~ 41 4,809 I 17 I none I Net (City minimum density calculation based upon 80% net) 1S103AD00600-Hillside (west) [A.S.C.11] HS(w) I TO:R40-80 I: SC-S Gross , I non~ Net (City minimum density calculation based upon 80% net) ~81 30,527 I 93 1 none I 18103A Johnson Cr So (west) 7 I TO:R40-80 I: SC-S I I Gross , none 2861 none Net (City minimum density calculation based upon 80% net) , B Johnson Cr SO (east) & Holly (A.S.C. 11) 12,17 : SC-S I ~021 I IGross ,062 I 5291 none INet (City minimum density calculation based upon 80% net) I ,634 I 329,105 Aggregate Density, IWhen reporting capacity to Metro, the City reports Minimum Density from net acreage mu~iplied by the unit requirement mu~iplied by 80% I I 1,8991 2,751,250 I none : none I I 970 I 1,026,8321 none I none I Total When reporting capacity to Metro, the County reports Minimum Density from gross acreage mu~iplied by the low unit requirement in the range for the applicabe zone. ASC 11 requirements replacing zone requirements. GrossAcrea e Total ,751,250 I 1,8991 2,751,250 I I I I 1,550 I 1,650,7501 r-==:=j 9 County gross acreage calculations represent gross acreage mu~iplied by the low unit ratio for the zone. ASC 11 requirements replacing zone requirements and maintained. CaIcuIat Ions '-- --'City gross acreage caiculations represent gross acreage mu~iplied by the zone ratio requirement. Total (gross-deductions) I 2,139, ,6581 2,139,2321 IJ[ 1,2131 1,283, I Net Acreage County net acreage calculations represent net acreage mu~iplied by the low unit ratio for the zone. ASC 11 requirements replacing zone requirements and maintained. Section of the County CDC allows for Calculations unbuildable land deductions. fi1 I I City net acreage calculations represent net acreage mu~iplied by the zone ratio requirement. jtotal(80%net) -[--39:29J-1,711,3851 I 1,3261 1,711,3861 I II 970 I 1,026,831 I Development County development acreage calculations represent net acreage multiplied by the low unit ratio for the zone mu~iplied by 80%. ASC 11 requirements replacing zone requirements and maintained. t:j:j Calculations City development acreage calculations represent net acreage mu~iplied by the zone ratio requirement mu~iplied by 80%. ---f,,80% (assumes that 20% of available land will be used for streets, sidelwalks, landscape, and other infrastructure improvements) 01/29/ :40 PM :z: - >< \T\ \.)\

26 PETERKORT: Annexation Related Map Amendments History & City I County Coordination Timeline Contact with Washington County staff (all people included in routing of an may not be included in lists here) EXHIBIT \~ ~ DATE SUBJECT FROM TO January 2005 Ordinance No. 4334, Annexation includinq nine (9) of the subiet parcels August 2006 WalMart, Appeal hearing at City Council June 2010 Ordinance No SC-S zonin~ district adopted with Chapter 20 U date of the Development Code July 28, Peterkort planning meeting: A date between August 3 and 6. Result: John Osterberg Greg Miller, Jinde Meetinq set for August 6 at Beaverton City Hall Zhu August 6, 2010 MEETING: Peterkort Planning Staff from multiple jurisdictions, including County staff August 17,2010 Community Development Code & Cedar Hill - Cedar Mill Community Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice Plan Questions.' Result: Meeting set for September 3, 2010 at Washinaton Countv offices with Joanne Rice and Paul Schaefer August 31, 2010 Barnes-Peterkort Issues to discuss Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer September 3, 2010 MEETING: Community Development Code & Cedar Hill - Cedar Mill Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer, Leigh Community Plan Questions Crabtree February 2011 Ordinance No. 4562, Annexation including four (4) of the subjet parcels April 20, 2011 Density and FAR Calculation Questions Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer April 21, 2011 Density and FAR Calculation Questions Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer May 12, 2011 Density and FAR Calculation Questions, follow-up Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer May 23,2011 Density and FAR Calculation Questions, did you respond, if not - today Joanne Rice Paul Schaefer or tomorrow (Leigh Crabtree) May 23,2011 DevelopmentCapacitLSidebySide_Simple.xlsx Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer May 24, 2011 Maps: 13properties_County&CitLLandUse Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer May 31,2011 City Implementation of Land Use and Zoning. Result: meeting Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, scheduled for June 8 rescheduled to June 23 Paul Schaefer June 7, 2011 PeterkortDevelopmentCapacityDiscussion.doc Leigh Crabtree Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer June 7, 2011 Request to reschedule June 8 meeting, Result: Meeting June 23 at Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree Washin~ton County offices June 22, 2011 Peterkort and TPR; Land Use Comparison Don Odermott Joanne Rice, Andy Back, Blair June 22, 2011 Land Use Comparison Leigh Crabtree Crumpacker, Aisha Willits June 8, 2011 City of Beaverton -Peterkort Properties (Sunset Station Area) Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree Comments (Jimmy Bellomy) June 23, 2011 MEETING: City Implementation of Land Use and Zoning Paul Schaefer, Steve Kelley, Leigh Crabtree, Jim,my Bellomy June 29, 2011 Maximum Development Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer, Steve Kelley July 1,2011 DevelopmentCapacitLHBA Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer, Steve Kelley July 6, 2011 Maximum Development Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer, Steve Kelley July 7,2011 Peterkort and TPR Aisha Willits Leigh Crabtree July 12, 2011 CityResponseT0_Wash CoCommerits_Beaverton-Peterkort_comments Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer, Steve Kelley, Joanne Rice July 19, 2011 Beaverton ~ Peterkort (derived max capacity) Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer 1 of 3 24

27 PETERKORT: Annexation Related Map Amendments History & City I County Coordination Timeline Contact with Washington County staff (all people included in routing of an may not be included in lists here) DATE SUBJECT FROM TO July 20, 2011 Beaverton - Peterkort (derived max cadacim Jimmy Bellomy Paul Schaefer July 21, 2011 UPAA Update (Conversion ChartlTable B) and Peterkort Properties (in Paul Schaefer Steven Sparks an effort to tie the two efforts together) (Leigh Crabtree,. Jimmy Bellomy, Steve Kelley) August 2, 2011 Maximum Capacity (please respond related to TPR) Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer August 8, 2011 Development Capacity Numbers Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer, Joanne Rice, Aisha Willits August 18, 2011 I did not have much time to spend on the maximum density/intensity Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree, calculations. Peterkort before or after the needed UPAA updates? Steve Kelley, Joy Chang August 23, 2011 CityResponseTo_WashCoComments_Beaverton-Peterkort_comments Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer, and Max Development Capacity Steve Kelley, Joy Chang, Steven Sparks September 7, 2011 Transportation Discussion regarding City Land Use & Zoning; meeting Steven Sparks Andy Back, Gary September 15 Stockhoff, Jinde Zhu, September 14, 2011 Development Capacity letter; code advisory Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree September 15, 2011 MEETING: Transportation Discussion regarding City Land Use & Staff from multiple jurisdictions, Zoninq; pre-dlcd notice including County staff September 22, 2011 MEETING: Land Use Densities Paul Schaefer, Andy Back, Leigh Crabtree, Sambo Kirkman October 5, 2011 Suggestion to use City SC-HDR (With modification) over the County Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree TO:R zoned parcels AND SC-S over the County TO:BUS and TO:RC zoned oarcels October 10, 2011 Clarifying Question regarding October 5th suggestion: Peterkort or Leigh Crabtree Paul Schaefer UPAA? October 14, 2011 Answer to question of October 10: SC-S in the Sunset Station Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree October 20, 2011 October 25, 2011 October 26, 2011 November 3, 2011 November 7, 2011 November 7,2011 November 9, 2011 November 9, 2011 November 28, 2011 Community, including the Sunset Station District of Peterkort Station, for lands designated TO:BUS and TO:RC and the SC-HDR apply to the TO:R40-80 and TO:R80-120, again in the in the Sunset Station Community, including Holly District Station AND with UPAA matrix table attached Department of Land Conservation and DeveloDment (OLCO) Notice Sent Beaverton Amendments along Barnes Road meeting request Steven Sparks Andy Back, Paul Schaefer, Jinde Zhu MEETING: Washington County and City of Beaverton Coordination Andrew Singelakis, Brent Curtis, Andy Back, Don Mazziotti, Steven Sparks MEETING: Beaverton Amendments along Barnes Road; post DLCD notice QuestionsFrom Meeting Posting of Peterkort sites, no applicable Inquiry reqardinq Staff Report timing Response regarding Staff Report timinq: Inquiry reqardinq Staff Report timinq November 30th 2 of 3 Staff from multiple jurisdictions, including County staff Leigh Crabtree Steven Sparks Andy Back Leigh Crabtree Andy Back, Paul Schaefer, Jinde Zhu Andy Back, Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree Andy Back Paul Schaefer Leigh Crabtree -2 5

28 " PETERKORT: Annexation Related Map Amendments History & City I County Coordination Timeline Contact with Washington County staff (all people included in routing of an may not be included in lists here) DATE November 28, 2011 November 28, 2011 November 29, 2011 November 30,2011 November 30, 2011 December 7, 2011 December 27, 2011 January 3, 2012 January 10, 2012 SUBJECT Response reqarding Staff Report timinq: still working on them Washington County Letter from Brent Curtis (Exhibit 19,2 of Planning Commission Staff Report) CPA /ZMA (SC-S) Staff Report Staff Reports Published Beaverton Amendments along Barnes Road, Staff Report Links Planning Commission Hearing Appeals Filed MEETING: Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 1 presentation MEETING: Board of County Commissioners Work Session presentation of issues and discussion FROM Leigh Crabtree Andy Back Leigh Crabtree Leigh Crabtree TO Paul Schaefer Steven Sparks Paul Schaefer Andy Back, Paul Schaefer, Jinde Zhu Steven Sparks, Leigh Crabtree Don Mazziotti, Steven Sparks, Leigh Crabtree 3 of 3 26

29 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING GROUP EXHIBIT S -1 Transportation Engineering & Planning Phone 503/ PO Box 282 Fax 503/ Banks, Oregon January 23, 2012 City of Beaverton Attn: Steve Sparks 4755 SW Griffith Drive Beaverton, Oregon RE: Peterkort Properties: APP (TA ) APP (CPA /ZMA ) APP (CPA /ZMA ) Dear Steve: It has been my personal privilege to serve as the consulting transportation engineer to the Peterkort family since Over these 21 years, both during my time with Mackenzie Engineering and subsequently as principal with Transportation Consulting Group, I have led transportation studies evaluating the performance of, and making recommendations for, the transportation system surrounding the Peterkort properties. This involvement dates back to before Station Area planning codes were adopted and before the first two lanes of Barnes Road were built by ODOT and TriMet as staged mitigation for the construction of the Sunset Transit Center (when both lanes were westbound only). In fact, until the recent intersection improvements at Barnes/Cedar Hills were completed by the Teufel's development, all subsequent improvements on Barnes Road between Highway 217 and Cedar Hills Boulevard have been completed by the Peterkorts in conjunction with their developments north of Johnson Creek, the initial Towne Center retail site, and the Peterkort Centre complex. Funding for the improvements has come solely from Peterkort private funding and traffic systems development fees assessed on the Peterkort property developments. Right of way for this section of Barnes Road has been donated without compensation by the Peterkort family. Throughout all of these years and the numerous studies, including independent studies undertaken by other transportation firms including OKS Associates, CH2M Hill, and Kittelson Associates, the area has been assumed to be developed with mixed use development on the Peterkort parcels adjacent Barnes Road (except Towne Square I and II), with density concentrated around the Sunset Transit Center and lower densities radiating outwards from the Transit Center. Historically, while specific development assumptions have varied somewhat, the parcels subject to the appeals noted above have contained approximately 2,000 residential dwelling units and non-residential development ranging from 1,500,000 to 2,300,000 square feet. This includes during the transportation studies undertaken in conjunction with the establishment of Washington County's current zoning code for the properties. While the County zoning code would theoretically allow considerably higher levels of development, "reasonable maximum" has always hovered around

30 Peterkort Properties - Appeal to Zoning Applications January 23, 2012 Page 2 lower amounts noted above. In all cases, transportation capacity has been the consistent limiting factor in establishing how much is too much. It has also highlighted the critical need for effective mixed use development, not only to reduce the reliance on auto trips, but also to most effectively manage parking supply. Recognizing the need to place future Peterkort buildings at the public right of way, and understanding that this limitation means it is critical to anticipate what the future roadway system will require in the way of lanes and bicycle/pedestrian improvements, the Peterkorts have always directed that the traffic studies prepared for them look beyond the bounds of the Peterkort holdings and strive to understand the needs of the transportation system when adjacent land also is built out. This means the past studies have gone well beyond the legal minimum requirements placed upon those studies. For this reason, the Peterkort studies have always included master plan full development of the St. Vincent Hospital campus, adjacent office parcels to its south, infill development in the Westhaven neighborhood, Choban properties to the west, and the large Teufels development site. These site specific developments are coupled with use of regional projections for traffic coming through this critical pair of freeway interchanges from regional growth, particularly those areas located north of the Peterkort study area. The goal has been to identify and construct a transportation system which is capable of maintaining transportation mobility, promoting use of alternative modes by developing quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and promoting access to mass transit. The Peterkorts have always expressed the belief that their successful development will rely on the ability for their residents, tenants, employees, and customers to access their developments and depart safely and efficiently. Certainly history has reinforced the need to maintain mobility in this critical corridor which is relied upon so heavily for emergency access to St. Vincent Hospital, recognizing that only a relatively small percentage of emergency room visits arrive by ambulance with the rest arriving by automobile and subject to the delays imparted by traffic congestion. Until recent years, these transportation studies have always been undertaken in accordance with the adopted requirements of Washington County and the Oregon Department of Transportation. With annexation of the Peterkort parcel at the southwest quadrant of Barnes/Cedar Hills Boulevard, the City of Beaverton's standards have now been added to the requirements. Note that I say added to, as the standards of both the County and ODOT take precedent as they relate to the ability to develop and take access to the County's roadway facilities including Barnes Road, Baltic Avenue, and Cedar Hills Boulevard. ODOT's involvement remains the same with regard to the obligation to protect the safety and capacity of the US-26 interchanges at Baltic and Cedar Hills Boulevard, as well as to ensure traffic congestion on Barnes Road does not back up traffic on the northern terminus of Highway 217. Beaverton's transportation performance standards in fact are more rigorous than those of either the County or ODOT. These include the requirement that developments study and mitigate their impacts to a 5% impact area instead of the County's 10% impact area, that volume-to-capacity ratios be maintained at 98% for all movements at intersections instead of the County's requirement for 99% as an average of all movements at the intersection, and that studies be based upon three days of counts for each intersection instead on only one as required by the County and ODOT. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING GROUP 28

31 Peterkort Properties - Appeal to Zoning Applications January 23,2012 Page 3 Throughout all of these studies, a common thread has been development assumptions consistent with County zoning. County zoning code would allow considerably more development than the previously assumed 2,000 dwelling units and 2,000,000 +/- non-residential uses, but it has always been shown that traffic limits the magnitude of development. That limitation is consistent with the County's zoning code restriction which says, in effect, you can build to 11,000,000 square feet of non-residential development on the corridor if you do all things per County requirements, but only if you can show that traffic will function acceptably. Past studies have confirmed it cannot reach much beyond 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 square feet without dramatic supplemental improvements to the transportation system, meaning major grade separation type improvements which are neither financially feasible nor particularly consistent with the community's desires, or significant shifts of mode choice away from the automobile. This leads us back to the present task at hand. Specifically the application of Beaverton zoning to Peterkort parcels which could allow for, theoretically, the same 11,000,000 square feet of nonresidential development as could be theoretically built under current County code. As documented in our November 27, 2011, paper evaluating compliance with the State's Transportation Planning Rule, application of the Station Community-Sunset zoning as it currently exists would have allowed for a theoretical maximum development exceeding the County's theoretical maximum. To fix this and avoid a TPR complication, the proposed Text Amendment is being processed. With the amendment, theoretical maximum development on the parcels slated to receive SC-S zoning would match that allowed under the County code (again subject to the ability to show mobility can be maintained). That remains a theoretical exercise, similar to the application of high density mixed use zoning in area Regional Centers such as Beaverton and downtown Hillsboro where tens of millions of square feet of development could theoretically be developed. This could only be realized if the entire landscape someday becomes blanketed fully with buildings reaching uniformly to the maximum allowable height. That is impractical and unreasonable to assume. That is also the scenario asserted in the appeal as being a primary reason for denial of the CPA and ZMA approvals on the Peterkort property. The actual "reasonable maximum" falls well below this threshold as defined by the ability to service the transportation impacts which would result. Why does zoning for large land areas, encompassing large numbers of parcels, reach such lofty theoretical maximums? It is because zoning codes are not typically written to "spot zone" individual parcels in a prescriptive manner. Zoning code typically sets criteria for large areas covering multiple parcels to govern the use, intensity, design characteristics, height, etc. of the final built product. It is only through application of this uniform maximum height that resulting theoretical building areas such as the 11,000,000 square feet on Peterkort property can be derived. For purposes of compliance with the State's Transportation Planning Rule requirements (OAR ), the text amendment approved by the Planning Commission in December 2011 is necessary. The future required Planned Unit Development process will require a comprehensive traffic impact analysis based upon the specific phased development proposal allowing for a clear understanding of the effective mix of uses, location and intensity of use types, and consideration of surrounding properties future development potential. That study will define what is a "reasonable maximum", both in regard to transportation system serviceability as well as with regard to what is TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING GROUP

32 Peterkort Properties - Appeal to Zoning Applications January 23, 2012 Page 4 economically feasible in the development market. That final product will be similar, whether under the current County zoning or under the proposed Beaverton zoning, with the text amendments. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be planning to attend and testify at the City Council appeal hearing on February i h. Sincerely, Donald P. Odermott, PE Principal cc: Lois Ditmars Scott Eaton Tim Ramis Jim Draudt Jimmy Bellamy txplwr i'l/31!12. if 1/2if /rl TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING GROUP

33 Leigh Crabtree EXHIBIT _ ~ \\ From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan Rosenthal <rosenthal_susan@yahoo.com> Friday, December 16, :23 PM Leigh Crabtree Peterkort annexation Dear ms. Crabtree, I am writing regarding my concners about the city and Beaverton and the annexation fo the Peterkort property along Sw Barnes Rd and Cedar Hills Blvd I am a resident of Leahy Rd, and so this property directly affects my community As I understand things, there are some important differences in the zoning codes for washington COunty and those for Beaverton. The parcels involved are quite large,and development of these parcels will have a significant impact on our neighborhood. This is not neccesarily a bad thing, however, I think that our commnity needs more time to discuss the imact of the zoning change. I request that the zoning change change be delayed. Sincerely, Susan Rosenthal 1

34 Leigh Crabtree From: Sent: To: Subject: Steven Sparks Monday, January 09, :53 AM Leigh Crabtree FW: Transitioning the hopes and dreams of a community From: waldopdx@gmail.com [mailto:waldopdx@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Lori Manthey-Waldo, Chair Sent: Friday, January 06, :08 PM To: Steven Sparks Cc: Don Mazziotti; Fred Meyer; Judy; Kevin O'Donnell; Bruce Bartlett; Greg Malinowski Subject: Transitioning the hopes and dreams of a community Hello Steve, First, I'd like to compliment you and your staff for the high level of professional acumen demonstrated at Wednesday's CPO 1 meeting. With over 100 people in attendance, you spoke clearly and openly. This was great to see. I believe, however, Beaverton planning staff, the County and the Beaverton Planning Commission have missed what is really at issue here...the first part ofthe UPAA which states, "the transition in land use designation from one jurisdiction to another should be orderly, logical and based upon a mutually agreed upon plan." (page CPA 2 in the Nov. 30,2011 staff report) Transitioning land into Beaverton is easy. Transitioning the hopes and dreams of the community is obviously much more complex. The community and County have invested a great deal of effort to define their vision, i.e. the Community Dev Code and Plan pertaining to the Peterkort area. In order for the transition to be "orderly" it must respect and honor the vision of this community not only the current developer. A City By Choice has submitted a project proposal to the County and the City of Beaverton that, when initiated, could significantly help with this issue and future annexations. The project is designed to educate the citizens of urban unincorporated Washington County as to the differences in planning and community development service levels/procedures between the County and Beaverton. The project would also elicit what level of services and types of procedures the community desires to have in the future. It is advantageous to the community, Beaverton and the County to proactively empower this highly educated and passionate group of citizens to choose their "mutually agreed upon plan". Creating an orderly, logical and mutually agreed upon plan at the community level will help with annexations, possible new service districts andlor, if needed, a new and unique set of planning and community development services. We hope this issue has illuminated the need to move our project proposal forward sooner than later. Please consider the following recommendations as an interim first step to an orderly process. Ensure this area will develop in accordance with the community's vision...an essential component for an orderly transition. After taking the time to review the extensive material, the numbers and the zoning feel correct, however, these alone do not ensure the community's vision will remain intact. The transition process must help the community understand their vision is honored and can/will be implemented. The area north of 26 desires more community parks and civic spaces, trails for pedlbike, employment opportunities and meeting places that are vibrant places to visit 24/7. It is very clear that the citizens do not 1 32

35 want any bulk retail. They dream of sustainable, safe places for multi-generational and diverse groups to meet, converse and create a sense of community. The community needs to be educated on what the transition process is, how it will work and assured their vision will be honored. Please create a transition plan and address the following on your FAQ site and future public and official meetings. o Clearly articulate the requirement to develop this site in accordance with the community vision. This is articulated in the staff report, but not until the very end. "Section 3.5, Mixed Use Areas, of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton similarly describes the type of development intended for the subject parcels. The goal of mixed use areas in the City is that they, "develop in accordance with the community vision and consistent with the 2040 Regional Growth Concept Map," as described in Section Policies associated with the goal of mixed use areas in the City..." (page ZMA-4) o Address why the implied maximum of 150,000 square feet of retail has changed and whether the envisioned theaterlhotel are possible. "...In addition to the theater complex and hotel, up to one hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) square feet of retail space is permitted and may be incorporated within mixed use buildings. With the exception of the building housing the theater complex, all retail space must be located within buildings that are at least two stories high." (Cedar Mill Community Plan) o Match the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan requirements to the Community Plan vision - i.e. the statement found on page SR-5 of the staff report "... sufficient intensities to generate light rail ridership and a round-the-clock activity," as stated in section of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton." matches closely with "Area of Special Concern No. 11: It is the County's objective that a high density, mixed use, pedestrian-oriented, "urban village" develop in this area, with activity throughout the day, in the evening, and on weekends." (Cedar Mill Community Plan) o Address how parks and civic space will be required. These are very different than open space as defined by Washington County. o The PUD process would require the applicant to demonstrate how the minimum development expectations can be met across the entirety ofthe SC-S zone. Through that process, an applicant can demonstrate how the design issues and transportation issues the County has articulated can be accommodated, although the applicant would not be required to meet the current County zoning requirements that are not specifically contained in the Comprehensive Plan or Development Code." 2 33