Date:
Jurisdiction:
Local file no.:
DLCD file no.:
08/18/2014
City of Sherwood
PUD14-01,SUB14-01CED
002-14
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of 
adopted amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation on 08/11/2014. A copy of the 
adopted amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office. 
Notice of the proposed amendment was submitted to DLCD 41 days prior to the first evidentiary 
hearing.  
Appeal Procedures
Eligibility to appeal this amendment is governed by ORS 197.612, ORS 197.620, and 
ORS 197.830. Under ORS 197.830(9), a notice of intent to appeal a land use decision to LUBA 
must be filed no later than 21 days after the date the decision sought to be reviewed became final. 
If you have questions about the date the decision became final, please contact the jurisdiction that 
adopted the amendment. 
A notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received 
written notice of the final decision from the local government.  The notice of intent to appeal must 
be served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR chapter 661, division 10).  
If the amendment is not appealed, it will be deemed acknowledged as set forth in 
ORS 197.625(1)(a).  Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal 
procedures.
If you have questions about this notice, please contact DLCD’s Plan Amendment Specialist at 503-
934-0017 or plan.amendments@state.or.us
DLCD Contact
NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE TO A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND USE REGULATION
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -1- Form updated November 1, 2013  
DLCD FORM 2 NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE FOR DLCD USE 
 TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR File No.:        
 LAND USE REGULATION Received: 8/11/2014 
 
Local governments are required to send notice of an adopted change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation 
no more than 20 days after the adoption. (See OAR 660-018-0040). The rules require that the notice include a 
completed copy of this form. This notice form is not for submittal of a completed periodic review task or a plan 
amendment reviewed in the manner of periodic review. Use Form 4 for an adopted urban growth boundary 
including over 50 acres by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB or an urban growth boundary 
amendment over 100 acres adopted by a metropolitan service district. Use Form 5 for an adopted urban reserve 
designation, or amendment to add over 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB. Use 
Form 6 with submittal of an adopted periodic review task. 
 
Jurisdiction: Sherwood 
Local file no.: PUD 14-01, SUB 14-01 
Date of adoption:  August 5, 2014  Date sent:  August 8, 2014 
Was Notice of a Proposed Change (Form 1) submitted to DLCD? 
         Yes: Date (use the date of last revision if a revised Form 1was submitted): 4-30-2014  
         No 
Is the adopted change different from what was described in the Notice of Proposed Change?      Yes       No 
If yes, describe how the adoption differs from the proposal: 
No Change 
 
Local contact (name and title):  Michelle Miller, Senior Planner 
Phone: 503-625-4242  E-mail: millerm@sherwoodoregon.gov 
Street address: 22560 SW Pine Street  City: Sherwood    Zip: 97140- 
 
PLEASE COMPLETE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS THAT APPLY 
For a change to comprehensive plan text: 
Identify the sections of the plan that were added or amended and which statewide planning goals those sections 
implement, if any: 
Goal 1 and Goal  
For a change to a comprehensive plan map: 
Identify the former and new map designations and the area affected: 
Change from HD   to HDR-PUD  5.71 acres.      A goal exception was required for this change. 
Change from         to               acres.      A goal exception was required for this 
change. 
Change from         to                acres.     A goal exception was required for this 
change. 
Change from         to               acres.     A goal exception was required for this change. 
Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address): 2S130CD13400 
      The subject property is entirely within an urban growth boundary 
     The subject property is partially within an urban growth boundary 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -2- Form updated November 1, 2013  
If the comprehensive plan map change is a UGB amendment including less than 50 acres and/or by a city with a 
population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres of the former rural plan designation, by 
type, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use – Acres:       Non-resource – Acres:       
Forest – Acres:        Marginal Lands – Acres:       
Rural Residential – Acres:       Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space – Acres:       
Rural Commercial or Industrial – Acres:        Other:       – Acres:       
If the comprehensive plan map change is an urban reserve amendment including less than 50 acres, or 
establishment or amendment of an urban reserve by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, 
indicate the number of acres, by plan designation, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use – Acres:       Non-resource – Acres:       
Forest – Acres:        Marginal Lands – Acres:       
Rural Residential – Acres:       Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space – Acres:       
Rural Commercial or Industrial – Acres:        Other:       – Acres:       
For a change to the text of an ordinance or code: 
Identify the sections of the ordinance or code that were added or amended by title and number: 
      
 
For a change to a zoning map: 
Identify the former and new base zone designations and the area affected: 
Change from HDR    to HDR-PUD     Acres: 5.71  
Change from          to            Acres:       
Change from          to           Acres:       
Change from          to           Acres:       
 
Identify additions to or removal from an overlay zone designation and the area affected: 
Overlay zone designation: PUD   Acres added:           Acres removed:       
Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address):       
 
List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts:  TVFR, CWS, Pride Disposal, ODOT, 
Washington County, PGE, NW Natural Gas 
 
 
 
Identify supplemental information that is included because it may be useful to inform DLCD or members of the 
public of the effect of the actual change that has been submitted with this Notice of Adopted Change, if any. If the 
submittal, including supplementary materials, exceeds 100 pages, include a summary of the amendment briefly 
describing its purpose and requirements. 
Ordinance, Exhibit 1-Planning Commission recommendation 
Applicant received approval for a 65 lot subdivsion in the High Density Residental zone. The applicant received PUD 
approval to vary the lot size from 1600-3500 square feet when the standard minimum lot size is 5000 sq. feet. The 
applicant proposes town homes and single family to achieve minimum density of 16.8 units per acre. There will be 
areas of open spaces and alley access to townhomes. 
 
 
 
ffd;Jp 
St.fityof "/ d I1erwoo 
Oregon 
Home <frlldlldla<in RNtt ,,,.,;,..( Wi/dlf(< Rifo'f!.e 
ORDINANCE 2014-013 
APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO BE KNOWN AS CEDAR BROOK 
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING APPLICATION OF A PLANNED UNIT 
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP AND APPROVING 
THE SIXTY-FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION 
WHEREAS, the applicant, DR Horton, requested a planned unit development and subdivision approval 
with the ultimate goal of developing an sixty-five lot residential development near the intersection of SW 
Meinecke and SW Cedar Brook Way in Sherwood; and 
WHEREAS, the subdivision would dedicate right of way, provide a needed housing type, have areas of 
open space, and new trails that connect with the existing trail system benefiting the neighborhood and 
Sherwood as a whole; and 
WHEREAS, the planned unit development approval would allow the applicant some flexibility in 
standards; and 
WHEREAS, the decision is a quasi-judicial land use decision subject to the following criteria: Zoning and 
Community Development Code Sections: 16.12 (High Density Residential), 16.40 (PUD), 16.44 
(Townhomes); 16.92 (Landscaping); 16.94 (Off Street Parking), 16.96 {On-site Circulation}, Division VI 
(Public Improvements), 16.122 (Subdivisions), 16.126 (Land Division Design Standards), 16.142 (Parks 
and Open Space) 
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held two public hearings on June 10, 2014 and June 24, 2014 to 
take testimony and consider the proposed planned unit development and subdivision and made a 
recommendation of approval with conditions on June 24, 2014; and 
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on July 15, and August 5, 2014 to take public 
testimony and deliberate; and 
WHEREAS, the Sherwood City Council has received the proposal materials, the Planning Commission 
recommendation including all exhibits entered into the record (PUD 14-01/SUB 14-01), and after 
considering the applicable criteria, the Planning Commission recommendation, applicant testimony, 
public testimony and all documents in the land use record, the City Council determined that the PUD as 
conditioned meets the applicable criteria. 
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SHERWOOD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 
Ordinance 2014-013 
August5,2014 
Page 1 of 2 with Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation (48 pgs) 
Section 1. Commission Review & Public Hearings. The application for a planned unit development 
and subdivision of one parcel specifically identified as Tax Map 2S130CD13400. was subject to full and 
proper review and public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on June 10 and June 24, 
2014 and the City Council on July 15, and August 5, 2014. 
Section 2. Findings. After full and due consideration of the proposal, the Planning Commission 
recommendation, applicant testimony, public testimony, applicant rebuttal and all documents included in 
the land use record, the City Council finds that the proposed PUD as conditioned meets the applicable 
criteria including all local, regional and state requirements. The findings of fact relied upon by the City 
are attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit 1. The full and complete record, including Exhibits A-U is 
attached to the staff reports for reference. 
Section 3. Approval. 
A. The Planned Unit Development and subdivision is approved as described and conditioned in 
the Planning Commission Recommendation attached as Exhibit 1. 
B. The Plan and Zone Map shall be updated to reflect the approved PUD overlay applied to the 
parcels identified as Tax Map 2S130CD13400. 
Section 4. Manager Authorized. The Planning Manager is hereby directed to take such action as may 
be necessary to document and implement this ordinance. 
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective the 30th day after its final adoption by 
the City Council and signature of the Mayor. Duly approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor 
this 51h day of August 2014. 
Attest: 
Ordinance 2014-013 
August 5, 2014 
Page 2 of 2 with Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation (48 pgs) 
Bill Middleton, Mayor 
Clark 
Butterfield 
Langer 
Folsom 
Grant 
Henderson 
Middleton 
AYE NAY 
.,/ 
fil;.p~,f 
v JJjjj_J/1-,--
....-
,.......... 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 1 of 48 
CITY OF SHERWOOD 
Date: July 3, 2014 
Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council 
Cedar Brook Planned Unit Development 
PUD 14-01 and SUB 14-01 
Recommendation of the Planning Commission 
Pre App. Meeting: December 16, 2013 
Application Submitted: March 6, 2014 
Application Complete: April21, 2014 
120-Day Deadline: August 21, 2014 
Public Hearings: June 10 and 24, 2014 
The Planning Commission held two public hearings on June 10, and June 24, 2014 to take testimony and 
consider the proposed planned unit development and subdivision. After considering the staff report, 
applicant testimony and public comments, the Commission recommends approval of the plan with 
conditions. The Planning Commission considered the areas of open space, the adequacy of parking and 
the site layout in their recommendation to approve the sixty-five lot planned unit development. The 
Commission found that the applicant adequately addressed the parking needs for the development, 
provided areas of open space, and supplied a unique housing type for Sherwood. The applicant is in 
agreement with this recommendation to CounciL 
Proposal: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 5.77-acre parcel into sixty-six lots just northwest of 
Highway 99W and north of SW Meinecke in the High Density Residential (HDR) zone. The applicant 
proposes the following housing types with corresponding lot size. 
NOTE: Since the initial submittal, the applicant amended the site layout causing a reduction of one lot 
in the proposal for an amended total of sixty-five lots and staff has incorporated the amended number 
of lots in this recommendation to Council. 
Lot Numbers Housing Type Number 
1-38 
54-65 
Description of Units 
Two-story 
townhome with 
one car garage 
in front 
Two-story single 
family detached 
with rear loaded 
garage 
Two-story 
town home with 
two car alley-
loaded garage 
38 
15 
12 
Dwelling Unit 
Size 
(square feet) 
1,500 
1,304-1 ,392 
1,400 
Lot size 
range 
(square 
feet) 
1,610-
2,552 
2,374- 3,245 
1,600-1,974 
Number of Onsite 
Parking spaces 
including Garages 
per unit 
38 garage and 
38 driveway 
spaces 
30 garage and 
30 driveway 
spaces 
24 garage and 
24 driveway 
spaces 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 2 of 46 
The applicant proposes a planned unit development {PUD) in order to develop an alternative housing 
type within this zone and meet the minimum high-density residential requirements of 16.8-24 dwelling 
units per acre. The applicant proposes single-family attached homes on individual lots that would be 
less than 5,000 square feet. The applicant proposes 21% of the site for open space in order to comply 
with the planned unit development requirements. The applicant proposes full street improvements, 
extending SW Cedar Brook Way, an additional street (Street A) through the development north/south 
and a private alley. Along with the onsite parking spaces, the applicant provides for 79 on street 
parking spaces for 263 parking spaces within the development or four parking spaces per unit. 
In order to develop the site in this manner, the applicant proposes deviation from multiple Sherwood 
Zoning and Development Code provisions as considered within this application including setbacks, 
minimum lot size, lot dimensions, and street design and configurations. 
A. Applicant 
Applicant's Engineer 
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION 
DR Horton Inc.-Portland Division 
4380 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 100 
Portland OR 97239 
Contact: Steven Miller 
Emerio Design 
6900 SW 1051h Avenue 
Beaverton OR 97008 
B. Location: Washington County Tax Map 2S130CD13400. The property is at the northeastern 
intersection of SW Cedar Brook Road and Meinecke Parkway 
C. Parcel Sizes: 5. 77 acres total including area for the Cedar Brook Way extension 
D. Existing Development and Site Characteristics: The site is vacant with a vegetated corridor 
along the western and northern edges of the property line. The vegetated corridor is 
approximately fifty feet in most places and slopes to the western edge of the site into the 
vegetated corridor. Nine trees are to remain within this corridor. The rest of the site is vacant 
and level. SW Meinecke Parkway, a fully developed roadway extends to the roundabout at the 
intersection of SW Meinecke Parkway and SW Cedar Brook Way with sidewalks to 
the roundabout. 
E. Site History: Historically, the site was farmed until approximately 2000. It sat vacant for a 
number of years when the site was initially part of a three-lot minor land partition, Cedar 
Brook Way MLP {05-05), which was approved in 2005. When the Oregon Department of 
Transportation (ODOT), in cooperation with the City constructed the western extension of SW 
Meinecke Parkway terminating in a traffic roundabout at SW Cedar Brook Way, tax lots 100 
and 101 were physically created with the road separating them. Those three lots were zoned 
General Commercial (GC). Two of those lots have office buildings currently constructed on 
their property. In 2013, the applicant received approval of a zone change of this property from 
General Commercial to High Density Residential. (PA 13-04 Brownstone Text Amendment) 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 2 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 3 of 48 
F. Zoning Classification and Comprehensive Plan Designation: The site has been recently 
rezoned to High Density Residential (HDR), suitable for residential development. 
G. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: Land to the east is zoned High Density Residential (HDR) 
and developed with multifamily housing. Land to the south and across SW Meinecke is 
zoned GC, and developed with two separate office buildings. To the west and across the 
vegetated corridor buffer, is a residential subdivision with single-family homes zoned low-
density residential, planned unit development (LDR-PUD). The subdivision is Wyndham Ridge. 
H. Land Use Review: The Planned Unit Development Conceptual Plan is a Type V decision with 
the City Council as the approval authority after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 
A sixty-five-lot subdivision is generally a Type IV review; however it is being processed 
concurrent with the PUD. An appeal of the City Council decision would go to the Land Use 
Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
After PUD conceptual plan approval, the development of individual phases must receive 
detailed final development plan approval. The detailed final development plan requires 
Planning Commission review and approval and ensures compliance with any conditions of 
conceptual approval as well as applicable community design standards, etc. The code is not 
clear regarding the process and past practice dictates that the final plan and site plan are 
processed concurrently and heard by the Planning Commission (regardless of development 
size) with no additional fee beyond the site plan fee. 
I. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on February 6, 2014. No 
citizens attended this meeting. (Exhibit A, Applicant's submittal} 
J . Public Notice: Notice of this land use application was posted at the site on May 17, 2014 and 
in five public locations throughout the City on May 21, 2014. Notice was also mailed to 
property owners within 1,000 feet of the site and any other party who expressed an interest in 
receiving mailed notice on May 21, 2014 in accordance with§ 16.72.020 of the Sherwood 
Zoning and Community Development Code (SZCDC). Notice was also published in the 
Sherwood Gazette newspaper on June 1, 2014 and scheduled for publication in The Times on 
June 5, 2014. 
K. Review Criteria: Zoning and Community Development Code Sections 16.12 (HDR}, 16.40 
(PUD), 16.44 (Townhomes);16.92 (Landscaping) 16.94 (Off-Street Parking), 16.96 (On-Site 
Circulation), Division VI (Public Improvements), 16.120 (Subdivisions), 16.128 (Land Division 
Design Standards). 16.142 (Parks and Open Space) 
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS 
After notice was sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposal on May 21, 2014, staff 
received the following comment. 
Allison Holden submitted comments via email on May 25, 2014 expressing concern about increasing 
class size at Edy Ridge and the number of new students that this development could generate. Her 
comments are attached as Exhibit B. 
Staff Response: As discussed when the zone change was approved, Oregon law does not allow 
potential increases in school population to be grounds for approval or denial of an application. The City 
works with the Sherwood School District in order to assist in forecasting potential school growth within 
the city limits. Instead, developers pay a tax on their new development to the school district so that 
they can plan for that growth and the Sherwood School District receives money for each new dwelling 
Cedar Brook PUO (PUO 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 3 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 4 of 48 
unit that is constructed. On each development proposal, staff sends notice to the Sherwood School 
District of the project. 
Ill. AGENCY/DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 
The City requested comments from affected agencies. All original documents are contained in the 
planning file and are a part of the official record on this case. The following information briefly 
summarizes those comments: 
Sherwood Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and provided comments which have 
been incorporated into this report and decision. The City Engineer provided a letter of concurrence 
with the proposed street design modifications which is included as Exhibit C. 
Sherwood Broadband: Brad Crawford. IT Director indicated that the applicant install conduit and vaults 
from the vault on Cedar Brook Way through the extension of Cedar Brook Way. 
Clean Water Services provided comments and recommended preliminary conditions which are 
included as Exhibit D to this report. 
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) provided comments which are included as Exhibit E to this 
report. 
Pride Disposal provided comments which are included as Exhibit F. 
According to Pride, all of the residents of Street A will be serviced at the front of their home. No 
parking will be allowed on the east side of the Street A as proposed in order for Pride to access the 
receptacles. Residents of the alley, (lots 54-65) will need to place the receptacles in the alley. The 
residents of lots 29-53 may use Meinecke. Cedar Brook Way or the private street, but addresses need 
to be visible from the street that is proposed. 
IV. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 
The Commission shall review the application pursuant to Chapter 16.72 and may act to recommend to 
the Council approval, approval with conditions or denial. The Commission shall make their 
recommendation based on the following criteria: 
A. Chapter 16.40 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 
16.40.010 Purpose 
A. PUDs integrate buildings, land use, transportation facilities, utility systems and open 
space through an overall site design on a single parcel of land or multiple properties under 
one or more ownerships. The PUD process allows creativity and flexibility in site design 
and review which cannot be achieved through a strict adherence to existing zoning and 
subdivision standards. 
B. The PUD district is intended to achieve the following objectives: 
1. Encourage efficient use of land and resources that can result in savings to the 
community, consumers and developers. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 4 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Pages of 48 
STAFF ANALYSIS This lot has remained undeveloped since annexation in 2000. The PUD 
development, if approved will result in sixty-five single-family lots on a 5.77-acre parcel within the 
City. It is adjacent to existing services and the infrastructure is available to serve this number of 
units within the City. The applicant proposes to connect Cedar Brook Way in keeping with the 
intention of the Transportation System Plan. Additionally, the site will be easily accessible to 
infrastructure connections due to its proximity to existing development. 
Currently, there are relatively few buildable residential lots remaining within the City and a limited 
number of lots with smaller lot sizes, thus providing a unique lot size and housing type for 
residential development within the City boundaries. The site is surrounded by development on all 
sides with the infrastructure available to serve this site. The specifications of the infrastructure will 
be discussed further within this report. 
2. Preserve valuable landscape, terrain and other environmental features and 
amenities as described in the Comprehensive Plan or through site investigations. 
STAFF ANALYSIS The developable portion of the site is relative flat with no trees. There is a 
sloped area off site that is within the vegetated corridor buffer. The roadway will be in between the 
development and the vegetated corridor buffer thus preserving the environmental features to the 
fullest extent possible. 
3. Provide diversified and innovative living, working or neighborhood shopping 
environments that take into consideration community needs and activity 
patterns. 
STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed smaller individual lots with reduced setbacks are not as 
common within Sherwood because the Sherwood Zoning and Development Code provides for a 
minimum lot size in all zones of at least 5,000 square feet. These homes will provide a more 
affordable entry level housing type and ownership than may be otherwise available in the 
competitive Sherwood market. 
There are commercial areas directly to the south and across Highway 99W and within walking 
distance of this proposal. As proposed, the development will have access to several areas of 
usable open space near and around the site. The applicant has discussed in the narrative the 
connection to the proposed Cedar Creek Trail and possible future feeder trail connections which 
would offer the neighborhood a direct connection to the school and parks nearby. 
4. Achieve maximum energy efficiency in land uses. 
STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to extend where needed and connect with the existing 
main lines and utilize the existing services such as roadway infrastructure and water, sanitary and 
sewer lines. This promotes energy efficiency in land uses as it is nearby already developed 
properties. The site is near Highway 99W, a principal arterial and will have access to Highway 99W 
at the intersection of SW Meinecke and Highway 99W. 
5. Promote innovative, pedestrian-friendly, and human scale design in architecture 
and/or other site features that enhance the community or natural environment. 
(Ord. 2001-1119 § 1) 
STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant has proposed a development that connects with the surrounding 
neighborhood with sidewalks and pathways. The applicant shows that the neighborhood will 
connect on a human scale by extending sidewalks on SW Cedar Brook Way between the 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUS 14-01) Page 5 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
Augusts. 2014, Page 6 of 48 
neighborhoods. The houses will front Street A, SW Meinecke or Cedar Brook Way with rear alley 
loaded garages and frontage that will include porches, windows instead of garages in most of the 
homes. This will provide a seamless pedestrian walkway along the street without curb cuts and 
driveways intersecting the sidewalks on SW Cedar Brook and SW Meinecke. Cedar Brook Way 
will abut the open space area with sidewalks on both sides of the street offering unobstructed 
views of the Cedar Creek corridor and preserving the natural areas for the public. 
The applicant includes an architectural pattern book that is comprised of multiple housing type and 
colors that will be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The applicant includes architectural 
detail guidelines with dwellings that reflect, "A traditional northwest architectural vernacular best 
described as simplified interpretation of turn of the century Northwest Craftsman, European or 
English Cottage styles." These concepts could be further described through the final development 
plan process. 
The applicant is required to provide open space of at least 15% of the developable area. Overall, 
the applicant proposes 21% of the area to be open space with two larger areas of approximately 
8,992 square feet (Tract K) and 9,749, square feet (Tract E). The remainder is smaller pockets and 
corners of areas that will be landscaped offering visual amenities to the site. However, it will be 
difficult to discern the separation from the public realm and private lots with the remaining tracts of 
open space. The applicant also proposes to serve the overall community with a trail connection 
from Tract K to the existing trail system to connect with Lady Fern Park north of the Cedar Creek 
corridor in that subdivision. 
16.40.020 Preliminary Development Plan 
A. Generally 
A PUD Preliminary Development Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval in 
accordance with Chapter 16.72. PUDs shall be considered: a.) on sites that are unusually 
constrained or limited in development potential, as compared to other land with the same 
underlying zoning designation, because of: natural features such as floodplains, wetlands, 
and extreme topography, or man-made features, such as parcel configuration and 
surrounding development; b.) on parcels of land within the Urban Renewal District where 
flexibility and creativity in design may result in greater public benefit than strict adherence 
to the code; or c.) in other areas deemed appropriated by Council during the adoption of a 
concept plan required by a Metro UGB expansion. 
The applicant proposes a PUD in order to capitalize on the minimum lot size exemption for HDR 
Code provisions for this zone that were granted with the zone change and text amendment of PA 
13-04 in 2013. The site is constrained due to the wetland nearby, the design of the existing 
roadway network and the steep slope on the northern boundary of the site. The applicant proposes 
to integrate the buildings within this development with the surrounding commercial and residential 
buildings nearby. The property directly to the east, is similarly zoned and used for multifamily 
residential while the areas to the west are larger lot single family residences. This neighborhood 
will be a transition from more intensive multifamily to the single family homes to the west. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
B. Content 
The Preliminary Development Plan application shall include the following documentation: 
Existing conditions map(s) showing: All properties, existing uses, and zoning districts 
within three hundred (300) feet, topography at five (5) foot intervals, floodplain, significant 
natural vegetation and features, private and public facilities including but not limited to 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 6 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 7 of 48 
utilities, streets, parks, and buildings, historic and cultural resources, property boundaries, 
lot lines, and lot dimensions and area. 
2. Listing of all property owners adjacent to the PUD as per Section 16.72.020, including 
names and addresses, and a listing of all persons, including names and addresses, with an 
interest in the property subject to the PUD application. 
3. Proposal map(s) showing: Alterations to topography, floodplain, natural vegetation, trees 
and woodlands, and other natural features, all streets, utility alignments and easements, 
parks and open space, historic and cultural resources, other public and utility structures, 
and any other dedicated land features or structures, the parceling, lot consolidation, 
adjustments, or subdivision of land including basic parcel dimensions and areas, the 
phasing of the PUD, siting and orientation of proposed new structures, including an 
identification of their intended use. 
4. Narrative describing: the intent of the PUD and how general PUD standards as per this 
Chapter are met, details of the particular uses, densities, building types and architectural 
controls proposed, form of ownership, occupancy and responsibility for maintenance for all 
uses and facilities, trees and woodlands, public facilities to be provided, specific variations 
from the standards of any underlying zoning district or other provisions of this Code, and a 
schedule of development. 
If the PUD involves the subdivision of land, the proposal shall also include a preliminary 
subdivision plat and meet all requirements of Chapter 16.122. The preliminary subdivision 
shall be processed concurrently with the PUD. 
Architectural Pattern Book: A compendium of architectural elevations, details, and colors of 
each building type shall be submitted with any PUD application. The designs shall conform 
to the site plan urban design criteria in Section 16.90.020(G) or any other applicable 
standards in this Code. A pattern book shall act as the architectural control for the 
homeowner's association or the commercial owner. An Architectural Pattern Book shall 
address the following: 
a. Illustrative areas within the development application covered by the pattern book. 
b. An explanation of how the pattern book is organized, and how it is to be used. 
c. Define specific standards for architecture, color, texture, materials, and other design 
elements. 
d. Include a measurement or checklist system to facilitate review of the development for 
conformity with the pattern book. 
e. Include the following information for each building type permitted outright or 
conditionally proposed in the PUD: 
Massing, facades, elevations, roof forms, proportions, materials, and color palette. 
(2) Architectural relevance or vernacular to the Pacific Northwest. 
(3) Doors, windows, siding, and entrances, including sash and trim details. 
(4) Porches, chimneys, light fixtures, and any other unique details, ornamentation, or 
accents. 
(5) A fencing plan with details that addresses the relationship between public space and 
maintaining individual privacy subject to Section 16.58.020. 
The applicant has submitted materials that comply in general with this criterion. They are attached 
to the staff report as Exhibit A. During the course of the final development plan approval phase, 
should this application be approved, the applicant will need to submit a more comprehensive 
architectural pattern book describing the building type in greater detail to fully comply with this 
standard. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 7 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 8 of 48 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not satisfied this criterion, but can do 
so with the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development plan approval, submit an architectural 
pattern book that provides an illustrative guide for the development including a measurement or 
checklist system to facilitate review, include information for each building type that describes 
massing, facades, elevations, roof forms, proportions, materials and color palette, doors, windows. 
siding, entrances, porches, light fixtures and other ornamentation, or accents, and a fencing plan 
that addresses the relationship between public space and maintaining individual privacy subject to 
§ 16.58.020. 
C. Commission Review 
The Commission shall review the application pursuant to Chapter 16.72 and may act to 
recommend to the Council approval, approval with conditions or denial. The Commission 
shall make their decision based on the following criteria: 
1. The proposed development is in substantial conformance with the Comprehensive 
Plan and is eligible for PUD consideration per 16.40.020. A. 
As discussed above. the property was recently rezoned from General Commercial to HDR. During 
that decision making process, Chapter 3 (Growth Management), Chapter 4 (Residential Land Use 
and Economic Development) were reviewed in order to determine if the property should be 
rezoned and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. As determined through that process, 
the high-density residential zoning designation, and in particular the housing types contemplated 
by the developer within that zone would be compatible with these comprehensive plan policies. 
The rezone to residential use was adjacent to other residential areas, rather than an independent 
piece of commercial property would be a beneficial designation for the area. Also, there was 
limited availability of vacant properties five acre or more zoned high density residential as 
compared to lower density housing found in greater proportion throughout the City. The policies 
within the comprehensive plan show the "need for a balance in housing densities, styles, prices 
and tenures" (Chapter 4, Policy 6 Residential Land Uses) and this housing type satisfies the 
intention and goal to achieve a variety of type and density in the City's residential housing stock. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion the applicant can meet this criterion or is able to meet 
the criterion as conditioned further within this report based on the applicable code provisions. 
2. The preliminary development plans include dedication of at least 15 percent of the 
buildable portion of the site to the public in the form of usable open space, park or 
other public space, (subject to the review of the Parks & Recreation Board} or to a 
private entity managed by a homeowners association. Alternatively, if the project is 
located within close proximity to existing public spaces such as parks, libraries or 
plazas the development plan may propose no less than 5% on-site public space 
with a detailed explanation of how the proposed development and existing public 
spaces will together equally or better meet community needs. 
The applicant proposal includes a developable area of 3.87 acres after deducting rights of way, 
environmentally constrained areas, etc. The applicant's proposal calculates the individual 
buildable lots at approximately 3.04 acres in total leaving .83 acres of the area as planned open 
space. This is approximately 21 %of the total net buildable area. The applicant has identified ten 
separate areas of open space scattered around the site, with Tract E in the center of the 
development to be the largest tract at 9,749 square feet. Some of the individual tracts are so small 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01} Page 8 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 9 of 48 
that they will be indistinguishable from the private property, such as those tracts that abut SW 
Meinecke or are on the corners of the street intersections. 
Staff is concerned that even though the site goes beyond the amount of open space required that 
some of the smaller areas of open space are so indiscriminately placed in proximity to the private 
properties that they will not seem like open space areas for the development, but under the 
private property's control and ownership. This is especially apparent concerning Tract A, B. H, I, 
and D. 
The applicant proposes that Tract K located on the western edge of the development and across 
SW Cedar Brook way be dedicated to the City in order to connect with the trail system and 
provide a public open space amenity to the neighborhood. The applicant's narrative addresses 
the reasoning for this tract to be dedicated to the City and included the fact that it was separated 
from the primary development, could serve as a mini-neighborhood park for the entire area, and 
the City was interested in obtaining more parkland. 
The applicant proposes to construct to the Parks Board standards as part of the PUD 
development. Once completed, the applicant proposes to transfer ownership to the City_ The park 
would then be eligible for Parks System Development Charge (SOC) credits in the amount of the 
construction costs of developing the park and any amount of land value in excess of the 15 % of 
open space. If approved, each dwelling unit would pay Parks SDCs in the amount of $7,668.78 for 
a total of $506,139.48. Any construction of amenities on Tract K would allow the developer to 
recoup the portion constructed on the open space tract. 
The applicant addressed the Parks Board regarding this request at the April and May 2014 Parks 
Board meetings. The Parks Board was supportive of the trail connection proposed by the 
applicant but was reluctant to recommend acceptance of the public area as a neighborhood park. 
At the May meeting, staff recommended that the Parks Board consider four options concerning 
whether to accept the dedication of this park. 
Option 1: Dedication of the property to the City including installation of public amenities such as 
athletic facilities, benches, etc. This would include the extension of a public pathway to the 
existing pathway adjacent to the Vineyards Subdivision. This would result in a reduction of Parks 
SOC revenue generated from the development of about 20-25% and a permanent long-term 
maintenance cost anticipated to be approximately $4000 per year. 
Option 2: The developer retains the property, installs the public amenities and installs the pathway 
as noted in Alternative 1. The impacts to the Parks SOC would be the construction of the 
amenities. The long term maintenance costs would be retained by the developer. 
Option 3: The property is dedicated to the City and based on a negotiated public amenities 
design; a fee in lieu of construction is paid. The fee in lieu of amount would be approximately 
125% of the estimated construction costs. The impacts of the dedication will result in a reduction 
of the Parks SOC revenue generated by the development by approximately 20-25 %. 
Option 4: The developer retains the property, a public facility easement is created and a fee in lieu 
of construction is paid to the City for the construction of the pathway. The fee would be 
approximately 125% of the construction costs and the City would construct the trail. With this 
alternative, there would be no impact to the Parks SDC revenue. a reduction in the expected 
amount of Transportation SOC revenue and the long-term commitment by the City to construct 
the pathway. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 9 of48 
Ordinance 2014·013. Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014. Page 10 of 48 
The Parks Board recommended that the best utilization of the City's resources would be Option 4 
and for the developer to continue to own the tract and maintain it in the future. They believed that 
it was too small an area for it to appear anything other than a local neighborhood park and did not 
want to use Parks System Development Charges to make improvements to the area as it is an 
area not part of the Parks Master Plan and the Parks Board had prioritized other projects within 
the City. 
Staff takes no position on the determination of whether the Tract K should be transferred to the 
City or whether amenities to the open space should be designed and conditioned during the final 
development phase of the project as that is a community decision. It seems that Tract K is not as 
proximate to the development making more of a public open space than the other tracts of open 
space found closer to the development. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not met this standard but may so 
with a condition imposed later within this report concerning the construction of the trail connection 
in Tract K. 
3. That exceptions from the standards of the underlying zoning district are 
warranted by the unique design and amenities incorporated in the development 
plan. 
The HDR zone is unique from the other residential zones in that it allows no minimum lot size if 
developed as a PUD. The applicant proposes to utilize this standard in order to provide a unique 
housing type as well as offer individual homes on individual lots with a varied lot size between 
1,600- 3,245 square feet. This would not be available under the standards of the HDR zone 
because the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet on individual lots. Coupled with that standard is 
the provision that housing density of 16.8-24 units per acre is required. If this development were 
not part of a PUD, the individual townhomes could not be on separate lots or the site may have 
been constructed for multifamily development and the uniqueness of this design would not be 
available. If developed as a standard subdivision with minimum lot areas and dimensions, the 
applicant would be required to provide only 5% open space, a much smaller amenity to the site 
and the applicant clearly would not be able to meet the density requirements. 
Ultimately, the PUD process allows the Planning Commission and City Council to have design 
oversight of the open space areas, and housing design of the project that would be unavailable 
using the standard Code provisions for a subdivision. 
The applicant contends that the housing type is part of the unique design warranting exception 
and flexibility to the standards. The other amenities offered by the applicant are the extension of 
Cedar Brook Way, the open space areas and trail connectivity proposed with this development. 
The applicant believes that these adjustments in lot size, width and street standards are proposed 
in order to meet various price points in the market and the divergent needs of the public but still 
providing common open space to maintain an attractive appearance. The applicant's narrative 
identifies that the benefits of a planned unit development such as this to the community include 
the HOA's control of the front landscaped areas, a trail system connection, new street 
connections to other neighborhoods, and common open spaces areas with visual appeal and 
interest to the community. These are all factors the decision maker could consider making 
findings that satisfy this criterion. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion the applicant meets this criterion. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 10 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 11 of 48 
4. That the proposal is in harmony with the surrounding area or its potential future 
use, and incorporates unified or internally compatibte architectural treatments, 
vernacular, and scale subject to review and approval in Subsection (B)(6). 
The smaller lot sizes are compatible with the HDR zoned multifamily development to the east. The 
applicant has identified in the architectural pattern book that they will use Pacific Northwest design 
that is also compatible with the surrounding development. There will be three different general 
housing types and a variety of materials and colors that will be in harmony with the surrounding 
development. The applicant through their own independent market analysis determined the 
desired housing type and layout for the site. The narrative identifies the that architectural style 
proposed presents an aesthetic and quality of materials of a larger home. just using a smaller 
building footprint similar to the single family homes to the west of this development. During final 
development plan approval, the Planning Commission reviews the specifications of the project. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
5. That the system of ownership and the means of developing, preserving and 
maintaining parks and open spaces are acceptable. 
The applicant proposes that the majority of the open space is owned and maintained through a 
homeowner's association and rules adopted in the CC & R's. The applicant proposed that Tract K, 
which is on the other side of the Cedar Brook Way from the development be dedicated to the City. 
As discussed above, the Parks Board did not recommend approval of that proposal as the area 
was too small to be used by the general public, the cost of maintenance too high, and any 
improvements would cause a reduction in the Park System Development Charges that would be 
collected with this development at the time of building permit approval. This is a suitable resolution, 
but a condition is required in order to fully comply with the standard. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant does not meet this criterion, but can do so 
with the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to the final development plan approval, provide CC & Rs that 
document how the open space will be maintained by the neighborhood homeowner's association. 
6. That the PUDwill have a beneficial effect on the area which could not be achieved 
using the underlying zoning district. 
The proposed development serves as a transition between the more intense multifamily 
development, Creekview Crossing found to the east of the site with the lower density single-family 
development located on the north and west of this development proposal. Standard usage of the 
HDR zone lot dimension requirements would not allow for the housing type proposed with reduced 
lot sizes on individual lots. Using the flexibility of a PUD, allows the developer to create a more 
unique housing type with both attached and detached housing within a singular development and 
still achieve the required densities for the HDR zone of 16.8-24 units per acre. The community 
benefits with this variety and provides a housing type that is underrepresented within the area that 
has not been developed in the community for over ten years. 
Modifications to the street design afford more flexibility by allowing the house frontages to face the 
street with alley-loaded garages in some cases and frees up space for individual lots as well as 
more greenscape than streetscape. The amount of open space goes beyond a standard 
development that will have a beneficial effect on the area as a whole. 
Cedar Brook PUD {PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 11 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 12 of 48 
With a PUD, the Planning Commission and Council have oversight as to the design aesthetic and 
amenities provided to the site unlike a standard subdivision. The Planning Commission can review 
the design and ensure that it will effectively meet the community's standards during the final 
development phase of the project. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
7. That the proposed development, or an independent phase of the development, can 
be substantially completed within one (1) year from date of approvaL 
The applicant proposes to complete the development within one year and thus is able to satisfy 
this criterion. In the alternative, if the applicant is unable to complete the project, safeguards are in 
place including creating a phasing plan or lapsing of the land use approval in order to meet this 
criterion. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
8. That adequate public facilities and services are available or are made available by 
the construction of the project. 
The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat and determined that the site is serviceable or 
able to be served with conditions outlined further within this report. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion or may be conditioned 
to meet this criterion further within this report. 
9. That the general objectives of the PUD concept and the specific objectives of the 
various categories of the PUDs described in this Chapter have been met. (Ord. 2001-
1119 § 1; 98-1053; 86-851) 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion earlier within this report. the applicant meets this 
criterion. 
10. The minimum area for a Residential PUD shall be five (5) acres, unless the 
Commission finds that a specific property of lesser area is suitable as a PUD 
because it is unusually constrained by topography, landscape features, location, or 
surrounding development, or qualifies as "infill .. as defined in Section 
16.40.050(C)(3). (Ord. 2001-1119 § 1) 
The site is 5.77 gross acres, which qualifies it for a PUD outright. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
E. Effect of Decision 
Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan shall not constitute final acceptance of the 
PUD. Approval shall, however, be binding upon the City for the purpose of preparation of 
the Final Development Plan, and the City may require only such changes in the plan as are 
necessary for compliance with the terms of preliminary approvals. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 12 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 13 of 48 
FINDING: The applicant is aware that a final development plan will be required upon approval of 
the preliminary development plan. This criterion cannot be met at this time, but can be met with the 
final development phase submittal that is in substantial compliance with the approval of the PUD. 
16.40.050 Residential PUD 
A. Permitted Uses 
The following uses are permitted outright in Residential PUD when approved as part of a 
Final Development Plan: 
1. Varied housing types, including but not limited to single-family attached 
dwellings, zero-lot line housing, row houses, duplexes, cluster units, and multi-
family dwellings. 
2. Related NC uses which are designed and located so as to serve the PUD district 
and neighborhood. 
3. All other uses permitted within the underlying zoning district in which the PUD is 
located. 
FINDING: The applicant proposes residential uses and all lots will be for single family homes. a 
permitted housing type within this zone. 
B. Conditional Uses 
A conditional use permitted in the underlying zone in which the PUD is located may be 
allowed as a part of the PUD upon payment of the required application fee and approval by 
the Commission as per Chapter 16.82. (Ord. 86-851 § 3) 
FINDING: The applicant does not propose a conditional use. and thus this criterion is not 
applicable. 
C. Development Standards 
1. Density 
The number of dwelling units permitted in a Residential PUD shall be the same as that 
allowed in the underlying zoning district, except as provided in Subsection (C)(2), below or 
16.40.040.C above. 
The SZDC § 16. 12 defines density as "(t)he intensity of residential land uses per acre, stated as 
the number of dwelling units per net buildable acre. Net acre means an area measuring 43,560 sq. 
feet after excluding present and future rights of way, environmentally constrained areas, public 
parks and other public uses. The density requirements for HDR are 16.8-24 units per acre. This 
project includes a buildable area is 3.85 acres with a minimum density of 65 units and a maximum 
number of units at 92 units. The applicant proposes 65 dwelling units which equals 17.1 dwelling 
units per acre thus satisfying this criterion. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
2. Density Transfer 
Where the proposed PUD site includes lands within the base floodplain, wetlands and 
buffers, or steeply sloped areas which are proposed for public dedication, and such 
Cedar Brook PUD {PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 13 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
Augusts. 2014, Page 14 of 48 
dedication is approved as a part of the preliminary development plan, then a density 
transfer may be allowed adding a maximum of 20% to the overall density of the land to be 
developed. 
FINDING: The applicant has not applied for a density transfer and therefore this criterion is not 
applicable. 
3. Minimum Lot Size 
The minimum lot size required for single-family, detached dwellings is 5,000 square feet, 
unless the subject property is either: 
a. Located within the High Density Residential zone (HDR). In that case, there is no 
minimum lot size provided the applicant demonstrates that the proposal meets the 
purpose and intent of the Zoning and Development Code and the Sherwood 
Comprehensive Plan until February 4, 2015. 
This proposal is within the HDR zone and the applicant proposes lot sizes between 1,600- 3,245 
square feet. When the zone change was approved under PA 13-04, Brownstone Text Amendment, 
Council approved for a limited time to allow no minimum lot size requirement within this zone, 
should a development be approved as a PUD within the HDR zone. 
To that end, the applicant must adequately show that the PUD meets the objectives as identified 
under the PUD provisions discussed above. If met, the applicant has the ability to request flexibility 
in the Code provisions and the decision maker reviews the request. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
V. PRELIMINARY PLAT - REQUIRED FINDINGS 
A. Division VII LAND DIVISIONS, SUBDIVISIONS, PARTITIONS, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 
AND MODFICATIONS 
Chapter 16.120 Subdivisions 
16.120.040 Approval Criteria: Preliminary Plat 
No preliminary plat shall be approved unless: 
A. Streets and roads conform to plats approved for adjoining properties as to widths, 
alignments, grades, and other standards, unless the City determines that the public 
interest is served by modifying streets or road patterns. 
The applicant proposes to construct a public street (SW Cedar Brook Way) through the development 
to connect with the existing street at the SW Meinecke roundabout. The applicant requested a street 
modification in order to address the confines of the site and achieve the density requirements, which 
will be discussed under the Public Improvement section of this report. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion or can be conditioned 
further within this report under the public improvement section. 
B. Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the plat and aU 
reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and streets are set forth thereon. 
The applicant proposes a private alley to access the rear loaded townhomes and is identified as Tract 
G. This will be discussed further within this report. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 14 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 15 of 48 
FINDING: The applicant proposes a private alley that will be discussed further within this report. This 
is a deviation from the standards as it is a private right of way and reviewed as part of the PUD 
approval process. 
C. The plat complies with Comprehensive Plan and applicable zoning district 
regulations. 
FINDING: This standard is satisfied through compliance with the applicable criteria discussed 
throughout this report. If necessary, conditions are imposed to ensure compliance. 
D. Adequate water, sanitary sewer, and other public facilities exist to support the use 
of land proposed in the plat. 
FINDING: As discussed further within this report, (Public Improvements), adequate water, sanitary 
sewer and other public facilities exist or will be constructed to support the lots proposed in this plat. In 
addition, the applicant will be required to come in for detailed PUD approval at which time additional 
review will be provided. 
E. Development of additional, contiguous property under the same ownership can be 
accomplished in accordance with this Code. 
FINDING: There are no adjacent properties under the same ownership and the surrounding 
properties are fully developed. Therefore, this criterion is met. 
F. Adjoining land can either be developed independently or is provided access that 
will allow development in accordance with this Code. 
FINDING: All adjoining properties have existing access to public streets. Approval of this 
subdivision and PUDwill not prohibit any adjoining properties from being developed. 
G. Tree and Woodland inventories have been submitted and approved per Section 
16.142.060. 
The applicant submitted a preliminary inventory of the trees on site with the type and size of the 
trees on the existing conditions plan. (Sheet 2 of the applicant's materials Exhibit A). The plan 
shows that two trees will be removed, but the narrative has indicated uncertainty as to whether 
additional trees will be removed during the course of the development of the open space areas. 
Since there are no trees within the buildable area, it is unlikely that more trees will be removed as 
a result of this development. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not prepared a complete or final tree 
inventory or planting plan for the street trees or open space and therefore has not fully complied 
with this criterion. However, the following condition can ensure full compliance. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final plat approval, submit a tree inventory and planting 
plan for the street trees and trees within the open space areas in order to be fully compliant with 
§16.142.060. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 15 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 16 of 48 
B. Chapter 16.128 LAND DIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS 
16.128 Design Standards- Blocks- Connectivity 
1. Block Size. The length, width, and shape of blocks shall be designed to provide 
adequate building sites for the uses proposed, and for convenient access, circulation, 
traffic control and safety. 
According to the submitted preliminary plat and conceptual PUD plan, each lot has access to either a 
public street or a private alley. The conceptual plan calls for units to abut the streets with a central 
block with 13 town homes surrounded by the alley. The access is convenient for all lots and maintains 
circulation. The layout has been reviewed by the Engineering Department for safety, traffic control and 
circulation. There are two entrances to the development on the north and on the south side of the 
development. Any additional entrances were found to have been too close to the roundabout or with 
limited visibility to be safe. Where feasible, pedestrian connections are made throughout the site to 
improve connectivity. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion the applicant meets this criterion. 
2. Block Length. Blocks shall not exceed five-hundred thirty (530) feet in length, except 
blocks adjacent to principal arterial, which shall not exceed one thousand eight hundred 
(1,800) feet. 
The site is irregularly shaped and the street network is a continuation of already designed and 
constructed roadways. The extension of Cedar Brook Way will complete a block by connecting with 
the Meinecke roundabout north of Highway 99W. The proposal includes a circular private alleyway, 
interior to the site that connects with Street A, creating a block. The development to the east and west 
prohibits an additional east/west street connection in this area. Additionally, the site is constrained by 
the established roadway, the Cedar Creek corridor, proximity to the intersection at Highway 99W and 
the density requirements of HDR. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity. Paved bike and pedestrian accessways shall be 
provided on public easements or right-of-way consistent with Figure 7.4-1. 
The applicant proposes full street improvements for Cedar Brook Way and has included an interior 
sidewalk network adjacent to the streets and the townhome blocks. The City of Sherwood 
Transportation System Plan has identified a trail connection between the existing trail along the 
east line of "Wyndham Ridge" subdivision and SW Cedar Brook Way. The proposed trail is 
located within the southwest corner of the subject property and within the City owned property to 
the west. The developer is required to construct the aforementioned trail meeting the approval of 
the City of Sherwood Engineering Department and Clean Water Services. Upon request, City 
Transportation System Development Charges credits are available for required trail construction 
located outside of the subject property. 
The trail will provide an improved connection to both the nearby schools and parks located in the 
adjacent development. The City has an interest in providing amenities such as trails and pedestrian 
connections to nearby areas of interest. This PUD has a reduction in private yard space due to the 
reduced setbacks for most of the lots and therefore providing easy access to open space and larger 
park areas are critical to the livability of this neighborhood. By creating the trail connection, this 
neighborhood will enjoy the benefits of this proximity to the public amenities. (See applicant's 
materials Exhibit A) 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 16 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-01 3, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 17 of 48 
At the Planning Commission hearing on June 24, 2014, the applicant discussed that the required 
permitting and approval of the design for the trail may take longer to complete than the other public 
improvements. The applicant requested that they could be conditioned to construct the trail segment 
prior to final occupancy of the last home rather than at the time of the initial occupancy perm it. The 
Planning Commission after consulting with staff suggested that the construction of the trail segment 
needed to be completed prior to the occupancy permit of either the last townhome building or the last 
three single-family dwelling units. This portion of the public improvements would be considered Phase 
2 of the project and follow a different time I ine than the other publ ic improvements of Phase 1. Phase 
2 consists of design and construction of the trail extension from Cedar Brook Way through Tract K 
connecting to the existing trail at Wyndam Ridge. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not met this criterion, but can do so with 
the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to issuance of the final occupancy permit for either the last 
town home building or the last three (3) single-family homes (at the applicant's choice) construct the 
trail extension from Cedar Brook Way, through Tract K connecting with the existing trail at Wyndam 
Ridge (Phase 2). The City Engineer must accept Phase 2. An Approval letter from the Engineering 
Department accepting all public improvement shall be issued prior to the applicant receiving final 
occupancy for the buildings delineated under Phase 2. 
16.128.010 
B. Easements-Utilities 
Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines, or other utilities shall be 
dedicated or provided for by deed. Easements shall be a minimum often (10) feet in width and 
centered on rear or side lot lines; except for tie-back easements, which shall be six (6) feet 
wide by twenty (20) feet long on side lot lines at the change of direction. 
An 8-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) is required adjacent to the right-of-way of all street 
frontages. Tract 'G' containing the proposed private alley shall have a private utility easement over 
its entirety. All easements (public or private) associated with the development shall be recorded 
with the County prior to City approval of the public improvements and transfer to a 2-year 
maintenance bond. 
FINDING: As discussed above, this standard has not been fully met but can be as conditioned 
below. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, provide an 8-foot 
wide public utility easement over the right of way of all street frontages. Tract 'G' containing the 
proposed private alley shall have a private utility easement over its entirety. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to building permit approval , all easements (public or private) 
associated with the development shall be recorded with the County and transfer to a 2-year 
maintenance bond. 
16.128.020 Pedestrian and Bicycle Ways 
Pedestrian or bicycle ways may be required to connect cui-de-sacs, divide through an 
unusually long or oddly shaped block, or to otherwise provide adequate circulation. 
There are no cui-de sacs within this development and the applicant has provided sidewalks and 
additional pathways throughout the development. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 17 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 18 of 46 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion the applicant meets this criterion. 
16.128.030 Lots 
A. - Lot size, width, shape, and orientation shall be appropriate for the location and 
topography of the subdivision, and shall comply with applicable zoning district requirement. 
As discussed further in this report, the lot sizes are appropriate for the zoning district except as 
modified for the PUD. The shape and orientation are appropriate when considering the conceptual 
development and building locations and orientations. The applicant proposes to orient the front yards 
to the street or a private alleyway and have requested modified standards to allow reduced setbacks 
with a focus on providing human scale and pedestrian friendly design through the PUD process. 
FINDING: As discussed above, this standard is satisfied. 
B • Access - All lots in a subdivision shall abut a public street, except as allowed for infiU 
development under Chapter 16.68. 
The applicant proposed that some of the town homes do not abut a public street due to the 
configuration of the lot and the nature of the PUD development process. The developer requested 
private street access for lots 54-65, with lots 29-65 all using the private street to access the garages. 
Lots 29-53 abut SW Cedar Brook Way and lot 65 abuts Street A, both public streets. The deviation 
from this standard is proposed in order to achieve the minimum density requirements, improve 
internal circulation, as well as achieve limited driveways on SW Cedar Brook Way with narrower, rear-
loaded townhomes. The specific street modifications have been reviewed for safety and approved by 
the Engineering Department. The exact specifications and requirements approved by the Engineering 
Department are discussed under the qStreet Modification" section on page 29-30 of this report. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion the applicant does not meet this criterion, but has applied 
for a street modification that will be discussed further within this report. 
C. Double Frontage and reversed frontage lots are prohibited except where essential to 
provide separation of residential development from railroads, traffic arteries, adjacent 
nonresidential uses, or to overcome specific topographical or orientation problems. 
FINDING: None of the lots have double frontage. Therefore, the applicant meets this criterion. 
E. Grading -Grading of building sites shall conform to the following standards, except when 
topography of physical conditions warrant special exceptions: 
A. Cut slopes shall not exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) feet horizontally to one (1) foot 
vertically. 
B. Fill slopes shall not exceed two (2) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically. 
City policy requires that before any grading is done on site, a permit should be obtained from the 
Building Department on the private portion of the site. Additionally before grading can begin, the 
applicant needs an approved grading and erosion control plan along with a Storm Water Connection 
Permit from Clean Water Services (CWS} as identified in the comments from CWS Exhibit D. 
FINDING: Based on the discussion the applicant has not met this criterion, but can do so with the 
following conditions. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) 
plans, submit detailed grading and erosion control plans to the Engineering Department. An 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14·01) Page 18 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibi11, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 19 of 46 
Erosion Control Permit will be required. Areas of Disturbance must be clearly identified on 
submitted construction plans. 
VI. APPLICABLE ADDITIONAL CODE PROVISIONS 
A. Division II • Land Use and Development 
The subject site is zoned High Density Residential (HDR). Compliance with this section is 
discussed below. The following table identifies the standard dimensional requirements and the 
deviation as proposed through the PUD process. 
16.12.010 Purpose 
High Density Residential (HDR) Standards Standard Requested Deviation 
1. Lot areas 
a. Single~Family Detached : 5,000 sq. ft. 2,374 sq. ft. 
b. Single-Family Attached 1 ,800 sq. ft. 1,585 sq. ft. Town home 
2. Lot width at front property line: 25ft. 27.9 
3. Lot width at building line: 50 ft. 26ft. 
4. Lot depth: 80ft. 71 ft. minimum 
The HDR zoning district provides for higher density multi-family housing and other related 
uses with density of 16.8 to 24 dwelling units per acre. Minor land partitions shall be exempt 
from the minimum density requirement. 
The applicant proposes high-density housing by subdividing the property into sixty-five lots. The 
applicant proposes a density of 16.9 dwelling units per acre within the density parameters of the 
zone. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
16.12.040 Dimensional Standards 
a. Lot dimensions 
The applicant proposes lots for single-family attached and detached dwelling units ranging in size 
from 1,600 to 3,245 square feet under the PUD standard of no minimum lot size requirements. Due 
the size of the lots, the applicant proposes to deviate from the standards that are considered part 
of the PUD exception process. The applicant proposes the following deviations from the standards. 
b. Setbacks Standard Requested Deviation 
1. Front yard: Garage: 20 ft. 20 ft. to front loaded garages (1-38) 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 19 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 20 of 48 
2. Side yard: 
a. Single-Family 
Detached: 
Corner Lot (street 
side): 
b. Single·Family 
Attached (one side): 
Rear yard: 
3. 
Garage Setback 
4. Height 
Porches: 14ft. Porches: 8 ft. (lots 39-53) 
4 feet ( lots 54-65) 
5 feet 4ft. 
15 feet Min 6 ft. to homes on corner lots 
5 feet 4ft. 
20 feet 15 ft. for front loaded 
townhomes (lots 1-28) 
20 feet 
3 stories or 30 ft. maximum 
forty (40) feet 
The above table describes the applicant's proposed deviation from the standards of the HDR 
dimensional requirements. The applicant proposes that the single-family detached homes (lots 39-
53) with rear-loaded garages will have an 8-foot front yard setback for the porch. The applicant is 
requesting a deviation for lots 54-65 for the setback to be 4 feet from the front property line as the 
front porches will abut open space. The townhome setbacks will be discussed in the town home 
standards of§ 16.44.010. 
FINDING: The applicant does not meet this criterion but has requested a deviation of the standard 
through the PUD process. 
16.44.010 Townhome Standards 
A. Generally 
A townhome may be located on property zoned MDRH or HDR, or in other zones as specified 
in an approved Planned Unit Development, provided that the townhome meets the standards 
contained below, and other applicable standards of Division V - Community Design. Such 
developments that propose town homes can do so as condominiums on one parent lot, or in a 
subdivision, but shall do so in groups known as "townhome blocks," which consist of groups 
no less than two attached single-family dwellings and no more than six in a block, that meet 
the general criteria of Subsection B below, and specific design and development criteria of 
this Chapter. 
The applicant proposes two different styles of townhomes within the HDR: townhomes with rear 
loaded two car garages (lots 59-65) and townhomes with front loaded single car garages (lots 1-38). 
The town homes as proposed will be attached with three or five units in a town home block. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
B. Standards 
Cedar Brook PUO (PUO 14-01 AND SUB 14-01} Page 20 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 21 of 48 
1. Each town home s ha II have a minim urn dwelling area of twelve-hundred ( 1 , 200) square feet 
in the MDRH zone, and one-thousand (1 ,000) square feet in the HDR zone. Garage area is not 
included within the minimum dwelling area. 
The site is zoned HDR and therefore the minimum dwelling unit size is 1,000 sq. ft. The applicant 
proposes townhomes of at least 1,400 square feet. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
2. Lot sizes shall average a minimum of two-thousand five-hundred (2,500) square feet in the 
MDRH zone, and one-thousand eight-hundred (1 ,800) square feet in the HDR zone, unless the 
property qualifies as "infill," and meets the criteria of Subsection D below. If proposed as a 
subdivision, lots shall be platted with a width of no less than twenty (20) feet, and depth no 
less than seventy (70) feet. 
FINDING: The applicant proposes the total building area for townhomes to be 92,221 square feet with 
an average size of 1 ,808 square feet for the 50 town homes. The lot width is at least 20 feet. This 
proposal meets the criterion. 
3. The townhome shall be placed on a perimeter foundation, the units must meet the front 
yard, street-side yard, and rear yard setbacks of the underlying zone, if abutting a residential 
zone designated for, or built as, single-family detached housing. 
FINDING: The property does not directly abut a residential zone for detached single-family homes but 
is part of the PUD where there are fifteen single family detached homes also with reduced setbacks. 
The units do not meet the standard setbacks within the zone, but as discussed above, the applicant is 
proposing a deviation from the standards as described in the table above. 
4. All townhomes shall include at least two {2) off-street parking spaces in the HOR zone, and 
two and one-half (2-%) spaces in the MORH zone; garages and/or designated shared parking 
spaces may be included in this calculation. The City Engineer may permit diagonal or angle-in 
parking on public streets within a townhome development, provided that adequate lane width 
is maintained. All townhome developments shall include a parking plan, to be reviewed and 
approved with the Site Plan application. 
FINDING: Lots 1-38 include one driveway space and one garage parking space. There is no shared 
off street parking space included within this designation, but on street parking spaces are provided on 
SW Cedar Brook Way and Street A. Lots 59-65 are proposed to include two driveway spaces and two 
garage spaces. Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion where garages can 
be used in the calculation of parking. 
5. All townhomes shall have exterior siding and roofing which is similar in color, material and 
appearance to siding and roofing commonly used on residential dwellings within the City, or 
otherwise consistent with the design criteria of Subsection E, Design Standards. 
The applicant's proposal indudes an architectural pattern book that describes the colors and styles 
proposed for the townhomes. Found to be insufficient, a condition has been recommended previously 
to ensure that the architectural pattern book is more thorough and detailed. The Planning Commission 
through the final development plan approval process will be able to review the plans to ensure its 
compatibility with other residential housing within the City. 
FINDING: Based on the discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 21 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 22 of 48 
6. AU town homes in the MDRH zone shall have an attached or detached garage. 
FINDING: The townhomes are not within the MDRH zone, and thus this criterion is not applicable. 
7. All other community design standards contained in Divisions V, VIII and IX relating to off-
street parking and loading, energy conservation, historic resources, environmental resources, 
landscaping, access and egress, signs, parks and open space, on-site storage, and site 
design that are not specifically varied by this Chapter, shaft apply to townhome blocks. 
FINDING: The community design standards will be discussed under the appropriate Code Sections 
found further within this report. 
8. AU townhome developments shall accommodate an open space or park area no less than 
five percent (5%) of the total subject parcel (prior to exclusion of public right-of-way and 
environmentally constrained areas). Parking areas may not be counted toward this five 
percent (5%) requirement. 
FINDING: This criterion has been discussed earlier within the report as the applicant proposes at 
least 21% of the area within the development as open space. The PUD requires at least 15% open 
space exceeding the 5% open space townhome criterion. 
9. Side yard setbacks shall be based on the length of the town home block; a minim urn setback 
to the property line* on the end of each "townhome block" shall be provided relative to the 
size of the block, as follows: 
a. 100 feet to 150 feet 6 feet minimum 
b. Less than 100 feet 5 feet minimum 
The maximum length of the proposed townhome block is 11 0 feet. The minimum proposed side yard 
setback to the property line for the townhome block is four feet. This is a standard that requires 
deviation through the PUD process. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant does not meet this standard unless the City 
Council finds that the proposal warrants such a deviation through the PUD process. 
* In the case of condominium projects where no property line may exist at the end of each 
town home block, the setback shall be applied as a minimum area of separation, as applied to 
each town home block. 
C. Occupancy 
1. No occupancy permit for any townhome shall be issued by the City until the requirements of 
site plan review and the conditions of the approved final site plan are met. Substantial 
alteration from the approved plan must be resubmitted to the City for review and approval, and 
may require additional site plan review before the original hearing authority. 
2. The owner(s) of the townhomes, or duly authorized management agent, shall be held 
responsible for all alterations and additions to a town home block or to individual homes within 
the block, and shall ensure that all necessary permits and inspections are obtained from the 
City or other applicable authority prior to the alterations or additions being made. 
The applicant proposes townhomes through the PUD process and should the project be approved, 
the applicant would then be required to follow the process for a final development plan review by the 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 22 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 23 of 48 
Planning Commission. The Building Department generally approves building permits and occupancy 
permits. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant will be able to meet this criterion at the time 
of building permit application and review. 
D. lnfill Standard 
The minimum lot size required for single-family, attached dwellings (townhomes) may be 
reduced by a maximum of 15% if the subject property is 1.5 acres or less, and the subject 
property is surrounded by properties developed at or in excess of minimum density for the 
underlying zone. 
FINDING: The applicant is not applying for application of the infill standard and this criterion is not 
applicable. 
E. Design Standards 
Each townhome block development shall require the approval of a site plan, under the 
provisions of Section 16.90.020, and in compliance with the standards listed below. The site 
plan shall indicate all areas of townhome units, landscaping, off-street parking, street and 
driveway or alley locations, and utility access easements. The site plan shall also include a 
building elevation plan, which show building design, materials, and architectural profiles of all 
structures proposed for the site. 
1. Building Mass: The maximum number and width of consecutively attached townhomes 
shall not exceed six (6) units or one-hundred fifty (150) feet from end-wall to end-wall. 
The applicant proposes no more than five attached townhomes in one block and in no case do the 
townhomes exceed 150 feet from wall to wall. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion. the applicant meets this standard. 
2. Designation of Access/Alleys: Townhomes shall receive vehicle access only from the front 
or rear lot line exclusively, not both. If alleys are used for access they shall be created at the 
time of subdivision approval and built to City standards as illustrated in the Transportation 
System Plan. 
FINDING: The applicant proposes either vehicle access in the front or rear yard of the townhomes. 
This complies with this standard. 
3. Street Access: Townhomes fronting on a neighborhood route, collector, or arterial shall use 
alley access, either public or private, and comply with all of the following standards, in order 
to minimize interruption of adjacent sidewalks by driveway entrances and conflicts with other 
transportation users, slow traffic, improve appearance of the streets, and minimize paved 
surfaces for better stormwater management. Direct access to local streets shall only be used 
if it can be demonstrated that due to topography or other unique site conditions precludes the 
use of alleys. 
a. Alley loaded garages shall be set back a minimum five feet to allow a turning radius for 
vehicles and provide a service area for utilities. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 23 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 24 of 48 
b. If garages face the street, the garage doors shall be recessed behind the front elevation 
(living area, covered porch, or other architectural feature) by a minimum of one (1) foot. 
c. The maximum allowable driveway width facing the street is two (2) feet greater than the 
width of the garage door. The maximum garage door width per unit is sixty percent (60%) of 
the total building width. For example, a twenty (20) foot wide unit may have one 12-foot wide 
recessed garage door and a fourteen (14) foot wide driveway. A 24-foot wide unit may have a 
14-foot, 4-inch wide garage door with a 16-foot, 4-inch wide driveway. 
The proposed townhome units will take access from an alley or a local street. The applicant has 
proposed no direct access to SW Meinecke and SW Cedar Brook Way. The applicant proposes to 
construct Street A in order to provide access to the subject property and have limited access to the 
other nearby developments. Street A provides access to the private alley. The twenty-eight 
townhomes to be located on Street A will have garages facing the street but recessed from the front 
porch at least one foot. 
The townhomes are proposed to be 20 feet wide, with the garages proposed to be 8 feet which result 
in the garage width to be 40% of the street facing frontage. The alley-loaded garages will be set back 
a minimum of 18 feet in order to allow a turning radius for vehicles. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
4. Building Design: The intent of the following standards is to make each housing unit 
distinctive and to prevent garages and blank walls from being a dominant visual feature. 
a. The front facade of a townhome may not include more than forty percent (40%) of garage 
door area. 
FINDING: As discussed above, the single car garages will be 8 feet wide and the driveways will be at 
least 10 feet wide. The applicant has not submitted elevations at this time, but it is feasible that they 
can be constructed in this manner and reviewed at the time of final development review by the 
Planning Commission for compliance with this standard. Based on the discussion, the applicant has 
not met this criterion but can do so with the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development plan approval, submit plans that show that 
the front fa~ade of the town homes do not include more than forty percent ( 40%) of garage door area. 
b. The roofs of each attached townhome must be distinct from the other through either 
separation of roof pitches or direction, variation in roof design, or architectural feature. 
Hipped, gambrel, gabled, or curved (i.e. barrel) roofs are required. Flat roofs are not permitted. 
The applicant proposes that the style of roof be moderately or steeply pitched, gabled or hipped and 
articulated with intersecting roofs, dormers and sheds. Additionally the applicant describes that the 
roofs will be typical to those found in the Northwest, with the primary roofs be either gabled or hipped. 
The slope of the roof will be a minimum of 7/12 with secondary roofs a minimum of 4/12. The offsets 
or breaks in roof elevation will be at least two or more feet in height. Both the gabled and hipped roofs 
will provide overhang eaves on all sides that extend a minimum of 8" beyond the building wall. As 
described in the architectural pattern book and Exhibit 2 of the applicant's materials, {Exhibit A) flat 
roofs are not proposed and there is a distinction and variety proposed within the development. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion the applicant meets this criterion. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 24 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 25 of 48 
c. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the residential units within a block's frontage shall have 
a front porch in the MDRH zone. Front porches may encroach six (6) feet beyond the perimeter 
foundation into front yard, street-side yard, and landscape corridor setbacks for neighborhood 
routes and collectors, and ten (10) feet for arterials, and are not subject to lot coverage 
limitations, in both the MDRH and HDR zones. Porches may not encroach into the clear vision 
area, as defined in Section 16.58.010. 
Even though the property is zoned HDR. the applicant proposes porches which will encroach into the 
front yard setback as discussed earlier within this report. The applicant does not foresee encroaching 
into the clear vision area. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant does not meet this criterion at this time, but 
can meet the criterion with the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development approval, submit plans that show that the 
porches do not encroach into any of the clear vision areas. 
d. Window trim shall not be flush with exterior wall treatment for all windows facing public 
right-of-ways. Windows shall be provided with architectural surround at the jamb, head and 
sill. 
e. All building elevations visible from the street shall provide doors, porches, balconies, 
windows, or architectural features to provide variety in facade. All front street-facing 
elevations, and a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of side and rear street-facing building 
elevations, as applicable, shall meet this standard. The standard applies to each full and 
partial building story. Alternatively, in lieu of these standards, the Old Town Design Standards 
in Chapter 16.162 may be applied. 
The examples of elevations of the proposed townhomes found within the applicant's materials show 
that there are articulations and windows, porches, all visible from the street. The exact specification of 
the particular development will be reviewed during the final development plan approval process. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has no yet met this standard, but can do so 
with the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development plan approval, submit plans and 
elevations of the townhomes that provide for doors, porches, balconies, windows or architectural 
features to provide variety in the favade. 
f. The maximum height of all townhomes shall be that of the underlying zoning district 
standard, except that: twenty-five percent (25%) of townhomes in the MDRH zone may be 3-
stories, or a maximum of forty (40) feet in height if located more than one-hundred fifty (150) 
feet from adjacent properties in single-family (detached) residential use. 
The site is zoned HDR and the maximum height allowed is 40 feet. The applicant does not propose to 
exceed the height requirement within this zone. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this standard. 
16.58.020 Fences, Walls and Hedges 
D. Location-Residential Zone: 
Cedar Brook PUO (PUO 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 25 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014. Page 26 of 48 
1.Fences up to forty-two (42) inches high are allowed in required front building 
setbacks. 
2. Fences up to six (6) feet high are allowed in required side or rear building 
setbacks, except fences adjacent to public pedestrian access ways and alleys 
shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height unless there is a landscaped buffer 
at least three (3) feet wide between the fence and the access way or alley. 
3. Fences on corner lots may not be placed closer than eight (8) feet back from the 
sidewalk along the corner-side yard. 
The applicant proposes that Tract B near the eastern boundary of the site and adjacent to the 
Creekview Crossing development be 5 feet wide-the exact width of the sidewalk. Any fences 
constructed on lots 6-7, adjacent to this sidewalk could not exceed 42 inches tall. The applicant 
does not include landscape buffers adjacent to the pathway as required with this provision. 
This does not appear to be a suitable resolution for this pedestrian connection and does not 
comply with the traditional width for pedestrian pathways with landscaped buffers found in the 
TSP cross sections for paved pathways. 
FINDING: Based on above discussion the applicant does not meet this criterion but can do so 
with the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development approval, design the pedestrian 
pathway within Tract B to include landscaped buffers between the properties with at least three 
feet of width on each side. 
B. Division V. Community Design 
Chapter 16.92 Landscaping 
16.92.030 Site Area Landscaping and Perimeter Screening Standards 
A. Perimeter Screening and Buffering 
1. Perimeter Screening Separating Residential Zones: 
A minimum six-foot high sight-obscuring wooden fence, decorative masonry wall, or 
evergreen screen, shall be required along property lines separating single and two-family 
uses from multi- family uses, and along property lines separating residential zones from 
commercial, institutional/public or industrial zones subject to the provisions of Chapter 
16.48.020 (Fences, Walls and Hedges). 
The applicant proposes that the site will be landscaped to ensure compatibility and privacy for the 
surrounding uses. The applicant has not described how the development plans to provide 
perimeter screening between the multi-family uses on the eastern edge of the site. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not met this standard but can do so 
with the following criterion. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development plan approval, provide a site plan that 
shows the perimeter screening separating the residential zones. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14·01 AND SUB 14-01) , Page 26 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 27 of 48 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to certificate of final occupancy, install the perimeter 
screening separating the residential zones. 
16.94.020 Off-Street Parking Standards 
A. Generally 
Where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be the gross building floor area 
primary to the functioning of the proposed use. Where employees are specified, persons 
counted shall be those working on the premises, including proprietors, during the largest 
shift at peak season. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space. The 
Review Authority may determine alternate off - street parking and loading requirements for 
a use not specifically listed in this Section based upon the requirements of comparable 
uses. 
Minimum and Maximum Parking Standards 
(~etro spaces are based on 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area) 
Minimum Parking 
1 Standard 
Maximum Permitted 
Parking Zone A1 
Maximum Permitted 
Parking Zone 82 
---
Single, two-family and manufactu~d - f-1 per dwelling u.;j"t 
home on lof I None None 
Footnote 3: If the street on which the house has direc t access isf ess than twenty-eight {28) feet wide, two (2) off-street 
parking spaces are required par single-family residential unit. (includes single-family detached or attached, two-family 
dwelling or a manufactured home on an individual lot) If the abutting street is twenty-eight (28) feet or wider, one {1) standard 
{9ft. x 20ft.) parking space is required. 
The applicant proposes the following parkinQ spaces in relation to the housinQ type. 
Lot Number Housing Type Number Dwelling Unit Lot size Number of Onsite 
Description of Units Size range Parking spaces 
(square feet) {square feet) including Garages 
per unit 
1-38 Two-story 38 1,500 1,610- 2,552 38 garage and 
town home with 38 driveway spaces 
39-53 
54-65 
one car garage in 
front 
Two-story single 
family with rear 
loaded garage 
Two-story 
townhome with 
two car alley-
loaded garage 
15 
12 
1 ,304-1,392 2,374-3,245 
1,400 1,600-1,974 
30 garage and 
30 driveway spaces 
24 garage and 
24 driveway spaces 
As the table indicates, there is at least one onsite parking space for each unit. Garages although 
generally used for parking vehicles cannot be considered in the calculation per SZDC in this 
section but are allowed in the calculation under the townhome provisions. Therefore, under this 
section, the proposal includes 15 single-family detached dwelling units with two driveway spaces 
per unit, 13 rear-loaded townhomes with two driveway spaces per unit and 38 front loaded 
town home units with one driveway space per unit. Therefore, this standard is not met for lots 1-38 
and the applicant requests a deviation for this standard. 
The applicant contends that there will be 79 on street parking spaces along both SW Cedar Brook 
Way and on one side of the street on proposed Street A that will be available to the general public. 
Historically, the multifamily development to the east has not enough onsite parking and the City 
has been advised that there has been spillover into the adjoining neighborhoods. With the 
extension of SW Cedar Brook Way, this situation may improve with the addition of 57 spaces on 
SW Cedar Brook Way alone. Street A will have 19 spaces on the west side of the street opposite 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 27 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
Augusts, 2014, Page 28 of 48 
lots 1-28. Staff has a concern about parking availability for lots 29-38 for those homes front SW 
Meinecke Parkway and have no proximate on street parking available for visitors should the need 
arise. This is likely to be intermittent and there may be additional parking on Street A, but many 
homes in this development along with the adjoining development will likely use this as an option 
considering that parking has also been a problem in the multifamily development. Staff 
recommends that the applicant consider adding additional parking to the nine townhomes (lot 29-
38) located adjacent to SW Meinecke. 
The applicant proposed that through the CC&Rs lots 29-38 include a restriction that the garages in 
those dwellings must be used for parking. The Planning Commission agreed with this result but will 
further review the CC&Rs at the time of final development plan approval. 
Additionally, the applicant has not identified whether they are considering a reduction in the 
dimensional parking standard stall of 9 x 20 feet. Twenty five percent of the required spaces are 
allowed to be reduced and marked as compact for a reduction to 8 x 18 ft. The applicant has also 
not identified as to whether they are requesting a deviation of the standard should the house plans 
not meet the standard parking dimensional requirements. 
FINDING: Base on the above discussion, the applicant has not met this standard, but the PUD 
process allows for a deviation from the standard should the decision makers agree to the project. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development approval, submit a parking plan that 
details and describe the dimensions of the parking spaces and any deviation from the parking 
space standards. 
C. Division VI - Public Improvements 
16.106.010 Generally 
A. Creation 
Public streets shall be created in accordance with provisions of this Chapter. Except as 
otherwise provided, all street improvements and rights-of-way shall conform to standards for 
the City's functional street classification, as shown on the TSP Map and in Figure 1, of Chapter 
6 of the Community Development Plan, and other applicable City standards. The following 
table depicts the guidelines for the street characteristics. 
I Right of Number ' Minimum Type of On Street Bike 
Stnlat W~r~ , of Lanes I Lane Parking 4 ne 
Width Width Width Width 
·------ I 
r 1 
Neighbomood 64' 2 18' 8' None 
1 ,000 vehicles I per day 
52' 1 r -1 
- -
I 
-
Local 2 14' 8'on None I one 
I side 
only r-
.- ~ 10-12' I Alley 16- 1-2 One none 25' side if 
20' 
---
16.106.020 Required Improvements 
A. Generally 
; -·----- ~ 
_I 
Sldawafk · Landscape 1 Median Wldth 
; Width 
· Strtp (axcluslve 
of Curb) 
8' 5' with 1' buffer none 
_I I 
''l 5'with 1' none buffer 
_J 
none none none 
Except as otherwise provided, all developments containing or abutting an existing or proposed 
street, that is either unimproved or substandard in right-of-way width or improvement, shall 
dedicate the necessary right-of-way prior to the issuance of building permits and/or complete 
Cedar Brook PUD {PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 28 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibil1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 29 of 48 
acceptable improvements prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The following figure provides 
the depiction of the functional classification of the street network as found in the Transportation 
System Plan, Figure 8-1. 
C. Proposed Streets 
1. Except as otherwise provided, when a development includes or abuts a proposed street, in no 
event shafl the required street improvement exceed a pavement width of forty (40) feet. 
D. Extent of Improvements 
1. Streets required pursuant to this Chapter shall be dedicated and improved consistent with 
Chapter 6 of the Community Development Plan, the TSP and applicable City specifications 
included in the City of Sherwood Construction Standards. Streets shall include curbs, sidewalks, 
catch basins, street lights, and street trees. Improvements shall also include any bikeways 
designated on the Transportation System Plan map. Applicant may be required to dedicate land 
for required public improvements only when the exaction is directly related to and roughly 
proportional to the impact of the development. 
The applicant proposes to construct street improvements and dedicate right-of-way to extend SW 
Cedar Brook Way from the northeastern corner of the subject property to connect to the round-about 
at SW Meinecke Parkway. The City Engineer recommends that the proposed SW Cedar Brook Way 
extension have 36 feet of paved surface (curb face to curb face) with 5-foot wide landscape strips and 
8-foot wide sidewalks on each side within a 64-foot wide right-of-way unless a design modification 
request approved by the City Engineer allows otherwise. 
The applicant has proposed Street A to extend north-south through the development. The applicant 
requests a street modification for the design of Street A that will be discussed in the street modification 
section below. The applicant requests that the alley be private and that also requires a street 
modification that will be discussed below. 
Adequate street lighting, street signage and sidewalk facilities are required to be constructed to serve 
the subject development meeting the approval of the Sherwood Engineering Department. 
The City of Sherwood Transportation System Plan has identified a trail connection between the 
existing trail along the east line of "Wyndham Ridge" subdivision and SW Cedar Brook Way. The 
proposed trail is located within the southwest corner of the subject property and within the City owned 
property to the west. The developer should be required to construct the aforementioned trail meeting 
the approval of the City of Sherwood Engineering Department and Clean Water Services. Upon 
request, City Transportation System Development Charges credits are available for required trail 
construction located outside of the subject property. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not fully complied with this provision but 
can do so with the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, design the proposed 
SW Cedar Brook Way extension to have 36 feet of paved surface (curb face to curb face) with 5-foot 
wide landscape strips and 8-foot wide sidewalks on each side within a 64-foot wide right-of-way unless 
a design modification request is approved by the City Engineer. 
E. Transportation Facilities Modifications 
1. A modification to a standard contained within this Chapter and Section 16.58.010 and the 
standard cross sections contained in Chapter 8 of the adopted TSP may be granted in 
accordance with the procedures and criteria set out in this section. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 29 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 30 of 46 
2. A modification request concerns a deviation from the general design standards for public 
facilities, in this Chapter, Section 16.58.010, or Chapter 8 in the adopted Transportation 
System Plan. The standards that may be modified include but are not limited to: 
a. Reduced sight distances. 
b. Vertical alignment. 
c. Horizontal alignment. 
d. Geometric design (length, width, bulb radius, etc.). 
e. Design speed. 
f. Crossroads. 
g. Access policy. 
h. A proposed alternative design which provides a plan superior to these standards. 
i. Low impact development. 
j. Access Management Plans 
3. Modification Procedure 
a. A modification shall be proposed with the application for land use approval. 
b. A modification is processed as a Type II application. Modification requests shall be 
processed in conjunction with the underlying development proposal. 
c. When a modification is requested to provide a green street element that is not included in 
the Engineering Design Manual, the modification process will apply, but the modification fee 
will be waived. 
4. Criteria for Modification: Modifications may be granted when criterion 4a and any one of 
criteria 4b through 4e are met: 
a. Consideration shall be given to public safety, durability, cost of maintenance, function, 
appearance, and other appropriate factors to advance the goals of the adopted Sherwood 
Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan as a whole. Any modification shall be 
the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship or disproportional impact. 
b. Topography, right-of-way, existing construction or physical conditions, or other geographic 
conditions impose an unusual hardship on the applicant, and an equivalent alternative which 
can accomplish the same design purpose is available. 
c. A minor change to a specification or standard is required to address a specific design or 
construction problem which, if not enacted, will result in an unusual hardship. Self- imposed 
hardships shall not be used as a reason to grant a modification request. 
d. An alternative design is proposed which will provide a plan equal to or superior to the 
existing street standards. 
e. Application of the standards of this chapter to the development would be grossly 
disproportional to the impacts created. 
The applicant proposes several street modifications with this application. (See Applicant's Street 
Modification Request and Engineering Response, Exhibit J). 
Item 1 : Private Street: 
The developer has requested a twenty foot wide private roadway within a 21 foot wide private tract 
(Tract G) due to the issues with the geometric layout of the property it was determined during the 
preliminary phase that a private street serving the western side of the development was appropriate to 
reach the required zoning density. However the layout shown on the plan shows a centerline curve 
radii of approximately fifty feet (15 mph), 100 feet (20 mph) and 38 feet at bulb out. The 50 ft. radius 
curve occurs near the private street intersection with Street A. The developer has proposed a rolled 
curb that would provide 18 feet gutter to gutter and 20ft. between back of rolled curbs. The rolled curb 
is proposed to have a height of 3" over one foot. The Engineering Department finds this acceptable 
subject to the following conditions. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 30 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 31 of 48 
• "No Parking" signs, speed limit signs and "Stop" signs should be posted for the private alley. 
• Since there is not enough room within the Tract 'G' for the required street signs, a sign 
easement will be needed along the frontage of Tract 'G' for signs. 
• The private street shall meet the approval of Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 
• The driveway apron and private street width will be widened as necessary to allow for 
emergency vehicular and truck movement into and out of the private street. 
• There are 38 lots that will access the proposed private street. Visibility at the intersections of 
the private street with SW "A" Street is a concern, especially with parking near the 
intersections. The developer shall provide data showing that vehicles stopped on the private 
street waiting to turn onto SW "A" street have adequate visibility to turn onto SW "A" Street 
without incident. 
• Since the proposed rolled curbs will be driven on regularly, the thickness of the curb and gutter 
shall be a minimum of 8-inches in thickness. 
• Street trees shall meet the approval of the Sherwood Planning Department. 
• The pavement structure shall be in accordance with that of a Local Street Classification on 
Sherwood Standard Drawing RD-20. 
• A Maintenance Agreement meeting the approval of the Sherwood Engineering Department 
shall be recorded with the county with a copy being sent to the Sherwood Engineering 
Department. 
• 
Item #2 - Nonstandard Bulb Out 
The developer has proposed a bulb out within the private street that will meet emergency access in 
place of the standard city bulb out (detail RD-12 found in the Engineering Design Manual}. Since this 
is a PUD with higher density the standard bulb out would make it considerably difficult to obtain 
densities since it is beyond the width of the standard right-of-way. The standard bulb out is meant 
more for standard single-family home subdivisions in corner areas of the property to obtain access to 
the corner. The bulb out proposed appears to give adequate width for a vehicle to pull over for an 
emergency vehicle. Since the standard bulb out is impractical for use in this situation, the Engineering 
Department recommends acceptance of the request with the following conditions: 
• The inside radius to the back of the rolled curb shall be 28-feet minimum. 
• Advanced warning sign age be installed due to the sharpness of the curve and potential lack of 
sight distance due to vehicular parking in the driveway of lot 63. 
• The bulb out shall meet the approval of Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 
Item #3- SW "A" StreetiSW Meinecke Parkway Intersection 
The developer is proposing a right in/right out intersection between SW "A" Street and SW Meinecke 
Parkway due to SW Meinecke Parkway being a divided street. Due to the spacing of Highway 99 in 
relation to SW Cedar Brook Way, the 400-foot spacing between intersections cannot be obtained for 
SW "A" Street to connect to SW Meinecke Parkway. The proposed intersection does appear to give 
adequate sight distance for a vehicle stopped on SW "A" Street to see vehicles within the right turn 
lane of Highway 99W that are turning onto this section of SW Meinecke Parkway. The intersection 
would have better sight distance looking east if it were further to the west; however, due to the layout 
of the developing parcel, it would be impractical. Based on this analysis the Engineering Department 
recommends approval of the intersection with the following conditions: 
• The engineering plans shall show signage to direct that vehicles on SW "A" Street can only turn 
right onto SW Meinecke Parkway. 
• Any island within the intersection shall allow for emergency vehicle and truck turning 
movements (either by being outside of turning movements, being mountable, etc.). 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 31 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 32 of 48 
• The curb return radii shall be in accordance with the Sherwood Engineering Design Manual (25 
feet minimum). 
• The intersection shall meet the approval of Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 
Item #4- Curb Tight Sidewalk and Reduced Right-Of-Way on SW "A" Street 
The developer is proposing eliminating the landscape strip on the east side of SW "A" Street and 
reducing the right-of-way accordingly. The developer is also proposing using rolled curb on the east 
side of SW "A" Street and reducing the amount of right-of-way behind the sidewalks on SW "A" Street 
from 1 foot to 0.5 foot. The requested right-of-way reduction is from 52 feet (city standard) to 47.5 feet 
(proposed). The Engineering Department recommends approval of the requested design 
modifications to SW "A" Street with the following conditions. 
• The landscape strip shown in the preliminary plan is 5.5 feet in width. The landscape strip shall 
be 5.0 feet in width. 
• The buffer strip shall be 1.0 feet in width behind the sidewalk per standards. When combined 
with the change in the landscape strip, this condition will only widen the right-of-way from the 
47.5 feet proposed by the developer to 48 feet. It appears that this can be accommodated 
without significant impact to the development. 
• The thickness of the rolled curb and gutter should be a minimum of 8-inches in thickness. 
• Since the sidewalk on the east side of SW "A" Street is abutting rolled (mountable) curb, the 
sidewalk shall have a minimum thickness of 6 inches. 
• "No Parking" signs shall be located within the buffer strip behind the sidewalk. 
• Street trees shall meet the approval of the Sherwood Planning Department. 
• The preliminary plan currently shows the sidewalk at the southeastern corner of SW "A" Street 
and SW Cedar Brook Way with too narrow of a clear sidewalk distance to obstructions. 
Sidewalk shall have a minimum of 6 feet clear around "Stop" sign and sidewalk ramp. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion the applicant has not met this criterion, but can do so with 
the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, comply with the 
recommended conditions as found in the Street Modification Approval memo submitted by the 
Engineering Department, Exhibit J. 
16.106.030 Location 
A. Generally 
The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and 
planned streets, topographical conditions, and proposed land uses. The proposed street 
system shan provide adequate, convenient and safe traffic and pedestrian circulation, and 
intersection angles, grades, tangents, and curves shall be adequate for expected traffic 
volumes. Street alignments shall be consistent with so,ar access requirements as per Chapter 
16.156, and topographical considerations. 
B. Street Connectivity and Future Street Systems 
1. Future Street Systems. The arrangement of pub,ic streets shall provide for the continuation 
and establishment of future street systems as shown on the Local Street Connectivity Map 
contained in the adopted Transportation System Plan (Figure 8-8). 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 32 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 33 of 48 
FINDING: As discussed above the applicant proposes to extend SW Cedar Brook Way thus meeting 
this criterion. 
2. Connectivity Map Required. New residential, commercial, and mixed use development 
involving the construction of new streets shall be submitted with a site plan that implements, 
responds to and expands on the Local Street Connectivity map contained in the TSP. 
a. A project is deemed to be consistent with the Local Street Connectivity map when it 
provides a street connection in the general vicinity of the connection(s) shown on the map, or 
where such connection is not practicable due to topography or other physical constraints; it 
shall provide an arternate connection approved by the decision-maker. 
The applicant has proposed with this development plan to have an interconnected subdivision with an 
internal street network and an alley configuration. Adequate pedestrian access is provided with a 
series of internal sidewalks connecting the areas of open space and mid block pedestrian crossings 
where applicable. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
b. Where a developer does not control all of the land that is necessary to complete a planned 
street connection, the development shall provide for as much of the designated connection as 
practicable and not prevent the street from continuing in the future. 
c. Where a development is disproportionately impacted by a required street connection, or it 
provides more than its proportionate share of street improvements along property line (i.e., by 
building more than 3/4 width street), the developer shalf be entitled to System Development 
charge credits, as determined by the City Engineer. 
3. Block Length. For new streets except arterials, block length shall not exceed 530 feet The 
length of blocks adjacent to arterials shall not exceed 1 ,800 feet. 
The applicant proposes a block length of approximately 1 ,400 feet. The 530 foot access spacing 
requirement is not practicable for this site due to the preexisting constraints of SW Meinecke and SW 
Cedar Brook Way. As discussed above the applicant provided a mid-block crossing on Street A in 
order to have access to the open space tract in the center of the development. Also, there is a 
proposed connection to the adjoining multi-family development (Tract B.) 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not met this criterion, but has mitigated 
the block length requirement with pedestrian crossings and access points to the adjoining properties 
where practicable. 
6. Pedestrian and Bicycre Connectivity. Paved bike and pedestrian accessways consistent 
with cross section standards in Figure 8-6 of the TSP shall be provided on public easements 
or right- of-way when full street connections are not possible, with spacing between 
connections of no more than 300 feet. Multi-use paths shall be built according to the 
Pedestrian and Bike Master Plans in the adopted TSP. 
The applicant proposes sidewalks and internal pathways to connect the subdivision and open space 
to the surrounding neighborhoods. As discussed earlier the applicant proposes to build the pathways 
according to the Pedestrian and Bike Master Plans in the adopted TSP. 
The applicant proposed Tract B connect this development with the Creekview Crossing development. 
The pathway as proposed is five feet wide with no buffer between the property lines. This is not 
Cedar Brook PUO (PUO 14-01 AND SUB 14-01} Page 33 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 34 of 48 
compatible with the cross sections for pedestrian access ways as discussed and conditioned earlier 
within this report. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion or has been conditioned 
earlier within this report to meet this condition. 
1. Roadway Access 
No use will be permitted to have direct access to a street or road except as specified below. 
Access spacing shall be measured from existing or approved accesses on either side of a 
street or road. The lowest functional classification street available to the legal lot, including 
alleys within a public easement, shall take precedence for new access points. 
a. Local Streets: 
Minimum right-of-way radius is fifteen (15) feet. Access will not be permitted within ten (10) 
feet of Point "B," if no radius exists, access will not be permitted within twenty-five (25) feet of 
Point "A." Access points near an intersection with a Neighborhood Route, Collector or Arterial 
shall be located beyond the influence of standing queues of the intersection in accordance 
with AASHTO standards. This requirement may result in access spacing greater than ten (10) 
feet. 
As reviewed by the Engineering Department, all streets are properly aligned. The streets are designed 
to comply with City standards unless deviated through the street modification process as identified 
above (p.28-30). The center line radius of Street A, a local street is 185 feet and the tangent length is 
25 feet at the intersections. The center line angle of SW Cedar Brook Way and SW Meinecke is 80 
degrees which satisfies the Engineering standard. The extension of Cedar Brook Way complies with 
the local connectivity map as discussed above. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant meets this criterion. 
N. Private Streets 
1. The construction of a private street serving a single-family residential development is 
prohibited unless it provides principal access to two or fewer residential lots or parcels (i.e. 
flag lots). 
2. Provisions shall be made to assure private responsibility for future access and 
maintenance through recorded easements. Unless otherwise specifically authorized, a 
private street shall comply with the same standards as a public street identified in the 
Community Development Code and the Transportation System Plan. 
3. A private street shall be distinguished from public streets and reservations or restrictions 
relating to the private street shall be described in land division documents and deed records. 
4. A private street shall also be signed differently from public streets and include the words 
"Private Street". 
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a private alley that has been discussed earlier in this report 
under the street modification section (p. 28-29). The Engineering Department has reviewed this 
proposal and recommended approval with conditions outlined in Exhibit J attached to this staff report. 
Therefore, the applicant does not meet this standard outright and has requested a modification as 
discussed above with conditions to mitigate for the private street or alley. 
16.106.060 Sidewalks 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 34 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 35 of 48 
A. Required Improvements 
1. Except as otherwise provided, sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of a public street 
and in any special pedestrian way within new development. 
B. Design Standards 
1. Arterial and Collector Streets 
Arterial and collector streets shall have minimum eight (8) foot wide sidewalks/multi- use path, 
located as required by this Code. 
2. Local Streets 
Local streets shall have minimum five (5) foot wide sidewalks, located as required by this 
Code. 
3. Handicapped Ramps 
Sidewalk handicapped ramps shall be provided at all intersections. 
C. Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths 
Provide bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way when full street 
connections are not possible, with spacing between connections of no more than 330 feet 
except where prevented by topography, barriers such as railroads or highways, or 
environmental constraints such as rivers and streams. 
The applicant proposes to construct 8-foot sidewalks on SW Cedar Brook Way and 6 foot sidewalks 
along Street A. The sidewalks interior to the site are five feet wide. Mid-block crossings are also 
proposed on Street J. 
FINDING: As discussed and conditioned earlier in this report, the applicant proposes and the City 
concurs that sidewalks should be provided and should comply with the existing standards as reviewed 
by the engineering department. 
16.110 Sanitary Sewers- Required Improvements 
Sanitary sewers are required be installed to serve all new developments and shall connect 
to existing sanitary sewer mains. Sanitary sewers shall be constructed, located, sized and 
installed at standards consistent with the Code, applicable Clean Water Services standards 
and City standards to adequately serve the proposed development and allow for future 
extensions. 
Sanitary sewer is recommended to be installed to accommodate project development. The 
surrounding properties are either open space or have already been developed and have 
sanitary sewer service; therefore, sanitary sewer will not be required to be extended to property 
lines to accommodate adjacent parcels. 
Public sanitary sewer outside of the public right-of-way will be located within a dedicated public 
easement. 
FINDING: The applicant has not met this standard but can do so with the following conditions. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, the sanitary 
sewer system design and installation shall be in conformance with City design and construction 
standards in order to be accepted by the City. 
16.112 Water Supply~ Required Improvements 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 35 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 36 of 48 
Water lines and fire hydrants conforming to City and Fire District standards shall be 
installed to serve all building sites in a proposed development. All waterlines shall be 
connected to existing water mains. 
Water lines should be installed to accommodate project development. The applicant proposes a 12-
inch water line be installed along the frontage of SW Cedar Brook Way and SW Meinecke Parkway. 
The Engineering Department recommends that no public water line shall be installed within the Private 
Street and lots along the private alley shall obtain water service from either SW ''A'' Street, SW Cedar 
Brook Way or SW Meinecke Parkway. 
All water infrastructure needs to meet the standards of the City of Sherwood and be reviewed and 
approved by the Sherwood Water Department (Public Works Department) prior to issuance of an 
Engineering Compliance Agreement. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not met this criterion but can do so with 
the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to public improvement plan approval, submit plans so that all 
water infrastructure will meet City standards and be approved by the Sherwood Water Department. 
16.114 Storm Water- Required Improvements 
Storm water facilities, including appropriate source control and conveyance facilities, shall 
be Installed in new developments and shall connect to the existing downstream drainage 
systems consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Clean Water 
Services water quality regulations contained in their Design and Construction Standards 
R&O 04-9 or its replacement. 
Water quality treatment is required meeting the approval of the City of Sherwood Engineering 
Department and Clean Water Services. The storm sewer is required to be installed to 
accommodate project development. The surrounding streets and parcels are already developed 
and have storm sewer service. Therefore, storm sewer will not be required to be extended to 
property lines to accommodate adjacent parcels. 
The Engineering Department recommends that the capacity of the existing storm sewer receiving 
runoff from the subject development shall be verified. If undersized, the existing storm sewer shall 
be upsized to accommodate the subject property. Public storm sewer outside of the public right-of-
way will be located within a dedicated public easement. 
Clean Water Services has reviewed this proposal and provided comments that include requiring a 
CWS Storm Water Connection Permit be obtained prior to plat approval and recordation. As part of 
that Permit the applicant will be required to submit the materials outlined in the CWS Memo dated 
May 8, 2014(Exhibit D). The memo outlines conditions that will need to be followed in order to fully 
comply with this criterion. A "Sensitive Area" is near the site. The applicant should comply with the 
conditions as set forth in the Service Provider Letter No. 13-002074. 
FINDING: As discussed above, staff cannot confirm at this time that the standard has been met. 
If the applicant submits a revised plan that complies with the following conditions, this standard will 
be met. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the final plat, receive a Clean Water Services 
Storm Water Connection Permit Authorization that meets the requirements of the CWS 
Memorandum dated May 8, 2014, Exhibit D. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 36 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 37 of 48 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, submit to the 
Engineering Department for review and approval a stormwater report identifying adequate space in 
the facility. The public improvement plans must include detention and treatment of all stormwater 
on the site in compliance with Clean Water Services standards. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, show all 
existing and proposed easements on the plans. Any required storm sewer, sanitary sewer and 
water quality related easements must be granted to the City. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION : Prior to approval of the final plat, comply with the conditions as 
set forth in the Service Provider Letter No. 13-002074. (Exhibit A, applicant's materials Exhibit 10) 
16.116 Fire Protection Required Improvements 
When land is developed so that any commercial or industrial structure is further than two 
hundred and fifty (250) feet or any residential structure is further than five hundred (500) 
feet from an adequate water supply for fire protection, as determined by the Fire District, 
the developer shall provide fire protection facilities necessary to provide adequate water 
supply and fire safety. 
John Wolff of Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue provided general comments on May 12, 2014 (Exhibit 
F). Compliance with TVF&R will be required at time of detailed development plan review. The 
applicant concurs. 
FINDING: This standard is satisfied for this stage of the development. However, the applicant cannot 
futly comply without the following condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITON: Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, submit revised 
plans that provide adequate tu rn ing radius, hydrant location, fire flow, and adherence in 
compliance with TVF&R standards as verified by an acceptance letter from TVF&R. 
16.118 Public and Private Utilities 
A. requires that installation of utilities be provided in public utility easements and shall be 
sized, constructed, located and installed consistent with this Code, Chapter 7 of the 
Community Development Code, and applicable utility company and City standards. 
B. Requires that public utility easements shall be a minimum of eight feet in width unless a 
reduced width is specifically exempted by the City Engineer. An eight (8) foot wide public 
utility easement (PUE) shall be provided on private property along all public street 
frontages. This standard does not apply to developments within the Old Town Overlay. 
C. Indicates that where necessary, in the judgment of the City Manager or his designee, to 
provide for orderly development of adjacent properties, public and franchise utilities shall 
be extended through the site to the edge of adjacent property(ies). 
D. Requires franchise utility conduits to be installed per the utility design and specification 
standards of the utility agency. 
E. Requires Public Telecommunication conduits and appurtenances to be installed per the 
City of Sherwood telecommunication design standards. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 37 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 38 of 48 
The City of Sherwood Broadband manager has submitted comments that conduit is necessary as part 
of this development. As part of the public improvement plan review and approval, the applicant will be 
required to show conduits for all public and private utilities. 
FINDING: As discussed above, this standard is not met but can be conditioned below. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to building permit approval, install conduit and vaults per the 
City of Sherwood telecommunication design standards. 
16.118.030 Underground Facilities 
Except as otherwise provided, all utility facilities, including but not limited to, electric power, 
telephone, natural gas, lighting, cable television, and telecommunication cable, shall be placed 
underground, unless specifically authorized for above ground installation, because the points 
of connection to existing utilities make underground installation impractical, or for other 
reasons deemed acceptable by the City. 
FINDING: All existing and proposed utilities are proposed to be underground, therefore this 
standard is met. 
D. Division VIII, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 
16.142 - Parks and Open Space 
16.142.030 Single-Family or Duplex Residential Subdivisions 
A. A minimum of five percent (5%) of the net buildable site {after exclusion of public right-
of-way and environmentally constrained areas) shall be maintained as "open space". Open 
space must include usable areas such as public parks, swimming and wading poo1s, grass 
areas for picnics and recreational play, walking paths, and other like space. The following 
may not be used to calculate open space: 
1. Required yards or setbacks. 
2. Required visual corridors. 
3. Required sensitive areas and buffers. 
4. Any area required to meet a standard found elsewhere in this code. 
C. The open space shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following 
methods: 
1. By dedication to the City as public open space (if acceptable to the City). Open 
space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to the City Manager or the 
Manager's designee with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement, 
environmental condition, and budgetary and maintenance abilities; 
2. By leasing or conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation, 
homeowners' association or other legal entity, with the City retaining the development 
rights to the open space. The terms of such lease or other instrument of conveyance 
must include provisions (e.g., maintenance, property tax payment, etc.) suitable to the 
City. 
D. The density of a single-family residential subdivision shall be calculated based 
on the net buildable site prior to exclusion of open space per this Section. 
As indicated previously in this narrative, the applicant is proposing to provide a combination of 
public and private open space that complies with the PUD standard for at least 15 % open 
space which is greater than the five percent open space requirement of this provision. 
FINDING: As discussed above, this standard can be met as conditioned below. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 38 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 39 of 48 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final plat approval, provide documentation, to be 
recorded with the plat. dedicating the tracts of open space to either the Homeowner's Association, 
or to the City as open space unless another acceptable alternative for open space is provided. 
16.142.040 Visual Corridors 
New developments located outside of the Old Town Overlay with frontage on Highway 99W, 
or arterial or collector streets designated on the Transportation Plan Map, attached as 
Appendix C, or in Section VI of the Community Development Plan, shall be required to 
establish a landscaped visual corridor. The required width along a collector is 1 0 feet and 
15 feet along an arterial. In residential developments where fences are typically desired 
adjoining the above described major street the corridor may be placed in the road right-of-
way between the property line and the sidewalk. 
B. Landscape Materials 
The required visual corridor areas shall be planted as specified by the review authority to 
provide a continuous visual and/or acoustical buffer between major streets and developed 
uses. Except as provided for above, fences and walls shall not be substituted for 
landscaping within the visual corridor. Uniformly planted, drought resistant street trees and 
ground cover, as specified in Section 16.142.060, shall be planted in the corridor by the 
developer. The improvements shall be included in the compliance agreement. In no case 
shall trees be removed from the required visual corridor. 
C. Establishment and Maintenance 
Designated visual corridors shall be established as a portion of landscaping requirements 
pursuant to Chapter 16.92. To assure continuous maintenance of the visual corridors, the 
review authority may require that the development rights to the corridor areas be dedicated 
to the City or that restrictive covenants be recorded prior to the issuance of a building 
permit. 
D. Required Yard 
Visual corridors may be established in required yards, except that where the required visual 
corridor width exceeds the required yard width, the visual corridor requirement shall take 
precedence. In no case shalt buildings be sited within the required visual corridor, with the 
exception of front porches on town homes, as permitted in Section 16.44.01 O(E}( 4)( c). 
The streets proposed with this development abut SW Meinecke, and a 10ft. visual corridor 
is necessary. 
FINDING: As discussed above, this standard is not met but can be met with the following 
condition. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final development approval, submit landscape plans that 
include the visual corridors required along SW Meinecke. 
16.142.050- Trees Along Public Streets or on Other Public Property 
A. Trees Along Public Streets 
Trees are required to be planted by the land use applicant to the following specifications 
along public streets abutting or within any new development. Planting of such trees shall 
be a condition of development approval. The City shall be subject to the same standards 
for any developments involving City-owned property, or when constructing or 
reconstructing City streets. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 39 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 40 of 48 
1. Tree location: Trees shall be planted within the planter strip along newly created or 
improved streets. In the event that a planter strip is not required or available, the trees 
shall be planted on private property within the front yard setback area or within public 
street right-of-way between front property lines and street curb lines. 
FINDING: The applicant's proposal shows the street trees on the plans but not the species 
of tree and thus the number cannot be verified. The applicant proposes that they will be from 
City's Recommended Street Trees list. The trees are shown in the planter strip separating the 
street from the sidewalk. Th is standard has not been met, but can be conditioned below in 
order to fully comply. 
2. Tree size: A minimum trunk diameter of two (2) inches DBH and minimum height of 
six (6) feet. 
FINDING: The applicant's proposal does not show the size of proposed street trees. While it 
cannot be verified that this standard is met, it could be met as conditioned below. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to public improvement plan approval, submit a street tree 
planting plan as part of the public improvements that show the variety of trees that are proposed 
to be planted, and ensure that the trees being planted will be a minimum of 2 inches DBH and 6 
feet high. 
RECOMMENDED CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, plant the required street tree(s) for 
each of the individual lots. 
16.142.070 Trees on Property Subject to Certain Land Use Applications 
A. Generally 
The purpose of this Section is to establish processes and standards which will minimize 
cutting or destruction of trees and woodlands within the City. This Section is intended 
to help protect the scenic beauty of the City; to retain a livable environment through the 
beneficial effect of trees on air pollution, heat and glare, sound, water quality, and 
surface water and erosion control; to encourage the retention and planting of tree 
species native to the Willamette Valley and Western Oregon; to provide an attractive 
visual contrast to the urban environment, and to sustain a wide variety and distribution 
of viable trees and woodlands in the community over time. 
B. Applicability 
All applications including a Type II -IV land use review, shall be required to 
preserve trees or woodlands, as defined by this Section to the maximum extent feasible 
within the context of the proposed land use plan and relative to other codes, policies, 
and standards of the City Comprehensive Plan. 
D. Retention requirements 
1. Trees may be considered for removal to accommodate the development 
including buildings, parking, walkways, grading etc., provided the development 
satisfies of D.2 or D.3, below. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 40 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 41 of 48 
2. Required Tree Canopy- Residential Developments (Single Family Attached, 
Single Family Detached and Two- Family) 
Each net development site shall provide a variety of trees to achieve a minimum 
total tree canopy of 40 percent. The canopy percentage is based on the expected 
mature canopy of each tree by using the equation TT~ to calculate the expected 
square footage of canopy for each tree. The expected mature canopy is counted 
for each tree regardless of an overlap of multiple tree canopies. 
The canopy requirement can be achieved by retaining existing trees or planting 
new trees. Required street trees can be used toward the total on site canopy 
required to meet this standard. The expected mature canopy spread of the new 
trees will be counted toward the needed canopy cover. A certified arborist or 
other qualified professional shall provide the estimated tree canopy of the 
proposed trees to the planning department for review. 
The site does not have many existing trees. The applicant proposes to retain several of 
the trees that are located on the undevelopable portions of the site with the exception of 
two trees that the applicant requests removal due to the location of the storm sewer 
easement. The applicant proposes street trees in order to comply with the canopy 
requirement and any other trees as identified or planted within the open space areas. 
The applicant has done some preliminary calculations and believes that there is more 
than enough tree canopy with the street trees to meet this standard. 
FINDING: Based on the above discussion, the applicant has not yet met this condition, 
but can do so with the following condition. 
RECOMMEND CONDITION: Prior to final development plan approval, submit a 
landscape plan that identifies a tree canopy of at least 40% on the site. 
VII. RECOMMENDA TlON 
Based on a review of the applicable code provisions, agency comments and staff review, the Planning 
Commission finds that the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision do not fully meet the applicable 
review criteria. However, the applicable criteria can be satisfied if specific conditions are met. 
Therefore, the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation of APPROVAL with 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 41 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 42 of 48 
conditions of Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01, and SUB 14-01). Recommended conditions are as 
follows: 
A. General Conditions 
1. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval is the responsibility of the developer or its 
successor in interest. 
2. Approval of this Preliminary PUD does not constitute approval of a final development plan for 
the PUD or approved phases of the PUD. 
3. Final Development plans for the PUD or phases of the PUD shall substantially comply with the 
preliminary plan dated March 6, 2014 and revised June 16, 2014 and prepared by Emerio 
Design, and must comply with the conditions in this approval in addition to any other 
condition deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the development code and this 
approval. 
4. Development and construction on the site shall conform substantially to the preliminary plat 
development plans submitted by Emerio Design except as modified in the conditions below, 
(and shall conform specifically to final construction plans reviewed and approved by the City 
Engineer, the Building Official, Clean Water Services, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, 
Tualatin Valley Water District and Washington County). All plans shall comply with the 
applicable building, planning, engineering and fire protection codes of the City of Sherwood. 
5. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with any remaining public facility 
improvements and shall assure the construction of all public streets and utilities within and 
adjacent to the plat as required by these conditions of approval, to the plans, standards, and 
specifications of the City of Sherwood. The developer shall also provide to the City financial 
guarantees for construction of all public streets and utilities within and adjacent to the plat. as 
required by the engineering compliance agreement. 
6. This approval is valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of the decision notice. 
Extensions may be granted by the City as afforded by the Sherwood Zoning and Community 
Development Code. 
7. The continual operation of the property shall comply with the applicable requirements of the 
Sherwood Zoning and Community Development Code and Municipal Code. 
8. Placement of construction trailers on the subject property shall require a Temporary Use Permit 
per Section 16.86 of the SZCDC. 
9. This approval does not negate the need to obtain permits, as appropriate from other local, state 
or federal agencies. even if not specifically required by this decision. 
10. Retaining walls within public easements or the public right-of-way shall require engineering 
approval. Retaining walls with a height of 4 feet or higher located on private property will 
require a permit from the building department. 
11 . Retaining walls great than four (4) feet in height shall have a geotechnical engineer provide 
stamped design calculations and details drawings required for retaining wall construction. The 
retaining wall details shall include at a minimum; wall profile, wall cross section at highest point 
of wall, wall reinforcing geotextile requirements, wall drainage system, and wall backfill 
requirements. Retaining wall drainage systems shall either discharge to a public storm 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 42 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 43 of 48 
drainage system, or discharge on-site in such a manner as to not negatively impact adjacent 
downslope properties. 
B. General and Specific PUC Detailed Final Development Plan requirements: 
1. A detailed final development plan shall be submitted for review and approval within 1 year of 
the preliminary PUD approval. 
2. Submit an architectural pattern book that provides an illustrative guide for the development 
including a measurement or checklist system to facilitate review, include information for each 
building type that describes massing, facades, elevations, roof forms. proportions, materials 
and color palette , doors, windows, siding, entrances, porches, light fixtures and other 
ornamentation, or accents, and a fencing plan that addresses the relationship between public 
space and maintaining individual privacy subject to§ 16.58.020. 
3. Provide the CC & Rs that document how the areas of open space, common areas and onsite 
parking will be monitored and maintained by the Home Owner's Association. 
4. Submit plans that show that the porches do not encroach on any of the clear vision area. 
5. Submit plans and elevations of the townhomes that provide for doors, porches, balconies, 
windows or architectural features to provide variety in the fa<;ade and comply with the townhome 
design standards. 
6. Submit plans that show the design of the pedestrian pathway within Tract 8 to include 
landscaped buffers between the properties of at least three feet on each side. 
7. Submit plans that show the perimeter screening separating the single-family residential zones 
from the multi-family residential zones. 
8. Submit a parking plan that details and describes the dimensions of the parking spaces and any 
deviation from the parking space standards. 
9. Submit landscape plans that include the visual corridor located on SW Meinecke. 
1 0. Submit a landscape plan that identifies a tree canopy of at least 40% on the site. 
11 . Submit plans that show that the front fa9ade of the townhomes do not include more than forty 
percent (40%) of garage door area. 
C. Prior to issuance of grading or erosion control permits from the Building Department: 
1. Submit detailed grading and erosion control plans. An Erosion Control Permit will be requ ired . 
Areas of Disturbance must be clearly identified on submitted construction plans. 
2 . The Developer's engineer is required to provide a site specific drainage plan to temporarily 
collect, route, and treat surface water and ground water during each construction phase. The 
construction plans shall specifically identify how the storm drainage system and erosion 
sediment control measures will be phased during construction, such that at any time during 
construction the approved plans shall be capable of providing full erosion and sediment control , 
collection, routing and treatment of storm water runoff and ground water. No site construction 
will be allowed to take place if the storm drainage system and erosion sediment control 
measures are not installed per plan and functioning properly . 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 43 of48 
Ordinance 2014·013. Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014. Page 44 of 48 
3. Obtain a 1200C Erosion Control Permit through the Building Department for all the disturbed 
ground, both on and off site that is in excess of one acre in addition to meeting all CWS Design 
and Construction Standards. The applicant shall follow the latest requirements from DEQ and 
CWS for NPDES 1200-C Permit submittals. A copy of the approved and signed permit shall be 
provided to the City prior to holding a pre-construction meeting or commencing any 
construction activity. 
4. Submit a tree protection plan showing how the trees to be retained will be protected throughout 
the construction of the site. 
5. Install tree protection fencing around trees to be retained on site. The tree protection fencing 
shall be inspected and deemed appropriate by the arborist to be reviewed by the Planning 
Department. 
6 . Any existing wells, septic systems and underground storage tanks shall be abandoned in 
accordance with Oregon state law, inspected by the City Plumbing Inspector and provide 
verification of such to the City Engineer. 
7. A demolition permit shall be obtained from the Sherwood Building Department prior to 
demolishing or moving any structures. 
8. In the event there is engineered fill on any public roads or lots, the applicants' soils engineer 
and testing lab shall obtain and record compaction tests and submit results for the review and 
approval of the City Engineer. 
D. Prior to approval of the public improvement plans: 
1. Submit engineering plans for all public improvements and/or connections to public utilities 
(water, sewer, storm water, and streets) to the Sherwood Engineering Department. The 
engineering plans shall conform to the design standards of the City of Sherwood's Engineering 
Department, Clean Water Services. Tualatin Valley Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire & 
Rescue and other applicable requirements and standards. The plans shall be in substantial 
conformance with the utility plans dated March 6, 2014 and as amended and prepared by 
Emerio Design with the following modifications: 
a. Design the proposed SW Cedar Brook Way extension to have 36 feet of paved sutface (curb 
face to curb face) with 5-foot wide landscape strips and 8-foot wide sidewalks on each side 
within a 64-foot wide right-of-way unless a design modification request is approved by the City 
Engineer. 
b. Comply with the recommended conditions as found in the Street Modification Approval memo 
submitted by the Engineering Department, Exhibit J. 
2. Submit to the Engineering Department for review and approval a stormwater report meeting 
design standards of both the City of Sherwood and Clean Water Services and the Clean Water 
Service Provider letter dated March 14, 2014, (Exhibit A, Applicant's Materials). 
3. Provide an 8-foot wide public utility easement over the right of way of all street frontages. Tract 
'G' containing the proposed private alley shall have a private utility easement over its entirety. 
4. All easements (public or private) associated with the development shall be recorded with the 
County and transfer to a 2-year maintenance bond. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 44 of48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5. 2014, Page 45 of 48 
5. A cross section for each type of street improvement shall be prepared that illustrates utility 
locations, street improvements including grade and elevation, and sidewalk location including 
grade and elevation per current construction standards. Cross sections shall be included in the 
plan set and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 
6. Submit public improvement plans that demonstrate the placement of all existing and proposed 
utilities underground. 
7. Submit public improvement plans to the Engineering Department, with a copy of the 
landscaping plan to the Planning Department, for review and approval. 
8. All public easement dedication documents must be submitted to the City for review, signed by 
the City and the applicant, and recorded by the applicant with the original or a certified copy of 
the recorded easements on file at the City prior to release of the public improvement plans. 
9. Submit the final plat for review to the Planning Department. 
1 0. Submit plans so that all water infrastructure will meet City standards and be approved by the 
Sherwood Water Department. 
11 . The sanitary sewer system design and installation shall be in conformance with City design and 
construction standards in order to be accepted by the City. 
12. Submit to the Engineering Department for review and approval a stormwater report identifying 
adequate space in the facility. The public improvement plans must include detention and 
treatment of all stormwater on the site in compliance with Clean Water Services standards. 
13. Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans. Any required storm sewer, sanitary 
sewer and water quality related easements must be granted to the City. 
14. Submit revised plans that provide adequate turning radius, hydrant location, fire flow, and 
adherence in compliance with TVF&R standards as verified by an acceptance letter from 
TVF&R 
15. Submit a street tree-planting plan as part of the public improvements that show the variety of 
trees that will be a minimum of 2 inches DBH and 6 feet high. 
E. Prior to Approval of the Final Plat: 
1. The submittal by the applicant for final plat review and approval shall include but not be limited 
to the following: a final plat application; final plat review fee; narrative identifying how the 
required conditions of approval have or will be met; three copies of the final plat; and any other 
materials required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of approval. 
2 . Approval of the public improvement plans by the Engineering Department, and signature of a 
compliance agreement must be complete prior to release of the plat to the County for review. 
In addition, prior to final plat approval, either all on-site work must be complete or the 
improvements bonded or guaranteed with a cash deposit. 
3. Receive a Clean Water Connection Permit Authorization that meets the requirements of the 
CWS Memorandum dated May 8, 2014 (Exhibit D). 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 45 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit1, Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 46 of 48 
4. The final plat shall show the following: 
a. The Community Development Director as the City's approving authority within the 
signature block of the final plat. 
b. Private access easements, utility easements and/or special use easements as required 
for the development of the site. A plat note shall reference an easement and 
maintenance agreement or similar document, to be recorded with the plat, for the joint 
maintenance of any common private utility lines, common driveway improvements, or 
other common amenity or perimeter fencing. The language of such plat note and 
associated document shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 
c. Provide documentation to be recorded with the plat, dedicating the tracts of open space 
to either to the Homeowner's Association, or to the City as open space unless another 
acceptable alternative for open space is provided. 
5 . Submit a tree inventory and planting plan for the street trees and trees within the open space 
areas in order to be fully compliant with §16.142.060. 
6. Submit revised plans that provide adequate turning radius, hydrant location, fire flow, and 
adherence in compliance with TVF&R standards as verified by an acceptance letter from 
TVF&R. 
7. The public improvement plans must be approved and bonded for prior to the City's approval of 
the final plat. 
8. Design the public street intersections to meet sight distance requirements. Provide certification 
by a registered Oregon Professional Engineer that the constructed public street intersections 
meet sight distance requirements. 
9. Tract C will either be dedicated to the City of Sherwood or have a public storm water facility 
easement be placed over the tract in its entirety for the benefit of CWS and the City. The 
subdivision plat shall note the dedication of Tract C to the City or include language establishing 
a Public Storm Water Facility Easement over Tract C for the benefit of CWS and the City. 
10. Provide peoestrian and bicycle access easements over all of the pathways within tne 
private street. 
F. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit: 
1. For the Phase 1 portion of the project which consists of all buildings excluding either one 
townhome building or the last three single family homes (applicant's choice), all public 
improvements delineated under Phase 1 must be completed and accepted by the City 
Engineer, and the final plat(s) must be recorded. An approval letter from the Engineering 
Department accepting all public improvements constructed under Phase 1, shall be issued 
prior to issuance of building permits for buildings delineated under Phase 1. 
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer shall provide a geotechnical 
investigation report if required by the Building Official. 
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, an electronic version of the final plat must be submitted to 
the Planning Department. 
4. Submit a recorded copy of the CC & Rs. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 46 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013, Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 47 of 48 
5. All easements (public or private) associated with the development shall be recorded with the 
County and transfer to a 2-year maintenance bond. 
6. Install conduit and vaults per the City of Sherwood telecommunication design standards. 
G. Prior to Final Occupancy of the Subdivision: 
1. All public improvements shall be competed, inspected and approved, as applicable, by 
the City, CWS, and TVF & R, and other applicable agencies. 
2. All agreements required as conditions of this approval must be signed and recorded. 
3. Plant the required street trees for each lot prior to a certificate of occupancy for the 
home on the lot. 
4. Install the landscaping according to the landscape plan prior to the issuance of the 
occupancy permits or pay a security bond for 125% of the cost of the landscaping 
payable to the City. If the landscaping is not completed within six months, the 
security may be used by the City to complete the installation. 
5 . Construct and install the pathway and other open space amenities described in the 
final development plan, excluding the trail connection as identified under Condition G.7. 
6. Install the perimeter screening separating the residential zones of the single family homes with 
the multifamily development to the east. 
7. Phase 2 portion of the project consists of design and construction of the hard surface trail 
extension from SW Cedar Brook Way through Tract K, connecting to the existing trail at 
Wyndam Ridge. Final occupancy for either the last townhome building or last three 
single-family homes (applicant's choice) shall be granted once the trail extension has been 
constructed and accepted by the City Engineer. An approval letter from the Engineering 
Department accepting all the public improvements under Phase 2 shall be issued prior to 
granting final occupancy for the buildings delineated under Phase 2. 
H. On-going Conditions 
1. All rain, storm, and other surface water runoff from roofs, exposed stairways, light wells, courts, 
courtyards, and exterior paved areas shall be disposed of in compliance with local ordinances 
and state rules and regulations, in a manner that will not increase runoff to adjacent properties. 
The approved points of disposal include storm sewer laterals to a public system or other storm 
sewer system as approved by the City Engineer. 
2. Joint mailbox facilities shall be installed prior to the City signing the Letter of Acceptance for the 
development. Joint mailbox facilities must be installed per U.S. Postal Service's "Developers' 
Guide to Centralized Box Units". The Developer shall provide a signed copy of the U.S. Postal 
Services "Mode of Delivery Agreement'. Submittal of this agreement shall be required prior to 
a pre-construction meeting taking place. 
3. The developer shall coordinate location of garbage and recycling receptacles with Pride 
Disposal. 
4. The continual operation of the property shall comply with the applicable requirements of the 
Sherwood Zoning and Community Development Code. 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 47 of 48 
Ordinance 2014-013. Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Recommendation 
August 5, 2014, Page 48 of 48 
5. Decks, fences, sheds, building additions and other site improvements shall not be located 
within any easement unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City Engineer. 
6. Fences separating lots from adjacent pedestrian access way may not exceed 42" in height 
unless the fences are setback with at least three (3) feet of landscaping from the pedestrian 
easement. 
7. Comply with the Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter throughout the development of 
the site. 
8. Restrict and maintain on-site landscaping, utilities, and any other obstructions in the sight 
distance triangles to provide adequate sight distance at access locations to SW Street A and 
SW Cedar Brook Way and Tract G, the private alley. 
9. Dust shall be controlled within the development during construction and shall not be permitted 
to drift onto adjacent properties. 
10. Noise shall be kept at the minimum level possible during construction. The developer shall 
agree to aggressively ensure that all vehicles working in the development shall have adequate 
and fully functioning sound suppression devices installed and maintained at all times. 
11 . All construction sites shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. 
Construction debris, including food and drink waste, shall be restricted from leaving the 
construction site through proper disposal containers or construction fencing enclosures. 
Failure to comply with this condition may result in a "Stop Work" order until deficiencies have 
been corrected to the satisfaction of the Community Development. 
VIII. EXHIBITS 
A. Applicant's materials submitted on March 6, 2014, and revised on April14, 2014 
B. Allison Holden comments submitted via email on May 25, 2014 
C. City of Sherwood Engineering comments dated May 12, 2014 
D. Clean Water Services letter submitted on May 8, 2014 
E. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue letter submitted May 13, 2014 
F. Pride Disposal comments submitted May 12, 2014 
G. Applicant's submittal to the Parks Board concerning Tract K dated May 5, 2015 
H. Bicycle Master Plan Figure 6-1 from the City of Sherwood Transportation System Plan 
I. Street Design Modification request by the applicant dated April29, 2014 
K. Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated June 10, 2014 
l. Supplementary Response memo from the applicant for the June 24, 2014 hearing 
M. Revised Site Plan, submitted by the applicant including "On and Off Street Parking" 
N. Revised Site Plan, submitted by the applicant that includes the proposed setback 
deviation from the Development Code 
0. Example of CC&Rs that include the garage restriction 
P. Example of the City Parking District Policy 
Q. Citizen Comments from Mara Broadhurst dated June 23, 2014 
End of Report 
Cedar Brook PUD (PUD 14-01 AND SUB 14-01) Page 48 of48