blackbird farms - planned unit development scm main street

Blackbird Farms - Planned Unit Development

SCM Main Street - Modification of a Decision

Beaverton, Oregon

Request for Approvals:

▪ Comprehensive Plan Amendment

▪ Conditional Use – Planned Unit Development

▪ Conditional Use – Park in a Residential Zone

▪ Design Review 3– Lot 1

▪ Design Review 3– Park

▪ Design Review 1– The Ridge Phase 2

▪ Land Division - Preliminary Subdivision Partition

▪ Modification of Design Review and Land Division – SCM Main Street

▪ Parking Quantity Determination – Park

▪ Tree Plan 1 & 2

▪ Zoning Map Amendment

Prepared for:

Wishcamper Development Partners

131 South Higgins Avenue, Ste P-1

Missoula, MT 59802

May 5, 2021

Prepared By:

Otak, Inc.

808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 800

Portland, OR 97204

Project No. 19615.400

cruiz

Text Box

Received Planning Division

cruiz

Date

Blackbird Farms PUD / South Cooper Mountain Main Street Modification i \\pdx-ae.otak.com\proj\Project\19600\19615\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Beaverton\2021-05-05 Land Use Perfection Submittal\Documents\SCM Blackbird Farms-18485 SW

Scholls Ferry Rd-LU Narrative.docx Otak

SITE INFORMATION

SUBJECT

PROPERTY:

Blackbird Farms: 18043 SW Scholls Ferry Road (3 tax lots)

SCM Main Street: 17828 SW Scholls Ferry Road (1 tax lot)

SITE AREA: Blackbird Farms: 32.4 acres

SCM Main Street (affected area): ~0.47 acres

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

DESIGNATION:

Current: High Density Residential

Proposed: High Density Residential and Community Commercial

ZONING DESIGNATION:

Current: Washington County Interim Zoning (AF-20)

Proposed: City of Beaverton R1 and Corridor Commercial CC

APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER

APPLICANT:

Wishcamper Development Partners

131 South Higgins Avenue, Ste P-1

Missoula, MT 59802

Contact: Justin Metcalf

406.550.1244

[email protected]

OWNER (BLACKBIRD

FARMS):

Blackbird Land Holdings LLC

PO Box 5123

Missoula, MT 59802

Contact: Justin Metcalf

406.550.1244

[email protected]

OWNER (SCM MAIN

STREET):

Kinton Land & Bison LLC

18485 SW Scholls Ferry Rd.

Beaverton, Oregon 97007

OWNER (THE RIDGE):

Beaverton Cooper Mountain LLC

8630 SW Scholls Ferry Rd Suite 188

Beaverton, OR 97008

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM

APPLICANT’S

REPRESENTATIVE:

Otak, Inc.

808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 800

Portland, OR 97204

Contact: Li Alligood, AICP, LEED AP

Senior Planner

503.415.2384

[email protected]

ARCHITECT: Contact: Ben Bortolazzo, Int’l AIA

503.415.2307

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Blackbird Farms PUD / South Cooper Mountain Main Street Modification ii \\pdx-ae.otak.com\proj\Project\19600\19615\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Beaverton\2021-05-05 Land Use Perfection Submittal\Documents\SCM Blackbird Farms-18485 SW


CIVIL ENGINEER: Contact: Kyle Childers, PE

503.415.2408

[email protected]

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Steve Dixon, PLA / Gabriel Kruse, PLA

503.415.2371

[email protected]

WATER & NATURAL

RESOURCES:

Contact: Tammi Connolly, PE

503.415.2373

[email protected]

SURVEYOR:

Contact: Mike Spelts, PLS

425.420.5464

[email protected]

ARBORIST: Portland Tree

PO Box 19042

Portland, OR 97280

Contact: Ryan Neumann, Arborist

503.421.3883

[email protected]

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEER:

Redmond Geotechnical Services

PO Box 20547

Portland, OR 97294

Contact: Daniel Redmond, PE, GE

503.286.7176

[email protected]

TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Global Transportation Engineering

227 SW Pine St, Suite 220

Portland, OR 97204

Contact: Dana Beckwith, PE, PTOE

503.488.5736

[email protected]







Blackbird Farms PUD / South Cooper Mountain Main Street Modification iii \\pdx-ae.otak.com\proj\Project\19600\19615\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Beaverton\2021-05-05 Land Use Perfection Submittal\Documents\SCM Blackbird Farms-18485 SW


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. Requests ......................................................................................................................................... 1

II. Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 2

III. Compliance with City of Beaverton Comprehensive Plan .......................................................... 4 A. Chapter 1 Amendment Procedures Element .................................................................................................4 B. Chapter 3 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................9 C. Chapter 4 Housing ...................................................................................................................................... 16 D. Chapter 5 Public Facilities and Services Element ...................................................................................... 18 E. Chapter 6 Transportation Element ............................................................................................................. 18 F. Chapter 7 Natural, Cultural, Historic, Scenic, Energy & Groundwater Resources Element ...................... 23

IV. Compliance with South Cooper Mountain Community Plan ..................................................... 27 A. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................... 27 B. Neighborhoods and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 29 C. Transportation ............................................................................................................................................. 34 D. Significant Natural Resources & Open Space Edges ................................................................................ 38 E. Urban Forestry Management ...................................................................................................................... 38 F. Scenic Views .............................................................................................................................................. 39 G. Infrastructure Provision ............................................................................................................................... 40

V. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 20 ......................................................... 40 A. 20.05. Residential Land Use Districts ........................................................................................................ 40 B. 20.10. Commercial Land Use Districts ....................................................................................................... 41 C. 20.25 Density Calculations ......................................................................................................................... 42

VI. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 40 .......................................................... 43 A. 40.03. Facilities Review Committee ........................................................................................................... 43 B. 40.15. Conditional Use ............................................................................................................................... 50 C. 40.20. Design Review ................................................................................................................................. 55 D. 40.45. Land Division and Reconfiguration .................................................................................................. 60 E. 40.55 Parking Determination ...................................................................................................................... 63 F. 40.90. Tree Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 64 G. 40.97. Zoning Map Amendment ................................................................................................................. 67

VII. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 50 ......................................................... 69 A. 50.25 Application Completeness ................................................................................................................ 69 B. 50.30. Neighborhood Review Meeting ....................................................................................................... 71 C. 50.95 Modification of a Decision ................................................................................................................. 73

VIII. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 60 ................................................... 75 A. 60.05. Design Review Principles, Standards, and Guidelines ................................................................... 76 B. 60.15. Land Division Standards .................................................................................................................. 96 C. 60.30. Off-Street Parking ............................................................................................................................ 98 D. 60.33. Park and Recreational Facilities .................................................................................................... 101 E. 60.35. Planned Unit Development ............................................................................................................ 101 F. 60.55. Transportation Facilities ................................................................................................................ 109 G. 60.60. Trees and Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 118 H. 60.65. Utility Undergrounding ................................................................................................................... 121 I. 60.67. Significant Natural Resources. ...................................................................................................... 121

IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 122

Appendices Appendix A – Universal Design Booklet dated February 2020, by Urbsworks

Appendix B – Preliminary Stormwater Report dated February 8, 2021, by Otak, Inc.

Appendix C – Blackbird Farms Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter dated February 9, 2021; SCM

Main Street Clean Water Services SPL Modification dated January 25, 2021

Blackbird Farms PUD / South Cooper Mountain Main Street Modification iv \\pdx-ae.otak.com\proj\Project\19600\19615\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Beaverton\2021-05-05 Land Use Perfection Submittal\Documents\SCM Blackbird Farms-18485 SW


Appendix D – Transportation Impact Study dated April 12, 2021 by Global Transportation Engineering

Appendix E – TVFR Service Provider Letter dated December 2, 2020

Appendix F – Tree Plan dated September 1, 2020, by Portland Tree Consulting

Appendix G – Geotechnical Report dated April 15, 2020, by Redmond Geotechnical Services; and

Supplemental Memo dated December 21, 2020

Appendix H – Beaverton School District School Service Provider dated September 24, 2020

Appendix I – DSL Wetland Delineation Concurrence dated January 27, 2021

Appendix J – Neighborhood meeting documentation

Appendix K– Pre-application conference notes dated June 24, 2020, and January 6, 2021, by City of

Beaverton staff

Appendix L – Tree Plan 1 data prepared by Otak, Inc.

Appendix M – Tree Plan 2 data prepared by Otak, Inc.

Appendix N – Draft PGE Easement Quitclaim Deed

Appendix O – Architectural Materials Board

Appendix P – Washington County LUT Approval of Proposed Scholls Ferry Maintenance Access, e-mail from

Naomi Vogel dated February 2, 2021

Appendix Q – Street C Grading Exhibit prepared by Otak, Inc.

Exhibits Architectural Plans

Illumination Plans

Civil Plans

Grading Plans

Landscape Plans

Trail/Path Plans

Blackbird Farms PUD / South Cooper Mountain Main Street Modification 1 \\pdx-ae.otak.com\proj\Project\19600\19615\ArchiveCorresp\Outgoing\City of Beaverton\2021-05-05 Land Use Perfection Submittal\Documents\SCM Blackbird Farms-18485 SW


I. Requests

Multiple land use approval are requested to establish the Blackbird Farms PUD, create lots for future

development, approve proposed development for Lot 1 and Tract B of Blackbird Farms, and modify the SCM

Main Street PUD to the east of the site.

Blackbird Farms PUD

Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval is requested to apply the City of Beaverton’s Community

Commercial CC land use designation to proposed Parcel 6. The current land use designation is HDR.

Conditional Use - Planned Unit Development approval is requested for the proposed development. The site is

larger than 10 acres in area and is located in the South Cooper Mountain Community Area, and Planned Unit

Development (PUD) review is required.

Land Division – Preliminary Subdivision approval is requested to create 6 lots for ease of financing and

phasing. The land division will create more than 4 lots in one calendar year and subdivision approval is required.

Tree Plan approval is requested for removal of trees within the SNRA and for disturbance of root protection

zones.

Zoning Map Amendment approval is requested to apply the City of Beaverton’s Urban High Density Residential

District R1 zone to Parcels 1-5 and the Corridor Commercial CC zone to Parcel 6. The site currently retains

Washington County’s AF-20 zoning district but has been annexed to the City of Beaverton.

Lot 1/Tract B

Conditional Use approval is requested for proposed Tract B/Park A. Parks are conditional uses in the R1 zone.

Design Review 3 approval is requested for the 3 residential buildings proposed for Lot 1 and Tract B/Park A.

The development addresses a combination of Design Standards and Design Guidelines and Design Review 3 is

required. Public Parks in residential zones are also subject to Design Review 3.

Parking Quantity Determination approval is requested to determine the number of required parking spaces for

proposed Park A. “Park” uses are not listed in the minimum parking requirements table.

SCM Main Street

Modification of a Decision for a Design Review and Preliminary Partition approval is requested for SCM Main

Street PUD to the east to modify the conditions of approval of the SCM Main Street Design Review (DR2020-

0067) and Land Division (LD2020-0007) to convert private Street A to a public street, revise the southern

termination of Street A from an emergency access to a cul-de-sac, and replace the southern emergency access

connection with a pedestrian connection and a public stormwater facility. See Sheet C0.00 for the area of

modification.

The Ridge at South Cooper Mountain

Design Review Compliance Letter approval is requested for DR2019-0185 to modify the approved site grading

and remove trees along the eastern property line for construction of proposed Street C (Street A as approved

through The Ridge design review).

Mountainside High School

Removal of nuisance trees along the eastern property line shared with the Mountainside High School is required

to connect to the existing multi-use trail on the school property, and to construct retaining walls to support the

Blackbird Farms site.



II. Project Description

The site is within the South Cooper Mountain planning area north of Scholls Ferry Road, east of The Ridge PUD,

west of the Main Street PUD, and south of the Scholls Valley Heights at South Cooper Mountain PUD. Street A of

the approved Main Street PUD forms the eastern boundary of the site; SW Scholls Ferry Road forms the southern

boundary of the site; and proposed Street C and The Ridge multifamily site form the western boundary of the site.

The northern portion of the site contains mapped wetlands. The site consists of 3 tax lots totaling 32.42 acres.

The subject site is currently located within the Beaverton City Limits and is in residential and agricultural use.

This application includes a request for approval of the Blackbird Farms PUD, Design Review approval for Parcel 1

and Park A of the Blackbird Farms PUD. Street A on the western boundary of the Main Street PUD will connect to

Mountainside Way to the north as part of the Blackbird Farms PUD, which provides additional emergency access

and adds additional area to the northwest corner of Lot 2 of the Main Street PUD.

In order to implement the desired site design and street circulation, this application also includes a modification to

the SCM Main Street PUD Design Review and Land Division applications (Casefiles DR2020-0067 and LD2020-

0007) to convert Street A from a private street to a public street; revise the southern end of Street A from an

emergency access to Scholls Ferry Road to a cul-de-sac, and establish a public stormwater pond at the southern

end of Street A to treat runoff from the Street A public right-of-way. See Sheet C0.00 for the area of the Main

Street PUD to be included in this application.

Ultimately, the developer, Wishcamper Development Partners, intends to develop Blackbird Farms and SCM

Main Street as one project as they will have ownership of both sites.

Universal Design

The design team has incorporated the principles of Universal Design wherever possible in the site design. The

principles of Universal Design result in environments that are accessible for people of all ages and abilities. The

scales of Universal Design include the neighborhood; connections (streets, trails, and paths); and buildings. See

Appendix A for Wishcamper’s Universal Design booklet.

Proposed Development

The Blackbird Farms development includes 6 lots: proposed Lot 1 includes Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C, which

contain a total of 145 multi-family dwelling units, and Park B. The units are affordable to households earning

between 30 and 60 percent of area median income (AMI). Development of Lot 1 is proposed with this application.

Design Review is requested for Lot 1.

Park A is proposed west of Lot 1/Building 1A within Tract B. This park will provide access to the trail network to

the north. Design Review and Conditional Use approval requested for this park. See Sheet C1.04 for the park

location and Sheet L2.04 for the proposed park design.

Lots 2 to 5 and associated buildings are expected to be developed by others with approximately 228 multifamily

residential units in the future; Lot 6 is expected to be developed by others with a use permitted within the

proposed Corridor Commercial zone and could accommodate up to 76 dwelling units, approximately 20,000 sq. ft.

of multi-story non-residential development, or a mix of uses. See Sheet C1.07. The conceptual site plan for the

overall proposed development is included as Sheet C1.10; the conceptual site plan for the proposed development

of Lot 1 and Tract B is included as Sheet C3.00, C3.01, C3.02, and C3.03. The Preliminary Plat is included as

Sheets C1.20, C1.21, and C1.22.

Internal connectivity is provided by a network of public and private streets. Mountainside Way will continue to the

west, connecting the street between The Ridge PUD to the west and the Main Street PUD to the east. A private



Main Street continues to the west to connect to proposed Street C; Streets A and B provide north/south

connections through the site and circulation north of Mountainside Way.

Open Space

The site includes approximately 13.7 acres of open space comprised of active and passive open space,

accessible both physically and visually to the development and community. Active open space includes an interior

amenity area on Lot 1, adjacent to Building 1B; open space areas on Lots 2-6; a robust network of multiuse trails

extending to the north, west, and east; and an open space within Tract A that is accessed by the trail network.

See Sheet C1.04 Active Open Space, Sheet C1.06 Pedestrian Circulation, and Sheets L2.04 and L2.05 for more

details.

Natural Resources

Tract A contains 4.91 ac of wetlands and a 1.99-acre pond in the northern portion of the site, within a 12.9 acre

resource area. See Sheet C1.04 for the location of these resources. These wetlands have been delineated and

are expected to be protected by a conservation easement. The Department of State Lands issued a concurrence

letter on January 27, 2021. See Appendix I for the wetland delineation and concurrence letter.

Water/Sewer/Stormwater

Public water supply for the site will be provided by the City of Beaverton. Water lines will be constructed within the

proposed rights-of-way within the development and will connect to the existing 24-inch main line located in

Mountainside Way.

Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of Beaverton via the CWS pump station and force main in

River Terrace. Sanitary sewer lines will be constructed within the proposed rights-of-way within the development

and will connect to the main line in Scholls Ferry Road.

Storm drainage collection and treatment for this area is the responsibility of City of Beaverton. The proposed

stormwater management approach includes the Blackbird Farms PUD as well as a portion of Street A within the

SCM Main Street PUD site boundaries, which requires a Modification of a Decision for the Main Street PUD. A

Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan for the project is included as Appendix B. This Preliminary Stormwater

Management Plan outlines compliance with the Clean Water Services’ (CWS) 2019 Design & Construction

Standards. Conceptual utility plans are included as Sheets C4.00, C4.01, C4.02, C4.03, C4.10, C4.11, and C4.12.

See Appendix C for a Service Provider Letter from CWS.

Traffic/Access

Access to the site is via Mountainside Way, a public collector street, and Main Street, a private local street, to the

east and west, and via Street C, a public local street, from the south. Private Street A within the Main Street PUD

will extend to the north to connect to Mountainside Way and will become a public street with the submitted

modification. Additional internal site circulation is provided by public local Streets A, B, and C and Main Street. A

Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by GTE is included as Appendix D. The intersection of Mountainside Way

and Scholls Ferry Road is currently signalized. No additional signal warrants have been identified.

Fire Protection

Fire protection will be provided to the site by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department (TVF&R). Emergency

access to the site will be provided by SW Mountainside Way, main Street, and Street C. Street A was approved

as an emergency fire access with the Main Street PUD; this application modifies Street A to end in a cul-de-sac

as access will no longer be needed in this location. See Appendix E for a Service Provider Letter from TVF&R.



Trees

There are 486 existing trees on site; 40 trees are proposed for removal. Of these, 7 trees are proposed for

removal within the SNRA and a Tree Plan 2 is required. Of the remaining 34 trees proposed for removal, 23 trees

are invasive species and/or in poor health. See Appendix F for a Tree Plan.

III. Compliance with City of Beaverton Comprehensive Plan

Response: Staff’s June 24, 2020 pre-application conference notes and subsequent communication with staff

identified the following Comprehensive Policies as applicable to this application. Most of these policies are

implemented by the Beaverton Community Development Code and are further addressed in those sections.

A. Chapter 1 Amendment Procedures Element

1.1 AMENDMENT INITIATION

Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by City Council, the Planning Commission, the

Mayor, the Community Development Director, or the Engineering Director at any time. Landowners may

also initiate an amendment to the Land Use Map pertaining only to their property at any time.

Response: The applicant, in partnership with the landowners, have initiated the amendment to the

Comprehensive Plan Map.

[…]

1.1.2 Property Owner-initiated Amendments

Amendment requests shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for preparation and

analysis for a Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission and City Council reserve

the right to approve, approve with conditions, or deny any specific request for amendment in accordance

with the City’s policies and procedures.

Response: The amendment request has been submitted to the Community Development Department for

preparation and analysis for a public hearing before the Planning Commission.

1.3 AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL CATEGORIES

Comprehensive Plan Amendments fall into four general categories: Legislative, Quasi-Judicial, Non-

Discretionary, and Statewide Planning Goal 5 Inventory Document Amendments.

[…].

Quasi-Judicial Amendments are amendments to a Land Use Map designation as it applies to specific

parcels or that applies to a small number of individuals or properties or locations.

Response: The requested amendment would apply to one specific parcel (Lot 6) and as such is a quasi-

judicial amendment.

1.4.2 QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS

A. Notice of the initial hearing shall be provided as follows:

[…].

Notice required by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 227.186, also known as Ballot Measure 56) shall

be provided, when applicable. ORS 227.186(6) specifies notice requirements for city-initiated

amendments related to Periodic Review. Hearing notices required by numbers 3 through 6 of this

subsection shall be given not less than twenty (20) and not more than forty (40) calendar days prior to

the date of the initial hearing.

B. Notice required in subsection 1.4.2.A.4. and 5. shall:

[…].



Response: The City is responsible for providing notice of the initial Planning Commission hearing to the

agencies and property owners listed in this section. Notice will be provided as stated.

1.5 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.

1.5.1 Criteria for Legislative and Quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments

A. The following criteria apply to all legislative Comprehensive Plan amendments and non-annexation-

related quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

1. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with relevant Statewide Planning Goals

and related Oregon Administrative Rules;

Response: In discussion with City staff, the development team determined that the most appropriate

land use designation for Lot 6 was Community Commercial. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map

amendment would apply the Community Commercial land use designation to Lot 6, which is currently

designated High Density Neighborhood.

Applicable Statewide Planning Goals include Statewide Planning Goals (SWPGs) 10: Housing; 11:

Public Facilities and Services; and 12: Transportation. Applicable Oregon Administrative Rules

(OARs) include 660-007 Metropolitan Housing and 660-012 Transportation Planning. Consistency

and compatibility with each applicable SWPG and OAR is addressed below.

Goal 10: Housing

To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.

Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability

of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are

commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of

housing location, type and density. […]

Response: The proposed amendment would revise the land use designation of Lot 6 from High

Density Neighborhood to Community Commercial. The High Density Neighborhood designation is

implemented by the R1, Residential Urban High Density District, which permits a range of

housing types including attached, detached, and accessory dwelling units. Planned Unit

Developments, which allow flexibility in the types of uses permitted within the zone, are permitted

as Conditional Uses.

The Community Commercial land use designation is implemented through the CC, Corridor

Commercial and CS, Community Service zones.1 The CC, Corridor Commercial zoning

designation has been requested for Lot 6. The CC zone permits attached housing, as well as a

range of neighborhood-serving commercial uses.

The minimum lot size in the R1 zone is 1,000 sq. ft., and the minimum lot size for attached

residential uses in the CC zone is also 1,000 sq. ft. Lot 6 is 1.74 acres in area and could

1 The Community Commercial land use designation is also implemented by the C-WS, Washington Square Regional Center -

Commercial District, but this site is not located within the Washington Square Regional Center and that zoning designation is

not available.



accommodate between 60 and 75 dwelling units in either the R1 or CC zone as calculated per

BDC 20.25.05.

In addition, the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan housing allocations assumed that the

NS zone to the east of the subject would be developed with 0 dwelling units; the approved

development plan for the site includes 164 dwelling units in addition to non-residential uses.

Because the requested Corridor Commercial land use designation and CC zone allow the same

residential densities, and the entitled residential units in the NS zone of the South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan Area exceed the number of residential units that could be

accommodated on Lot 6, the proposed land use designation will not reduce the area’s capacity

for needed housing.

Goal 12: Transportation

To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.

[…]

Response: The City’s Transportation System Plan, as amended by the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan, comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which implements Goal

12. Findings of compliance with both plans are provided in Section IV below. Therefore, the

requested amendment complies with this goal.

Chapter 660: Division 007 Metropolitan Housing

[…]

OAR 660-007-0030

New Construction Mix

(1) Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must either designate sufficient buildable land

to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single

family housing or multiple family housing or justify an alternative percentage based on

changing circumstances. […]

Response: The requested amendment would apply the Community Commercial designation to

the subject site. The requested CC zone permits attached dwelling units. As of November 2020,

2,990 dwelling units have received entitlements within the South Cooper Mountain Community

Plan Area. Of those units, 52 percent are attached or multifamily units. An additional

approximately 366 attached dwelling units are proposed with this application. As noted above, Lot

6 has capacity for 60 to 75 dwelling units.

Given the number of attached units currently entitled, the additional units proposed by this

application, the relatively small number of dwelling units that can be accommodated on Lot 6, and

the fact that the CC zone allows attached dwellings, applying the Community Commercial land

use designation and CC zone to Lot 6 will not reduce the ability of the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan area to provide at least 50 percent of new residential units as attached units.

Therefore, the requested amendment complies with this provision.

[…]

OAR 660-007-0060

Applicability

[…]

(2) For plan and land use regulation amendments which are subject to OAR 660, Division 18, the

local jurisdiction shall either:



(a) Demonstrate through findings that the mix and density standards in this Division are met

by the amendment; or

(b) Make a commitment through the findings associated with the amendment that the

jurisdiction will comply with provisions of this Division for mix or density through

subsequent plan amendments.

Response: OAR 660, Division 18 addresses post-acknowledgement amendments, and applies

to this request. The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan designated land uses for the areas

within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Area. The land uses include a mix of housing

types, uses, and density standards that are applied at the time of development.

As noted in Table 2 of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan, the Plan Area was estimated

to accommodate between 2,900 and 3,530 dwelling units. As noted above, 2,990 dwelling units

have been entitled, including 164 units within the NS/Main Street site, and an additional 366

dwelling units are proposed with this land use application. Table 2 assumed that no housing

would be provided on the NS/Main Street site, so the plan area is on track to exceed the

estimated capacity of the plan area. The proposed Community Commercial land use designation

does not reduce the residential capacity of the area, but it increases the opportunity for supportive

commercial services within the plan area.

Chapter 660: Division 012 Transportation Planning

660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments

(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use

regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned

transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in

section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this

rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it

would:

(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility

(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);

Response: Lot 6 was identified as commercial location due to its frontage on Scholls Ferry

Road, a major arterial. The capacity analysis for the 2040 horizon year showed that no

additional lanes are required on any study roadway to serve the anticipated volumes. As

such, no right-of-way changes are anticipated that would change the functional classification

of any existing or planned transportation facilities.

(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or

Response: The requested Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment does not

propose to change any standards regarding the implementation of functional classification

systems.

(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based

on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the

adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to

be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment

includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic

generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This

reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.



(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional

classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;

Response: The types of travel associated with this residential development are

consistent with those of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Site

access is consistent with the nature of the development as residential. Access to Scholls

Ferry Road will be at an intersection with standard traffic control.

(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it

would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive

plan; or

Response: The capacity analysis for the 2040 horizon year showed that all study

intersections are anticipated to meet mobility standards.

(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is

otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or

comprehensive plan.

Response: The capacity analysis for the 2040 horizon year showed that all study

intersections are anticipated to meet mobility standards.

2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the applicable Titles of the Metro

Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan; and

Response: Applicable title of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is Title 1:

Housing Capacity. Conformance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) of OAR 600, Section

12 has been addressed through the traffic analysis provided by GTE and included as Appendix D.

The proposed amendment remains consistent with the TPR, and by extension, the RTP.

Title 1: Housing Capacity

3.07.110 Purpose and Intent

The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a “fair-share” approach to

meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by

requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity except as provided in

section 3.07.120.

Response: The requested Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map amendment to Community

Commercial/Corridor Commercial CC zone would maintain the City’s housing capacity, as the CC

zone allows housing at the same densities as the High Density Neighborhood/R1 zone. Lot 6 can

accommodate 60 to 75 dwelling units. Even if Lot 6 were to develop with non-residential uses, the

existing Main Street/NS site within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area has been

developed with 164 more dwelling units than anticipated by the Community Plan. On balance, the

housing capacity of the Community Plan area will remain the same.

3. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and other

applicable local plans.

Response: Consistency and compatibility with the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan is addressed in

Section III.B below. Consistency and compatibility with the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

is addressed in Section IV below.



B. Chapter 3 Land Use

[…]

3.1 Land Use and Transportation Connection Goal 3.1.1 Encourage development and land use patterns that support a variety of

transportation options

a) Emphasize pedestrian convenience and safety in all developments and transportation facilities.

Response: The proposed development includes robust pedestrian facilities including a multi-use trail

at the southern edge of the site along Scholls Ferry Road; internal pedestrian connections between

buildings and sidewalks; and pedestrian connections between Mountainside Way to the south and an

extensive multi-use trail network system to the north.

b) Encourage development and programs that reduce the need for vehicle use and ownership.

Response: The proposed PUD includes multifamily residential dwellings and potential non-

residential/commercial development on Lot 6. The site is located adjacent to the Main Street

commercial area to the east and will provide convenient access to the services anticipated there by

bike and foot. Nearby recreational opportunities include Park A and the connected trail system, as

well as the plaza at the intersection of Main Street and Mountainside Way to the east. Finally, high

school students living in this development will be able to travel safely to the Mountainside High

School via the multiuse trail network, the sidewalk network, or on-street bike lanes.

c) Ensure that new development is designed to provide safe, comfortable and direct pedestrian and

bicycle connections to and through the development, including to reach nearby points of interest.

Response: The proposed development provides safe, comfortable, and direct pedestrian and bicycle

connections through a variety of facilities. The extension of Mountainside Way includes bicycle lanes;

the South Cooper Loop trail along the southern frontage provides multimodal connections to the west

and east, and the widened Scholls Ferry Road also includes striped bike lanes. A multimodal trail

connection is proposed to connect to The Ridge to the west, the Scholls Valley Heights development

to the northwest, and the Mountainside High School site to the east. The local streets within the

development will have sidewalks and bicycles will share the roadway with low-speed, low-volume

vehicle traffic.

d) Apply land use designations and development regulations that support high-density development

near transit and services, in order to provide greater opportunities to live, work, and meet daily

needs near transit.

Response: The City anticipates the extension of TriMet service to the Main Street site to the east.

The high-density land use designations in the Blackbird Farms site will support the anticipated transit

service to the east.

The application of a commercial land use designation to Lot 6 will allow the Main Street commercial

uses to extend to the west and provide further options for meeting the daily needs of the development

and neighboring areas. The proposed Corridor Commercial zone allows a broad range of uses,

including residential and commercial, and could be developed as a single use or a mixed-use

development.

[…]



3.2 Land Use and Transportation Connection Goal 3.2.1 Provide for thoughtful and strategic infill and redevelopment

a) Provide a set of residential infill guidelines and standards that encourage compatible infill

development, consistent with the following principles:

i. Provide flexibility on development standards when it can help preserve trees and natural

resources.

ii. Allow a wider variety of housing choices that can accommodate a range of ages, household

sizes and/or income levels while ensuring the new housing responds to the scale and form of

the neighborhood.

iii. Manage transitions between different uses and housing types.

iv. In areas well-served by transit, amenities and services, offer more flexibility for infill housing

and innovative housing types that meet city goals for affordability and livability, and provide

housing for diverse household sizes, types, and age ranges.

v. Encourage site and building design features, including setbacks and sight lines, that minimize

impacts to sunlight and privacy for existing adjacent homes.

Response: Lot 1 of the Blackbird Farms development includes 145 dwelling units in 3 buildings.

These dwelling units are affordable to households earning 30 to 60 percent of area median income

(AMI). Lots 2-5 are expected to develop with multifamily housing in the future. This multifamily

housing mirrors the approved multifamily housing development of The Ridge to the west of the site

and south of Mountainside Way; the buildings north of Mountainside Way are buffered from the lower-

density homes of The Ridge to the west by a natural area. Mountainside High School is located to the

east of the site and is separated from Lot 1 by a significant grade change. Lots 5 and 6 reflect the

multifamily development approved for Main Street to the east.

Development of this site is the final piece needed to connect Mountainside Way, Main Street, and the

Scholls Ferry Road improvements (including the multi-use path) in South Cooper Mountain.

b) Encourage and support quality redevelopment in target areas that is consistent with city goals.

Response: This site is currently rural residential use. The proposed development of the site is

consistent with the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan as described in Section IV below.

City goals include activating the Scholls Ferry Road frontage and providing options for neighborhood

services. Applying the Community Commercial land use designation and CC zone to Lot 6 will allow

for additional flexibility in the development of that site and the potential to extend the Main Street

neighborhood services to the west.

c) Work to reduce and mitigate displacement and loss of affordable housing and

commercial/employment space when planning and implementing major capital investments that

increase livability and desirability.

Response: Lot 1 of the proposed development includes 145 dwelling units that are affordable to

households earning 30 to 60 percent of median family income. In combination with the 164 affordable

housing units proposed by the Main Street PUD to the east, at least 309 affordable housing units will

be located in South Cooper Mountain.

3.3 Sustainability and Natural Resources Goal 3.3.1 Promote sustainable development, resilience, and resource protection

a) Use land effectively in urban areas to relieve development pressure in rural areas and help

protect farms, forests and natural resources.



Response: As indicated in the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area Local Wetland Inventory

(LWI), the Blackbird Farms site contains mapped wetlands, including a pond and forested areas. This

area is located in the northern portion of the site and is approximately 12.9 ac in area and is protected

by the City’s Significant Natural Resource Area (SNRA) regulations. The site development avoids

impacts to the wetland to the extent possible and proposes multi-use trails through the natural areas

to provide connections to adjacent trails and to allow enjoyment of this natural resource.

b) Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources identified in the city’s adopted Significant

Natural Resources inventories, consistent with policies in the Natural Resources Element.

Response: The South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area LWI identifies 2 wetlands and 2 probable

wetlands on the site, as well as a pond. A wetland delineation has been conducted by SWCA and is

included as Appendix I. Impacts to the wetlands have been avoided where possible; where impacts

are necessary mitigation is being provided to improve the condition of the wetland.

[…]

d) Wherever possible, allow resource areas to serve multiple purposes and acknowledge their

multiple benefits.

Response: The natural resource area on site is serving as both a site of habitat and vegetal diversity,

and as a largely passive recreational amenity that is visually accessible to users of the multiuse trail

system.

3.4 Planning and Development Review Goal 3.4.1 Provide effective and inclusive planning and development review services

[…]

d) Apply zoning districts consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies; applicable Community Plans;

adopted Comprehensive Plan designations, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning

district matrix, below; and the following policies.

Response: The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Matrix of Chapter 3 Land Use includes

comprehensive plan designations and implementing zoning districts. The South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan designates this site as High Density Neighborhoods, and the zoning identified to

implement that map designation is R1, Residential Urban High Density District (1,000). R1 zoning is

proposed for Lots 1-5 of the Blackbird Farms development.

The Community Commercial designation is proposed for Lot 6 of the development, and the Corridor

Commercial CC zone is proposed to implement this designation. Per Table 1 of the South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan, the only commercial designation identified in the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan area is Main Street, which is implemented by the NS zone.

Both the Community Commercial and “Main Street”/ Neighborhood Center designations are within the

Commercial Centers and Corridors category of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Matrix.

The desired characteristics of each designation are similar, and application of the Community

Commercial designation adjacent to the Main Street designation within the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan Area is consistent with the type of neighborhood-serving retail node the City would

like to encourage in this location.

i. New zoning districts consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies may be added

or modified as needed to address area-specific needs or changing circumstances.



Response: No new zoning districts are proposed. This policy is not applicable.

ii. Existing zoning that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning district matrix

may remain in place until the city or property owner initiates a zone change; however, zoning

map amendments must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning district

matrix.

Response: The existing AF-20 zoning of Lots 1-5 will be replaced with the requested R1 zoning,

which implements the High Density Neighborhoods designation.

The existing AF-20 zoning of Lot 6 will be replaced with the requested CC zoning, which

implements the requested Community Commercial land use designation as shown in the

Comprehensive Plan and zoning district matrix.

iii. Area-specific zoning districts (as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District

Matrix) shall be applied only in locations consistent with the title and purpose statement of the

zone, applicable Community Plan policies or Metro Title 6 designations.

Response: The matrix does not identify South Cooper Mountain as an area-specific district. As

part of the 2014 UGB expansion in this area, the City applied the Main Street and Neighborhood

designations of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept to the South Cooper Mountain Area.

iv. Where a property is subject to an area-specific zone (as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan

and Zoning District Matrix), quasi-judicial zone changes shall be limited to applying another

implementing zone specific to the same area, consistent with applicable Community Plan

policies or Metro Title 6 designations.

Response: The matrix does not identify South Cooper Mountain as an area-specific district. As

part of the 2014 UGB expansion in this area, the City applied the Main Street and Neighborhood

designations of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept to the South Cooper Mountain Area.

e) Where a land use approval requires demonstration of consistency with the policies of the

Comprehensive Plan, the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan designation shall apply,

regardless of whether the zone is listed as an implementing zone for the applicable

Comprehensive Plan designation.

Response: The adopted 2014 South Cooper Mountain Community Plan designation for this site is

High Density Residential, and the 2017 Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Neighborhood

Residential – High Density (NR-HD). This designation falls within the Neighborhoods designation of

the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Matrix. This designation will be applied to Lots 1-5 of the

Blackbird Farms development. The policies of the Neighborhood designation are in Chapter 3.8,

addressed below.

The Community Commercial land use designation is proposed for Lot 6, immediately adjacent to

Scholls Ferry Road and the NS zone to the east. The Community Commercial designation falls within

the Commercial Centers and Corridors land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning

Matrix. The Neighborhood Center (Main Street) designation of the Main Street PUD site to the east

also falls within this designation. The policies of the Commercial Centers and Corridors designation

are in Chapter 3.7, addressed below.



3.7 Commercial Centers and Corridors Goal 3.7.1 Enhanced Commercial Centers and Corridors

The following policies apply to all Commercial Centers and Corridors.

Policies:

a) Over time, new development and redevelopment should improve accessibility and comfort for

non-auto modes, including:

i. Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections within and between sites

ii. Enhancing or creating multi-modal connections wherever feasible

iii. Providing direct pedestrian connections to, and amenities near, transit stops

iv. Providing a more visually engaging and appealing street frontage through the addition of

buildings adjacent to the street, enhanced landscaping, more pedestrian scale signage, etc.

v. Providing safe and convenient paths for pedestrians within large parking areas

Response: The site is currently in rural residential use. The Community Commercial land use

designation, which is part of the broader Commercial Centers and Corridors category, is proposed for

Lot 6 of the Blackbird Farms PUD.

Lot 6 is designed to integrate into the larger Blackbird Farms residential development to the north as

well as the Main Street mixed-use development to the east. As shown on Sheet C1.10, Main Street

will continue west from the Main Street PUD to establish the northern boundary of Lot 6. This

connection would provide direct pedestrian connections to the potential amenities on Lot 6 as well as

the future commercial node at the northwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and Mountainside Way.

Also as shown on Sheet C1.10, the conceptual buildings on Lot 6 front on Scholls Ferry Road and

Street C, which will result in a visually engaging and appealing street frontage in those locations.

b) Emphasize commercial and employment uses, and limit ground floor residential uses to preserve

land to meet the city’s employment needs.

Response: The requested CC zone on Lot 6 allows a range of residential and commercial uses.

These uses could include standalone residential, standalone commercial, or a mixed-use

development. The flexibility provided by the CC zone will allow development of Lot 6 to respond to

market forces. This site is not currently designated for employment uses, so the development of any

employment on this site will be in additional to the employment uses anticipated for the NS zone to

the east.

c) Allow for housing as part of an integrated mixed use development, generally behind or above

commercial uses, and buffered from high-traffic roadways or uses incompatible with residential

use.

Response: Lot 6 has frontage on Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial road, to the south and local streets

to the west, north, and east. The conceptual development plan shown on Sheet C1.10 is one of

several ways the site could be developed; the proposed CC zone permits a range of residential and

commercial uses and supports mixed-use development including both.

Goal 3.7.3 Community Commercial: Provide for commercial services that serve the

surrounding community, with limited auto-oriented uses

The following policies apply to the Community Commercial areas, in addition to policies under Goal

3.7.1.

Policies:



a) Allow commercial uses at a range of scales, including large-format retail, to address community

needs.

Response: The requested Community Commercial designation for Lot 6 will allow commercial uses

at a range of scales; however, the size of lot 6 is not conducive to large-format retail. Any commercial

development on the site is anticipated to be locally focused, such as coffees shops and cafes. These

types of uses can meet the community’s daily needs, while larger shopping centers (such as

Progress Ridge) can provide large-format retail options.

b) Allow limited new automotive services (e.g. gas stations, car wash, and car repair) where

compatible with adjacent uses and where the design of the site and building or structure promote

a quality pedestrian environment along the street.

Response: The requested CC zone allows some new automotive series conditionally and prohibits

major automotive service and automobile sales or lease. This is consistent with the desired character

of the South Cooper Mountain commercial areas, which are intended to serve community needs while

promoting a quality pedestrian environment through the limitation of automobile-dominant uses.

c) Prohibit land-intensive vehicle sales and service uses and uses requiring extensive outdoor

storage.

Response: The requested CC zone prohibits vehicle sales and service, consistent with this policy.

d) Use development standards and/or conditional use review to address potential issues related to

compatibility of commercial uses with adjacent housing, including noise, access and parking.

Response: The requested CC zone allows a range of uses, including residential and commercial

uses. The intent of the request is to allow Lot 6 to serve as a buffer between the multifamily

residential uses proposed north of the site and the Scholls Ferry Road activities, which include high

volumes of traffic. Compatibility of any uses within the CC zone with adjacent multifamily residential

and commercial uses will be evaluated through a future Design Review application.

e) Require multimodal or pedestrian connections based on block size standards to encourage a

pattern of development that can be easily navigated by foot or bike.

Response: The proposed development will construct an extension of the multiuse trail parallel to

Scholls Ferry Road and will also construct frontage improvements along Scholls Ferry Road that will

include striped bicycle lanes. A new Street C to the west of Lot 6 will provide right-in/right-out access

to potential commercial uses on the site as well as an additional connection to Mountainside Way to

the north. Finally, the site will complete the School to School trail connection to Mountainside High

School to the east. This additional connectivity encourages a compact urban development form and

provides another connection for pedestrians and bicycles.

f) The Community Commercial designation may be applied in areas along arterial roads with

relatively high visibility and auto accessibility that also provide pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit

connections to the surrounding community.

Response: Lot 6 is located adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial road with high visibility and

auto accessibility. Per the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan, a multiuse path is proposed

within the Scholls Ferry Road right-of-way south of the site, and additional pedestrian and bicycle

connections will be provide by Street C to the west, Main Street to the north, and Street A to the east.



The site is an appealing location for commercial uses that rely on visibility and ease of access, which

will be provided by the right-in/right-out turn motion at Street C to the west. This is an appropriate

location for the Community Commercial designation.

3.8 Neighborhoods Goal 3.8.3 Medium and High Density Neighborhoods: Provide for a variety of housing types

and higher residential densities in areas with more amenities and transit service

Policies:

a) Provide for a variety of housing types, with an emphasis on multifamily and attached single family

housing.

Response: Lots 1-5 are designated High Density Neighborhood and this application requests the

application of the R1 zone to those lots. The R1 zone permits multifamily housing, and the densities

assigned to this site require that the proposed developments consist of multifamily buildings.

b) Establish zoning regulations that allow housing at generally the following residential densities,

while allowing for flexibility as described under Goal 3.8.1:

[…]

ii. High Density Neighborhoods: one unit per 1,000-2,000 square feet of residential land area

Response: The R1 zone implements the High Density Neighborhoods land use designation, and

establishes a minimum lot size of 1,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. This is consistent with this policy.

c) Focus the highest density housing closest to transit, commercial services, parks, and/or other

amenities, to provide convenient access to these amenities by as many households as possible.

d) Provide direct and efficient pedestrian and bicycle connections to nearby retail and services,

transit, parks, and/or schools.

Response: The High Density Neighborhoods designation in the South Cooper Mountain Community

Area is focused near the Neighborhood Center of the plan area and provides a transition between the

commercial uses anticipated for that area and the medium- and high-density residential uses beyond.

The High Density Neighborhoods designation also provides a transition between Mountainside High

School and lower-density residential patterns to the west.

e) Ensure that the internal circulation system for larger developments creates direct and desirable

pedestrian and bicycle routes and connects to adjacent local streets wherever possible.

Response: The City’s development standards require direct pedestrian and bicycle routes within a

larger site. In addition, the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan has established a network of

multiuse paths that include the South Cooper Mountain Loop Trail to the south of the site, the Creek

to Creek Trail connecting the site to the north, and the School to School trail connecting the site to the

east.

f) Allow for innovative housing types and designs that are consistent with the other policies for

these neighborhoods to accommodate projected growth and meet the diverse housing needs of

the community.

Response: The High Density Neighborhoods designation and implementing R1 zone allow a variety

of housing types by right and through the Planned Unit Development process. The proposed



development includes multifamily housing development that is expected to consist of affordable and

market-rate housing, which will meet the diverse housing needs of the community.

g) Allow limited, small-scale retail and service uses that primarily serve the immediate neighborhood

and are compatible with adjacent residential uses in terms of the amount of traffic created, noise,

parking needs, and other quality of life issues.

Response: The High Density Neighborhood designation and implementing R1 zone allow a limited

number of community uses as conditional uses. It does not permit retail or service uses. For that

reason, the Community Commercial designation is requested for Lot 6 to allow small-scale retail and

commercial uses on that lot.

h) The Medium and High Density Neighborhood designations may be applied in areas that have

walkable access to transit, commercial services, parks, and/or other amenities. The Medium

Density Neighborhood may serve as a transition between Standard Density or Low Density

Neighborhoods and higher density neighborhoods or commercial or mixed use designations.

Response: The City applied the High Density Neighborhoods designation to the subject site with the

adoption of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan. This designation remains appropriate for

Lots 1-5.

C. Chapter 4 Housing

[…]

4.2 Housing Types Goal 4.2.1 Provide a variety of housing types that meet the needs and preferences of residents

Policies:

a) Ensure that sufficient land is appropriately zoned to meet a full range of housing needs, including

an adequate amount of detached single-family housing to meet projected demand

Response: The City has applied zoning throughout the City and has developed partnerships and

programs to expand housing variety within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area. The

requested R1 and CC zones support multifamily residential development, which is appropriate in this

location. Detached single-family housing is provided to the west, north, and east of the subject site in

the areas designated for Low Density, Standard Density, and Medium Density Neighborhoods.

[…]

f) Encourage the development of a variety of housing types within planned unit developments and

other large projects, which can serve to improve the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and

provide housing choices for different income levels

Response: The proposed development incorporates affordable units on Lot 1 for households of

various sizes. The inclusion of these housing options within South Cooper Mountain provides housing

choices for different income levels and stages of life.

The site has been designed with Universal Design considerations in mind. Design that incorporates

the principles of Universal Design is intended to be barrier-free and accessible by people of all ages

and abilities.

[…]



4.5 Livability and Neighborhood Character Goal 4.5.1 Ensure that Beaverton continues to be one of the most livable communities in the

region

Policies:

a) Encourage quality design throughout the city that acknowledges neighborhood character,

provides safe and direct connections for pedestrians and bicyclists to a variety of destinations,

and integrates open space, natural resources and scenic view corridors

Response: The proposed Blackbird Farms PUD consists of a connected, compact block pattern.

Safe and direct connections for pedestrians and bicycles are provided east-west via sidewalks and

bike lanes on Mountainside Way and shared facilities on Main Street. North-south connections extend

from the Main Street PUD site to the south to the wetland area to the north via Street B. Street A

provides additional connectivity to the proposed trail system in the northern portion of the site.

The site contains significant natural resources in the northern portion consisting of wetlands, a pond,

and a buffer area. The proposed trail network provides connections to and through these areas and

provide visual access to these resources.

[…]

e) When considering comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, address the potential

impacts of densification, including increased traffic and noise, on established neighborhoods

Response: The proposed development includes a comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment

to apply the Community Commercial land use designation and CC, Corridor Commercial zoning

designation to Lot 6. Lot 6 is located west of the Main Street PUD, which has recently received

entitlements but has not been built, and east of The Ridge Multifamily, which has received

entitlements but has also not been built. The UGB is located to the south of Scholls Ferry Road, and

rural and agricultural uses exist and will remain for some time. As such, there are no established

neighborhoods adjacent to Lot 6.

As indicated in the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix D, the level of traffic anticipated to

be generated from commercial development on Lot 6 is similar to the level of traffic anticipated to be

generated from multifamily development. In addition, the types of small-scale commercial and retail

uses anticipated for Lot 6 would not increase noise beyond that generated by multifamily

development.

f) Provide flexible development standards for projects that exceed the minimum requirements for

natural resource protection, open space and public gathering places, and energy efficiency

Response: The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan provides flexibility for projects within the

plan area through the PUD process, which has been requested for this site.

g) Work with regional partners to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to nearby parks, schools,

and neighborhood services and provide increased opportunities for healthy active living

Response: The City and the applicant have worked closely with THPRD and the Beaverton School

District to identify opportunities for improved bicycle and pedestrian access to nearby schools and

proposed parks. The THPRD Trails Master Plan includes a trail network through the site, which is

proposed to be constructed. The requested Community Commercial land use designation on Lot 6



would allow additional neighborhood services and reduce resident’s reliance on car travel to meet

daily needs.

h) Encourage a compact mix of uses at the neighborhood level that increase the number of local

jobs and services, and reduce impacts to the city’s transportation system

Response: The Blackbird Farms site includes a mix of multifamily residential uses on Lots 1-5 and

potential commercial uses on Lot 6. The goal is to provide opportunities to meet daily needs on Lot 6

and the Main Street PUD site to the east, reducing the number of vehicular trips within the

neighborhood.

D. Chapter 5 Public Facilities and Services Element

5.8 Parks and Recreation 5.8.1. Goal: Cooperate with THPRD in implementation of its 20-Year Comprehensive Master Plan

and Trails Master Plan in order to ensure adequate parks and recreation facilities and programs

for current and future City residents.

Policies:

[…]

e) A number of financial incentives exist to encourage private property owners to donate, dedicate, or

provide easements for resource preservation, park, trail or open space use. The City shall work

cooperatively with property owners and THPRD to maximize the use of these tools for the benefit of

the community.

Action 1: The City shall develop a program to encourage preservation and restoration of habitat

benefit areas in cooperation with THPRD.

Response: The applicant is in discussions with THPRD regarding the disposition of the wetland in the

northern portion of the site. The project will restore areas of disturbance within the natural areas, and

THPRD has expressed an interest in taking ownership of the habitat areas to ensure their preservation.

E. Chapter 6 Transportation Element

6.2 Transportation Goals and Policies 6.2.1. Goal: Transportation facilities designed and constructed in a manner to enhance

Beaverton’s livability and meet federal, state, regional, and local requirements.

Policies:

a) Maintain the livability of Beaverton through proper location and design of transportation facilities.

Actions:

• Design all transportation facilities to respect the characteristics of the surrounding land uses,

natural features and natural hazards, and community amenities.

• Design transportation facilities consistent with habitat friendly development practices and low

impact development techniques and water quality and quantity design principles, wherever

practical and feasible

• Promote landscaping and pervious surfaces wherever practical and feasible.

• Continue to implement “green streets” designs.

• Recognizing that the magnitude and scale of transportation facilities also affect aesthetics

and environmental quality, the City will continue to require design plans and impact analyses

for transportation facilities as specified in the Development Code.

• Preserve right-of-way for improvements that are anticipated to be needed within a specified

time period that is beyond the planning forecast year for this Transportation System Plan.



Response: In coordination with Washington County, the applicant proposes an intersection with

Scholls Ferry Road to the west of the site. This street would provide access to the proposed

commercial uses on Lot 6 and more convenient access to The Ridge multifamily site to the west. This

street, and all others within the development, will incorporate low impact development techniques per

City of Beaverton and CWS requirements.

[…]

(d) Locate and design multi-use paths to balance the needs of human use and enjoyment with

resource preservation in areas identified on the Natural Resource Inventory Plan Map for their

Significant Natural Resource values.

Action: Proposals for shared-use paths through significant natural resource areas shall assess

compatibility of the path with the resource. The assessment shall include the impacts of lighting,

appropriate restrictions on uses of the path, and options available to mitigate the impacts of the

path.

Response: The proposed development proposes to implement the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan and THPRD Trails Master Plan multiuse path network, which includes connections

through the natural resource area to the north of the site to complete the Creek to Creek and School

to School trail network.

As shown in Appendix C, impacts to the natural resource areas have been avoided where possible;

minimized where unavoidable; and mitigated where proposed. As shown in Sheet L4.00, no lighting is

proposed along these trails; restrictions on uses of paths are expected to include limitations on

activities off of the path.

e) Protect neighborhoods from excessive through traffic and travel speeds while providing

reasonable access to and from residential areas. Build streets to minimize speeding.

Actions:

• Maintain street design standards and criteria for neighborhood traffic calming for use in new

development and existing neighborhoods.

[…]

Response: The proposed transportation facilities include the extension of Mountainside Way and

Scholls Ferry Road and 3 new streets: the east-west Main Street; north-south Street A; north-south

Street B, and north-south Street C. Streets A and B are extensions of the Main Street PUD street

network. Each of these facilities is classified as a Local street.

Each of the new streets include sidewalks; bicycles will share the street with low-speed vehicles. The

extension of Mountainside Way will add a sidewalk and bike lane to the west and south side of the

street adjacent to the property. The expansion of Scholls Ferry Road will include both a striped bike

lane and a grade-separated multimodal trail that will connect to the Mountainside School site to the

east and neighborhoods to the west and south.

6.2.2. Goal: A balanced multimodal transportation system that provides mobility and

accessibility for users.

Policies:

[…]

c) Develop and provide a safe, complete, attractive, efficient, and accessible system of pedestrian

ways and bicycle ways, including bike lanes, cycletracks, bike boulevards, shared roadways,



multi-use paths, and sidewalks according to the pedestrian and bicycle system maps, and the

Development Code and Engineering Design Manual requirements.

Actions:

• Continue to coordinate with Washington County, Metro, Beaverton area schools, Oregon

Department of Transportation, the cities of Tigard, Hillsboro, and Portland, Tualatin Valley

Fire & Rescue, and the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District.

• Sidewalks will remain the responsibility of fronting property owners. The City shall consider

funding sidewalk improvements when such improvements serve the greater public good

(such as a transportation or safety purpose), and funding is available.

• Maintain the opportunity for resident groups to fund pedestrian and bicycle facilities through

the local improvement district process.

Response: The proposed development includes new pedestrian and bicycle ways and public

infrastructure was designed to the standards of Washington County and Beaverton, and in

accordance with TVF&R standards. The proposed multi-use trail along Scholls Ferry Road has been

designed to THPRD standards. Each of these facilities will expand the pedestrian and bicycle options

for the community and are designed to extend with future development to the north and west.

The developer is constructing the required public infrastructure; no local improvement district is

proposed.

d) Design sidewalks and the pedestrian access systems to City standards to enhance walkability:

complete the accessible pedestrian network, provide safe direct access to transit and activity

centers, and provide safe crossings at intersections with pedestrian friendly design.

Actions:

• Adjust parking lot design standards to be more pedestrian-friendly.

• Develop a performance measure for pedestrian facilities, and develop targets for different

areas of the city. Consider factors such as long wait times at selected stop lights, closed

crosswalks, noise and pollution, debris and obstacles on sidewalks, speed of traffic, and

other factors reducing pedestrian friendliness.

e) Provide connectivity to each area of the City for convenient multimodal access. Ensure

pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicle access to schools, parks, commercial, employment, and

recreational areas, and destinations in station areas, regional and town centers by identifying and

developing improvements that address connectivity needs.

f) Develop neighborhood and local connections to provide convenient circulation into and out of

neighborhoods. Work to prevent and eliminate pedestrian and bicycle “cul-de-sacs” that require

substantial out-of-direction travel for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Response: The Blackbird Farms development continues the Scholls Ferry Road multimodal trail

connection to Mountainside School to the east. The South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan has

identified a street and trail network, and the proposed development is constructing portions of that

network in addition to four local streets. These improvements will further connect the parks, schools,

and neighborhoods within South Cooper Mountain and to River Terrace to south.

The requested modification to the Main Street PUD revises the southern termination of Street A,

which is proposed to end in a cul-de-sac. Multiuse path connections are proposed from the southern

end of the cul-de-sac to the Scholls Ferry Road multiuse trail to the south and will not result in out of

direction travel for pedestrians or bicycles.



g) Identify specific areas within the City where pedestrian needs and the pedestrian experience

should be given highest priority in the design of streets, parking, intersections, connectivity, signal

controls, mapping and signing, and other transportation facilities.

Actions:

• Complete the accessible pedestrian network.

• Provide safe direct access to transit, employment and activity centers.

• Provide safe crossings with pedestrian friendly design.

• Complete bikeway improvements to close the gaps in the bicycle network.

Response: The City’s policies and regulations support a high-quality pedestrian experience in the

South Cooper Mountain plan area. The subject site will be safely and easily accessed from all

directions by the proposed pedestrian and bicycle network. Safe and direct access to future transit

east and southeast of the site is provided by the sidewalk system as well as pedestrian walkways

connecting to the commercial buildings. The construction of Scholls Ferry Road frontage will provide

a key connection for bicyclists using the bike lane and bicycles and pedestrians using the multimodal

path.

[…]

i) Design streets to accommodate transit while minimizing impacts to traffic flow.

Actions:

• Improve transit service, pedestrian and bicycle facilities leading to transit waiting areas, and

make the waiting areas themselves safe, comfortable, and attractive.

• Continue to work with TriMet, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and Washington

County to develop and implement a transit shelter program, to place safe crossings at major

transit stops, and to provide transit vehicle signal priority.

j) Require developers to include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-supportive improvements within

proposed developments and adjacent rights-of-way in accordance with adopted policies and

standards.

Response: The proposed Street C alignment has been reviewed by TriMet for verification that buses

can access that intersection (if needed) when bus service is extended to the Main Street PUD to the

east. TriMet has indicated that the spacing is adequate for TriMet bus turning movements.

6.2.3. Goal: A safe transportation system.

Policies:

[…]

b) Design streets to serve anticipated function and intended uses as determined by the

Comprehensive Plan.

Action:

• Maintain a functional classification system that meets the City’s needs and respects the

needs of other agencies including, but not limited to, Washington County, Oregon

Department of Transportation, the cities of Tigard, Hillsboro, and Portland, TriMet, Tualatin

Valley Fire and Rescue, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, and Metro.

Response: The streets abutting and within the site have been designed to the appropriate functional

classification. Scholls Ferry Road is a Washington County arterial and has been designed to those

standards; Mountainside Way is a Beaverton Collector and has been designed to those standards;

and Main Street, Street A, Street B, and Street C are local streets and have been designed to those

standards.

[…]



d) Designate safe walkway and bikeway routes from residential areas to schools, parks, transit, and

other activity centers.

Actions:

• The City should continue to work with Beaverton area schools and the community in

developing safe transit, pedestrian, and bicycle routes to schools, and educating users about

available routes.

• Improvement projects near schools shall consider school access and safety during project

development.

• The City shall coordinate with Beaverton area schools to notify students when designated

routes are affected by construction or other activities.

Response: The northern portion of the subject site is located directly to the west of Mountainside

School, and school access and safety were considered during design. The Main Street PUD

improvements include a protected pedestrian walkway across Mountainside Way at the Main Street

intersection; the Mountainside Way extension to be constructed with the Blackbird Farms

development will include sidewalks that will connect to that walkway.

e) Construct multi-use paths only where they can be developed with satisfactory design components

that address safety, security, maintainability, and acceptable uses. Multi-use paths should

converge at traffic-controlled intersections to provide for safe crossing, and paths should be

separate and distant from major streets for most of their length. Mid-block crossings for trails

access, such as the Denney Road Fanno Creek Trail crossing, will be considered as appropriate

where findings for safety are met and such crossings are approved by the City.

Actions:

• Identify trail crossing treatments for appropriate use at locations where out-of-direction travel

by path users to an existing traffic-controlled intersection is significant.

• Consider mid-block crossings where safe and appropriate.

• When multi-use paths follow rear lot lines, use design treatments to minimize the impacts to

private property.

Response: The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan identifies a multimodal trail along the

southern boundary of the site. This trail will be constructed to THPRD standards for a multiuse path.

The path crossing will occur at the signalized intersection of Mountainside Way and Scholls Ferry

Road to the east; in the future, the crossing will occur at traffic-controlled intersections to the west.

Additional multiuse paths include the Creek to Creek and School to School path connections in the

northern portion of the site. The pathways are accessed by the sidewalk system and will not require

mid-block crossings.

f) Provide satisfactory levels of maintenance to the transportation system in order to preserve user

safety, facility aesthetics, and the integrity of the system as a whole.

g) Maintain access management standards for streets consistent with City, County, and State

requirements to reduce conflicts among vehicles, trucks, rail, bicycles, and pedestrians. Preserve

the functional integrity of the road system by limiting access per City standards.

Response: The site transportation infrastructure has been designed in conformance with City and

County access management standards and designed to the City’s requirements to support

maintenance.



h) Ensure that adequate access for emergency services vehicles is provided throughout the City.

Actions:

• Work cooperatively with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and other Washington County

emergency service providers to designate and periodically update Primary and Secondary

Emergency Response Routes. Continue to work with these agencies to establish acceptable

traffic calming strategies for these routes.

• Recognize the route designations and associated acceptable traffic calming strategies in the

City’s Traffic Calming Program.

Response: The development has been designed in consultation with TVF&R. A service provider

letter from TVF&R is included as Appendix E.

[…]

6.2.5. Goal: Transportation facilities that serve and are accessible to all members of

the community.

Policies:

a) Construct transportation facilities, including access to and within transit waiting areas, to meet the

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Action:

• Identify, assess, and remove access barriers to persons with disabilities.

Response: The site has been designed an accordance with Universal Design principles, which focus

on designing communities that are accessible to all community members. The site improvements will

be accessible to all users and will meet the requirements of the ADA.

F. Chapter 7 Natural, Cultural, Historic, Scenic, Energy & Groundwater Resources

Element

7.1 Overview 7.1.1. Goal: Balance development rights with natural resource protection.

Policies:

[…]

b) Where adverse impacts to Significant Natural Resources cannot be practicably avoided, require

mitigation of the same resource type commensurate with the impact, at a location as close as

possible to the impacted resource site.

Response: The site contains significant natural resources (wetlands). The South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan and THPRD Trails Master Plan envision trail connections to and through the wetlands.

These connections are proposed in areas where impacts to the resource will be minimized. Mitigation will

be provided within the resource area or through a mitigation bank. See Appendix C for the CWS SPL and

mitigation requirements.

c) Allow for relaxation of development standards to protect significant natural and historic resources.

Such standards may include but are not limited to minimum setbacks, maximum building height,

minimum street width, location of bicycle, pedestrian and multi-use paths, etc.

Action 1: Adopt and apply land use regulations that allow and encourage habitat friendly and low

impact development practices within habitat benefit areas, and where appropriate, throughout the

city.



Action 2: Adopt and apply a system to allow flexibility in applying the site development standards

when development employs low impact development techniques and habitat friendly development

practices.

Action 3: Adopt and apply an incentive program to encourage the use of the low impact development

techniques and habitat friendly development practices.

Response: The City’s development code does encourage habitat friendly and low impact development

practices and provides incentives for the use of those practices. Though the proposed development

incorporates many low impact development techniques and habitat friendly development practices, the

applicant is requesting flexibility through the PUD process rather than through the Habitat Friendly

Development Practices provisions of BDC Section 60.12.

7.3 Natural Resources

7.3.1 Significant Natural Resources

7.3.1. Goal: Conserve, protect, enhance or restore the functions and values of inventoried

Significant Natural Resources.

Policies:

a) Inventoried natural resources shall be conserved, protected, enhanced or restored:

• to retain the visual and scenic diversity of our community;

• for their educational and recreational values;

• to provide habitats for fish and wildlife in our urban area.

Response: The site contains several wetlands that are identified in the South Cooper Mountain

Annexation Area LWI. These natural resources are left largely undisturbed, with the exception of

proposed trail connections to implement the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan and the THPRD

Trails Master Plan. Mitigation for any disturbance will be provided per CWS requirements.

b) Conserve, protect and enhance natural resource sites and values though a combination of programs

that involve development regulations, purchase of land and conservation easements, educational

efforts, and mitigation of impacts on resource sites.

Action 1: Establish acquisition programs for Significant Goal 5 Resources; prepare and maintain a

long-range list of priority resource locations for public acquisition.

Action 2: Facilitate and encourage habitat friendly development practices and low impact

development through flexibility in site development standards and reduction in surface water

management fees and systems development charges.

Response: The City encourages habitat friendly development practices through the provisions of BDC

Section 60.12. In addition, CWS maintains stringent requirements for the protection of natural resource

areas under its jurisdiction. The natural resources on site have been avoided where possible; impacts

have been minimized and will be mitigated per CWS standards.

c) Inventoried natural resources shall be incorporated into the landscape design of development

projects as part of a site development plan, recognizing them as amenities for residents and

employees alike.

Response: Inventoried natural resources on site include emergent and forested wetlands as well as a

pond. As shown in Sheet C3,00, the natural resource areas are understood to be amenities for the site.

Building 1A is oriented to take advantage of views into the resource area, and Park A is envisioned as a

“trailhead park” that will provide access to the trail network around and through the resource area. In



addition, the trail connection to the east will provide opportunities to view the Mountainside High School

mitigation area.

d) The City shall rely on its site development permitting process as the mechanism to balance the needs

of development with natural resource protection.

Action 1: For properties located within significant natural resource areas, the City shall consider

relaxation of its development standards where necessary to accomplish protection of riparian and

wetland areas. Such standards include, but are not limited to, setbacks, building height, street width,

location of bike paths, etc. Where the combination of riparian, wetlands, and other requirements

would result in an unbuildable lot, such a situation may be relevant to a decision that may grant a

hardship variance.

Action 2: City Staff will provide pre-application conferences to developers of property to provide

available information and to discuss alternative methods of development acceptable to meet the

adopted policies and ordinance standards.

Action 3: Adopt and apply land use regulations that require integration of natural features with the

overall design of developments. Natural features include, but are not limited to, Chapter Seven:

Natural, Cultural, Historic, Scenic, Energy, and Groundwater Resources Element VII - 8 wetlands and

water areas, intermittent and perennial streams, riparian corridors, urban forests and significant

individual or community trees, slopes, geologic hazards, flooding, and erosion prone soils.

Action 4: Adopt and apply land use regulations that will minimize impacts from adjacent uses.

Development Code design criteria shall be adopted that address the following considerations:

• Land uses immediately adjacent to protected resource areas should be designed to physically

separate human activity from the resource activity. Preferred development abutting the resource

should be 1) buildings with entrances oriented away from the resource area, and then 2) roadways

with limited or no street parking with 3) parking lots as the lowest preference.

• Garbage facilities and materials storage areas should be located away from habitat areas.

• Habitat areas should be preserved as a few large connected areas, rather than many disconnected

small areas and should be designed to minimize the amount of habitat edge exposed to development

areas.

• Existing native vegetation should be retained to provide wildlife habitat. Snags and dying trees

should be left in protected wildlife areas for wildlife use.

• To minimize disturbances to wildlife, lights for buildings and parking areas should be screened, and

the light should be directed away from the protected habitat areas,

• Walkways should not bisect wildlife areas. If walkways do encroach upon wildlife areas, security

lighting should be designed to shine primarily on the path and avoid shining directly into habitat areas.

Regulations to address the above considerations shall not compromise public safety.

Action 5: Adopt and apply regulations for resource areas, mitigation sites, areas adjacent to natural

areas, wetlands, and tree groves that include but are not limited to the following requirements:

• Require use of native vegetation in mitigation areas and riparian buffers. Seed-and fruit producing

native plants with aesthetic value should be incorporated into the landscaping at locations adjacent to

wildlife habitat areas.

• Allow for buffer averaging in order to create opportunities for habitat protection and enhancement

while accommodating urban forms of development.

Response: The City has adopted regulations that address resource areas and buffer areas. These

regulations include BDC Section 40.90 Tree Plan, Section 60.60 Trees and Vegetation, and Section

60.67 Significant Natural Resources. The provisions of these sections are addressed below.

e) Development within Significant Natural Resource areas shall be consistent with the relevant

regulations or guidelines of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,



Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Division of State

Lands, Clean Water Services, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Action 1: During pre-application conferences for developers, City staff will attempt to identify any

Federal, State, or local requirements and regulations affecting sites in Significant Natural Resource

areas.

Action 2: The City will continue to monitor and review policies and regulations as necessary, to

ensure consistency with Federal, State, and service providers’ guidelines and regulations.

Response: The applicant has submitted the appropriate applications to Clean Water Services and the

Department of State Lands. Future permitting may require approval by the US Army Corps of Engineers

and the Department of State lands.

f) Specific uses of or development activities in Significant Natural Resources areas shall be evaluated

carefully and those uses or activities that are complementary and compatible with resource protection

shall be permitted. This is not intended to prohibit a land use permitted by the underlying zoning

district but only to regulate the design of development such as building or parking location or type of

landscaping.

Response: The proposed development limits the impacts to the natural resource areas on site to those

needed to provide the trail connections anticipated by the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan and

the THPRD Master Plan, and to allow stormwater outfalls into the resource area. These impacts will be

mitigated per the requirements of CWS and any other permitting agencies.

g) Limited alteration or improvement of Significant Natural Resource areas may be permitted so long as

potential losses are mitigated and “best management practices” are employed.

Response: Impacts to the on-site significant natural resource areas have been minimized to the extent

possible. Any impacts will be mitigated per the requirements of CWS and any other permitting agencies.

h) Roads and utilities, which must be located within, or traverse through, a Significant Natural Resource

Area, shall be carefully planned and aligned so as to minimize loss and disruption. A rehabilitation or

restoration plan shall be a necessary component. The City should allow variations from standard

street sections in these areas.

Response: No roads or utilities are proposed within or traversing through the significant natural resource

areas on site.

7.3.3 Significant Wetlands

7.3.3.1 Goal: Protect or enhance wetlands adopted as Significant Wetlands in the Local Wetland

Inventory.

Policies:

a) Significant Wetlands in the Local Wetland Inventory shall be protected for their filtration, flood control,

wildlife habitat, natural vegetation and other water resource values.

Response: The LWI includes significant wetlands on site, including W-A PFO1Y, W-C PFO1Y, two

probable wetlands, and a pond/open water area. These resources are protected by CWS regulations and

the City’s Significant Natural Resource Area regulations.

b) Development within the buffer area adjacent to a significant wetland shall be subject to restrictions on

building, grading, excavation, placement of fill, and native vegetation removal.



Action 1: Amend the City regulations and development standards as appropriate, to ensure

compliance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards provisions for

encroachment.

Response: Limited development for multiuse trails is proposed within the buffer area. CWS has reviewed

the proposed development and has identified mitigation for the disturbance. See Appendix C for the CWS

SPL.

c) Where development is constrained due to wetland protection regulations, a hardship variance may be

granted if approval criteria are met.

Action 1: Amend the implementing ordinances as appropriate to ensure compliance with Clean

Water Services Design and Construction Standards provisions for a hardship variance.

Response: The applicant has not requested a hardship variance.

IV. Compliance with South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

Response: Staff’s June 24, 2020 pre-application conference notes identified the following South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan as applicable to this application. Most of these policies are implemented by the

Beaverton Community Development Code and are further addressed in those sections.

A. Land Use

Land Use Implementation Policies

[…]

3. Zoning may be applied through initiation by the City or as requested by an applicant. Zoning and

development review applications may be requested concurrently. The mix of zones applied to a given

development site shall be generally consistent with the assumed mix of zones shown in Table 2.

Deviation of up to 10 percentage points may be allowed from the mix shown in Table 2 (e.g. if the mix

shown is 30/70 then the deviation may be between 20/80 and 40/60). The percentage shall be

calculated based on gross site acres.

Response: The applicant has requested the application of zoning to the site. The zoning application has

been submitted concurrently with concurrent development applications. The requested zoning for Lots 1-5

is R1, consistent with the High Density Neighborhoods land use designation.

The requested zoning for Lot 6 is CC, which implements the Community Commercial land use

designation. Like the Neighborhood Centers/Main Street designation, Community Commercial is within

the Commercial Centers and Corridors category of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Matrix

and is generally consistent with the Main Street land use designation.

The requested zoning is consistent with the assumed mix of zones shown in Table 2 of the South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan and will not result in a loss of housing capacity. See Table 1 below. The R1

zone is proposed for Lots 1 to 5, and the CC zone is proposed for Lot 6.



Table 1. Demonstration of Consistency with SCMCP Table 2

Land Use Designation Gross

Acres

Gross

Residential

Acres

Assumed

Mix of Zones

Est / Min

Housing

Capacity

High Density 109 59 100% R1 1,090 / 950

Main Street 91 0 100% NS NA

Community Commercial 1.74 0 100% CC NA 1. The actual site area of the NS zone is 9.75 ac.

4. Amendments to the boundaries of Land Use Map designations may be proposed as individual

requests prior to development, or simultaneously when development is proposed. This policy is

intended to provide a means for the Land Use map and zoning to be aligned with site-specific

condition, and the placement of roads, housing densities, parks, schools and other development that

will occur incrementally over time.

Response: The entire subject site is designated High Density Neighborhoods, and no amendment to the

boundaries of the High Density Neighborhoods Land Use Map designations is requested. A new

designation of Community Commercial is requested for Lot 6.

5. All Land Use map amendments will be required to demonstrate consistency with all policies in the

South Community Plan in addition to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, Development Code

requirements, and other applicable regulations. In addition, amendments to the Land Use Map will

provide a mix of land use designations and opportunities for a variety of housing types. The goal of

this policy is to ensure that South Cooper Mountains’ neighborhoods and livability are enhanced by

variety in the type and design of housing.

Response: No amendment to the boundaries of the High Density Neighborhoods Land Use Map

designations is requested. A new Land Use Map designation of Community Commercial is requested for

Lot 6. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies is addressed in Section III of this narrative.

Consistency with the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan is addressed in this section.

6. The City will support efforts by THPRD and Beaverton and Hillsboro School Districts to find, acquired

and develop appropriate sites for neighborhood parks and elementary schools within the Community

Plan area. The following location criteria shall guide the selection of appropriate sites: […]

Response: The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan does not identify a Neighborhood Park for this

site. An approximately 0.5 -acre site (Park A) is proposed at the northern termination of Street A. The

applicant is in discussions with THPRD to acquire and manage the park, which could be classified as a

small Neighborhood Park per the District’s Park Classifications.

a. Neighborhood Park:

i. Two to four acres per neighborhood park of unconstrained, relatively level land for active

recreation facilities

ii. Good frontage on a local street or Neighborhood Route with on-street parking

iii. Good connections to trails

iv. Focal points for neighborhoods, with walkable catchment areas

v. Co-location adjacent to a school is highly desirable



Response: The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan does not identify a Neighborhood Park for

this site. The proposed Park A is approximately 0.5 acres in size and could be classified as a small

Neighborhood Park per the District’s Park Classifications.

b. Elementary Schools:

i. Eight to ten acres of unconstrained, relatively level land per elementary school

ii. Good access from Neighborhood Routes or Collector roads

iii. Generally not adjacent to an arterial road

iv. Focal points for neighborhoods, centrally-located within walkable attendance areas

v. Opportunities to co-locate schools adjacent to parks should be sought

Response: The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan does not identify an elementary school site

within this site, and no elementary school is proposed within this PUD. Scholls Heights Elementary

School is located east of the site on Loon Drive and Hazeldale Elementary is located to the north.

B. Neighborhoods and Housing

Neighborhood Framework

Existing topography, natural resources and existing and planned streets provide the backdrop for new

neighborhoods in the Community Plan area. Conceptual neighborhood areas have been drawn and

are illustrated as yellow subareas on Figure 8. (The purple subarea on Figure 8 is the site of the

planned BSD high school.) Each neighborhood is ½ mile or less across, representing a walking

distance of about 5 minutes from center of the neighborhood to its edge.

Response: Figure 8 below identifies the location of the subject site, along with the Main Street PUD site

to the east, as a Main Street Neighborhood.



Housing Variety

Providing a variety of housing types can improve the aesthetic character of the neighborhoods by

avoiding large, monotonous areas of the same building form. A variety of housing also helps provide

different housing types for different income levels.

Table 4 below lists the housing types and supporting uses that are allowed within each of the zones that

will implement the Plan Designations of the Community Plan.

Response: Table 4 identifies the following uses and housing types for the R1 and NS zones; the

requested CC zone is not included in Table 4 but permits attached and detached housing outright rather

than conditionally as in the NS zone:

R1: Attached housing, detached housing allowed outright; schools, parks, churches and certain

other commercial & civic uses allowed conditionally

NS: Many commercial uses, including retail, service, eating and drinking establishments, and offices

allowed outright; attached and detached housing allowed conditionally; schools and parks allowed

outright, churches and certain other civic uses allowed conditionally.



The proposed development includes attached housing on Lot 1 and a park (Park A) in Tract B. Design

Review approval has been requested for the attached housing uses; Conditional Use approval has been

requested for Park A.

Housing Affordability

Planning for a mix of housing types and densities allows construction of housing units that are

affordable to different income levels. The neighborhood adjacent to the Main Street is an appropriate

location for a small affordable housing development because it will be zoned for mixed use and high

density, will have local shops, and will be close to future transit. […]

Response: As shown in Table 2, this development includes 145 affordable family housing units on Lot 1.

The proposed housing will provide housing opportunities for various income levels and stages of life.

Table 2. Housing Affordability

Type of Units Number of Units Finding

Multifamily Residential 145 The proposed development

includes units affordable to

households earning 30 percent

and 60 percent AMI.

Neighborhood and Housing Policies

1. Development shall contribute to creating walkable neighborhoods. This policy is implemented by

demonstrating consistency with the neighborhood design principles listed below:

a. Clear focal points shall be provided. Focal points include but are not limited to: parks, schools,

community gathering spaces, neighborhood services (i.e. day care), scenic viewpoints, and/or

natural areas that are visually and physically accessible to the public. Residential developments

shall provide at least one focal point per 40 acres of gross site area. The decision-making

authority may require additional focal points or require provision of a focal point for smaller sites

in order to ensure that all neighborhoods have at least one focal point or to ensure cohesiveness

and legibility among adjacent developments.

Response: The site is 32.4 gross acres in size and one focal point is required. The proposed

development includes a ~0.5-acre park, Park A, at the northern terminus of Street B. This park will be

highly visible and will provide access to trail networks proposed adjacent to and through the natural

areas to the north of the site. Though not required, the natural areas in the northern portion of the site

also provide a focal point for residents and visitors, and the proposed trail system provides visual

access to the natural area on the High School site to the east.

b. A network of walkable blocks and trails, consistent with the Transportation Framework Plan and

the Bicycle and Pedestrian Framework Plan, shall be provided.

Response: The Transportation Framework Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Framework Plan

identify two facilities for the site: the extension of a Collector Road (Mountainside Way) and

continuation of a multi-use trail along the site’s Scholls Ferry Road frontage. In addition, multiuse

trails are anticipated in the northern portion of the site to connect to The Ridge PUD trail system to

the west, the Creek to Creek trail system to the north, and the School to School trail system to the

northeast.

c. The orientation of streets, blocks, development and/or trails shall be planned so that natural areas

are not “walled off”, but rather are as physically and visually accessible to the public as

practicable.



Response: There are mapped wetlands in the northern portion of the site. A park (Park A) is

proposed adjacent to the wetlands to provide public visual access as well as physical access to a trail

system crossing the wetland.

d. The provision of parks shall be coordinated with the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District.

Response: The design of the multiuse trail along Scholls Ferry Road and in the northern portion of

the site have been coordinated with THPRD and designed to be consistent with the THPRD Trails

Master Plan. The applicant is in discussions with THPRD regarding the transfer of the 0.5-acre public

park (Park A) and the wetland areas to THPRD for ownership and maintenance.

2. Residential developments shall provide a variety of housing types consistent with the permitted uses

of applicable zone(s). The goal of this policy and implementing code standards is to ensure that, over

time and multiple individual development reviews, South Cooper Mountain’s neighborhoods and

livability are enhanced by variety in the type and design of housing in order to promote aesthetically

pleasing residential neighborhoods as well as opportunities for people of varying incomes and life

stages to live within the same neighborhood.

Response: The R1 zone to be applied to Lots 1-5 allows residential development by right. The

development of Lot 1 includes 145 multifamily dwellings that will be affordable to households earning 30-

60 percent AMI. The requested CC zone for Lot 6 also allows residential uses by right, as well as a range

of small-scale retail and commercial uses. This development could include multifamily dwellings, mixed-

use development, or commercial development.

3. The City will support efforts to provide affordable housing in South Cooper Mountain. The City will

evaluate the feasibility of pro-active involvement in affordable housing projects and supportive

programs benefiting South Cooper Mountain.

Response: The proposed development includes affordable housing. The City has been pro-actively

involved in the project design and has been supportive of the inclusion of affordable housing.

Main Street

[…]

The SCM Main Street is planned to be located adjacent to the planned BSD high school (see Figure 7

and 8), creating a community focal point and potential future transit node. Visibility from Scholls Ferry

Road, and proximity to the High School, are key location and site planning criteria for the Main Street.

It is planned to have a clear structure of blocks, and direct street and trail connections to the nearby

neighborhoods, the high school, and the emerging River Terrace neighborhood located to the south of

SCM in Tigard. Strong street, pedestrian and bike connections will support the success of the

businesses in the Main Street and reduce reliance on the automobile for future SCM residents to meet

their daily needs. The more pedestrian-oriented the Main Street is designed to be, the more it will

establish a unique identity and draw community use. […]

Response: Figure 8 indicates that the Main Street neighborhood includes the Bartholemy property (the

Main Street PUD) and the former Edmunds property (the Blackbird Farms PUD). This site is located west

of the Bartholemy/Main Street PUD property and is an extension of the Main Street neighborhood. The

site design has a clear block structure and direct street connections that extend Streets A and B of the

Main Street PUD to the north, extends Mountainside Way to the west to connect with The Ridge PUD

infrastructure, and establishes a new north-south Street C. The South Cooper Loop trail along the Scholls

Ferry Road site frontage will connect the trail sections to the west and east and will provide access to the



River Terrace neighborhood via the signalized crossing at SW 175th Ave and Scholls Ferry Road. The

School to School trail on the High School site is extended through the subject site, though it terminates

approximately 10 ft. west of the property line between the school and the site. Strong street, pedestrian,

and bike connections have been incorporated into the site design, along with accommodation for future

transit service via Street C.

Main Street Policies

1. Plan the Main Street area to provide local shopping opportunities. Main Street should complement

and not compete with larger centers such as Progress Ridge.

Response: The CC zone is proposed for Lot 6. This zone allows a wide variety of residential and

commercial uses. The conceptual site concept includes approximately 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses

on Lot 6, which is expected to consist of neighborhood-serving retail and services.

2. Ensure that the Main Street area is designed as a pedestrian-oriented center that also provides for

excellent accessibility by car and bicycle.

Response: The Blackbird Farms PUD proposes to extend Main Street to the west and to provide

enclosure by locating residential buildings along the northern street frontage and commercial uses to the

south. This will have the effect of extending the “Main Street” feel of the Main Street PUD to the east.

Main Street is a local street with low-speed traffic volumes for a safe pedestrian experience.

Streets A, B, and C connect the southern portion of the site to the development and trail networks

planned for the northern portion of the site. These areas are accessible by pedestrians, bicycles, and

vehicles.

3. Ensure that the Main Street area is designed to have a complementary relationship with the adjacent

High School and associated civic and recreational uses. Access and pedestrian routes should be

coordinated. Uses within the Main Street should support the school district’s policies for healthy food

choices and active lifestyles.

Response: Though Mountainside High School is a closed campus, it is anticipated that students will like

in the future multifamily buildings within the Blackbird Farms PUD. The continuation of the South Cooper

Loop multi-use trail along Scholls Ferry Road, the continuation of the School to School trail onto the site,

the continuation of Main Street, and the construction of bike lanes on Mountainside Way and Scholls

Ferry Road will fill in gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network and provide options for students

attending the school.

4. The design of the Main Street area should follow these principles:

a. Land uses and circulation should be organized into a series of walkable blocks.

Response: As noted in Figure 8 of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan, the Main Street

area includes the Main Street PUD and the Blackbird Farms PUD. The site is organized into 5 blocks

by east-west Main Street, Mountainside Way, and Street A and north-south streets A, B, and C. This

block pattern provides pedestrian connectivity and ensures multiple options for traveling within the

development and to nearby developments.

b. Buildings should be oriented to the street along key routes. The City should consider tailored

building orientation standards so that the storefront character is continuous along the most active

edges of the blocks.



Response: Design Review approval is requested for Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C. The buildings on Lots

2-5 buildings are conceptual only. Overall, buildings are oriented toward the public street to provide

enclosure and eyes on the street. An exception is Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C, which are oriented east-

west to maximize solar gain and to minimize the impacts of the lights from the Mountainside High

School sports fields to the east. Building 1C fronts on Mountainside Way and Buildings 1C and 1B

front on Street B, which is expected to be a key route for those traveling to Park A and the trail

network to the north.

c. Mixed use buildings, 2 stories and taller, are encouraged.

Response: Lots 1-5 are zoned R1 and mixed-use buildings are not generally permitted in this zone.

Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are 4 stories in height. The CC zone is requested for Lot 6 and allows

mixed-use development as well as single-use commercial or residential development.

d. Future transit should be anticipated and accommodated.

Response: The Main Street PUD site will accommodate a future bus layover. The design team has

coordinated with TriMet to confirm that the proposed Street C connection to Scholls Ferry Road would

allow passage of buses if TriMet chooses to route them through that area.

e. Public gathering spaces should be accommodated through a plaza, festival street, or parking

area that can be converted to Saturday-market type use during community events.

Response: The Blackbird Farms PUD includes multiple open spaces, including a 0.5-acre park at the

northern end of Street B (Park A) and a park within Tract C (Park C). This park is expected to expand

east in the future. These spaces are intended to complement the more urban spaces within the Main

Street PUD, including the “tree plaza” on Main Street and the future commercial plaza.

C. Transportation Streets

Figure 10: Community Plan Street Framework map.

Response: The proposed transportation network has been designed to be consistent with the

connections illustrated in Figure 10. The proposal extends the north-south Collector (Mountainside Way)

to the western site boundary, where it will connect with The Ridge PUD, and provides internal local

streets for circulation.

Street Policies

1. The streets planned for the Community Plan area are illustrated in Figure 10. The Beaverton

Transportation System Plan and Washington County Transportation System Plans will be updated

consistent with Figure 10 and will be the controlling documents for transportation planning. Should

conflicts arise between the maps in Chapter 6 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the maps in this

document, those in Chapter 6 shall prevail.

Response: The proposed transportation network has been planned in accordance with Figure 10 and

Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6 Transportation. Mountainside Way will be extended to the western

boundary of the site. Local streets provide internal circulation and reflect the block perimeter standards of

the development code. Additionally, all streets have been designed in accordance with the City’s EDM

(except in cases where exceptions are requested) and are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.



2. The City of Beaverton will work with the Beaverton School District, the City of Tigard, Washington

County, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, and other

service providers to establish appropriate access and circulation serving the community.

Response: The City of Beaverton has worked with the referenced agencies to establish a circulation

pattern that connects with River Terrace to the south and includes a robust trail system to connect to the

schools and to the natural areas within the South Cooper Mountain area. The proposed development will

extend Mountainside Way to its western boundary and provide access via the existing signalized

intersection at Mountainside Way and Scholls Ferry Road and via Street C.

Source: South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

3. SW Scholls Ferry Road, SW 175th Avenue, and SW Tile Flat Road are under Washington County

jurisdiction. The City of Beaverton will coordinate with Washington County through transportation

facility design and land use regulations and review to recognize and balance the urban mobility needs

with the multi-modal urban community functions of these key roadways. The city will advocate for the

objectives for each street provided below during planning and design for improvement projects

affecting those streets within the Community Plan area.

[…]

b. SW Scholls Ferry Road adjacent to the Community Plan area should be designed to provide for

efficient movement of vehicles, including freight, but should also provide for safe bicycle and

pedestrian facilities, especially in the vicinity of the Main Street. The City of Beaverton will work

with City of Tigard and Washington County to explore coordinated access, and a pedestrian

crossing, in the vicinity of the high school and Main Street.



Response: The proposed development will widen Scholls Ferry Road and provide both grade-

separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities and striped bike lanes. The street design will implement

Washington County and City of Beaverton requirements.

[…]

5. The new north-south Neighborhood Collector road from SW Scholls Ferry Road through the

Community Plan area is intended to provide connectivity through the Community Plan area.

Response: The new north-south Neighborhood Collector, now an existing street named Mountainside

Way, will be extended to the northern property line of the site to connect with the section that was

constructed with The Ridge PUD. This will create a complete connection from Scholls Ferry Road west to

Strobel Road and beyond.

6. North of SW Scholls Ferry Road, this new collector shall serve as the Main Street area of South

Cooper Mountain. The Main Street section of this Collector road shall be designated as a Major

Pedestrian Route. Pedestrian-oriented features appropriate to a Main Street and features that

encourage cars to travel more slowly through the Main Street area should be emphasized in design of

the road.

Response: Mountainside Way and Main Street cross through the center of the subject site. The portions

of these streets within the Blackbird Farms PUD are not designated as a Major Pedestrian Route and this

policy is not applicable.

7. The alignment of the North-South Collector shall account for, and not preclude, future extension to

the west to SW Grabhorn Road and south to serve Urban Reserve 6C.

Response: The proposed alignment of the north-south collector closely follows the alignment illustrated

in Figure 10 and does not preclude future extension to Grabhorn Road.

8. Within the Community Plan area, new neighborhoods shall be served and linked by a connected

network of streets. Neighborhood Route connections shall provide connectivity between

neighborhoods. The preferred network is illustrated in Figure 10. The City may permit flexibility to

adapt to site specific conditions and ownerships provided the conceptual network in Figure 10, or

equivalent, is provided.

Response: The proposed road network closely follows the alignment illustrated in Figure 10 and provides

a connected network of streets.

9. The City shall coordinate with Washington County to evaluate the need for, and feasibility of, any

proposed Neighborhood Route connections to Arterial roads.

Response: No Neighborhood Route connections to Arterial roads are proposed. A local street

connection, Street C, is proposed to Scholls Ferry Road. The development team and the City have been

coordinating with Washington County on the location and design of that connection.

10. In refining specific alignments for new roads identified on the Community Plan Street Framework map

through the development review or project design process, impacts to natural resources shall be

minimized to the extent possible while retaining key connections.



Response: Neither Figure 10 nor the proposed development include road connections through the

natural resource area to the north.

11. Low Impact Development and “green street” techniques to manage stormwater runoff shall be

utilized whenever feasible in the design of new streets and urban upgrades within the SCM

Community Plan area, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

Response: Low impact development approaches to stormwater runoff are used in the design of new

streets as well as site development. See Appendix B Preliminary Stormwater Report for details.

[…]

Bicycle and Pedestrian Framework Policies

Figure 11: Community Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Framework map.

Response: The proposal contains the Scholls Ferry Road multi-use trail (the South Cooper Loop Trail)

shown on the Figure 11 map and the bicycle and pedestrian facilities shown within the Mountainside Way

right-of-way. The multiuse trail network extends to the northwest and northeast across the mapped

natural resource areas as indicated in Figure 11 and connects to the trail network of The Ridge

development to the west, the Scholls Valley Heights at South Cooper Mountain trail network to the

northwest, and the School to School trail to the northeast. The local streets include pedestrian facilities

and shared bicycle and vehicle facilities.

Source: South Cooper Mountain Community Plan



1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings: While the location and design of specific crossings points will be

determined through further site-specific engineering evaluation, safe, protected pedestrian crossing

opportunities should be provided near important pedestrian destinations, such as the future high

school site, when a need is demonstrated and such crossings can be appropriately and safely

designed and located, as determined by an engineering-level safety analysis.

Response: Bicycle and pedestrian crossings are proposed to occur at intersections. The Main Street

extension will provide a route to the proposed protected pedestrian crossing at Mountainside Way and

Main Street.

2. Trails: Trails within the Community Plan area shall be provided as shown on Figure 11; however, the

City may permit flexibility to adapt to site specific conditions and ownerships provided the conceptual

network in Figure 11, or equivalent, is provided. The following principles shall provide guidance in the

refinement of trail alignments within the Community Plan area:[…]

Response: The proposed development provides the multi-use trail as shown in Figure 11. Some minor

adjustments to the location of the Creek to Creek and School to School trails may be needed to respond

to CWS and DSL/Army Corps of Engineers permitting requirements.

[…]

D. Significant Natural Resources & Open Space Edges Natural Resource Policies

1. Locally significant wetlands and protected riparian corridors within the Community Plan area shall be

protected and enhanced, consistent with local, state, and federal regulations.

2. Development adjacent to significant natural resource areas shall be designed to provide visual and/or

physical access to the resource area and limit continuous rear lot line edges abutting a significant

natural resource through one or more of the following treatments of the open space edge.

a. parallel trail along the edge of the vegetated corridor with access points from adjacent roads and

community focal points;

b. local streets that run adjacent to the edge of the vegetated corridor, without development

between the street and the vegetated corridor; or

c. neighborhood parks, pocket parks, schools and similar uses that connect to the resource area

and provide breaks between developed areas abutting the resource.

Response: The site contains locally significant wetlands and riparian corridors. The proposed

development responds to these resource areas by providing an east-west trail north of Lot 2 which

provides access to proposed Park A and the trail network to the northwest and northeast. Park A

connects to the resource area and is intended to provide visual access to the resource areas and physical

access to the multiuse trail system. See Sheet C1.10 for an overall site plan and Sheet C1.04 for details.

E. Urban Forestry Management Urban Forestry Policies

1. The City shall explore options to encourage and incentivize tree planting and retention of mature

trees within the Community Plan area.

2. Tree Planting: Tree planting already required by City regulations (e.g. landscaped areas, street trees)

shall be maximized as a method to increase the tree canopy in the Community Plan area.

Response: Trees and vegetation will be addressed in accordance with Section 40.90. Existing trees will

be protected with a 5-foot-tall fence around the drip line during construction. Neither topsoil storage nor



construction materials will be located within the drip line of the trees. All tree protection fences will be

placed in accordance with code standards to protect tree roots.

No significant individual trees or historic trees exist on the site. The site does contain Community Trees

on the project site. Sheets L1.03 to L1.06 include the Tree Data Table, which identifies attributes

including DBH, condition of the trees, and whether they will be removed.

3. Regionally Significant Upland Habitat within the SCM Community Plan area shall be protected

through application of the City’s existing tree protection standards and incentives for Habitat Benefit

Area preservation, as appropriate.

Response: Figure 12 identifies Regionally Significant Upland Habitat on the northern portion of the site.

Compliance of the development with the City’s tree protection standards (BDC 40.90) is addressed on

next page.

F. Scenic Views Scenic Views Policies

1. The city will encourage protection of view corridors for the enjoyment of adjacent neighborhoods and

the broader community on lands that currently offer views of the Chehalem Ridge. Viewpoints should

provide seating and space for passerby and should provide for the permanent protection of the view

through measures such as easements. Techniques for view corridor preservation may include:

a. Streets that “T, stub, or curve at a location offering a viewpoint, with a break between buildings;

b. Neighborhood or pocket parks situated to offer a viewpoint;



c. Gaps between buildings with small seating areas adjacent to the sidewalk; and/or

d. Limitations on building heights down-slope from a viewpoint.

Response: The proposed development slopes downward from north to south towards Scholls Ferry

Road. Proposed Street B terminates at Park A, which will provide an uninterrupted view corridor to the

south. Street A turns east at a right angle north of Mountainside Way and will provide a view into the

natural areas beyond.

G. Infrastructure Provision Infrastructure Policies

1. Urban development not allowed without urban services.

Response: The proposed development will construct required infrastructure.

[…]

7. Alignment for new water and sewer. In identifying specific alignments for new water and sewer

infrastructure, impacts to natural resources shall be avoided or minimized to the extent possible.

Response: The proposed water and sewer alignments are located within existing and proposed public

and private rights-of-way. As shown in Sheet C4.00, the proposed water and sewer lines do not impact

the natural resources on site.

V. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 20

A. 20.05. Residential Land Use Districts 20.05.15. Site Development Standards

Site Development Standards support implementing development consistent with the corresponding

zoning district. All superscript notations refer to applicable regulations or clarifications as noted in

footnotes below. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: Development is proposed for Lot 1, which is subject to the development standards of the R1

zone. Compliance with those standards is demonstrated in Table 4 below.

20.05.20. Land Uses

The following Land Uses are Permitted (P), allowed with a Conditional Use (C) approval, or Prohibited (N)

as identified in the following table for the Residential Zoning Districts. All superscript notations refer to

applicable Use Restrictions Section 20.05.25.

Response: Development is proposed for Lot 1, which is subject to the use standards of the R1 zone.

Conditional Use approval has been requested for a Planned Unit Development and for proposed Park A.

The proposed uses are permitted or conditional uses in the R1 zone, as demonstrated in Table 3 below.



Table 3. Land Use Categories and Specific Uses

Standard R1 Zone Proposed

Residential Dwellings (Attached) P Yes

Residential Dwellings (Planned

Unit Development)

C Yes

Recreation – Public Parks,

Parkways, Playgrounds, and

Related Facilities

C Yes

B. 20.10. Commercial Land Use Districts 20.10.15. Site Development Standards

Site Development Standards support implementing development consistent with the corresponding

zoning district. All superscript notations refer to applicable regulations or clarifications as noted in

footnotes below. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: The requested zoning for Lots 1-5 is Residential Urban High Density (R1) and the requested

zoning for Lot 6 is Community Commercial (CC). Development is proposed on Lot 1; future development

on Lots 2-6 will be required to demonstrate conformance with these development standards at the time of

development.

Conformance with the development standards of both the R1 and CC zones are evaluated in Table 3

below. See Sheets C3.02 and C3.03 for specific setback information for the proposed Lot 1 development.

Table 4. Development Standards

Standard R1 Zone CC Zone Proposed Findings

Minimum Land Area

(Residential

Attached)

1,000 sq. ft. /unit 1,000 sq. ft./unit

Lot 1: 4.78

ac/208,217 sq. ft.

As shown in Sheet C1.21,

Lot 1 is 4.78 ac (208,217

sq. ft.) in area and can

support up to 208 dwelling

units. Buildings 1A, 1B,

and 1C include 145

dwelling units. This

standard is met.

Minimum Lot Width Interior: 15 ft.

Corner: 20 ft.

None Lot 1: ~740 ft.

Lot 2: ~300 ft.

Lot 3: ~290 ft.

Lot 4: ~290 ft.

Lot 5: ~300 ft.

Lot 6: ~290 ft.

The lots exceed the

minimum lot width.

Minimum Lot Depth None None Lot 1: ~310 ft.

Lot 2: ~330 ft.

Lot 3: ~200 ft.

Lot 4: ~260 ft.

Lot 5: ~275 ft.

Lot 6: ~240 ft.

The proposed lots meet the

minimum lot depth

requirements.

Minimum Front Yard

Setback

10 ft. None See Sheets C3.02

and C3.03

The proposed buildings on

Lot 1 exceed the 10 ft. front

yard setback along

Mountainside Way.



Standard R1 Zone CC Zone Proposed Findings

Minimum Rear Yard

Setback

15 ft. None See Sheets C3.02

and C3.03

Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C

are adjacent to a natural

resource area and south of

a future park. The future

park is zoned AF-20. The

rear yard setback exceeds

15 ft.

Minimum Side Yard

Setback

Attached: 0 ft.

Detached: 5 ft.

Abutting lower

density

residential: 10 ft.

PUD: 3 ft.

None Building 1A: 3.5 ft.

See Sheets C3.02

and C3.03

The proposed development

on Lot 1 does not abut

lower density residential,

and there is no minimum

setback per the R1 zone.

However, the PUD setback

provisions of 60.35.10.3.D

apply.

Maximum Building

Height

60 ft. 60 ft. Building 1A: 51 ft. 2

in.

Building 1B: 51 ft. 2

in.

Building 1C: 51 ft.

2 in.

The proposed buildings

meet the maximum

building height.

C. 20.25 Density Calculations 20.25.05. Minimum Residential Density.

A. New residential development in all Residential, Commercial, and Multiple Use districts which permit

residential development must achieve at least the minimum density for the zoning district in which

they are located. Projects proposed at less than the minimum density must demonstrate on a site

plan or other means, how, in all aspects, future intensification of the site to the minimum density or

greater can be achieved without an adjustment or variance. If meeting the minimum density will

require the submission and approval of an adjustment or variance application(s) above and beyond

application(s) for adding new primary dwellings or land division of property, meeting minimum density

shall not be required.

For the purposes of this section, new residential development shall mean intensification of the site by

adding new primary dwelling(s) or land division of the property. New residential development is not

intended to refer to additions to existing structures, rehabilitation,

renovation, remodeling, or other building modifications or reconstruction of existing structures.

Minimum residential density is calculated as follows:

1. Refer to the definition of Acreage, Net. Multiply the net acreage by 0.80.

2. Divide the resulting number in step 1 by the minimum land area required per dwelling for the

applicable zoning district to determine the minimum number of dwellings that must be built on the

site.

3. If the resulting number in step 2 is not a whole number, the number is rounded to the nearest

whole number as follows: If the decimal is equal to or greater than 0.5, then the number is

rounded up to the nearest whole number. If the decimal is less than 0.5, then the number is

rounded down to the nearest whole number.

Response: The site density calculations are shown on Sheet C1.07. The minimum required density for

the site is 373 dwelling units; 373 dwelling units are proposed.



Approval of Lot 1 development is requested with this application. As shown on Sheet C1.07, the minimum

density for Lot 1 is 154 dwelling units, and 145 dwelling units are proposed. Residential Density

Averaging is requested to accommodate the minimum PUD dwelling unit requirement of 373 total units.

B. Residential Density Averaging. Within a single land use zone, residential densities may be averaged

across a property in order to allow for a variety of housing types, provided that the property is within a

single, contiguous ownership, except that within a PUD may be averaged across multiple land use

zones provided that the applicant demonstrates that the proposed development is compatible with

existing and planned development on neighboring parcels. For the purposes of this standard,

properties within a single, contiguous ownership also include those properties separated only by a

street. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: Lots 1 to 5 will be zoned R1. Residential density averaging is requested to accommodate the

minimum density of 373 units throughout the site. As shown on Sheet C1.07, Lots 1 will accommodate

145 units and Lots 2 to 5 will accommodate the remaining 228 dwelling units.

The R1 zone anticipates high density multifamily residential development, similar to The Ridge PUD to

the west. The site also abuts the R4 and R7 zones to the northwest, and is separated from those areas

by the natural resource areas to the north. The Mountainside High School to the east is also zoned R1

but is developed with a large-scale institutional use (a school). The Main Street PUD to the southeast is

approved for mixed-use development that will be compatible with the proposed density on the Blackbird

Farms PUD site.

C. South Cooper Mountain Community Plan. Within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Table

2: Land Use Designations and Capacity Estimates outlines the density capacity expectations for

development of land within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Area. The Land Use

Implementation Policies of the Community Plan include policies that outline application of zoning and

deviations from the capacity estimates of Table 2. [ORD 4652; February 2015]

Response: The site is within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan. Table 2 estimates the housing

capacity of the Community Plan area at 3,530 dwelling units and establishes a minimum housing capacity

of 2,900. According to data provided by City staff, 2,900 dwelling units have received land use approvals

within the Community Plan area. The proposed Blackbird Farms PUD proposes an additional 373

dwelling units, which brings the total number of approved dwelling units within the Community Plan area

to 3,363.

VI. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 40

A. 40.03. Facilities Review Committee Consistent with Section 10.95.4. (Facilities Review Committee) of this Code, the Facilities Review

Committee shall review the following Type 2 and Type 3 land use applications: all Conditional Use,

Design Review Two, Design Review Three, Public Transportation Facility Reviews, Street Vacations, and

applicable Land Divisions. Applicable land division applications are Replats, Partitions, Subdivisions, Fee

Ownership Partitions, and Fee Ownership Subdivisions. In making a recommendation on an application

to the decision-making authority, the Facilities Review Committee shall base its recommendation on a

determination of whether the application satisfies all the following technical criteria. The applicant for

development must establish that the application complies with all relevant standards in conformance with

Section 50.25.1.B., and all the following criteria have been met, as applicable.



Response: The proposal is for a Conditional Use, Design Review Three, and Land Division - Subdivision

application and is subject to this chapter.

40.03.1. All Conditional Use, Design Review Two, Design Review Three, and applicable Land

Division applications:

A. All critical facilities and services related to the proposed development have, or can be improved to

have, adequate capacity to serve the proposed development at the time of its completion.

Response: Chapter 90 of the Development Code defines “critical facilities” to be services that include

public water, public sanitary sewer, storm water drainage and retention, transportation, and fire

protection. Critical facilities and services are either in place or will be at the time of completion of

development as described below.

Public Water

Public water supply for the site will be provided by the City of Beaverton. Water lines will be constructed

within the proposed rights-of-way within the development and will connect to the existing 24-inch main

line located in Mountainside Way.

Public Sanitary Sewer

Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of Beaverton via the CWS pump station and force

main in River Terrace. Stormwater facilities are subject to Slopes V and CWS standards. A Composite

Utility Plan is included as Sheet C1.30, and a preliminary stormwater management plan is included as

Appendix B. See Appendix C for a Service Provider Letter from CWS.

Stormwater Drainage, Treatment, and Detention

Storm drainage collection and treatment for this area is the responsibility of City of Beaverton. The

proposed stormwater management approach includes the Blackbird Farms PUD as well as a portion of

Street A within the Main Street PUD site boundaries. A Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan for the

project is included as Appendix B. This Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan outlines compliance

with the Clean Water Services’ (CWS) 2019 Design & Construction Standards.

Transportation

Sheet C5.00 illustrates proposed street cross sections for Mountainside Way, Scholls Ferry Road, and

the proposed internal local streets. Access to the site is proposed by the extension of SW Mountainside

Way, an existing Collector Street. Street A is extended north from the Main Street PUD to the south; the

southern terminus has been revised from an emergency fire access to a cul-de-sac. Street A is

anticipated to provide access to Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Street B extends north from Mountainside Way and

is anticipated to provide access to Lots 1 and 2. Main Street extends west from Street A and connects

Mountainside Way, Street B, and Street A. Street C is a new local north-south street that intersects

Scholls Ferry Road to the south. This street will be restricted to right-in/right-out and is anticipated to

provide access to Lot 6. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by Global Transportation Engineering

is included as Appendix D.

Figure 10: Community Plan Street Framework (see below) identifies the street and circulation framework

for the South Cooper Mountain area. The proposed development includes extension of the Mountainside

Way collector street to the west and widening Scholls Ferry Road to the south. A new local Street C is

proposed to intersect Scholls Ferry Road and provide access to Lot 6 to the east and The Ridge PUD

multifamily to the west. This portion of Mountainside Way will connect with the Main Street PUD extension

to the east and the existing Ridge PUD extension to the west, completing the circulation network. See

Sheet C1.10 for details.



As described by the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan, a network of public local streets will be

developed through the site. Except for Street A, which is a modified L1 street section, local through

streets will be developed to the City of Beaverton L1 standards.

Fire Protection

Fire protection will be provided to the site by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department (TVF&R).

Primary and secondary emergency access is required throughout the proposed development for

emergency vehicle access. The proposed emergency access is provided via Mountainside Way, Main

Street, and Street C. The Street A emergency access approved with the Main Street PUD has been

modified with this application and will no longer be needed for emergency access. See Sheets FS-1 and

FS-2. Emergency access for Lot 1 will be provided at the southern and norther end of the parking lot and

fire circulation is provided east of the buildings.

Fire hydrants will be installed as directed by City of Beaverton and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue

District.

Phasing

As shown in Sheets C1.05A-E, critical facilities will be provided by phase as follows:

Phase 1/Lot 1

This phase will include the installation of water, sewer, and storm drain located within Street B, SW

Mountainside Way, and Street A south of SW Mountainside Way. Street B will be constructed with this

infrastructure. Phase 1 will require the installation of the sewer main in Scholls Ferry Road and the portion

in Street A south of SW Mountainside.

Subject site



Phase 1 requires the construction of the storm water pond and associated outfall located at the

intersection of Street C and SW Mountainside Way and the storm water pond and associated outfall at

the south end of Street A to detain and treat storm water runoff from the public roadway improvements

associated with Phase 1. This phase also requires construction of the drainage system in the east/west

portion of Street A out-falling to the wetlands.

Access to Lot 1 will be provided through the Mountainside Way and Street B public rights-of-way and no

additional access easements are required.

As shown on Sheet C1.04, Tract C/Park C will be constructed with Phase 1. Access to the park will be

provided by the extension of Mountainside Way and Street A, and utilities will be provided by the Phase

1/Lot 1 utility extensions.

Phase 2 - Lots 2 and 3

Development of Lots 2 and 3 will require the completion of the Phase 1 public roadway and utility

improvements and the associated Street A frontage improvements completing the loop connecting SW

Mountainside to Street B. Street A improvements will include installation of the water, sewer, and storm

drain systems contained in the roadway.

Access to Lots 2 and 3 will be provided through the Street A and B public rights-of-way and no additional

access easements are required.

Phase 3 - Lot 4

Development of Lot 4 will require the completion of the Phase 1 public roadway improvements and the

associated Street A frontage improvements extending north from SW Mountainside Way. Lot 4 would

require the extension of water and sewer north from the SW Mountainside Way intersection through the

frontage. The Lot 4 storm water system is independent of the public drainage system as detention, and

treatment will be provided on site and Lot 4 will outfall north to the wetlands.

Access to Lot 4 will be provided through public rights of way and no additional access easements are

required.

Phase 4 - Lot 5

Development of Lot 5 will require the completion of the Phase 1 public roadway and utility improvements

and associated Street A, Main Street and Street C frontage improvements.

Lot 5 drains south to Scholls Ferry Road and will require the installation of the storm drain system in

Street C and west into Scholls Ferry Road. Lot 5 improvements will also need to include the construction

of the storm water pond at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and Street C to detain and treat storm

water runoff from the public frontage improvement adjacent to the lot.

Access to Lot 5 will be provided through the Mountainside Way and Street A public rights-of-way and no


Phase 5 - Lot 6




Street C and west into Scholls Ferry Road. Lot 5 improvements will also need to include the construction



of the storm water pond at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and Street C to detain and treat storm

water runoff from the public frontage improvement adjacent to the lot.

Lot 6 will trigger the widening and installation of the associated storm water improvements on Scholls

Ferry Road.

Access to Lot 6 will be provided through the Street C and Scholls Ferry Road public rights-of-way and no


B. Essential facilities and services related to the proposed development are available, or can be made

available, with adequate capacity to serve the development prior to its occupancy. In lieu of providing

essential facilities and services, a specific plan may be approved if it adequately demonstrates that

essential facilities, services, or both will be provided to serve the proposed development within five (5)

years of occupancy.

Response: Chapter 90 of the Development Code defines “essential facilities” to be services that include

schools, transit improvements, police protection, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right-of-

way. Essential facilities and services are either in place or will be at the time of completion of

development as described below.

Police Protection

The site will be served by the City of Beaverton Police Department.

Schools

The site is located within the Beaverton School District (BSD) and will be served by Hazeldale Elementary

School; Conestoga Middle School; and Mountainside High School.

Per the service provider letter dated September 24, 2020, the Beaverton School District has provided

comments addressing the anticipated impacts of the subject project to the District. In summarizing their

comments, the District has indicated that the proposal will result in a moderate impact to schools in the

area and anticipates sufficient capacity to accommodate new students from the proposed development.

See Appendix H.

Transit Improvements

The site is not currently served by transit. Per the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan policies for

the Main Street area and current discussions regarding extension of TriMet service to South Cooper

Mountain, a future bus route has been anticipated on Street C. Currently, the nearest TriMet bus line is

Route 92, the South Beaverton Express, which stops at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW

Teal Boulevard/SW Horizon Boulevard (approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site) and the

standards of this section are not applicable.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way

The applicant will dedicate sufficient right-of-way to accommodate the desired arterial cross-section for

SW Scholls Ferry Road; the desired 3-lane neighborhood route cross-section for Mountainside Way

(including bike lanes and sidewalks); and the desired 2-lane local street cross-section for Streets A, B,

and C. The circulation network was planned in accordance with the South Cooper Mountain Community

Plan, and all streets are designed in accordance with the City of Beaverton’s Engineering Design Manual

(EDM) except where exceptions/modifications have been requested.

The proposed development includes the South Cooper Loop multi-use trail illustrated in Figure 11 of the

South Cooper Mountain Community Plan and Figure ES-5 of the South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan



along the southern boundary of the site. The proposed development also includes portions of the Creek

to Creek and School to School trail network to the north.

Phasing

Phase 1/Lot 1

Mountainside Way and Street B will be constructed with Phase 1. Mountainside Way will include bicycle

lanes and sidewalks per the Collector cross-section and the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan.

Street B will include sidewalks and shared bicycle facilities. Phase 1 will also construct Parks A, B, and C

and the multi-use trail network to the north of Lots 1, 2, and 4.

Phase 2 - Lots 2 and 3

Development of Lots 2 and 3 will require the completion of the Phase 1 public roadway and utility

improvements and the associated Street A frontage improvements completing the loop connecting SW

Mountainside to Street B. Street A is a local street and will include sidewalks and shared bicycle facilities.

Phase 3 - Lot 4

Development of Lot 4 will require the completion of the Phase 1 public roadway improvements and the

associated Street A frontage improvements extending north from SW Mountainside Way.

Phase 4 - Lot 5


and associated Street A, Main Street and Street C frontage improvements. Main Street and Street C are

local streets and will include sidewalks and shared bicycle facilities.


Phase 5 - Lot 6



Development of Lot 6 will trigger the widening of Scholls Ferry Road and construction of the multi-use trail

along the site frontage as well as striped bike lanes.

C. The proposed development is consistent with all applicable provisions of Chapter 20 (Land Uses)

unless the applicable provisions are modified by means of one or more applications which shall be

already approved or which shall be considered concurrently with the subject application; provided,

however, if the approval of the proposed development is contingent upon one or more additional

applications, and the same is not approved, then the proposed development must comply with all

applicable provisions of Chapter 20 (Land Uses).

Response: The proposed development is consistent with all applicable provisions of Chapter 20 as

adjusted through the Planned Development process. Compliance with Chapter 20 is addressed in Section

V of this narrative.

D. The proposed development is consistent with all applicable provisions of Chapter 60 (Special

Requirements) and all improvements, dedications, or both, as required by the applicable provisions of

Chapter 60 (Special Requirements), are provided or can be provided in rough proportion to the

identified impact(s) of the proposed development.

Response: Relevant provisions related to this chapter include Section 60.30 Off-Street Parking and

Section 60.55 Transportation Facilities.



Off-Street Parking (Section 60.30)

According to this section, attached dwellings require between 1.25 and 1.75 off-street parking space per

unit, depending on the number of bedrooms. Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are proposed for development with

this application. These buildings contain 145 attached dwelling units and require a total of 223 vehicle

parking spaces; 223 are proposed.

A Parking Determination request has been requested for Park A. Section 60.30 does not list a “park” as a

land use and no parking ratios for parks are identified. Because Park A will be a small neighborhood park,

and visitors will largely arrive on bicycle and by foot, no parking is proposed.

Transportation Facilities (Section 60.55)

The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Global Transportation Engineering states that 4,630 net new

daily total trips will be generated from the proposed development. See Appendix D.

Any block that is longer than 600 ft. requires pedestrian/bicycle connections through the block. Lot 1

exceeds 600 ft. in length. However, the eastern boundary of Lot 1 is an existing retaining wall and

through-block connections are not possible. A robust internal site circulation network is proposed.

E. Adequate means are provided or can be provided to ensure continued periodic maintenance and

necessary normal replacement of the following private common facilities and areas, as applicable:

drainage facilities, roads and other improved rights-of-way, structures, recreation facilities,

landscaping, fill and excavation areas, screening and fencing, ground cover, garbage and recycling

storage areas, and other facilities not subject to maintenance by the City or other public agency.

Response: The owner, Blackbird Farms LLC, will retain ownership of Lot 1 and will be responsible for

maintenance of the site. Lots 2-6 will be developed by others, and those others will be responsible for

maintaining those improvements.

F. There are safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns within the boundaries of the

development.

Response: A network of roadways has been developed to safely move people among destinations within

the neighborhood and beyond. With the exception of Street A, which includes a modified L1 street

section, each of the local streets within the site (Main Street, Street A, Street B, and Street C) have been

designed to meet the City’s L1 local street standards and include sidewalks on both sides of the street.

The proposed street grid meets the City’s minimum and maximum intersection spacing standards (100

feet and 530 feet, respectively).

G. The development’s on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems connect to the surrounding

circulation systems in a safe, efficient, and direct manner.

Response: The proposed on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation provides the following connections

to the surrounding circulation systems:

▪ Pedestrian access from the Mountainside Way sidewalks to the Scholls Ferry Road sidewalks via

Mountainside Way, Street A, and Street C

▪ Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access from Scholls Ferry Road to Mountainside Way

▪ Pedestrian and bicycle access via the extension of the South Cooper Loop multi-use trail along the

southern site boundary

▪ Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access to properties to the west via Mountainside Way



▪ Multiuse trail connections to the west, and future trail connections to the northwest and northeast

H. Structures and public facilities serving the development site are designed in accordance with adopted

City codes and standards and provide adequate fire protection, including, but not limited to, fire flow.

Response: Specific details regarding fire flow and hydrant placement will be reviewed by TVFR during

site development and building permit stages. Preliminary locations have been approved as noted on the

TVFR SPL included as Appendix E.

I. Structures and public facilities serving the development site are designed in accordance with adopted

City codes and standards and provide adequate protection from crime and accident, as well as

protection from hazardous conditions due to inadequate, substandard or ill-designed development.

Response: All streets and public facilities are designed in accordance with adopted City codes and

standards except where design modifications or exceptions have been requested. The development

includes streetlights, which will provide adequate protection from crime or vehicular accidents.

Development permits will be submitted for life and safety review prior to site development.

J. Grading and contouring of the development site are designed to accommodate the proposed use and

to mitigate adverse effect(s) on neighboring properties, public right-of-way, surface drainage, water

storage facilities, and the public storm drainage system.

Response: Site grading is subject to the standards of Subsection 60.15.10 Grading, and the grading of

new streets is required to meet the applicable standards of the EDM. Compliance with 60.15.10 is

detailed in the responses to that section, below. Compliance with Section 210 of the EDM will be

reviewed with the Site Development Permit for the development. See Sheets C2.00 to C2.22 for details.

As noted in the grading plans, area of mass grading/stockpile are proposed outside of Lot 1. Although the

conceptual grading follows the “design” grade of the Lots 2,3 and 4, the grading has not been fully refined

as the ultimate development of those lots is unknown. The amount of dirt added to each lot makes the

Phases (Phase 2[lots 2 and 3] and Phase 3 [lot 4]) approximately balanced based on the design grades

for those lots.

K. Access and facilities for physically handicapped people are incorporated into the development site

and building design, with particular attention to providing continuous, uninterrupted access routes.

Response: The street network and facilities are designed in accordance with the City of Beaverton’s

EDM to provide accessibility as required. Any required on-site pedestrian routes will meet the standards

of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA ramps will be provided within the development to

facilitate accessible travel. In addition, the applicant is committed to the tenets of Universal Design, which

encourage access for people of all ages and abilities.

L. The application includes all required submittal materials as specified in Section 50.25.1. of the

Development Code.

Response: This application includes all required submittal materials specified in this section.

B. 40.15. Conditional Use 40.15.15. Application.

There are seven (7) Conditional Use applications which are as follows: Interim Washington County Uses

Type 1, Minor Modification of a Conditional Use, Interim Washington County Uses Type 2, Major



Modification of a Conditional Use, New Conditional Use, Planned Unit Development, and Modification of a

Nonconforming Use

[…]

3. New Conditional Use.

A. Threshold. An application for a New Conditional Use shall be required when the following

threshold applies:

1. The proposed use is Conditionally permitted in the underlying zoning district and a prior

Conditional Use approval for the proposed project is not already in effect.

[…]

B. Procedure Type. The Type 3 procedure, as described in Section 50.45 of this Code, shall apply to

an application for a New Conditional Use. The decision-making authority is the Planning

Commission.

C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a New Conditional Use 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 Conditional Use application.

Response: The proposed development includes a park, which is Conditionally permitted in the

R1 zoning district. The threshold of 3.A.1 has been met.

2. All City application fees related to the application under consideration by the decision- making

authority have been submitted.

Response: All required fees have been submitted with this application.

3. The proposal will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Response: See Section III of the narrative for demonstration of compliance with the Beaverton

Comprehensive Plan and Section IV of the narrative for demonstration of compliance with the

South Cooper Mountain Community Plan. This criterion is met.

4. The size, dimensions, configuration, and topography of the site and natural and man- made

features on the site can reasonably accommodate the proposal.

Response: Park A is proposed within Tract B. As shown on Sheet C1.22, Tract B is 0.48 ac in

area. This is the minimum size that is acceptable to THPRD for the establishment of a

Neighborhood Park. The size, dimensions, configuration, and topography of the site are

appropriate for a park. As shown in Sheet L2.04, the proposed park will include a mixture of

active and passive areas, including seating, a play area, an open grassy lawn, and a connection

to the multimodal trails to the north. This criterion is met.

5. 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 use and

development of properties in the surrounding area of the subject site. [ORD 4473; March

2008]

Response: Tract B abuts proposed Lot 1 residential development to the east, the natural

resource area to the north, and Lot 2 future residential development to the west. The design of

the park draws the active areas to the north and the south and provides buffering on the west and

east sides to minimize impacts to the residential buildings. As shown in Sheet L2.04, a



combination of landscaping and walkways delineate the private residential lots from the public

park, while allowing for observation of park activities. This criterion is met.

6. Applications and documents related to the request, which will require further City approval,

shall be submitted to the City in the proper sequence.

Response: This application includes this Conditional Use application with associated

applications. This criterion is met.

D. Submission Requirements. An application for a Conditional Use shall be made by the owner of

the subject property, or the owner’s authorized agent, on a form provided by the Director and

shall be filed with the Director. The Conditional Use application shall be accompanied by the

information required by the application form, and by Section 50.25. (Application Completeness),

and any other information identified through a Pre-Application Conference.

Response: The application has been made by the owner of the property and includes the required

information. This criterion is met.

[…]

6. Planned Unit Development.

A. Threshold. A Planned Unit Development is an application process which:

1. May be chosen by the applicant when one or more of the following thresholds apply: [ORD

4578; March 2012]

a. 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. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

[…]

[…]

3. Is required for proposed residential development of a site that is equal to or greater than 10

acres, including all phases, and located within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

Area

[…]

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.

Response: The proposed development is 32.4 acres in area and is located in the South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan Area, and Planned Unit Development review is required per 6.A.3

above. This criterion is met.

2. All City application fees related to the application under consideration by the decision-making


Response: All required fees have been submitted with this application. This criterion is met.

3. The proposal meets the Site Development Requirement for setbacks within the applicable

zoning district for the perimeter of the parent parcel unless otherwise provided by Section

60.35. [10].03.



Response: The site is currently zoned Washington County AF-20 and does not currently have

City of Beaverton zoning. The proposal will apply the R1 zoning district to Lots 1-5 and the CC

zoning district to Lot 6. The site is bounded by Scholls Ferry Road (an arterial) and the

Washington County AF-20 zone to the south; the R4 zone/Ridge PUD to the northwest; the R1

zone/Ridge PUD to the southwest; the R7 zone/Scholls Valley Heights at South Cooper Mountain

PUD to the northwest; the AF-20 zone/future THPRD park to the north; the R1 zone/Mountainside

High School to the northeast, and the NS zone/Main Street PUD to the southeast.

The “front yard” of the site is Scholls Ferry Road to the south. There is a 10 ft. minimum front yard

setback in the R1 zone and no front yard setback in the CC zone. There are no R1 properties

adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road.

The “rear yard” of the site is the northern property line. The rear yard setback in the R1 zone is 15

ft. and all proposed structures on Lot 1 are well beyond 15 ft. from the northern property lines.

The “side yards” of the site are the western and eastern boundaries. There are is a 5 ft. side yard

setback in the R1 zone and no side yard setback in the CC zone (Lot 6) when abutting a street.

As shown on Sheets C3.03 and C3.04, the proposed buildings on Lot 1 are at least 5 ft. from the

property line.

This criterion is met.

4. The proposal complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Response: See Section III of the narrative for demonstration of compliance with the Beaverton

Comprehensive Plan and Section IV of the narrative for demonstration of compliance with the

South Cooper Mountain Community Plan. This criterion is met.

5. The size, dimensions, configuration, and topography of the site and natural and man-made

features on the site can reasonably accommodate the proposal.

Response: Lots 1-5 are proposed for residential use, and Lot 6 is proposed for non-residential

uses. The site is 32.4 acres in area, which is adequate to provide both the proposed residential

and non-residential uses desired by the Main Street Neighborhood designation and the R1 zone.

The proposed residential uses are located on Lots 1-5 to preserve the key Scholls Ferry Road

frontage for non-residential uses, which require greater visibility. Each of the proposed lots is

larger than 1 acre in area, which is adequate to accommodate the residential uses and

associated parking as well as the non-residential uses proposed for Lot 6.


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 of the subject site.

Response: The proposed residential uses are permitted outright in both the requested R1 and

CC zones. The proposed park use for Tract A is permitted conditionally in the R1 zone and is

addressed above. The proposed non-residential/commercial uses on Lot 6 require higher visibility

and so are placed along Scholls Ferry Road and Mountainside Way. However, impacts to



adjacent properties will be minimal as visitors will access the site via Mountainside Way, a

collector road, and Street C, a new local street providing direct access to businesses on the site.

The site abuts The Ridge PUD to the west; the Scholls Valley Heights PUD to the northwest; a

future THPRD park to the north; Mountainside High School, an institutional use, to the northeast;

and the Main Street PUD to the southeast. The site is bounded on the south by Scholls Ferry

Road, and agricultural uses beyond.

The site is separated from adjacent development by both natural and physical buffers. The

natural areas on the northern portion of the site separate the proposed development on Lots 2

and 4 from The Ridge PUD to the west and the Scholls Valley Heights PUD to the northwest; the

future development will be separated from lower-density development by hundreds of feet.

The proposed residential development on Lot 1 is separated from Mountainside High School to

the east by a retaining wall, and potential impacts from the sports field lights have been

addressed by orienting the buildings east-west instead of north-south.

The site has been designed in accordance with the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan,

which identifies transportation infrastructure and general development densities and types for the

subject property as well as the properties immediately adjacent. The proposed development will

be reasonably compatible with and will not limit the appropriate development of adjacent

properties. This criterion is met.

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.

Response: No detached residential development is proposed. This criterion is not applicable.

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 60.35.15.

Response: No reductions to the Site Development Requirements of the R1 zone are proposed

for the development of Lot 1. This criterion is not applicable.

9. 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 60.35.15.:

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 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.

Response: The subject site is located within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area,

has requested Planned Unit Development approval, and is subject to the criteria of Section



60.35.15.2. The open space requirements of Section 60.35.15 are addressed in the responses to

that section.

10. [ORD 4578; March 2012] For proposals within the SC-S (Station Community-Sunset) zoning

district, the requirements identified in Sections 20.20.40.2. and 20.20.40.3. are satisfied.

Response: The subject site is not located within the SC-S zoning district. This criterion is not

applicable.

11. If the application proposes to develop the PUD over multiple phases, the decision-making

authority may approve a time schedule of not more than five (5) years for the multiple

development phases. If a phased PUD has been approved, development applications for the

future phases of the PUD shall be filed within five (5) years unless the PUD has received an

extension approval pursuant to Section 50.93. of the Development Code.

Response: The project is proposed to be developed in 6 phases. An overview of the residential

and non-residential area within each phase is detailed in Table 5 and Sheet C1.07.

Table 5. Proposed Phasing

Phase* Residential

(units)

Non-

Residential (sf)

1 145 0

2 118 0

3 61 0

4 54 0

5 0 20,000

Total: 373 20,000

*Not representative of sequencing.

The applicant understands that if the phased PUD is approved, development applications shall be

filed within 5 years unless an extension has been requested.



Response: This application includes this Conditional Use – Planned Unit Development

application with associated applications for this project. This criterion is met.

C. 40.20. Design Review 40.20.10. Applicability.

1. The scope of Design Review shall be limited to the exterior of buildings, structures, and other

development and to the site on which the buildings, structures, and other development are located.

[ORD 4584; June 2012]

2. Considering the thresholds for the Design Review Compliance Letter, Design Review Two, or Design

Review Three applications and unless exempted by Section 40.20.10.3. (Design Review) approval

shall be required for the following: [ORD 4584; June 2012]

[…]

B. All uses listed as Permitted and Conditional Uses in the R4, R2, and R1 Residential zoning

districts. [ORD 4584; June 2012]



Response: The applicant requests four Design Review Approvals:

▪ Design Review approval is requested for the proposed development on Lot 1, which will be zoned

R1. Multifamily residential development is listed as a Permitted Use in the R1 zone and Design

Review is required. Future development of Lots 2-5 will be subject to Design Review at the time

of development.

▪ Tract B is a proposed public park. Public Parks are listed as Conditional Uses in the R1 zone and

Design Review is required.

▪ A modification to the conditions of approval of the SCM Main Street Design Review (DR2020-

0067) is requested to convert private Street A to a public street, revise the southern termination of

Street A from an emergency access to a cul-de-sac, and replace the southern emergency

access connection with a pedestrian connection and a public stormwater facility. See Sheet

C0.00 for the area of modification. This request is further described in the responses to 50.95

below.

▪ Design Review Compliance Letter approval for proposed grade changes on The Ridge site to the

west to accommodate Street C improvements.

40.20.15. Application.

There are three (3) Design Review applications which are as follows: Design Review Compliance Letter,

Design Review Two, and Design Review Three.

1. Design Review Compliance Letter

A. Threshold. An applicant may utilize the Design Review Compliance Letter process when the

application is limited to one or more of the following categories of proposed action:

1. Minor design changes to existing building or site including, but not limited to:

[…]

h) Addition or modification of new fences, retaining walls, or both. [ORD 4531; April 2010]

i) Changing of existing grade.

[…]

Response: Design Review approval is requested for a change to the approved grading of The Ridge

site to the west and removal of an approved retaining wall along the eastern property line of The

Ridge. This grading and removal of the approved retaining wall are required to construct Street C and

Design Review Compliance Letter review is required.

[…]

C. Approval Criteria. [ORD 4365; October 2005] In order to approve a Design Review Compliance

Letter 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 Design Compliance Review Letter.

Response: The proposal is to remove an approved retaining wall and change the existing grade.

Thresholds A.1.h and A.1.i are met.

2. All City application fees related to the application under consideration by the decision making


Response: City application fees for this application have been paid.

3. The proposal contains all applicable application submittal requirements as specified in

Section 50.25.1. of the Development Code.



Response: This application submittal includes all applicable requirements as outlined in the

response to 50.25.1.

4. The proposal meets all applicable Site Development Requirements of Sections 20.05.15.,

20.10.15., 20.15.15., and 20.20.15. of the Development Code unless the applicable

provisions are subject to an Adjustment, Planned Unit Development, or Variance application

which shall be already approved or considered concurrently with the subject proposal. [ORD

4584; June 2012]

Response: The site development requirements noted above are not applicable to the proposed

grading and retaining wall revisions.

5. The proposal, which is not an addition to an existing building, is consistent with all applicable

provisions of Sections 60.05.15 through 60.05.30 (Design Standards).

Response: The proposal is subject to the provisions of 60.5.25 and is consistent with the

provisions of that section as described in Section VIII of this narrative.

6. If applicable, the proposed addition to an existing building and/or site, and only that portion of

the building and/or site containing the proposed improvements, complies with the applicable

provisions of Sections 60.05.15 through 60.05.30 (Design Standards) as they apply to the

following:

[…]

Response: The proposal is not an addition to an existing building or site, and these provisions

are not applicable.

7. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions in CHAPTER 60 (Special Regulations).

Response: The proposal is subject to the provisions of 60.5.25 and is consistent with the

provisions of that section as described in Section VIII of this narrative.

8. The proposal complies with the grading standards outlined in Section 60.15.10 or approved

with an Adjustment or Variance. [ORD 4782; April 2020]

Response: The proposal’s compliance with Section 60.15.10 are addressed in Section VIII.B of

this narrative.

9. Except for conditions requiring compliance with approved plans, the proposal does not modify

any conditions of approval of a previously approved Type 2 or Type 3 application.

Response: The proposal does not modify any conditions of approval of a previously approved

application for The Ridge.

10. Proposals for Community Gardens comply with Section 60.05.25.14 of CHAPTER 60.

Community Gardens are exempt from Criteria 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above. [ORD 4659; June

2015]

Response: No community gardens are proposed.




shall be submitted to the City in the proper sequence. [ORD 4659; June 2015]

Response: Required applications and documents will be submitted to the City in the proper

sequence.

D. Submission Requirements. An application for a Design Compliance Letter shall be made by the

owner of the subject property, or the owner’s authorized agent, on a form provided by the Director

and shall be filed with the Director. The Design Compliance Letter application shall be

accompanied by the information required by the application form, and by Section 50.25.

(Application Completeness), and any other information identified through a Pre-Application

Conference.

Response: A Design Review Compliance Letter application signed by the property owner and the

required information have been submitted with this application package.

2. Design Review Two

A. Threshold. An application for Design Review Two shall be required when an application is subject

to applicable design standards and one or more of the following thresholds describe the proposal:

[…]

3. New construction of attached residential dwellings excluding duplexes, in any zone where

attached dwellings are a Permitted or Conditional Use. [ORD 4410; December 2006]

[…]

Response: Design Review approval is requested for the proposed multifamily residential buildings on

Lot 1. Attached multifamily residential dwellings are permitted outright in the R1 zone, and Design

Review Two is required. However, the proposed Lot 1 development does not meet all of the

applicable design standards, therefore Design Review Three is required.

[…]

3. Design Review Three.

A. Threshold. An application for Design Review Three shall be required when an application is

subject to applicable design guidelines and one or more of the following thresholds describe the

proposal:

[…]

7. New parks in Residential zoning districts.

[…]

9. A project meeting the Design Review Two thresholds which does not meet an applicable

design standard.

Response: The applicant requests three Design Review Three approvals:

▪ The proposed development includes a public park in Tract B, which is within the R1 zoning district

and requires Design Review Three.

▪ The 3 proposed multifamily residential buildings on Lot 1 address a combination of design

standards and design guidelines and Design Review Three is required.

▪ A revision to the SCM Main Street Design Review 3 (DR2020-0067) conditions of approval is

requested to revise the southern portion of Street A to reflect the Blackbird Farms site design.

Because the application was initially approved through the Design Review 3 process, revisions to

conditions of approval also requires review through the Design Review 3 process.



B. Procedure Type. The Type 3 procedure, as described in Section 50.45. of this Code, shall apply

to an application for Design Review Three. The decision-making authority is the Planning

Commission.

Response: This application has been submitted concurrently with a number of concurrent

applications and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a Design Review Three application, the decision-making



1. The proposal satisfies the threshold requirements for a Design Review Three application.

Response: The proposal satisfies the threshold of 3.A.7 and 3.A.9 above. This criterion is met.



Response: The City application fees have been submitted with this application.

3. For proposals meeting Design Review Three application thresholds numbers 1 through 6, the

proposal is consistent with all applicable provisions of Sections 60.05.35 through 60.05.50

(Design Guidelines).

Response: The proposal does not meet application thresholds 1 through 6. This criterion is not

applicable.

4. For additions to or modifications of existing development, the proposal is consistent with all

applicable provisions of Sections 60.05.35 through 60.05.50 (Design Guidelines) or can

demonstrate that the additions or modifications are moving towards compliance with specific

Design Guidelines if any of the following conditions exist:

[…]

Response: The proposal is not an addition to or modification of an existing development. This

criterion is not applicable.

5. For DRBCP proposals which involve the phasing of required floor area, the proposed project

shall demonstrate how future development of the site, to the minimum development

standards established in the Development Code or greater, can be realistically achieved at

ultimate build out of the DRBCP. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: The proposal is not a DRBCP proposal. This criterion is not applicable.

6. For proposals meeting Design Review Three Application Threshold numbers 7 or 8, where

the applicant has decided to address a combination of standards and guidelines, the proposal

is consistent with all applicable provisions of Sections 60.05.15 through 60.05.30 (Design

Standards) except for the Design Standard(s) where the proposal is instead subject to the

applicable corresponding Design Guideline(s).

Response: The proposal meets threshold number 7 and 9 and the applicant has decided to

address a combination of standards and guidelines for the proposed development on Lot 1.

Consistency with Section 60.05 is addressed in Section VIII of this narrative. This criterion is met.



7. For proposals meeting Design Review Three Application Threshold numbers 7 or 8, where

the applicant has decided to address Design Guidelines only, the proposal is consistent with

the applicable provisions of Sections 60.05.35 through 60.05.50 (Design Guidelines).

Response: The proposal meets threshold numbers 7 and 9 and the applicant has decided to

address a combination of standards and guidelines. Consistency with Section 60.05 is addressed

in Section VIII of this narrative. This criterion is met.



Response: All applications and documents will be submitted to the City in the proper sequence.

D. Submission Requirements. An application for a Design Review Three shall be made by the owner

of the subject property, or the owner’s authorized agent, on a form provided by the Director and

shall be filed with the Director. The Design Review Three application shall be accompanied by the

information required by the application form, and by Section 50.25. (Application Completeness),

and any other information identified through a Pre-Application Conference.

Response: The application has been made by the owner of the property and includes the required

information. This criterion is met.

D. 40.45. Land Division and Reconfiguration 40.45.10. Applicability.

The provisions of this section apply to all subdivisions, partitions, developments involving the dedications

of public right-of-way, and the reconfiguration of existing property lines. Code requirements for the

vacation of public rights-of-way are in Section 40.75. (Street Vacations).

Response: The proposed development includes a request for a 6-lot subdivision. The provisions of this

section are applicable.


[…]

5. Preliminary Subdivision.

A. Threshold. An application for Preliminary Subdivision shall be required when the following

threshold applies:

1. The creation of four (4) or more new lots from at least one (1) lot of record in one (1) calendar

year. [ORD 4487; August 2008]

Response: The proposed partition will create 6 new lots from at least 1 lot of record. An

application for a Subdivision is required.


to an application for Preliminary Subdivision. The decision-making authority is the Director.

Response: The application is subject to the Type 2 procedure but has been submitted concurrently

with applications subject to the Type 3 procedure and will be processed concurrently with those

applications.



In addition, a Modification of a Decision is requested to revise SCM Main Street conditions of

approval from LD2020-0007 to reflect the revised Street A design east of the site. See the responses

to 50.95 below.

C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a Preliminary Subdivision application, the decision-making



1. The application satisfies the threshold requirements for a Preliminary Subdivision application.

If the parent parcel is subject to a pending Legal Lot Determination under Section 40.47.,

further division of the parent parcel shall not proceed until all of the provisions of Section

40.47.15.1.C. have been met. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: The application proposes creation of 6 lots from 1 parent lot and satisfies the

threshold requirements for a Preliminary Subdivision. The parent parcel are not subject to a

pending Legal Lot Determination. This criterion is met.



Response: All City application fees have been submitted with this application. This criterion is

met.

3. The proposed partition does not conflict with any existing City approval, except the City may

modify prior approvals through the subdivision process to comply with current Code

standards and requirements.

Response: There are no known existing City approvals for the subject site. This criterion is not

applicable.

4. Oversized parcels (oversized lots) resulting from the subdivision shall have a size and shape

that facilitates the future potential partitioning or subdividing of such oversized lots in

accordance with the requirements of the Development Code. In addition, streets, driveways,

and utilities shall be sufficient to serve the proposed partition and future potential

development on oversized lots. Easements and rights-of-way shall either exist or be

proposed to be created such that future partitioning or subdividing is not precluded or

hindered, for either the oversized lot or any affected adjacent lot. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: The proposed partition will create 6 lots. The purpose of this subdivision is to

establish separate lots for ease of phasing and transfer of ownership. The lots created will be

oversized in the sense that they far exceed the minimum 1,000 sq. ft. lot area of the R1 zone. The

proposed streets, driveways, and utilities provide access and service to each of the proposed lots

and buildings and will be sufficient to serve the proposed multifamily and potential future

commercial uses. The proposed partition will not preclude future partitioning or subdividing of the

parcels.


5. If phasing is requested by the applicant, the requested phasing plan meets all applicable City

standards and provides for necessary public improvements for each phase as the project

develops.



Response: The applicant has requested approval of a phased development. As shown on Sheet

C1.05 and described in the Facilities Review responses, the necessary public improvements for

each phase of the project will be provided as the project develops.

6. Applications that apply the lot area averaging standards of Section 20.05.15.D. shall

demonstrate that the resulting land division facilitates the following: [ORD 4584; June 2012]

a. Preserves a designated Historic Resource or Significant Natural Resource (Tree, Grove,

Riparian Area, Wetland, or similar resource); or

b. Complies with minimum density requirements of the Development Code, provides

appropriate lot size transitions adjacent to differently zoned properties, minimizes grading

impacts on adjacent properties, and where street improvements are proposed, provides a

standard street cross section with sidewalks. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: The application does not apply the lot area averaging standards of 20.05.15. This


7. If lot area averaging standards are proposed pursuant to Section 20.05.15.D, no further

applications for Adjustment or Variance from this standard is required or permitted [ORD

4782; April 2020]

Response: The application does not apply the lot area averaging standards of 20.05.15. This


8. For proposals which create a parcel with more than one zoning designation the portion of the

lot within each zoning district shall meet the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements

of that zoning district.

Response: None of the proposed lots include more than one zoning designation. This criterion is

not applicable.

9. Applications and documents related to the request requiring further City approval shall be

submitted to the City in the proper sequence.

Response: Applications and documents will be submitted to the City in the proper sequence.

D. Submission Requirements.

1. An application for a Preliminary Subdivision shall be made by the owner of the subject

property or the owner’s authorized agent, on a form provided by the Director and shall be

filed with the Director. Provided, however, where the application is made in conjunction with a

Legal Lot Determination under Section 40.47., the City may consider the application even if

fewer than all the owners of the existing legal lot or parcel have applied for the approval. The

application shall be accompanied by the information required by the application form, and by

the information required by Section 50.25. (Application Completeness), and any other

information identified through a Pre-Application Conference.

2. The Director may consider and act upon a request to develop a subdivision in phases. If the

subdivision is to be phased, the applicant shall propose a phasing program in writing at the

time of Preliminary Subdivision application submittal. The applicant is responsible for

providing a time schedule for the final platting of the various phases. In no case shall the total

time period for the final platting of all stages be greater than five (5) years without filing a new

Preliminary Subdivision application.



Response: The application has been made by the owner of the subject property and includes the

required information. This criterion is met.

E. 40.55 Parking Determination […]

40.55.10. Applicability.

A Parking Determination may be requested in writing to establish a required off-street parking ratio or

specific number of off-street parking spaces for a use or uses not specifically listed in Section 60.30. (Off-

Street Parking) of this Code, to share required parking spaces, or to determine the existence of excess

required parking. [ORD 4365; October 2005] [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: A park use is proposed on Tract B. Parks are not a listed use in Section 60.30 and a Parking

Determination is required.


There are three (3) Parking Determination applications which are as follows: Parking Requirement

Determination, Shared Parking, and Use of Excess Parking.

1. Parking Requirement Determination.

A. Threshold. An application for Parking Requirement Determination shall be required when the

following threshold applies:

1. A request that the Director establish, in writing, an off-street parking ratio or requirement for a

use not listed or substantially similar to a use listed in Section 60.30. (Off-Street Parking) of

this Code.

Response: A park use is proposed on Tract B. Parks are not a listed use in Section 60.30 and a

Parking Determination is required. The applicant requests that an off-street parking ratio of 0

spaces be applied to the proposed park.


to an application for Parking Requirement Determination. The decision making authority is

the Director.

Response: This Parking Determination application is being submitted concurrently with Type 3

applications and will be processed through the Type 3 procedure.

C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a Parking Requirement Determination 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 Parking Requirement Determination

application.

Response: As described above, the proposal meets threshold A.1 above.



Response: All City application fees have been submitted with this application.

3. The determination is consistent with Title 4 of Metro’s Regional Transportation Functional

Plan. [ORD 4584; June 2012]



Response: Title 4 of the Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan addresses regional

parking management. Table 3.08-3 establishes maximum parking ratios for a number of land

uses, but does not address Parks as a land use and therefore does not identify any minimum

parking requirements. This criterion is met.

4. The determination will not create adverse impacts, taking into account the total gross floor

area, number of employees, potential customer volume, and the hours of operation of the

use.

Response: The proposed park in Tract B is ~0.5 acres in area and is intended to function as a

Pocket Park or Neighborhood Park. According to the 2019 THPRD Parks Functional Plan, these

park designations are intended to serve residents of the neighborhood where they are located

and are not expected to draw visitors from outside of the neighborhood.

The park contains amenities including a shade structure, play structure, and seating/picnic areas.

The park is accessible to residents by sidewalks, bike facilities, and trails. Street parking is

located adjacent to the park for visitors with mobility challenges, but it is anticipated that most

visitors will arrive by bike or foot.

Providing on-site parking in this park would further reduce the useful area of the park and convert

much of the programmed space to vehicle parking. For this reason, the application requests that

an off-street parking ratio of 0 spaces be applied to this park.


Section 50.25.1. of the Development Code. [ORD 4404; October 2006]

Response: This application contains all of the materials specified in Section 50.25.1. This

criterion is met.



Response: Applications and documents will be submitted to the City in the proper sequence.


F. 40.90. Tree Plan […]


There are three (3) Tree Plan applications which are as follows: Tree Plan One, Tree Plan Two, and Tree

Plan Three. [ORD 4782; April 2020]

1. Tree Plan One.

A. Threshold. An application for Tree Plan One shall be required when none of the actions listed in

Section 40.90.10. apply and one or more of the following thresholds apply:

1. Major pruning of Protected Trees once within a one year period.

[…]

Response: The site contains SNRA and a number of trees are located within it. Trees within a

mapped SNRA are Protected Trees. Major Pruning is defined as removal of greater than 10% of the

tree’s canopy or disturbance of over 10% of the root system. As shown in Appendix L, the roots of 6

trees within the SNRA will be impacted, and the impacts to 4 of those trees exceeds 10%. See Sheet

L1.02 for details. Therefore, a Tree Plan 1 is required.



[…]

C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a Tree Plan One 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 Tree Plan One application.

Response: As described above, the proposal meets threshold A.1 for a Tree Plan application.




Response: The appropriate application fees have been submitted with this application.



Response: The proposal includes the information required by Section 50.25.1.

4. If applicable, pruning is necessary to improve tree health or to eliminate conflicts with

vehicles or structures which includes, but is not limited to, underground utilities and street

improvements.

Response: The proposed pruning is necessary to provide a trail connection through the site. The

impacts to the trees have been minimized through the use of a boardwalk design within the

SNRA. This criterion is met.

5. If applicable, the removal of vegetation or clearing and grubbing is necessary to

accommodate physical development in the area in which the removal is proposed.

Response: No removal of vegetation or clearing and grubbing is proposed. This criterion is not

applicable.



Response: All required applications and documents will be submitted to the City in proper

sequence.

2. Tree Plan Two

A. Threshold. An application for Tree Plan Two shall be required when none of the actions listed in

Section 40.90.10. apply, none of the thresholds listed in Section 40.90.15.1. apply, and one or

more of the following thresholds apply:

[…]

3. Commercial, Residential, or Industrial zoning district: Removal of up to and including 75% of

the total DBH of non-exempt surveyed tree(s) found on the project site within SNRAs,

Significant Groves, or Sensitive Areas as defined by Clean Water Services. [ORD 4584; June

2012]

[…]



Response: The site contains 486 trees; 40 trees of greater than 10 in. DBH are proposed for removal. As

shown in Appendix M and Sheet L1.02, 7 of these trees are located within the SNRA, and a Tree Plan

Two is required.

[…]

C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a Tree Plan Two 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 Tree Plan Two application.

Response: As described above, the proposal satisfies threshold A.3 above. This criterion is met.



Response: The appropriate application fees have been submitted with this application.

3. If applicable, removal of any tree is necessary to observe good forestry practices according to

recognized American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300-1995 standards and International

Society of Arborists (ISA) standards on the subject.

Response: The removal of the subject trees is needed to accommodate physical development. This


4. If applicable, removal of any tree is necessary to accommodate physical development where no

reasonable alternative exists.

Response: The removal of the subject trees is necessary to accommodate the multiuse trail network

established by the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan and the THPRD Trails Master Plan. As

shown in Appendix C and Sheet L1.02, the trail alignment and the trees proposed for removal are

located within the “degraded” vegetated corridor on site (as determined using CWS criteria) to avoid

impacting the “good” vegetated corridor on site. The number of trees proposed for removal are the

minimum number necessary. This criterion is met.

5. If applicable, removal of any tree is necessary because it has become a nuisance by virtue of

damage to property or improvements, either public or private, on the subject site or adjacent

sites.

Response: The trees proposed for removal are not currently a nuisance to property or

improvements. This criterion is not applicable.

6. If applicable, removal is necessary to accomplish public purposes, such as installation of public

utilities, street widening, and similar needs, where no reasonable alternative exists without

significantly increasing public costs or reducing safety.

Response: As noted above, the proposed tree removal is necessary to construct a public multiuse

trail to implement the trail network established by the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan and

the THPRD Trails Master Plan.

7. If applicable, removal of any tree is necessary to enhance the health of the tree, grove, SNRA, or

adjacent trees, or to eliminate conflicts with structures or vehicles. [ORD 4584; June 2012]



Response: The proposed tree removal is not necessary to enhance the health of the tree or

surroundings, or to eliminate conflicts with structures or vehicles. This criterion is not applicable.

8. If applicable, removal of a tree(s) within a SNRA or Significant Grove will not result in a reversal

of the original determination that the SNRA or Significant Grove is significant based on criteria

used in making the original significance determination.

Response: The trees proposed for removal are located within a SNRA. The 6 trees proposed for

removal make up a very small percentage of the overall tree canopy within the SNRA and will not

result in a reversal of the original determination. This criterion is met.

9. If applicable, removal of a tree(s) within a SNRA or Significant Grove will not result in the

remaining trees posing a safety hazard due to the effects of windthrow.

Response: After removal of the trees, there will still be substantial tree canopy coverage in the area.

The trees will not be subject to further windthrow effects. This criterion is not applicable.

10. The proposal is consistent with all applicable provisions of Section 60.60. (Trees and Vegetation)

and Section 60.67. (Significant Natural Resources).

Response: Compliance with Section 60.60 and Section 60.67 is addressed in the responses to those

code sections. This criterion is met.

G. 40.97. Zoning Map Amendment […]


There are four (4) Zoning Map Amendment applications which are as follows: Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map

Amendment, Legislative Zoning Map Amendment, Non-Discretionary Annexation Related Zoning Map

Amendment and Discretionary Annexation Related Zoning Map Amendment. The Director shall

determine if a zone change is quasi-judicial or legislative. For annexation related zone change

applications, the Director shall determine if the applications are discretionary or non-discretionary.

1. Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment.

A. Threshold. An application for Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment shall be required when the

following threshold applies:

1. The change of zoning designation for a specific property or limited number of specific

properties.

Response: The site is currently zoned Washington County AF-20. A change of zoning

designation has been requested for two properties: the R1 zone is requested for Lots 1-5 and the

CC zone is requested for Lot 6. A Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment is required.


to an application for Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment. The decision-making authority is the

Planning Commission.

Response: The application will be processed through the Type 3 procedure.

C. Approval Criteria. In order to approve a Quasi-Judicial 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 Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map

Amendment application.

Response: The proposal satisfies threshold 1.A.1 above. This criterion is met.



Response: All required fees have been submitted with this application.

3. The proposal conforms with applicable policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. [ORD

4462; January 2008]

Response: Conformance with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan is addressed in

Section III, and conformance with the applicable South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

policies is addressed in Section IV of this narrative. This criterion is met.

4. All critical facilities and services are available or can be made available to an adequate

capacity to serve the site and uses allowed by the proposed zoning designation.

Response: The availability of critical facilities and services is addressed in the response to

Section 40.03.A. This criterion is met.

5. Essential facilities and services are available or can be made available to serve the site and

uses allowed by the proposed zoning designation.

Response: The availability of essential facilities and services is addressed in the response to

Section 40.03.A. This criterion is met.

6. The proposal is or can be made to be consistent with all applicable provisions of Chapter 20

(Land Uses). [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: Consistency with the applicable provisions of Chapter 20 is addressed earlier in this

narrative. The proposal is consistent with all applicable provisions as adjusted through the

Planned Unit Development application process.

7. The proposal shall include a Traffic Impact Analysis that meets the requirements of Section

60.55.20. The analysis shall demonstrate that development allowed under the proposed

zoning can meet the requirements of Sections 60.55.10.1, 60.55.10.2, 60.55.10.3, and

60.55.10.7. The analysis shall identify the traffic impacts from the range of uses allowed

under the proposed zoning and demonstrate that these impacts can be reasonably mitigated

at the time of development. [ORD 4302; May 2004]

Response: A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by Global Transportation Engineering

and is included as Appendix D. The requirements of 60.55.10.1-3 and 7 are addressed in the

responses to that section.

8. As an alternative to Section 40.97.15.1.C.7, the applicant may provide evidence that the

potential traffic impacts from development under the proposed zoning are no greater than

potential impacts from development under existing zoning. [ORD 4302; June 2004] [ORD

4584; June 2012]



Response: The applicant is not seeking the alternative approval.

9. For proposals which create a parcel with more than one zoning designation the portion of the

lot within each zoning district shall meet the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements

of that zoning district.

Response: The proposal will not create a parcel with more than one zoning designation. This




Response: The application contains all applicable application submittal requirements. This

criterion is met.


shall be submitted to the City in the proper sequence. [ORD 4404; October 2006]

Response: All applications and documents will be submitted to the City in the proper sequence.


D. Submission Requirements. An application for Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment to the

City’s zoning map shall be made by the owner of the subject property, or the owner’s authorized

agent, the City Council, Mayor, or their designee on a form provided by the Director. All Quasi-

Judicial Zoning Map Amendment applications shall be filed with the Director and shall be

accompanied by the information required by the application form, and by Section 50.25.

(Application Completeness), and any other information identified through a Pre-Application

Conference.

Response: The application has been made by the owner of the property and includes all of the

required information. This criterion is met.

[…]

VII. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 50

A. 50.25 Application Completeness 1. A complete application is one which contains the information required by the Director to address the

relevant criteria, development requirements, and procedures of this Code. Non-Discretionary

Annexation Related Zoning Map Amendment and Discretionary Annexation Zoning Map Amendment

applications processed by the City shall be determined to be complete upon submittal of a valid

annexation petition or executed annexation agreement. All other complete application shall consist of

the requisite number of copies of the following: [ORD 4265; October 2003]

A. A completed original application form provided by the Director and application checklist provided

by the Director, signed by:

1. The applicant.

2. If the applicant is not the owner, the owner of the property, or the authorized agent of the

property owner. If an authorized agent, a written statement made by the owner of the

property shall be submitted stating that the agent is authorized to sign on the owner’s behalf.



3. If the applicant is exercising its statutory authority to condemn property, the representative of

the public agency accompanied by written documentation of such condemnation or intent to

condemn the property.

4. Property owner signatures are not required for City initiated Type 4 Text Amendment

applications and City initiated Type 1, Type 3, and Type 4 Zoning Map Amendments. [ORD

4265; October 2003]

Response: The proposed development includes the subject site as well as tree removal from the

Beaverton School District site to the east and removal of trees and revisions to grading for

construction of Street C Street C on a portion of The Ridge site to the west. This submittal includes

completed application forms and checklists signed by the applicant, the property owners, and the

applicant’s representative.

B. A written statement, supported by substantial evidence, that identifies the criteria and

development regulations considered relevant to the application, states the facts alleged to show

that the application complies with applicable criteria and development regulations, and explains

why the application should be approved based on the criteria and development regulations and

facts set forth in the application. In addition to addressing applicable criteria and development

regulations relevant to the application type, the written statement shall address all the applicable

technical criteria specified in Section 40.03. (Facilities Review Committee) of the Code. [ORD

4265; October 2003] [ORD 4404; October 2006] [ORD 4487; August 2008] [ORD 4584; June

2012]

C. The Director may require an applicant to submit information in addition to that required on the

form to aid in deciding whether an application satisfies applicable criteria and development

regulations. The Director shall attempt to identify additional necessary information in the pre-

application conference.

Response: This narrative is the written statement and addresses the criteria and development

regulations applicable to the proposal.

D. The information required by Section 50.30.4. regarding Neighborhood Meeting requirements, if

applicable.

Response: The Neighborhood Meeting information is included as Appendix I.

E. For a Type 2, Type 3, or Type 4 application, a copy of the pre-application conference summary.

Response: The June 24, 2020 and January 6, 2021 pre-application conference summaries are

included as Appendix J.

F. Documentation from service providers, as determined by the Director, stating that essential and

critical facilities are available can be made available or will not be adversely affected by the

proposal.

Response: A Service Provider Letter (SPL) from CWS is included as Appendix C; an SPL from

Beaverton School District is included as Appendix H; and an SPL from TVFR is included as Appendix

E. No additional SPLs were requested.

G. The applicable fee in effect at the date of submittal.

Response: The applicable fee has been submitted with the application.



[…]

B. 50.30. Neighborhood Review Meeting 1. The purpose of the Neighborhood Review Meeting is to allow neighbors, representatives from the

Neighborhood Association Committee (hereinafter referred to as NAC), and interested persons an

opportunity to become familiar with the proposal and to identify any associated issues. The

Neighborhood Review Meeting is intended to assist in producing applications that are responsive to

neighborhood concerns, and to reduce the likelihood of delays and appeals. The City expects an

applicant to take into consideration the reasonable concerns and recommendations of the

neighborhood when preparing an application. The City expects the neighbors and NAC to work with

the applicant to provide reasonable concerns and recommendations.

2. Prior to submittal of an application subject to a Type 3 procedure, the applicant shall provide an

opportunity to meet with neighboring property owners, residents and businesses (hereinafter

collectively referred to as “neighbors”) as well as representatives from the NAC within whose

boundaries the site is located or within the notice radius to review the proposal. The applicant shall

not be required to hold more than one Neighborhood Review Meeting provided such meeting is held

within six months prior to submitting an application for one specific site. This requirement does not

apply to applications required by Design Review Three threshold number 7 (Section 40.20.15.3.A.7.)

or applications for Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment (Section 40.97.15.1.), Discretionary

Annexation Related Zoning Map Amendment (Section 40.97.15.4.). [ORD 4332; January 2005] [ORD

4483; June 2008] [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: Due to the current restrictions on gatherings, the applicant held a virtual neighborhood

meeting on August 31, 2020 at 6:00pm. This meeting was held within 6 months of application submittal.

3. Procedures.

A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the applicant shall select the meeting time and place

according to the preference indicated by the relevant NAC. Preference should be given to a

regularly scheduled meeting time of the NAC in which the project is located. The starting time

selected shall be limited to a weekday evening after 6:00 p.m. or a weekend at any reasonable

time and shall not occur on a National holiday. The meeting shall be held at a location open to

the public and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act within the boundaries of the

NAC or at a similar location within the City of Beaverton.

A sign at least 22” x 28” in size with minimum 2” lettering shall be placed at the main entrance of

the building where the meeting will take place at least one hour prior to the meeting. Such sign

will announce the meeting, that the meeting is open to the public, and that interested persons are

invited to attend. This sign shall be removed upon conclusion of the meeting by the applicant.

Response: Because the meeting was virtual, no sign was posted at the building entrance and the

location was available to anyone to attend.

B. The applicant shall send by regular mail a written notice announcing the Neighborhood Review

Meeting to: the Director, property owners within 500 feet of the property involved in the

anticipated application and to representatives of all NACs and Washington County’s Community

Participation Organizations (CPO) whose boundaries are within 500 feet of the subject property.

The notice shall include the date, time and location of the meeting and briefly discuss the nature

and location of the proposal. The notice shall be mailed not less than 20 calendar days prior to

the meeting date. The Director shall maintain on file in the Community Development Department,

current addresses of NAC Officers and/or representatives and related NAC information, including

regularly scheduled or monthly meeting dates, times and locations.



The mailing list shall be based on the most recent property tax assessment rolls of the

Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation. At the request of the applicant,

and upon payment of the applicable fee, the City will provide the required mailing list.

Response: The applicant requested mailing labels from the City of Beaverton and sent a written

notice to the people listed on the labels. See Appendix I.

C. Not less than 20 calendar days prior to the Neighborhood Review Meeting, the applicant shall

post a notice on the property which is subject of the proposed application. The notice shall be

posted within 50 feet of an adjoining public right-of-way in a manner that can be read from the

right-of-way. The notice shall state that the site may be subject to a proposed development and

shall set forth the name of the applicant and a telephone number where the applicant can be

reached for additional information. The site shall remain posted until the conclusion of the

Neighborhood Review Meeting. The applicant may purchase a second sign from the City or

create a sign to post at the Neighborhood Review Meeting location. [ORD 4312; July 2004]

Standard signs are available from the City upon payment of a fee. The City will not be responsible

for posting of any signs.

Response: The applicant posted a sign at the subject site 20 days prior to the neighborhood

meeting. The applicant’s phone number and e-mail address were provided on the sign. See Appendix

I.

D. At the Neighborhood Review Meeting, the applicant shall describe the proposed application to

persons in attendance. The attendees may identify any issues that they believe should be

addressed in the proposed application and recommend that those issues be submitted for City

consideration and analysis. [ORD 4462; January 2008]

E. At the Neighborhood Review Meeting, the applicant shall take notes of the discussion on the

proposed application. After the meeting and before submitting an application to the City, the

applicant shall send a copy of the meeting notes to the Chairperson of the NAC in which the

project is to be located by certified mail.

Response: At the virtual neighborhood review meeting, the applicant described the proposed

application and took notes at the discussion. The applicant sent an electronic copy and a certified

mail copy of the notes to the Chairperson of the NAC on September 8, 2020. See Appendix I for

details.

4. To comply with this section, an applicant shall submit the following information with the application:

A. A copy of the notice sent to surrounding property owners and the NAC Representatives as

described in Section 50.30.3.B.

B. A copy of the mailing list used to send out meeting notices as described in Section 50.30.3.B.

C. A written statement containing the information posted on the property as described in Section

50.30.3.C.

D. An affidavit of mailing and posting notices as described in Sections 50.30.3.A through C.

E. Copies of written materials and 8.5” x 11” size plans presented at the Neighborhood Review

Meeting.

F. Notes of the meeting, including the meeting date, time, and location, the name and address of

those attending, and a summary of oral and written comments received.

G. A certified mail receipt indicating mailing of the meeting notes to the Chairperson of the NAC.



Response: The above-listed information has been submitted with the application as Appendix I.

C. 50.95 Modification of a Decision 1. An applicant or successor in interest may file with the Director an application to modify a prior

decision that was the subject of a Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 procedure. In addition to other

requirements, such an application to modify a prior decision shall describe the nature of the proposed

change to the original decision and the basis for that change, including the applicable facts and law,

together with the fee prescribed for that application type necessary to modify the prior decision. Such

an application to modify a prior decision shall be subject to the approval criteria and development

regulations in effect when the Director receives a complete application for the modification.

Response: The applicant requests Modification of a Decision for a Design Review and Preliminary

Partition approval for the SCM Main Street PUD to the east to modify the conditions of approval of the

SCM Main Street Design Review (DR2020-0067) and Land Division (LD2020-0007). These modifications

would convert private Street A to a public street, revise the southern termination of Street A from an

emergency access to a cul-de-sac, and replace the southern emergency access connection with a

pedestrian connection and a public stormwater facility. See Sheet C0.00 for the area of modification.

2. An application for modification is subject to pre-application conference and completeness review;

provided, the Director shall only require an application for modification to contain information that is

relevant or necessary to address the requested change or the facts and regulations on which it is

based. An application for modification is not subject to the neighborhood review meeting requirement.

Response: A pre-application conference to discuss the SCM Main Street PUD modification was held on

January 6, 2021. See Attachment K for the pre-application conference notes. Per the provisions of this

code section, a neighborhood meeting was not held to discuss the modifications. The modifications for

The Ridge are subject to Type I review and no pre-application conference was required. This requirement

is met.

3. An application for modification does not extend the deadline for filing an appeal and does not stay

appeal proceedings. An application for modification is subject to the 120 day requirement pursuant to

ORS 227.178.

4. Only a decision that approves or conditionally approves an application can be modified. A decision

denying an application cannot be modified. Refer to Section 50.99.

Response: The decision requested to be modified conditionally approved the SCM Main Street

applications and approved The Ridge application. This requirement is met.

5. An application for modification shall be subject to a Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 procedure as

determined by the Director.

6. The process type for an application to modify a decision shall be based upon the thresholds for the

appropriate application listed in Chapter 40. In all cases, regardless of the thresholds listed in Chapter

40, when a proposed modification involves a condition of approval, that condition of approval can be

modified or removed only by the same decision making authority that issued the original decision and

through the same procedure that was followed to establish the condition to be modified. Modification

or removal of a condition of approval shall only be granted if the decision making authority determines

any one of the following:

Response: The original SCM Main Street applications were reviewed and approved through a Type 3

procedure. The requested modification also includes modifications to conditions of approval. As such, the

requested modifications are subject to a Type 3 procedure.



The original The Ridge application was reviewed and approved through a Type 3 procedure. The

requested modification does not address conditions of approval and is subject to a Type 1 procedure.

A. The applicant or owner has demonstrated that a mistake of law or fact occurred, and that the

mistake was substantial enough to warrant modification or removal of the condition to correct the

mistake.

Response: The applicant does not seek to demonstrate that a mistake of law or fact occurred. This


B. The condition could not be implemented for reasons beyond the control of the applicant and the

modification will not require a significant modification of the original decision.

Response: The applicant does not seek removal of the conditions due to inability to implement the

condition, but rather due to the fact that the conditions are no longer necessary. This criterion is not

applicable.

C. The circumstances have changed to the extent that the condition is no longer needed or

warranted.

Response: Two modifications are requested to the SCM Main Street conditions of approval: the first

modification would convert private Street A to a public street and revise the southern termination of

Street A from an emergency access to a cul-de-sac. The second modification would replace the

southern emergency access connection with a pedestrian connection and a public stormwater facility.

As a result of these design modifications, the following conditions of approval are no longer needed or

warranted:

DR2020-0067 Modification to Conditions of Approval

A modification to the November 18, 2020 conditions of approval of DR2020-0067, specifically

those conditions related to Street A:

[…]

B. Prior to Issuance of Site Development Permits, the applicant shall:

[…]

41. Submit plans showing that the eastern leg and the southern leg of the SW Main Street

and Street A intersection are designed to indicate the streets are private. Both Main

Street and Street A are proposed as private streets. Future street extensions of Street A

and Main Street could be required to be dedicated as public streets. As such, the

entrances to the subject site's portion of both Street A and Main Street shall be designed

with commercial driveway aprons, or as otherwise approved by the City Transportation

Engineer, to indicate they are private streets. (BDC 60.55.10, and EDM 210.30)

(Transportation / KM)

Response: This application converts Street A from a private street to a public street and this

condition of approval is no longer applicable to Street A.

[…]

F. Prior to release of performance security, the applicant shall:

[…]



67. Substantially complete the construction of Street A, a private street intended for

emergency vehicle access in Section H-H as shown on applicant’s plans, and to serve

local circulation in Sections I-I and J-J as shown on applicant’s plans. (BDC 40.03.1,

60.55.10, and EDM Standard Drawing 200-4). Improvements include

(Transportation/KM):

i. For Street A, Section H-H as shown on applicant’s plans, construct a 20-foot wide

paved drive aisle; and standard 0.5-foot curbs. On the east side of Street A, construct

minimum 6-foot planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk consistent with Local Street

Standard Drawing.

ii. For Street A, Sections I-I and J-J as shown on the applicant’s plans, construct a 23-

foot wide paved drive aisle, and standard 0.5-foot curbs. On the east side of Street A,

construct minimum 6-foot planter strip and 5-footsidewalk consistent with Local Street

Standard Drawing.

Response: This application converts Street A from a private street to a public street and converts

the emergency vehicle access to Scholls Ferry Road to a cul-de-sac. The applicant requests

revision of this condition of approval to reflect the revised street design and designation submitted

with this application.

LD2020-0007 Modification of Conditions of Approval

A modification to the November 18, 2020 conditions of approval of LD2020-0007, specifically

those conditions related to Street A:

A. Prior to recording of the final plat:

[…]

1. Dedicate public access easements to the City for Main Street, Street A, and Street B as

shown on submitted site plans. (BDC 60.55.10 and BDC 60.55.25; and EDM 210.30)

(Transportation / KM)

Response: With this submittal, Street A is converted to a private street and a public access

easement across Street A is no longer required.


D. A new or modified condition would better accomplish the purpose of the original condition.

Response: As noted above, as a result of the proposed modifications, the conditions of approval are no

longer needed to meet the applicable approval criteria. This criterion is met.

VIII. Compliance with Beaverton Development Code Title 60

Response: Design Review approval is requested for Lot 1 (Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C) and Tract B (Park A).

Where Design Standards cannot be met for the proposed development, the corresponding Design Guidelines

are addressed instead. Table 6 below identifies the subject standards and corresponding design guidelines

addressed in their place.



Table 6. Design Guidelines Addressed in Place of Standards

Standard Corresponding Design

Guideline

Item Addressed

60.05.15.1.A 60.05.35.1.A and B Buildings more than 200 ft. in length.

60.05.15.1.C 60.05.35.1.E Permanent architectural features

60.05.15.1.D 60.05.35.1.E More than 150 ft. of blank wall on Buildings

1A, 1B, and 1C

60.05.15.2.A 60.05.35.2.A Minimum 4/12 roof pitch

60.05.15.2.C 60.05.35.2.B Parapet wall requirement for flat roofs

60.05.20.5.A 60.05.40.5 Landscape planter island for every 8

contiguous spaces

60.05.25.10.A 60.05.45.8 Grading

60.05.25.3.G 60.05.45.1.A Common open space dimensions and active

open space improvements

60.05.25.13 60.05.45.11.A, B, and C Tract B/Park A landscape buffering

60.05.30.1.A 60.05.50.4 Lot 1 lighting

A. 60.05. Design Review Principles, Standards, and Guidelines

Response: Design Review is requested for Lot 1, Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C and associated structures, and

Tract B (Park A). The responses below are specific to the proposed development on Lot 1 and Tract B. Future

development on Lots 2-6 will be subject to separate Design Review applications.

60.05.15. Building Design and Orientation Standards.

Unless otherwise noted, all standards apply in all zoning districts.

1. Building articulation and variety.

A. Attached residential buildings in Residential zones shall be limited in length to two hundred (200) feet.

Response: The requested R1 zone for Lot 1 is a Residential zone, therefore, this standard is applicable.

As noted on Sheet A1-2.02, Building 1A is over 264 ft. in length; as noted in Sheet A2-201, the length of

Building 1B is more than 229 ft. in length; and as noted in Sheet A3-2.01, the length of Building 1C is

more than 229 ft. in length. The corresponding Design Guideline 60.05.35.1.A and B. is addressed below

in Design Review Guidelines.

B. Buildings visible from and within 200 feet of an adjacent public street shall have a minimum portion of

the street-facing elevation(s) and the elevation(s) containing a primary building entrance or multiple

tenant entrances devoted to permanent architectural features designed to provide articulation and

variety. These permanent features include, but are not limited to windows, bays and offsetting walls

that extend at least eighteen inches (18”), recessed entrances, loading doors and bays, and changes

in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two feet and

minimum area of 25 square feet. The percentage of the total square footage of elevation area is:

1. Thirty (30) percent in Residential zones and all uses in Commercial and Multiple Use zones.

Response: There are two public streets adjacent to Lot 1: Street B to the west and Mountainside

Way to the south. Building 1C is within 200 ft of and visible from both Mountainside Way and Street

B. Building 1B is within 200 ft. of and visible from Street B. Building 1A is within 200 ft. of and visible

from the northern end of Street B. At least 30 percent of all building elevations are devoted to

permanent architectural features including windows, bays, changes in plane and changes in material

type. Details of each building are provided below.



Building 1A

Building 1A is within 200 ft. of and is visible from Street B, and southern and western elevations of the

building are subject to these standards. See Sheet A1-3.01 for details.

▪ South elevation: The south-facing elevation is visible from Street B. The south-facing elevation

contains the primary building entrance and contains permanent features including windows,

offsetting walls, balconies, and changes in material types.

▪ West elevation: The west elevation faces Street B. This elevation contains permanent features

including windows, changes in material, and offsets.

Building 1B

Building 1B is within 200 ft. of and is visible from Street B and the west, north, and south elevations

are subject to these standards. See Sheets A2-3.01 and A2-3.02 for details.

▪ South elevation: The primary street-facing façade is the south-facing elevation. The south-facing

elevation contains the building entrances and permanent features including windows, offsetting

walls, balconies, and changes in material types.

▪ West elevation: The primary street-facing façade is the west elevation. This elevation contains

permanent features including windows, changes in material, and offsets.

▪ North elevation: The north elevation is visible from Street B. This elevation mirrors the south

elevation and includes entrances and permanent features including windows, offsets, balconies,

and material changes.

Building 1C

Building 1C is within 200 ft. of and is visible from Mountainside Way and Street B, and the west,

north, and south elevations are subject to these standards. See Sheets A3-3.01 and A32-3.02 for

details.

▪ South elevation: The primary Mountainside Way street-facing façade is the south-facing

elevation. The south-facing elevation contains the building entrances and permanent features

including windows, offsetting walls, balconies, and changes in material types.

▪ West elevation: The primary Street B street-facing façade is the west elevation. This elevation

contains permanent features including windows, changes in material, and offsets.

▪ North elevation: The north elevation is visible from Street B. This elevation mirrors the south

elevation and includes entrances and permanent features including windows, offsets, balconies,

and material changes.

[…]

C. The maximum spacing between permanent architectural features, both vertically and horizontally,

shall be no more than:

1. Forty (40) feet in Residential zones, and all uses in Commercial and Multiple Use zones.

[…]

Response: The R1 zone is a residential zone, and these standards are applicable to the proposed

residential buildings. Building plans and elevations are included as Architectural Sheets A1-2.01 to

A4-4.04.

Each of the elevations is well-articulated and includes a variety of permanent architectural features.

The spacing between permanent architectural features on all buildings does not exceed 40 ft.

However, there is a lack of clarity about how this standard is to be applied, and corresponding Design

Guideline 60.05.35.1.E is addressed below in Design Review Guidelines.



D. In addition to the requirements of Section 60.05.15.1.B. and C, detached and attached residential

building elevations facing a street, common green or shared court shall not consist of undifferentiated

blank walls greater than 150 square feet in area. Building elevations shall be articulated with

architectural features such as windows, dormers, porch details, alcoves, balconies or bays.

Response: The southern elevation of Building 1A faces the street at an angle and is subject to this

requirement. The southern and western facades of Buildings 1B and 1C are also subject to this

requirement.

The requirement is generally met for the street-facing elevations of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C. There are a

few exceptions and they primarily exist at the top of the walls near the parapets and roofs, and on the

western elevation to accommodate required utility rooms. This allows flexibility to provide uniquely sloping

roof forms. Therefore, this standard is not met. The corresponding Design Guideline 60.05.35.1.E. is

addressed below in Design Review Guidelines.

2. Roof forms.

A. All sloped roofs exposed to view from adjacent public or private streets and properties shall have a

minimum 4/12 pitch.

Response: The proposed buildings incorporate unique roof forms with variable slopes. Therefore, this

standard is minimally exceeded on the west and east facades of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C between

permanent architectural features and on the upper portions of the north and south facades along the

entire length of each building. The corresponding Design Guideline 60.15.35.2 is addressed below in

Design Review Guidelines.

B. Sloped roofs on residential uses in residential zones and on all uses in multiple use and commercial

zones shall have eaves, exclusive of rain gutters, that must project from the building wall at least

twelve (12) inches.

Response: As illustrated in the Architectural Sheets, eaves on Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C project at least

12 inches. This standard is met.

C. All roofs with a slope of less than 4/12 pitch shall be articulated with a parapet wall that must project

vertically above the roof line at least twelve (12) inches or architecturally treated, such as with a

decorative cornice.

Response: Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C have sloped roofs that vary in form to reflect the surrounding

topography. As such, some roofs are sloped less than 4/12 and those do not include parapets. Therefore,

this standard is not met. The corresponding Design Guideline 60.15.35.2 Is addressed below in Design

Review Guidelines.

[…]

3. Primary building entrances.

A. Primary entrances, which are the main point(s) of entry where the majority of building users will enter

and leave, shall be covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a

way that weather protection is provided. The covered area providing weather protection shall be at

least six (6) feet wide and four (4) feet deep.

Response: The primary entrances for Building 1A are on the south elevation; as shown in Sheet A1-2.01,

these entrances are covered by awnings that are 6 ft. deep and 10 ft. 4 in. wide. The primary entrances

for Building 1B are on the south elevation; as shown in Sheet A2-2.01, these entrances are covered by



awnings that are 6 ft. deep and 10 ft. 4 in. wide. The primary entrance for Building 1C is on the south

elevation; as shown in Sheet A3-3.01, this entrance is covered by an awning that is 6 ft. deep and 11 ft.

10 in. wide. This standard is met.

4. Exterior building materials.

A. For attached residential uses in Residential zones and all residential uses in Multiple Use zones, a

minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of each elevation that is visible from and within 200 feet of a

public street or a public park, public plaza or other public open space, and on elevations that include

a primary building entrance or multiple tenant entrances shall be double wall construction.

Response: Lot 1 is in the R1 zone, and this standard is applicable. All walls of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C

are double wall construction. This standard is met.

B. For Conditional Uses in Residential zones and all uses in Commercial and Multiple Use zones

(except detached residential uses fronting streets, common greens and shared courts), a maximum of

thirty (30) percent of each elevation that is visible from and within 200 feet of a public street or a

public park, public plaza or other public open space, and on elevations that include a primary building

entrance or multiple tenant entrances may be plain, smooth, unfinished concrete, concrete block,

plywood and sheet pressboard. The remaining elevation area for all applicable uses in all applicable

zones shall be architecturally treated. Appropriate methods of architectural treatment shall include,

but are not limited to, scoring, changes in material texture, and the application of other finish materials

such as wood, rock, brick or tile wall treatment. [ORD 4542; June 2010] [ORD 4576; January 2012]

[ORD 4584; June 2012] […]

Response: The proposed residential development is permitted outright in the R1 zone and this standard

is not applicable. However, all elevations of all buildings are architecturally treated with finished materials

that provide textural variety. These materials include stone veneer, brick veneer, fiber cement lap siding,

fiber cement panel siding, wood siding, metal siding and perforated metal screen. All architectural

materials extend to grade and no substantial amount of concrete is exposed. This standard is met.

C. For Conditional Uses in Residential zones and all uses in Commercial and Multiple Use zones, plain,

smooth, exposed concrete and concrete block used as foundation material shall not be more than

three (3) feet above the finished grade level adjacent to the foundation wall, unless pigmented,

textured, or both. In Industrial districts, foundations may extend up to four (4) feet above the finished

grade level. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: The proposed residential development is permitted outright in the R1 zone and this standard

is not applicable. The proposed residential buildings are permitted in the R1 zone by right. These

standards are not applicable. However, the concrete foundation walls of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are not

exposed more than 3 feet.

5. Roof-mounted equipment.

A. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent streets or adjacent properties

in one of the following ways:

1. A parapet wall; or

2. A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used on other

portions of the building; or

3. Setback from the street-facing elevation such that it is not visible from the public street(s); or

4. Screened from view by another building.

Response: A combination of all three screening methods will be used. This standard is met.



[…]

6. Building location and orientation along streets in Commercial and Multiple Use zones.

[…]

Response: Lot 1 is located in the R1 zone. These standards are not applicable to Buildings 1A, 1B, and

1C.

60.05.20. Circulation and Parking Design Standards.


1. Connections to the public street system.

A. Pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle connections shall be provided between the on-site circulation

system and adjacent existing and planned streets as specified in Tables 6.1 through 6.6 and Figures

6.1 through 6.23 of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.

Response: The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element has not yet incorporated the South Cooper

Mountain plan area. The proposed development connects to the existing and proposed street system via

a connection to Mountainside Way, which will provide eventual connection to the North Cooper Mountain

Area and current connects to SW Scholls Ferry Road to the south. The on-site circulation provides direct

connections between building entrances and the streets, as well as direct connections to the multiuse trail

parallel to Scholls Ferry Road. See Sheet C1.06 for a demonstration of the site circulation. This standard

is met.

2. Loading areas, solid waste facilities and similar improvements.

A. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, recycling

containers, transformer and utility vaults and similar activities shall be located in an area not visible

from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street.

Response: As shown on Sheet C3.02, the waste/recycling areas are located along the eastern side of

Lot 1, as far for the adjacent streets as possible. Enclosed trash and recycling areas are provided

southeast of Building 1A, northeast of Building 1B, and northeast of Building 1C. The areas will be fully

enclosed as shown in Sheets A5-2.01 and A5-2.02. This standard is met.

The location of utility vaults is not known at this time. Screening will be provided as required.

B. Except for manufacturing, assembly, fabricating, processing, packing, storage and wholesale and

distribution activities which are the principle use of a building in Industrial districts, all loading docks

and loading zones shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully

screened from view from a public street.

Response: The proposed development on Lot 1 is residential, and the proposed development on Tract B

is a park. This standard is not applicable.

C. Screening from public view for service areas, loading docks, loading zones and outdoor storage

areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, recycling containers, transformer and utility vaults and similar

activities shall be fully sight-obscuring, shall be constructed a minimum of one foot higher than the

feature to be screened, and shall be accomplished by one or more of the following methods:

1. Solid screen wall constructed of primary exterior finish materials utilized on primary buildings,

2. Solid hedge wall with a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent opacity within two (2) years.

3. Solid wood fence.



Response: Enclosed trash and recycling areas are provided southeast of Building 1A, northeast of

Building 1B, and northeast of Building 1C. The areas will be fully enclosed as shown in Sheets A5-

2.01 and A5-2.02.

D. Screening from public view by chain-link fence with or without slats is prohibited.

Response: The use of chain-link fence is not proposed.

3. Pedestrian circulation.

A. Pedestrian connections shall be provided that link to adjacent existing and planned pedestrian

facilities as specified in Tables 6.1 through 6.6 and Figures 6.1 through 6.23 of the Comprehensive

Plan Transportation Element, and to the abutting public street system and on-site buildings, parking

areas, and other facilities where pedestrian access is desired. Pedestrian connections shall be

provided except when one or more of the following conditions exist:

1. Where physical or topographic conditions, such as a grade change of ten (10) feet or more at a

property line to an adjacent pedestrian facility, make connections impractical,

2. Where uses including manufacturing, assembly, fabricating, processing, packing, storage and

wholesale and distribution activities which are the principle use of a building in Industrial districts

occur,

3. Where on-site activities such as movement of trucks, forklifts, and other large equipment would

present potential conflicts with pedestrians, or

4. Where buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands physically preclude a

connection now or in the future.

Response: The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element has not yet incorporated the South Cooper

Mountain plan area. Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Street A, Street B, Main Street, and

Mountainside Way, and the eastern side of Street C. These pedestrian circulation facilities will connect to

existing or proposed facilities to the west, south, east, and north. Improvements to Mountainside Way and

Scholls Ferry Road will include sidewalks that connect to the site and to existing sidewalk improvements

to the east.

As shown in Sheet C1.06, on-site pedestrian connections are provided to connect each Lot 1 building

entrance to the public way, and a robust pedestrian network is proposed for the park in Tract B. The

walkway at the west end of Building 1A service the utility room located at the end of the building. This is

not a building entrance. This standard is met.

B. A reasonably direct walkway connection is required between primary entrances, which are the main

point(s) of entry where the majority of building users will enter and leave, and public and private

streets, transit stops, and other pedestrian destinations.

Response: As shown in Sheet C1.06, on-site pedestrian connections are provided to connect each Lot 1

building entrance to the public way. This standard is met.

C. A reasonably direct pedestrian walkway into a site shall be provided for every 300 feet of street

frontage or for every eight aisles of vehicle parking if parking is located between the building and the

street. A reasonably direct walkway shall also be provided to any accessway abutting the site. This

standard may be waived when topographic conditions, man-made features, natural areas, etc.

preclude walkway extensions to adjacent properties.

Response: The Lot 1 frontage along Mountainside Way is approximately 273 ft. and the site frontage

along Street B is approximately 438 ft. These standards are applicable to the Street B street frontage.



None of the proposed parking areas are located between the buildings and the street and this standard is

not applicable to the parking areas.

As shown on Sheets C1.06, C3.02 and C3.03, pedestrian walkways are provided at several locations

along Street B: a walkway connects the southern frontages of Building 1A to the sidewalk on Street B at

the northern end of the cul-de-sac; a second pedestrian walkway connects the northern entrances of

Building 1B to the sidewalk on Street B; a third pedestrian walkway connects the southern entrances of

Building 1B to the private park and the sidewalk on Street B; and a fourth pedestrian walkway connects

the northern entrances of Building 1C to the sidewalk on Street B.

Though not required due to the shorter frontage on Mountainside Way, a pedestrian walkway connects

the northern entrances of Building 1C to Mountainside Way at the southeastern corner of the building and

a second pedestrian walkway connects the southern entrance of Building 1C to the Mountainside Way

sidewalk at the southwestern corner of the building.

This standard is met.

D. Pedestrian connections through parking lots shall be physically separated from adjacent vehicle

parking and parallel vehicle traffic through the use of curbs, landscaping, trees, and lighting, if not

otherwise provided in the parking lot design.

Response: Pedestrian connections are provided adjacent to Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C by a physically

separated walkway. Connections to the trash enclosures are identified by a specific paving pattern.

E. Where pedestrian connections cross driveways or vehicular access aisles a continuous walkway shall

be provided, and shall be composed of a different paving material than the primary on-site paving

material.

Response: Where pedestrian walkways cross driveways or vehicular access aisles, the paving material

will be scored concrete to distinguish it from the primary paving material. See Sheets C3.10 to C3.13.


F. Pedestrian walkways shall have a minimum of five (5) foot wide unobstructed clearance and shall be

paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. In the event that the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) contain stricter standards for any pedestrian walkway, the ADA standards shall

apply.

Response: As shown in Sheets C3.02 and C3.03, pedestrian walkways on Lot 1 and within the park on

Tract B are at least 5 ft. wide and will be a combination of grade-separated curb and at-grade paving.

An exception to this width is the walkway at the west end of Building 1A. This walkway is 3 ft. wide, which

complies with ADA standards, and provides access to the utility room at the western end of the building

and is not intended for use by the general public. It will be accessed infrequently by utility and/or

maintenance personnel.


4. Street frontages and parking areas.

A. Surface parking areas abutting a public street shall provide perimeter parking lot landscaping which

meets one of the following standards:



1. A minimum six (6)-foot wide planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking area.

Pedestrian walkways and vehicular driveways may cross the planting strip. Trees shall be

planted at a minimum 2 1/2 inch caliper at a maximum of thirty (30) feet on center. Planting strips

shall be planted with an evergreen hedge that will provide a 30-inch high screen and fifty (50)

percent opacity within two years. The maximum height shall be maintained at no more than

thirty-six (36) inches. Areas not covered by trees or hedge shall be landscaped with live ground

cover. Bumper overhangs which intrude into the planting strip shall not impact required trees or

hedge; or

2. A solid wall or fence 30 to 36 inches in height parallel to and not nearer than four (4) feet from the

right-of-way line. The area between the wall or fence and the street line shall be landscaped with

live ground cover. Pedestrian walkways and vehicular driveways may cross the wall or fence.

Response: As shown on Sheet C3.03, a portion of the parking lot north of Building 1C abuts the Street B

right-of-way, and this standard is applicable. The edge of the parking area is located approximately 13 ft.

from the right-of-way. As shown on Sheet L2.03, this area will be landscaped with a combination of trees

and ground cover. This standard is met.

5. Parking area landscaping.

A. Landscaped planter islands shall be required according to the following:

1. Residential uses in residential zones, one for every eight (8) contiguous parking spaces.

[…]

Response: Lot 1 is zoned R1, and these standards are applicable. As shown in Sheets L2.02 and L2.03,

landscaped planter islands are provided at regular intervals within the parking lot on Lot 1; 8 of the

parking areas exceed 8 contiguous parking spaces. The corresponding Design Guideline 60.15.40.5 is

addressed below in Design Review Guidelines.

B. The island shall have a minimum area of 70 square feet, and a minimum width of 6 feet, and shall be

curbed to protect landscaping. The landscaped island shall be planted with a tree having a minimum

mature height of 20 feet. If a pole-mounted light is proposed to be installed within a landscaped

planter island, and an applicant demonstrates that there is a physical conflict for siting the tree and

the pole-mounted light together, the decision-making authority may waive the planting of the tree,

provided that at least seventy-five (75) percent of the required islands contain trees. Landscaped

planter islands shall be evenly spaced throughout the parking area.

Response: Each landscaped planter island provided in the parking lots exceeds 70 square feet in area

and 6 feet in width and has curbs on all sides. Each island is planted with at least one tree with a

minimum mature height of 20 feet. See Sheets L2.02 and L2.03. This standard is met.

C. Linear raised sidewalks and walkways within the parking area connecting the parking spaces and on-

site building(s) may be counted towards the total required number of landscaped islands, provided

that all of the following is met:

1. Trees are spaced a maximum of 30 feet on center on a minimum of one side of the sidewalk.

2. The minimum unobstructed sidewalk width is five feet.

3. The sidewalk is separated from the parking area by curbs, bollards, or other means on both

sides.

4. Trees are located in planting area with groundcover or planted in covered tree wells.

5. Trees within the linear sidewalk area shall constitute no more than 50 percent of the total required

number of trees within required landscaped planter islands. All remaining required trees shall be

located within landscaped planter islands.



Response: Though there are raised sidewalks and walkways within the parking area, they are not

proposed to be counted toward the required landscape islands. This standard is not applicable.

D. Trees planted within required landscaped planter islands or the linear sidewalk shall be of a type and

species identified by the City of Beaverton Street Tree List or an alternative approved by the City

Arborist.

Response: All proposed trees are on the City of Beaverton Street Tree List. This standard is met.

6. Off-Street parking frontages in Multiple Use zones.

Response: Lot 1 is zoned R1, a residential zone. This standard is not applicable.

7. Sidewalks along streets and primary building elevations in Commercial and Multiple Use zones.

Response: Lot 1 and Tract B are zoned R1, a residential zone. This application does not propose any

development in a Commercial or Multiple Use Zone. This standard is not applicable.

8. Connect on-site buildings, parking, and other improvements with identifiable streets and drive aisles in

Residential, Commercial, and Multiple Use zones.

A. Parking lot drive aisles that link public streets and/or private streets with parking stalls shall be

designed as private streets consistent with the standard as described under Section 60.05.20.8.B.,

unless one of the following is met:

1. The parking lot drive aisle is less than 100 feet long;

2. The parking lot drive aisle serves 2 or less residential units; or

3. The parking lot drive aisle provides direct access to angled or perpendicular parking stalls.

Response: As shown on Sheets C3.02 and C3.03, two parking lot drive aisles are proposed to link the

Lot 1 parking lots with Street B. Both parking lot drive aisles provide direct access to perpendicular

parking stalls. In addition, both parking lot drive aisles are less than 100 ft. long. This standard is not

applicable.

B. Private streets, common greens, and shared courts shall meet the following standards:

1. Private streets serving non-residential uses and residential uses having five or more units shall

have raised curbs and minimum five (5) foot wide unobstructed sidewalks on both sides.

Response: No private streets are proposed with Lot 1 or Tract B development. This standard is not

applicable.

2. Private streets serving less than five (5) residential units shall have raised curbs and a minimum

five (5) foot wide unobstructed sidewalk on at least one side.

Response: No private streets are proposed with Lot 1 or Tract B development. This standard is not

applicable.

3. When common greens and shared courts are utilized, an unobstructed walkway a minimum of

five (5) feet wide shall be provided within the common green or shared court.

Response: No common greens or shared courts are proposed with Lot 1 or Tract B development.

This standard is not applicable.

[…]



60.05.25. Landscape, Open Space, and Natural Areas Design Standards.


[…]

3. Minimum landscape requirements for residential developments consisting of eight (8) or more units of

Attached Housing or Compact Detached Housing.

Response: Where it’s not possible to meet the Design Standards under Section 60.05.25.3, these standards

are addressed under the corresponding Design Guidelines for Section 60.05.45.1.

A. Common open space shall consist of active, passive, or both open space areas, and shall be

provided as follows:

[…]

2. For developments that are part of a Planned Unit Development, provisions of Section 60.35.15.4.

shall apply.

Response: The applicant requests Planned Unit Development approval for the Blackbird Farms site

concurrently with this Design Review request for the development of Lot 1 and Tract B. The Blackbird

Farms PUD is subject to the provisions of Section 60.35.15.4.

B. At least twenty-five (25) percent of the total required open space area shall be active open space.

Response: As shown on Sheet C1.04, the Blackbird Farms PUD proposes 151,698 sq. ft, or 25.3

percent, of the open space as active open space. The active open space includes two public parks (Park

A/Tract B and Park C/Tract C), multiuse trails; a private open space on Lot 1 (Park B); a private open

space on Lots 2, 3, and 5; ground-floor patios at Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C; and an interior amenity space

in Building 1B. See Sheet C1.04 for details.

C. For the purposes of this Section, environmentally sensitive areas shall be counted towards the

minimum common open space requirement. Aboveground landscaped water quality treatment

facilities shall be counted toward the minimum common open space requirement.

Response: As detailed in Appendix I, the site contains 12.9 ac of environmentally sensitive areas in the

northern portion of the site, this area is counted towards the open space requirements. This standard is

met.

D. For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation areas and parking areas, unless provided as

part of a common green or shared court, shall not be considered common open space.

Response: The provided common open space does not include the land proposed for parking or

vehicular circulation. This standard is met.

E. Individual exterior spaces such as outdoor patios and decks constructed to serve individual units shall

count toward the common open space requirement, with the following restrictions:

1. Only a maximum of 120 square feet per unit may count toward the requirement.

2. Only patios and decks provided on the ground floor elevation level may count toward the

requirement.

Response: Individual ground floor patios and decks in Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are counted toward the

common open space requirement. No more than 120 sq. ft. per unit is counted. This standard is met.



F. Common open space shall not abut a Collector or greater classified street as identified in the City’s

adopted Functional Classification Plan, unless that common open space shall be allowed adjacent to

these street classifications where separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least three (3)

feet in height.

Response: Mountainside Way is a Collector street. Tract C is proposed as common open space and is

adjacent to Mountainside Way. A barrier will be provided with detailed design of the site.

G. Common open space shall be no smaller than 640 square feet in area, shall not be divided into areas

smaller than 640 square feet, and shall have minimum length and width dimensions of 20 feet.

Response: There are three spaces that do not meet this standard: the ground floor decks and patios in

Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are less than 640 sq. ft. and 20 ft. wide; the Lot 2 open space has dimensions

of less than 20 ft.; and the Lot 3 opens space has dimensions of less than 20 ft. The corresponding

Design Guideline 60.05.45.1.A is addressed below in Design Review Guidelines.

H. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development

consistent with or exceeding the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units proposed.

Response: The proposed development will be phased; Sheet C1.04 identifies the open space to be

provided per phase and Sheet C1.05 identifies the phasing of the overall project, including the common

open space. Lot 1/Phase 1 will provide a substantial amount of the open space for the overall

development. This standard is met.

I. Active common open spaces shall be included in all developments, and shall include at least two (2)

of the following improvements:

1. A bench or other seating with a pathway or other pedestrian way;

2. A water feature such as a fountain;

3. A children’s play structure;

4. A gazebo;

5. Clubhouse;

6. Tennis courts;

7. An indoor or outdoor sports court; or

8. An indoor or outdoor swimming and/or wading pool.

9. Plaza

Response: Active common open spaces proposed for the Blackbird Farm site include plazas, multiuse

paths, an active area within Open Space A/Tract A adjacent to the multiuse paths, and a public park.

Building 1B open space (Park B) includes a splash pad/fountain, benches, and a resident amenity patio

with table seating. Park A/Tract B includes a children’s play structure, benches, table seating, and a

gazebo/shade structure. Open Space A contains table seating accessed by a path. The open space north

of Building 1B contains a bench and a table. The Building 1C open space includes a bench and a table,

as does Park C/Tract C.

The Lot 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 open spaces will be designed in more detail when those lots are developed.


[…]

4. Additional minimum landscape requirements for Attached Housing and Compact Detached Housing:

A. All front yard areas and all required open space areas not occupied by structures, walkways,

driveways, plazas or parking spaces shall be landscaped.



Response: All front yard areas and unpaved open space areas on Lots 1-5 are proposed to be

landscaped. Refer to landscape plans on Sheets L2.01 to L2.05. This standard is met.

B. Landscaping shall include live plants or landscape features such as fountains, ponds or other

landscape elements. Bare gravel, rock, bark and similar materials are not a substitute for plant cover,

and shall be limited to no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the landscape area.

Response: Landscape plantings are proposed to cover the landscape area. Gravel, rock, and bark are

limited to less than 25 percent of the landscape area. See Sheets L2.01 to L2.05. This standard is met.

C. For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation areas and parking areas, unless provided as

part of a shared court, shall not be considered landscape area.

Response: The provided common open space does not include the land proposed for parking or

vehicular circulation. This standard is met.

D. All street-facing building elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation, excluding buildings

that are placed at the property line or setback less than 12-inches from the property line. When a

porch obstructs a foundation, landscaping shall be installed along the outer edge of the porch. This

landscaping requirement shall not apply to portions of the building facade that provide access for

pedestrians or vehicles to the building, or for plazas adjacent to the building. The foundation

landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards:

1. The landscaped area shall be at least three (3) feet wide; and,

Response: This standard is applicable for the western elevation of Building 1B and the western and

southern elevations of Building 1C. As shown on Sheets L2.02 and L2.03, the western elevations of

both buildings have landscaping along their foundations at depths of 5 ft. to 18 ft. except for the door

at the ground level.

The southern elevation of Building 1C has landscaped area of at least 17 ft. deep. The street-facing

elevations of Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are landscaped with a combination of in-ground landscaping and

stormwater facilities. This standard is met.

2. For every three (3) lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height

of twenty-four (24) inches shall be planted; and,

Response: As shown on Sheets L2.02 and L2.03, evergreen shrubs with a minimum mature height

of 24 inches are provided, for at least every three linear feet of foundation.

3. Groundcover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area.

Response: Groundcover plants are planted in the remainder of the foundation landscape area. This

standard is met.

E. The following minimum planting requirements for required landscaped areas shall be complied with.

These requirements shall be used to calculate the total number of trees and shrubs to be included

within the required landscape area:

1. One (1) tree shall be provided for every eight hundred (800) square feet of required landscaped

area. Evergreen trees shall have a minimum planting height of six (6) feet. Deciduous trees shall

have a minimum caliper of 1.5 inches at time of planting.



Response: As noted on Sheet C1.21, Lot 1 is 4.78 ac in area and 0.71 ac of landscaped area, and

39 trees are required on Lot 1. As shown on Sheets L2.02 and L2.03, 1.31 ac of landscaped area and

143 trees are provided. Planned evergreen trees have a minimum planting height of six feet and

deciduous trees have a minimum caliper of 1.5 inches. This standard is met.

2. One (1) evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of forty-eight (48) inches shall be

provided for every four hundred (400) square feet of required landscaped area.

Response: The proposed Lot 1 development includes 677 evergreen shrubs. This standard is met.

3. Live ground cover consisting of low-height plants, or shrubs, or grass shall be planted in the

portion of the landscaped area not occupied by trees or evergreen shrubs. Bare gravel, rock,

bark or other similar materials may be used, but are not a substitute for ground cover plantings,

and shall be limited to no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the required landscape area.

Response: Live ground cover plantings are planned for the areas surrounding trees and shrubs

landscape area. Gravel, rock, and bark are limited to less than 25 percent of the landscape area. This

standard is met.

F. A hard surface pedestrian plaza or combined hard surface and soft surface pedestrian plaza, if

proposed shall be counted towards meeting the minimum landscaping requirement, provided that the

hard-surface portion of the plaza shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the minimum

landscaping requirement. […]

Response: No pedestrian plazas are proposed on Lot 1 or in the larger Blackbird Farms site. This

standard is not applicable.

[…]

8. Retaining walls. Retaining walls greater than six (6) feet in height or longer than fifty (50) lineal feet used

in site landscaping or as an element of site design shall be architecturally treated with contrasting scoring,

or texture, or pattern, or off-set planes, or different applied materials, or any combination of the foregoing,

and shall be incorporated into the overall landscape plan, or shall be screened by a landscape buffer.

Materials used on retaining walls should be similar to materials used in other elements of the landscape

plan or related buildings, or incorporate other landscape or decorative features exclusive of signs. If

screening by a landscape buffer is utilized, a buffer width of at least five (5) feet is required, landscaped to

the B3-High Screen Buffer standards.

Response: As shown on Sheets C2.00 and C2.01 and Sheets C2.20 and C2.22, retaining walls are proposed

at the northern end of the site on Lots 1, 3, and 4 and along the eastern boundary of Lot 1, on the western

portion of Lot 5 adjacent to Stormwater Pond A, and at the northern end of Tract B/Park A. Portions of these

retaining walls exceed 6 feet in height or 50 lineal feet in length, as shown and are subject to these standards.

The retaining walls will be architecturally treated with a surface pattern and softened with landscaping where

possible, as shown on Sheet L2.05. This standard is met.

9. Fences and walls.

A. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences

and walls such as wood, stone, rock, or brick, or other durable materials.

B. Chain link fences are acceptable as long as the fence is coated and includes slats made of vinyl,

wood or other durable material. Slats may not be required when visibility into features such as open



space, natural areas, parks and similar areas is needed to assure visual security, or into on-site areas

in industrial zones that require visual surveillance.

C. Masonry walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick. All other walls shall be a minimum of three

inches thick.

D. For manufacturing, assembly, fabricating, processing, packing, storage and wholesale and

distribution activities which are the principle use of a building in Industrial districts, the preceding

standards apply when visible from and within 200 feet of a public street.

E. Fences and walls:

1. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along streets, except required above

ground stormwater facilities fencing which may be four feet in height in a required front yard, and

eight feet in all other locations.

2. May be permitted up to six feet in a required front yard along designated Collector and Arterial

streets.

3. For detached housing along streets and housing facing common greens and shared courts in

Multiple Use zones, 3 feet high fences and walls are permitted in front of the building, and on

corner lots abutting a street, along the side of the building. Higher fences and walls are permitted

on corner lots along the side of the building beginning within 15 feet of the back end of the

building nearest to the property line.

Response: The proposed retaining walls on site will be constructed of materials commonly used in the

construction of walls, generally concrete. No retaining walls are proposed in required front yards.

As shown on Sheets L2.04 and L2.05, a pedestrian guardrail is proposed at the northern end of Tract

B/Park A at the ramp connection to the multiuse trail network. In addition, a split rail fence is proposed on

the southern end of the park within the landscaped area. As shown in Sheet L2.05, the split rail fence will

be a low fence and the retaining walls are expected to be built of concrete.


10. Minimize significant changes to existing on-site surface contours at residential property lines.

A. Where grading is proposed, the requirements listed in in Section 60.15.10.2 shall apply .

B. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection A. above, grading within 25 feet of a property line

shall not change the existing slopes by more than ten percent within a tree root zone of an identified

Significant Individual Tree, identified Historic Tree, or a tree within an identified Significant Grove or

Significant Natural Resource Area located on an abutting property unless evidence provided by a

certified arborist supports additional grading that will not harm the subject grove or tree.

Response: The standards of 60.15.10.2 are addressed in the responses to that subsection.

There are no identified significant groves or trees, or identified historic trees, located on abutting

properties with tree root zones within 25 feet of the subject site’s property lines. The Ridge open space

tract abuts proposed Lot 4 and Tract A. However, there are no trees within 25 ft. of the boundary of Lot 4

on The Ridge site.

The proposal also revises the grading of The Ridge Phase 2 to accommodate construction of Street C.

There are no Significant Individual Trees, Identified Historic Trees, or Significant Groves or SNRAs

located in this portion of The Ridge. Removal of the trees along the eastern property boundary of The

Ridge Phase 2 was approved with The Ridge PUD to accommodate proposed Private Road A (Street C

of Blackbird Farms).

11. Integrate water quality, quantity, or both facilities. Non-vaulted surface stormwater detention and

treatment facilities having a side slope greater than 2:1 shall not be located between a street and the front



of an adjacent building.

Response: Stormwater detention and treatment facilities are a combination of belowground detention basins

and LIDA. As shown in Sheets C2.01 to C2.03, none of the above-ground facilities are located between a

street and the front of an adjacent building. This standard is met.

12. Natural areas. Development on sites with City-adopted natural resource features such as streams,

wetlands, significant trees and significant tree groves, shall preserve and maintain the resource without

encroachment into any required resource buffer standard unless otherwise authorized by other City or

CWS requirements.

Response: The site contains 12.9 ac of mapped wetlands, ponds, and buffers. Encroachment into this area

has been limited to multiuse paths and stormwater outfalls. CWS has reviewed the proposed development

and provided comments and conditions. See Appendix C.

13. Landscape buffering and screening. All new development and redevelopment in the City subject to

Design Review shall comply with the landscape buffering requirements of Table 60.05-2. and the

following standards. For purposes of this Section, a landscape buffer is required along the property lines

between different zoning district designations. A landscape buffer is required for non-residential land uses

and parks in Residential zoning districts. Both buffering standards and side and rear building setback

requirements shall be met. Only landscaping shall be allowed in the landscape buffer areas. Buffer areas

and building setback standards are measured from the property line, they are not additive. Where a yard

setback width is less than a landscape buffer width, the yard setback width applies to the specified buffer

designation (B1, B2, or B3 as appropriate). A landscape buffer width cannot exceed a minimum yard

setback dimension. In addition, the buffer area and landscape standard are intended to be continuously

applied along the property line, except as authorized under Section 60.05.45.10.

A. Applicability of buffer standards:

1. The buffer standards shall not be applicable to individual single-family buildings on individual

parcels.

2. The buffer standards shall not apply to areas where emergency access is required.

3. The buffer standards shall not apply to areas where a public utility easement exists. This

exemption only applies to trees and does not exempt the requirement of shrubs and ground

cover.

4. The buffer standards shall not apply along property lines where a non-residential use is already

buffered by a natural feature or an open space dedication, if such a natural buffer or dedication is

at least 40 feet in width, or if the width of the natural feature or open space dedication and the

density and quality of landscaping meet or exceed the applicable landscape buffer standard.

5. The buffer standards shall not apply where required for visual access purposes as determined by

the City Traffic Engineer or City Police. This exemption only applies to trees and shrubs and does

not exempt the requirement of ground cover. [ORD 4531; April 2010]

Response: Lot 1 and Tract B/Park A are zoned R1. The development proposed for Lot 1 is a multifamily

development. The lot to the east of Lot 1 is zoned R1; the lots to the west of Lot 1 and Tract B are zoned

R1. No buffer is required between sites with the same zoning designation.

The lot to the north of Lot 1 and Tract B is owned by THPRD and is zoned AF-20; the South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan land use map has designated this site for Medium Density Residential zoning.

Per Table 60.05-2, a 10-ft buffer to B2 standards is required between the R1 zone and the R2 or R4

zones. As shown in Sheet C1.05, Tract B and Lot 1 are separated from the northern property line by more

than 450 ft. and screening between the proposed uses is provided by existing vegetation. No additional

buffering is proposed.



Tract B is proposed to be developed as a park in the R1 zone, and a landscaped buffer is required

between the park and Lots 1 and 2. Per Table 60.05-2 and notes, a 20-ft. buffer developed to B3

standard is required for parks abutting a residential use in a residential zoning district.

As shown on Sheet L2.04, a landscaped buffer is proposed at the western and eastern park perimeter

where the park abuts residential development. This buffer is approximately 5 ft. to the west, 7 ft. to the

east, and 13 ft. to the south. As such, the proposed buffers do not meet the standards. The

corresponding Design Guidelines 60.05.45.11.A, B, and C are addressed below in Design Review

Guidelines.

The lot to the south of Lot 1 is zoned NS, and a landscaped buffer is required between Lot 1 and the SCM

Main Street/NS site. Per Table 60.05.-02 and notes, a 10-ft. wide buffer developed to the B1 standard is

required because the site is separated from the NS zone by a street. As shown on Sheet L2.03,

landscaping between 15 ft. and 45 ft. in depth is proposed along the southern edge of Lot 1. The

proposed landscaping consists largely of lawn and as such does not meet the B1 standard. The

corresponding Design Guidelines 60.05.45.11.A, B, and C are addressed below in Design Review

Guidelines.

14. Community Gardens

A. Fences. Community Gardens shall have a fence constructed of a durable materials commonly used

in the construction of fencing. Fences shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height. Coated chain link

may be permitted. Temporary construction fencing, erosion control fencing, tree protection fencing

and other temporary fencing materials shall not be permitted.

B. Parking. Parking must be available in the general vicinity of the garden, on-street parking spaces may

count toward this requirement.

C. Size. Community gardens shall not exceed one acre in size.

Response: No community gardens are proposed. These standards are not applicable.

60.05.30. Lighting Design Standards.


1. Adequate on-site lighting and minimal glare on adjoining properties.

A. Lighting shall be provided at lighting levels for development and redevelopment in all zoning districts

consistent with the City’s Technical Lighting Standards.

B. Lighting shall be provided in vehicular circulation areas and pedestrian circulation areas.

C. Lighting shall be provided in pedestrian plazas, if any developed.

D. Lighting shall be provided at building entrances.

E. Canopy lighting shall be recessed so that the bulb or lens is not visible from a public right-of-way.

Response: The City’s Technical Lighting Standards limit the illumination at property lines within a Residential

zoning district to 0.5 foot candles. The lighting levels at the eastern property line of Lot 1exceed 0.5 foot

candles, and the applicable Design Guideline 60.05.50.4 is addressed below.

The lighting for the proposed development is provided in the vehicular parking and circulation areas,

pedestrian circulation areas, and at building entrances. Sheets L4.00 and L4.01 describes the location,

illumination, pole height, wattage, and light levels for the proposed development. These standards are met.

2. Pedestrian-scale on-site lighting.

A. Pole-mounted Luminaires shall comply with the City’s Technical Lighting Standards, and shall not

exceed a maximum of:



1. Fifteen (15) feet in height for on-site pedestrian paths of travel.

2. Twenty (20) feet in height for on-site vehicular circulation areas for residential uses in Residential

zoning districts.

3. Thirty (30) feet in height for on-site vehicular circulation areas in non-residential zoning districts.

4. Fifteen (15) feet for the top deck of non-covered parking structures.

5. The height of the poles for on-site pedestrian ways and on-site vehicular circulation areas shall be

measured from the site’s finished grade.

6. The height of the poles on the top deck of non-covered parking structures shall be measured from

the finished floor elevation of the top deck.

7. The poles and bases for pole-mounted luminaires shall be finished or painted a non-reflective

color.

Response: Subsections 1, 2, 5, and 7 are applicable to this proposal. As shown on Sheet L4.00, pole-

mounted luminaires in vehicular circulation and parking areas are 20 feet tall. Pedestrian paths of travel

are all adjacent to parking lots or streets, so these luminaires provide lighting for pedestrians as well. Pole

lights outside of the vehicular circulation area are 12 feet tall. These standards are met.

DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES

Response: Where Design Standards cannot be met for the proposed development, the corresponding

Design Guidelines are addressed instead. See Table 6 for details. The applicable Design Guidelines are

addressed below.

60.05.35. Building Design and Orientation Guidelines.

1. Building articulation and variety.

A. Residential buildings should be of a limited length in order to avoid undifferentiated building elevations,

reduce the mass of individual buildings, and create a scale of development that is pedestrian friendly

and allow circulation between buildings by pedestrians. (Standard 60.05.15.1.A)

Response: The proposed Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C exceed 200 ft. in length. However, the building

elevations are well-articulated with recesses, extensions, balconies, and changes in material which

provide a pedestrian-friendly scale. See Sheets A4.401 to A4.404.

B. Building elevations should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Within

larger projects, variations in architectural elements such as: building elevations, roof levels,

architectural features, and exterior finishes should be provided. (Standards 60.05.15.1.A and B)

C. To balance horizontal features on longer building elevations, vertical building elements, such as

building entries, should be emphasized. (Standard 60.05.15.1.B)

D. Buildings should promote and enhance a comfortable pedestrian scale and orientation. This guideline

does not apply to buildings in Industrial districts where the principal use of the building is

manufacturing, assembly, fabricating, processing, packing, storage, wholesale or distribution

activities. (Standard 60.05.15.1.B) [ORD 4531; April 2010]

E. Building elevations visible from and within 200 feet of an adjacent street or major parking area should

be articulated with architectural features such as windows, dormers, off-setting walls, alcoves,

balconies or bays, or by other design features that reflect the building’s structural system.

Undifferentiated blank walls facing a street, common green, shared court, or major parking area

should be avoided. (Standards 60.05.15.1.B, C, and D)

Response: Elevations of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are included in the Architectural sheets. The southern

elevation of Building 1A is subject to this requirement, and the western and southern elevations of

Buildings 1B and 1C are subject to this requirement.



Each of the buildings’ southern street-facing elevations contains permanent architectural features

including windows, bays, balconies, offsetting walls, recessed entrances, and changes in material. These

features serve a dual purpose of providing a pleasant living environment for building occupants and

visitors through light, fresh air, privacy, and outdoor living space, and providing neighbors with an

interesting and expressive building.

Each of the southern elevations includes more than 150 sq. ft. of blank space, primarily at the roofline due

to the varied roof forms. However, the use of recesses, extensions, and changes in material provide

visual interest and meet the intent of the standard.

The western façades of Buildings 1B and 1C are also subject to this standard and contain more than 150

sq. ft. of blank space. The western facades of these buildings include windows, bays, and changes of

materials. In addition, the sloped shed roof provides visual interest and ground-level windows provide

transparency for pedestrians passing by.

[…]

2. Roof Forms

A. Roof forms should be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the street. Sloped

roofs should have a significant pitch and building focal points should be emphasized. (Standards

60.05.15.2.A and B)

Response: As illustrated in the Architectural Sheets, each of the buildings has sloped roofs with a mix of

treatments at the roof edges. The roof is a modified butterfly roof treatment to respond to the topography

and provide visual interest.

B. Flat roofs should include a roofline that provides visual interest such as cornice treatments. (Standard

60.05.15.2.C) [ORD 4782; April 2020]

Response: The roofs of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are sloped less than 4/12 and are subject to

requirement to provide a cornice treatment. These buildings do not provide parapets; the visual interest is

provided by the sloped roof forms and the modified butterfly roof treatment.

60.05.40 Circulation and Parking Design Guidelines.

Unless otherwise noted, all guidelines apply in all zoning districts.

[…]

5. Parking area landscaping. Landscape islands and a tree canopy should be provided to minimize the

visual impact of large parking areas. (Standards 60.05.20.5.A through D)

Response: Landscaped planter islands are provided within Lot 1’s surface parking lots and are generally

provided for every 8 contiguous spaces; however, 8 parking areas exceed this number. Each landscaped

island is planted with one deciduous tree to provide canopy cover for the parking areas, as well as shrubs and

ground cover plantings. See Sheets L2.02 and L2.03.

[…]

60.05.45. Landscape, Open Space and Natural Areas Design Guidelines.


1. Common open space for residential uses in Residential zones.

A. Common open spaces should be provided that are sized and designed for anticipated users, and are

located within walking distance for residents and visitors, and should be integrated into the overall

landscape plan. (Standards 60.05.25.1 through 3)



B. Common open spaces should be available for both passive and active use by people of all ages and

should be designed and located in order to maximize security, safety, and convenience. (Standards

60.05.25.1 through 3)

C. Common open spaces should be free from all structural encroachments unless a structure is

incorporated into the design of the common open space such as a play structure. (Standards

60.05.25.1 through 3)

D. Common open space should be located so that windows from living areas, excluding bedrooms and

bathrooms, of a minimum of four (4) residences face on to the common open space. (Standards

60.05.25.1 through 3)

Response: The ground floor patios of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are less than 640 sq. ft. in area and/or less

than 20 ft. in width. The ground-level patios of Buildings 1A, 1B, and 1C are generally 8 ft. wide and 6 ft.

deep, for a total of 48 sq. ft. These patios are designed for use by unit residents and are sized adequately to

accommodate outdoor seating and/or tables.

[…]

8. Changes to existing on-site surface contours at residential property lines. The perimeters of properties

should be graded in a manner to avoid conflicts with abutting residential properties such as drainage

impacts, damage to tree root zones, and blocking sunlight. (Standard 60.05.25.10) [ORD 4576; January

2012]

Response: The grading along the eastern property line of Lot 1 due to the existing conditions on the

Beaverton High School site. In order to prepare the site for development and make a trail connection to the

existing trail on the Beaverton High School site, grading beyond the provisions of 60.15.10 is required.

Though the school district site is zoned R1, it is developed with an institutional use. It is also several feet

above the grade of the Blackbird Farms site. As such, the proposed grading will not affect the school sit’s

drainage or block sunlight to the school site. Trees along the property line will be removed with the Blackbird

Farms project, however they are nuisance trees and will be replaced on site with new trees.

[…]

11. Landscape buffering and screening.

A. A landscape buffer should provide landscape screening, and horizontal separation between different

zoning districts and between non-residential land uses and residential land uses. The buffer should

not be applicable along property lines where existing natural features such as flood plains, wetlands,

riparian zones and identified significant groves already provide a high degree of visual screening.

(Standard 60.05.25.13) [ORD 4531; April 2010]

B. When potential impacts of a Conditional Use are determined, or when potential conflicts of use

landscape screening should be dense, and the buffer width maximized. When potential conflicts of

uses are not as great, such as a commercial use abutting an industrial use, less dense landscape

screening and narrower buffer width is appropriate. (Standard 60.05.25.13) [ORD 4531; April 2010]

Response: The proposed park in Tract B does not meet the 20-ft. buffer requirements of Table 60.05-2.

A public park is permitted in the R1 zone as a Conditional Use. However, the activities anticipated to

occur in the park, such as picnics, lawn games, and children playing on the play structures, are similar to

the activities that are expected to occur in the on-site active open spaces within the Blackbird Farms

PUD. In addition, the park is physically separated by adjacent residential development by topography,

providing a further distinction.



The park is intended to be an attractive landscape feature with no conflicts of use. As such, a landscaped

buffer of between 5 ft. and 17 ft. is proposed to soften the edges of the park while retaining visual

connections to the adjacent residential lots and Street B to the south.

The southern lot line of the proposed Lot 1 development does not meet the 10-ft. buffer requirements of

Table 60.05-2 because it does not include the required trees. The buffer area is between 15 ft. and 45 ft.

deep and is landscaped with foundation plantings, including shrubs, and lawn. The landscaped buffer

area is separated from the Mountainside Way right-of-way by a split rail fence. The intent of the

landscaping treatment is to provide open space for residents as well as provide visual access between

the Lot 1 buildings and the SCM Main Street residential buildings proposed south of Mountainside Way.

C. Landscape buffering should consist of a variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers designed to

screen potential conflict areas and complement the overall visual character of the development and

adjacent neighborhood. (Standard 60.05.25.13)

Response: As shown in Sheet L2.05, the proposed park buffering consists of a variety of shade and

flowering trees, as well as a number of native shrubs and ground covers.

D. When changes to buffer widths and buffer standards are proposed, the applicant should describe the

physical site constraints or unique building or site characteristics that merit width reduction. (Standard

60.05.25.13.E). [ORD 4531; April 2010] [ORD 4576; January 2012]

Response: A reduction to the 20-ft. buffer width is requested for two reasons: to maximize the usable

area of this neighborhood park, and to support the integration of the park into the surrounding

neighborhood. In addition to the on-site amenities, this park will provide access to the multiuse trail

network to the north and as such is expected to be active throughout the day.

As shown in Sheet L2.05, the park is intended to complement provide a variety of amenities including

covered dining areas, children’s play areas, a turf area for unstructured play, and the trial connections.

Landscaping is provided to soften the edges and to shade the park during the summer, but a thick visual

buffer would restrict visual connection and potential create an area that is not visible from the street or

surrounding buildings as feels less safe as a result.

60.05.50 Lighting Design Guidelines


[…]

3. Lighting should minimize direct and indirect glare impacts to abutting and adjacent properties and streets

by incorporating lens shields, shades or other measures to screen the view of light sources from

residences and streets. (Standards 60.05.30.1 and 2)

4. On-Site lighting should comply with the City’s Technical Lighting Standards. (Standards 60.05.30.1 and

2). Where the proposal does not comply with Technical Lighting standards, the applicant should describe

the unique circumstance attributed to the use or site where compliance with the standard is either

infeasible or unnecessary. [ORD 4531; April 2010]

Response: The lighting levels at the eastern property line of Lot 1 and the northern and the property lines of

Tract B/Park A exceed the City’s Technical Lighting Standards for residentially zoned properties.

The property to the east is zoned R1, but is developed as Mountainside High School, an institutional use. The

proposed buildings on Lot 1 are located adjacent to the high school playing fields and are separated from

those playing fields by a retaining wall. The playing fields are illuminated during recreational use. As such, it is



more likely that light from the high school site would impact Lot 1 than that light levels from Lot 1 would impact

the school.

Because the site is located adjacent to a high-impact institutional use, a playing field with night illumination,

and separated from the school site by a retaining wall, compliance with this standard is unnecessary.

B. 60.15. Land Division Standards 60.15.10. Grading Standards.

1. Applicability. The on-site surface contour grading standards specified in Section 60.15.10.3. are

applicable to all land use proposals where grading is proposed, including land division proposals and

design review proposals, as applicable. This Section does not supersede Section 60.05.25. (Design

Review) and the exemptions listed in Section 60.15.10.2. will apply equally to design review

proposals.

Response: The applicant requests land division for the overall project site, and design review for Lot 1

and Tract B. The applicant also requests revisions to approved grading on The Ridge Multifamily site to

accommodate the construction of Street C. These standards are applicable.

2. Exemptions. The following improvements will be exempted from the on-site surface contour grading

standards specified in Section 60.15.10.3.:

A. Public right-of-way road improvements such as new streets, street widening, sidewalks, and

similar or related improvements.

B. Storm water detention facilities subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.

C. On-site grading where the grading will take place adjacent to an existing public street right-of-

way, and will result in a finished grade that is below the elevation of the subject public street right-

of-way; provided such grading is subject to the approval of the City Engineer, who may require

appropriate erosion and sediment control mitigation measures.

Response: The Blackbird Farms site is bounded by the Scholls Ferry Road right-of-way to the south

and the proposed Street C right-of-way to the west. Southwest Mountainside Way, which has

predetermined roadway design/grade based on existing water infrastructure, also bisects the center

of the property of the site. The affected area of The Ridge site is adjacent to the proposed Street C

right-of-way to the east. These areas are exempt from these standards per 2.A above.

3. On-site surface contouring. When grading a site within twenty-five (25) feet of a property line within or

abutting any residentially zoned property, the on-site surface contours shall observe the following:

Response: The Blackbird Farms subdivision is bounded on the northwest by the R1 and R4 zones, to the

north by the R4 and R7 zones, to the northeast by farmland zoned Washington County AF-20, and to the

east by Mountainside High School (R1 zone) and the Main Street PUD site (NS zone). The northern

development area is separated from the northern lot line by more than 450 ft. of natural resource area.

The southern portion of Lot 4 is adjacent to R4 zone of the Ridge PUD, which is developed with a single-

family home. The northern portion of Lot 4 is adjacent to the R4 zone, but this portion of the site is natural

resource area and is not proposed for development.

As shown on Sheets C2.00 and C2.01, grading is proposed within 25 ft. of two property lines abutting

residentially zoned property:

▪ The southeastern portion of Lot 1

▪ The western lot line of Lot 4



As noted above, the revised grading on The Ridge is adjacent to proposed Street C and is exempt from

these standards.

A. 0 to 5 feet from property line: Maximum of two (2) foot slope differential from the existing or

finished elevation of the abutting property, whichever is applicable.

Response: As shown on Sheet C1.01 and Sheets C2.02 and C2.03, Lot 1 slopes upward from north

to south. The proposed grading evens out the site for development.

Grading is proposed within 5 ft. of the eastern property line of Lot 1. This is largely due to the existing

conditions east of the site, which include significant retaining walls that support the Mountainside High

School running track and soccer field. SW Mountainside which fronts the southern property lines of

Lot 1, and Lot 4 and provides access to the two lots has a predetermined roadway design/elevation

based on existing water infrastructure is to be constructed lower than existing ground requiring Lots 1

and 4 to be constructed lower than adjacent residential properties in order to meet roadway and

pedestrian design.

Grading is proposed within 5 ft. of the eastern property line of Lot 1. Retaining walls ranging in

heights from 3.5 ft. to 11 ft. are required along much of the property line to reflect the existing

conditions of the Mountainside High School to the east. This portion of the site does not meet the

standards of this section. In addition, fill walls ranging in height from 0 ft. to 12 ft. are required to

construct the public multiuse trail north of the connection to the trail on the High School site. The

corresponding Design Guideline 60.05.45.8 is addressed above.

Grading is proposed within 5 ft. of the western property line of Lot 4. The existing contours within 5 ft.

of the western property line of Lot 4 are between 280 ft. and 282 ft.; the proposed contour at 5 ft. is

280 ft.

B. More than 5 feet and up to and including 10 feet from property line: Maximum of four (4) foot

slope differential from the existing or finished elevation of the abutting property, whichever is

applicable.

Response: The proposed elevations between 5 ft. and 10 ft. from the western Lot 4 property line are

all less than 4 ft. above the existing elevation of the abutting property, and average about 1 ft. above

the existing property line as shown on sheet C2.00. This area is graded at 5 percent (20:1) from the

abutting property line.

C. More than 10 feet and up to and including 15 feet from property line: Maximum of six (6) foot


applicable.

Response: The proposed elevations between 10 ft. and 15 ft. from the western Lot 4 property line

are all less than 6 ft. above the existing elevation of the abutting property as shown on C2.00. This

area is graded at 5 percent (20:1) from the abutting property line.

D. More than 15 feet and up to and including 20 feet from property line: Maximum of eight (8) foot


applicable.



Response: The proposed elevations between 15 ft. and 20 ft. from the western Lot 4 property line



E. More than 20 feet and up to and including 25 feet from property line: Maximum of ten (10) foot


applicable.

Response: The proposed elevations between 20 ft. and 25 ft, from the western Lot 4 property line



F. Where an existing (pre-development) slope exceeds one or more of the standards in subsections

60.15.10.3.A-E, above, the slope after grading (post-development) shall not exceed the pre-

development slope.

Response: The pre-development slope on the western edge of Lot 4 varies from approximately 5

percent (20:1) to 20 percent (5:1). This does not exceed any of the standards in subsections

60.15.10.3A-E. The slope after grading (post-development) does not exceed the pre-development

slope.

4. Significant Trees and Groves. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 60.15.10.3, above,

grading within 25 feet of a significant tree or grove, where the tree is located on- or off-site, shall

observe the following:

A. 0 to 10 feet from the trunk of a significant tree or grove: No change in pre-development

ground elevation;

B. More than 10 feet, and up to and including 25 feet, from the trunk of a significant tree or

grove, or to the outside edge of the tree’s drip line, whichever is greater: Maximum 10% slope

gradient difference from the pre-development ground elevation;

C. Based on a recommendation of the City Arborist, the decision-making body may require

additional setbacks and/or other tree protection measures to protect the public health, safety

and welfare.

Response: No Significant Trees or Groves exist on site. These standards are not applicable.

C. 60.30. Off-Street Parking 60.30.05. Off-Street Parking Requirements.

Parking spaces shall be provided and satisfactorily maintained by the owner of the property for each

building or use which is erected, enlarged, altered, or maintained in accordance with the requirements of

Sections 60.30.05. to 60.30.20.

1. Availability. Required parking spaces shall be available for parking operable passenger automobiles

and bicycles of residents, customers, patrons and employees and shall not be used for storage of

vehicles or materials or for parking of trucks used in conducting the business or use.

2. Vehicle Parking. Vehicle parking shall be required for all development proposed for approval after

November 6, 1996 unless otherwise exempted by this ordinance. The number of required vehicle

parking spaces shall be provided according to Section 60.30.10.5.

3. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be required for all multi-family residential developments of four

units or more, all retail, office and institution developments, and at all transit stations and park and

ride lots which are proposed for approval after November 6, 1996. The number of required bicycle

parking spaces shall be provided according to Section 60.30.10.5. All bike parking facilities shall meet



the specifications, design and locational criteria as delineated in this section and the Engineering

Design Manual.

Response: Vehicle parking is required and will be provided. Bicycle parking is required for the proposed

development on Lot 1 and will be provided per these requirements.

60.30.10. Number of Required Parking Spaces.

Except as otherwise provided under Section 60.30.10.11., off-street vehicle, bicycle, or both parking

spaces shall be provided as follows:

1. Parking Calculation. Parking ratios are based on spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,

unless otherwise noted.

2. Parking Categories.

A. Vehicle Categories. Contained in the table at Section 60.30.10.5. are vehicle parking ratios for

minimum required parking spaces and maximum permitted number of vehicle parking spaces to

be provided for each land use, except for those uses which are located in the RC-OT zoning

district which are governed by Section 60.30.10.6. These requirements reflect the parking

requirements of Title 4 of Metro’s Regional Transportation Functional Plan.

B. Bicycle Categories. The required minimum number of short-term and long-term bicycle parking

spaces for each land use is listed in Section 60.30.10.5.

1. Short-Term parking. Short-term bicycle parking spaces accommodate persons that can be

expected to depart within two hours. Short-term bicycle parking is encouraged to be located

on site within 50 feet of a primary entrance, or if there are site, setback, building design, or

other constraints, bicycle parking shall be located no more than 100 feet from a primary

entrance in the closest available area to the primary entrance as determined by the decision-

making authority.

2. Long-Term parking. Long-term bicycle parking spaces accommodate persons that can be

expected to leave their bicycle parked longer than two hours. Cover or shelter for long-term

bicycle parking shall be provided. School buildings are exempted from the requirement to

cover long-term bicycle parking.

3. Bicycle parking shall be designed, covered, located, and lighted to the standards of the

Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings.

4. Bicycle parking in the Old Town Parking Zones 1 and 2 shall be governed by the bicycle

parking requirements listed in Section 60.30.10.5. [ORD 4471; February 2008]

Response: Required vehicle and bicycle parking spaces for the proposed development of Lot 1 were

calculated as shown in Tables 7 and 8 below and as described on Sheet C1.15. A Parking Determination

of 0 required parking spaces for the proposed park in Tract B has been requested under the provisions of

Section 40.55.

Table 7. Required Off-Street Vehicle Parking Spaces

Use Category Required

Ratio

Units/GSF Required

Spaces

Proposed

Spaces

Comments

Attached Dwellings

1 Bedroom 1.25/du 0 0

2 Bedroom 1.5/du 123 184.5

3 Bedroom 1.75/du 22 38.5

Total 223 223 Meets the standards.



Table 8. Required Bicycle Parking Spaces

Use Category Required Spaces Proposed Spaces Comments

Short Term Long term Short Term Long Term

Multidwelling Structure of

4 or more units

1 sp/20 du 1 sp/du Exceeds the standards.

Building 1A (54/20) = 2.7 54 4 74

Building 1B (45/20) = 2.25 45 2 51

Building 1C (46/2) = 2.3 46 2 74

Total 7.25 145 8 199

[…]

8. Residential Parking Dimensions. For all residential uses, any required parking space shall not be less

than 8 1/2 feet wide and 18 1/2 feet long. (See also Section 60.30.15. (Off-Street Parking Lot Design)

for other standards.) [ORD 4312; July 2004]

Response: As shown on Sheets C3.02 and Sheet C3.03, the required parking spaces have been

designed to these dimensions.

[…]

10. Location of Vehicle Parking.

A. All parking spaces provided shall be on the same lot upon which the use requiring the parking is

located. Upon demonstration by the applicant that the required parking cannot be provided on the

same lot upon which the use is located, the Director may permit the required parking spaces to

be located on any lot within 200 feet of the lot upon which the use requiring the parking is located.

Response: All required parking spaces are provided on Lot 1, the same lot where the multifamily

buildings are located. This standard is met.

B. Except for single-family and duplex dwellings, groups of more than two parking spaces shall be

so located and served by an access that their use will require no backing movements or other

maneuvering within a street or right-of-way other than an alley.

Response: Each of the parking areas has been designed so that the use of the parking spaces will

require no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or right-of-way.

C. In R10, R7, R5 and R4 zones parking and loading spaces may be located in side and rear yards

and may be located in the front yard of each dwelling unit only if located in the driveway area

leading to its garage.

Response: The subject site will be zoned R1. This standard is not applicable.

[…]

12. Compact Cars. Compact car parking spaces may be allowed as follows:

A. For residential uses, required vehicle parking spaces shall be provided at standard size pursuant

to Section 60.30.10.8. Parking in excess of the required parking may be provided as compact

parking subject to Section 60.30.10.7. [ORD 4471; February 2008]

Response: No compact parking spaces are proposed for the residential uses on Lot 1. This standard

is not applicable. Some parking spaces are 15.5 ft. deep rather than 18.5 ft. deep and will overhang

the planted landscape area adjacent to the space.



60.30.15. Off-Street Parking Lot Design.

All off-street parking lots shall be designed in accordance with City Standards for stalls and aisles as set

forth in the following drawings and tables:[…]

Response: The off-street parking lots have been designed in accordance with City Standards.

D. 60.33. Park and Recreational Facilities […]

60.33.10. Annexation to THPRD.

Except as provided in Section 60.33.15, the approval of a Conditional Use, Design Review or Land

Division application for any property located in the City of Beaverton, and not within THPRD’s boundaries,

shall be conditional on the submittal of a legally sufficient petition to annex the property to THPRD;

issuance of building permits shall be delayed until the annexation is effective. Delay of issuance of

building permits until after the annexation is effective may be waived as a condition of approval by the

review authority if the applicant agrees in writing to pay the appropriate THPRD Systems Development

Charge for all building permits issued prior to the effective date of annexation. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

Response: The applicant has annexed the Blackbird Farms PUD to THPRD. The annexation was

approved by the Washington County Board of Commissioners on April 6, 2021 (R&O No. 21-41).

60.33.15. Waiver of Requirement.

Any proposed development that can document to the City’s satisfaction that it will provide park land,

recreation facilities and services at a level similar to that provided by THPRD may have the requirements

of Section 60.33.10 waived by the City. See Section 40.93.15.

Response: A Waiver of Requirement is not proposed. This standard is not applicable.

E. 60.35. Planned Unit Development 60.35.05. Purpose.

It is the purpose of these provisions to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in any City zoning

district. Uses or combinations of uses may be developed as a single, integral, functional unit or entity. The

PUD provisions are intended to encourage innovation and creative approaches for developing land while

enhancing and preserving the value, character, and integrity of surrounding areas which have developed

or are developing under conventional district regulations. This is to be accomplished by using the

following development and design principles:

1. Site design shall use the flexibility afforded by the planned unit development to:

A. Provide setbacks and buffering through landscape or building design abutting to existing

development;

B. Cluster buildings to create open space and protect natural resources;

C. Provide for active recreation and passive open space;

D. Use resource efficient development and building practices that encourage innovative design

techniques and construction practices that use energy saving technology.

Response: The Blackbird Farms PUD provides setbacks and buffering from adjacent sites through public

streets and the natural area to the north. Mountainside High School is the only adjacent developed site,

and buffering is provided through existing retaining walls and substantial landscaping on the school site.

The conceptual buildings have been clustered to create well-distributed open space. The natural resource

area to the north is largely undisturbed, but a multiuse trail system will provide visual and physical access

to that natural area.



2. Site design shall maximize the opportunities for diversified architecture and outdoor living

environments that respond to the existing site context by exploring design flexibility for siting

structures, open spaces, circulation facilities, off-street parking areas, streetscapes, resource

conservation, and creation of other site improvements that facilitate efficient use of land and create a

comprehensive development plan which is better than that resulting from traditional subdivision

development;

Response: The proposed design maximizes the opportunities for passive and active open spaces and

conservation of the natural resources to the north. The Blackbird Farms PUD includes a future public

park, Tract B/Park A, and a network of multiuse trails. The topography of the site provides opportunities to

establish view corridors toward the south. The flexibility afforded by the R1 and CC zones and the PUD

process allows the development to achieve a highly functional and attractive site design.

3. Building architecture including detached residential, shall use innovative design that should consider

the context of the existing built and natural environment. Buildings shall be architecturally detailed,

and of a size and mass that contribute to a pedestrian-friendly streetscape and respond to the natural

features of the site. Cluster housing, such as Courtyard, Patio, or Cottage development, that groups

buildings in areas to maximize open space and preserve significant cultural and natural resources is

highly encouraged as are the use of sustainable building materials and practices. The orientation of

buildings should promote human scaled and pedestrian friendly environments and maximize solar

exposure for passive solar gain;

Response: The proposed building architecture is modern in form and responds to the site topography

and the surrounding hills. Each of the buildings is architecturally detailed and contribute to a pedestrian-

friendly streetscape by providing enclosure and ground floor transparency. The buildings respond to the

natural features of the site by stepping up the hill to provide views and minimize site disturbance. See

Sheets C2.20 to C2.22 for conceptual site profiles.

4. Open space should provide opportunities for active and/or passive recreation that includes

preservation of natural and cultural resources. Good site design shall retain and protect special

topographic, natural, and environmentally sensitive features and existing Significant Groves and

Historical and Individual trees should be retained and protected. Understory and the use of native

plant material and sustainable landscape practices are encouraged.

Response: A wide variety of active and passive recreation opportunities are provided on the site. These

will include passive seating areas, a splash pad south of Building 1B, a public park with a children’s play

area, a multiuse trail network, and smaller active spaces throughout the site. Native plant materials have

been proposed where possible.

60.35.10. Modification of Base Zoning Standards.

1. Permitted Uses.

A. The uses in a PUD shall comply with the Permitted and Conditional Use requirements of the

zoning district.

Response: The proposed PUD includes multifamily residential and park uses in the R1 zone and

commercial uses in the CC zone. Multifamily residential is permitted outright in the R1 and CC zones,

park uses are permitted as Conditional Uses, and commercial uses are permitted outright in the CC

zone. This standard is met.



B. Detached and attached dwellings may be allowed in a PUD provided the overall residential

density satisfies the applicable residential density provisions of this Code.

Response: No detached or attached dwellings are proposed. This standard is not applicable.

C. In addition to the accessory uses and structures typical in the zoning district in which the PUD is

located, accessory uses approved as a part of a PUD may include, but are not limited to the

following:

1. Private or public park, lake or waterway;

2. Recreation area;

3. Recreation building, clubhouse or social hall; or

4. Other accessory uses or structures which the Planning Commission finds are designed to

serve primarily the residents of the PUD, and are compatible with the neighborhood and to

the design of the PUD

Response: The proposed development includes a public park, which is permitted as a Conditional

Use within the R1 zone and also as an accessory use within the PUD. Conditional Use approval has

been requested for the proposed park within Tract B.

2. Density and Lot Dimensions. Density and building scale shall relate to the surrounding neighborhood

development and natural resources by providing massing and architectural compatibility with the

surrounding neighborhood.

A. Density Transfers.

Response: No density transfers are proposed. This standard is not applicable.

B. Residential Lot Sizes.

1. Minimum lot size may be reduced to 50 percent of the minimum land area of the applicable

zoning district(s), except as permitted in 60.35.10.3.C.2.

3. Maximum lot size may not exceed 195 percent of the minimum land area of the applicable

zoning district(s) in conformance with the table below unless designated for a future phase,

which includes further division of property or development of attached product. When the

maximum density for the parent parcel has been achieved or a lot is greater than 195 percent

of the base zone, the oversized lot(s) shall include a deed restriction to preclude unintended

partitioning or subdividing of such lots in accordance with the requirements of the approved

PUD.

4. A proposed Planned Unit Development shall not result in fewer dwelling units (lower density)

than if the subject site were reviewed as a Preliminary Subdivision.

Response: No reduction of lot sizes is requested. The proposed lots are intended to reflect financing

and development phasing and are not intended to be further divided. Each of the lots exceeds 195

percent of the 1,000 sq. ft. minimum land area of the R1 zone, and Lot 6 exceeds 195 percent of the

1,000 sq. ft. residential minimum land area of the CC zone.

3. Setbacks.

A. The dimensional standards for the applicable zoning district as listed in Chapter 20 may be

modified through approval of a Planned Unit Development, except for the following situations:

1. For proposed lots abutting the perimeter of the property, the required setbacks shall comply

with the standard front and rear setbacks of the parent parcel.



Response: The minimum front yard setback for the R1 zone is 10 ft., and there is no minimum

front yard setback for the proposed CC zone on Lot 6. The minimum rear yard setback of the R1

zone is 15 ft. and there is no minimum rear setback for the proposed CC zone on Lot 6. Each of

the proposed lots abuts the perimeter of the property, and buildings on these lots must comply

with the setbacks for the R1 and CC zones. This standard is or will be met.

2. Where standard modifications would not promote pedestrian or bicycle connection to the

street; support storm water management; or meet fire and building codes.

Response: No modifications are proposed with this application. This standard is not applicable.

B. Front Setbacks.

The following shall apply to all lots within a proposed residential development(s); except lots

proposed along the perimeter of the subject site, which shall be consistent with Section

60.35.10.3.A.1.

1. Front setbacks for a residential structure, interior to a Planned Unit Development may be

reduced, excluding the garage where the garage door faces the front property line. Structures

shall not encroach into a public utility easement.

Response: The minimum front yard setback for the R1 zone is 10 ft., and there is no minimum

front yard setback for the proposed CC zone on Lot 6. The proposed buildings on Lot 1 are set

back at least 16 ft. from the “front” lot line of Mountainside Way, and no reductions are requested.

Future development on Lots 2-5 may request reductions at the time of development. This

standard is met.

2. All single-family attached and detached garages that face a public or private street shall be

setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from property line. Attached and detached garage

door façade(s) shall be set back a minimum of four (4) additional feet from the set back of the

front of the building, not including porches, when facing a public or private street. All other

garage and carport entrances must be set back a minimum of two (2) additional feet when

the set back of the front of the building is at least twenty (20) feet.

Response: No garages are proposed. This standard is not applicable.

C. Rear setbacks.

1. Rear setbacks shall be the same as the designated zone for the parent parcel for lots

abutting the perimeter of the proposed development excepting alley accessed lots for which

rear setbacks may be reduced to four (4) feet for alley-accessed lots with no less than a 20-

foot alley width.

2. Garages and carports accessed from both sides of an alley shall be setback a minimum of

four (4) feet with no less than 28-feet between garage doors.

Response: The “rear” yard of the site is the northern property line, and the 15-ft. R1 rear setback

applies. The proposed development is separated from the northern property line by Tract A, a natural

resource tract. No reductions to rear yard setbacks are requested.

D. Side setbacks. Except for zero-lot line development, side setbacks internal to the Planned Unit

Development, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet with a total of six (6) feet between two

buildings. In no case shall a building encroach into a Public Utility Easement (PUE). All zero-lot

line development shall have side yard setbacks of 10 feet on one side of the dwelling unit and no

setback required on the opposite side.



Response: The “side” yard of northern portion of Lot 1 is Tract B, and the 5-ft. R1 side setback

applies. Building 1A is closest to the western property line and is set back 3.5 ft. from the western

property line.

60.35.15. Open Space.

Open space shall provide opportunities for active and/or passive recreation and may include existing

stands of trees, resource areas, and storm water facilities as outlined in this section. Active open space

shall allow human activities including recreational and social opportunities such as play fields,

playgrounds, swimming pools, plazas and other recreational facilities. Open space may also be passive

and include human activities limited to walking, running, and cycling, seating areas and wildlife viewing or

natural areas such as a wetland.

1. A Planned Unit Development shall provide baseline open space of an area equal to at least twenty

percent (20%) of the subject site.

2. Exemptions. Properties within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Area are exempt from the

open space requirements in Section 60.35.15.1, but shall provide all community features, including

but not limited to, trails, habitat benefit areas, and scenic views identified in the South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan, as identified in Section 60.35.25.

Response: The site is located within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Area, and this

proposal is exempt from the 20 percent minimum PUD open space requirement. See responses to the

policies of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan in Section IV for demonstration of required open

space elements from the community plan, and Sheet C1.04 for an illustration of the Community Plan area

elements and active open space provided.

3. Open Space Standards. Open space shall be land that is available for the creation of active and/or

passive areas, or resource areas that provide visible and accessible open space to the proposed

community.

A. The following resource areas may count towards passive open space requirements: Significant

trees and/or groves, habitat benefit areas, view corridors, steep slopes, water quality facilities,

environmentally sensitive areas including wetlands and any buffers required by Clean Water

Services or other regulatory body, and other resources as deemed appropriate by the decision

maker.

Response: As shown in Sheet C1.04, there are 12.9 ac, or 560,579 sq. ft., of mapped wetlands,

ponds, and buffers in the northern portion of the site (Tract A). This area been counted towards the

overall passive open space requirements of the project.

B. Open space shall be easily accessible, physically or visually, to all members of the planned

community via a minimum thirty (30) foot wide street frontage or access easement;

Response: The primary open spaces on the site are easily accessible by pedestrians. With the

exception of the Tract A and Lot 2 open spaces, active open spaces are located along streets and are

visible to the entire neighborhood.

C. No more than sixty (60) percent of the gross land dedicated to active open space may have

slopes greater than five (5) percent. Additional reductions to this standard may be granted by the

Planning Commission based on the context of the proposed amenities and existing site

conditions.



Response: As shown on Sheet C1.04, the proposed development includes 151,698 sq. ft. of active

open space; 142,468 sq. ft. (93.9 percent) of this area is less than 5 percent slope.

D. Open space areas shall have a dedicated meter and underground irrigation system to ensure

adequate water supply during establishment period (3-years) and during periods of drought for all

newly planted areas. Resource areas are exempt from this criterion.

Response: Open spaces will contain necessary irrigation systems to ensure establishment and

sustainability of vegetation.

E. For developments ten (10) acres or greater, at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total required

open space area shall be active open space and subject to the provisions of 60.35.15.4.

Response: The proposed development is 32.4 acres in area, and this standard is applicable. As

detailed on Sheet C1.04, the proposed development provides 151,698 sq. ft. of active open space,

which is 25.3 percent of the required open space area.

F. For the purpose of this Code, open space does not include:

1. Public or private streets;

2. Surface parking lots or paved areas not designated for active or passive recreation;

3. Private lots and buildings including setbacks or landscape buffers. However, community

buildings, community rooms, or both developed for the common use and ownership of the

residents within a Planned Unit Development may be counted as open space.

4. Vehicular access driveways or maneuvering areas.

Response: This proposal does not consider the above areas to be open space. A community room is

proposed within Building 1B and are counted as open space.

Section 60.35.15.4 Active Open Space

Active open space areas are common areas that may be gathering spots, community rooms, play

areas, overlooks, or any that consist of active uses for owners, residents, or the community at large.

Active open space shall meet the following criteria:

A. Active open space that is provided outdoors shall be no smaller than the minimum lot size

requirement of the underlying zoning district with a minimum width 40 feet. For properties in

multiple use zoning districts with no minimum lot size active open space areas shall be a

minimum of 5,000 square feet in area. The Planning Commission may modify this requirement to

accommodate trails, overlooks, and other types of recreational features which serve the residents

of the development.

Response: Each of the proposed outdoor active open space areas shown on Sheet C1.04 exceeds

the minimum lot sizes of 1,000 sq. ft. for residential dwellings in the R1 zone. Each of these areas

exceed the width of 40 ft. with the exception of:

▪ Building 1A, 1B, and 1C balconies

▪ Building 1C active open space, which has dimensions of 6 ft. to 23 ft. and an area of

approximately 700 sq. ft.

▪ Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 balconies

▪ Lot 2 open space, which measures ~35 ft.

▪ Lot 3 open space, which is approximately 700 sq. ft. in area

▪ Lot 5 open space, which has east-west dimensions of approximately 17 ft. to approximately 33 ft.

and

▪ Lot 6 open space, which is between 6 ft. and 10 ft. wide and is approximately 880 sq. ft. in area



▪ Park C/Tract C, which has dimensions of less than 40 ft. at the southwestern and northeastern

corner

▪ Multiuse trail easements in the northern portion of the site, which measure 20 ft. in width.

▪ Mountainside Way/Street B community trail alignment

▪ The Scholls Ferry Road Community Trail along the southern portion of the site

The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of the proposed active open space with

smaller areas and narrower widths than required by this section.

The trails being provided are intended to implement the trail network of the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan and the THPRD Trails Functional Plan.

Though the active open spaces on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are smaller than the standards of this

section, they are thoughtfully located throughout the site and complement the trail network and

pedestrian network by fronting trails and streets and providing an extension of that activity.

The balconies on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are intended to provide both visual interest and articulation to

those buildings, as well as to provide private outdoor space for each unit. Though only the ground-

floor patios are proposed to be counted as active open space, each of the units will have private

outdoor areas.

Tract C’s shape is the result of an angled property line to the southeast, which results in a “triangle”

shape that tapers at either end. The overall park area is highly functional and will be protected from

Mountainside Way by both a change of grade and a physical barrier as noted below.

B. Active open space may abut a Collector or greater classified street as identified in the City’s

adopted Functional Classification Plan, when separated from the street by a constructed barrier,

such as a fence or wall, at least three (3) feet in height.

Response: The Building 1C open space and Tract C are proposed adjacent to Mountainside Way, a

Collector. As shown on Sheet L2.03, a split rail fence is proposed along the Mountainside Way

frontage adjacent to the Building 1C open space,

C. Active Open Space shall be physically accessible to all residents of the development.

Response: The active open spaces on the site are all accessible to residents via ADA-compliant

paved pathways that connect to the paved on-site circulation system. Refer to the site plan on Sheet

C1.10.

D. Active open space shall include physical improvements to enhance the area. Physical

improvements may include; benches, gazebos, plazas, picnic areas, playground equipment, sport

courts, swimming/wading pools, indoor clubhouses or meeting facilities, play fields, or other items

permitted by the Planning Commission.

Response: As shown on Sheets L2.02 to L2.05, the proposed active open spaces on Lot 1 and Tract

B include physical improvements including benches, shelters, picnic areas, and lawn. Open Space A

will include physical improvements including a picnic table and pathways. Building 1B includes an

indoor common amenity space. The open spaces on Lots 2-5 will be fully designed when those

projects request Design Review approval.



E. Floor area within buildings devoted to common uses which serve the residents of the

development, such as indoor pools, game rooms, or community rooms, may be counted towards

Active Open Space requirements based on the total floor area devoted to such uses.

Response: Building 1B contains a community rooms, which is included in the Active Open Space

calculations.

5. Maintenance and Ownership. Land shown on the final development plan as common open space,

and landscaping and/or planting contained therein shall be permanently maintained by and conveyed

to one of the following:

A. An association of owners or tenants, created as a non-profit corporation under the laws of the

state (ORS 94.572)[…]

B. A public agency which agrees to maintain the dedicated open space and any buildings,

structures, or other improvements which have been placed on it.

C. Dedicated open space shall be protected by Covenants (CC&Rs) or deed restriction to prevent

any future commercial, industrial, or residential development. [ORD 4654; March 2015]

Response: The applicant will retain ownership of Lot 1 and will maintain the open space areas as

required by this section. The trails within Tract A, Open Space A, and Tract B are intended to be

conveyed to THPRD, a public agency, but if this transfer does not occur the applicant will establish

maintenance responsibilities for this park. Lot 2-6 open spaces will be maintained by the ultimate

developers of those lots.

60.35.20. Building Architecture.

1. Purpose. This section applies to development which is not subject to Section 60.05.(Design Review)

of this code.

Response: The proposed development is subject to Section 60.05 and conformance with that section is

addressed earlier in this narrative.

[…]

3. Building Heights. Buildings shall be to scale with similar types of existing structures on adjacent

properties. This can be accomplished by utilizing graduated building heights which offer a transition

between single-story residential development and multiple-story residential.

A. Maximum building height standards may be increased up to twelve feet (12’) when the applicable

building setback distance along the perimeter of the parent parcel is increased at a ratio of 1.5

additional feet of setback for every foot of building height over the base zone standard for building

height.

B. For the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area, structures that do not abut the exterior

boundary of the plan area, may be allowed to vary building heights, without satisfying the

graduated building height transitions of Section 60.35.20.3 in order to provide for a variety in

housing types within developments. [ORD 4654; March 2015]

[…]

Response: The maximum height of the R1 and CC zones is 60 ft. The proposed buildings on Lot 1 are

51 ft. 2 in. in height. No building height increases are requested.

60.35.25. South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of

Beaverton. It provides regulatory policies and maps, along with descriptions and illustrations of the

context for those policies and maps, for 544 acres within the southwestern area of the City of Beaverton.



This section of the Development Code of the City of Beaverton outlines specific implementation

requirements and connections to the policies of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan.

1. Proposals within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area shall demonstrate compliance

with the following applicable South Cooper Mountain Community Plan policies and figures:

Response: Compliance with the standards of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan is addressed

in Section IV of this narrative.

2. Proposals within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area shall demonstrate compliance

with the following applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and figures[…]

Response: Compliance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan is addressed in Section III of this

narrative.

F. 60.55. Transportation Facilities 60.55.10. General Provisions.

1. All public and private transportation facilities shall be designed and improved in accordance with the

standards of this code and the Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings. In addition, when

development abuts or impacts a transportation facility under the jurisdiction of one or more other

governmental agencies, the City shall condition the development to obtain permits required by the

other agencies.

Response: Transportation facilities have been designed in accordance with the Engineering Design

Manual and Standard Drawings. The applicant will obtain permits from applicable agencies as necessary

to complete the project.

2. In order to protect the public from potentially adverse impacts of the proposal, to fulfill an identified

need for public services related to the development, or both, development shall provide traffic

capacity, traffic safety, and transportation improvements in rough proportion to the identified impacts

of the development.

Response: To ensure that the public is protected from adverse impacts related to traffic this application

includes a proposed internal roadway network, based on the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

that will appropriately facilitate internal and pass through traffic.

3. For applications that meet the threshold criteria of section 60.55.15. (Traffic Management Plan) or of

section 60.55.20. (Traffic Impact Analysis), these analyses or limited elements thereof may be

required.

Response: The proposed PUD and Lot 1 development is predicted to produce more than 200 vehicle

trips per day at buildout. Accordingly, a Traffic Impact Analysis (as per section 60.55.20) has been

developed. See Appendix D.

4. The decision-making authority may impose development conditions of approval per Section 10.65.1.

of this code. Conditions of approval may be based on the Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Impact

Analysis. Additional street, bicycle, and pedestrian connections may also be required per 60.55.25.

(Street and Bicycle and Pedestrian Connection Requirements).

5. Dedication of right-of-way shall be determined by the decision-making authority



Response: City staff has indicated that dedication of right-of-way will be required to extend Mountainside

Way and Scholls Ferry Road. These dedications are shown on Sheets C1.20, C1.21, and C1.22

Preliminary Plat.

6. Traffic calming may be approved or required by the decision-making authority in a design of the

proposed and/or existing streets within the Area of Influence or any additional locations identified by

the City Engineer. Traffic calming measures shall be designed to City standards.

Response: No traffic calming measures are currently required or proposed.

7. Intersection performance shall be determined using the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 published by

the Transportation Research Board. The City Engineer may approve a different intersection analysis

method prior to use when the different method can be justified. Terms used in this subsection are

defined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000.

At a minimum, the impacts of development on a signalized intersection shall be mitigated to peak

hour average control delay no greater than 65 seconds per vehicle using a signal cycle length not to

exceed 120 seconds. The volume-to-capacity ratio for each lane group for each movement shall be

identified and considered in the determination of intersection performance. The peak hour volume-to-

capacity (V/C) ratio for each lane group shall be no greater than 0.98. Signal progression shall also

be considered. If the intersection is under County or ODOT jurisdiction, the V/C ratio for each land

group shall not exceed the V/C ratio imposed by that jurisdiction. [ORD 4706; May 2017]

At a minimum, the impacts of development on a two-way or an all-way stop-controlled intersection

shall be mitigated to a peak hour average control delay of no greater than 45 seconds per vehicle.

If the existing control delay or volume-to-capacity ratio of an intersection is greater than the standards

of this subsection, the impacts of development shall be mitigated to maintain or reduce the respective

control delay or volume-to-capacity ratio.

Response: The Traffic Impact Analysis utilized the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 for analysis and

employed the City’s standards above. It resulted in a series of recommendations for improvements to

roadways, access and capacity.

60.55.15. Traffic Management Plan. [ORD 4302; June 2004]

Where development will add 20 or more trips in any hour on a residential street, a Traffic Management

Plan acceptable to the City Engineer shall be submitted in order to complete the application. A residential

street is any portion of a street classified as a Local Street or Neighborhood Route and having abutting

property zoned R2, R4, R5, R7, or R10. [ORD 4584; June 2012]

[…]

Response: The site does not contain any existing residential streets. This standard is not applicable.



60.55.20. Traffic Impact Analysis.

For each development proposal that exceeds the Analysis Threshold of 60.55.20.2, the application for

land use or design review approval shall include a Traffic Impact Analysis as required by this code. The

Traffic Impact Analysis shall be based on the type and intensity of the proposed land use change or

development and its estimated level of impact to the existing and future local and regional transportation

systems.

1. Engineer Certification. The Traffic Impact Analysis shall be prepared and certified by a traffic engineer

or civil engineer licensed in the State of Oregon.

Response: The traffic analysis was developed by Dana Beckwith, PE, a licensed engineer with Global

Transportation Engineering. See Appendix D.

2. Analysis Threshold.

A. A Traffic Impact Analysis is required when the proposed land use change or development will

generate 200 vehicles or more per day (vpd) in average weekday trips as determined by the City

Engineer.

B. A Traffic Impact Analysis or some elements of a Traffic Impact Analysis may be required when

the volume threshold under subsection A. of this section is not met but the City Engineer finds

that the traffic impacts attributable to the development have the potential to significantly impact

the safe and efficient operation of the existing public transportation system.

Response: The proposed development on Lot 1 is expected to generate 4,630 additional trips per day.

Accordingly, the analysis threshold has been met and the required Traffic Impact Analysis has been

developed. See Appendix D.

3. Study Area. The Traffic Impact Analysis shall evaluate the Area of Influence of the proposed

development and all segments of the surrounding transportation system where users are likely to

experience a change in the quality of traffic flow. The City Engineer may identify additional locations

for study if existing traffic operation, safety, or performance is marginal or substandard. Prior to report

preparation, the applicant shall submit the proposed scope and analysis assumptions of the Traffic

Impact Analysis. The City Engineer shall determine whether the scope and analysis assumptions are

adequate.

Response: As described in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the Area of Influence of the proposed

development was evaluated. Global Transportation Engineering submitted the proposed scope and

analysis assumptions to the City Engineer prior to conducting the analysis.

4. Contents of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The Traffic Impact Analysis report shall contain the

following information organized in a logical format:[…]

Response: The Traffic Impact Analysis was developed by Global Transportation Engineering and

contains the listed information.

60.55.25. Street and Bicycle and Pedestrian Connection Requirements.

1. All streets shall provide for safe and efficient circulation and access for motor vehicles, bicycles,

pedestrians, and transit. Bicycle and pedestrian connections shall provide for safe and efficient

circulation and access for bicycles and pedestrians.

Response: All streets are designed in accordance with the City of Beaverton’s Engineering Design

Manual except where exceptions/modifications have been requested. A multi-modal transportation



network has been planned and designed for the site and its efficacy is described in the Traffic Impact

Analysis Report.

2. The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figures 6.1 through 6.23 and Tables 6.1 through

6.6 shall be used to identify ultimate right-of-way width and future Potential Street, bicycle, and

pedestrian connections in order to provide adequate multi-modal access to land uses, improve area

circulation, and reduce out-of-direction travel.

Response: The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element figures do not include the South Cooper

Mountain plan area. The transportation network was planning in accordance with the South Cooper

Mountain Community Plan. Additionally, all streets are designed in accordance with the City of

Beaverton’s Engineering Design Manual except where exceptions/modifications have been requested.

3. Where a future street or bicycle and pedestrian connection location is not identified in the

Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, where abutting properties are undeveloped or can be

expected to be redeveloped in the near term, and where a street or bicycle and pedestrian connection

is necessary to enable reasonably direct access between and among neighboring properties, the

applicant shall submit as part of a complete application, a future connections plan showing the

potential arrangement of streets and bicycle and pedestrian connections that shall provide for the

continuation or appropriate projection of these connections into surrounding areas.

Response: The transportation network was planned in accordance with the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan, including proposed connections to existing and planned street, bicycle, and pedestrian

facilities.

4. Streets and bicycle and pedestrian connections shall extend to the boundary of the parcel under

development and shall be designed to connect the proposed development’s streets, bicycle

connections, and pedestrian connections to existing and future streets, bicycle connections, and

pedestrian connections. A closed-end street, bicycle connection, or pedestrian connection may be

approved with a temporary design.


Community Plan and includes connections to existing roadways. No closed-end streets are proposed.

However, there are two locations where streets are stubbed out for future connection to planned streets.

5. Whenever existing streets and bicycle and pedestrian connections adjacent to or within a parcel of

land are of inadequate width, additional right-of-way may be required by the decision-making

authority.

Response: Scholls Ferry Road, Mountainside Way, Street C, and Street A are adjacent to the

development site, and additional right-of-way will be provided per City and County standards. All streets

are designed in accordance with the City of Beaverton’s Engineering Design Manual except where

exceptions/modifications have been requested.

6. Where possible, bicycle and pedestrian connections shall converge with streets at traffic-controlled

intersections for safe crossing.

Response: The bicycle and pedestrian connections within the site are part of the larger South Cooper

Mountain plan area infrastructure. They will eventually converge at the signalized Mountainside

Way/Scholls Ferry Road intersection and the Scholls Ferry Road/175th intersections, all of which are

traffic controlled.



7. Bicycle and pedestrian connections shall connect the on-site circulation system to existing or

proposed streets, to adjacent bicycle and pedestrian connections, and to driveways open to the public

that abut the property. Connections may approach parking lots on adjoining properties if the adjoining

property used for such connection is open to public pedestrian and bicycle use, is paved, and is

unobstructed.


Community Plan, which identifies bicycle and pedestrian connections throughout the plan area.

8. To preserve the ability to provide transportation capacity, safety, and improvements, a special

setback line may be established by the City for existing and future streets, street widths, and bicycle

and pedestrian connections for which an alignment, improvement, or standard has been defined by

the City. The special setback area shall be recorded on the plat.

Response: The City has not requested a special setback line for the development, and no special

setback area is proposed.

9. Accessways are one or more connections that provide bicycle and pedestrian passage between

streets or a street and a destination. Accessways shall be provided as required by this code and

where full street connections are not possible due to the conditions described in Section 60.55.25.13.

An accessway will not be required where the impacts from development, redevelopment, or both are

low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of such accessway.

A. Accessways shall be provided as follows:

1. In any block that is longer than 600 feet as measured from the near side right-of-way line of

the subject street to the near side right-of-way line of the adjacent street, an accessway shall

be required through and near the middle of the block.

Response: The site has been designed to provide a walkable, accessible grid of streets and

sidewalks. No blocks are longer than 600 feet.

2. If any of the conditions described in Section 60.55.25.14. result in block lengths longer than

1200 feet as measured from the near side right-of-way line of the subject street to the near

side right- of-way line of the adjacent street, then two or more accessways may be required

through the block. [ORD 4397; August 2006]

Response: No blocks of this length are proposed.

3. Where a street connection is not feasible due to conditions described in Section 60.55.25.14.,

one or more new accessways to any or all of the following shall be provided as a component

of the development if the accessway is reasonably direct: an existing transit stop, a planned

transit route as identified by TriMet and the City, a school, a shopping center, or a

neighborhood park.

Response: Main Street will be continued west through the site and will provide direct pedestrian

access to the planned transit stop and Mountainside High School to the east.

4. The City may require an accessway to connect from one cul-de-sac to an adjacent cul-de-sac

or street.



Response: Two cul-de-sacs are proposed: the south end of Street A and the north end of Street

B. In both cases, pedestrian accessways connect the cul-de-sac to the adjacent streets and/or

trail network.

5. In a proposed development or where redevelopment potential exists and a street connection

is not proposed, one or more accessways may be required to connect a cul-de-sac to public

streets, to other accessways, or to the project boundary to allow for future connections.

Response: Two cul-de-sacs are proposed: the south end of Street A and the north end of Street

B. In both cases, pedestrian accessways connect the cul-de-sac to the adjacent streets and/or

trail network. No future connections are anticipated due to natural resource areas to the north and

restrictions on intersection spacing on Scholls Ferry Road to the south.

6. Within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area, the City may require an accessway

to connect from multiuse paths or trails to streets, multi-use paths, or trails.

Response: The proposed regional multi-use path within the Scholls Ferry right of way will

connect to the site via accessible walkways. The proposed multi-use paths within the natural

resource area to the north connects to the site at two points, as shown in Sheet C1.04.

B. Accessway Design Standards.

1. Accessways shall be as short as possible and wherever practical, straight enough to allow

one end of the path to be visible from the other.

2. Accessways shall be located to provide a reasonably direct connection between likely

pedestrian and bicycle destinations.

Response: As stated earlier, the site has been designed as walkable, accessible grid providing

easy pedestrian access and safe visibility.

10. Pedestrian Circulation.

A. Walkways are required between parts of a development where the public is invited or allowed to

walk.

Response: All the proposed roads within the development include sidewalks to provide pedestrian

circulation throughout the site. In addition, a regional multiuse path will be constructed along the

southern boundary of the site, parallel to Scholls Ferry Road. Finally, a network of multiuse paths is

proposed in the northern portion of the site and will be accessed through Park A.

B. A walkway into the development shall be provided for every 300 feet of street frontage. A

walkway shall also be provided to any accessway abutting the development.

Response: The Blackbird Farms site has approximately 340 ft. of frontage on Scholls Ferry Road. A

walkway is provided at the southern end of Street A to the east of Lot 6, and on-site walkways are

proposed. See Sheet C1.06.

C. Walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building entrances to

adjacent public streets and existing or planned transit stops. Walkways shall connect the

development to walkways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, alleyways and other bicycle or pedestrian

connections on adjacent properties used or planned for commercial, multifamily, institution or

park use. The City may require connections to be constructed and extended to the property line

at the time of development.



Response: As shown on Sheet C1.06, walkways are proposed to connect all conceptual buildings to

adjacent streets and pedestrian facilities. Lot 1 will construct the walkways within Phase 1.

D. Walkways shall be reasonably direct between pedestrian destinations and minimize crossings

where vehicles operate.

Response: Pedestrian destinations include the open space areas on site. Sidewalks are provided

along public streets and provide direct access to those spaces. See Sheet C1.06.

E. Walkways shall be paved and shall maintain at least five (5) feet of unobstructed width. Walkways

bordering parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete wheel stops, bollards,

curbing, landscaping, or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles

from obstructing the walkway. Stairs or ramps shall be provided where necessary to provide a

reasonably direct route. The slope of walkways without stairs shall conform to City standards.

Response: Walkways will be paved and will be at least 5 ft. in width, with the exception of the

walkway at the western end of Building 1A. This walkway provides access to a utility room at the

western end of the building and is not intended for use by the general public. This walkway is 3 ft. in

width and complies with ADA width standards.

F. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contains different and stricter standards for some

walkways. The ADA applies to the walkway that is the principal building entrance and walkways

that connect transit stops and parking areas to building entrances. Where the ADA applies to a

walkway, the stricter standards of ADA shall apply.

Response: Walkways that are subject to the ADA have been designed to ADA standards.

G. On-site walkways shall be lighted to 0.5 foot-candle level at initial luminance. Lighting shall have

cut- off fixtures so that illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot-candle more than five (5) feet

beyond the property line.

Response: On-site sidewalks will be illuminated to a 0.5 foot-candle level. See Sheets L4.00 and

L4.01. The multiuse trails will be illuminated to the light level requested by the City and/or County.

11. Pedestrian Connections at Major Transit Stops. Commercial and institution buildings at or near major

transit stops shall provide for pedestrian access to transit through the following measures: […]

Response: There are no Major Transit Stops within or near the project. This standard is not applicable.

[…]

13. New construction of bicycle and pedestrian connections along residential rear lot lines is discouraged

unless no comparable substitute alignment is possible in the effort to connect common trip origins

and destinations or existing segment links.

Response: A multiuse trail is proposed along the rear lot line of Lots 2 and 4. However, the trail will not

be on the lots themselves and provides access to the natural areas to the north and connects to the

approved trail system to the west.

14. Street and Bicycle and Pedestrian Connection Hindrances. Street, bicycle, and/or pedestrian

connections are not required where one or more of the following conditions exist:



A. Physical or topographic conditions make a general street, bicycle, or pedestrian connection

impracticable. Such conditions include but are not limited to the alignments of existing connecting

streets, freeways, railroads, slopes in excess of City standards for maximum slopes, wetlands or

other bodies of water where a connection could not reasonably be provided;

B. Existing buildings or other development on adjacent lands physically preclude a connection now

and in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment; or,

C. Where streets, bicycle, or pedestrian connections would violate provisions of leases, easements,

covenants, or restrictions written and recorded as of May 1, 1995, which preclude a required

street, bicycle, or pedestrian connection.

Response: Street, bicycle, and pedestrian connections are made to the west, south, east, and north to

connect with existing or approved infrastructure networks.

60.55.30. Minimum Street Widths.

Minimum street widths are depicted in the Engineering Design Manual

1. Any project-specific modifications of the standards contained in the Engineering Design Manual

regarding the widths of features relating to the movement of vehicles, including but not limited to

rights of way, travel lanes, parking lanes, bike lanes, driveway aprons, curb radii, or other such

features shall be processed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Section 145 Design

Modifications of the Engineering Design Manual. [ORD 4418; February 2007]

Response: The proposed streets meet the minimum widths for L1, Collector, and Arterial streets. A

modified L1 cross section is proposed for Street A (section M-M) to provide parking on one side of the

street. An Engineering Design Manual Exception request will be submitted at the time of Site

Development Permit.

2. Any project-specific modifications of the standards of the Engineering Design Manual relating to the

location and dimensions of required street landscaping and pedestrian features including, but not

limited to, sidewalks, planter strips, street trees, street tree wells, street tree easements, or street

furniture are subject to the procedures contained in Chapter 40 (Applications). The required

application will depend on the scope of the proposed project and the type of application filed with the

City. [ORD 4418; February 2007]

Response: No modifications to these street landscaping and pedestrian features are requested.

This standard is not applicable.

3. Street trees shall be planted at a maximum linear spacing of 30 feet along street frontages or

in accordance with an approved street tree plan approved by the City Arborist. Proposed

tree wells shall be designed to meet standards in the City Engineering Design Manual.

Response: As shown on Sheets L2.00 and L2.01, street trees are placed at a linear spacing of

no more than 30 ft.

60.55.35. Access Standards.

1. The development plan shall include street plans that demonstrate how safe access to and from the

proposed development and the street system will be provided. The applicant shall also show how

public and private access to, from, and within the proposed development will be preserved.

Response: The development plan incorporates streets that provide safe access to and from the

proposed development. See Sheet C1.10.



2. No more than 25 dwelling units may have access onto a closed-end street system unless the

decision-making authority finds that identified physical constraints preclude compliance with the

standard and the proposed development is still found to be in compliance with the Facilities Review

criteria of Section 40.03.

Response: Street B terminates at the northern end in a cul-de-sac. The 145 dwelling units

proposed on Lot 1 have access from Street B at two points and are not served by a closed-end

street system.

3. Intersection Standards.

A. Visibility at Intersections. All work adjacent to public streets and accessways shall comply with the

standards of the Engineering Design Manual except in Regional and Town Centers.

1. The sight clearance area requirements for Town Centers and Regional Centers shall be

determined on a case-by-case basis by the decision-making authority. In making its

determination, the decision-making authority shall consider the safety of the users of the

intersection (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists), design speeds, the intersection

sight distance standards of the Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings, and

other applicable criteria. [ORD 4111; July 2000]

Response: All intersections and streets are design in accordance with the visibility standards of

the Engineering Design Manual.

2. The requirements specified in 60.55.35.3.A. may be lessened or waived by the decision-

making authority if the project will not result in an unsafe traffic situation. In making its

determination, the decision-making authority shall consider the safety of the users of the

intersection (including pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists), design speeds, the intersection

sight distance standards of the Engineering Design Manual, and other applicable criteria.

Response: No modifications to these requirements are requested at this time.

B. Intersection angles and alignment and intersection spacing along streets shall meet the standards

of the Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings.

Response: The subject site is designated for residential development. Local street connections are

provided appropriate intervals within the project site.

C. Driveways.

1. Corner Clearance for Driveways. Corner clearance at signalized intersections and stop-

controlled intersections and spacing between driveways shall meet the standards of the

Engineering Design Manual and Standard Drawings.

Response: See Sheets C3.02 and C3.03 for Lot 1 driveway spacing.

2. Shared Driveway Access. Whenever practical, access to Arterials and Collectors shall serve

more than one site through the use of driveways common to more than one development or

to an on-site private circulation design that furthers this requirement.

Consideration of shared access shall take into account at a minimum property ownership,

surrounding land uses, and physical characteristics of the area.

Where two or more lots share a common driveway, reciprocal access easements between

adjacent lots may be required.



Response: No shared driveway accesses are proposed.

3. No new driveways for detached dwellings shall be permitted to have direct access onto an

Arterial or Collector street except in unusual circumstances where emergency access or an

alternative access does not exist. Where detached dwelling access to a local residential

street or Neighborhood Route is not practicable, the decision-making authority may approve

access from a detached dwelling to an Arterial or Collector.

Response: No proposed driveways will have access onto an Arterial or Collector street.

60.55.40. Transit Facilities.

Transit routes and transit facilities shall be designed to support transit use through provision of transit

improvements. These improvements shall include passenger landing pads, accessways to the transit stop

location, or some combination thereof, as required by TriMet and the City, and may also include shelters

or a pad for a shelter. In addition, when required by TriMet and the City, major industrial, institution, retail,

and office developments shall provide either a transit stop on site or a pedestrian connection to a transit

stop adjacent to the site.

Response: No transit facilities are currently present within the site or within the South Cooper Mountain

plan area. Washington County, the City of Beaverton, and TriMet are in the process of expanding TriMet’

s service boundary to South Cooper Mountain. The South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan anticipates a

TriMet bus layover east of the subject site. The level of transit stop improvements will be determined by

TriMet in accordance with their ridership and design standards. Street C has been designed to

accommodate TriMet buses should TriMet wish to use that route.

G. 60.60. Trees and Vegetation […]

60.60.15. Pruning, Removal, and Preservation Standards.

1. Pruning Standards.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove or prune to remove a tree’s canopy or disturb the

root zone of any Protected Tree, except in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

Response: The proposed tree removal will be conducted in accordance with the provisions

of this code.

B. All pruning of Protected Trees shall be done in accordance with the standards set forth in this

section and the City’s adopted Tree Planting and Maintenance Policy, also known as Resolution

3391.

Response: Protected trees include trees within a Significant Natural Resource Area

(SNRA). The site contains mapped SNRA, which includes trees. Major pruning of 6 of these

trees is proposed. The proposed pruning will comply standards of this section and

Resolution 3391.

2. Removal and Preservation Standards.

A. All removal of Protected Trees shall be done in accordance with the standards set forth in this

section.

Response: Three trees are proposed for removal within the SNRA. Removal will be done in

accordance with the standards of this section, as noted below.



B. Removal of Landscape Trees and Protected Trees shall be mitigated, as set forth in section

60.60.25.

Response: No removal of Landscape Trees or Protected Trees is proposed. As shown in

the responses to 60.60.25, no mitigation is required.

C. For SNRAs and Significant Groves, the following additional standards shall apply:

1. The minimum DBH of non-exempt surveyed trees that must be preserved on a site

is as follows:

[…]

b) Residential, Commercial, or Industrial zoning district: Twenty five percent (25%)

of the DBH of non-exempt surveyed trees found on a project site

Response: The SNRA is located within the R1 zone, a residential zoning district. As

shown on Sheet L1.03, the proposed development anticipates the removal of 433

DHB of non-exempt trees, or 4.8 percent. This standard is met.

2. DBH to be retained shall be preserved in cohesive areas, termed Preservation

Areas, when development is proposed in SNRAs or Significant Groves.

Response: The applicant anticipates establishing Tract A in the northern portion of the

site, which would include the majority of the remaining trees on site.

3. Native understory vegetation and trees shall be preserved in Preservation Areas.

Response: No native understory vegetation and tree removal is proposed beyond the

tree removal required for construction of the trail.

4. Preservation Areas, conditioned for protection through the Development Review

process, shall be preserved in clusters that are natural in appearance rather than in

linear strips. Preservation Areas should connect with adjoining portions of the

Significant Grove or SNRA on other sites.

Response: The anticipated Preservation Area on site, within Tract A, will connect with

the SNRA on The Ridge site to the west and the SNRA areas to the north and northeast.

5. Preservation Areas, conditioned for protection through the Design Review process,

shall be set aside in conservation easements and recorded with a deed restriction

with Washington County, unless otherwise approved by the City. The deed

restriction shall prohibit future development and specify the conditions for

maintenance if the property is not dedicated to a public agency.

Response: The Preservation Areas will be set aside in easements and recorded with

deed restrictions as required by CWS and/or Washington County.

6. Preservation Areas, conditioned for protection through the Land Division process,

shall be set aside in tracts and recorded with a deed restriction with Washington

County, unless otherwise approved by the City. The deed restriction shall prohibit

future development and specify the conditions for maintenance if the property is not

dedicated to a public agency.



Response: The Preservation Areas will be set aside in Tract A and recorded with deed

restrictions as required by CWS and/or Washington County.

7. Within the development review process, where a person is presented with a

particular decision whether to retain a native or non-native tree, the native species

shall be retained provided all other considerations between the two categories of

trees remain equal. Non-native tree species may also be retained for aesthetic,

unique condition, size, and wildlife habitat purposes.

Response: The proposed development is removing the minimum number of trees

needed to accommodate the planned trail network. Both native and non-native trees will

be retained within the SNRA.

8. Hazardous and dead trees within Significant Groves and SNRAs should be fallen

only for safety and left at the resource site to serve as habitat for wildlife, unless the

tree has been diagnosed with a disease and must be removed from the area to

protect the remaining trees.

Response: Two trees are proposed for removal within the SNRA: 1 tree is dead and will remain

as habitat, and the other must be removed to accommodate the proposed multiuse trail. The

remaining trees to be removed are outside of the SNRA and are not Protected Trees.

60.60.20. Tree Protection Standards during Development.

1. Trees classified as Protected Trees under this Code shall be protected during development in

compliance with the following: […]

Response: As shown on Sheets L1.00, L1.01, and L1.02, Protected Trees will be protected during

development.

60.60.25. Mitigation Requirements.

1. The following standards shall apply to mitigation for the removal of Significant Individual Trees or

trees within Significant Groves or SNRAs. […]

Response: No Significant Individual Trees are proposed for removal. As noted above, 6 trees are

proposed for removal within the SNRA. Two of these trees are invasive species, and 2 are dead,

diseased, or dying.

2. Mitigation for the removal of trees from Significant Groves or SNRAs shall be required as follows:

A. Calculate the total DBH of the trees to be removed. Denote both deciduous and coniferous trees

in separate tables; however, both tables will result in the sum total of the DBH to be removed.

Response: As shown in Appendix M, there are 6 coniferous trees proposed for removal within the

SNRA. The total DBH of these trees is 117.

B. If the total DBH of trees to be removed is less than or equal to 50% of the total DBH of surveyed

trees on the site, then no mitigation is required for the trees to be removed.

Response: As shown on Sheet L1.03, the total DBH of surveyed trees on site is 8,859. The DBH of

the trees to be removed from the SNRA is 1.3 percent of the total DBH, and no mitigation is required.



C. If the total DBH of trees to be removed is greater than 50% of the total DBH of surveyed trees on

site, then mitigation is required for the amount of DBH to be removed that exceeds 50% of the

total DBH of surveyed trees on site.

Response: As shown on Sheet L1.03, the total DBH of surveyed trees on site is 8,859. The DBH of

the trees to be removed from the SNRA is 1.3 percent of the total DBH, and no mitigation is required.

3. In addition to the requirements listed in Section 60.60.25.1. Mitigation Requirements, the following

mitigation requirements shall apply for the removal of trees from Significant Groves or SNRAs.

A. Dead or dying trees within a Significant Grove or SNRA shall be fallen when required for safety.

Such tree falling shall not require mitigation. However, the fallen log should remain in the

Significant Grove or SNRA, to serve as habitat for wildlife, unless the tree has been diagnosed

with a disease and the log must be removed from the area to protect the remaining trees.

Response: No Significant Individual Trees are proposed for removal. As shown in Appendix M, 6

trees are proposed for removal within the SNRA, and two of those trees are dead, diseased, or dying.

As noted on Sheet L1.02, the trees removed within the resource area will remain as habitat.

H. 60.65. Utility Undergrounding 60.65.15. Regulation.

All existing and proposed utility lines within and contiguous to the subject property, including, but not

limited to, those required for electric, communication, and cable television services and related facilities

shall be placed underground as specified herein. The utilities required to be placed underground shall be

those existing overhead utilities which are impacted by the proposed development and those utilities that

are required to be installed because of the proposed development. […]

60.65.20. Information on Plans.

The applicant for a development subject to design review, subdivision, partition, or site development

permit approval shall show, on the proposed plan or in the explanatory information, the following:

1. Easements for all public and private utility facilities;

2. The location of all existing above ground and underground public and private utilities within 100 feet

of the site;

3. The proposed relocation of existing above ground utilities to underground; and

4. That above ground public or private utility facilities do not obstruct vision clearance areas pursuant to

Section 60.55.35.3 of this Code.

Response: The utilities within and contiguous to the site will be placed underground. See Sheets C4.00

to C4.12.

60.65.25. Optional Fee In Lieu of the Undergrounding Requirement.

[…]

Response: The applicant is not requesting a Fee in Lieu option. These requirements are not applicable.

I. 60.67. Significant Natural Resources. 60.67.05. Local Wetland Inventory.

Prior to issuing a development permit, the Local Wetland Inventory map shall be reviewed to determine if

the site proposed for development is identified as the location of a significant wetland.

1. Development activities and uses permitted on a proposed development site identified as the possible

location of a significant natural resource, including significant wetlands shall be subject to relevant

procedures and requirements specified in Chapter 50, of this ordinance.



2. Upon City’s determination that a site contains wetland as identified on the Local Wetland Inventory

map, notice of the proposed development shall be provided to the Division of State Lands (DSL) in a

manner and form prescribed by DSL pursuant to ORS requirements.

Response: The site contains significant wetlands as identified by the Local Wetland Inventory map.

These provisions are applicable. The relevant procedures and requirements specified in Chapter 50 have

been addressed in Section VII of this narrative.

60.67.10. Significant Riparian Corridors.

Prior to issuing a development permit, the list of Significant Riparian Corridors shall be reviewed to

determine if the site proposed for development is identified as being listed corridor.

1. Development activities and uses permitted on a proposed development site identified as the possible

location of a significant natural resource, including significant riparian corridors, shall be subject to

relevant procedures and requirements specified in Chapter 50 of this ordinance.

[ORD 4659; June 2015]

Response: The site contains significant wetlands as identified by the Local Wetland Inventory map.

These provisions are applicable. The relevant procedures and requirements specified in Chapter 50 have

been addressed in Section VII of this narrative.

IX. Conclusion

The request for approval of proposed Blackbird Farms PUD, Lot 1 and Tract B Design Review, The Ridge Design

Review Compliance Letter, and SCM Main Street approval modifications have been shown to be consistent with

the applicable standards of the City of Beaverton Comprehensive Plan, South Cooper Mountain Community Plan,

and the Beaverton Development Code. The applicant respectfully requests approval of the application.