Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I've gone to Europe. I just walk around. Which town is that? Just pops up. Yeah, it's like a different background. What you do?

I should start taking wers on how long is not very long right now. Mount Europe.

Yeah. Is everybody ready?

Hello everybody. Uh, welcome to the Ben Planning Commission meeting for February 9th. Uh, this is my first time running the meeting, so I hope you give me a little bit of grace here. Um, today we have two major things on the agenda. We have a work session on an amendment for the Ben Development Code and then later on we're going to have a public hearing for a comprehensive plan amendment and master plan. Um we're going to start off with roll call. Let's start off over on this side. Ad Bob Gresens's Scott Wyinners Nathan Nelson Suzanne Johansson Erin Leen

and then we're going to go ahead and go into the visitor session. Um, I notice we have a couple of people here today. Um, if you're here for the item on our work session, uh, the short-term rental, that's a review session for us to like learn a little bit more about the the topic. We're going to have an opportunity for public comment at our next meeting. Um, I have two um papers here for people to speak in our public comment. Um if um Jason and Adam, are either of those on any of the items on today's agenda?

Okay. Uh do you mind giving that to us next meeting or online sending us an email? Thank you. And what was your name? Jason. Jason. Okay. Um and Adam. Yeah, I'm master plan. Okay, I'll save that one for later. Thank you. Um and do we have anybody online? I don't have any. Okay. Anyone else here to speak?

Cool. Okay. So, then we'll go ahead and move on into the work session for PLEX 2025 0659 both amendments to the Ben Development Code um short-term rentals and neighborhood commercial. Um I'll go ahead and leave it to you, Paulie. Thank you. screen.

Good evening, commissioners. Tonight, uh we are here to just do a work session, um and go over proposed amendments to Ben Development Code 3.6500 for short-term rentals. I'm going to provide a little bit of background because this discussion's been going on now. um for some time. So, in September of 2024, the city council originally held a work session to um talk about potential amendments and directed staff at that time to um craft uh amendments to the short-term rental uh section of the code. And the direction was to require short-term rentals in a zone we call neighborhood commercial to follow the requirements, review processes, and standards of their underlying comprehensive plan map designation, which is medium density residential. So they have a medium density residential comprehensive plan map, but their zone neighborhood commercial. And then in October of 2024, the planning commission held a work session and a public hearing on the proposed amendments. That vote of recommendation and support was 3-1. Uh in 2024 of December, council then held their public hearing consider planning commission's recommendation, but it got quite late in the evening and this was coupled with another um text amendment. Um there was some public testimony that took place at that hearing and due to some complexity of drafted revisions, the council at the time just decided to table the matter till 2025. Then late last year um in November, we revisited this topic with the city council and a majority did support moving forward and directed staff to process the amendments again. So again, the properties are zoned neighborhood commercial. There's five properties in Bend with this zoning. Up on the map, the properties are um located in the same neighborhood district of um called the Old Ben neighborhood district. the it looks like

less than five properties, but the properties over here on Congress is two separate um properties. And then the properties here on Delaware includes the Jackson's Corner and the neighboring property. And then there's one more property on Hill Street. Um so those are the five properties. And in 2006, this particular zone of neighborhood commercial district was eliminated from the Ben Development Code. So that's why we're only seeing five today. So, the current code for these specific five properties um is a much simpler process to obtain a short-term rental um permit. They only have to go through a type one review, which is no noticing requirements. It's similar to how we process um short-term rentals in our commercial districts and mixed use districts. There is no 500 foot separation. So, if there's one right next door, they could still obtain their short-term rental um license, and they can have more than one on site. The proposed amendments would require them again to meet their residential comprehensive plan land use designation, similar to all their neighbors. It would then um bump the review to a type 2 administrative review that does include public notice. It also would require them to meet that 500 foot separation. So, if they come in to apply for a short-term rental and there's one within 500 ft, they would not be able to get their short-term rental permit. Of the five shortterm or of the five neighborhood commercial sites, one does have a active um short short-term rental license. In your memo, it said they're going through the process that is now active. Um and then again, if the proposed amendments get adopted, they would only be allowed to have one. Let's say they actually met the 500 foot separation, then they would only be allowed to have one on the property versus an unlimited number that they could have today. This does implement one of city council's goals um really to help

accelerate complete neighborhoods by um incentivizing the uses to be either residential or true neighborhood commercial uses, not short-term rentals. Again, that would help um create the more complete neighborhoods that council is supportive of. public notification on this because it is a quasi judicial amendment. Um it was a little bit different than most my code updates. Um I still emailed all the um amendments and the planning commission work session and hearing dates to the Ben development code update group in January and provided notice to the department of land conservation. In addition, we had to post the five um properties with signs notifying of the proposed amendments and of the planning commission hearing date. We also mailed notice to the property owners and addresses within 500 feet of each of the five sites. And then we um mailed and emailed the old farm neighborhood district. The um again the timeline this started back in September of Yeah, it's

old Ben.

Ben, not farm. Yeah, I saw that. Um I was like, "Oh, just keep going." Um uh we did as I mentioned start this process back in September of 2024. Planning commission tonight um is just a work session and then the planning commission hearing is scheduled for um February 23rd. So that at that meeting um that would be the one where if people are interested in attending the meeting either in person or virtually that they can and provide public comments. And then um on April 15th would be the city council's um public hearing. And again, public comments can be provided during that time. And um if all goes as planned, they would um uh conduct the first reading with the second reading being in May. And then these effects would go in these code amendments would go into effect on June 3rd. We have started receiving some public comments on this project. So, they're uploaded to City View for you to review um prior to the public prior to and right up to the public hearing um so you can see the um written comments that we've been receiving. I think there's either one or two in there as of today. And I think that is all I have. I can answer any questions that you may have. I was just curious, Pauline, as to what were the changes that the council was thinking about and then gave up on.

Um, I believe it was and Renee was actually the um I was not that that's like the only code update I have not worked on. Um, I think it was that the council was interested in maybe allowing one short-term rental per property. Yes. Part of the challenge in the late evening that council was discussing with this was coming up with some whether it's a percentage of the total housing units on the site that could be used as a short-term rental or one uh numerical um decision and that's where just the code crafting that late evening didn't quite we just couldn't quite fit it in at the time that council had.

Okay. So then when it came back up last November, the council wasn't interested in making those changes anymore. Well, in November was just a work session again to get direction. But you said it was December of 2024 when you had the council meeting and you were going to make complex uh revisions and then in November of 2025 there was a hearing and there was none. It just was like I'll go back to the planning commission and do what we first said. So on December of 24 is when they um held their public hearing. So quite a while ago and tabled it. In November they revisited the issue and um want to just keep it like it was proposed.

Yes. Okay. So just to to clarify for me um we're talking about a zoning that is applicable to five properties, one of which has an active one does. Yes. Okay. And they can keep it that short-term rental. um as long as they keep the permit active, they're fine. It's the other four that if this gets passed, um likely have a short-term rental within 500 ft. So, it would be a preemptive kind of code change in terms of like real world impact. What is the real world impact?

It changes what we what future property like what properties owners can do in the future with those four other properties. Correct. If this gets adopted, those four other properties, I mean, can apply for a short-term rental if there is not one within 500 ft of their property. Most likely there is. But I thought the Bruno's Market was zoned that way. Was it zoned differently? It's different. Okay. And the Delaware Annex is also zoned differently. Yep. Those are um they kind of historic neighborhood commercial sites, not neighborhood commercial zones. I see. Okay.

Are these properties like single family? What What are the What are these properties right now? So, one is Jackson's Corner and then next door to that is a single um dwelling unit. Uh the Hill Street has a number of little businesses in there and um another one on Congress is a single dwelling unit. And then next door to that is the um former Iron Horse Antique Store. And is the active culture across the street is that zone? That's another one of those sites. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Yeah. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I did just want to mention, sorry, um, Vice Chair Nelson, that there is an attendee online with their hand raised. So again, maybe just a reminder that we aren't taking public comment during the work session, but written comment can be submitted at any point um until the planning commission's public hearing and then also at the planning commission's public hearing February 23rd. I just didn't want to ignore that someone was raising their hand for this item.

Great. Thank you. and if they're here for the next agenda items, we'll get back to them. Um, so let's move on to the qualified judicial public hearing. uh PLS PD 20250 647 the major master plan and the PL text 20250 648 comprehensive plan text amendment for the Stevens Road fact urban growth boundary expansion area

and then um while Karen is getting set up I will explain the procedure ederal requirements of state law for this quasi judicial matter. The city will rely on the staff report and staff's presentation to list the applicable criteria for this proposal. All testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed to these criteria or other comprehensive plan or ben development code criteria that you believe are applicable. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity for the planning commission to understand and respond to the issue in its recommendation to council or for other parties to respond may preclude an appeal on that issue to the land use board of appeals. Similarly, the failure of the applicant to raise a constitutional or other issue regarding a proposed condition of council approval or recommendation that the planning commission makes to council um with sufficient specificity for the commission to respond to this or for other parties to respond may preclude a future civil action for damages in circuit court related to that condition or recommendation that you might make to council.

Thank you. Thank you, Renee. Uh, so then I'll go ahead and open the hearing and then go through the line for any statements of pre-haring contact, bias, prejudice, or personal interest. Sorry, Mr. None. None. None. None.

I met with the old farm district board last week. We did not discuss this project. Um, also I did visit the site. Okay. Sounds good. Um, okay. Anyone willing want anyone who wants to challenge uh this bias bement or personal interest declaration, this is the time for you to do that now. Uh, seeing no one, uh, let's go ahead and move on to the staff report.

So, tonight we're going to talk about the Stevens road track master plan and comprehensive plan text. These are two separate applications. There will be two separate motions when you choose to do so. Um, but it's my one public hearing and one presentation. So, uh, this is in the southeast part of town. Um, and just this little circle is the, um, from the San Francisco plan near the southeast area and Steven's Ranch. Um, so this Stevens Ranch is to the west. Um, this and the not landills to the south. Um I have the label legacy village there um in the title and on the map because um this has been referred to as Steven's road tracked all the way through this um fouryear process up until just a month or so ago and uh the applicant has chosen to name this legacy village. So the code that goes that will be adopted into the development code uh specifically property will be referencing this is legacy village but most of my presentation here and all of the submitts return oops middle materials um refer to it as the Stevens road track property. This uh property is 260 acres as I mentioned east of the uh Stevens Ranch master plan. Um and uh it was acquired by the state of Oregon from the federal bureau of land management uh BLM in the 1990s. Um then it was uh managed uh by the department of estate lands to benefit the state's common school fund. And uh then in 2021 uh the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 3318 specifically for this property. That's all that this this bill would pertain to to allow the city of Ben to expand um

their urban growth boundary with very specific requirements. Uh that there be a minimum residential density for this property. Um that the housing mix exceeds the proportions stated in the housing needs analysis. that there is a minimum acreage for affordable housing and that uh they that the applicant sub or the city excuse me uh submit a concept plan and subsequent comprehensive plan policies. So those first three I will talk about in the next slide. Uh so in house bill 3318 uh there was a requirement that uh the overall density must be nine units per gross residential paper. that is higher than any of the other um master plans in town. Uh that the housing mix must exceed the needs in the housing needs analysis which uh it is a little bit dated at this point um since 2016. That's that's currently in the process of updating that but it's what we have um at this point um which is a minimum requirement of 10%. So any new um new construction, we're aiming for 10% town homes and 35% um basically non-town homes and non single family detached. So that's all the plexes, duplex, triplex, quadlex or multi-unit development. And so any um that any master plan that would be submitted must exceed that um those require meet or exceed those requirements. And then as I mentioned the uh affordable housing acreage requirements um that the house bill 3318 required that at least 20 acres of residential land be provided for deed restricted affordable housing and that was specifically broken down um as follows. Uh 12 of those acres must be um provided for um individuals earning up

to 60% of the area median income. An additional six acres is for um individuals or households earning up to 80% of area median income. And then two acres where 80% of the new units must be affordable up to 80% of the area median income. And those last two, the six acres and the two acres, um that uh educators, at least one um person in the household who's an educator would be given preferential um uh choice um to be selected for those um for those units um per the fair housing law. So um that would be

Sorry, which ones Karen? The six acres and the two housing.

The six and two. Okay. Uh so those 20 acres would be conveyed to the city for for affordable housing development and um so the city would take the next steps from there of how that would be developed. So, um after um House Bill 3318 was passed, um one of the directions uh as I mentioned in those four bullets, not only has those um very numerical requirements, but also that the city develop a concept plan. And this is the cover page of that concept plan that was adopted in June 2022. Um it first looked at all of the site conditions. Um did a lands needs analysis, a market analysis and a um a full public engagement process undertaken by Brook Management Division. Um it established some guiding principles. Um those included um in addition to the House Bill 3318 requirements that it be a complete community pres that it preserves and enhance the natural environment. It encourages compact development and that it provides for high density housing with good transportation access because that was kind of the high level guiding principles. And as part of that public engagement process, there were three alternative concepts that varied by the number of unit overall units. um what the housing mix was. Um how much uh commercial land and where were where were those um areas of commercial land and then the acreage of the open space as well as within that um overall open space what the different park sizes were. And there were three um that were analyzed and taken to the public and then a a preferred alternative was selected and that's what you see on this slide. Um the overall uh total dwelling permit for the preferred alternative which happened to be land use concept

alternative three in concept plan um was 2,487 total dwelling units. Um so it did have the highest number of dwelling units so almost 2500. uh that it kind of uh drew all the medium and high density along um the central community park area, wilderness way, which is that east west corridor and um up near Stevens Road. Um and that there were multiple areas of market rate um high density housing instead of all in one area. Um that there was a main street on Wilderness Way there. You just slightly tell it just south of that east west road. Um and 7 acre mixed employment at the south end kind of a purplish color down the southwest portion of the tract. Um and it did include a large community park as opposed to some of the alternatives had some scattered open space. This one had a community park and that was out of discussions with um with Ben Parks and Recreation District who said we have a community park need in this area and um whereas this concept plan showed 29 acres um then overall there's 39 acres of open space in this concept. So um that community park plus 7 acres of trails and three acres of other open space. So uh the next step after the concept plan which was adopted by council and then adopted or approved by uh the department of lands and community development which was our partner the city's partner all along the way um that uh then the city took what was conceptually um conceived through the concept plan process and put them into words um in the comprehensive plan and um the specific numerical requirements that I went over previously were incorporated into two policies. Then

there was some language from the bill that just said areas designated for adequate employment lands and it specifically said that um that it must be based on the city's most recent economic opportunities analysis considering subsequent economic development activities and trends. So again, going back to that market analysis, um one uh part of the market analysis acknowledging this isn't on one of our major roadways um with like 27th Street, not everything um to the west that uh drying a lot of commercial to this area um would not um the market wouldn't um support that. And so uh it was uh recommended that five acres of commercial land and seven acres of employment land. So that's CG, general commercial and me, mixed employment um uh is what uh eventually went into the plan. And then um the policy 169 uh put into the policy um of those 39 acres of open space including community park and as well as that seven acres of trail quarters was policy 1169 as well. And there was language in there uh to take what was shown in that visual of a green loop of multi-use trails around the perimeter as well as a cent centrally located path um along the wilderness way but al also on most south border which you'll see in a minute. Um, House Bill 3318 also indicate that land use regulations um must comply with the foothold wildfire planning and development and that is specifically in policy 11-170. The um applicant did submit a wildfire mitigation plan with this um master plan. It was reviewed by our deputy fire marshall um or wildfire preparedness,

excuse me. and uh determined that is generally consistent with the state's wildfire hazard hazard mitigation uh for new construction which is R327 building codes which the city hasn't yet adopted. Dashes County is in the process of adopting. Um and uh so um they that she determined that that was um consistent with um what uh will be needed in the future to um uh address wildfire hazards. And then finally that adequate um capacity is available for water and sewer language from the hostel and that's standard for the city that we required with a sewer analysis which um is in the um which is in the middle as well as well as coordination with avion water company and there's been substantial coordination by the outb so to summarize all of that on the timeline um back in June 2021 was when that bill was adopted. So, we're just shy of five years um from that house bill. The concept plan was adopted a year later by both council and then um by the state. Uh the Stevens road track needed to be added to the urban growth boundary. Um so that was a joint effort between the city and the county. And then in February 2024 was when the conference of plan map um based on those colors in the concept plan was adopted. And then those policies that we just went through. And then um there was a RFP request for proposals that went out by the state um on uh applicants who or potential purchasers who would um be interesting interested in purchasing the site knowing that it required compliance with the uh comprehensive plan policies

and concept plans. And so, Department of State Land selected Hayden Holmes um to purchase the site last September. And Hayden submitted this master plan application and the con conference of plan map amendments or conference plan policy amendments um in November and you're here now um with hearings. So, I'm going to take a deep breath and then we will go into the conference of plan policy amendments. So, um, even though, you know, city went through this whole process until the rubber hits the road and they figure out how this is all going to fit together from a development perspective, there were a few tweaks that the applicant um stated that were necessary. The very first one, however, was one that the city recommended. Um, in the uh policies, throughout the policy, it refers to this concept plan. Well, part of what we're doing tonight is looking at a submitted master plan. So if we have a master plan adopted into a code and then a figure of a concept plan comprehensive plan it gets very confusing and so we are just um taking all references to that particular figure in the comprehensive plan and just putting it as a reference um just saying if you want to see what that concept plan looks like here's the resolution that adopted it. Um so that was um at the direction of the city and then the applicant um requested flexibility in the location of affordable housing. Um there was a a locationational requirement of how it was um around the central uh commercial corridor and the the park, but just in terms of all the puzzle pieces of how this works together and um not to group all the affordable housing in one area. That's not necessarily we want some mixed income income communities. Uh that uh part of the amendments was that that affordable

housing be located within one half mile of commercial land or wilderness way rather than a quarter mile and it but that it abuts a multi-use path that connects to that community park. So it's not completely disjointed that you can get there on a wide multi-use path to that park. Uh then another policy amendment um in policy 1156 specifically has a whole bunch of data in it. Um it does say that minimum number of residential uses that units that I previously mentioned 2487 across all the residential designations um minimum acreage within um each residential designation and then within each of those residential designations RM and RH that there's a minimum acreage for affordable housing. So remember from the house bill there was 20 acres that were required. Of course it wasn't written for our code. Um it didn't say RS RM RH. It just said 20 acres. So um this policy was written by um city planners um for minimum acreage within each zone and then the minimum number of dwelling units. So it was more of a cascading fact starting with that 2487 looking at how much acreage was in each zone based on the concept plan and then figuring out okay in order to meet that 2487 how many um units are in each zone. So, uh, the applicant requested to, um, the only of all those data points that I just mentioned to reduce the minimum number of dwelling units in the RH zone from 480 to 300. So, the minimum number of residential units 2487

remains the same. The minimum acreage in each res residential designation remains the same. Of course, the minimum acreage for affordable housing remains the same and the minimum number of dwelling units in the RS and RM zone remain the same. And uh so um the applicant had indicated that doing that math uh was um that overall number 2487 is not changing because additional marketer units will be provided in RS and RM zone and more acreage of RH land is provided to the developer by the developer to the city than is required under house value and this policy. So um we'll get there in a second as well. And finally, uh, policy 11158, um, indicated that there must be three, um, affordable housing lots, six acres in size for a total of 18 acres. And, um, that didn't provide a whole lot of flexibility and may not be the type that the city wants in terms of um, how certain sites can develop. And so, the amendment was proposed to provide flexibility in those lot size. So, one would be six acres in size, but the two other lots um, could be two and a half and 10 acres in size depending on the need, the location and such forth. But the overall acreage 18 boogers would be the same. These are um the um criteria for conference and plan policy amendments that is um detailed um in the staff report consistency with statewide planning goals and the other applicable planning plan conferencing plan policies. I will just pause there that in the master plan um we uh um reviewed consistency with the compounding policies as if these compound policy amendments were adopted and that's why we're taking two separate motions and so

um we we would need a motion on conference plan policy amendments first. Uh so then finally um moving on adequate public facilities concurrent with development as very common with the sewer analysis coordination with Avon um the transportation analysis of course and then also working um with uh the energy providers uh CEC has an easement on the eastern portion of this site. Um and then the evidence of change in neighborhood or community or mistake or inconsistency of the conference of plan map regarding this policy. Um so the response to this is well there's twofold in terms of the map. Usually you can move the colors around if they're um within um 1% of each other of the of the original um adopted map. But you can, as you remember, this was a concept plan that um was a figure on a paper, not necessarily um scaled to size. Um and so once these numbers were all put together from the council kind of policies, it realized these don't all add up. And so that's part of it. And then also um in terms of those uh change in neighborhood or community or mistake whatever uh it's also just having them them all add up to that total number 2487 in order to make this all work. Finally, the consistency with the transportation planning rule which is also required for the master plan is coordination with um ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation and Dashes County and you'll see that in the master plan of um what off-site um uh mitigation is necessary with their facilities.

So, moving on to the master plan, which as I noted will be called Legacy Village. And so, that's 24,487 units that are proposed consistent most of what was required um as noted in the preferred alternative concept plan. And as you remember, 10% had to be uh town homes. 11% are proposed. 267 um and then what was 35% um needed to be uh um plexes or multi-unit homes which obviously this significantly exceeds that. Um and then uh 24 acres as opposed to 20 acres uh that were required um uh medium and high density land is going to be conveyed to the city for affordable housing. So four 38 acres um are are being proposed um more than was required by house bill 3318 and then 39.5 acres of permanent open space as you recall the concept plan on 39 acres which is codified uh in the um con conference of plan policy with a central 23 acre community park. um 10 acres aligned with the high desert trail which is the western boundary of this um this master plan and then 6.5 acres of additional open space throughout the comm community. There are some midblock crossings um that do meet the 20 foot wide requirement but even not including those um they still meet the 39 acres. And so this is the overall master plan. You can see that 23 acre green in the middle. Um whereas a concept plan had on one side of the road. This is on the southern side that was a location that

was more desired by the u u by the as well as um it's an area of some rock outcroppings and significant trees that are um have more potential to be retained. Um it'll be on the north side of that is that five acres of commercial land. Um kind of provides that main street character. And then the brown areas are the RH highdensity residential areas. And you can't tell it very clearly. Pops out a little bit is um those areas that outlined in blue here. Southern end just south of the park just east of the park and in the northeast corner. and then are the four RH designated areas for affordable housing. And then here's the two acres of um RM land for affordable housing. Also on this pink is are shown the that green loop. So primary one is along the western boundary um within that eastwood there um as well as along each um collector street and our street. So Stevens Road, Ward Road and Ferguson Road and as well as Wilderness Way um through the center and then a local street that goes north south um through the property that does have a multi-use path on one side. Is that is this the same as the preliminary master plan

uh in ter what was submitted in in the um I think yes that has not changed. Okay. On this it says that the commercial is 4 acres but um is that not

No. Um so uh the zoning boundary goes to the center line of the roadways. So the applicant can speak to this more but um so in terms of net acreage stage acreage and net acorage um we're only looking at gross acreage for this requirement which goes to the middle line of the roadway. So that could be 40 feet into the roadway on one side and 30 feet to the local street on the other side. So, um that could be some um net gross versus net and I'll have the applicant speak to that. Um in terms of the transportation improvements, this will be codified um in the code um that um not only this figure that shows the three arterials on the three sides, the wilderness way, which is noted as a neighborhood route, it's way it was referred to in Steven's Ranch as well, but basically it functions as a collector street. Um it has a multi-use path um by lanes and um and is 80 ft wide. So, it functions like a collector street. And then that darker gray um uh route through the middle, that north south local spine has that multi-use path on one side. Uh there are some off-site transportation improvements. Um the highway 20 and Ward Road, Hamby Road, uh uh future improvement to the north that be a monetary contribution to ODOT. Um and same for uh Wardro and Bear Creek all the way stopped to the north. That would be a monetary contribution to Dashes County for that improvement. Um that uh there would need to be a southbound left turn uh lane added to the new Wilderness Way roundabout. There is um a round rightway um provided for that. And then

um uh there also is one offsite that isn't noted one here. It's just a left turn lane um off of um onto pedigree or pursel pedigrove down there. And so then um moving on this is the master plan approval criteria. Again, it's consistent with the statewide planning goals um and the band conference of plan map which I just went through that um moves those placeholder plan designations around and it um meets those acreage requirements um that are in those policies stated um as well as the whole school uh policies for um Stevens Road tract in chapter 11 of the comprehensive plan um that it's provides adequate sewer and water capacity which we've touched on. Um and uh there um there are mitigation requirements in that sewer capacity memo that will be implemented with future land use applications. Same with water capacity for Avon and then as I mentioned with transportation analysis. um not only does that include the transportation planning rule those ODA and Dashuites County contributions but also what local impacts here need to um be um made and that is as you're well aware with all these master plans has its own transportation mitigation takeoff and that is at the very end of the proposed code and then the community master plan standards there's four there that must be within half a mile of um land planned, zoned or developed for commercial uses. So, as I mentioned, that main street um CG zone um that all the properties within a half mile of that, but there's also that mixed employment that is down at the south end

um that uh also meets that criteria as well. And then um the multimodal connections we touched on all those uh those um trails and paths um along the higher order streets as well as that local north south local spine the bike lanes are provided in the collectors and arterials um that it uh the housing density and mix rather than the standards within that master plan chapter. it's um superseded by the policies for Stevens Road tract. As I mentioned, it does exceed those um minimum percentage requirements and it does exceed the amount of acreage um provided in the city for indeed restricted affordable housing. And finally, um as I mentioned, 39 acres um of open space was required uh through the comprehensive plan policies as a part of that concept plan iterative process. that was the preferred alternative that was selected. That's actually 15% of the um subject property size. Um and it um but for the master comp master plan requirement um it only requires 10%. So far exceeds the master plan, but does meet that um that uh conferencing planes and uh so the community park um will be um is intended to be managed owned and managed by BPRD. uh the 10 acres um within that 100 foot wide um uh easement on the western boundary that pathway um will be zoned uh public facilities and um within an open space easement um and managed by um the HOA or or privately managed and then an additional 6.5 acres

are are scattered throughout the um master plan area uh that will also be managed by the HOA. All right, you got a deep breath that each um master plan um major master plan has the opportunity to propose specific code deviations in order to achieve the vision for their um their master plan. Um and the the requirements for those that it must meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified that it be necessary due to the specific development type and it mitigates any impacts resulting from the deviation. So the applicant has requested four uh um groupings of deviations. Uh the first one being residential lot sizes, setbacks and lot coverage which I'll go over in the next slide if I want to. um and block length um that they want to provide a greater block maximum block length and block parameter standards that are clear and objective um that um also require midblock corridors and I'll let the applicant speak more to that one. uh the commercial uses and development standards. Um whereas in the CG general commercial zone you can have auto oriented and auto dependent uses and if you um have on street parking you can have 80 80 foot setback. Well, the concept plan um really uh set forth the need for a main street type um commercial area and uh in coordination with the applicant, the city um provided direction that um that in order to meet that objective that there's not um audio or auto oriented like drive-throughs or auto dependent uses that those would be prohibited and they would be restricted

to a 15t maximum setback. So that would allow for, you know, greater patio area or if there's a public utility ament that they have to work around or whatever. Um that uh that would still give you that main street feel, provide a little bit of flexibility, but would not allow let's say parking in front um between the street and then finally um the applicant requested that double frontage lots be allowed along two blocks of Ferguson Road. So where this is coming from is along collectors and arterios. Uh it must be served by a rear alley and the um buildings and the homes must face that higher order street. And so um that is to kind of avoid just a highway where you just have fences down both sides and high speeds along these corridors. It's kind of to to bring that human element to these streets. Um however um those two blocks in particular face directly to the landfill and so in order for these to be served by a local stream um the request is that for those two blocks that double frontage lots would be allowed one the rear property line would abut well be a front property line but their backyards would abut Ferguson road but they could access their property via local So these are the proposed residential code deviations. It shows the typical standard on the left and the proposed code on the right. And so um just to go over the typical standard in the RS zone, it has a 4,000 foot minimum with a 40 foot frontage um uh along the front property line. And the proposal is for a 2500 square foot minimum lot size of a

30 footage minimum. Basically what this proposal is is to match RS to the RM standards because that's what the RM standards are is 2500 foot minimum and 30 foot front. So that was the proposal. For some um context, Stevens Ranch um will approved with 2,800 square foot minimum lot size. Carowway to the north is uh was approved with 2,700 um square foot minimum lot size. So this would be the smallest um RS minimum lot size in the city. Um and but as I mentioned would be matching with our M um underlying RM zone uh currently has. And then for setbacks, um these you've probably seen a fair amount or those of you who knew uh Petrosa, Easton, Stevens Ranch, Careway, all proposed uh setbacks like this where there's a primary front setback and I have typed that eight foot should say secondary, a primary front setback and a secondary front setback. Um, so that like if you're on a quarter, you don't have to have two front set 10 foot setbacks. And then your side and mirror can be four feet instead of five. So these were all adopted in those other master ponds. And then for code deviations, there's a whole lot of um of uh notes here in terms of what is what is allowed in RS and RM zone um in the UN in the citywide standards. But you'll notice that basically RS and RM again are the same. Um they're proposing the same lot coverage requirements. Um and comparing

um from the left to the right, even for um uh RM zone, you'll see that for single unit detached, you're moving from um either 45 or 50, depending if it's single story or not, uh to 60. Whereas anything else. The the plex um are already 60 um and whereas they're removing the maximum 10. So finally um in terms of public or agency participation, the applicant held a neighborhood public meeting um on September 29th and the applicant can get into more of that feedback. Um, and there was public notice posted along Stevens Road as well as on some kind of informal trails where Ferguson Road would be extended. Um and then a public notice was mailed to the property owners addresses within 500 ft and um emailed or mailed to uh Old Farm and Larksburg neighborhood districts um and of course provided um notice to DLCD um and 22 affected agencies and providers um and we specifically reached out to ODOT and the county of course for the transportation analysis regarding the transportation planning rule. We did get a a letter of support from DLCD today that was uploaded today. Um and uh we did receive one letter um from the neighbor um to the West Stevens Ranch developer that is also in the um in the file. And so um you will be making a recommendation as I mentioned two separate motions. you can remember way back in this presentation the con plan policy amendments and then the master plan and then depending on timing

whether you um move forward tonight or later intended the next council public hearing is tenderly scheduled for March 18th um and so we'll take a look at that uh the council will consider the concurrent annexation annexations go straight to council so they will be looking at the master plan the conference of plan policy amendment and the annexation all in hearing and then once that annexation is all complete um then the applicants can submit um administrative land use applications site plan review baseline land and such that's it

thank you Karen and just um as you're wrapping up I'll just u bring the planning commissioner's attention to the two recommended motions that we have on your agenda that Um, as Karen mentioned, we're recommending two different motions, although it's one public hearing. So, public comment and testimony and questions can be directed to the whole package. The two motions are intentional so that your first recommendation to council would be on the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan policies which guide the master plan developments. Then logically, the second motion would be regarding the master plan itself. So, just letting you know that language is in there. um when you're ready for that. Thanks.

Thank you, Karen. Thank you, Renee. Um we can move on. Do we want to ask questions for staff at this point or do we want to move on to the applicant testimony terms of process? That is up to you. The applicant may be able to answer some of the questions that you might otherwise be directing to staff. So, if you want to wait, Karen's always happy to come back up if you I had a quick question. If you have remaining questions for Steph,

I just had a quick question. Um, in case I missed it when I was trying to bring up the old master plan, that kind of stuff, but the So, for the deviations, what was the block length deviation? So, the maximum block length is 6 660t maximum block length. And then the block parameter is based on zoning. And so for residential it's 2,000 whereas uh commercial I want to say 2,640. Um get in there.

And so then the proposal that they have exceeds those. And I know that they would get into detail. Yeah. You're right. Quick question as well on the firewise review by the fire department. Was it Melissa Steel did it? Thank you. Awesome. We'll move on to the applicant testimony.

Good evening. We have a presentation. Let me get that up here. Okay, vice chair uh planning commissioners, thank you uh for your time this evening. My name is Joey Sher. I'm a planner with AKS Engineering and Forestry here in Bend. We are a consultant for the applicant and the developer Hayden Holmes. And we have about 15 slides, so trying to kind of keep it relatively short, anticipating that there will be lots of of questions. Um, the application package that we submitted uh was very nearly 500 pages and we've been coordinating with city staff very closely over just over a year now. Um, and so, uh, very much appreciate Karen's very detailed staff report, the very detailed, uh, presentation that she she gave. She really went into a lot of kind of the more technical details. We're not going to go into that detail. We're we're certainly happy to try and answer any questions about that. Uh, but we'll keep our presentation a little bit higher level. Uh, and so running through about 15 slides and then we'd really request that you direct any sort of questions that you have for for us to us before you close the record. Give us a chance to try and answer any of those questions. Okay. So, the application that is before you this evening is uh a product of more than a year's effort uh by this this team. And so members of our team have coordinated closely like I said with with city staff weekly meetings

basically for the the past year. uh also with the Department of State Lands who is currently the owner of the property uh Ben Parks and Recreation, ODOT, Dashes County, the school district uh among I think many others uh in order to kind of put together this package that we think represents an approvable major community master plan. Uh several members of our team are here this evening. They're listed on this slide. won't go through all of them. Um, but but folks are here. Uh, if we're not able to answer those questions, we can refer to the the technical experts. And I think to kick things off, I'm going to refer the next couple slides to Jen with Hayden Homes.

Great. Thank you. Thanks, Joey. Uh, good evening, vice chair, commissioners. Thank you for your service. Uh, for the record, my name is Jen Kovitz, and I'm the community engagement and government affairs manager with Hayden Holmes. Uh it's been several years since Hayden Holmes has been before the planning commission and so we wanted to take a few minutes to share a little bit about who we are, what our business model is, and what our greater purpose is. So, uh as you may know, we were proudly founded just up the road in Redmond in 1989, and we are still headquartered there. Uh we remain the largest privatelyowned um home builder in the Pacific Northwest and we build across four states, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Uh we proudly serve uh under underserved housing focused cities that are not major metro areas. So, you won't find Hayden Homes in Portland Metro or Seattle Metro, but you will see us proudly in small cities across these states, specifically serving our rural uh communities, including right here in Central Oregon. So, since our founding in 1989, we've built just over 28,000 homes, including over 10,700 homes in Oregon and over 1,900 homes right here in Bend. Uh we are really proud to show up uh in public private partnerships that move towards housing solutions and some of those here in central Oregon include uh central Oregon veteran veterans village which we were proud to to build um during the pandemic. um Redmond's Oasis Village, their low barrier um uh shelter community where which we built alongside Heart of Oregon CPS and the COCCC pre-apprenticeship program. Uh and then uh uh we were grateful to the city of Ben for selecting us uh to build the Parkside

Place community that was uh made possible through House Bill 4079. As it says on the slide here, our business model really looks at the area median income in every community where we build. So, we assess what is affordable for the 100% AMI household in in our communities and we look at whether or not it's possible for us to bring a home to market that meets that area median income without subsidy. And in those housing focused cities like Bend, we're doing just that. And so in Parkside Place right now, yes, you will find deedrestricted housing, including 108 rental units, but you will also find us currently building unsubsidized market rate housing be beginning at just under $438,000. That's for a three-bedroom, two bath, two twocar garage. Uh, and that um is equivalent to what someone in Dashes County earning 81% area median income can afford. So, we're really proud of what we're able to achieve um using this business model. Next slide, please. But that is not our purpose. Our purpose at Hayden Homes is to give as you go of ourselves and of our resources so together we can build a strong community and lead fulfilled lives. And to date, we have made over $80 million in philanthrop philanthropic contributions to nonprofits across the four states where we build. And the flagship of our giving is our own 501c3 Firsttory. And First Story is uh a nonprofit we founded in 1998. And it's really unique among nonprofit housing models because it is a nonprofit lender. So Firsttory provides zero down, zero interest, 30-year mortgages on a brand new Hayden home in one of our Hayden Homes communities. And we've uh built over 126 uh first-story

homes to date. including 15 in Bend. And I'm excited that our 16th uh home in Ben, first story home in Bend uh will be dedicated uh later this summer. Um First Story is something to know about First Story is that it serves only households earning 80% area median income and below. And 100% of our Firsttory households are the are firsttime homeowners. So it's really expanding home ownership opportunities um to this demographic. Also, 80% of our homeowners are the first in their family, first generation to ever own a home. Thanks, Joey. Next slide. Uh, so you've already heard from from Karen that the visionary sale conditions of this tract by Oregon's Department of State Lands were made possible by House Bill uh 3318. So, I'm not going to go back into the history. Thank you Karen again for covering that. Um, I do want to direct I think Karen said DLCD, but there's a letter of strong support from the Department of State Lands, DSL, um, that has been entered into the record today. Uh, Karen also mentioned that we have recently renamed, uh, the community to Legacy Village and we intend that new community name to honor the commitment of the state, the city, the elected leaders, the community who envisioned this land as more than just another development. As Karen mentioned, upon finalization, the proceeds of the sale will go to the common school fund, generating earnings every year that are distributed across Oregon's K through2 public schools. And in addition, you heard there's that substantial percentage of deed restricted housing specifically prioritized for locally employed educators. And so Legacy Village really speaks to the legacy that this community will have of both local and statewide impact for years to come.

This emphasis on educators is also important to Hayden Homes because 15% of those firststory households I mentioned are uh have at least one educator in that household. And so Legacy Village and the prioritization of housing for educators really reflect Hayden Homes long-standing commitment to building homes for our local workforce. And we're really eager to help continue to ensure that in Bend hometown heroes like educators can continue to thrive and have a home that they can actually afford. Next slide, please. Uh uh finally, we just want to thank the city of Bend uh the Oregon State Legislature and the Department of State Lands for setting the foundation upon which we're presenting to you tonight. The previously approved state legislation, the previously approved uh council approved Stevens Road comp plan have really set the table for how we can um be before you today and talk about how we can deliver this complete community. Thank you. Okay. So, uh we'll kind of move into like this area of town before kind of focusing on the master plan. And as mentioned, uh this this project is located at the southeastern edge of the city. The subject property is outlined in yellow there on the slide. It's east of 27th Street between Reed Market um and Stevens Road to the north and and Ferguson Road to the south. It's 261 acres and it butts the east side of the Stevens Ranch master plan which was um approved and annexed in the city I think back in 2021. Um, and as you can see here, and as I'm sure many of you know, there's a lot happening in Southeast Bend. Uh, and you know, with the Southeast Area Plan, with Stevens Ranch master plan. And what that means is that there are a number of these existing and planned destinations.

So, commercial um, recreation, schools, other institutional uses within a close proximity of of this site of Legacy Village. Um and on top of that, Legacy Village is coming in with a master plan that lays a framework for a mix of uses um within this new community to supplement everything that is happening around it. So, here's just a closer look kind of in in you know the property uh aerial relative to to Steven's Ranch. You can see how it how it kind of abuts there the uses in Steven's Ranch um kind of abuting the the boundary with the the subject property. You can see, well, it's a little bit harder to see here, but topography and and vegetation are are pretty standard for um the southeastern part of of town. There are some kind of rock croppings, rockout ccroppings across the site. Uh and if you can see little dots, there are a number of uh juniper trees across the property as well. Now, here is uh the master plan uh overlaid on that aerial with um Steven's Ranch there to the west kind of showing a a consistent and coherent development pattern. And then before we kind of go deeper into the master plan itself, I I do want to just step back for a minute um to kind of talk at a higher level about the the city's master planning requirements. And so like why why a master plan? And it's it's I think important just to to touch on this for a minute. Um you know these are provisions that the city adopted with the 2016 UGB and the idea here is that the the process requires kind of this longerterm planning for public facilities making sure that there's adequate sewer water and transportation infrastructure to sue serve future development and for properties like this 261 acres. This is

a project that's going to be built out over a decade or more uh just based on the size. And so the master plan takes this high level look at infrastructure. It allows refinement and customization of the development standards that guide future development and and hopefully in a holistic way some of the the deviations that that Karen referenced. And then it also provides kind of longer term predictability both for the developer but also for the folks who are living in the area, the neighbors. And so, um, this is a a highle look. Future subdivisions, future site plan reviews will round out th those remaining details, um, about kind of more detailed programming about, you know, the the individual properties, future lots, lot sizes, utility connections, um, and that level of detail. So this is a summary of Steven's road track by the numbers uh between the bill the uh comprehensive plan policies the concept the previously adopted concept plan uh there are a lot of numbers this summarizes some of them uh and it's more complicated than the typical master plan because there is this kind of division between market rate and affordable overall density ities, gross acres and netacres. To your question earlier about the size of the commercial, Karen Karen was exactly right. So the the the comp plan policy requires five gross acres of commercial, but by the time you kind of allocate rights of way, you're left with basically four acres. So it's a net 4 acre commercial site. Um and so this is the summary. So, and this is kind of provided in in net acres, which are it seems to be the measure that's not typical for the city of Ben, but kind of from the comp plan policy in the bill to kind of get to these overall areas and

the overall densities to show compliance with um the house bill. So, I won't go through all of them here. I I'll say that um you know, the the master plan itself is planning for infrastructure to accommodate roughly 2500 homes. uh less than a third of those would be kind of your typical detached single family home, which means twothirds are middle housing and multifamily. And we have kind of these are these are projections based on our layout work, right? Um and so I we've spent a lot of time on this. So we we think this is fairly accurate, but we also recognize that things change over time. uh but a a huge proportion probably greater than any other master plan uh approved by the city of Bend are are focused uh on these other types of of housing other than just detached single family. And then one one thing I'll I'll point out here is that as Karen referenced the the requirements in the bill set out a minimum 20 acres of of land for deed restricted affordable housing that would be conveyed to the the city. And what this plan does is actually provide almost four additional acres nearly 24 acres. I think it's actually 23.8 acres of um of land for to accommodate future affordable housing. Okay. So this is uh Legacy Village. It's a complete community of residential, commercial, and recreational lands providing a range of housing types for households of different size, age, and income. Uh, the original concept plan had most of that multifamily and affordable housing. I don't know if you can see my mouse kind of a little bit too small. Um but that that multif family and

affordable housing was primarily clustered kind of through the middle and then along the north which is page right. Uh I had to rotate the the plan to fit on the slide. Um, but this plan, you can see, attempts to disperse that range of housing types uh across the community and and kind of tie them all together with this network of these wider multi-use paths that both ring around the perimeter of Legacy Village, but also run east, west, and north, south um through the middle of the community. The blue dashed lines represent those sites that we're anticipating um would be the lands that convey to the city to to accommodate future affordable housing. Um and so you can you can see how all these things are are tied together are connected. Um the the Karen made the comment earlier on kind of the the change to the um open space the the um the the park land area and effectively what we've done kind of through our our iterations of these layouts uh for a number of different reasons. You know, we're we've basically flipped the commercial and the park to opposite sides of Wilderness Way. It puts the park uh in a little bit more of a central location, a little further away from the planned parks in uh Stevens Ranch to the west. And then it also accommodates uh we're we're able to kind of capture probably the the most pronounced rock outcropping across the entire property within uh that park area. Uh which, you know, in our coordination with BPRD made them very happy. they're, you know, they've got some years ahead of them to do all of the park planning to figure out the programming for this site, but what they told us is that it would likely be some mix of natural area and and fields. And so having that topography uh was great.

We we gave them maps um kind of put put them um in an app that allowed them to kind of look at the site plan as they were out on the site on their phones. and um we got an email back from them that their landscape ar architects gave us uh two two thumbs up was the quote uh for kind of this this updated park location. So this approach to land and transportation planning is intended to really help connect neighbors together and connect homes with these commercial uh and recreation areas. Um, I have two boys, six and nine. And I think the idea here is creating this kind of path network that I would be comfortable sending them out to ride across the neighborhood to their friend's house on the other side or to to meet their friends at the park to, you know, throw a frisbee or play football. So, this is a graphic that comes from the city of Bend. And just to kind of put into clear or more concrete terms what these AMI levels really mean. Again, just to go through this, Karen, um Karen summarizes, but it's important. At least 20 net acres of land to be conveyed to the city for affordable housing. And again, at least six acres uh to households with incomes at 80% AMI or less. So kind of that that pink bar towards the the bottom of the slide. 12 acres uh for households with incomes of of 60% AMI. Right? So, these are folks in our community who are nursing assistants, recreation uh workers, restaurant servers, people work working in the in the fitness industry at our our local gyms. and then two acres kind of as as a subcategory

um for that kind of 80% AMI level again prioritizing employees of the school district in in uh compliance with fair housing rules. And so while the the bill and the comp plan require this minimum 20 acres, I do want to reiterate again that this master plan is providing nearly four additional acres um basically for free to the city to accommodate additional affordable housing. So, the key takeaways again, as Karen mentioned, as Jen mentioned, House Bill 3318 uh was specifically intended to address the acute housing crisis specifically in Ben. That was why that bill was specifically targeted only for the city of Bend and this need for affordable and workforce housing. And so, we have a a plan here that is consistent with the bill. It's consistent with the the comprehensive plan with with some um some I think what we would consider kind of marginal or minor changes to kind of make what we're talking about actually feasible. Uh and it's a complete community with commercial opportunities with these type multiple types of housing including market rate and affordable on land that would be conveyed to the city. Um, in coordination with BPRD, we have recreational opportunities, a large uh public park, some some smaller pockets of open space kind of spread right throughout the community. We have a a multimodal transportation system, which was another key element uh from the the concept plan and the plan policies. And then uh as Karen touched on and we can get into more if there are additional questions. This project is providing a lot of regional transportation and other infrastructure beyond what is just necessary to serve

this site, but really infrastructure that will benefit um kind of all the the folks who would be living and working in the southeast area in the future. So, with that, we anticipate there's some some questions and our team is here to to try and answer those as best we can. So, again, please before you um close the record and begin your del deliberations, give us a chance to answer any questions that you might have. Yeah, let's go ahead and start with that. Do you guys have any questions that you want to start with?

I've got a few. Uh I hear residential identity. what in order to make that kind of uh that density what how high are the buildings or like what kind of style buildings are we looking at? So again, we don't know that for sure, right? That that is the level of detail that would have we'd have with um a future site plan review. But just based on what you see around town at these density levels, the market rate affordable would probably be in that three to four story range for the multifamily. I would like to dig in on the traffic analysis, but I will let anybody else go up. Other questions? I

think we can just like go down the line then. Right. Okay. Yeah. Um All right. I I actually read the whole traffic analysis and um so I would like to declare I'd like to clarify a few things. So first of all, it looked to me like this the traffic counts were taken at peak hours which is 4 to 6 p.m. Am I correct? So we'll have Joe Bestman with Trans Site who did all of the traffic engineering um speak to these questions. Correct.

All right. All right. I appreciate that that that that done at peak hours. I did notice it was done in July, which is no school in session and some some were done while school was in session. It was a it was a whole mix and it was trying to work around detours and construction and everything else. Picked up on that. So, how much is that construction? How much are these detours affecting like normal traffic patterns?

Another great question. So I had the privilege of working on Cap and BPRD and Caldera Ranch and everything around here. So I have lots of traffic counts from different time periods. So I was able to take those put those together. Yes, there were July counts. I looked back at the not July counts and you know looked at looked at how that affects things. So I think we have a really good sampling of of typical conditions here especially when you get close to like high desert middle school and stuff. We we certainly are accounting for their their impacts.

Okay. Um there's a I know so I know you had like what two years before I think you had done a previous traffic count you had you had a few a few numbers on your table different traffic counts for the same intersections different time periods. Okay. And so a lot of them because of the detours or whatever was going on were actually lower which may probably isn't representative of current because we've added more homes and other developments since that time. So um

I've got some very recent counts from the journey master plan that's still ongoing that hasn't been formally submitted. But when you see that one you'll see that everything's pretty consistent even with those newer counts that are reflective of the detours. So, I think the counts are going to be pretty pretty accurate.

Okay. And I was trying to get I was trying to understand how the different projects there there's a lot of projects planned in this area. And so, how are all of these working together to come up impacting the traffic analysis? because I mean this this is a major development and it's next to a lot of major developments and one thing I would really hate to subject our residents to is we're going to make every we're going to make little incremental changes so everything's under construction for the next 20 years.

Yeah, that's a great question too and you know really even before we started our traffic analysis the city took on their assessment of how conditions would work. It was really an update to the city's transportation system plan, looking at this regional model, taking Stevens Ranch and the southeast area plan plus Stevens track to figure out how the system would operate. Their analysis showed that everything worked pretty well other than a couple a couple pinch points which we've addressed in our study. The big question that came out of their study was timing. And that's been if if you read the report, most of the focus on on our report too is okay, well, how is it going to work when you have this connection or this connection plus this connection but not this one? And that was that was a lot of the back and forth iterations um that we had to look at all those different scenarios. And and I and I think what you'll what you'll see is

our conditions duplicate a lot of the conditions on Steven's ranch. You know, there's there's a lot of big infrastructure improvements. Realigning Stevens Road, for example, with Reed Market Road, rebuilding Reed Market and 27th as that multi-lane roundabout, the Ferguson Road roundabout, which is currently under construction by by the Dow team. If if they don't build it, we have to after they build it, we have to come back in a number of years and actually expand it and add some additional lanes. And so it's important that in their conditions which also say you know to accommodate expansion that that expansion is actually accommodated. So it's a very very complex traffic. But what I can say is when it's all said and done there's miles of new arterial streets, collector streets, several new roundabouts, expanded roundabouts, and this is all dovetailing in with the city's transportation go bond projects of grade separating Reed Market Road and rebuilding Ferguson round. So there's there's a lot going on together. There's there's still questions we're going to get into in these compliance reports. When we actually have a subdivision come forward, we have to say, "Okay, now that we have a 100 units coming in, how is this going to connect? How how do our bike paths and sidewalks and and streets actually connect?" And and and how do we look at this in terms of what has been built and what's been planned with within this this overall checklist of improvements? So, there's there's more traffic yet to come.

Oh, boy. Um, so they, so I know some some of these were like there this intersection is going to meet need until it's 60% buildout, for example, was one of the one of one of the thresholds I saw. Um, so are these things going to be built incrementally is the plan? And yeah, like like every master plan, you're you're going to see improvements coming with bases.

No one can afford to go out and build all these miles of roads and roundabouts at once, unfortunately. And and Stevens Ranch isn't required to. They have they have a separate approval and entitlement that doesn't require that they build wilderness way to our boundary and actually have a connection until those adjacent phases connect. So there's a number of thresholds that we just can't know until until those those future applications are prepared and brought forward. Okay. And so how is the how is this traffic analysis moving forward? What how does that work?

Yeah. So what we did was we looked at okay what happens at full buildout. Okay. Here's here's all the things that pop and those are mostly on the screen now. And then we look at these these transportation triggers of okay at what point do we have to take this single lane round roundabout and make it into a multi-lane roundabout. At what point we have to take Ward Road as a as another lever we can pull and bring Ward Road all the way up to Stevens Road to have another way to get traffic out. And so that's what you're going to see in that transportation mitigation table. There's a requirement that with every subsequent application that we actually come in when we have you know the streets planned the units identified we come in and say okay now how does this comply with with what we said in these in these phasing and mitigation timing scenarios.

So this will this kind of gets re-evaluated at each development phase edition. Okay. to make sure that the assumptions basically in the original traffic studies still hold based on how this project actually gets phased over time.

Okay. Um, another thing I was noticing was that there was kind of like a onem radius on the traffic count which you did acknowledge also that a lot of traffic doesn't stay within one mile. Um, so there's and if it did go up toward like Highway 20, um, what about Reed Market? I am imagining a ton of that traffic is heading toward the highway and most of it's going to head use Reed Market.

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So, there's there's again the two the two different layers. When the city looks at this land, they look at the regional model and they look at those those big arterial roads and collectors and try and figure out what are the long-term needs from all this population employment growth going in. We then have to comply with Ben Development Code 4.7, 400, and 500. That says our study has to be limited to a onem radius. And so we take a closer look at what is what is the what is the near-term impacts on those on those localized connections. In working with ODOT, for example, ODOT doesn't have a onem restriction. So ODOT's comments were, well, you're going to have impacts all the way down the Highway 20 corridor. So working with ODOT, we pulled all those different impacts and said, "We're going to not just give you money, but we're going to actually build another turn lane on that US20 and Ward Road, Hamby Road when we when we meet these different triggers."

Okay, so that's what you see with a lot of this. It's a lot of it's a lot of pool improvements. And you have to remember too, not only do you see these roundabouts and roads on on the screen, but beyond that, there's $10,000 per single family home that goes towards citywide improvements. $5,500 for every multif family unit that goes towards citywide improvements. Those are the the funds that are used to then contribute towards some of those larger regional improvements in the city's transportation system plan. Okay. You're talking about SDC's. Yes.

Um All right. It was RE market scheduled for May. Well, I I don't know how long that's going to be shut down, but that's massive. So, how is that timing going to impact the development?

And that's another great question because we have a we have a roundabout at Broster House and not we have a roundabout at Ferguson. We have a roundabout Ferguson 15. We have an overcrossing. So, and then at some point we have a roundabout at at Reeden 27th. You start putting all this together and we're already talking to city staff about how are we going to sequence all these construction projects. We can't shut off the landfill. We can't we've got to have ways for people to get around in some of these locations, especially if you look at 27th and Reed Market Road, if you guys are all familiar with that one. There is no detour there. There is no easy way to do a a shoe fly around it. So, some of these are going to be really impacted and and so right now we don't have design plans. We we don't know what those construction detours are going to look like, but we're already working with with with Ben and and the engineering team at the city trying to figure out how can we sign up for this lot of time to start, you know, working on these different infrastructure improvements. The good thing for this project is most of our work in the early phases is going to be outside of those major corridors. It's going to be like taking the Ferguson Road extension and and and building that. So, I I think that'll that'll bode well for for this project.

Okay. Well, with that Stevens Road um Rem Market extension go in, that seems like it would be a big improvement. It's going to be a big improvement, but it you you can't realign Stevens Road with Reed Market until you fix the intersection itself. And that's going to be a tough improvement with rightaway impacts and and residential house impacts. Isn't the road already graded there though? Reed Market to extend Reed Market to Ferguson. It's pretty flat, but there's a number of utilities. You have the canal crossing. It's been all cleared and cleared. Yep.

And it all is there and goes. So you're saying that won't happen until the changes are done to Reed Market. The rightway is not there either. So you you still have to require a ride of way and it's it's gonna be thought of that before they built that Reed crossing. We actually I was I was part of that too and it was thought about and uh it was recognized that it was so far out and it wasn't on any plans because Steven's Ranch hadn't been annexed and Steven's tract hadn't been annexed and so that was I believe another Hayden Homes development. No, I'm sorry. I'm talking the residential to the northeast. Uh not the not the commercial one.

Okay. So all right but I I guess to summarize then that that the traffic studies are looking are including the future other ongoing and planned developments and and so this is more of a comprehensive plan than just looking at this track's impact on traffic.

Okay. Thank you. Uh just adding on to that then I just wanted to ask about the pedestrian connection to the schools because there's an elementary school in Stevens Road and then there's the High Desert Middle School and I guess even Caldera from that standpoint. Um Caldera might be too far certainly too far for high school students to walk but

so right now the plan is to have a multi-use trail that would come in with the Ferguson Road extension. So you'd have a pathway back to the Ferguson and 27th roundabout. That roundabout provides a a crossing on on all four legs that connects to the High Desert Middle School. That pathway that comes down the utility line goes to High Desert Middle School as as part of a separate effort than SEAP. We're trying to prioritize getting a multi-use pathway on not as you guys know around the curve south of south of where Rickard Road comes in. It gets really narrow. It's steep. There's about a 6 in shoulder. Mhm.

So that's that's really where we're trying to prioritize getting the rest of that trail system east and the polish development is already bringing part of that caldera connection east to us. So we're we're trying to get the rest of it going and internally then the paths that you have would connect to that the elementary school as well. They would that wilderness way has a multi-use path on both sides and the elementary school site is on the north side of Wilderness Way. app and the main path that you show there on the western boundary, that's actually the gas pipeline, right?

It's a 100 foot wide open space. Um, yes. And so there's this corridor that was planned for in the the original concept plan and now we're going to be bringing that to life.

Okay. Um, the park the concept plan with the park we had clustered the highdensity residential around that because of having that open space. So reducing the setbacks but putting all of the higher density residential now some of it has moved away from there but there's still the requirement for these much smaller setbacks. Um and what is the thought there about livability for people?

Um so so good question. So the the city within their um requirements for multifamily in the residential zones each of those individual um new communities multif family communities have to provide a certain amount of open space even within that boundary. That's in addition to the 15% open space right which exceeds the the standard 10% for master plans. Um so between the neighborhood park, the trail corridor connections, um future open space provided in each of these multifamily communities, there's going to be a lot more open space here in this master plan um than than most other master plans uh approved across the city. And the I I got lost in Karen's presentation about the uh master plan, the comp plan criteria for the master plan versus the comp plan criteria for this particular legacy whatever we're calling it now legacy village. Is that what it is? Uh so there were additional requirements specifically for this property and those requirements are still in effect right even though the master plan general if you're going to do a master plan you got to do this have to do more than that for this plan.

So the city with the the various UGB expansions have typically adopted specific plan policies that apply to each of these um specific specific areas. We are proposing as part of this application um some some what we would consider minor changes to kind of make this I think more realistic but otherwise yes complying with the comp plan policies for this area as well as the the policies that apply generally for master plans.

Okay. But okay uh and then what is the um reduction of highdensity residential from 480 to 300? Why why such a significant reduction? So the idea there is trying to provide the same so we're providing the same number of units across the entire project but trying to achieve that in what we would consider a little bit gentler density. So instead of having what what we would argue for market rate housing is maybe not the the most realistic 40 units an acre here at the very edge of town. We don't think the market can support that today. We we've come up with a a program here that can still achieve the same housing mix and the same number of units but with lower densities kind of spread across more of the site

but still meets the same number of housing units. Correct. And the same density requirements in the bill. Okay. Can I follow up on her question? Yeah. All right. So, how does this tie in with the the reduction on the lot size of the residential standard density?

So, there's a couple ways to to do this, right? So, and I'm not sure the best way to explain this, so let me try and if I'm not answering your question, please kind of follow up or ask for clarification. So what we're proposing to do is basically blend the standards between the RS and RM zones to basically apply the RM zone across the entire RS and RM areas within this master plan. We thought doing that uh provided a kind of more transparency for for future neighbors, for future residents here. There's an alternative path that we could have gone down. The comp plan policies allow for a decrease in the amount of RS with corresponding increases in RS and or RM and RH. We thought just like making everything RM was a little bit it just didn't kind of clarify where these different housing types would be located. So, we're trying to match up uh what we're planning for lower density in the RS areas, a little bit higher density in the RM. So, we've elected to keep the RS and RM. Um, but the development standards should apply universally. There's nothing really magic about the the distinctions between RS and and RM. You know, typically the city has these zones because there's different density standards that come with them uh that allows for forecast of housing need um and and kind of densities and infrastructure impacts. here the individual density requirements of the RSRM and RH zone don't really matter because the bill sets out these higher level you shall provide this minimum number of units with this housing mix and so we're we're meeting the density that way um so kind of the RS and RM distinctions as far as development standards it's like a distinction without a real difference in

this in this scenario really not actually different. I mean, correct because we're also I mean, this is a cohes this is a master plan community, so we're not we're less worried. I mean, the other reason why you'd have a different development standards between RS and RM is to make sure that there aren't like very drastic kind of types of housing next to each other at these zoning boundaries. And here because we're kind of planning that comprehensively, that's just less of a concern because we have one master developer who's kind of looking at the RSR um together and figuring out how with each phase they can provide the the right mix of of housing and density.

Could I kind of repeat this back to you just to make sure I kind of understand what you're talking about? So, we have residential standard zoning and we have medium residential zoning. And in this proposal, we're looking to have a basically a similar housing density between the two products, but we're looking to have like the different zoning kind of reflect like the single like like the detached and the attached is kind of like

along those lines. There there probably there's still going to be just based on the number of flexes and town homes required by the comp plan and the bill. Um, there is going to be some of that higher density within the RS also, but generally, yeah, I mean, we're trying to create a a scheme here where you have lower density in the RS, a little bit higher density in the RM, but there's not a need for a different kind of setback standard between those two. Okay. So, we're looking at like having more like mixes of the town homes and the single family.

Exactly. This is a huge project. It's going to be built out over a decade or more. And one thing that we're trying to think through is as this develops in phases, can we get a good mix of housing type within each phase which helps each phase kind of build out and sell more quickly because there's a a variety of housing there. Thank you, Susan. Yep. So, um I want to ask about the commercial and we've had difficulty with master plans and commercial and what we thought we were approving and what we got. I don't know if Hayden Holmes, do you develop commercial on your developments?

Yeah. Um we we have every intention of uh developing this commercial or partnering to develop this commercial as the plan as the plan states. Um the the city we are conveying to the city 24 acres of uh of land for deedrestricted affordable housing and we don't expect there to be a need for additional uh acreage beyond that. Also given the number of units in this community almost 2500 the need for commercial is real and and and we expect to need to meet that. So um given you know it's five gross for net acres of commercial over 260 acres it's it's pretty minimal and again the the need uh the analysis would suggest that that it's it's necessary. two and a half people per home. Is that the number that you use for

not necessarily.3? So 7 7,000 people. Yeah. And I I mean I think that's true, right? Any I think all of these master plans anticipate this commercial area as being an amenity. I think commercial can be challenging to develop, especially at the edge of uh the city. But I think um what we've heard from Hayden is that they're they see it as an amenity. And so if we can if we can get the rooftops to support the commercial and the commercial can come online, uh it only benefits the community.

And you know, Hayden Holmes has really heard what this um commission has said. We've heard what city council has said and we're actually actively working with and communicating with city council to figure out what a a citywide long-term uh solution is to ensuring commercial viability and we are as invested in that as as you all because that helps us sell homes quite frankly. We're going to start working on a separate thing about commercial but but and I don't know if we adopt this master plan tonight or recommend to the city council then that means it falls under the old rules right? No. No.

No. um they under state statute they the rules in effect on the date they submit an application for development of those properties are what would be binding upon that that land that that zoning or with within that development application. So no this does not vest um future changes to either state law or our development code. I think the other thing that is distinct here is that we are bound not only by a concept plan but also by state legislation, right, that has very specific rules about commercial development. So there's that added, you know, yeah, it's definitely different than um master plans that aren't bound by legislation.

It's bound to have a certain acreage of zoning of commercial zoning. Correct. Yes. But I think the issue is the commercial zoning has been diluted kind of or you can circumvent it. Um I was I was kind of wondering why uh so we talked about the park flipping uh to capture some ASI uh area. That's pretty cool. The rock out carving. Um I was about the commercial and and it I'm looking at the old one.

Mhm. and it was, you know, similar to the strip along the community park and then uh and then most of the Emmy zone was located in the southwest corner and this one it's split up and just thoughts of why and how that

so with that original concept plan I don't kind of going I wasn't directly involved in that process but kind of going back to see what some of the deliberations were around that I don't think there was any sort of idea about like how that project would be phased. They were also kind of basing this concept plan on conditions, market conditions at that time on um market. they did get some market studies but having gone through that same process uh with public sector and private sector those are kind of guesses and so what what we have done is try to take that concept it's not set in stone yet but we believe it's most likely that this project is going to to be phased and developed from south to north and so trying to again get a mix of housing to help the overall project be built built faster, be more successful for those housing units to be absorbed more more quickly because there is a range of housing um kind of available in each in each phase as opposed to having it all kind of in the middle phases or all at the end phases in the in the middle or the north of the project.

Could you expand on that? That's kind of counter to what intuitively I would have thought would have thought you'd start the north and go south. It's where infrastructure is available. Yeah. Just one last comment and that is the discussion somebody said about well the houses on the south end are going to be looking at the landfill but the landfill is not going to be there very much longer. So it's going to actually be something more aesthetic I assume once the landfill is closed. So, does that affect that idea of putting everybody's back to that property?

We don't control the timing of that. We don't know what it's going to look like. You're going to develop that in the future and that's going to be among the first phases of development most likely. Okay. Yeah. I also see sometimes where you have these major roads and the houses are facing it and and it's like these front doors that you know no one's ever going to use and then the it's it's a weird weird situation.

Okay, that's it. Thank you. Um what's with the there's like some in the right there in the lower right and then mid left there's some squares and that uh affordable housing kind of jogs. Is that is that for infrastructure things? Exactly. So we know um that across this site we're anticipating that based on sewer basins we're going to need two lift stations to allow the full site to to sewer. And so if you can see the mouse there, is that one of the squares that you're asking?

Yeah. Yeah. And I think one of them, the dash line jogged around it and one of them didn't. Yep. So the the lift stations are there. Um they're going to be used to also provide sewer for um the multif family as as well as uh the single family. Up here at the northeast corner, there's also a need. Avon has communicated a need for a water holding tank. It's actually not to benefit this property. It's most likely to benefit properties to the north, but this is a location where they need it. And so that is the larger square that's there um at the very northeast corner. Properties are all uphill from there. Okay.

Yeah. This is where Avon is has asked for. Yeah. And then uh if we could talk about the the was it the block length or the block perimeter that was the deviation.

So so part of that is um recognizing and there's a couple there's a couple different kind of categories. And so let me talk kind of most broadly. Part of this is with this um 100 foot wide open spail open space corridor running through there and recognizing where street connections in Stevens Ranch have already kind of been at least conceptually approved. There's just not opportunities to meet the block length standards based on a budding development up against the west side of the project. So So that's one issue. The o other issue another issue is that these larger um multifamily sites so under the existing concept plan and comp plan language um it it contemplates these six acre um RH sites to be conveyed for affordable housing. Well, if you take a six acre site, you can't actually put a road around it and meet block length. this that that six acres is larger than what what block length the current the city's current block length requires would would meet. So that becomes another another constraint. um where we have elected to um exceed block length and we think it's a a better plan is for example here with these series of four blocks kind of at the southeast corner where based on destinations um you know traffic from these um from these blocks are going to be either most likely filtering to the west down the um kind of the main north south street. So there's not really an opportunity for a lot of outofdirection travel by having a longer block here. And we're still providing a midblock pedestrian and bicycle connection that would get local people

traveling, you know, potentially to a future destination here on the ME site. Um, so we have a couple of blocks that are that are larger. Um, and and primarily that's also to get traffic. So the and maybe Joe can speak to this a little bit if there's more technical questions, but trying to create this um, north south street that runs through the entire community as kind of an analog to wilderness way. They're both technically, I guess, local streets. They're not they're not for the TSP a higher order street, but we've designed this for them to function more like a neighborhood collector, even though that's not technically a category that exists. And so we're we're trying to get traffic to flow on these kind of neighborhood collector streets rather than really kind of filtering um through the smaller blocks. And that allows us that helps with phasing. It helps kind of create these kind of micro communities within this larger 261 acres. Um, and from a function standpoint, it it doesn't generate um much out of direction travel.

I ask one more transportation question. There's a stub in the upper what would be the southwestern corner there. Is there a road across there in Stevens? There's not. So that's why it doesn't connect all the way through. It's basically a road to provide frontage for future lots that would be kind of backing to to Ferguson. So from a fire life safety standpoint, that's a pretty large area with I I guess there's another road that comes out to whatever. Is that Ferguson? Is that called Ferguson there at that west side? So there's a a road that comes out of Ferguson. Okay.

Correct. Yeah. And so we've we've gone through this um you know obviously coordinated with with city fire separate from some of the wildfire comments or questions. And so making sure that we don't have dead ends that are longer than 150 ft to kind of allow for emergency access recognizing that over the buildout of this project we're going to need to provide two points of access whether we have one formal kind of usable access and at the very least a secondary emergency access. Um, so all of that, you know, we're accounting for all of that in this plan. Anything else, Scott?

Um, I was just looking at the road sections for that north south spine. Um, there's no bike lanes on that. And then it's got a 8 foot and a six foot path along there. I was just kind of it seems like so it's a local street that will have a higher a wider multi-use path on the west side. And so for local streets typically you'd have bicycles that were in the street. They they'd be in kind of sharing space with with vehicle shared lanes

because on the wilderness way the going east west that one has that's got 10 foot um sidewalks on each side and then two in the bike lanes going each direction 12 foot uh travel lanes. Yeah. And then I I guess the north south local spine also says 12 to 18 ft and is that is that that it shrinks down in certain places? It could be to to accommodate parking, but the intent is if you're going north south on a bike through this, you would be doing it on the 8ft pathway.

You would be doing it on the 8ft pathway or or in the lane like any other local street. Okay,

hit on the block parameters back and block parameters because I didn't go into the details in the presentation. Uh so um as I mentioned the underlying maximum block length and block perimeters vary by by zone and some of these blocks involve multiple zones um and so um 2 millt for residential blocks and then um 2,640 for non um basically with a CG and and me. Uh so um there is a discretionary track in the existing code that allows you to exceed those as long as you provide a um midblock access corridor, but it's open-ended. There's neural to that to that extension. And so we work with with the applicant um to make these more clear and objective because that's what we're really getting um to with particularly a residential development. And so um looking at their master plan um what are those maximum block lengths um that are not exceeded now north end they're pretty close as you can see on the west um excuse me yeah north on the south end is where they're exceeded um where they're exceeding the citywide um maximums and so the clear and objectives standards that they're proposing is code deliations to put into the legacy village code is a maximum block length of,200 uh feet and it for any block length that's exceeded 800 ft then a midblock access cord is required at least every 660 ft and then from block perimeter uh 3,000 uh lineal foot maximum and for any block perimeter that exceeds that 2640 ft that they must uh provide a um pedestrian corridor. Um it

doesn't apply as he mentioned to uh that these RH properties um although we may be able to

to get that corridor in a future site plan review um and it doesn't apply um to in terms of roadways to the west um as they're showing the local street connections where Steven's Ranch is showing connections to this property but the southern um uh end of Steven's Ranch um south of Wilderness Way is all indust land with no road connections. That's the way it is in the master plan bay. We don't know what it will be in the future. So depending on who goes first, if Steven Ranch builds um something other than industrial in the future that builds a local street to this um to this boundary, then this master plan would be required to meet those block parameters in the um in this adopted code uh to u reach that Steven's ranch boundary. Um so um and then uh also in that southern section that uh there would need to be a pedestrian corridor from um these blocks every

800 ft so that you wouldn't have to go all the way around block to get to the trail. Thank you. Scott, anything else? Uh no, no. I just I think that one the RH next to the park seems like it's it's got the RS zone making it so that there are no poke through and just trying to figure out it looks like it's like about a th00and ft deep my scale right so this like like that that that RH that whole thing will get

essentially one access point. There will be a secondary fire access and somewhere, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a full street connection to meet the fire code. Okay. Okay. Cuz I know I mean when you're going in through land use for that. You'll have to have fire by off on it. But I was just I'm just imagining that the a strip of homes built along the RS zone and then so there would we'd have to account for space there. I mean this is also kind of the It is. Yeah. It's also the minimum, right? So, in in the original concept plan, for example, the commercial area shows like a street going through the middle of it.

If a future commercial developer thought, hey, our commercial site is more viable by actually having a local street come through there, then they could certainly elect to do that as long as there was compliance with city standards. Same for these these RH sites. We're trying to preserve as much flexibility to facilitate as much as possible success on these sites into the future. Gotcha. All right. Um, this has been great. Uh, Jen, I really appreciate your, uh, opening remarks regarding the history and the values of Eden Homes, specific to commercial. A lot of sensitivity, a lot of uncertainty,

um, a lot of concern. I think what would uh be very well received by many quarters used um I think mentioned Hayden's intent to retain control maybe not developing themselves but joint development would be a public formal statement from the leadership of Hayden Holmes that that is exactly what uh Hayden Holmes intends to follow through on. So, um, ledge

and again coming from Hayden Holmes, I think that would carry a lot of weight and alleviate a lot of concern.

Um, I commissioner, I I really appreciate that and noted. I can't speak for exact right now, but I I hope that so Parkside Place very very different admittedly in terms of scope, but you know, I I hope that commission and and the city council will will see um kind of a proof of concept of proof of our word there. We the House Bill 4079 for Parkside Place requires a 30% um deed restricted affordable and we delivered 40%. um we met that first phase, you know, 108 units are being built. You can see them going up right now of that first phase affordability. And so, totally agree that this is sensitive and and again, we're actively trying to help um bring together subject matter experts to speak to council about about this. Um and I I I hope that uh projects like Parkside Place can show um when when we state intent, we will meet we can meet or exceed it in the case of Parkside Place.

Right. So I'm old I'm old-fashioned and uh certain individuals organizations um when they say something their word is their bond. I think that's the reputation that uh Hayden Holmes has earned. Uh, so that request is not tied to approval or conditions, but I'm just making that uh plea. I I appreciate that. And there's several staff here and we are happy to relay that. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Commercial was taken out of Parkside Place, right? There was no commercial in Parkside Place.

No, I'm that's why I said they're very different. What I'm saying is when in terms of delivering on aspects that are written in the plan, I'm using affordability, affordable housing. I'm not it's apples to oranges. I fully I'm not trying to claim there's commercial and parkside where there isn't. I'm just saying that there's a a commitment to meeting or exceeding expectations wherever possible. You Yeah. And thank you. I will relay that. Anything else? Well, that's it. I think you can do

um in the sales contract there's a restriction for education housing and it's at least one of the six acre parcels and one of the one acre acre parcels is that going to be like is that already designated and how is that going to be like played out? So the and I'll let city staff speak to this, but Hayden's obligation is to convey this land to the city and then the city I would presume would have an RFP or some sort of process to partner with an affordable developer um to kind of actualize these requirements.

Rene, do you want to speak more to that? No point accurately represented as written in the policy. I'm just trying to find exactly how it's worded. I probably won't find it in time, but Joey's correct. So, when that land is conveyed to the city, we will go through our process. Obviously, we don't build housing ourselves. So, we'll need to partner with the developer and then carry out the requirements of the bill to the extent allowed by law. Is the developer being the applicant here?

Don't know. But that was also one of the reasons why we have elected to go beyond just that six acre per RH site is trying to kind of the way we understand the affordable housing market. Make that land um more attractive to a range of affordable developers. Some so smaller sites, larger sites and then still a site that's at that sixacre range. Uh my other question was was there any like consulting with fire safety in the proposed amendment to have the setback be 4 feet instead of five?

Um not specifically because it's been adopted in multiple other master plans where where we have um previously had those conversations. there's proof of concept um with that working uh and you you actually only kind of trigger the the building fire code provisions if you were to to say reduce the setbacks further once it's you have structures within 3 ft of property lines that's where you start to trigger building codes that lead to fire curious does changing that essentially making them more dense does that require you change building materials or anything to for residential

fire doesn't after. Yeah. Any additional questions to staff or to the applicant before we move on to public comment? Um, one main question for staff is the five acres of commercial that's compliant with house bill. That's the house bill requirement. Correct. I believe so. I'm just looking for that policy as well. I don't think there's an actual acreage specified just says adequate um commercial land and so that came from several iterations of the um concept and so that preferred alternative had five acres.

Yeah. That's a policy decision made by city council not something from the bill itself. So that is in policy 1160 which was reflective of the concept plan that council preferred.

Okay. Legal question. Since this house bill requires commercial, would that how would that conflict with the other bill that requires this? The city shall allow affordable housing in commercial zones. And I'm just going to point out that without the commercial, there's a whole bunch of other goals in this project that would not be met. I mean, you would not you would not be meeting your climate goals if and you're reducing your car trips without local commercial.

I would argue that this like this isn't meeting it. Sorry. I would also argue that five acres is just not enough to meet any of the goals for it. So that's a just to be clear that's a 5 acre CG but there's seven acres of me which also allow for for um employment and commercial uses. I believe there's some other commercially zoned property lo near nearby. Yeah.

Um but the problem that the the the real problem that I have is that it's saying that it's it's zone BD development code 4.5.200 E um it we the in terms of land use approval we have to that zoning commercial meets the commercial requirement. However, it doesn't actually because commercial zoning does not necessarily mean commercial property, commercial activity. I hate to interrupt you, but this does sound more deliberation than it does.

Fair point questions. So, um, unless you unless we have any I think it started out with a a legal question on how students.

So, I I think that that is a question. So, let me let me jump in if I'm if I'm remembering 3318, right? The legislation that kicked this all off. What it calls for are sufficient area I'm reading from the bill. Sufficient areas designated for mixeduse development to support and integrate viable commercial and residential uses along with transportation options including walking, bicycling, and transit use. I think that is the only time that the word commercial is used in the whole bill. The comp plan policies which come out of the concept plan. The bill was 2021. The concept plan was approved in 2022. The comp plan was amended in 2024. Sort of follow along um is the comp plan policy that calls for 5 acres of commercial designation. So to your point, there's land designation and then there's the ways in which that can ultimately develop. They are not, as we have seen lately, all they've never been necessarily the same thing, but they're even maybe less the same thing than we used to think. So it's all followed along.

Um, but I think it's worth pointing out the legislation doesn't specifically call for commercial land designation. And it calls for sufficient areas designated for mixeduse development to support and integrate viable commercial and residential uses. So one the ball bounces from there to the concept plan to the to the comp plan amendments and then to this. Thank you.

I guess I have one last question before I'll move on to public comment. Uh just because I want to fill out my little timeline notes. Um, so it's going to take like 10 years to build all this out after we put shovels in the ground for the first residential unit. Um, assuming we move forward the way we one would expect it may move forward depending on the results of tonight and council. Um, when do you think you'll start building the first unit?

Um, so that's a good question. So obviously there's additional process, right? So if the master plan were to be approved after that then it's tenative subdivision and or site plan review preparing those plans going through the city review process to get an approval before then we start on construction drawings. Uh I don't have that timeline uh here in front of me but we can we can try to answer that when we come back. Okay. Before or after read market overpass instruction. Okay. Before, during, and after.

Uh, thank you very much. Um, we'll go ahead and move into public testimony. Um, we I have one person that has um requested to comment in person. Do we um while we're doing that, we can wait for any hands remotely and then

Thank you. I do see one hand already raised online and I think maybe Kayn's trying to Yep, there's the guidance. For anyone else who's watching online, if you want to speak during public testimony, please select the raise hand icon in Zoom so that we know that you wish to speak. I'm still just seeing one raised hand at the moment. So, it's um up to you, vice chair, if you want to start in person or online. Uh let's start online if they're ready. So, Barbara, you're okay. Sorry about that. Can you hear me?

Yes. Yes. Um, is there any idea as to when the Ward Road extension will be put through and the roundabout at uh Warden and Stevens? Barb, if you want to finish your comments, we could try to answer questions afterward. It's not really a back and forth conversation during testimony. Okay. Sorry. That's fine. That was her comment or her question. That was my that was my comment. I I would like to know what that timeline is. So, okay. So, just to make sure we understand, when will

Ward Road be extended south of Stevens Road? Um, yes. So, between Ferguson and Stevens. Okay. On that eastern boundary of the of Legacy Village. Okay. Thank you. I think the applicant could probably answer that after. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go uh assuming that I pulled the right comment out. Adam Conway. Yeah. Adam Conway uh with DA uh representing um uh Gary Miller, the developer of uh Stevens Ranch uh property uh that we've talked about a little bit tonight. And um um yeah, as Karen mentioned, I I believe um Mr. Miller has submitted a letter um to the record um you know, with his comments on the proposed Stevens uh Steven Shrek master plan application. I got copies here if anybody wants a hard copy or not, but uh I think everybody has it on the uh electronic version there. Um Mr. Mr. Miller wanted to be here in person to address the commission but unfortunately had a conflict that he couldn't get out of. Um so on behalf of Mr. Miller just wanted to add a few bullet points to that uh uh to his comments. Um first and foremost, Mr. Miller does not u oppose the Stevens Ranch track development and uh and agrees it's well situated for uh this type of urban development. Um the concern that Mr. Miller has is um that the Stevens Road tracked uh the basis of the roadway and utility uh network uh is really connections to the Stevens Ranch uh facilities that uh do not do not exist today u nor are they really anticipated to be in place uh in the near future. Um the Stevens Ranch master plan was approved in 2021 as discussed. Um strategically it was uh initiated development at the core of the property. You know creating these opportunities for uh various residential and commercial tenants uh including the

central library. Um the core um development uh is really the driver of when um any of these facilities uh that are proposed for connection to uh will be at the perimeter of the development. Uh and and and really that's that's not anywhere anticipated to be in the near future. Um, Stevens Ranch has invested signific significantly in the perimeter improvements um including construction of the majority of 27th Street improvements along the frontage uh wilderness way roundabout um large diameter water and sewer mains uh and has initiated the the design of the Ferguson and 27th roundabout as well. Um these required significant coordination efforts with the city uh Avon franchise utility providers uh really to construct that backbone infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Stevens Ranch development. Um comparatively the current plan that has been submitted uh for access to uh Stevens Ranch Stevens Road track considers a really constrained uh street section um within this existing 40ft rideway. Uh this proposed constrained street section uh doesn't align with city standards uh and will require a deviation to standards uh a deviation to standards request approved by the city uh really to uh in order to construct that without impacting the Stevens Ranch property u among other potential concerns such as emergency vehicle access, future roadway expansion impacts uh you know how that gets closed if uh that with the future uh future expansion of it. Um, similar to the coordination efforts, uh, Stevens Ranch initiated as part of, uh, constructing and extending the initial backbone infrastructure improvements, uh, coordination and sequencing between Stevens Ranch and the Stevens Road tract is critical. U, Mr. Miller has indicated he has made himself available to meet with Stevens Ranch Road, uh, track developers. Uh, but to

this day, um, no one has reached out to facil facilitate a discussion. Um, you know, really minus these coordination efforts, Mr. Miller has indicated uh that any out of sequence extensions of road or utility uh services would be sub would be a substantial financial burden uh with little little to no benefit uh uh without having the potential developers tenants uh lined up. Um yeah, thank you very much. Yeah.

Okay. applicant rebuttal. Yeah.

So I speaking just very generally and and Joe can fill in some of the more technical details on timing of Ward Road um construction roundabout. So the idea that this project could build out over and I would say maybe at least 10 years, it's going to be dependent on market conditions. And so um you know working from south to north that would be in um some of the latest phases. There are certain triggers that we have in um the the mitigation table based on specific uh unit counts and or trips that would then trigger some of that. I think it may be difficult to estimate with a lot of precision what that would be, but maybe I don't know Joe if you can kind of speak in generalities there about the the connection. Yeah, what I could what I could say to Barbara's comment is any any street connection we make any any public street connection we make to Stevens Road triggers our requirement to then build that Stevens Road and Ward Road roundabout. So the the intent is as soon as we have traffic hitting Stevens Road, the roundabouts in place. As far as the timing, as Joey mentioned, because we're going south to north, it it is going to be a while, but it is one of the levers we can pull. As as Adam's comments mentioned, you know, we we don't have all the right of way to to Wilderness Way, for example, that that would be ideal to have some of these more central connections. So, there might be some reason for us to make an out of sequence extension of Ward Road sooner sooner than just with the phase development. So that'll come back with those compliance and you know looking looking at how the system's operating and and what else is needed that may change our timing a little bit. And then to the question of when construction uh would occur, quickly looking at some of our notes, um I mean

the very the very earliest that construction could possibly occur just based on kind of current review timelines and the the the process to get through city approvals and permits. Um the very soonest like horizontal infrastructure construction could happen is probably in like the spring of 2027. So more more than a a year out and then depending on the size of the phase, you know, infrastructure construction can take roughly 6 months, maybe a little more, maybe a little bit less before you're actually ready to plat and then start building homes.

What about the coordination and connections in terms of roads and road design between the two properties? Um yeah, so I I mean I I think um Hayden Holmes has expressed that if we can find mutually beneficial um opportunities to collaborate on infrastructure construction um we would certainly look to do that. I think what we don't control is the timing of the project next to us and how it's building out. Uh and so what we've done in this master plan is make sure that in coordination with city staff that we can make the connections that we need to make in order to build these phases um per city standards.

But if none of the roads from the Stevens Ranch, sorry this is confusing. If none of the roads on the Stevens Ranch are built on their east side at all because they're not ready and you're developing on the west side, but you have these connections there four or five road connections that were going across. If none of those can connect, you can't develop, right? Because you don't have any the transportation infrastructure, you don't have any way to get out. I mean, it would certainly make it challenging. And I don't know if you can speak to the the um the requirements there, but our our hope, our expectation would be that there would be by the time you're getting further north those connections. But we also have to plan for um what may occur if if that doesn't happen and making sure that a minimum we're providing emergency access to to to any of those areas within Legacy Village that aren't developing any of those phases. So the road coming so Ferguson are you going to extend Ferguson all the way across from 27th? So Ferguson will be put through.

That's yeah would be anticipated with the very first phases from south. Yeah.

And that was what was brought up was it's a it's a 40ft ride ofway. It's the historic McGilly ride ofway. Today we've been working with the Humane Society in Dashuites County. They've offered to provide us additional ride ofway so we can actually have a 70ft ride ofway going through there. and and we have a couple different street sections to to basically take the road all the way back to 27th if we need to. But if Steven's Ranch goes first, it's going to be there and we're not going to have to do that same improvement. If we go first, none of what we're doing is throwaway. It's all being designed where we can stock cut about a foot of pavement off and and have the rest of the road when they when they do develop. So, we've we've tried to build these plans as with as much flexibility as possible and it's little throwaway. Yeah. Just to put a point on that, make sure everybody understands. Right. We have two alternative sections for Ferguson depending on whether we have to go in alone or if the the project to the to the west triggers their frontage improvements and has to make some sort of improvement to Ferguson. But we can make it work either way.

Wait, any additional comments? No, just invite any any remaining questions um before closing the record or starting your deliberations. Please any last question for the applicant? Awesome. Any um comments from staff? No. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and formally close the public hearing. Um before we move on to deliberation um it is before 8 which I love. Um but do we want to do a quick break before we move into deliberation or do we are we fine with continuing? I'm fine with continuing. I can do a break.

You can do a break. Okay. Let's uh come back at 8:57. Okay. 7:57 757 got two more young people. That that that does that that that Yeah, that is

This is probably the outing of the work session too. This might be the fourth or fifth time. This has been the same this one. Yeah. I mean the concept plan went changes when you might work. I'm sure there was a work session on there because we had to choose which concept plan. I Yeah, I was like going back and having like oh I remember that one. Looks like uh we're back on air. That's very exciting. I do want to say for the record before we move forward uh the clock is an hour off. Wait, what?

So, let's go ahead and move into deliberation. Since I started on this side for questions, I'll start with you Katie and we'll just go through just first take opinions and then we can have that be can we start? Takes an engineer to fix it. I think my first big point is the I think it's about 2% of just commercial. It's designated probably like 5% maybe with the rest of it. That just doesn't seem like it meets complete community goals.

I don't know what's like really drowned in Steven Danch or if the maybe there's some commercial there, but a complete community feels like you can walk to somewhere to get like a grocery few apples and I don't see that here. Yeah, I do think there there is some in the southeast area plan just a little bit over in the elbow Steven. Uh it's a development just a little bit south of Steven's Ranch. I don't off the top of my head know what commercial is in Stevens Ranch. I know that there is commercial in Stevens Ranch. Um there's one

there's a considerable amount on along 27th. That's a logical place for it. Any other comments? Is that that's like about half mile away, right? Is that kind of the same? Maybe more if it's out on more if it's on 27th. Yeah, it looks like it's over a mile. Like it still doesn't quite

um I'm supportive. Um, I think in terms of making a big impact on housing, I like the mix of housing types, the different economic strata. I like it um being uh not just it it being what the term is, but uh the mix throughout the community I think is is great. Um, in terms of the adequacy, um, my gut feels, as I recall, Northwest Crossing is less than five acres. Um, and it supports it's not it supports a a big big community. So, just my gut feel is plus the surrounding it would be adequate. In terms of the specific proposed um deviations um does it meet the purpose of the regulation? Is it necessary to get there and does it um mitigate any uh you know negative impacts? it it seems that the chain the change requests um are appropriate and a lot of thought and consideration was given to making the entirety work. So, uh for those reasons, I'm supportive.

Thank Scott. Um, okay. So, some of the deviations, the the idea of RS and RM being kind of similar, but opportunity to have some lower density in the RS. I I think that's fine. The setback's fine. Um, some of the moving stuff around. I mean, this is a weird site. uh especially connectivity along the west side, the southern portion of it is is not there's really no opportunity. Looking at the Stevens Ranch master plan, uh that that industrial area, it's yeah, kind of blocked it off. Um I my biggest thing is is it's the it's the complete community. It's the commercial. Um Bob is more optimistic than I am. Um, I kind of feel like whatever, um, whatever isn't 100% documented or or allow or like I think that I think I said it the the last time we saw master plan that capital finds the least path of resistance to make more capital and and so I think this would be a great opportunity. I know there was commercial on 27th I for Steven's ranch master plan. I imagine that's not going to be a neighborhood type of commercial. Uh just being along 27th it seems like and the sizes of the properties. Uh the neighborhood commercial that we've been talking about in here and then hopefully we'll be going uh city council will be developing is is a little bit more of that like just that neighborhood commercial. The the what is it? the ice cream test or the popsicle test kind of thing. Um, and when I see this plan, the commercial, it did split

it up and and I think that's kind of that would be good if we knew it was going to stay commercial, but we don't know. uh the one on the southern end uh we don't map up but it's I mean we have affordable housing high density going right up to the commercial and it just I mean it it looks like it's just going to eventually be housing um and again the state has has basically taken that opportunity to provide or secure commercial areas until the area is fully developed enough to where it's viable and they've taken that away from us. Uh so that's a a big concern of mine. Uh the the park, the 29 acre community park that was originally proposed is a little bit smaller. It's got some pocket parks. I uh I feel like that's fine. Uh I think there's opportunities for little pocket parks and smaller parks and neighborhood zones. So I'm fine with that. Yeah.

Yeah. my the commercial uh again uh is just such a big issue and and the the state I I really feel like we need to update our master plan process because we're required to follow our rules and regulations and we don't have the ability to um require things like we thought And so we've got we've been told wonderful stories about great developers and and then when the time comes for things to actually happen doesn't happen that way and it's the um state stepped in and took that away from us. So we don't have that option for requiring that commercial. But the more development we have, especially on the outskirts of town without any commercial, means everybody is going to be driving on our streets. And we don't have enough east and west connections as it is. And we missed an opportunity to extend Wilson out to make another east and west connection, which we're going to regret when we closed Reed Market for several years while we do the overcrossing. Um, but we don't have the transportation infrastructure to put all these people on the roads to go to the few grocery stores that are on Highway 20 and 97. And we really need to have commercial, not even just neighborhood commercial, but act. I would argue that we actually need a grocery store in the southeast area of town. A grocery store, a like legitimate grocery store. Um, not just a neighborhood commercial. And I am 100% in a neighborhood commercial, but I almost I feel like there might need to be more. And

I think our our ideas of this are evolving and it worries me to approve things before we get before we have the conversation about commercial to be approving things that don't have what we think we need. And we're going to spend a lot of time, I think, uh, after our last meeting, it sounded like we were going to spend some very concentrated time talking about neighborhood commercial and making recommendations for code changes to the council for how to make it more likely that we're going to get these complete communities. So, it really worries me to have this big development with a small amount of maybe commercial um and no chance to go back and fix it after the fact. Um yeah, so I I Yeah, I I I think we need to wait. Eric,

overall I think I think it's a it's a well thoughtout plan. Um, it is very dense, which seems a little backwards to me that it's on the outskirts of town to be so dense. Um, however, I also see that there was an opportunity to get a lot of affordable housing out of this project and it's something we really need in our town. So, um, I am overall supportive of the project. Um, my actually I I kind of like having the little pocket parks, the one big community park. And I I mean you got small kids. It's really nice to have a little

a little spot close to home for for you know walk the dog or take the kids too. I mean I think overall I think it's it's a well-designed plan. I share Suzanne's concern about the commercial. We are if if we approve it and we no longer have control over whether or not it will be built once these things are filled in. There's we're not tearing down houses to put down in the grocery store. Everybody's just everybody's driving a long ways and particularly where we're doing a really dense community with a lot of affordable housing or some of it, you know, lower income housing. Th that is a group that really really needs to have a pharmacy nearby. They need to have a grocery store nearby. They need to have some basic services there. and and and there's no public transportation, possibly public transportation coming in. Um it's nice to have the library. It's nice to have the middle school fairly close. Um maybe an elementary, but I it really isn't a complete community. And in fact, it could really be it could it could really be a community that that that is severely underserved potentially long term without putting in these needed services. So I I'm I guess I'm on the fence about the timing of it more than anything else.

Um I've got follow. Do you want to go first? Uh sure. Um, I mean, if I was like designing a like an idealized version of what like this master plan would be given like the constraints of it and like the requirements coming from the state for like bringing it in like this is almost like with the exception of like I would like to see more commercial in it like it is close to perfect.

You know what I mean? like it matches it hits or exceeds every single goal and every single target that like it was supposed to with flying colors,

you know, like and I I'm I'm I would be very reluctant to not recommend approving this master plan like given the context of of what it's supposed to do, what the goals of council were for property, right? Um, so I am I am very very in favor of of approving of this plan. Um, and that's all I'll say for it at the moment, but um, I'll go ahead and let you talk about Bob.

So, I agree that it would be wonderful if we could require um, commercial. We cannot. And God knows how long it's going to take for either legislative amendments or the city to come up with language that complies with whatever straight state uh restrictions uh might be. Um this is 2700 units. Um I think everyone from what I've heard likes the plan like to see more commercial. More is always better. So the old saying, don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. We've got, I think, a very, very good plan. And in terms of Hayden Holmes, um, being aware of the uh, the need, the concern. I heard it not just from Jen, but I've actually spoken to city councelor Megan Norris on this uh 6 months ago and she was already on it before city council that they want to weigh in with the city and I think there are a number of developers who have established a strong track record for being community oriented. So, um, sometimes you just have to trust that people will do the right thing and I'm pretty confident that Hayden Holmes will do the right thing and this will be a very positive addition to the community. That's it.

Does anyone want any to bring anything up on deliberation or we motion? Um, no. Anyone interested in doing the first recommended motion? I'll make the first one. The I move to recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance to amend the Ben comprehensive plan policies for the Stevens Road tract urban growth boundary expansion area as proposed by the applicant with the direct findings provided by staff.

Any second? Let's second that. Okay. Can we have some quick clarification in the two amendments and there again the first one is for amending the policies policies. So the amendments for conformance with the block length standards etc. The second one is approving the master plan on those amended. Correct. Okay. Yeah. So, we got a first and we got a second. Um, all those in favor do a show of hands. I I Okay. Is that unanimous?

I think so. Okay. Um, anyone want to do the second one? Um, I guess I'll read it. Um, I move to recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance to amend chapter 2.7 of the Ben Development Code to add the Stevens Road tract parenthesis legacy village and parenthesis master prime as proposed by the applicant with the draft findings provided by staff. Any second? Second. Okay. All those in favor? I

I for that one. Okay. Or two. That passes. Who's opposed? Sorry. Clarify who's opposed. Okay. Thank you. Or two. Okay. Uh that ends the quasi judicial public hearing. Uh thank you all very much uh for participating. We'll go ahead and move on to meeting materials. No.

Oh. Um, sorry it's not on your agenda, but typically we do nominate a commissioner to represent the commission's recommendation at city council hearing. And I believe we are um working toward a March 18th city council hearing if that helps decide who's available. What time would that be? I mean, it would start at 6 PM. It might be start somewhere between six and seven. I can, but I there's like special procedures. I don't we can help you with that if you want to be the one to represent. I would love to.

Sounds good to me. Okay. All right, Katie. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Are there any minutes we have to approve? It looks like no. Okay. Let's move on to reports from planning commissioners. Which side wants to go first? I have a report. Excellent. All right. I met with the old barn old farm neighborhood district last week and

they were very excited to that that we are reaching out to them. um they have I would say a lot of things to talk about but um that I think that their two primary concerns were um one with notice they don't feel like there's enough notice particularly on the large master plans in general um 500 feet on

they 500 ft on of of notice mailed notice on a large master plan development and they've done a few of them um they don't feel as adequate uh also the the signs um the the small signs uh so pass along that that concern um and kind of drawing a blank on my second point there. So, give me a moment. It'll come back to me. Um,

all right. Come back to me later. I have nothing.

Um, well, I'm gonna I'm gonna do something slightly scary. Uh, and that's break with the pack a little bit here. Um, and I I just wanted to report that I'm I'm no longer going to be participating in the neighborhood district leism program. Um, broadly because I don't feel like the neighborhood districts as they currently exist like would like really serve to elevate voices that we don't normally hear uh here on the commission. Um, and I don't think that it's fair to the neighborhood districts uh that are interested in liaisoning with the commission to uh be stuck with someone as reluctant as I. Uh, so I'm uh looking for volunteers to take over uh being a liazison uh for the Southern Crossing Neighborhood District and the Mountain View neighborhood district.

Take Mountain View. Okay. What What What are the two that you have again? I'm sorry. Southern Crossing and Mountain. Yes. The other one would be SCNA.

I'll I'll take it.

Okay. I I will at one of the things that I actually felt was really beneficial to them was they did not really understand how what planning commission does um or how they could interact with with us um they had a lot of questions and and it it's I I think it's is really good to be able to explain to them what what we do and and our role, but also um like they they have they have an understanding of how things work, but it's not necess they're not getting the same information

that we're getting. And so, um I I think there's things that they would benefit by knowing more. Um and so it I think it's helpful to let them know how the process is working a bit. If can I speak to this for a couple of minutes? So, um I think you've all heard maybe multiple times how I in the plan commission starting with clear cutting true. Oh, excuse me. Clear cutting. How could we not have been made aware? And it was a shortfall of how the system was set up that the notice goes to the land use chair and to people within 500 ft and a sign and our land use chair and uh Summit West did not think it was important enough to let people know. It was during CO nobody was. So any rate um we basically rejuvenated uh this particular neighborhood dis district district that was not was was not fulfilling its responsibility.

Mhm. And um I think with a lot of hard work of a half dozen people over a year, we went from zero to 100 miles an hour and went from a group that did not get the word out to now to to one that does. Um I also spent about four hours today combing through state and city of Bend. um official documents. What is the role of the neighborhood district from the city of Bend and what is the role of the planning commission and both are supposed to be the public engagement community engagement bodies and there's overlap and in the city of Bend there are multiple references. If you look at the city the plan commission it makes reference to the neighborhood districts. If you look at the neighborhood district, they reference the planning commission. So, we have common interest there. We're um very interrelated and I think both us getting having a us on the planning commission having a pulse for what's going on in the communities will help us especially in the forward view. If all we're doing is um reviewing specific applications, that's one thing. But here we're going into the growth phase. As Russ said, there is going to be a lot more opportunity for us to be um involved in in shaping policy. And I think every one of us is is pretty smart, but I don't think being isolated

from the broader community. And I think there is the city of Bend saw fit to establish formally establish these organizations and the city is working to get them better organized so that they are um more more robust. So I would I'm as someone who's seen a dysfunctional neighborhood district who's observed others and then seen the power of a number of neighborhood districts who are proactive who are constructive. Um, I see a lot of opportunity in concert uh for the two the the two groups to better serve our constituents. So, that's my soap box.

Thank you, Bob. Thank you. Um, you have anything to report? I have nothing to report. I got nothing to report. Gone over my timeline. Okay.

Um, I'm meeting with the chair of Orchard District later this month. Um, mostly to help me get my own neighborhood district up and running, but any ideas on like do we have a plan to actually start formally working with them or should this be a separate evening that I have with her? Well, it's not formal. It's just a liaison. It's just an informal conversation. There's nothing formal between planning commission and the neighborhood association. We're not making any commitments.

I think the citizen involvement rogue right now or something like that's our the community involvement committee, right? Is I don't know. I thought it was citizen, but I think Ian told us we can't use citizen anymore because it has negative connotation. Well, I would never tell you what words to use or not use, but I'm saying in in government, at least local government, we have for a time, it's been a while. Um, moved away from using that word. Not saying you can't. It just has a legal meaning. And I think Did I use the word citizen? No, you're looking at me.

It it it can confir can have a legal meaning. And what we are and what most local governments are more concerned about is public involvement which encompasses a range of community members maybe regardless of legal status. So that's why okay um I do know that their land use chair orchard district is vacant seat now um very recently and I'm not sure when they'll get someone new. Do you what do you have, Nathan? Anything on Mountain View? Um, I haven't reached out. I've been very bad. I I'll find them.

They're all listed on the website on the Some Some are kind of defunct. Some are very active. It's It's all I just pulled it off the city website. Anyway, Russ, can you give us I have I have all of their info in my email in terms of where we're at. Yeah. Yeah, we're right now we're just determining the focus is going to be around neighbor commercial. We're charting out what when when we're going to have those conversations with the planning commission based off a workload of staff. Um so we haven't said a date yet when that's going to happen, but soon we do we'll we'll let you know.

Is that planning commission with city councilors and the neighbor district? I mean the the request we've been going on go on this meeting. Y specific on specific on neighborhood commercial. Okay. Correct. Great. Great. Just so commission's aware we're getting this into kind of our staff's work plan work. Yeah. Got it. In in parallel just real briefly though that didn't um you guys hired a consultant and there was a meeting with the neighborhood districts the other week. I don't correct our communications team I was not in that meeting. Do you want to go to a microphone

being there? He's getting picked up. Yeah. What what I want to get to is and and you know I I do Nathan I do understand your your concern. So to just get a feel for big picture timeline when what are the goals of of this? Is it to really revitalize the neighborhood districts or is it just a paper over the problem?

No, I think what we're trying to do is make sure there's there's common information that's being shared between the city and the neighborhood districts. Um I think if you if you ask each one of you on the planning commission, if you ask each each one active in a neighborhood district what their role is, you're going to get a different answer, right? And it's going to be quite broad between we should know everything that's going on to are we just here to provide information to do we even have a district what's our role right and are we are we moving forward so um the what I would like planning commission just to understand is we don't have a lot of staff and budget to support the neighborhood districts it's extremely limited and we have a very full plate of things that we're doing right so we're trying to balance that as well in terms of I think some the demands or the requests of that we're getting from the neighborhood districts and kind of what they want the city to do. And there's some we we're getting a wide variety of questions. Some are legal and kind of um you know insurance questions, but also just like what what are they expecting from the city which we don't have a large budget and we don't have a lot of staff support to to help interact, but we they are they are in our code. They are alive. They do serve a very valuable purpose in in relaying information from the city to the community. Um, so we want to we want to bolster that as much as possible because I can tell you every place I go where I'm in a one a neighborhood district meeting and they're asking about what's going on in the city, I would say your your best option is to stay in contact with your land use chair because we send everything to the land use chairs. Um, regardless of the 500 foot notice and that's if you want to know what's going on in the city and you want to get in few concerned about development or applications, that's your best resource for information. Um, also just want to stress to the planning commission that group over there, they process about a thousand land use applications a year. A thousand, right? Ranging from simple simple verification requests to what you just saw before you. So, it's just there's a lot of information, a lot of

things that are going on and it's hard. It's just it's a difficult job to keep everyone up to date and up to speed on everything going on in the city. It's hard enough for us as staff when we work here every day. Um, so trying to figure out the right balance of all that is one of the things that we're we're trying to reset with a lot of the neighborhood districts. Um, and that's kind of what the discussions were last week of kind of kind of what support do they need both just administratively, financially, and then what are they trying to achieve within their districts?

Well, they actually look at um like there are areas of the city that don't currently have neighborhood districts. There are some areas that are very large, some areas that are very small. Are they going to look at all of that as part of this consultant or is it simply just to do some communication?

I I don't do you have I don't have a lot I don't know the full scope of what the consultant is doing in terms of that capacity building, but those issues of um especially newly annexed portions of the city that aren't represented by neighborhood districts or how neighborhood districts can adjust boundaries between them. those are things that are in the code and those options are there. Um, and that when the code was neighborhood district code was amended in 2024, some of the those things weren't included because the code was written

sort of maybe with not an expectation but as though the city were static. You know, the city is now static. Things have changed. So, the code um that was amended a couple years ago has all of those bases covered in terms of how areas can how a new neighborhood district can um get established, how boundaries can be adjusted, if there's sort of a balancing that needs to happen, but it's really up to and this is by design. It's up to the the people neighborhoods to do it to sort of self self-actualize and decide what they want to do rather than having the city decide these things, dictate what the boundaries are. So that's that's the way it's currently set up. Um people do the options are there but it requires some activation folks

and I think the largest conversation going on around that is these newly annexed areas. what district are they following to make sure because there is there has been gaps of information through that process right I know so that I know that's one focus area of well we got to make sure all these new areas are associated with some district but most of the existing ones were created by city edict right I mean they weren't created by citizen by by sorry sorry by community members requesting to be formed into a neighborhood association somehow the city just that may have been but that was before my time here. Maybe that was something that the I will tell you that when you were on the Yes, it wasn't. It was after I left.

No, we wrote the guide to neighborhood associations, but we did not create the neighborhood associations in my time. Yeah. But my understanding was that they were just created rather than requested. And so now these newer areas that are coming in have the opportunity to request. So I did look up the code to see that. And you can actually create a new I'm fairly confident the way things go here that they were there was decisions made, but I'm pretty sure there was a lot of public push for something like like count council and the policy makers at the time were responding to some communication some conversation going on in the community and they thought the neighborhood districts was probably the best was a solution to what they were trying to achieve. It was a long time ago.

Yeah, Bend is a lot bigger now. Hopefully that answer. Yeah. So, we'll once we get the schedule figured out, we will let you know. I just we're just getting it all charted out with about you know 20 other initiatives that are going on. Well, if we're done with council, I should I have a question.

Okay. Um, in terms of because we started talking about the neighborhood commercial and getting on Pauline's schedule, is there going to be like a temporary committee that gets formed to help, right? I mean, sometimes when we've done development code changes, House Bill 2001, that kind of thing, we've had to to be determined. I mean, right now we're working our our first objective is wildfire mitigation. You remember just a few months ago you had people from the neighborhood association or districts here talking about whether they wanted to see R 375 3 27 sorry

um as well as other um defensible space regulations. We're working on that. We're going to be going to city council next month to get some direction from them. We believe this the R327 is pro it's a pretty easy adoption. We don't need to have um a committee help us with that. that's an offtheshelf kind of an adoption. It's more like when do we want it to be effective. So, and that's going to be our building division staff, but we're probably going to get some direction Renee and her team um to work on some defensible space initiatives, things regarding fences and and I'm just speaking very broadly here. I don't know where this is going to land within the city.

Um landscaping materials. I mean, I you know, some jurisdictions are going pretty pretty detailed on on what this is. I don't know what that's going to look like yet. We can't make a determination on what Pauline's work plan is going to look like for the second part of the summer until we get this direction next month. After that, we will be coming back for the neighborhood commercial. Trying to put some sideboards on where that, you know, what what are we talking about for neighborhood commercial? We use this term neighborhood commercial very broadly, but it is a narrow term. It is actually commercial uses that are allowed within residential districts. It's not a zone. Um even though we have a zone called neighborhood commercial for whatever reason. Um but that's this

yes um zone that we have. So um as Russ said, we're very busy. We've got a lot of other initiatives are going on. We got council goals that were adopted. We're trying to be responsive to and these are kind of getting added on as we're as we're already, you know, progressing other things.

So we're working on it. We're try we're we're um aware of all of the the concerns and some of the urgency around it. Um but it we'll be back. I think the the biggest thing is waiting for this uh work session in March where we're going to have a bit better understanding about what our roles and expectations are for the wildfire resiliency. Um and then we'll be able to slot the commercial discussion in in with that. Um and and along with that um I will say we're we're sort of breaking that into into chunks. The one chunk we are going to be talking about first is that neighborhood commercial that the commercial uses in residential. There's a bigger discussion that's going to be part of the growth plan and and our growth management folks were here talking to you about their plan for that and the commission's involvement in that. Then there are other initiatives that really aren't coming out of community development. There's economic incentives that potentially could be part of that. There's an actual there's legislation going on right now during the short session. Rene was commenting on a bill today. It's I'm not sure when the hearing is, but but we need to have some comments in to actually potential revisions to Senate Bill 8 to address this very issue because

finally the leg the actual authors of this are hearing it. It's getting pushed that far up that they understand that there need to be be some changes. So good there are some changes coming a foot. What what I said earlier during the master plan um deliberation or questioning was accurate. A decision on a master plan today does not affect a rule that could be in a place two years from now or three or five years from now when that lot is actually that commercial lot is actually created and they come in with an application to develop something on it. That's going to be based on the rules in effect on the day they submit. So things can change between now and then. I I mean they changed between when we adopted um other master

the other master plans and we thought it was going to be commercial and and then new rules came in and they took advantage of it. Same thing can happen with with the commercial as we progress further. So I'll just leave it at that for now just understand there's more to come just to drill down just to clarify. So, if the Senate Bill 8 or whatever it was gets amended legislatively andor uh you guys come up with some magic language um before uh leg what do they call legacy

legacy comes in for their permits the new language which could require commercial that would be effective. Not what we just recommended today, which is loosey goosey.

Well, so at the master plan level, you're assigning zoning designations, comprehensive plan designations, and within that in the development code is a land use table that allows a laundry list of potential uses. So that's the level of planning you were just doing here with the applicant there. So assuming that goes forward with the land use designations as proposed, we'd be reviewing subsequent land use applications against that code for that master plan and any internal references to other parts of the development code for the allowed uses that are on the books on the date they submit that site plan review application. So that would probably be two years from now,

right? Um, so we don't know what legislation will look like. Well, so we've got two years to get the problem fixed. State would have to do an amendment and then we would have to change our We'll have to fix our code because we mixed our code to match Senate Bill 8 before we're subject to the state laws. But yes, we we work to amend them into our code so that we can interpret all the odd nuances that we need to. Yeah. The other thing I'll just add is you just heard like three different things. The other things we're trying to figure out is what do we pair together in conversations,

right? So that's we're also looking at that if we're going to have we're going if we're going into outreach about potential wildfire code updates around landscape material and fencing and we want to do broad thing and we're doing what do you what about commercial in your neighborhood? we are going to take a step back saying should we pair those conversations or should we not because we also know if you've been on the neighbor district it's like you're getting there's 30 different things going on the city and you're just getting pinged all the time right so there's we're trying to figure out how to is there a better way to strategize all this information but it's there's just a lot of different things going on the city

that kind of segus into the other point that I remembered now the other the other thing that they the other thing that the the the board was concerned about was they have an impression that things are kind of looked at often peacemeal by one committee or a different committee. Um and the example would be that that they pulled up was the uh city using using funds to support the affordable how housing project that was built in the commercial. Yeah.

And I don't want to argue that point at all. I I'll just their their concern was that they that that maybe planning commission doesn't know what affordable housing committee is doing which doesn't know what traffic is doing and that things are maybe looked at um in silos rather than comprehensive rather than comprehensive and and I know that the city has a lot of ways that you're looking at things comprehensively and I give you guys a lot of credit. You can deal with so many different things. Um but that that this goes back to the communications because the impression is often different than what's actually happening at the city level.

Yeah. And how we were talking about this ear how how state law works, how the Oregon land use system works, how that's perceived from the public on the outside. It's extremely confusing, right? I mean, I'm just watching you have the last deliberation that you had. There's a lot of difference opinions about what the role of the city is in terms of a master plan and commercial, right? You're you're you're ask you're ask all asking good questions, but you know that's where the staff comes in like what does a city actually have control of the situation, right? We we basically set the table. That's what we do.

And when we said I mean I'm just going to use the commercial this conversation as an example. There is a we didn't no one ever guaranteed a grocery store anywhere. We guar, you know, we're trying to make sure that there are commercial properties that are available and there's a laundry list of uses that could be that could go in there. People always want certain things, but we only control a certain part of that conversation, right? Um, so there's a lot of confusion that happens around all of that. And yes, and there's there we have multiple committees that we try to interrelate with. Um, we recognize it's super confusing. and we're trying to figure out is there a better way to structure it? But at the pace and speed that the city is growing, that's going to happen and we're just trying to manage it the best the best that we can.

Yeah. Right. Well, passing it on to Yeah. No, maybe maybe you know maybe you know having a conversation uh sometimes gives gives ideas. So, yes. And I I guess since I have your attention, the one last thing too, I would also ask for a little bit of grace in terms of request of how quickly things move that get requested by people that you talk to. It's going to take time, right? Oh yeah, yay. We solved the neighborhood commercial. We're going to have a conversation. Yeah, that conversation may not happen for four to six months, right?

And I just want I just want to make sure that this board is aware of that because teams got to figure out what are we talking about? We need to scope it. We need to have intelligent conversations. we need to figure out what's in and what's out or do we need to get clarity from council on what's in and what's out before we actually embark on the conversation. And so people feel like, oh, we're just going to okay, we we got we got their attention and we're going to turn around. This is just when you're talking with with people out in the community. Yep. There is sometimes that collatial pace of bureaucracy that it may feel like where it may take when we have something from an idea to actually when you see it done it it to do a code change just you know it takes probably three to four months just of processing time. Yeah.

to go through the planning commission to go to council to have the first and second hearing of the 30 30-day effective date after that. That's like imagine like the amount of time it's taken us to like change the zoning of five properties. Like you know I won't go too far in this but I'm just like government just if you got the conversations just to be setting appropriate expectations you know appreciate the fact that it is actually a thoughtful process and not a knee-jerk reaction. Yeah. I I just I just don't want to have people going out there. Oh we could we could okay the we're gonna we're going to go and have this conversation next week. We're going to try to do it as soon as we can, but I can't guarantee that.

I had a conversation with someone who is in an area that is not currently in a neighborhood association. They were super excited after seeing our last planning commission meeting that we were doing this growth management plan and everything was fixed. And I was like, it's a five-year plan just to get to the point of getting to like, you know, like the the the understanding of what is in what what is involved in getting that done. Uh yeah, it's not like it's done just because we talked about it. Okay, I think we're to Renee. Renee,

I think I just have one thing. So, as Colin mentioned, we are actively providing our input along with our lobbyists and trying to make some amendments to the legislation that has us where we are today in terms of um allowing affordable housing within land zone for commercial uses. So, continue to work on that. And then I did just want to give you an early heads up. Um, a date's been announced for the 2026 Bend Wildfire Preparedness Fair. This is something that's hosted each year. I understand Melissa Steel sent this out. It will be May 9th. Oh, wow.

From 10 to 1 at COCCC with a lot more information to come. But just wanted you to be aware of this. Look out for more information. We'll have not only the city there, but wildfire partner agencies including US Forest Service, ODF, BLM, Red Cross. There'll be staff from different city departments there. So, a lot of great information. May 9th 10 to 1 COCCC. Keep uh be on the lookout information about that. Great. Does it start with how do we get more whatever we need to do to get more snow? whatever phase one the wildfire

increase the rest of it that's for sure you will have one item on your agenda in the meeting coming up in two weeks it will be the public hearing for the item that you just discussed at a work session that uh will be the one and only item on your agenda in two weeks so please let me know availability attendance whether it's in person remote just to make sure we enough forum for February 23rd. Thank you.

Yeah. Uh a report on a piece of legislation that we're implementing internally. Uh earlier today, U. Ben Barry, who was in here earlier, but he's for the evening, he is our um city engineer for private development engineering in community development department. Uh he MCed a a presentation and a question and answer session on what's called um Senate Bill 974. And that is a requirement that came out of the last legislative session that will require cities um to process engineering permits within 120 days. We have to do that for planning permits. Now we have to do it for engineering permits. Goes into effect July 1. Wow.

He's had some industry folks in here uh just going through how we're going to change our processes up uh in order to meet that legislation. It's available and it was recorded. So if anybody's interested in it um just give me give me a holler and I can ship it your way.

Okay. What's the average today? We're pretty close to that. Um the difference between the engineering permits and the planning permits is that engineering is is an iterative process. You send corrections back and then it takes time on the private side for them to make the corrections and come back. So you get to subtract that time out. That's the biggest difference. And we're we're below 120 days right now um most of the time. Uh but some of the more complex or for whatever reason some of the projects do go on that which is a customer service kind of situation right now it'll be a like a pretty painful penalty if we fail to meet it after July 1. So we're not we're not going to like do they get to build or they get to move forward if we don't approve it within

oh and and and potentially force us to issue the permit without without fully meeting city standards. That goes in a really bad category and get it during inspection.

You're going to have to move that building four feet for me this morning.