Here I’m sharing an email from one of our fellow Washington County citizens who clearly understands the issues here:
THIS COULD BE THE BIGGEST ISSUE EVER TO HIT CPO-1
AND THE CITY OF BEAVERTON SEEMS TO BE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SLIP THIS ONE THROUGH. (apparently, their code standards do not require that signs be posted on the affected lands !!).
I’m not sure how much you may know about Beaverton’s annexation of the Peterkort lands at Sunset / 217 (Including the LRT Station Area and adjoining / surrounding lands along Barnes Rd.) but I think there are some very significant issues related to the proposed Plan amendments and Zone changes on these lands that the CPO should take a very close look at.
The City has politically asked the County to stay out of it’s business on this one.
You may recall that the County worked diligently for a number of years – hand in hand with the Community, Property Owners, ODOT, Tri-Met, City of Beaverton …. in adopting updates to the Cedar Hills / Cedar Mill Community Plan for the Sunset LRT Station Area. These amendments included a significant concentration of high-density residential land in close proximity to the Station and included specific / special design standards relating to the lands immediately surrounding the Sunset LRT Station. The county standards held a strong focus toward an enhanced pedestrian environment with limitations on the amount and character of non-residential development. ASC-11 of the CH-CM Community Plan was an important issue for the community.
THE CITY OF BEAVERTON STANDS POISED TO THROW ALL OF THOSE PLANS, REGULATIONS AND RELATED EFFORTS AWAY THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE FOLLOWING PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7TH:
TA2011-0003, CPA2011-0002 and -0003, ZMA2011-0002 and -0003
The Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Beaverton requires that the City: “…convert COUNTY Plan and Zoning designations to CITY Plan and Zoning designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards (emphasis added) of the COUNTY designations….”
Here’s a quick bullet list of what seems to be happening:
- The City has chosen to entirely ignore the legally binding UPAA – especially the use provisions and standards that the County and Community invested significant time and resources to;
- The City has (through the Political back door) told the County to (in essence) – not push the UPAA issues;
- The Area of Special Concern #11 on the Community Plan is being ignored;
- The County Community Development Code standards applicable to the Sunset Transit Station Area (CDC Section 431-12) are being ignored; ***These standards were carefully crafted to assure development of a safe and attractive mixed-use center fronting the LRT & Transit Station.***
- County standards for the high-density residential lands (ranging from 24 to 120 units per acre based upon distance from the LRT Station) limit non-residential uses to a maximum of 10,000 square feet per project.
- The City is proposing to create new Plan and Zoning standards for the Peterkort lands (Station Community – Sunset) – These standards will allow for up to nearly 11 million square feet of non-residential development on approximately 65 acres of the Peterkort lands.
- Up to 80% of that 11 million square feet (if technically feasible) could be developed prior to construction of any of the required housing (See proposed City Code Section 20.20.40 “OTHER SC-S ZONING REQUIREMENTS”.
- (note that 80% of 11 million is 8.8 million and that the local transportation system will be thrashed long before hitting a small percentage of that 8.8 million >>>> to put this in perspective, the Washington Square Mall is just under 1.6 million square feet.
- City staff has worked directly with the land owners and their consultants to construct favorable standards;
- Erroneous language in the City’s proposed Code changes;
- Misleading language in the City’s staff report to the Planning Commission;
Please note that some people truly care about the future of Washington County and the quality of life in our Communities. Unfortunately, some of those peaple do not have the ability to do anything about what the City of Beaverton is doing in these amendments.
PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH ANYONE YOU FEEL MAY BE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REVIEW WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
A couple of other differences btwn county and city plans came out during a discussion with the city planner:
- County wouldn’t have allowed commercial on NW corner of Barnes and Cedar Hills Blvd, but City will.
- County wouldn’t have permitted residential on the “Walmart property”, but City will.
There are lots of changes in here which are not just “housekeeping”… converting county standards to city standards.
It’s also interesting to read a letter written by the county planner in response to the plans of the county where he highlights some of the county’s main concerns about the city’s plans. This is a very readable letter ( 2 page pdf document):
- PROXIMITY TO THE STATION IS IMPORTANT – residential density higher closer to the station
- RETAIL DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF BARNES RD – limit businesses north of Barnes
- IMPORTANCE OF URBAN DESIGN AND PROVISION OF A PARK/CIVIC SPACE NEAR THE STATION
- HOW HOUSING WOULD BE PHASED IN OVER TIME