Commissioner McAvoy.

Hi.

Commissioner McCann.

Here.

Commissioner Mettler.

Here.

Commissioner Speck.

Here.

And Commissioner Winter.

Let the record show that Commissioner Holmes is excused and absent from the meeting tonight.

We are now at Commission Communications.

Commission, any communications.

Looks like no communications.

We are now at staff communications.

Staff in the communications.

Good evening, Chair.

My name is Anna Slatinski.

I'm the planning division manager here in Beaverton.

I'd like to just remind the Commission that these microphones really require to speak quite directly into the microphone.

Hopefully I'm speaking directly enough right now so that anyone who is observing the meeting remotely will be able to hear everything.

And I just have one announcement to share tonight, which is that the Beaverton Climate Action Plan is holding an open house on November 13th here at City Hall from 5 to 7.

You can get more information on the Beaverton City website at Beaverton Oregon.gov slash BC.

I would just Google Beaverton Climate Action Plan, to be perfectly honest.

That's what I do to find these things.

But it's an opportunity to get community feedback on that planning process and has a nice relevance to planning commission issues.

And that is all of my comments for tonight.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Now we're on to new business.

Case file numbers CU 32025-00327.

DR 32025-00328.

RP 22025-000382 and TP 12025-00533.

This item was continued from the August 20th, 2025 Planning Commission agenda.

Before we move to the substance of the hearing, I will ask City Attorney to cover the prehearing matters.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I'm Robin McIntyre, Assistant City Attorney.

I'm going to do a brief prehearing statement.

The criteria that must be addressed in this hearing are development code sections 40.03.1 facilities review.

40.15.15.4 C major modification of a conditional use.

40.20.15.3c design review 3.

40.45.15.3c replat 2.

40.90 15.1.C, tree plan one.

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 the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the city to respond may preclude an action for damages in circuit court.

No on all three.

No to all three.

No to all three.

Commissioner Mettler.

No to all three.

And Commissioner Speck.

No to all three.

And Commissioner Winter.

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 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.

Members of the public in support of the application may then speak for up to five minutes each.

Members of the public opposed to the application will get a chance to speak for five minutes each.

And then members of the public who are neither in support nor opposed will have five minutes to speak.

The applicant will then have five minutes for rebuttal, and the planning commission will hear any final comments from staff.

Chair, that in that concludes the pre-hearing statement.

You may proceed with the hearing.

Excellent.

We will now begin with the staff presentation.

Okay, there we go.

Thank you, Chair Adams.

Uh good evening, Commission.

My name is Steve Regner, Senior Planner with the City of Beaverton.

And the application before you tonight is LU3 2025 00329, HMT outdoor court expansion.

The proposal includes the construction of a 12-court pickleball facility with associated amendies, and there are five land use applications as part of this proposal.

There is a major adjustment, a major modification of a conditional use, design review three, replat two, and I'm realizing I did this backwards.

Thank you.

I sure did.

First time in person, not always going to go right.

Okay, there we go.

That looks better.

Where were we?

Major modification of a conditional use, designer view three, replat two, and a tree plan one.

The application uh site is located at 15707 Southwest Walker Road.

Um the site size as a total, the full recreation complex is a 90-acre campus.

The area of the replat two is around 64 acres, and the area of actual development is closer to two acres.

It's located in the Five Oaks Triple Creek neighborhood and is zoned residential mixed sea.

So let's take a look at the site.

This is the Howard M.

Turbaning recreation complex.

As I said, the entirety of the campus is around 90 acres here, highlighted in red.

Um there are two kind of areas of activity under the proposal.

One is for a replat application to plat three parcels into one.

That is the area in orange shown here, around 64 acres.

And again, the area of actual physical development is closer to two acres.

This area in yellow really in the center of the site.

Zooming in to the site itself, here is the lat.

As you can see, it's mostly composed of of those 12 courts with a small area above an enclosed pavilion and a covered entry uh area here on the other portion of the north side.

Um here's a quick look at the elevations of the permanent building.

It is a one-story building with a flat roof covering um the entry area and the pavilion.

Um additionally, there is a seasonal cover proposed for the courts.

It's a air-supported dome.

You can see its shape here.

Um, but I included some renderings to help understand it a little bit better uh than the line drawings there.

Uh the applicant, as I mentioned, applied for a major adjustment that is to exceed the uh required maximum height of 35 feet.

Uh the seasonal cover at the peak of the dome is 45 feet tall, so it's a 10-foot um exceeding the height by 10 feet.

Uh the applicant did provide a couple of helpful graphics, including the one shown here, um, demonstrating that a majority of the mass is below 35 feet.

The fact that it's a dome does mean that there is really limited mass above that 35-foot line.

Additionally, they provided um view shed analysis showing the views from both public rights of way.

Uh, the top picture would be the view from the west looking east on 158.

You can see most of the permanent facility will be visible and a portion of the dome would be visible, but a lot of it screened from the building, and the view from Walker Road looking north, the dome and the main facility would be completely screened.

Um, so a lot of it will not be visible from the right of way given its central location on the rather large uh recreation facility campus.

A public recreation facility is conditionally permitted in the RMC zone.

The site has been operating as a conditional use since 1995, but has actually existed uh much more uh much longer than before that.

But they are adding new floor area, uh specifically 3,700 square feet of permanent floor area with the pavilion and entry plaza as well as 37,000 about um square feet with that seasonal air-supported uh cover.

Staff finds that the proposal is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, which is a requirement of a conditional use.

The site, as I mentioned, has functioned as a regional recreation facility for several decades.

The new pickleball facility is located central to the site, no closer than 600 feet to any perimeter property line.

And the combination of distance and screening by buildings, as well as a large tree grove, will go a long way to mitigating uh much of the sound and light impacts of the proposed facility.

The applicant is also proposed a tree plan one.

Uh the facility is directly abutting a significant Rovine site, Grove G 36.

A tree plan one is required when uh what is called major pruning occurs with a significant grove.

That means the trees will be remaining, uh, but more than 10% of root zone or canopy is anticipated to be impacted.

Um just to show here the concentric circles are a little hard to read, so I highlighted the three areas expected to be impacted.

Uh there are three trees.

Uh two to the north are Doug Furs and a small portion of the root zones are anticipated to be impacted by work done.

And the tree to the south is a red maple and a small amount of root zone and potentially a small amount of tree canopy uh might need to be pruned for that.

The city arborist reviewed the plans as well as the um suggested restrictions and and requirements for work within the route zone, and has found and can confirm a high likelihood of the viability of the trees after the major pruning.

Finally, the applicant applied for a replat II.

Um this is a step to take three lots shown here in their existing configuration and consolidate them into one legal lot of record.

Uh there is a replat one and a replat to land use application.

A replat to application is when you have more than one plat being involved, and each of the two southern parcels are their own plat from um you know many years ago.

And so because we have two plates being involved, it becomes a replat to instead of a replat one.

Uh but staff's finding isn't in the report, um, show that all approval criteria for this application have been met.

This concludes staff's presentation.

We recommend that the uh planning commission approve L U3 2025 00329 HMT outdoor court expansion with the conditions of approval as detailed in the October 8th staff report.

And staff are prepared to answer any questions the commission may have.

Thank you.

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

Yes.

Um I am aware that there is a also a seasonal dome currently on the tennis courts.

Uh does that dome exceed the 35 feet?

You know, that is a good question.

That dome has been there for quite some time.

My recollection is that those tennis courts are mildly sunken grade, and so if they're not quite as tall, I would let the applicant speak to that a little bit.

Um actually, we in the past have done research to try and find um drawings for those domes, and we haven't been able to find them.

Um so the applicant might be able to speak to the height of those domes, but we I don't have that information for you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mettler.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner McCann.

Thank you.

Just a quick clarification.

Um the terminology of seasonal sort of implies temporary, as though it's only going to be up during certain seasons.

But it sounds like it's effectively permanent.

Or can you clarify?

Yeah, so our development code does not do a great job of defining temporary versus permanent structure.

Um it is certainly intended to be there during the rainy cold season.

I would presume that means more than half the year here.

Um sometimes we do look at other regulations as far as what means permanent, what means temporary.

Oftentimes we'll look for a Twalton Valley Fire and Rescues rule of 180 days.

If it structure is up longer than that, they deem it as permanent.

That sometimes becomes our trigger for whether we require design review to be applicable, things like that.

Um so we do apply design review in this case.

We do provide findings for design guidelines.

Um, but it is a building that we do anticipate or a structure that will come down and go back up every year.

It is definitely an outlier case that our code, frankly, does not anticipate.

Um, in cases like that, we ask the applicant to use the guidelines to demonstrate that they're meeting the intent of the design regulations with the understanding that this really is an outlier case.

Great, thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, with that, we will move on to the applicant presentation.

Well, good evening, um, members of the planning commission as well as city staff.

Um we are here tonight to present a new pickleball facility and outdoor court at the HMT Recreation Complex.

I'm Tim Bonin, uh teach PRD development supervisor, and along with me is Julie Rocha, uh sports and inclusion director, as well as two consultants.

We have Jackie Erb with AKS Engineering and Forestry.

She's been leading the charge for us on the application.

And then we'll have uh Cornell Anderson step up here from Design Fieldwork Design and Architecture, and he's gonna go over the building that we are very excited to share with you tonight.

So I'm going to let Jackie speak to give uh an overview of the project, and then we'll hear from other members.

Hi, my name is Jackie Herb.

Um, I'm with AKS Engineering and Forestry.

Our address is 12965 Southwest Herman Road.

That's in Towalleton, Oregon.

Um I wanted to thank the Planning Commission for your time this evening to hear about our project and thank Steve for on this project and for the recommendation of approval.

Um an overview of the project.

I know Steve talked about this.

It's obviously for the uh new pickleball facilities at the uh Howard M.

Turpening Recreation Complex.

The planned improvements are central to the overall site.

Um they're highlighted in orange there.

And um we'll be replacing the existing stadium court with the new pickleball facilities.

Um as Steve mentioned, this has five different applications, a major modification of conditional use, design review three, tree plan one, replat two, and the major adjustment for the height of that um seasonal cover.

Uh the site plan that um Steve also showed you uh shows that there's 12 new dedicated pickleball courts that has a seasonal cover, and the seasonal cover will actually connect to the pavilion building so that there's a way kind of in and out directly to have some connectivity there.

The pavilion building has um approximately 3700 and 3,720 square feet of condition space, um just a little under 3,000 square feet of covered outdoor area, and then it also has an entry plaza that has some uh outdoor concrete seating planned.

Turn this over to Ju.

Good evening.

My name's Julie Rocha.

Um with Twalton Hills Park and Rec District.

Uh, our address is 15707 Southwest Walker Road, Beaverton, Oregon, 9706.

And I just want to talk a little bit about the community need.

Although pickleball has been around since the 1970s, over the last five years has grown um in popularity, making it the fastest growing sport right now in the United States and actually worldwide.

It's just really taken off.

One of the reasons for the swift increase is that various uh people can play it of body types and skill level, and it you can be successful at the game.

The current number of pickleball courts within THPRD do not meet the demand in our area.

And tennis continues to also grow, so just adding pickleball lines on tennis court is actually not meeting the need of our patrons within our district.

The 12th court in and outdoor pickleball facility would be the first of its kind locally.

We do have other pickleball facilities, but they're all indoor and having the ability to have indoor and outdoor use with 12th court unique.

Unlike uh multi-purpose gym floors, the surface plays different, and so by having these courts all together, we'll play for a consistent level surface that people can play year-round.

The air structure offer off also offers the flexibility for that year-round play to draw players that want to play outside in the summer and enjoy the sun, but also in those uh wet months that also can play and but play consistently on the same placing the uh facility within the uh HMT complex offers advantage such as ample parking, proximity to restaurants and hotels in the area, and it'll all also allow us to host large tournaments that will have an economic impact in our area and an opportunity to partner with our neighbors uh down the street to maybe national because with the combination of the courts within very exciting, and so we look forward to that.

I'm Cornell Anderson with Fieldwork Design and Architecture.

Our address is 1752 uh Southeast Hawthorne Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland 9721.

Um thank you everyone for for having us, and we're we feel really lucky to be part of this project, and it's been wonderful working with THBRD, City of Beaverton.

Um as Jackie mentioned uh and Steve alluded to, it's really a it's really uh kind of a background building.

It's kind of buried um in the middle of the campus, and architecturally we sort of treated it like a background building, sort of quiet and modest.

Um there already are a lot of roof forms going on in the campus, so we chose to have a flat roof.

Um the building itself is about 17 feet um tall.

Um, and the air structure we'll talk about that uh that does go a little bit above uh the base zone.

Um but yeah, it is it's sort of buried in the site, and these diagrams can hopefully help show from Walker Road, um, it won't be visible.

Um so that that dashed line there that is the air structure, that's the seasonal.

So it's not visible from that road.

Um, and then from Southwest 158.

Um it's mostly buried behind the aquatic center here.

Um of it does kind of poke out.

Uh and this is the permanent structure, and then that's the seasonal.

So we are applying for adjustment for the height.

Um this diagram kind of shows you and the north south direction, about nine percent does go above that 35 foot height limit.

South direction, about 17 percent goes above that.

Uh it is a dome structure, so it does sort of fall away as you're looking at it.

It's also going to be green, so the existing dome structures out there are green.

Um the major tree grow behind it, those trees are about 80 to 100 feet.

Um, so it can help just blend in the with the background there.

Uh the building itself, uh, it's fairly small, so it's 3,700 square feet.

Um there's an additional about 3,000 square feet that's covered outdoor area, most of it open to the public.

Um, and there's also kind of some a large outdoor plaza.

Um, I was just saying it's kind of buried in the site, but that northwest corner kind of pokes out, so that's where we put a lot of our energy in and making that uh a really nice public uh space and a welcoming space when people arrive.

Um the building itself, as we mentioned, it's it's it's flat roof.

Um it's has sort of curved rounded forms to soften it.

There's some pickleball paddle references in there too.

Um we won't really go into that.

Um the ADA ramp, we really wanted that to feel very welcoming and not as an afterthought.

So that actually reaches out and kind of grabs you where people initially walk up.

Um that's for anybody to use, you know, people with strollers, uh people with wheelchairs, people with bikes, uh, some of the bike parking is up on the plaza.

Um this is the lower plaza.

There is some landscaping, uh, there's some stadium seating.

Um the thought is that in some events, you know, uh they can set up tents and people can sit here and and use this public plaza.

Um this is that covered outdoor space here.

Um the idea of these lower roofs is this creates a viewing area.

So about the six months that the air structures down, um stand here under cover, shade, get some shade, and and watch uh pupil pointball and Watson Pickleball tournaments.

This is going in, so this is a view from the covered outdoor area.

The building itself, the materials, again, it's we kept it fairly quiet.

We're picking up on a lot of the materials that are already on campus.

That's kind of a warm gray tone.

This being a public park building, just we need a durable materials, but this is a sand finished concrete for the ground paving.

And then just to warm it up, we have a uh a slatted wood ceiling.

Um that's from going to be fabricated from Oregon Company using hemlock and fur.

Um, really just to warm it up.

It also has some good acoustical properties.

Um it's we try to maximize as much daylight as we could and just transparency in and out of the building.

Um, in will be open during the evenings in the winter, and we really wanted it to glow and and be welcoming.

Um, so again, that that kind of northwest corner.

We try to open up as much as we could.

Um the building itself has is very simple program.

So there's a reception area that you can see here, so kind of check-in reception area.

Um, the bulk of it is uh kind of a viewing area and lounge space.

So when people are uh can watch tournaments from there or watch their friends playing, um they can gather there after they've played bathrooms in there, there's two offices, and there's a staff lounge.

Um the only other component is a storage area.

THPRD has decided to put a little more money into it.

So a lot of times the air structures will be stored in containers on site.

They put money into building it into the actual building.

So the air structure has an integrated storage area in the building.

Um, that's on that far east side of the building.

Um moving in.

Um, this is kind of that lounge area.

So this is that viewing wall that Jackie mentioned before.

Um so whether the air structure is up or down, you'll be able to view into the pickleball court.

So that um that's been a challenge, and uh we've we've met it, and we're really excited about that.

Um the air structure is up.

We've um you know, that will block some of that southern light.

So we do have a clear story windows here, so that bring in that southern light.

Um, so we really have really good uh day lighting there, hopefully reduce some energy.

You can see that wood ceiling is in that lower canopy.

That canopy is the one that extends out to the outdoor kind of viewing area.

This is the material palette, so we want it to feel permanent.

Um we have the concrete masonry units.

We're gonna use a um, it's typically eight inches tall, so we're using a four-inch 16 by four.

Um so it's a little more linear, like the building.

Um this is the concrete slab, and just an example of a fur kind of hemlock ceiling.

There's also metal panel that's gonna have a more of a champagne tone, so a little bit of a warmer feel to it, uh, versus say like a cold aluminum finish.

Um the metal panel and the bullions on the window system will be kind of the champagne tone.

That's it, a very very simple material palette.

Uh, this is the bird's eye view, so this is the air structure, kind of a dark green that'll match the existing air structure flat roof.

Uh, there's a planting bed here along the north side of the building.

I know there's a lot of people who use this pathway, so just kind of softening that edge up as much as we can.

This is a view from the courts, looking at the building without the air structure.

So again, just as much transparency as we could give it.

This is a permanent uh airlock.

So people will enter and exit the building from this, uh, whether the air structures up or down.

Um, and then this is that same view but with the air structure up.

So that's the visibility in and out of the building to the great, thank you.

Are there any questions of the applicant with regard to the proposed application?

Commissioner McEvoy.

Yeah, thanks for the presentation.

Um I'm just wondering since there are already some inflatable seasonal structures on site.

Do you have uh some idea how long those are usually up?

Like what is that season that they you guys currently use them?

Yes, thank you.

I can answer that for you.

Uh yes, we have uh two air structures right now, and they're approximately 35 feet tall, and they're lower than the the court we're proposing because they're over existing tennis courts, which are shorter.

And as Julie mentioned, we've we've put we've overlaid lines for pickleballs on tennis courts, which the pickleball courts are actually smaller than the actual guidelines themselves, so that's why the court we're proposing now is much wider.

Um but the courts are typically the air structures are typically up in September, and then we take them down in May.

And we put one up, I think for two weeks, then we put up the second one, and then we take them down in May.

Um, and so about that timeline in May, it starts to warm up and they actually get warm inside the air structures as well.

So people are ready to be outside, and that's when we take them down.

Gotcha.

Um, and then one quick follow-up.

I wondered also if um did you consider any other alternative designs given sort of the height restriction here and some other obstacles?

We we looked at it early on.

Uh we did some uh preliminary study and looked at what other types of structures we could put over it.

Um there are other companies that make steel structures with fabric, but they're meant to be up for two to three years at a time and then being taken down.

They're used by like the army will use them or colleges will use them when they add maybe add a new dorm as temporary housing.

But yeah, and we looked at that too, and the cost of that just was more than what it would be just for the air structure.

And again, at the same time, we do like our our patrons do like to be outside as soon as the sun is out, so we'd like to have that air structure down.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions?

Commissioner Speck.

Um, you guys put uh an elaborate schedule together that talked about how you control activity on the entire campus, but it didn't really mention operational hours for the courts themselves, and then I'm assuming that's all controlled through the clubhouse here.

Is it um how later is it?

Are they gonna are they usually going to be operational at night?

I think up till 10.

Nine to nine to nine.

Nine to nine.

Okay.

And then I'll all court lighting will be off in the evenings after um the courts go down.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Great.

Any other questions?

All right, no further questions.

We are now at public testimony portion of 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, 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.

Now is the time for testimony in favor of the application.

And do we have any testimony in favor?

We have no testimony in favor.

We have no testimony, no one testifying.

We'll move to the Zoom webinar via Zoom webinar.

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.

No, all right.

Now is the time for testimony in opposition to the application.

Are there any yellow cards in opposition to the application?

No.

All right.

We have no one testifying in person.

We'll move to the Zoom webinar.

And so there's for those viewing via Zoom webinar.

We've established that they will be raising their hand and calling and pressing star nine.

Is there any testimony in opposition?

Did we establish there's none?

Okay.

Now is the time for testimony, neither in favor nor opposed to the application.

Are there any yellow cards?

No yellow cards in favor or opposition.

We have no one testifying in person.

We'll move to the Zoom webinar.

Are there any people viewing via Zoom webinar?

Please communicate by using 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 testimony?

Any testimony in Zoom webinar.

All right.

Staff has indicated that we do not have any public testimony, neither in favor nor opposed.

So we move to the applicant's rebuttal.

Now is the time for the applicant's rebuttal.

The rebuttal is limited to five minutes and must be focused on issues raised during the testimony.

Since we've had no testimony in opposition, there's a lot of people.

Excellent.

Right.

And with final comments completed, I will close the public hearing.

Now is the time for deliberation.

Do any commissioners have further discussion of the proposal?

Actually, Chair.

Um we need to have a staff make any final comments before closing.

Would staff like to make any final comments before closing?

Staff has no additional comments.

Thank you.

No additional comments.

Thank you very much.

Now we can move on.

All right.

So with that, we will move to close the public hearing.

With final comments completed, I will close the public hearing.

Now is the time for deliberation.

Do any commissioners have further discussion of the proposal?

Or have a question?

No further questions.

Is there an option?

Is there a motion to approve or continuance?

Anyone like to make a motion?

Based on the record and the findings and conclusions in the staff report.

Um dated.

October 15th 2025.

I move to approve application for LU 3025-00329 HMT outdoor court expansion.

Case file numbers CU32025 00327.

Subject to conditions as presented on the staff report.

Excellent.

Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

Commissioner Speck, seconds.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

No discussion.

A vote will be taken by roll call.

When your name is called, please say A if in favor and nay if opposed.

Commissioner McAvoy.

Yay.

Commissioner McCann.

Commissioner Mettler.

Yay.

Commissioner Speck.

Yay.

And Commissioner Winter.

Aye.

And the chair is aye as well.

The motion passes.

The planning commission's decision 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.

The second item on the agenda is a public hearing on the application for LU 32025-00306.

Willamette Valley Academy.

Case file numbers C UN 32025-00303.

And DR 12025-00304.

Before we move to the substance of the hearing, I will ask the city attorney to cover the prehearing 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 this hearing are development code sections 40.03.1, 40.15, 0.15.5 C, new conditional use.

40.20.15.1 C design review compliance letter.

Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward these approval criteria or other approval 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 relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the city to respond may preclude an action for damages in circuit court.

State and local law require commissioners to make the certain disclosures to these ends.

The following questions will be asked.

Does any commissioner have a potential or actual conflict of interest?

Ex parte contact or site visit to declare.

Chair Adams.

No on all three.

No on all three.

Commissioner McCann, no to all three.

Commissioner Mettler.

No to all three.

Commissioner Speck.

No to all three.

Commissioner Winter.

Does any member of the audience wish to question a commissioner about ex parte contacts or site visits or challenge the right of a commissioner to participate in this hearing?

Let the record show no response.

The order of the public hearing tonight will be as follows.

City staff will give a presentation followed by commissioners' questions of staff.

The applicant will be given 20 minutes for its presentation, followed by commissioner's 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 the application will then have an opportunity to speak for up to five minutes each.

Finally, members of the public who are neither in support nor opposed will have five minutes to speak.

The applicant will then have five minutes for rebuttal, and the planning commission will then hear final comments from staff.

Chair, that concludes the prehearing statement.

You may proceed with the hearing.

Okay.

Greetings, Chair and Commissioners.

I'm Aaron Harris, Senior Planner, City of Beaverton Community Development Department.

My presentation this evening is for LU3 2025-00306, Wyameth Valley Academy, land use application CEO and 3 2025-00303, and DR1 2025-00304.

This slide provides an overview of the proposal.

The subject site is located on the west side of Northwest 167th place.

The site's approximately 4.8 acres.

The site contains two buildings.

To the west are offices and to the south is Five Oaks Middle School.

The slide provides a zoning map of the site and surrounding area.

And the property to the south is zone residential mix C.

Here's a site plan illustrating the applicant's proposal.

No changes to the existing building facade are proposed.

The proposal requires a new conditional use approval because educational institutions are a conditional use in the office industrial zoning district, and no prior conditional use is in effect for the subject site.

Staff recommends that the planning commission approves Wyomet Valley Academy, subject to the conditions identified in the staff report.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all might have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

It's like no questions.

We will move to the applicant presentation.

The applicant will now have 20 minutes to present.

Please begin by introducing yourselves and setting your names and addresses for the record.

After the presentation.

Oh, you can come forward.

Thank you.

Okay, good evening, everyone.

My name is Aileen, and I'm here on behalf of Willem.

And allow with me tonight is Connor, our school principal.

And uh we truly aggravate the staff to findings, and we really appreciate the staff for their guidance and the supported throughout this process.

Their insight and the feedback have been invaluable in helping us, you know, studies project design.

And uh we'm yes, so after that corner will give a brief introduction to the sugul, and afterwards, we are we will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Connor Nelson, and I'm the principal for Willamette Valley Academy, currently located at 1610 Northwest Cornell Road in Beaverton 9706.

Our school was founded in 2021, and we serve students who are engaged in learning that extends beyond the traditional classroom.

We began with just 20 students and have since grown to over 100 students, grades K through 8.

That growth reflects the strong community designed to meet the demand for high-quality student-centered education.

Our mission is to support motivated and talented students by providing an environment where they can reach their full potential.

We offer a STEM-focused curriculum that challenges students through advanced academics and enrichment in math, science, and technology.

This year, we even introduced artificial intelligence into our classroom, helping students connect what they learn to real-world innovation.

We also encourage students to learn at the level that they're ready for, not limited strictly by grade level.

In many ways, we're creating a grade list learning environment where students can experience both the freedom to learn and joy of learning, irrespective of their age.

Thank you so much to the City of Beaverton for your time and support.

The project not being uh much of an architectural uh monument uh to require a lot of description uh or I don't want to take your time.

We'll focus on the things that you have any concerns about and and uh take whatever questions you may have.

Great.

Thank you.

Any questions of the applicant with regard to the proposed application?

Yes, Commissioner Metler.

Yeah, I have uh some questions around um outdoor activities and um physical education and how um how are you gonna use this space given that it's kind of an office park and industrial and to ensure the safety of the kids and also that they're able to play outside as those young kids like to do.

So as part of our transition plan and as part of our um conditional use application, we propose the installation of an outdoor sports court that is completely self-contained.

So we'll be repurposing part of the current parking lot in order to turn that into a sports court.

Um we're also innovate renovating the inside of the building to create an indoor activity area so that way when it's cold, wet, rainy, and we don't want to send the kids outside, they'll still be able to be active inside.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, looks like no further questions.

We are now at the public testimony portion of 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, then those neither in favor nor in opposition.

We'll take testimony from those attending in person, followed by those attending via Zoom webinar.

As a reminder, testimony is limited to the criteria that apply to the application.

Any yellow cards for testimony in favor?

No.

Okay.

If calling in, press star nine to alert the chair that you would like to speak.

Is there any virtual public testimony?

No.

Now is the time for testimony in opposition to the application.

Are there any yellow cards for opposition, opposition to the application?

No yellow cards for opposition to the application.

We will move to the Zoom webinar.

For those viewing Zoom webinar, please communicate by using the raise hand feature in the Zoom menu bar.

If calling in, press star nine to alert the chair that you would like to speak.

Do we have any participating via Zoom?

Staff has indicated that we do not have any public testimony in opposition via the web.

Now is the time for testimony, neither in favor nor opposed to the application.

Do we have any yellow cards, neither in favor nor opposed?

We do not.

All right.

Staff has indicated that we do not have public testimony, neither in favor nor opposed via the web.

We'll and no rebuttal.

So we'll move to final staff comments.

Any staff comments?

No final comments.

Thank you, Chair.

We will move to close the public hearing.

With final comments completed, I will close the public hearing.

Now is the time for deliberation.

Do any commissioners have further discussion on the proposal?

All right.

No further.

Is there a motion?

Chair Adams, I move to approve.

LU 32025-00306 Valley Academy based on the facts and findings of the staff report dated October 8th, 2025, with the conditions of approval included in the staff report.

Great.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

No discussion on the motion.

A vote will be taken by roll call.

When your name is called, please say A if in favor and nay if opposed.

Commissioner McEvoy.

Aye.

Commissioner McCann.

Aye.

Commissioner Mettler.

Aye.

Commissioner Speck.

Aye.

Commissioner Winter.

Aye.

And Chair Adams is a aye as well.

The motion passes.

The planning commission's decision 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 the LUBA rules.

The third item on the agenda is a public hearing on the application for LU 42025-00608 designing walkable space places.

Case file number CPTA 42025-00718.

Before we move to the substance of the hearing, I will ask the city attorney to cover the prehearing matters.

Thank you, Chair.

The applicant in this case is the city, and the applicant has the burden of proving that the applications are consistent with the comprehensive plan and any applicable provision of the Beaverton Code.

The criteria that must be addressed in this hearing are comprehensive plan section 1.5.1 criteria for legislative and quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments.

Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed toward these approval criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan that the speaker believes apply to the application.

Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the planning commission and other interested parties an opportunity to respond may preclude an appeal to the land use board of appeals based on that issue.

Anyone who submits written comments or gives oral testimony has standing to appeal this decision.

Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues 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 law and local law require commissioners to make certain disclosures to these ends.

The following questions will be asked.

Since this is a legislative hearing, we are really mostly concerned with actual or potential conflicts of interest.

So does any commissioner have an actual or potential conflict of interest?

Chair Adams.

No.

No conflict of interest.

Commissioner McAvoy.

No conflict of interest.

Commissioner McCann.

No conflict of interest.

Commissioner Mettler.

No conflict of interest.

Commissioner Speck.

No conflict of interest.

Commissioner Winter?

No conflict of interest.

Thank you.

Does any member of the audience wish to 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 make a presentation followed by Commissioner's questions of staff.

Members of the public in support of the application may speak for up to five minutes each.

Members of the public opposed the application may speak for up to five minutes each.

Members of the public who are neither in support nor opposed will then have five minutes to speak.

The planning commission will then hear final comments from staff.

Chair, that concludes the pre-hearing statement.

You may proceed with the hearing.

We will now begin with the staff presentation.

Hello, uh Chair Adams and Commissioners.

My name is Brian Martin.

I'm the long-range planning manager for the city.

Joining us remotely is Sara Lee Hickson, Associate Planner, who's been working on the designing walkable places project as well, just in case for her later.

Tonight's hearing is related to the comprehensive uh comprehensive plan amendment that would add two town center boundaries to the comprehensive plan land use plan.

You can see those two boundaries in yellow on the map that's on the as a reminder.

Continued that hearing or delayed the hearing to two separate dates.

Tonight the hearing involves only the proposal to add two town center boundaries to the comprehensive plan.

So it's this the rest of the designing walkable places proposed amendments will be addressed in a public hearing on January 7th.

This includes some comprehensive plan amendments and development code text.

Is it not close enough?

Um comprehensive plan amendments and development code text amendments.

If community members received a notice regarding the designing walkable places project, most of the content will be addressed on January 7th.

Um and the um these boundaries of or these locations for these centers originally came from the Metro 2040 growth concept map that was approved by Metro in the 1990s.

And the idea was to focus housing and commercial activity in uh centers and on corridors in this and to use a land efficiently and have compact development in the region in certain places.

Um and that these places would be well served by transit.

Um so on this map that you see on the screen, it's just a portion of that 2040 map that Metro approved.

Uh the Sunset Trans town center is indicated up near the Sunset Transit Center and 26 and 17, the intersection.

Um and the it also is the location of a station community.

They put two designations on that spot.

And then the Raleigh Hills Town Center is on the right side of the map near the intersection of BH Highway and Olson and Schultz Ferry Road.

Um the um so that's the the framework that we're responding to.

Um also the the um administrative rules for the state um actually refer to these centers in the rules, which I think is why the uh state wanted us to and the and Metro wanted us to approve these boundaries because they're referred to, and it's a lot clearer if there's specific boundaries for those areas.

So this map actually shows the um there's two uh slides for this, but they show the specific boundaries that are proposed for these areas.

Um the green line, um, which actually goes all the way around the yellow and then extends a little bit on the northeast corner here outside the yellow area, uh, is the existing station community boundary that the city has already approved.

And um the city council approved that decades ago.

Um and the yellow area is the proposed town center boundary that's uh on the on your docket tonight.

The proposed Sunset Town Center boundary map or a map is similar to the station community map, but the city in coordination with Washington County left out some largely single detached neighborhoods that are less consistent with that town center typology, and Washington County plans to adopt the same boundary for the Raleigh Hills Town Center.

That uh location as a town center has been indicated on the metro map for a long time.

Um, but it was never a specific boundary was never adopted either by the county or the city.

So the yellow boundary on the map is the proposed area for that.

It was developed in coordination with Washington County and generally reflects the higher intensity residential and commercial zoning uh and and uh apartment zoning uh in that in those uh on those lots in that area.

The approval criteria for this application are found in comprehensive plan section 1.5.1 and the staff report provides findings for the approval criteria.

Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the city council.

Uh thank you.

Uh appreciate your time tonight and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Commissioner Mettler, sorry.

Um are there uh within the scope of this, are there any um plans to change the traffic patterns at all, specifically around uh Raleigh Hills town center?

Um that intersection is can be quite you can put your life in your hand sometimes and is is not conducive uh with kind of a walkable area.

So just wondering if that is at all in scope.

Not for not for these amendments tonight for for sure, because it's really just changing a map to indicate is it a center or not.

Okay.

Um it's also largely outside the city boundary right now.

Um so Washington County would have a lot to do with the future plans for those roads.

Um I think we're all aware that there are issues there, safety issues and congestion issues, so it would be a separate effort to try to address those.

Thank you.

I saw Commissioner McCann next.

Yeah, I just had a question, um, and it's related to your comment that the Raleigh Hills is actually not in the city limits of Beaverton.

So can you clarify or explain to me why um the state requires the city of Beaverton approve a town center that's not actually in the city of Beaverton?

It's largely not in the city.

There are some lots over, I think you can see the little hand on the screen.

Uh in the southwest corner.

There are some lots that are already within the city.

The elementary school is in the city, and there's some residential lots over there as well.

It's also in an area that the city could annex later.

So because of the overlap in jurisdiction, uh we're we coordinated on that and we're both going to adopt it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Speck, did you have a question?

No, I do not know.

Okay.

Great.

With no further questions, we are now at the public testimony portion of 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, then those neither in favor nor in opposition.

We will take testimony from those attending in person, followed by those attending Zoom webinar.

As a reminder, testimony is limited to criteria that apply to the application.

And we will move back up the schedule here, and I apologize.

We will have uh the applicant present.

Thank you.

In this case, the city was the applicant chair.

Oh, the city was the applicant.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

So we do we have any um testimony in favor of the application?

We do.

All right.

The chair will call on Scott Eaton.

Please state your name and your address.

My name is Scott Eaton, 390 South Rosemont Road, West Lynn, Oregon.

Subcode 97068.

And I uh I work for the Peter Court family.

And we're together.

I'm Joseph Schaefer.

I work as a land use planner at Jordan Ramus here also on behalf of the Peter Cord family.

Um the address is 1211 Southwest Fifth Avenue in Portland.

Fantastic.

Um thank you for having us tonight.

Uh we are here to voice our support for the application.

We agree with the town center map as proposed.

Uh in particular, we agree that it's a good idea to leave the uh sort of single family residential notch out of the north edge of the town center.

Um that area is kind of a you know historic single family neighborhood.

It has some very steep topography that's uh challenging to develop at an urban scale.

And uh so we think it's appropriately drawn.

Um we have been working with the staff and want to thank Jana in particular.

Uh met with them a couple months ago, uh Jana and Anna and a couple other folks we've been talking to recently about our plans for developing the bacon properties on the Peter Court sites.

Uh we look forward to doing doing something very urban.

Uh and we'll be back in January to talk more about the particular details when the uh development standards are uh presumably adopted at that time.

Um in the meanwhile, uh we have an application that's been submitted.

Uh it's not quite complete for what we call uh phase 1A of the West Village project, which is the residential uh development.

And that is uh 55 apartments plus a clubhouse.

Nice little plaza in between the two at the corner of Southwest Valeria View and Barnes.

And uh so uh we look forward to seeing you about that one as well.

I I'd just like to add uh thank you to Steve Regner and uh Tammy Conley as well.

We've been in for some of the uh uh slight hurdles that we've had recently trying to assemble that package to get it put through.

And uh staff here has always been excellent.

You know, we've been we've been in front of the staff, it seems like forever now.

Um so it's not uh it's nothing new to us, but uh most of the staff has changed and it has always remained um very accommodating and service oriented, and uh I just want to remind you that unlike Raleigh Hills, uh I decided to annex into the city of Beaverton completely.

So uh we're always we have always been happy with that decision.

And um, and I I tried to trying to be cute.

Raleigh Hills couldn't probably do it, but um we uh we just feel like we are so committed to the exact same thing that we have a counterpart that that basically helps us figure out what we can't help ourselves with sometimes.

So um, but we're excited about this first building.

It's it's really very small compared to uh some of the things that we're think we think we're going to do there, but um first things first we're trying to bring every uh non-national restaurant to uh Peter Court Town Square and really give that an urban feel and also have it be a huge amenity for the neighbors and and for the rest of the city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Right.

Do commissioners have any questions of the speakers.

No questions.

Appreciate your commitment to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will move to Zoom webinar.

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.

Is there anyone providing testimony via Zoom?

We have one.

All right.

Brandon, please state your full name and your address, please.

Uh hey, my name's Brandon High, and I'm at 3335 Southwest 175th Avenue uh in Aloha slash Beaverton.

I not really Beaverton, right?

But maybe someday with that annexation talk.

Um yeah.

Uh I just wanted to yeah, say that uh this the plan for uh Peter Court Village, believe you said that sounds like an awesome plan.

Um and I'm just generally in support of building more dense urban walkable town centers.

So uh these these two town center plans look like a great great thing to get passed.

Um and well, if I'm being honest, I'm probably more excited to talk about the uh it to come back at the January meeting and what's my support for those specifical specific walkable places um things, but that's neither here nor there for this this hearing.

Um and I I would echo uh some of the comments by uh the councilman that uh these areas definitely need improvements in infrastructure to be you know nice walkable town centers.

That's probably you know like it's probably well known by everybody.

Um there have been some talks about adding you know taking the what is it called, the six corners and turning it into a massive roundabout or something like that.

Maybe that's something to be explored.

Um I have more experience with the uh the sunset area, and uh I know I appreciate the um the transit bridge over highway 26 there, uh, but there's uh it yeah, I guess to point out um that the town center seems a little bit fragmented because you know highway 26 and 217 run through it.

Um so I think for you know the the goal of placemaking and making a town center, it you're gonna have to make a lot of good connectivity um between those kind of different quadrants that are currently very broken up by the highway.

Um of course I'm I'm a software engineer and I've plus so I'm not I'm not pretending to be a planner or anything like that, besides someone who's played some uh video games like Sid City.

Um anyway, um I hope this has been helpful.

Um I'll I'll keep it short.

I just wanted to be a member of the public saying town centers are great.

Um I hope the Aloha Town Center plan uh gets gets going here soon, and uh I'll be happy to provide support for any any improvements on that that plan, which I think is with Washington County, not Beaverton.

But yeah, uh thank you for listening to me and uh yeah, go beaverton.

Thank you, Brandon.

Do commissioners have any questions for the speaker?

Looks like no questions.

Any other additional webinar or Zoom webinar comments?

No, okay, thank you.

We will move to those in opposition.

Now is the time for um to check on that.

So do we have any yellow cards for those in opposition?

None in opposition.

That's a good sign.

Do we have now's the time for Zoom webinar?

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'd like to speak.

Do we have any via Zoom webinar in opposition?

No, we do not.

All right.

Staff has indicated that we do not have any public testimony in opposition via the web.

We will move to those neither in favor nor in opposition.

Do we have any in favor or opposition?

We do not.

All right.

So we have no one testifying in person.

That is so we'll move on to the Zoom webinar.

Via Zoom webinar for those viewing via Zoom webinar.

Please communicate by reason 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 those neither in favor nor opposed?

All right.

Staff has indicated that we do not have any public testimony, neither in favor nor opposed via the web.

We will move to staff final comments.

No final comments.

Thank you, Chair.

Fantastic.

We will then, if there's no final comments, we'll move to close the hearing.

With no final comments, uh we the hearing is completed.

I will close the public hearing.

Now is the time for deliberation.

Do any commissioners have further discussion on the proposal?

Looks like no further discussion.

Is there a motion?

Chair Adams.

I move that the planning commission recommends to City Council to approve designing walkable places LU 42025-00608 and CPT A42025-00718, based on the facts and findings of the staff report dated October 1st, 20 2025.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Commissioner Mettler seconds.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

With no discussion on the motion, a vote will be taken by roll call.

When your name is called, please say A if in favor or nay if opposed.

Commissioner McAvoy.

Aye.

Commissioner McCann.

Aye.

Commissioner Mettler.

Aye.

Commissioner Speck.

Aye.

Commissioner Winter.

Aye.

And I Chair Adams is a I am an aye as well.

The motion passes.

The planning commission's recommendation will be memorialized and land use orders provided to all parties who testified.

The planning commission's recommendation will be forwarded to city council.

We will hold a hearing and make the final decision on this application.

We are now adjourned at 7 48 p.m.

Thank you.

In personal recording stop.