Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, members of the public and planning commissioners. I'm Robin McIntyre. I'm the assistant city attorney. Both of our chair and vice chair are absent tonight. So the first order of business is going to be for the commissioners to elect an acting chair for tonight's meeting. Do I have a motion?

Yes, I move that Commissioner McCann sit in as chair for tonight's meeting.

Do I have a second? second it's been moved and seconded that Commissioner McCann act as chair for tonight's meeting is there any discussion on the motion hey let's take a vote a vote will be taken by roll call when your name is called please say aye if in favor or nay if opposed Commissioner Holmes aye Mr. McCann aye Mr. McAvoy aye Commissioner Speck aye and passes

Acting Chair McCann, you may take over. All right. Thank you very much. Greetings. Now is the time and place for a meeting of the Beaverton Planning Commission. For the record, I will do roll call to verify which commission members are participating this evening. Commissioner Holmes? Present. Commissioner Speck? Present. HERE. COMMISSIONER MACKLOR. LET THE RECORDS SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER ADAM IS ABSENT AND EXCUSED THIS EVENING AND COMMISSIONER WINTER IS NOT HERE AT THIS TIME. SO WE ARE NOW AT COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS. COMMISSION, ARE THERE ANY COMMUNICATIONS TONIGHT? All right none. We will move on to staff communications staff. Are there any any communications this evening.

Good evening, Ana Slotinski, Planning Division Manager. I just have two things to share. One of them is that we have some extra staff here doing some training. So if things maybe are a little bit, need a little bit of time to work out during this hearing, I thank everyone for their patience. It gives us an opportunity to make sure we have enough staff that can run the meeting and all the various pieces of technology that need to be in place. And I also want to just remind folks, if they're already aware or share if they're not, that this weekend Beaverton is having one of its most beloved community events, which is the Night Market. It's on Saturday from 5 to 10 p.m. right out here in the round. Air quality should be improved by then. So hopefully you'll consider coming out and enjoying the diverse entertainment and vendors that will be out there. That's all. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. So we will move on to new business. The first item on the agenda this evening is a public hearing for the application for LU 3-2026-00094, Scholz Heights and SVH PUD boundary mods, case file numbers PP2-2026-00085, PUD 3-2026-00093, PUD 32026-00100, RP 22026-00080 and ZMA 32026-00081. Before we move to the substance of the hearing, I will ask the staff to cover the pre-hearing matters.

Thank you, Acting Chair McCann. The applicant has the burden of proving that the applications are consistent with the Beaverton Development Code Comprehensive Plan and any applicable Beaverton Code provision. The criteria that must be addressed in the hearing are Development Code Sections 40.03.1 Facilities Review, 40.45.15.4.C, PRELIMINARY PARTITION. 40.15, .15, .6C, AND 50.95, MODIFICATION OF A DECISION FOR PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 40.45, .15, .3C, REPLAT 2, 40.97, point fifteen point one c zoning map amendment testimony arguments and evidence must be directed toward these approval criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or development code 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 related 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, ex parte contacts, or site visits to declare? Commissioner Holmes?

No to all three.

Commissioner McCann? No to all three. Commissioner McAvoy?

No to all three.

Commissioner Speck?

No to all three.

Does any member of the audience wish to question a commissioner about ex parte contacts or site visits or challenge the right of any commissioner to participate in the hearing? he let the record show no response the order of the public hearing will be as follows the city staff will give a presentation followed by commissioners questions of staff the applicant will then be given twenty minutes for its presentation followed by commissioners questions of the applicant 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 to five minutes each Members of the public who are neither in support nor opposed will then have five minutes to speak. The applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal. And the Planning Commission will then hear any final comments from staff. Chair McCann, that concludes the pre-hearing statement. You can proceed with the hearing. Thank you very much.

So we will now begin with the staff presentation.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair McCann and commissioners. My name is Elena Sasson. I'm an associate planner here at the City of Beaverton. And the first item before you this evening is the Shoals Heights and Shoals Valley Heights PUD mods. Before we get into the details of the proposal, staff just wanted to provide a quick high-level overview of the neighborhood in which the project is set and the planned unit developments or PUDs within it. The proposal is located in the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area, which is just south of the Cooper Mountain Community Plan area that some of you may be more familiar with. In 2013, the city annexed approximately 544 acres of land, most of which was rural and agricultural and had really limited public services and facilities available. Otherwise, it was insufficient for the development that was anticipated for this site. So, when this land came into the urban growth boundary and was annexed by the city, a plan was necessary to help identify cohesive land use patterns, transportation networks for pedestrians, bicyclists, and trails, and also natural resource protection, as well as other public services and facilities that would be needed to support the kind of development that was anticipated in this area. As part of the process for regulating development in this area, changes to the city's comprehensive plan and to the development code were made. One of those changes included adding a new threshold to the planned unit development application, which required properties that were 10 acres or greater in the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area to be processed as PUDs. The PUD provisions were intended to encourage more innovation and creative approaches to developing land while also trying to preserve the natural resources in the area. In general, this meant that PUDs offered more flexible site development standards such as allowing developments to reduce setbacks, increase building heights, and modify lot sizes. And this helped developers to avoid these natural resource areas where possible by kind of consolidating and shifting the development around. Most of the development that the city or development proposals that the city received were for sites that were 10 acres or greater in size. And so what happened is we ended up with kind of a patchwork of PUDs in the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area. All of the different blocks of colors that you see on this map here represents a separate PUD with the exception of the THPRD parcel in the Mountainside High School. So that brings us to the subject site, which is located in the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area. And this particular proposal straddles the boundaries of two existing PUDs. The Shoals Heights PUD, which was approved back in 2017, and the Shoals Valley Heights PUD, which was approved in 2018. Both of these PUDs were approved primarily for residential development and that's how they are being developed today. And although this proposal affects the boundaries of these two much larger PUDs, staff just wants to emphasize that the development itself, the proposal that's before you this evening, is really limited in scope to the properties that are highlighted here in the yellow. So we'll be referencing the PUDs and a variety of applications, but the proposal itself is pretty limited to a small portion of these two PUDs. So we'll go over the individual applications here shortly, but to summarize the proposal, the applicant requests to adjust the boundaries of these two PUDs, which also effectively serves as a shared property line between the lots on these two adjacent sites. The adjustment would reconfigure the previously approved lots within these two PUDs to make them more conducive to development. The applicant's proposal also requests a partition for the parcel that's identified as tract L and to reconfigure it with an abutting lot on the Shoals Valley Heights PUD. Together this would result in an additional two lots that would then be transferred to the Shoals Valley Heights PUD. There are no changes proposed to the number of buildable lots or unit count on the Shoals Heights PUD site. And lastly, the applicant also submitted a request to modify the zoning. Primarily the zoning map amendment adjusts the existing zoning boundaries to reflect the reconfigured lots between the two PUDs. So in order to facilitate these changes, the following applications are necessary. The preliminary partition, modification of a decision, planned unit development for each PUD, a replat two, and a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment. So as previously mentioned, the applicant proposes to divide tract L. The preliminary partition is really required in a sense to convert the existing tract L into two buildable lots. The tract, or sorry, a tract is a non-buildable unit of land and it's typically set aside for other purposes. Sometimes we see it used for open space, other times it's for storm water facilities, but in this case it was set aside specifically for future development and it was identified as such on the plot that it was recorded in. So this preliminary partition is being requested to change this unit of land from a non-buildable tract to two buildable tracts. Together with the reconfiguration of the adjacent property in the Shoals Valley Heights PUD, it results in what looks like three lots, but really it's a net increase of two new lots. The modification of a decision plan unit development application is an application that's used to modify a previous decision. In this case, the proposal includes the modification of two previously approved PUDs. Therefore, a modification of a decision is needed to modify these two previously approved PUDs. And unlike a new PUD application, the modification of decision is really limited in scope to just the things that are being proposed to change within the PUD or the things that might affect other aspects of the PUD. So it's not revisiting everything from the beginning. It's really limited to what the proposed changes are. For the Shoals Heights PUD, the proposal is really minor. It results in the transfer of that tract L to the Shoals Valley Heights PUD and the adjustment of the boundary of the PUD, which affects the property lines of lots 122 and 129. However, there is, again, no change to the overall number of buildable lots or to the unit count on the Shoals Heights PUD site. And as previously mentioned, the PUD application also allows for the modification of some base zone standards. So these previously approved PUDs already have received approval for some of these modifications, including reduced yard setbacks. and height increases, the 12 foot height increase, and the applicant simply requests that the lots 122 and 129 that are being modified as a result of this boundary change and property line adjustment, that that 12 foot height increase continue to be applied to those lots as well. And last thing I would just mention is that the modification decision application is a little unique in that it has two sets of approval criteria. The applicant must address the planned unit development approval criteria as well as separate approval criteria in section 5095 modification of a decision. The same application is needed for the Shoals Valley Heights PUD because the proposed changes here also affect the boundary of the PUD and it includes the addition of two new lots to the PUD, changing the total unit count. And similar with the height adjustment for the previous PUD, the applicant again is requesting a 12 foot height increase be applied to the two new lots that are being integrated into this PUD as well as the lots that are being affected by the modified boundary change. The applicant has also submitted a replot to application which is necessary because the proposed changes of adjusting the property lines affect more than one recorded plot and would change the perimeter boundary of the two recorded plots. Therefore, this application is necessary. And lastly, the applicant has also submitted an application for a quasi judicial zoning map amendment to change the zoning district boundaries in this area on a limited number of specific properties. And as you can see here, the areas that are outlined in red is really where the zone is being changed. And it's really in most cases just swapping the two zones kind of back and forth to reflect the changes in the property lines and to avoid creating split zoned lots. And with that, staff recommends approval of LU3-2026-0009, Shoals Heights and Shoals Valley Heights PUD mods, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. And staff is happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of staff with regard to the proposed application? Commissioner McAvoy. Okay.

Can you just review for me one more time why there's a request for a height increase in the new lots? Is that just because of changes in development plans or does that have something to do with the rezoning?

My understanding is that it's just to be consistent with the rest of the PUD. So the PUD has already received that increase and so I believe the applicant wants that same flexibility for these other lots that are going to be part of the PUD, but they might be able to provide a little bit more information as well.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So we will move on to the applicant presentation. Yes. All right. The applicant will now have 20 minutes to present. Please begin by introducing yourself and stating your name and address for the record.

This is on. I'm going to move on to the introductory slides here. Here we go. My name is Melissa Slotemaker. I am with AKS Engineering, and our address is 12965 Southwest Herman Road in Tualatin. I'm here tonight with a representative from Holt Homes as well as Darko Simic, who is a project engineer, if you have any questions that are engineering related. But our presentation is very simple, very quick. Staff went through a lot of history that even precedes our work on this project. But essentially, this is a very complicated application for a very simple goal. So I just wanted to emphasize that this has been a long road. I think we've been talking to staff for a couple of years to try to get to solutions here. Basically, it's needed to create better lots for homes. And the additional or the tract L, which was always designated for future development, that's being... provided through this application for two additional home sites. So as Elena went into a lot of detail, there's a lot of applications to kind of formalize these changes, but essentially we're moving some lines around and creating two new lots. And the zoning map amendment exhibit that I think demonstrates it the best just to really emphasize that we're moving from more triangular kind of shaped lots that would make odd side property lines to better home sites and just for a better neighborhood in general and to just answer the question about the heights as well as the other standards that are being applied it really is to be consistent with what's already been approved and being built out there so I don't know a lot of the details. I don't know if they're maximizing that height standard throughout, but it just allows for a little bit more flexibility, and it's consistent with both sides of the PUD, both PUDs, I should say. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions, or if you have questions for others that are here, we can entertain those.

Thanks. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the applicant with regard to the proposed application? It does not appear that they are, so thank you very much. We will move on to public testimony. 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, than 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 apply to the application. So now is the time for testimony in favor of the application. Are there any yellow cards for this one? No, there are not. So for those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in your Zoom menu bar. If calling in, press star nine to alert the chair that you would like to speak. Do we have anyone? Nope. Okay, so then we'll move on to testimony in opposition. Now is the time for testimony in opposition to the application. Are there any yellow cards in opposition? Okay, via Zoom webinar, for those viewing via Zoom webinar, please use the raise hand. Nope, okay, we will move along very quickly. So now is the time for testimony, neither in favor nor opposed. No yellow cards, it appears. Do we have anyone online? via Zoom webinar? No, all right, we will move right along. Since there was no testimony, I don't believe that you need any rebuttal time. Okay, great. Going very quickly. Does staff have any final comments?

No further comments, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Let's close that portion of the public hearing. With all of that completed, we'll close the public hearing. So now is the time for deliberation. Do commissioners have further discussion on the proposal? No, okay. Then is there a motion?

It's a lot of numbers here, so. Yeah, based on the record findings and conclusions in the staff report, I move to approve application LU-32026-00094, Shoals Heights, and SVH PUD boundary mods, case files number PP-22026-00085, PUD-32026-00093, PUD 3202600100, RP 22026000880, and ZMA 32026000881, subject to the conditions as presented in the staff report. Thank you very much. Is there a second? Second.

All right, thank you very much. So a vote will be taken by roll call. When your name is called, please say aye if in favor or nay if opposed. Commissioner Holmes? Aye. Commissioner Speck?

Aye.

Commissioner McEvoy? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion passes unanimously. The Planning Commission's decisions will be memorialized in land use orders provided to all parties who testified. Appeals must be filed in accordance with the Beaverton Development Code and LUBA rules. Thank you very much. Okay, um Because we did just receive a kind of late-breaking memo We were gonna take a quick recess so the commissioners have a moment to read through this. How long do we want here? How about five minutes we'll make it quick I Thank you everyone for allowing us that moment so that we had a chance to read some of the memos. Let's get back into the meeting. The second item on the agenda is a public hearing for APP2026-00583, Appeal of Director's Decision Approving LU32026-00095, Williams Court Subdivision Tree Plan 2, TP22026-00441. Case file number APPC2026-00582. Before we move to the substance of the hearing, I will ask the staff to cover the pre-hearing matters.

Thank you, Chair. The applicant has the burden of proving that the applications are consistent with the Beaverton Development Code Comprehensive Plan and any applicable Beaverton Code provision. The criteria that must be addressed in the hearing are Development Code Section 40.90.15.2C, Tree Plan 2. Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed toward these approval criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or development code 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 related 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, ex parte contacts, or site visits to declare? Commissioner Holmes. No, it's all three. Commissioner McCann? No to all three. Commissioner McEvoy?

No to all three.

Commissioner Speck?

No to all three.

Thank you. Does any member of the audience wish to question a commissioner about an ex parte contact, site visit, or challenge the right of any commissioner to participate in this hearing? Okay, 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 commissioner's questions of staff. The applicant will be given 20 minutes for its presentation, followed by commissioner's questions of the applicant. Then the appellant will be given 20 minutes for its presentation, followed by Commissioner's questions of the appellant. Members of the public in support of the application may then speak for up to five minutes each. Next, members of the public opposed to the application will have five minutes to speak each. Members of the public who are neither in support nor opposed will then have five minutes to speak. The applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal, and then the Planning Commission will hear any final comments from staff. Chair, that concludes the pre-hearing statement. You can proceed with the hearing.

Thank you very much. So we will now begin with the staff presentation.

All right. Good evening, and thank you for being here tonight. Commissioners, my name is Steve Regner, senior planner with the City of Beaverton, and the application before you tonight is APP 2026-00583, appeal of the director's decision approving LU3 2026-00095, williams court subdivision tree plan 2 tp2 2026-00441 before i proceed i'd like to i think the commissioners are well aware but there have been three supplemental memos provided the commission today and we'll be talking a little bit about them in this presentation Before we get into the details of the project, I want to talk a little bit about the role of the Planning Commission in an appeal hearing. We don't get these very often. So it's going to feel very similar with a couple of key differences. So first off, just like any hearing, you'll be hearing testimony from the applicant and the public, but also there will be an appellant team also providing testimony tonight. As always, you will be evaluating the proposal based on the applicable approval criteria of the land use application. uh... where things vary a little bit here tonight as your uh... will be determining if the staff decision to approve of the land use application is supported by the applicable approval criteria uh... so if there is a vote tonight the votes gonna feel a little backwards uh... if you find that the staff decision to approve the land use application is supported by the approval criteria you'd be voting to deny the appeal to uphold the staff decision And if you find the opposite, that the staff approval was not supported by the approval criteria, you would be approving the appeal, thereby reversing staff decision. and if uh if there's any voting tonight any motions that need to be made if you need assistance uh from staff either planning staff or council can provide assistance in crafting that motion properly all right let's get into the project um the property is located at 15 660 southwest division street it is two acres in size in the west beaverton neck and it is zoned residential mc there's also rmc to the south and a little bit of city rmb to the west and north but directly to the east and west is Washington County, R5, and a lot up to the north is Washington County, R9. The site does have a bit of project history. Oh, and by the way, the map has been turned to the right now, so north is to the right of the screen, and it'll be that orientation for the rest of the presentation. the site was originally approved for a nine lot subdivision and the removal of 43 of the 55 identified community trees in 2023. at that time the site was only zoned for single family homes duplexes could not be built on this property at that time Around the same time, the city was processing the Housing Options Project, which was a legislative update to the Development Code responding to changes in state law, namely House Bill 2001, which required essentially missing middle housing to be permitted anywhere single-family homes were permitted. And so through the Housing Options Project, this site and pretty much most of all of the rest of the residential properties in Beaverton were rezoned to permit middle housing outright. Middle housing are duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, clusters. Fast forward a couple years, the property changed hands and a new developer came in with a new plan to take the existing nine lot subdivision, and instead of constructing single family homes, instead build duplexes, which, thanks to the change in zoning, is outright permitted. The applicant submitted two land use applications for this proposal. One is a single family and middle housing design review three, that is specifically for the construction of the duplexes and associated site improvements, as well as a tree plan two, which is specifically for the removal of the 12 community trees on site not previously approved for removal on july 2nd of this year staff issued a decision approving both applications the tree plan 2 for the removal of the 12 community trees was appealed and that is the focus of this hearing tonight and the single family and middle housing designer view 3 for the duplex construction was not appealed and so that is outside the scope of the hearing tonight. When we talk about scope and we have a project that had multiple decisions, it sometimes is a little bit tricky to figure out to where to draw the line. So I'm gonna talk a little bit about what is in scope and what is out of scope for this particular hearing tonight. So, within the scope is the removal of those 12 community trees and the reasoning behind that. The definition of a community tree, I won't read the whole thing here, but it's essentially a healthy tree at least 10 inches, a diameter breast height, that does not have a different higher level designation. We have other categories where there's significant trees, trees in a significant grove or significant natural resource area. landscape trees mitigation trees all those trees have different types of rules around protections and mitigation community trees are a little bit more of a broader catch-all for things that don't fit in any of those other buckets so removal of those 12 community trees is within the scope and they're supported by the approval criteria for the tree plan 2 in 40 90 15 2c There's a fair amount that is outside of the scope as only the tree plan two was appealed. So any impacts from the subdivision itself and the infrastructure associated with it. So the street and sidewalk improvements, the stormwater facility in track A, that was all approved in 2023 and not modified with this approval. So that is outside the scope of this conversation tonight. Things related to the duplexes themselves and impacts on the neighborhood. Things like density, parking, and traffic. Those would all have been things to discuss through the middle housing in designer view three. However, that application was not appealed. So those topics really cannot have an impact on commission's decision tonight. Really, any other impacts related to development that don't touch on tree removal, in rule of thumb, probably outside the scope of this hearing. But it's always good to remember that the approval criteria in 4090.15.2C are really what the commission should be utilizing when evaluating information tonight. The appellant provided documentation. They appealed on July 14th and provided several assertions about why the Tree Plan 2 should not have been approved. Staff's memo dated July 29th provides findings analysis in response to each of these assertions, but I'll just kind of summarize what they were. First off, there was a question about the applicability, whether the Tree Plan 2 was a right land use application to utilize. Assertions that the tree removal was only justified by increased density, concerns about impacts to the neighborhood, alignment with purpose statements in the development code, and the applicability of the Endangered Species Act. Again, staff provided responses and analysis to each of these in the July 29th memo, so I won't rehash them, but if the commission has any questions, please do ask and staff will be happy to assist where possible. so really tonight is about tree removal and the tree plan 2 really does cover a lot of different types of tree removal and so some of these approval criteria are applicable and some aren't in some cases it's public infrastructure in some cases it's a hazard tree when we have a development like this where it's really a conflict between development and community trees approval criteria 40 90 15 2 c 4 really is one that does quite a bit of the heavy lifting here quite honestly and that approval query is on here and I'll read it out loud it says if applicable removal of any tree is necessary to accommodate physical development where no reasonable alternative exists and the one key difference between the original approval in 2023 where 12 Community trees were identified to be retained not removed those were going to be for single-family homes And at that time they were anticipated to have a smaller footprint, less density, less impact to the trees. With this new development, duplexes understandably have a larger footprint and understandably might have a larger impact to these trees. So that really is the big change here. And I'll note that the development code doesn't have a definition of reasonable alternatives. It doesn't really provide us guidance on how to weigh that. But I did provide an analogy in the original approval that in some cases it's easier to have more flexibility and consider reasonable alternatives. I believe the example in the original staff report was if you've got a large property and you're siting a school or a church or a shopping center, it might be easier to design around a tree grove. When you have a subdivision where the lines are already drawn, there's only so many places you can put the housing. So the ability to consider reasonable alternatives gets shrunk pretty quickly. So the staff in their original approval found that there were not any other reasonable alternatives to preserve these trees and therefore issued the approval decision for those 12 community trees. Now in the memo dated July 29th, staff identified an outstanding issue that as of the 29th was left unresolved. Essentially, it was brought to staff's attention during the appeal process that one of the trees identified and approved for removal by staff, bounded in green on the screen there, actually had the potential to be straddling a property line between the subject property and a neighbor's property. When this was brought to staff's attention, the applicant sent a surveyor out to investigate and see where the tree really laid in relation to this shared property line. That information came back recently. And while the, you can see the information here on the screen, and this is also in memo one issued today, that the trunk at chest height is fully on the subject property, but you can see the root flare goes out and at the base of the soil, the root flare is actually up to two and a half feet on the neighboring property. If staff had been aware of essentially this tree being straddled on the property line, staff would have required the applicant to obtain consent for the neighbor because the tree is straddling the property line and the two property owners have shared interest in that tree. So because of those, that new information, staff is recommending new conditions of approval related to this tree. Now it's discovered that it's actually strutting the property line. And there are actually two conditions of approval. Again, these are both in memo one, but I will read them out. The first is essentially that the applicant needs to obtain consent from this neighbor to remove this tree. Prior to the removal of the community tree straddling the property line between the subject property and the parcel described as 1S117CA08500, that's the tax lot ID, the applicant shall receive written consent to remove the tree from the property owners of said parcel. So essentially, they will need to get authorization from the neighboring property owner to remove this tree. A concern would be if this tree were to be retained that the existing development might cause damage to the root system. So staff is recommending an additional condition of approval essentially requiring tree protection for that root zone if it's going to be retained. So the condition is prior to issuance of the site development permit, the applicant shall provide plans showing tree protection fencing consistent with Beaverton Development Code 60-2020 for the tree straddling the property line between the subject property and the parcel described as 1S117CA08500 if the tree is to be retained. alternative protection plans may be proposed by the applicant and approved by the city arborist. That last sentence is in there because the tree protection fencing rules in our code are very prescriptive. One option is five feet outside of the root zone and nothing else. But sometimes it's appropriate for an arborist to propose and city arborist to review an alternative plan that provides the same or higher level of protection while maybe being able to provide a different solution. This provides the applicant with two ways to move forward. One is if the applicant is able to come to an agreement with the neighboring property owner, the tree can be removed and they can proceed with the proposal as originally approved. Alternatively if the applicant and the property owner are unable to come to a agreement The tree would need to be retained and the applicant would able to be able to develop the rest of the site as approved but essentially go back to the drawing board on lot 8 where this tree is located and Redesign that lot to make sure that tree is preserved They will come back through a new land use application a new single-family middle house and designer view Just for lot 8 to redesign that lot to be able to retain that one tree there. So staff is recommending that those two conditions of approval be added to the director's decision back in July. There are two additional memos that were issued so late in the day that they are not incorporated in this PowerPoint presentation, but generally speaking, The second memo responds to some requests from the appellant team. It'll be in their PowerPoint presentation they'll be giving later this evening. Essentially, they are requesting certain conditions of approval to be added to the approval, and staff has provided findings and responses to each of those. There's essentially two flavors of response there. One is that through these conditions of approval that are on the screen right now, we've essentially addressed that concern. The other one, Flavor, and there may be four of those, is essentially what the condition is asking for is not something that we can legally require. A condition of approval is specifically required to remedy a deficiency in the proposal. If an application cannot show that it meets an approval criteria upfront, staff can craft a condition of approval to say, as long as you do X, you now meet the approval criteria and we can approve you. And several of the conditions of approval requested by the appellant cannot be tied to an approval criteria or demonstrate where the applicant falls short of meeting the approval criteria. So staff recommends that those conditions not be included. And the memo for memo two goes request by request identifying which should not be included because they've already been addressed or should not be included because we legally can't require them. Memo number three is testimony from a member of the public, and I believe he will be testifying tonight. So I think a lot of that information will be shared here. It came at a time where staff was not able to review and provide analysis. So after public comment, staff and final comments might be able to provide additional feedback if the commission has questions on that. I think that's it, it is it. Okay, so with all that being said, staff is recommending that the commission add the two conditions of approval as identified previously regarding obtaining consent for the removal of the tree and the tree protection fencing for that one shared property line tree but otherwise deny the appeal, APP 2026-00583, this motion would modify the director's decision to approve the tree plan 2, but otherwise allow the application to proceed as approved unless modified by the conditional approval. That concludes staff's presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions the commission may have.

All right, thank you very much for that presentation. Are there any questions of staff with regard to the proposed application? Commissioner McAvoy.

Just to be clear none of the 12 trees in question have any protected status They're not included in a significant Grove or anything like that.

That's correct. They all fall under the community tree bucket, which is that more general? Tree category not a significant Grove not as good natural resource area and tree plans

I want to make sure I understand this as well. Do they only apply to trees that are on the property or adjacent to the property line? Or are there instances in which a tree plan might apply to properties that are disconnected from the property development site in question?

would only really apply if the applicant was requesting to remove a tree on a neighboring property let's say they want to build right up the property line and there is a tree in a neighboring property whose roots would be impacted the applicant could with the property owner's authorization say hey i'm i'm going to impact your tree let's cut a deal to make sure i can remove this tree that property owner would essentially be party to the application because their tree would be removed

I believe you're asking about protection, though. Is that correct?

Not specifically. I was just, yeah. So it's interesting. So the tree plan really is a tree removal plan. Is that...

Are there are there aspects of a tree plan to that speak directly to to your point Commissioner McCann they speak directly to Protection as opposed to the removal of sure so in some cases a tree plan is for We'll use a tree plan one as an example that can be utilized if there's gonna be major pruning which means you're taking more than 10% of the canopy or the root zone away, but the tree remains That's an able a tree plan where the tree would remain and In conditions where you have a significant grove or a significant natural resource area, we do have preservation requirements. Depending on the zone, a certain percentage of the trees must be retained on site. Not just retained, but actually preserved and put in a preservation easement or tract. So those are a couple of examples where sometimes trees actually do have to be retained on site. But again, those are like significant grove or significant resource area trees that have that higher level of inventory designation, whereas a community tree is not subject to those preservation or mitigation requirements.

Um, and just to just continue this one step further, were there a, were there a significant tree, a tree with some sort of protected status on it, on an adjacent property? Is there ever a situation in which that would require protection like you just described in the, the root pruning and that sort of thing? Absolutely.

Chapter 60, 2020 has our tree protection requirements. Those are in our code specifically identified for protected trees. So those would be significant grove trees, natural resource area trees. So if you were to have one of those trees with the higher designation, we'll call it, whether the tree is on the subject property or on a neighboring property and the root zone is considered to possibly be going across into these development property those tree protection elements would need to go in so yes you might see tree protection fencing for some of those types of trees even if the tree is on a neighboring property but in this case we don't have any of those trees with that designation either on the property or on neighboring properties

And am I right in saying that in addition to that qualification you just made that in our decision tonight we are restricted to just considering the impact of the removal of these specific 12 trees? That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there additional questions? I am curious, and maybe this is getting slightly off topic, is I believe from experience that some areas of Beaverton, the trees have been identified, but that is sort of a moment in time when certain trees have been designated for various status. So given that there is a very significant tree on an adjacent property, which is part of one of the arguments in this conversation, What is the process for someone to acknowledge that that truly is a very significant tree and may require special treatment?

Yeah, so Every municipality has to maintain essentially a natural resource inventory. It's state planning law five. So City of Beaverton maintains a significant resource inventory. Washington County maintains a significant resource inventory. And those are updated on a regular basis. Normally, I won't speak for Washington County because I don't know them as intimately as I know Beaverton. But a lot of the actual preservation policies found in the development code respond or are addressing preservation and protection of those trees on that kind of state mandated inventory. Staff did look at both city inventory and the county inventories, and there was nothing in either goal five inventory of both city or the county that had that level of protection. Across the street north of Division, the county does have inventory areas. I think theirs focuses only on where there are wetlands and riparian areas, and there's no wetlands on essentially south of Division. So it's not a surprise that the county doesn't have any designation on the south side. As far as preservation goes, as I mentioned, when we do have this higher level designation, there are specific preservation requirements, specifically tree protection fencing five feet beyond the canopy, which we call the root zone in our development code. And that would be, let's for the hypothetical, assume that that tree on the neighboring property did have that higher designation. Consistent with the development code, we require the applicant to put tree protection fencing five feet outside of canopy area for that protection area. To require anything beyond that would be inconsistent with our development code.

And is there anything in the development code that allows for, you know, I assume that when the state or city officials are going around to designate the trees and groves, you don't necessarily see every single tree in the entire area. So is there anything in the code that allows for, say, you discover a tree that is significant in size? bigger than 48 inches in diameter or something that actually sort of triggers beyond what someone who designated trees

Yeah, I would have to. No, it's a very fair question. I would have to double check the specific language of our tree preservation. I know that there is some latitude provided where an applicant can bring an alternative protection plan approved by the city arborist. I would have to double check the language to see if that is, you know, whether it's an option or whether it's a tool the city could wield to require something more substantial. I couldn't answer that right now. I'd have to double check our language.

I JUST WANT TO CHIME IN HERE FOR A MOMENT. I BELIEVE THE QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ABOUT HOW A TREE COULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF SIGNIFICANT TREES, IS THAT CORRECT?

OR SIMILAR TO SAYING A COMMUNITY TREE IS A CATCHALL FOR ALL TREES THAT DON'T FALL INTO THIS BUCKET, WHAT IS THE CATCHALL FOR WHEN YOU COME ACROSS A TREE THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT SPECIMEN OR A SIGNIFICANT SIZE, AGE, THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SEEN BY

the person from the state who came by four years ago and didn't look in your backyard and notice this was there so we don't have such a catch-all category we only have the designated inventories and just for transparency's sake they are far older than four years in terms of those those with the exception of Cooper with the exception of Cooper Mountain which is more recent work

Okay, thank you. I do have one other question which is to better understand what the process that the city has for identifying alternatives. You noted that one of these, you know, if we preserve the tree that's straddling the property line and the plan as designated, you know, as shown, the duplex doesn't work in that lot and still preserve the tree that you're now suggesting we need to keep because it's on the property line. you suggested that there is the potential that the developer could modify the building footprint. So was there any other sorts of alternatives displayed for these duplexes that said they were trying to preserve any of these trees or was it simply, because duplex, while they can be bigger than a single family home, I think that's really dependent on how it's designed and how big of a unit they're trying to create.

Yeah, so as I mentioned before, when you have a subdivision, the alternatives are pretty limited. But it's a fair question. I would suggest that maybe the applicant could speak to that a little bit. In full transparency, we got this land use application and didn't realize that the other trees were going to be removed, so we kind of had to backtrack a little bit and start over. So that was probably not the best... Yeah, I would say that the applicant could probably speak that a little bit better than I can. But the applicant, I think to answer your question directly, did not give us version A, version B, version C, and boy, I can't save this tree no matter what. Staff reviewed this and considered that the applicant has a duplex proposal, which is permitted outright by the zone. and that the shape of this lot in particular is a little bit difficult because it would be this lot here with a really skinny driveway here, which really does not leave a ton of options. So even going to back and redesign this, it's gonna be a bit of a challenge for the applicant if the tree does remain. So it is a challenging lot to begin with.

Okay, thank you. All right, I will rest my questions. Anyone else? Okay. Oh, sorry, Commissioner McAvoy.

Can you just tell me again, if the tree remains and the applicant goes through a redesign process, just briefly highlight for me what that process looks like. They'll redesign it and then it'll come back to staff or back to commission.

Yeah, so the way that this will most likely move forward, presuming that the tree remains, is that the applicant would apply for a new middle housing design review. There are three levels of middle housing. New construction can happen under any of them. And it really relates to whether they're responding to all of our clear and objective standards, or if they're responding to some of the more discretionary design guidelines. But specifically to answer your question about who would be the decision maker, a standalone middle housing design review of any scale one, two, or three is considered a limited land use decision under Oregon state law, which means that it would remain at a staff level.

And would that be, the redesign, just be for the single lot in question, or would it be for the entire development?

It would, only because lot eight would be the only one, as we anticipate it now, things could change. They might have a different redesign. Sure. As staff is kind of maybe foreseeing this happening, it would be limited to lot eight, and the rest of the lots, assuming that they can work around the tree if it retains, it is possible that only lot eight would be the one that would be redesigned. Okay, thank you.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

All right. We will move on to the applicant presentation. The applicant will now have 20 minutes to present. Please begin by introducing yourselves and stating your names and addresses for the record. They're online. Yes.

Okay.

Yeah. Sorry. My name is Steve Johnson. I'm with Seven Oaks Engineering. Address is 345 Westfield Street, number 107 in Silverton, Oregon. Can everyone hear me all right?

Yes, we can. Thank you.

Perfect. So let me share my screen here real quick and just kind of walk you through high level. See, is there an option to share or... So, as Steve was saying, this is our proposed development on Southwest Division Street. Going from the single family residential that was initially approved with a separate design team, we took it over and the plans changed to include duplexes under the middle housing design review. As you can see from this going to duplexes, it is a very tight site to accommodate. we have minimum setbacks we have landscape requirements we have access we have utilities um all these various things really really squeeze the the site and really um make it difficult um kind of ties our hands on a number of different issues um lot eight in particular was a flag lot um originally designed from the previous team. It really is locked in on what flexibility we have there with grading, with utilities, with access, with trees. Tree in particular that Steve was talking about falls right back here, right off the setback and straddles the property line. So we'd definitely be looking into that with adjacent property owner and internally in the design team to see what modifications we can make on lot eight to preserve that tree. The remainder of the trees, some fall in the middle of the lots. As Steve said, going from single family to duplex lots, it really does limit our ability to... to be creative and come up with additional means of protecting these these previously protected trees. So. Another thing that is tying our hands is initially only a preliminary grading design was done with the previous design team with a three-quarter width improvement on Southwest 156th. We're also tied in on the grades that we can make coming back up to these lots and still having them all be, you know, safely accessible. I believe that has resulted in a few more of the trees back behind lot seven needing to be removed that were previously going to be retained. We have looked at different alternatives for duplexes. The design team looked at it a number of different ways, but with the compact lot sizes, these units are not very large. The width of the lots we already have from the previous approvals uh allowances to reduce the lot sizes slightly so it is it is fairly tight and um and there there were no other real real positive alternatives other than you know eliminating units in order to preserve these trees um i know there's a number of people waiting waiting to speak here so we'll keep it short and sweet on my end um and answer any questions uh you may have thank you very much

Thank you very much. Commission, are there any questions of the applicant with regard to the proposed application? Commissioner Speck.

In terms of reallocating space on that property, do you ever consider were there any options for the stormwater runoff area being relocated elsewhere to allow you to adjust some of the placements?

The stormwater was previously approved on track 8 along Division Street at the corner of Division 156. That's the natural fall of everything coming down. There's also additional challenges with a shallow storm drain system that we're connecting into and relocating the stormwater facility would have significant impacts to the entire site and feasibility of the design for it. But yes, we've looked at a number of different options.

And then you guys inherited the plat layout. Was there ever any consideration about adjusting that or was it always the intention to move forward with what you inherited?

it was always the intention to move forward with what we inherited um in in looking at and and coordinating with staff there there was a a lot of history of getting to where we're at right now and to reallocate the plat would be um a multi-year step backwards in the process all right thank you thank you are there other questions yes commissioner mcavoy

Could you just briefly in a little bit more detail explain why the grading, you pointed towards the front end of that development there, the east side I guess, why that impacts removal of trees or retention of trees on the opposite side of the lot?

Yeah, so with the three-quarter width improvement, we're really tied in on what the street can do. And with the duplex layout, the really only place you have to make up grade on the duplex is the driveway. And running those driveways up fairly steeply, it still isn't enough to bring up the grade of the existing site. As you're getting to the south end of the site, the site starts raising up, which makes it difficult. So we have a slight retaining condition on that back edge of those far south sites, which make it make it impossible to protect those trees with current layout and duplex configurations.

So the trees on the backside there would. I'm trying to picture this in my head would get buried.

That's the problem because the grade has to come up too high Because the grade is going down Okay, yeah, so we're having to drop the grade So we're under cutting all the trees that were there and and disturbing their roots structures. Okay.

Thank you Thank you Are there additional questions? Okay, thank you very much we will move to the appellant presentation So the appellant will now have 20 minutes to present. Please begin by introducing yourselves and stating your names and addresses for the record.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Cheryl Clemonson. I am one of the appellants, and I am representing the appellants. All of the appellants live on Southwest 157th Place, which is the cul-de-sac that is directly west of the subject parcel. I'd just like to note that if you look at the drawing, which unfortunately I did not put up, The subject parcel goes the entire length of 157th place, so every property on that street is impacted to one degree or another. I'm not sure if I said I'm at 5575 Southwest, 157th place. I don't have the addresses of the other appellants. I apologize. The other appellants are James Farwell, Pat McKenna, Sharon Walker, and Kelly Wright. They're all present with the exception of Sharon Walker who could not be here tonight. We understand that this is a quasi-judicial process and it is our intention to honor that process. However, quasi-judicial intent should apply in all aspects. I know you can't read this, but I would like to draw your attention to it anyway, because when we received the letter telling the residents that the application had been approved and that we could appeal, It said in our letter, quote, pursuant to section 50.40.11.E of the Beaverton Development Code, the decision is final unless appealed within 12 calendar days following the date of the decision. And then the website associated with that was www.beavertonoregon.gov. That address doesn't exist. It ends at 50.40.10. There is no paragraph 11 or E, so we have no idea what we may or may not be missing that might have given us some direction in this process. In the letter of appeal, I did put this in there. Right there, it's highlighted in yellow. While everybody else's comments and everything else was addressed by staff, this was not. This was not acknowledged. We asked that we brought to their attention that it was missing and that we would like it to be added for public availability as soon as possible. It's still not there as of today. One of the other residents also mentioned it in his letter on July 24th. So if we're talking quasi-judicial, it needs to go all the way around. It's difficult enough for residents to navigate through this process, trying to jump from one section of code to another, but when sections are missing, we don't know what else might be missing. That brings me to the code. Section 40.90.05 states that the purpose of the tree plan is, and I'm gonna highlight sentences two and three, primary among those benefits is the aesthetic contribution to the increasingly urban landscape. Tree resource protection focuses on the aesthetic benefits of the resource. So when section 40.90.15.2C was mentioned as a criteria approval, that comes under section 40.90.05, the purpose. Section 60.60.05 states the purpose of trees and vegetation. It also reads healthy trees and urban forests provide a variety of natural resources and community benefits for the City of Beaverton. Primary, primary among those benefits is the aesthetic contribution to the increasingly urban landscape. Tree resource protection focuses on the aesthetic benefit of the resources. The code does not say what does it do about shade? What does it do about drainage? What does it do about wildlife? What does it do about any of these other things? It says the aesthetic value. When I read this, As a citizen, I say, okay, everything else has to come under that because this is not only the purpose, it's the mission statement. Everything under that comes under it. It is the intent document right there. What is the purpose? Okay, they are focusing on the aesthetics. I'd like to give just a little bit of history from the resident's perspective of this property, and I'm not sure if you realize this, but 157th Place is in unincorporated Washington County. Until 2021, the subject property was in unincorporated Washington County. It is surrounded on three sides by unincorporated Washington County. They annexed themselves in in 2021. And in 2022, The developer at that time, the applicant at that time, which is a different engineering company, submitted the original subdivision that we were looking at. They asked for a variance for smaller lots, so there were going to be nine substandard lots and one track for, I think it was a bioswale. They were going to put in nine single family homes, as you know, and they were going to remove 43 of 55 trees, which left 12 trees remaining. We met with or talked to city planners. We worked with city planner Brett Cannon. At the time, talked to him, tried to get a good understanding of what was going on, and we understood that an owner has a right to develop his property. What we were hoping for was something that would coexist with our existing neighborhood. Many of the homes, single family homes, they're all single family homes, that surround this are 80 years old. Most of them are 50 to 80 years old. There are mature trees on our properties. There are many mature trees on the subject property. The owner, the previous, the original owner, owned it for decades and decades and decades until it was subdivided into these nine lots. In 2024, by the way, we didn't appeal any of that because we felt like the developer heard us and was working with us to preserve and to put in single family housing that would more likely blend in. So the smaller lots were not an issue. In 2024, the Sikh Center of Oregon applied, and there was a public hearing for this one, they applied to have no subdivision. They were gonna use the existing residence and the existing detached garage for their places of worship, and they were gonna put in a parking lot, pretty good one, but they were going to retain all the trees in the back, and that's a good number of the very large trees that are in there. So that was in 25. 2023 was the first approval. 2024 was the SEEK Center, I'm sorry. And in 2025, Seven Oaks Engineering, who is the current applicant, applied for and was approved to have an extension of Division Meadows. Now, I understand that when they said in there they sought no changes, that that was something that they meant at the time, but they were aware of what they were doing. They were looking at the plans. They knew that the lots were substandard. They knew... Okay, less than standard about that. They knew what difficulties they would be working with. They knew where the trees are that they were going to be retaining. And there's no surprise here. There is no surprise. So I know that the ability to put duplexes on there is not at hand because we didn't, most of us, the appellants in this did not write about that so we couldn't appeal that. But that is a choice that they made. So when we say that there's no alternatives, my goodness, there certainly is an alternative. The alternative is what you bought. The alternative is what you originally put forward. This is the tree removal plan that has been approved. Now it's not as good as the one that Mr. Rigner put up because it doesn't show you which of the 12 trees were going to be retained. But the yellow tree is the property line tree that's in question. This is the one. interesting on their own drawings they put in the property line they put in the fence line that's existing which i have highlighted in red and there's the tree my goodness there's the tree right there on the property line how could you possibly in good faith submit to the city to remove a tree that you're not even sure is on your property i just It makes me wonder, what are we working with here? Where is the integrity? What is it that we're talking about? And what else are we trying to squeeze by? I know that sounds very negative and I'm not meaning to demean anyone. I woke up in the middle of the night and went, wait a minute. Their drawing shows that this tree is on the property line. So this is what the tree looks like as you're looking up. It's about 80 feet tall. Here's what it looks like in the backyard. We understand the fence is in the wrong place. We now know that. This is the base of the tree. And this is the base of the tree where the roots are above ground. The measurement that we had, and we know that it may not have been from the correct point, but that was 82 inches. So again, this is from the staff drawing. You can clearly see that that tree is on the property line. Seems like that should have been checked out before we went to this approval. This is what it looks like from my house. This is what those trees look like from my house. Here is your aesthetic value. I only had a chance to get one picture, but we're talking about aesthetic value because that's what the code talks about. It says a lot of other things later on, but the purpose, the intent, the mission statement is the aesthetic value. This is Robert Taylor's tree. This is the large growth tree that we were talking about. Look at the size of that tree. It is huge. It is the largest deciduous tree I have ever seen. And yes, it is not on the subject property, but we know Here's the aerial photo that was in the packet. You see the subject property to the right. You see the concentric circles around that tree. But this tree is well over 100 years old. It's probably, in my opinion, at least 200 years old. It's very old. The roots don't stop growing when they get to the property line or when they get five feet outside of the canopy line. So it is not, all of this was, what would you call it, surveyed by Washington County. Even the subject property was not part of the Beaverton Tree Plan or Natural Resource Plan because it wasn't in Beaverton at the time. So somehow this tree got missed and as was said over here, these plans aren't updated very often. It was more than four years ago, well more than four years ago from what was said. So I just want that taken into consideration, even though we say we cannot do anything about this and we can only go five feet out, are we gonna use common sense? We're not asking to stop all development, but we need to protect that tree, and I hope that we all agree that we need to protect that tree. The root system needs to be protected for the long-term health of this tree, which is a significant community asset. So here's my summary and I changed it right before I walked out the door so I apologize to Mr. Regner because a piece of paper fell on the ground and I realized that I picked it up and looked at it and I realized that I had not proven or shown where the director erred in approving this tree plan two. But he did. He did because I tell you again that tree plan two or the excuse me the purpose in the code states healthy trees provide a variety of natural resource and community benefits for the city of beaverton which is a tree city USA as you know primary among those benefits is the aesthetic contribution to the increasingly urban landscape tree resource protection focuses on the aesthetic benefits of the resource so we ask you to find that the director aired in approving this tree plan too because the purpose, the stated purpose, the codified purpose is to protect the aesthetic benefit. Now we are aware that he has a right to develop his property and we are aware that there are other options. The only option available here is not that we have to figure out how to cram in nine duplexes because that wasn't the option that he purchased. There was a different option on the table at that time. This isn't a back end way of trying to force single family development again. But what I'm saying is we need to look at all aspects of this. And I think that when you work with the code all the time, one of the benefits of hearing from somebody who doesn't work with the code all the time is that, wow, what is the perspective that the public gets? How does the public read this? The public reads that the purpose is the intent, it is the mission, it is what everything else needs to come into contact with or fall under. Also, I'll go over my conditions of approval. Mr. Regner did give me the, I did get the memo about the same time you got the memo about what was wrong with it and why we couldn't do these things, but I'm gonna ask for them anyway. We ask that the applicant would employ a licensed surveyor to survey and mark all property corners adjoining the subject property. The reason that we would like that is that there are other trees that are on the neighboring property that are very close to the property line and we want their roots protected. The surveyor did come out. He came out twice. We saw him and talked to him both times. He surveyed the Walker property with the identified property line tree. So there is value in what we're saying here because it is what we're saying here that brought the Walker property line tree to the forefront. Without that, they didn't know. And I don't know what was going to happen if they showed up and wanted to cut down a tree that isn't fully on their own property. but there are other trees as well, very close to the property line, especially when the fences aren't necessarily or obviously on the property line, but they encroach into the subject property. So when those fences get moved, those tree roots will go beyond the fence line We would like all those trees along the property line or near the property line preserved. We would like an arborist experienced in tree protection to be on site during excavation activities and removal of other approved trees to protect trees on neighboring properties. I understand you can't directly ask for that, but the impact that this grading, as severe as the applicant was stating that it is, is certainly gonna impact the roots and some of them are gonna be less than five feet from the canopy of the tree. We understand that the Walker property tree, property line tree has already been removed or is before you to be removed from this plan. We would like to make sure that the roots are properly protected, not just, I mean, when they whack away at that, how are they gonna be sure that they haven't weakened that tree so that that 80-foot tree doesn't fall on one of our homes or two of our homes? Because the trees that we're concerned about aren't 10-foot trees or 20-foot trees. They're 60-foot trees or 70-foot trees. And finally, I'd like to ask that the roots of the Taylor, very old English walnut tree that I had referenced would be fully protected, not just five feet out, but whatever it's going to take to do proper root pruning before any excavation is done or whatever else needs to take place. We were not aware. The first time that I heard that an alternative plant could be presented to the city arborist was tonight. So I don't know if that's any kind of an option, but there needs to be something. There needs to be some give and take, not just take. Not just looking at the most that we can get and maybe we can get away with cutting this property line tree, which is what they did propose. i thank you very much for your time and for your attention i can tell that you're paying attention and it's it's a little bit heartening to know that you can testify before a public body and that they're paying attention and they don't have their minds necessarily already made up so thank you very much would you like a copy i have copies where it says we ask that you find the director aired in approving the tree plan too because the purpose of the section we're not taking into account And I read it into the record. I have it in writing if you want to see it. I think it's fine because you read it into the record verbatim.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Commission, are there questions of the appellant with regard to the proposed application? All right, I don't oh Commissioner Holmes.

Yeah, the only question I wanted to go back to is though you can restate the Section that you said was not existent just so we can get confirmed.

Oh and request it is That alone should be enough to do something because it's a quasi judicial Hearing Section 50.40.11.E. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Would you just make sure that staff has a copy of your... He doesn't have a copy.

One thing, too, if I could request, that when you ask people to come up, if they approve, which side does that make them on? Are they approving the appeal or are they approving the application?

Oh, right, yes, because that is going to be confusing.

That's a good question. Thank you for clarifying. It's people who are in support of the application and people who are opposed to the application and then people who are neither in support nor opposed. TO THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICATION BEING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, NOT THE APPEAL.

I EXPECTED IT MIGHT BE GOING THAT DIRECTION. THANK YOU. All right, 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, not the appeal. Then we will do those in opposition of the application, which sounds like some of you will be raising your hands for that. 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 apply to the application. So now is the time for testimony in favor of the application. Are there any yellow cards in favor of the application? No. Okay, so we will move on to Zoom webinar. For those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate using the raise hand feature in your Zoom menu bar. If calling in, press star nine to alert the chair that you would like to speak. Do we have anyone in favor of the application online? We do not, okay. Then we will move on. Now is the time for testimony in opposition to the application. So are there yellow cards in opposition? All right. I apologize, this is my first time doing the yellow card, so I'm going to scan it real quick to make sure I am reading this correctly. Okay, so the commission calls, I apologize if I'm not reading this right, Ariana Mamouk, is that? I will hold them in the opposite order. The commission calls Robert Taylor to speak. Please as you come up, please state your name and your address for the record.

Hi there. Sorry, I'm a bit nervous. I just wanted to say thank you, Steve. I felt like your presentation was very fair and impartial, so I appreciate you. Thanks, bud. Hello, my name is Robert Taylor. I live at 15700 Southwest Division Street. I share a fence line with the development. I have written something here. I'd like to present it to you if it's okay. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight regarding this proposal. I'd like to begin with a concern that I believe deserves special consideration. The protection of an old growth English walnut tree located on my property. This tree is more than just a tree, it is a living monument. The trunk measures approximately 20 feet in circumference, stands nearly 100 feet tall, it has a canopy spanning roughly 130 feet. I had a slide, but I don't have it. So it's a significant tree. It was likely planted before the establishment of the state of Oregon. It has stood throughout generations in our community, and today I feel fortunate for my family to be its caretaker and to raise my children with the opportunity to play alongside of it. While its trunk is vast and its canopy is massive, above the ground the health and maturity of the tree lies extensively in the network of roots that live below the surface. My concern is that the proposed development would significantly impact the root system that sustains the tree for well over a century. These roots provide water, nutrients, and stability. The highest concentration of walnut roots are found within the top three feet of soil and precisely the area most vulnerable to excavation, grading, trenching, soil compaction during construction. These roots extend well beyond the visible canopy and into the area where substantial site disturbance is planned. The zone of influence can be roughly measured from the trunk of the tree using some data from OSHU, the The roots can extend as far as four to five times the radius of the drip line of the tree. So that we're looking at somewhere between two to 300 feet from the trunk. And the disturbance lies directly uh... in the first four buildings that are planned for constructions and including the bioswale so the bioswale is inside of that root zone uh... including all of the sewer lines water lines irrigation lines foundations so basically the entire area will Hopswell will be stripped with all of the roots of that tree greater than 10% of the root mass will be removed as Steve had outlined as a miss because We missed the opportunity for the tree plan one, and this tree has not been designated as a significant resource. But had it been designated as a significant resource, it would have fallen under the criteria for the tree plan one removal, which would have said that we would have had to protect this tree's root growth because it's greater than the 10% of its root zone is going to be impacted. So my fear is that this development will go forward. The tree will be impacted. It may not be a sudden, but rather a steady decline in the tree's health. And once a tree of this age and its stature is lost, it cannot be replaced in our lifetime or the following generation's lifetime. I respectfully ask that the city carefully evaluate the potential impacts on this remarkable tree and required meaningful protection before any approval is granted. My second concern is that Division Street is not developed to support the establishment of 18 new homes. I understand this is outside of the realm of consideration, But I would really appreciate the consideration of that street. It is undersized, even for Washington County's requirements for roadways. The right of way is 50 feet. The road is 20 feet wide. There are buses, cyclists, runners, pedestrians every single day on that road. And the road cannot support the current traffic, let alone 36 new cars from 18 new homes, as two cars per home is the average in Oregon. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. OK. Next, this I will call Arianna. Thank you. And I apologize if I mispronounced your name.

Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. My name is Ariana Mahmoudi. I'm also a resident of 15700 Southwest Division Street. I share the pleasure with my husband of having this beautiful old growth tree in our home. One thing that I joke about to people kind of lovingly is that I'm pretty sure my husband bought the house for the tree. and it's one of those things that truly when you walk out and you see it and recognizing the significance I'd asked I haven't grown up in Oregon and so I'd asked the significance of it being an English walnut tree and That the idea that this is a tree that is not native to North America so someone took the care to bring this this walnut tree from England and came and planted it and cared for it and preserved it and with that root system that exists there and that unknown of having this tremendous you know giant that my family has the pleasure of enjoying but I also get to know that it provides shade for my neighbors it provides aesthetic for them when I go into my neighbor we go into my neighbor Mark's home and you see in the backyard how far this tree covers And also at the same time understanding that families need homes. We ourselves, this is our first home that we've owned and very much understanding that living in a very different world right now, that it's important that families have access to homes. And being an educator myself of seeing that wanting families to be in the area, seeing when children get on a school bus and getting an opportunity to live in beautiful spaces. And this neighborhood is an incredibly beautiful space. And that is due to these tremendous trees that not only provide shade, they provide for local flora and fauna. They help with soil erosion and the health of the properties. Some of the obvious points, you know, around habitats that they provide for local animals that are specific to the region and the nearby wetlands. And even then considering from an economic perspective, having trees like this and on the surrounding property of the development, they also provide economic impetus for urban forestry industries every year in the United States. And so having these trees and understanding that it has to go hand in hand, that there are sacrifices that are made, And at the same time, though, that sometimes little things are over missed. In our case, it's a not so little thing, you know, and it spans outwards. And we would appreciate for the committee to please consider that these Trees it feels so much more than just the aesthetic of How it looks and I recognize that the city is limited in what it can do and what it consider in an offer to be just and to be fair and So to consider that these trees they provide for this neighborhood when you walk amongst them I'm always in awe of the number of families and people that walk along the streets and how busy the area is and in part because it's a beautiful space and And my wish would be for others to continue to enjoy it after myself, after my children themselves have grown. And I hope that some of those trees are still there for many others to continue, especially in an ever-changing world where a lot of our flora and fauna are shifting and we have temperatures rising. And so I'd wish for that for future generations beyond just what myself and my family can enjoy and appreciate.

Thank you. All right, thank you very much. I neglected to ask if anyone had questions for Robert, but I will first ask here, did anyone have any questions for Arianna? Thank you very much. Robin, may I go back and ask if anyone had questions for Robert?

Yes, you may.

Okay, thank you.

Did anyone have any questions for Robert?

Please come back up. I apologize. Commissioner McAvoy.

Thank you both for your testimony. It's touching. It's an amazing tree, without a doubt. It's an incredible thing. When I look at the photos, though, I appreciate the history of this tree, but significant development has already occurred in this tree's sort of zone of influence, I think was the term you used. So do you have any additional... evidence or reason to believe that that development on this parcel in particular will have and I should say my point being that that that Development has occurred in this tree scene still seems to be in great health for past 50 years or so So is there anything additional you wish to add about the why the development of this particular adjacent property is is relevant?

I think time time is the importance here, right? so my home that we currently reside in is was built in 1946 and Mark's home was also built, I believe, in 1946, 1948, something like that. His neighbor to his west was built in 1956, and the neighbor to the south of Mark was built in 1956, 1958. So the time in the soil impact, the tree, one, was smaller. 80 years ago, the tree was a much smaller tree. And the like the time frame in which development took place was over decades. And we're talking about a single cut across nine lots, right? That's going to happen at one time. We have an 11-foot cut that's going to cut the new sewer lines. We have a seven-foot hole for the bioswale. I don't object to new construction. I don't object to development, right? I know that this is going to hurt that tree. The other thing which I couldn't bring up was the soil in the area is fantastic. If you look up USGS soil maps, it tells you what kind of silty loam and if you look at uh... away old age s you i don't like screw that up organically so i think yeah thank you uh... organ states uh... uh... research on trees specifically black walnut and in and walnut trees in oregon silky loans are fantastic because they're moderately trained soils and so tree roots grow really really well in that particular soil and that's what he's done so well the other thing is a lot of those homes were built on the uphill slope and and so a fill material in my backyard for my neighbors actually was brought in so these weren't cuts that the houses were built on they were built on fill so my neighbors to myself that would be kelly sitting behind me her fence line is i think 18 inches above my my grade so her backyard is 18 inches because they had to bring in material right so they weren't cutting massive holes to build those houses they were setting fill and then building the houses on top of it i think there's a difference here and how the construction is happening any other questions all right thank you staff do we have any additional yellow cards

That was it, okay. So we will move on to Zoom, sorry, online testimony. Do we have anyone, well, I guess for those viewing via Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature on your Zoom menu bar. If you're calling in, press nine to alert the chair that you would like to speak. Do we have anyone online who would like to speak in opposition to the application? No, we do not, okay. So then we will move on to our third category. Now is the time for testimony neither in favor nor opposed to the application. Do we have any yellow cards? We do not. Then we'll move to the Zoom. Again, please communicate by using the raise hand feature or if you're calling in, press nine to alert the chair. do we have anyone online who would like to speak neither in favor nor opposed okay thank you okay um that is it so we will move on to the next stage which is the applicant's rebuttal so now is the time for the applicant's rebuttal the rebuttal is limited to five minutes and must focus on issues raised during testimony oh apologies

Can everyone hear me?

Hang on just one second, please. It sounds like. Yeah, why don't you come on up?

Well, we'll make this work.

Apologies, we're going to back up. We do have additional testimony. Will you please state your name and address for the record, and you have five minutes.

My name is William Baum, and I live at 15721 Southwest Village Circle with Cindy Taft in Beaverton, Oregon. It's in the fourth season, which is the south end of this application. And I have a lot of concerns. One of the things that I need to find out is this process has started a number of years ago. And we wrote letters all the way through, it's almost like my card tonight, is that we've written letters and none of those are posted in the paperwork that I saw today. So I don't know for sure where those concerns that we had to say, what we had to say, what happened to them. I've heard a number of things tonight that I have some questions about. One is the protective trees. And I don't know if I really understood. There's a lot of terminology, obviously, that I have no understanding of. But if there is a tree that is a fruit tree, is that a protected tree? There's a plum tree as an example that's in this property. is that protected tree. In the initial presentation tonight, there was a statement about preserving the natural resources. Well, we're talking about 100% of the trees in this property being taken out. That, to me, does not seem like we're preserving natural resources. One of the things that the applicant stated during the Zoom was something along the lines of, and I don't know that I have the exact quote, but a few more trees were to be removed. Well, we're talking right now 100% of the trees being removed. So that's a little bit more than a few more to me. If the Planning Commission gives approval to remove the last 12 mature and irreplaceable trees on this property, this property will have been clear cut. We think it was the height of hypocrisy to approve the removal of 43 of the 55 community trees on this site. It is especially egregious knowing the City of Beaverton leadership has previously stated global warming can be mitigated through tree canopy preservation. in addition to mitigating rising city temperatures. And over the last couple of years, we have experienced that. We also recognize the benefits of these community trees regarding the protection of groundwater, soil erosion, flood control, drainage, oxygenation of the air, and their important contribution of aesthetic beauty to our environment. I would like people, you guys, to help me understand how removing the final 12 mature trees, all or some of them, which may be majestic old Douglas firs for the construction of duplexes could possibly lessen climate change, improve our neighborhood, or be deemed good stewardship. That's really all I have.

Thank you very much. Does anyone have questions for the speaker?

I think we're good.

Thank you so much. Okay, I will ask again before I move on. Are there any additional yellow cards floating around this room? Okay, then now we will move on to the applicant's rebuttal. So now is the time for the applicant's rebuttal. The rebuttal is limited to five minutes and must focus on issues raised during testimony.

Thank you very much. Again, my name is Steve Johnson with Seven Oaks Engineering, working as a member of the development team for Williams Court. I appreciate all the comments from neighbors. The intent of this development is for... creating more opportunities for other families to join this beautiful neighborhood. It's trying to embrace it. If there were options or alternatives to protect these trees, we would definitely do that. But with the configuration of the site the way it is, these trees either fall within building footprints or are, with the grading configuration, not able to be preserved. WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. The trees that are to be removed are outside of the control with the current development from the initial approval back in 2023. The configuration of the site has not changed. The storm drain has always been up on division street. It is always, you know, with the configuration like this, it is going to always. Account for a large cut. There's always been a 3 quarter with improvement of of the 156. That would include also storm drain sewer water cuts and improvements coming down. Even before it was duplexes and was single family residential. It would have had the same level of impact. On on the adjacent properties. You know, beautiful, it's a beautiful walnut tree that Robert has, and we look to protect it with the current code requirements for it. You know, it's we need to have a metric in order to shoot for for protection that's consistent and we would we would try every every mean to protect that tree. Other than that, our project hasn't hasn't changed greatly other than switching from single family to duplexes. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? No, we do not. So we will move on to final staff comments. Staff?

Hello again. Thank you, Commissioner, for the opportunity to provide some final comments here. I do want to provide a couple of pieces of information here in response to some of the testimony we have heard tonight. First off, from the appellant team, there's reference to a code citation 504011.E. Staff did look into that, and it looks like we do have a Scrivener's error on our hands here. It looks like through the last omnibus code change, part of Chapter 50 was streamlined, and there is no longer a 50-40-11. That is now 50-40-10. And really what 504010 says is what does the city need to explain in its notice so you understand what the appeal process is. So everything in the notice is compliant as far as application and number, you have 12 days to appeal, it has to be boldface type, all of those things. The notice is compliant with those provisions, it's just that we have the wrong code citation thanks to a recently updated code provision. So we appreciate that being brought to our attention so we don't make that error again. But staff is confident that the notice provided all legally required information. Moving on to Mr. Taylor's comments. Memo three, Mr. Taylor referenced that he had some slides. Those are all in memorandum three. So if there's any questions about what he was referring to, that information is in Planning Commission's packet. I will go back and share staff's presentation again, just to kind of draw a contrast to where the area of activity is for the scope of this proposal. And it's these 12 trees highlighted and circled in red. And the walnut tree, I'm not gonna get this perfectly, but it's probably right about here where my cursor is. So really in that zone of influence that Mr. Taylor spoke to, we do have one tree approved by staff for removal, but the remainder is gonna be over in this area here. And a lot of the other development impacts, whether it's the stormwater facility or the duplexes, are outside of the scope of this appeal. And then finally, I want to speak to Mr. Baum's concerns that his testimony has not been included in the Planning Commission packet. That comment was provided under the original approval, and so that can be found under Exhibit APP 3.1. And then its own citation, Exhibit 2.3, I believe it's page 57 of that document. So we did double check, and Mr. Baum's comments are included both in the original decision as well as Planning Commission's packet. I think that's all staff has for final comments, but any other questions, staff is happy to answer them.

Are there any final comments? Commissioner McAvoy, you look like you've got one.

Yeah, I seem to always have one tonight. Thank you. Two questions came up during the, since you last spoke Steve, I want to clarify. In the approval criteria, First, I'm looking at section 4090, 15, 2C, 13. But it says, applications and documents related to the request which will require further city approval shall be submitted to the city in the proper sequence. And in staff's findings, it reads, as a condition of approval, tree plan two approval is dependent upon approval of the associated middle housing review three application. If this were to proceed, the condition of approval on the tree plan that the the two owners agree uh and the tree ends up remaining in place then that housing that middle housing design three would have to be re-approved correct i guess i'm asking is there a sequencing problem here yeah so as we talked about before if that tree would remain uh we would need to go through and

I hesitate to use the word modify the decision because that is actually a very technical legal process prescribed under development code, but they would need to come back with a new middle housing design review application specifically for the lots that no longer can be constructed if this tree were to be retained. So from a sequencing standpoint, if commission votes in the way staff recommended, The sequencing would follow as they could obtain construction permits with the tree being retained and then obtain a new design review approval for whatever lots are impacted by the tree retention at a later date. So there is a clear path forward for them.

And would that future housing approval require another tree plan for that single tree that's remaining?

If they wanted to request removal, I believe so. But if they are seeking to retain the tree, then no. Because the trigger for Tree Plan 2 is the removal of trees. Got it.

OK. Final question, also in the code. If applicable, removal of trees within an SNRA or significant grove will not result in the remaining trees posing a safety hazard due to the effect of wind throw. There is no such application, there's no such approval criteria for community trees. Correct. Thank you.

I'm going to ask one more question. Of course, please. I think one. as far as I'm back to this I'm back to this massive walnut because I I understand a lot of things about trees and I understand what some of this presentation has been what is I'm trying to understand because I've worked in other jurisdictions where we do have to take into account trees on neighboring properties. And it seems to me that there is a risk here that portions of this development, regardless of whether they are in the area of these trees being removed, have the potential to damage a neighbor's property. by damaging that tree. So what is the kind of due diligence or responsibility of this developer to kind of do that investigation ahead of time and make sure that their plan is appropriate and if they need to, you know, if we're saying the property line tree, they may need to come back and make some modifications to the plan. Is there something about also just making sure that they aren't going to be doing anything that's damaging to this other tree that belongs to their neighbor. Maybe it means they need to reroute a water line or they need to consider boring rather than trenching or you know other things like that that seems like the sort of thing that should be in the plan now in the event it affects the development plan. So what is what is kind of the responsibility.

Yeah, I would actually like to invite City Attorney Robin McIntyre to maybe provide her insights on that question.

Sure. Well, so as you noted, it's not a criteria for our code. It may be in other jurisdictions. It's not in ours. There's always the opportunity for a private right of action if somebody does something that damages another person's property. So that would be outside of the realm of the city's responsibility, but that's always something that the applicant is always responsible for whatever damage their development might have.

for the neighboring property okay that's a lot easier when it's someone's garage door versus a living tree so or something so okay understood thank you are there any additional questions yes kind of in that vein um i know again kind of a little bit off of like what we're actually asked to do right now but

other projects that I have been on as part of the permitting process it has been identified that trees need to be protected or and to your point boring backtracking around them or having an arborist like is that something that will come up through the through their permit processes they continue to get this developed because they don't have the permit to build what they're asking for yet that's correct it's in process And is that something that Beaverton does have the ability to kind of put into the notes to make sure that the roots or have an arborist come out and get some verification

I know that's not totally related to this, but it may be piling on, but if they're already having to reevaluate the property line tree, is that a condition that they need to do some additional research for this additional tree that belongs to the neighbor?

Yeah, and we talked about this a little bit prior. If we do want to apply any new conditions of approval, we do need to tie them to the applicable approval criteria. If staff were able to identify approval criteria where that would be appropriate, I think staff would offer one up. I think at this point staff does not have that link to provide that condition of approval to require that additional action.

So there is no approval criteria that says that you can't damage your neighbor's property?

I think going back to Ms. McIntyre's comment about that being kind of a private legal matter between two is really the ability and the tools that we have in our toolkit to discourage and then provide remedy after the fact.

OK. Thank you. OK. Are there additional questions of staff? Yes, Commissioner.

This is actually a question or it's more of a statement. It sounds like the community's been very vocal about the development plans for this parcel for some time. And I'm curious, at what point does a judgment call get made as opposed to just a black and white code? Because that's kind of the mantra of what I'm hearing here.

Yeah, I think that's a very fair observation. Our development code has different types of approval criteria. Some are very discretionary. Some are rather on the black and white side. Developments that remain at a staff level decision tend to lean towards the black and white, the clear and objective. So I think there is some opportunity to affect change. I think the public comment provided earlier identifying the tree starting the property line is a really good example for public comment can affect change because they brought something to staff's attention that they were not aware of. But when we do have criteria that's generally clear and objective, the ability to provide that discretion is not necessarily always available.

Any other questions of staff? Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. So we will move to close the public hearing. And with final comments completed, now is the time for deliberation. Do any commissioners have further discussion on the proposal? Commissioner McAvoy. Sure.

Keep the streak alive. I think, yeah, I guess what I'm thinking about here that I'll just share with Commission is I think the approval criteria here is relatively narrow. We've all kind of acknowledged this in different comments and questions. But I do want to point out that this is the second time in not too many months that we've We've talked about some of the code around tree removals and tree protections in the city. And I think as we continue to see the need for and the effort to accommodate middle housing and housing for all manner of our community, that butts up against the challenge of preserving our natural resources. And so those two discussions, the one prior this spring and then this one, I think highlight the need for a careful look at at some of our code and better defining what we're trying to protect, and then doubling down on what that protection really is. And I also just want to draw attention to specifically the need to account for some of those externalities. That when we're talking about tree removals, it's not just about, and you pointed this out, Chair McCann, really nicely, but it's not just about the impact to the tree or the property itself, but also the adjacent areas, right? Those externalities are very real and very long lasting. So I don't see how that necessarily fits within our approval criteria this evening, but I feel like that's an important thing for us all to dwell on and work with staff on in future months.

Based on this middle, I do would love your thoughts on this. I do have some concerns and it was raised by one of the community members that there are some additional trees that are right next to the property line, both on the south side and I think there's one in the northwest looking at the plans. It's kind of near the corner. Given that there's already been one tree that was identified to be crossing a property line, is there any additional sort of conditions we could put on this that or maybe a continuance if the applicant was open to that to Survey those additional trees and make sure there aren't any additional that are straddling the property line at this point. I

So the record is closed for any more testimony, but certainly one of the things that one of the appellants proposed was a survey to ensure that the trees are properly identified. That certainly is a condition that you could consider adding.

I could just chime in briefly on a Slotinski planning division manager. I just want to reiterate that trees that are not on the subject property and that are not identified as being significant and in that protected category, we don't have provisions in our code for tree protections in those circumstances. Understood. I understand that That that is frustrating given what you're looking at right now.

I just wanted to make sure that that information was was clear So yes, and and I apologize on a for clarification There are trees that are drawn as though they are within the property that are very very close to the property line similar exactly the same kind of condition of the one that has been determined that it is crossing the property line and That one too. If you look at the plan and the tiny little symbol on a survey, it looks like it's in the property And it turns out it's not, at least not entirely. So the question is, these other trees, what kind of confirmation has been made that they are entirely within property, or are there other trees that are also straddling property lines? So I think that's the question. I set the walnut aside.

My suggestion would be at the moment that potentially the Commission continue their conversation, and when the Commission believes they potentially would like staff to suggest some wording for additional conditions of approval, that you could convey to staff the substance of what you would like those to say, and then we would like a recess to make sure we can hammer out language that is adequate.

Okay.

Is there more discussion? Thoughts, my fellow commissioners?

I don't know. I'm kind of uncomfortable about this whole conversation that's going on here. I think that there's a lot of history here that we don't fully understand with this property that I'd like to know more about, but I don't know that that is something that can weigh into our decision tonight.

I think I'm unclear on what are you talking about, the history of the development applications?

Just the history of the development, yeah.

Because the issue here is that what's before you is only the tree plan to appeal. So any of the other prior development applications, the original subdivision approval and the new middle housing, those weren't appealed. So those decisions have already been made. They're already final. So the only thing before you is the tree plan, too. Does that answer your question?

It does. And even when I was initially reading this, I was kind of questioning why there wasn't an appeal made for the development as well, because then you get the overlay of the trees and the site plan as part of that conversation. But I guess that's not on the table for what we're making a judgment on tonight. Correct.

Chairman can returning to your comments. I think it's a great observation about the the two trees I'm looking in the southeast corner. I think are the two that you're referring to. Is that right? Yeah, I Mean, I would certainly be happy to entertain some some language and condition of approval around You know verifying where the above-ground portions of those trees are relative to the property line Staff do we want to ask staff to add a condition?

I You'd be open to it? Yeah.

I mean, I would agree that at this point, we can't rule on a lot of the stuff of concern. But I think this is one step we can do to make sure that we can preserve any trees that might fall across the line.

So I guess Ana to your question, you know, should we take a moment so you could look at if the intent that the commission is trying to do is to confirm the location of those perimeter trees that are currently on the survey and shown to be on the property line to confirm that none of them are straddling the property line similar to the one that's already been identified. Can we add that as a condition prior to kind of finalizing things?

If we could take a 10 minute recess.

How much, 10? 10. Okay, we will take a 10 minute recess, thank you. One minute. All right, we're approximately one minute. We're almost there. A recommendation?

Almost. Yes, give us a moment and we will read out the suggested language of the condition. When Planning Commission makes a motion, you can simply refer to the staff articulated condition if it satisfies you. And then that wording will be in the record and we will use that in order to memorialize the decision. Just as a reminder, you will also want to refer to the conditions that were provided by staff in the previous memo.

Okay, sorry, I was furiously writing. Again, Steve Regner, City of Beaverton. So staff has drafted a third condition to be added and staff is also recommending a modification to the second condition in memo number one provided today. I will read both of them for reference. So the new condition of approval to respond to Commission's concerns about potential other trees on the property line, we recommend the following language prior to the removal of any of the 12 community trees. The applicant shall provide a stamp survey from a licensed surveyor indicating that all trees proposed for removal are fully located on the subject property as measured from the base of the tree above the ground. If any tree is shown to be straddling a property line, the tree shall not be removed without the written consent of the neighboring property owner. Extending the logic that we had earlier for the one tree along the Walker property that was demonstrated to be straddling, not only do we have the condition of approval saying that the tree must be retained unless there's written consent to remove it, we also added a condition of approval saying if the tree is retained, there needs to be tree protection fencing for it. um we recommend we extend uh that idea to any other tree found uh to be starting the property line so we are recommending to amend that condition of approval uh to now read prior to issuance of the site development permit the applicant shall provide plans showing tree protection fencing consistent with beaverton development code 60 2020 for any of the 12 community trees that's the distinction any of the 12 community trees Found strata on the property line between the subject property. We actually need to amend this because it also has. So let me let me do a quick amendment here. We would also remove the tax lot reference because right now the condition of approval references a specific trend, a specific tax lot. So make one quick amendment here working on the fly. Okay, so we would amend it to say to have 2 changes prior to the issuance of the site development permit. The applicant shall provide plans showing the tree protection fencing consistent with Beaverton development code 60, 2020 for any of the 12 community trees starting the property line between the subject property and a neighboring property. alternative protection plans may be proposed by the applicant and approved by the city arborist so we've amended the second condition to apply to all 12 community trees and instead of limiting it specifically between the subject property and one parcel to the subject property and any of the adjoining parcels where straddling tree may be found

Does it need to pertain to, sorry, I'm not looking at a map. Are all of the perimeter trees among the 12 or should it say any tree that's straddling the property line as opposed to any of the 12?

Well, right now, I'll remind commission that the scope of this hearing is limited to the 12 community trees. So if we do apply conditions of approval, we can really only apply them to the 12 trees of the subject of this hearing tonight.

Understood. Thank you. Okay, are there any additional final comments from all of you? Okay. All right, so is there a motion? keeping in mind that approval of the application is denial of the appeal, but you could approve the application with the added criteria. There's also, if you deny the application, that is approval of the appeal.

chair i move to approve the application based on the record and findings and conclusions excuse me i'm sorry uh commissioner mcavoy you have to address the appeal so you would propose to deny the appeal or approve the appeal subject to the conditions the whole green line gotcha um so just to clarify is the is the language i moved to deny the appeal I'm looking at staff for confirmation.

Yes, it would be to deny the appeal. And if commission wishes to incorporate the three conditions of approval, please reference those in the motion.

Got it. I move to deny the appeal and based on the record and findings and conclusions of the staff report, including the three staff articulated memos dated today, August 5th, I move to deny appeal number APP2026-00583 and affirm the director's decision approving LU32026-00095 Williams Court Subdivision Tree Plan 2 TP22026-00441 case file number APPC202600582 subject to the conditions as presented in the staff sorry as articulated by staff and just to make sure I heard it you are you did sorry I might not have heard the language you did include the three conditions of approval Correct, as articulated by staff this evening.

Do we have a second? I'll second. OK, we have a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, a vote will be taken by roll call. When your name is called, please say aye if in favor of the motion or nay if opposed to the motion. Commissioner Holmes.

Aye.

Commissioner Speck.

Aye.

Commissioner McEvoy.

Aye.

And I will vote aye as well. The motion passes. The Planning Commission's decisions will be memorialized in land use orders provided to all parties who testified. Appeals must be filed in accordance with the Beaverton Development Code and LUBA rules. Thank you. I'm sorry. All right. I believe staff had one more item to throw on our agenda.

Thank you, Chair McCann. I'm Anna Slotinski, Planning Division Manager. I just wanted to let the Commission know that the next meeting, which is August 19th, there are two agenda items. One of them is a presentation on the Beaverton Climate Action Plan, and there's also a Planning Commission training, which is not detailed at this point, but my thinking was to go ahead and cover some tree regulation-related items. Obviously I anticipated they would be of interest given the subject matter of tonight's appeal hearing. So I just wanted to let you know that we will present some additional information and allow commission to have a discussion about Beaverton's current approach to natural resources and trees. Not at a super detailed level. We don't have that much time But just to be able to discuss these matters on a policy basis Which is relevant and of interest to the Commission All right.

Thank you very much. It sounds very relevant All right. Well with that we are now a joint adjourned at 9 o 8 p.m. I