West Bull Mountain Concept PlanDesign Charrette

Summary of Stakeholder InterviewsJune 11-12

Prepared for

Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation

Prepared by

May 2008

W e s t B u l l M o u n t a i n C o n c e p t P l a n2

Introduction

The West Bull Mountain design team held a series of dialogues with four groups of stakeholders as an initial step in the formulation of the draft sketch level alternatives. The four groups include: Developer Interests, Property Owner Interests, Community Interests, and Service Provider Interests. The purpose of these initial dialogues was to give the stakeholders opportunities to have informative discussions with the design team regarding what they would like to see in the sketch level alternatives. This small group dialogue is a valuable supplement to the more formal committee meetings and public outreach meetings.

Information received from these initial dialogues was communicated to the design team before they began drafting the sketch level alternatives. Follow-up design dialogue meetings with stakeholders are planned for the afternoon of June 19 and all day on June 20. At these meetings the design team will share with the stakeholders the initial working sketch level alternative concepts and will be looking for additional review and comment.

The map on page 3 was used as a base map for discussion and for sketching out the ideas shared by the stakeholder groups. A general summary of stakeholder comments and copies of the notes and plans created during the meetings are provided in the following pages.

Attendees:Developers June 11, 2008; 9AM-10:30 AM

Don Guthrie, West Hills DevelopmentDan Grimberg, West Hills DevelopmentJohn O’Neil, Tri-County Investments, LLCMatt Wellner, Tri-County Investments, LLCCraig Brown, MatrixJohn Noffz Jr, Brentwood Homes

Property Owners June 11, 2008; 1PM-2:30 PM

Joanne Criscione, Area 64Linda Price, Area 64James Baggenstos, Rural Area

Community Interests June 11, 2008; 3PM-4:30 PM

Yolanda McVicker, CPO 4BLaVelle Haas, NeighborLisa Hamilton-Treick, Friends of Bull MountainDick Winn, Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Service Provider Interests June 12, 2008; 9AM-10:30 AM

Kelly Hossaini, Tigard-Tualatin School DistrictHal Bergsma, Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District

Drew Spilotis, TriMetSteve L Kelley, Wash Co LUT Transportation PlanningStacie Shetler, Wash Co LUT EngineeringChris Wayland, Wash Co Facilities & Parks ServicesCarrie Pak, Clean Water Services

Stacy

3S t a k e h o l d e r I n t e r v i e w s

W e s t B u l l M o u n t a i n C o n c e p t P l a n4

Developer Interview

Land Interests:Area 64: West Hills Development;•Area 63: Matrix, MLG, Brentwood Homes •

General Comments:Landslide hazards are relatively negligible. •Developers forecast having more trouble with installing utilities with the shallow bedrock. Several developers have conducted preliminary •wetland delineations on their sites that have water and/or are sloped. Please consider property lines when laying the •concept plan out, try to share road improvements with two property owners. Pay attention to costs as much as possible while •drafting these sketch level alternatives. Rural piece shouldn’t be in transportation counts •because it will force Areas 63 & 64 to pay for the impacts on roads from future population in the rural area even though we may never develop it.

Neighborhood Center:Consider putting commercial in rural piece because •rooftops are needed before retail. Neighborhood commercial space will work only •through capturing drive-through traffic from Sherwood to Beaverton.Town homes and apartments won’t sell out here. •

ParksDevelopers will likely include tot lots in new •developments; neighborhoods need accessible parks that are close to homes. Community Park: place outside UGB and in the •floodplain. Neighborhood Parks: place near Roshak Pond or •near wetland just south of school. Trail connections throughout the area are •important for a good community.

DensityDevelopers would like to see lower density parcels •especially in Area 63.Try to hit goal of net 10 units per acre. Any slope •over 10% will mean lower density. Developers agree the market demands upper end •homes with yards. WHD has a target market of 2,000 to 2,500 sq. ft. homes, 2 car garage (3 if possible), $350-400,000 range. They would also consider 37 x 80 ft. cottages or •50 x 90 ft. classic homes; higher density attached products do not sell in this area. 2,500 to 3,500 sq. ft. lots are feasible near the commercial area.

Approximate location of developer interests

5S t a k e h o l d e r I n t e r v i e w s

W e s t B u l l M o u n t a i n C o n c e p t P l a n6

Property Owner Interview

Land InterestsLinda Price: Represents the Roshak family who •together have approximately 90 acres of land in Area 64.Joanne Criscione: Owns two parcels including a •homesite in Area 64.Jim Baggenstos: Owns a homesite and farm land in •the rural portion of the study area.

General CommentsLinda Price: The wetland near the pond is wet •now because of development not because its been there in the past. The family is not involved with a developer but will likely develop or sell the property in the future. The family has a fear that they will lose land values due to zoning and right of way takings.Joanne Criscione: If her property becomes •surrounded by high density in the future, she will likely sell. Currently, she doesn’t like the noise of Roy Rogers and wouldn’t want to live in a small attached home. Jim Baggenstos- The stream on his property always •dries up in the spring. The farm stand sales benefit from the traffic along Roy Rogers but moving equipment along and across the road can make farming difficult in this area.

Neighborhood CenterNeighborhood center would work best near the •pond. A good example is the pond at Murray Hill.Moving the center up to the Scholls Ferry & •Roy Rogers intersection will take away from the neighborhood feel of the center.Where Bull Mtn. Road and Roy Rogers intersect •there is a hill that already makes it difficult to see when turning, making that area a center will only add to the dangers of the intersection.People living in Area 63 likely won’t walk over •the hill to the Bull Mtn/Roy Rogers intersection because of the steep slopes.

ParksParks near school allows parking to be shared.•Walking trails and linear parks are highly desired.•The southwest corner of the Price lot is very quiet •and has some trees already located there. Would make a good passive park area.

DensityLower cost housing and higher density along Roy •Rogers, Bull Mtn. Road & Beef Bend Rd.Slope, views and privacy work well together.•

OtherNeed a lower speed limit on Roy Rogers.•Create housing with one level flats per unit, instead •of multi levels per unit so elders don’t have to climb stairs within their house.Create a bus stop along Roy Rogers. •Would like to see senior housing, multi story one •unit per story, with elevator.

Approximate location of property owner interests

7S t a k e h o l d e r I n t e r v i e w s

W e s t B u l l M o u n t a i n C o n c e p t P l a n8

Community Interests Interview

VisionWould like to see development similar to Orenco •station; multi-purpose spaces/mixed use. A mixture of single family and multi-family. Build a community where kids have access to •schools, parks, and retail without requiring vehicles. Interconnectivity between new neighborhoods and •existing neighborhoods is important. Do not back housing to the busy roads, it doesn’t •create a friendly pedestrian environment

ParksWalkable, safe trails throughout that connect to •regional trails such as the powerline trail and the trailhead to the refuge.Meandering path along main roads can be •incorporated with stormwater treatment, and provide a buffer between arterial roads and housing. Want to avoid backs of homes fronting the arterials •with mismatched fences. Many smaller linear parks might be an affordable •park alternative to the large community park option.Pond is a natural water feature that could be a great •community gathering space—the living room of the community. Neighborhood parks with picnic tables and play •areas are desired. Good examples for parks are Stella Olson Park and Summer Lake Park. A park in the NE corner of Area 63 would draw •from both the new development and the existing development

Neighborhood CenterThe project team should involve a commercial •developer to help provide input on the commercial/ civic center. A public plaza is desired•Commercial center would be good near pond. •We should avoid locating it at the intersection of Scholls and Roy Rogers because of the traffic congestion.

Possibly locate the commercial center at the •intersection of Bull Mtn and Roy Rogers. Should consider building the commercial center earlier in the process since there are many rooftops already in place on existing Bull Mountain.Create a restaurant or Brew pub area in the Center •because there is not currently one anywhere at this end of town.

Density/Neighborhood DesignThe Fountains, developed by Legend Homes is a •great example of high density around a courtyard.Oak Tree Apartments on 108th and Durham is •a good example of high density. Bad example is Autumn Hill & Progress Ridge. Create a gradual transition in density from the •neighboring density in existing Bull Mountain.In general, transition the densities from low •near the boundary of existing Bull Mountain to higher density near the major arterials as long as development has adequate buffers from roads.

OtherMultiple roundabouts on Beef Bend road could •help create a gateway to the area and help with traffic problems. (Stafford road at Rosemont is a great example)150th Street, is too fast, has ditches on the sides, no •pedestrian sidewalks, and has houses backing to it. It’s a very unpleasant street.Limit the number of stoplights along Roy Rogers •road. Try to avoid making Roy Rogers into another 99W.Future roads and development should follow the •contours of the land rather than just following a generic grid system.King City might annex and develop out on the •southern side of Beef Bend road someday and is even looking at the NE corner of Beef Bend and Roy Rogers.

9S t a k e h o l d e r I n t e r v i e w s

W e s t B u l l M o u n t a i n C o n c e p t P l a n10

Service Provider Interview

TriMetModify the street grid so people are not cutting •through to avoid congested arterials and provide easy access for pedestrians to bus stops along arterials.Bus line number 62 is the closest bus running •through Murray Hill. Most cost effective approach for TriMet would be to extend services down Scholls Ferry to some sort of neighborhood center near the intersection at Roy Rogers and Scholls. Roy Rogers then Beef Bend Roads are the two most •feasible streets to have a future bus lines.About 38 rides per hour (10du/acre) make an area •competitive for a new bus line.

CWSWetland mitigation doesn’t have to be mitigated •within the UGB.Look at existing tree groves for nice open space •options that will also help with stormwater management. Linear water quality along the west side of Roy •Rogers road would be the downhill (best) side of the road to mitigate storm water.Culvert under Roy Rogers in the northern part of •site is under sized, and currently a fish barrier. If there is a need to change a culvert then you will have to change the barriers and capacity to meet current standards, otherwise its fine the way it is.Due to its proximity to the Tualatin River basin, •detention areas/holding the flow is not necessarily a great option for this site. Off line treatment is a great option, where big flows are piped and sent directly to the river (preventing saturation of the soil). Smaller flows are diverted and treated slowly in traditional detention areas. Less space is needed because there is less detention, but facilities still need to be maintained. Two new sanitary pump stations are proposed if the •rural area is included (otherwise there will only be one new station). One at the corner of Roy Rogers and Beef Bend Road, one near the western edge of the site south of the river.

School DistrictTaxlot south of school site only has approximately •7 acres of buildable lands.Parks and schools naturally go well together.•

THPRDSmall parks located within the center around the •wetland and pond is desirable.THPRD’s board said it would consider serving the •portion of Area 64 within the Beaverton School District boundary since they work closely with them already.

WashCo TranspRoy Rogers right of way is already large enough •to accommodate two lanes each way with a center turn lane. County will be reworking the intersection of Bull •Mtn and Roshak Roads; traffic will be directed down Roshak Road towards Scholls Ferry. The Scholls Ferry/Roy Rogers intersection will •have many problems with access to a commercial development due to spacing and safety.

ParksSupport for small pocket parks as part of a home •owners association because it gives green space to neighborhoods and developers pay for them.Focus on creating a network of trail systems and •try connecting into the system on Barrow Rd and along the powerline corridor.

General CommentsMixed use area near pond is desirable.•Perhaps a “main street” setting would be great in •the area east of Roy Rogers near the pond. Connect old development properly with new •development; try not to have a new busy street connect to an existing local street. If possible put a single slightly wider sidewalk on •one side of the street, to make it more sustainable and cut down on amount of impervious area.

11S t a k e h o l d e r I n t e r v i e w s