Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Beaverton Planning Commission. For the record, I will do a roll call to verify which commission members are participating this evening. Commissioner McEvoy. Present. Commissioner Holmes. Present. Commissioner Speck. Here. Commissioner Winter.

Here.

Let the record show that commissioners McCann and Adams are excused and absent from the meeting tonight. We are now at commission communications. Commission, any communications? We are now at staff communications. Staff, any communications?

Good evening. I'm Anna Splitinski, the planning division manager here in Beaverton. My only comment tonight is just to share that I'm really excited for the agenda item tonight to be up for your consideration. The areas of the code that this proposal addresses have been things that I've been wanting to really tackle since I first started working for the city in 2016. So it's very exciting for me to see this be on the verge of actually updating our code to really reflect the policy desires that the city has to develop these mixed use areas that are well served by transit into, you know, vibrant neighborhoods and to have regulations actually align with that, it's really exciting.

And I just want to thank everybody that's been involved. I know a lot people aren't in this room right now, but it's been an effort that has included a lot of different folks, including Planning Commission who participated in work sessions and such. But it'll be, I think, a really good conversation tonight, and I'm interested to hear what you all have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda is public hearing application for LU 42025Dash00608, designing walkable places. Case file numbers CPTA42025Dash00615 and TA42025Dash00607. Before we move to the substance of the hearing, I will ask the city attorney to cover the prehearing manners.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm Robin McEntire, assistant city attorney. The applicant has the burden of proving that the applications are consistent with the comprehensive plan and any applicable Beaverton code provision. The criteria that must be addressed in the hearing are: Development Code section forty point eight five point one five point one C, Criteria for Development Code Text Amendments Comprehensive Plan Section one point five point one Criteria for Legislative and Quasi Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards these approval criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan that the speaker believes apply to the application failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Planning Commission and other interested parties an opportunity to respond may preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Anyone who submits written comments or gives oral testimony has standing to appeal this decision.

Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the City to respond may preclude an action for damages in circuit court. State and local law require commissioners to make certain disclosures. To these ends, the following questions will be asked: Does any commissioner have a potential or actual conflict of interest? Vice Chair Mettler?

I do not.

Commissioner Holmes? I do not. Commissioner McEvoy?

I do not.

Commissioner Speck?

I do not.

Commissioner Winter?

No, I do not.

Thank you. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the right of any commissioner to participate in this hearing? Let the record show no response. The order of the public hearing tonight will be as follows: City staff will give a presentation, followed by commissioners' questions of staff members of the public in support of the application may speak for up to five minutes each members of the public opposed to the application may speak for up to five minutes each Then, members of the public who are neither in support nor opposed will have five minutes to speak. The Planning Commission will then hear any final comments from staff. Chair, that concludes the pre hearing statement. You can proceed with the hearing.

Thank you. We will now begin with the staff presentation.

Hello, Vice Chair, Mettler and Planning Commissioners. My name is Brian Martin. I'm the long range planning manager with the Citi. With me is associate planner Saralee Hickson. Tonight's public hearing is related to the two comprehensive plan amendment and text amendment applications for the Designing Walkable Places project.

As a reminder, the Designing Walkable Places hearing was originally scheduled for September 17, and the Planning Commission at that time delayed the hearing on this app on these applications to tonight. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments would adjust policies and remove the major pedestrian route maps from the comprehensive plan, and the proposed development code text amendments would make changes to encourage more development in areas already designated for intense development, especially near frequent transit, and revised site and building design standards to promote vibrant, walkable places where people want to be and where it is easy to walk, bike, and roll. The hearing packet includes the usual staff report and exhibits, but we also have several supplemental memos to correct errors in the original exhibits and to provide additional information for the commission. So members memos one, five, and six, which are bolded on the screen, contain proposed changes to the staff report exhibits the Planning Commission first received on December 23. So I'll talk about those first.

Memo one addresses that Exhibit three and Exhibit five were both incorrect as originally posted on December 23. So Member one Memo one proposes that Exhibit six should supersede Exhibit three, which means the development code redlines in Exhibit six are the staff proposed development code amendments. Exhibit five content within the supplemental memo should supersede the original Exhibit five, which means the Exhibit five text in the memo represents the staff proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Memo five proposes revisions in Exhibit six, Table twenty-twenty 15, to correct an error in drafting. And Memo six provides additional information in response to Commissioner McEvoy's written questions.

In one case, Commissioner McEvoy identified two standards that regulated the same thing in different ways. So they're basically staff recommends deleting a footnote based on our research for that answer, And the motion in your script includes language that would achieve that. In fact, the motion in the script, if you choose to use it, takes care of all three of those. So all the changes that staff proposed to the original proposal would be incorporated in that motion. Memos two and three are explanatory documents for your information.

Memo three was revised. It says revised. So it was revised to add the first paragraph that just explains its purpose. And Memo one of them is a summary of the proposed amendments for just to be helpful and informative about what's inside all those red lines. And the other describes changes since the last work session in June.

So that's a lot. Those memos, the staff report and the proposed amendments contain a lot of information. This is the only thing on the agenda tonight, so we have a good chunk of time to answer your questions and provide explanatory explanations and information as needed so you can make an informed decision. A couple of reminders, or thoughts. One of the memos came out today, so the commission can decide to take a few minutes to read to allow people to read the memo if you haven't had a chance to read it yet.

So it's entirely up to you and how you wanna handle that. In addition, the Planning Commission also has the option, such as later on in the meeting as after we see how things go, to continue the hearing to a future date if additional time or information is needed to work through things. Assistant City Attorney, Robin McEntire, is always available to assist with specifics on procedures and how to do that. Content. The the overall project goal of the Designing Walkable Places project has kind of three parts, revise the regulations to make it easier for people to live in vibrant places with easy access to work, services, shopping, and play.

And I will note on the Designing Walkable Places title, walkability is used more broadly in this project than you might usually think about it or hear about it. It does involve people walking in safe environments with clear connections to destinations, so that's kind of a normal thing we think about. And because we only have three words or, you know, or so for the title, like, doesn't you can't really explain all that. The other thing it's doing is writing code, including citing building design standards so it encourage encourages vibrant, interesting mixed use places where people want to be. That's why you see proposed amendments regarding things like open space, landscaping, storefront windows, and walkways, for example.

The other two things are to comply with state requirements. There's some new administrative rules in the last couple of years that the state gave us some assignments to do to work on. And it also implements City Housing Production Strategy 1.2, which is to increase development flexibility and capacity in multiunit and multiple use districts largely through the FAR work that we'll describe in a minute. So a short description of what the amendments include. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments in for volume one, update policies to promote pedestrian oriented design and station communities and more housing in high density neighborhoods.

They're in part to sync up the approach in code with the complex and align them with city goals and state requirements. And then Volume five would remove pedestrian route maps because the text amendments the proposed text amendments no longer rely on those maps to apply design standards. A little bit about the text amendments. The proposed amendments would remove code barriers to development in places where more and larger buildings have already been planned for. Rather than the mix of methods the current Code uses, the proposed amendments rely mostly on regulating building bulk, basically how much floor area can be built on a site.

Using maximum floor area ratio provides a cap on how much building a property can be on a property while providing flexibility on the location, arrangement, and the design of the buildings and also flexibility for things like residential unit sizes inside of a building. In most districts, the proposed amendments have a maximum floor area ratio of six with near frequent transit service and a maximum flow rate ratio of four farther away from transit. And the graphic on this slide really just represents how, at a given FAR, it can be arranged in different ways on a site and get different outcomes under that building bulk. The previous slide was about adjusting how the code deals with maximum development on a site. The next two talk about how those buildings can contribute to great places and walkable places.

The proposed amendments would update building design standards to support these areas being built at a human scale with welcoming entries, windows facing streets and walkways, and usable open space for tenants, the general public, or both. This includes rules for things like window percentages on street facing walls, features that break up and define large buildings facades, and weather protection where people are walking. Site design also is important to make great walkable places. The proposed amendments would update standards to require some buildings that some buildings are near the street to improve the pedestrian interest on the street and access for passersby into those buildings. Walkways that provide access to different buildings on the site.

Landscape buffers applied where needed to address anticipated impacts among different uses, and usable open space that provides places for people to gather and connect with each other with rules that are flexible to work with different uses, development types, and context. I sort of cheated with that last one because I mentioned it on both slides, but that's because the open space usable open space approach deals both with interior and exterior space. As Robin mentioned, the approval criteria for this application are in compound section 1.5.1 and development code section forty eighty five fifteen one. The staff report, including its exhibits and the staff supplemental memos, provide findings for the approval criteria. And with that, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this comprehensive plan amendment and text amendment to the city council.

Thank you. That concludes the staff presentation, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff with regard to the proposed application?

I have a number of observations, and I they're they're not necessarily direct questions, but you you had established a series of goals in there. You hit on one of them up there, it was providing for thoughtful and strategic design and one of the things in particular was was masking delineation. Was there any consideration to addressing that as articulation as opposed to more of a prescriptive approach? And you know, you're it's very deliberate in saying a base and a and a top to the buildings. I was you know, as as a designer, it I'm kind of curious to know why it's so prescriptive as opposed to maybe being a little more open ended in terms of the approach there.

I'm gonna do my homework and find the One appropriate second, please. Thanks for the question. It's a lot of stuff in there. The I think the basic idea is that the approach that's in here is there's a lot of focus on the 1st Floor, with the windows and the accesses. And you're hitting on one

of the questions I have for you because there's already some, avenues for articulation expression independent of dividing it out as a a base expression. And even the diagram that you shared up there is is much more deliberate in terms of an aesthetic approach as opposed to what's being shown up there versus maybe maybe leaving the verbiage a little more open ended. And maybe this is bit more of a complicated question than

Well, I mean, the 1st Floor attention and then the data line or recess at the top is really kind of the is the approach of kind of the tripart facade of base, middle, and top. We just decided we just talked about the base and the top because the middle is between. And then there's a discretionary process if folks want to take a different stab at kind of achieving some of the same goals. So it's you have something else? Question, Harry?

So basically, it in our downtown, I think we did something more similar to what you know, in a previous project. We did something, I think, more similar to what you're talking about, where we instead required, like, a certain amount of articulation and so many at a minimum, and then also had a discretionary process for folks to, like, propose something better or more interesting or in a different kind of style. So that's where we are tonight. We didn't have a we didn't go in another direction where we try to provide a like a different path to interest. But, you know, that's why you're here to, like, comment on it and, like, you know, provide your opinion about what the you know, how successful they are.

Yeah. One of the other goals was providing equitable communities. And I was kinda surprised that you guys were kind of focused on in terms of how you applied this, you were focused on the the Allen Boulevard corridor between Murray and Highway 217. And I think that was based around displacement. So you gave an allowance for because a lot of what you're doing is trying to simplify the code and base it around FAR versus combination of density FAR and height allowances or restrictions. And

you gave

an allowance for FAR. They're based on affordable housing. I'm kinda surprised there weren't any other indications in the code for incentives around providing affordable housing outside of that zone. And and when you were setting that, I know your baselines pretty much are, four or six FAR. If there was ever any discussion about, a a sliding scale as opposed to just making it a mandated 30% to and going from that four to six.

And it doesn't really define what if there's if that's affordable housing is based on a medium income, which you typically see a reference to in in the zoning standards. So I'm not really sure what the definition for the affordable housing is here.

The last question first. The regulated affordable housing definition is in the definition section of the current code. And it does address the area median income and, like, how it's how a project qualifies for that. The other there are other parts of the code as well that provide incentives or that make it easier to do affordable housing projects. There's a variant adjustment process specifically for affordable housing.

It doesn't require my recollection doesn't require a hardship finding or anything like that. It's a much easier to get. If there's things in the code that are in the way that we, you know, didn't anticipate would be a problem, affordable housing kind of get through that. The other I guess the other thing I would say is, we did pay attention to Allen Borrbat specifically because the city just happens to know a lot more about that area, having studied it specifically with a district plan and just knowing the demographics and, like, the pressure from the the changes downtown on that area. So that is why I was focused on that one particular.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

At some point in the staff member you allude to the the pending transportation system plan update and I realize this is not the substance of your presentation or this or these updates. But I wonder if you have anything to say forecasting what sort of complementary changes might be suggested. If there are any themes from that that we can expect that would directly contribute to the walkability of Beaverton that really complement the updates here that you've made focused more on sort of creating the conditions for walkability. Yes. Anything you want to say about

Thank you for the opportunity. The long range planning team is also working on the transportation system plan, I'm very familiar with it. We're early a little bit early on in the maybe a third of the way through. So we've got the vision, goals, and objectives for the project that the council reviewed last year. We did a lot of engagement over the summer in an existing conditions analysis.

So now we're moving into the part, like, that you're asking about. I was like, well, what kind of changes should we expect from that? And I had I did the introduction to basically introduce the idea that we don't know for sure because we're not done with the project. But I can say that between, like, the the themes of where we're trying to head and what the state requires cities to do, there's gonna be a big focus on network completion, which sounds wonky, but really means, hey, we've got a bunch of missing sidewalks. Like, we should probably work on filling those in.

Our bike network is is very inadequate. We'd have some bike lanes on busy streets, but, like, they're next to really fast traffic and not comfortable for all ages and abilities. So trying to trying to, it will be trying to identify where that future network should be, you know, and how we get there to where we all ages and abilities can be, like, moving from those, getting to schools, grocery stores, parks, and, like, things that are important to people. And it just really think the another theme would be opening up different options for folks, walking, biking, rolling, getting to transit, just putting more of a focus on that. The motor vehicle system is largely complete.

It's all it doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's all there. And a lot of the other the other ways to travel is, like, there's a lot less there there. So we'll be that'll be another focus, and I think it's gonna fit right in with we can make we're working on the private side right now, right? Like it's for development. So if we can make that across the street really well, and then we start working on what's on the street, tie together quite nicely.

Thank you.

Yeah. Well, there is one as Arlay points out, there is one additional part of the administrative rules that little vague, but it says we we should allow low car or no car districts. And there could be more work on that, more work on bike parking standards, other code things that happen as part of the TSP or right after the TSP as well.

That does sort of raise another question. And you did address this in the the memo from today, so I appreciate it. But I do wanna just follow-up on And maybe I'm maybe I'm just too literal, which is why it's catching my attention. But the the recommended changes related to drive throughs, I I read your memo, and I and I understand the motivation comes from state law. Right?

And we're trying to sort of meet that. I still find it a little bit perplexing because it feels like in some, the most of the changes or many of the changes that you all are proposing address issues about walkability and access to these pedestrian or sorry, to these primary entrances for a service that might also have a drive through. So we're already making changes that increase or improve access to the primary entrance, which to me feels like achieves the goal of improving pedestrian access to a service that is also auto related. Did you feel for a particular reason that it was necessary to address drive throughs? Was that was the language about drive through services directly in you know, referenced directly in state legislation?

And were there other, I think, auto centric kind of uses, that you considered recommending pedestrian sort of complimentary, services for?

The if there's a use that has a building and a door for a person for people and a drive through, and they can and folks can access in that building the same thing that people in the drive through can access, then they've already complied. They don't have to do any of these additional changes. Okay. It's really a drive thru only situation where somebody would have to, you know, find a way to have a window and a pathway and a little shelter. So you could you your only choice to access that business is a car is, not not true.

Great. I think I missed the drive thru only aspect of that. That was perfect.

We are now at the public testimony portion for this agenda item. We will call for testimony in groups starting with those in favor of the application, then those in opposition to the application, And then those neither in favor nor in opposition. We will take testimony from those attending in person first, followed by those attending via Zoom webinar. As a reminder, testimony is limited to the criteria that the to the limited to the criteria that apply to the application. Now it's time for testimony in favor of the application.

The commission calls Scott Eaton to speak. Please state your name and address for the record.

Scott Eaton, 390 Rosemont Road, Westland. I'm sorry. I keep coming to these just basically as a cheerleader. You can tell We are still very happy about the changes that are being made. I understand that the details are kind of hard to work out with regard to some of these things, but staff is doing an excellent job.

And, I just can't tell you how the planning that we're doing up on the hill. I mean, we were already doing this anyway, so to see it being adopted is really exciting for us, and you're about to see some things from us that will demonstrate that. So I'm just once again, just kind of here being a cheerleader.

Chair Mettler and commissioners, I'm Ed Trompke, an attorney at Jordan Ramos. Address is 1211 Southwest 5th Avenue in Portland. And, I also represent the, J. Peter Court Company, which is the parent company to the, land along Barnes Road from Peter Court Town Square to Peter Court Center generally. And, as Mr.

Eaton has said, this is a good, and appropriate action to update your comp plan and make the text amendments. The specifically, this area is zoned, excuse me, SC S, Station Community Sunset Transit. And if you ever want to look at it, it's exhibit two, page 24, has a short paragraph of commentary. I'm just going to talk for a moment about that. It talks about making amendments to the PUD that's existing in order to comply with the needed housing rule, which, requires clear and objective standards for housing matters, and that's entirely appropriate.

It talks about the caps on development and the order of development being removed from the text of plan, and that's because that is already in the PUD, and there are lot of transportation elements. I think there were 34 elements in it that require a lot of money and work as things develop, and that will be all done in an appropriate way. And it talks about the transportation analyses, the TIAs, that are already accounted for in the PUD and don't need to be redone, and they were updated, oh, what, a year or so ago. And so those are all taken into account too. The company and family can work with the floor area ratios and the heights that are provided for in the SCS zone.

And so supports this as a general approach. And we thank the planning commission. And staff has given its time to meet with us, talk with us more than once, more than one staff member. And they've been very responsive. So, If you have any questions, we could try to answer them for you.

Do you have any questions for do commissioners have any questions of the speaker? Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

For those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in your Zoom menu bar. If calling in, press 9 to alert the chair that you would like to speak. No? Now is the time for testimony in opposition to the application. Do not have any yellow cards.

For those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in the Zoom menu bar. If calling in, press 9 to alert the chair that you would like to speak. Great. Now is the time for testimony neither in favor nor app up nor opposed to the application. No yellow cards.

For those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in your Zoom menu bar. If calling in, press 9 to alert the chair that you would like to speak. Does staff have any final comments?

Vice chair of staff does not have any further comments.

Thank you. With final comments completed, I will close the public hearing. Now is the time for deliberation. Do any commissioners have further discussion on this proposal? No discussion. Is there a motion?

Chair Mettler, I move that the Planning Commission recommends passage of l U42025Dash00608Dash excuse me, SlashTA42025Dash00607ForwardSlashCPTA42025Dash00615. That might be the longest case file I have ever read. We recommend passage and promotion to city council that they passage as well along with the staff report dated sorry. Light just went out. December '25 with the company memos addition from today.

Is there a second?

Can I just ask for a clarification? Because there were several memos. I just would, like to clarify. Are you speaking of memoranda one through six that are dated 12/30/2025, 01/05/2026, and 01/07/2026?

Yes. All of the memorandums that were included in the public test are included in this with the staff report for this meeting tonight.

And then in one of the memoranda, they were referred staff referred to the, deletion of a footnote in one of the tables. Is that do I understand your motion to include that recommendation that was in staff's memoranda? That was footnote six.

How would you like me to reference that so that you're

I think if we if you just said, add to your motion

to remove

Chair Mettler, I would like to remove table 20 dot 10 dot 15 footnote six, reserve footnote six for future use, and remove the reference to footnote six in table 20 dot 10 dot fifteen dot f dot one.

Please. Is there a second?

Second.

Is there any discussion on the motion? No discussion. A vote will be taken by roll call. When your name is called, please say yay if in favor or nay if opposed. Commissioner Holmes? Yea. Commissioner McEvoy?

Yea.

Commissioner Speck? Commissioner Winter? Aye. And vice chair Mettler is yay. Motion passes unanimously.

The Planning Commission's recommendation will be memorialized in land use orders provided to all parties who testified. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the city council. Council will hold a hearing and make the final decision on the application. We are now adjourned at 07:10.

All right.

Thank you.