Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I don't know if he can hear us. I can hear you now. There he goes. Uh oh. I don't think it's going to work. Uh he said I can hear you now, but he didn't say his name for the record. Oh, I I wasn't able to hear you before. I didn't realize we were doing roll call. Um, Nathan Nelson here. Okay. Here. Bob Gresens's, Scott Winters, Marggo Clinton, Suzanne Johansson, Aaron Leed.

Okay. Great. Next, we'll Well, there's no visitors and there's no visitors online. So, I'll go ahead and breeze by that. And next, we'll go into work section for PLEX 2025392. I am not going to read the entirety of what that is for. Photo updates.

Yes, there update. It's all you, Pauline. This is going to be a long one, so um bear with me. Uh so staff has been working um on this package for several years now, and as we know, other things have come up, so it just got um pushed aside a little bit. And so here we are with a um lot of um amendments. Um there's amendments for clarification and consistency. Uh there's amendments that update requirements um based on feedback we've received from like applicants or developers or just planners looking at the code. Something as simple as looking at the rear setback for the lowdensity residential district or um new bicycle options. Um and you'll see in the different residential commercial and mixed use in the Ben central district, you know, some design standard amendments as well. Uh process improvements. Uh those definitely took some time to work through, but we've updated procedures for legal lot of records. Uh dissutes river design review requirements for tree removals. Uh durations of approvals and extensions and modifications of approvals. Uh this one Amy's wanted for a long time, which is create a minor plat process, which is similar to our um uh lot line adjustment applications. Um just simplifies the process when they're rearranging lot lines. And then clarifying something that we've been practicing for many years when we process major master plans is creating this type three quas judicial city council um application. And so that's basically like our major master plans where they come to planning commission, you make a recommendation to city council and just um codifying that process in the code and then replacing the declaratory ruling with a new chapter called 4.1 interpretations and determinations. Um and then uh as with any updates, just making sure what's in the code is compliant with the state

statutes. There are two goals. Um the housing goal um under the new city council um goals. Uh the housing goal um continues um uh builds upon the last um housing goals that they've had is to develop and implement strategies to meet community needs, reduce homelessness, and create complete walkable neighborhoods and um to apply innovative development codes. The strategies to accelerate complete neighborhoods. But I think the action is where the uh development code amendments comply with is adopt development code entitlement process improvements that remove barriers and speed up middle missing middle inome housing developments. How do I get this? I have a bar. Do you know how to just I think you can just drag it. Okay. It's like disappearing. Okay. And then they have a transportation infrastructure goal. Um and this kind of hones in on the amendments I think for the bicycle um chapter which is to make travel safer and more reliable for everyone um to enhance safety, accessibility and increased options for all modes of travel. And then the action is to um update design standards and specifications for all users. And that might be more geared, you know, in some of the other uh documents like our standards and specs or in the pedestrian bike master plan. But um end users always end up um needing somewhere to park their bicycle. And we've gotten a lot of feedback on um some of the bicycle um code requirements and they just seemed outdated. And looking at other examples um in Oregon, there's a lot of um updated recently updated codes that we built ours on. So the proposed amendments, I'm just going to go through nice and slow on each uh chapter. Some of the cleanup ones I didn't include in this, but any of them that I thought were good to bring to the planning commission's attention, I wanted to highlight. So bear with me. It might take a little time. Uh so the first one is uh the

amendments are in our title one introduction um title. Uh the first one is changes to the time period that approved subdivisions can develop under previous standards from 3 years to one year. um that is being proposed because over the years um as we all know the codes keep changing and so um reducing it down to one year lines and better with what the code requirements are and especially since they keep changing um planners don't have to go back three years and then the definitions there's a whole bunch of new and revised definitions in the code

I think what we're going to do is we're going to try and maybe kind of as you move through because I know there's a series of questions everyone and got quite a few instead of saving them all to kind of try and do them as we go along so that way we don't have to go all the way back. Okay. No, that's so maybe title one. Yeah. Yeah. And then just we'll kind of loosely on that. Um I was just wondering about the going from three years to one year. Why have the one year? I mean is it is I'll let Colin help with that question. I I like the direction of it. Can you put the language back in?

For instance, we were working on a project and it got through land use and then the parking requirements go away. And so it's like, well, we already

Oh, okay. Um, good question. This is Ian Lighheiser with city attorney's office. Um, just setting the stage a little bit. State law says that a local government may establish a time period during which decisions on these are subdivisions um um against are only subject to the laws in place at the time of approval. There is a limit in state law. That time period can't exceed 10 years, but it's a May. So by my reading, we don't have to have three years, we don't have to have two years, we don't have to have one year, but the proposal here is to reduce the codes sort of window from three years to one.

Question. Yeah, I can clarify. So, um, usually what what we want to be able to do is have that land use approval be I mean lock the the standards that we're in so they can get through the infrastructure permitting and not have changes for that. And so I think part of the idea is to have some continuity. Usually a a subdivision after it's approved doesn't get platted for at least a year by the time they go through the in the permitting process, building infrastructure and then platt. And so I think we were trying to sync that up to some extent. So that when the lots are actually platted, they would be subject that would be after that one-year period. What we're running into the issue is is that we've platted lots, but then they go to build on and then they're going, "Oh, but we don't have to follow the tree code because that was that was only two years ago and we get three years." And they're like, "Well, that's not the really the spirit of of our code than trying to get this." So I think we're recognizing that there is a period of time that it may be beneficial to have some vesting opportunities until we can get it to that point where they actually plat when the the future the subsequent development comes in it's subject to that newer code. So that was a clarification. I think you hit it with the tree code. So that if you are locked down as an approval by us, by you, by city council, and they go to work, but then there's another phase or something down the road after a year, then new things are going to be there, and they're going to have to do the recode

just to Yeah. And that's intentional. Cool.

I have a question. So, um, does I know a lot of projects take a lot longer than a year to plan, finance, and start construction. Um, what what I'm not clear on here is is this when the beginning they begin construction or get building permits or what is this year referring to exactly? Well, generally um when a application is submitted, it's it's in the statute for planning that that it's subject to the rules in effect the day it was submitted. Send that to building and the engineering. So that's big locks down people that year says during this one-year period, you submit your your application, it's subject to the previous or what was in effect the time of approval

after that year. It's the date of the date the application was submitted. The the standards and criteria in effect on the date of submitt. So the so if staff change not staff we all collectively change the sidewalk from 4 foot to 5 foot or whatever it is two three years later down the road when phase two or three like Discovery West comes they would have to go to the new right new thing whatever it is. Well that somewhat depends. I mean there could be there is some vesting with a tenative approval to the to some of the standards. It's it's more of the future development. It happens on I think it says on the lots, doesn't it say? And this is only for subdivisions, right? Right.

This is just for subdivision. construction within an approved subdivision is subject to land use is that we're in effect on the date of subdivision application and uh and so for a so for a phased subdivision is that that's a question. Yeah, I just and I I get what you and and and Erin were saying as far as, you know, things take time to plat and this and that, but if it's something that's been sitting for five years,

well, phase subdivision, the way that we time those is that the first phase has to be submitted within or has to plat within two years and then you have to plat the subsequent phases one year, you know, each each phase in within one years and so they're only good for five years. Um I don't know how would this affect a phased subdivision. The improvements that were required the subdivision are that part of that approval. So the approval is still valid. Yeah. It's just the subsequent development. So that if a house comes in with a building permit, they would have to meet the new code after a year

on the house on the house. Right. That's that clarifies. Thank you. the less of public right-of-way design but more of the private side.

Correct. when it I mean the tenative subdivision approval is the discretionary decision for a land division and that that would lock essentially lock the infrastructure in because you don't want somebody to design I mean we're going to review a street with a certain standard and that's and that needs to be have some continuity through the phases then we wouldn't want necessarily that to change but if we plat the subdivision and we change a setback or tree preservation and then five years later they they submit a building permit we say you You don't you didn't get locked into the when the subdivision you you need to meet today's code for that. Freshen it up. Yeah. So freshen it up. Yeah. But but I do respect that original developer should be able to rely upon the standards that

they proposed with the original subdivision and the infrastructure. Any more questions? Okay. See that I my I get feedback. I need one on here. Um I'm getting feedback on my Zoom every time I try and open it up even though I'm muted and everything. So, no, I cannot see. But, um Nathan, do you have any questions? Uh yeah, I was just curious how um this time period compares to other cities in Oregon.

I did not research to see what other cities do, but as Colin said, they can you may have up to 10 years. I don't know that other cities have gone that far, but I did not look. Okay. Right. Thank you.

Okay. So, now we're on chapter two, the residential zoning districts. So, this only applies to residential zones. Um for the uh lowdensity residential zone and the urban area reserve uh the proposal is to reduce the rear setback from 20 ft to 10 ft. This will allow more of the lot to be use usable. I mean we already allow the plexes there, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and and accessory dwelling units. And this will just allow more of the lot to be used to be developed with those type of uses. Uh, as you may recall, this is still more of a setback than even our standard density residential or medium, which is a 5 foot rear yard setback. So, it's still maintaining 10 um but not the the large 20 foot setback.

Question real quick on the on the format though. We're not going to go through that page one, two, three, four, the fuller report. Oh, okay. That that's 200 pages. No,

we'll try and connect to this. All right. Um but if you follow along I try to put all the sections. So 2.1900 is the architectural design standards and this just clarifies when building form requirements apply um for uh this would be multif family multi-unit developments and then the other design standards. This has come up um quite a couple times in the past couple years of um what is a garage door? And so people want to put in um you know, we see the rollup doors, but uh we want to make sure it's not going to be included with a driveway and a curb cut because they already have one access and we don't want to see more accesses put in. So we just need to clarify that um if they're going to propose a garage door that's 8 ft or wider, we're going to consider that a garage door. If you want to propose something smaller then um it and and we've seen seven foot and smaller um where they truly are just for storage or for um opening up a living room and those wouldn't be considered the garage door. So staff needs that just for clarity and so we have some clear and objective standards to rely on um which do not um are not in the code today. So any questions on those? I had one not on that but just it said garages and carports must be accessed from abudding alleys but what if there aren't any alleys

um that is in a different chapter that is in 3.1 oh I see okay okay okay in compliance with there's a whole alley this is what you're allowed if you don't have an alley this is what you're allowed and it also depends on uses I had a question that and I just happened to see this in the part of the design standards for the exterior finish on vertical surfaces. Uh says must be primarily of materials such as masonry or wood siding, shingles or stucco. Uh fiber cement isn't mentioned in there and I know that's a pretty common one. Um

um are you in 2.1900 C building form? Uh oh yeah, we're not at 2. Yeah, 2.1900 uh B3. You're looking at existing code, not what's proposed where. Correct. We don't we're not touching that section for now. What you're caught is

but I but one of the things that I'm noticing is and when I was going through this is that it one it says uh in that um let's see it's 2.1900 C3 B3. Okay. Right here. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. So, one of the things that says that uh of sheet metal, I don't know if that means metal panel must not exceed 50% of the wall area, which that seems a little I mean, we have we've seen buildings go in that have more

go against that. And then also, there's no mention of fiber cement in this section. I know that's like one of the most common. We usually start out with metal panels and then it gets ved down to fiber cement. And so the the fiber cement would be considered like a masonry or a stucco or no fiber cement would either be fiber cement panels. So they'll have u you know panelized with kind of reglet relief patterns in it or it's fiberment is like a lap. We could add that just to the first sentence. Yeah, I just put it on my house. So just the panel itself. Yeah. To be clear, this is for commercial or I mean larger multi-panel buildings, but yeah, we're seeing a lot more of this firewise.

Yes. Exactly. Yeah. Fiber cement is 90% of what unfortunately ends up on buildings because of the and we try for metal and and then metal is for some reason restricted to 50% but I think of like the what is it the grove and that's all metal but this is in the residential zone. So, oh, okay. It's kind of hard when it gets chopped up and I'm not sure which section. Just to be clear, that was what we wanted it to be under the list of must be primarily materials. Okay. Is that correct? Yes. Not not the limited part. I mean, that's already probably what it is for most buildings.

Okay, I can add that. Um, and then there was something else. This is just kind of a general thing I keep seeing of this phrase of single family, detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, uh, for a lot of these um, development standards and but it doesn't mention uh, sometimes it mentions cottage clusters, but it almost never mentions shared courts. Shared courts is a type of development. It is not a type of dwelling unit. So, it's a land division. Okay. That creates lots for town homes, but it's not a use.

Yeah. Because I've seen things like driveways, like you can have a ribbon driveway in single family, detached, duplex, triplex, but you couldn't have it for a shared court. Um, most of our share courts haven't really had too many driveways. They're just like five, three to five feet and Oh, they don't have the 20 foot thing in front of the They don't have to. No. All right. What about They're more like an alley loaded. Oh my god.

Nathan, any questions? Uh yeah, just one. Uh just wondering the intent behind Excuse me. I'm sorry. uh for the overhead door um 8 feet or less for things that aren't a garage door or access to livable space. Um what is the intent behind like that restriction? Like it it the clarification in the I mean like like why do we care if a area that is like made for storage stores a vehicle? I'll I'll take a try and then Amy. But the main reason is um

Oh, you know what? I have a good example. Let me while she's looking for that, what's happening is we have people that are building garages. They're putting a door on it and then you know usually a garage is for a vehicle and maybe it accesses from the street and they have an alley and they're not allowed to have this secondary access to the street by code and then they're like oh but I'm not going to park my car there so I don't need to have the driveway and like well but do and then they put gravel in and then they're driving over the curb and they're

doing it anyway. The picture up on the screen is one example. That is not a garage apparently. Um, but it looks and acts like a garage. And the issue with this lot is it has two frontages and they already have one street access. They also have an alley. And so we want to make sure that they don't get a third street access. And um because if once you take access it should be from the alley or your existing access. So then they just say this is for storage and it's not a garage like they

Okay. So it's people are using this particular part of the code to give themselves an additional like street access on their property that is not what we want them to have basically. But and they I mean they can look at different street accesses, but it means maybe closing an existing access or taking access off the alley versus trying to figure out how do they get even more access, right, and curb disruption, pushing the envelope the wrong way?

Is there a consideration for a situation where like there is an overhead door that's not facing the street, things like that? Well, I guess that's uh clarified with the enclosed livable space uh clarification. So, okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

Okay. Um so, next one. Okay. So, now we're in chapter 2.2, which is our commercial zoning district. So, this only applies to the commercial zones. Um we have some inconsistencies in this chapter uh which limit the building size in the commercial convenience. Um the code talks about building footprint, building size. Um and so the thought is and we're trying to get away from conditional uses because it's for retail sales and services and those are types of uses we want in the zone. And so if we want those type of uses, then they shouldn't have to go through a conditional use permit process. So the proposal is to delete the inconsistencies and delete the conditional use permit for retail buildings over 50,000 square ft in these particular zones. Again, there's inconsistencies on how that's measured um in the code and um the uses a desirable use for the convenience commercial zone. Um, and then this is just to allow flag poles to be regulated by the zoning height versus um, this was the only zone in the entire city that has a specific height for a flagpole. So all the other zones you just regulated by the height of the zone and so that's what we're proposing here.

I had a question on the the convenience commercial. So we're okay. It makes sense to me that conditional use should be use related, not design related. So that means they can put a big a large building in presumably with like lots of smaller stores. Sure. But could they put you in like a bigger like one gigantic store? They could also.

Mhm. As long as that the use is um for um retail. And the other thing too cuz I'm writing my findings for um this project is there's so many requirements in that zone that is going to limit the size of the buildings like um if they put in parking they have parking lot landscaping requirements. They have setback requirements. They have height limitations. Um they have buffering if they're near residential. So there's all those factors that come into play. So they're not going to be able to just build um property like tight. These are generally like within neighbor they're within neighborhoods not on like the main commercial zone.

And I think in the in the compound policies or new convenience commercial I think it's limited to five acres is the maximum size of the entire area not each property but the entire area that's designated for that. So they're relative small scale. Okay. And I have a clarification on this one. So when you say use related or design related, can you clarify design related? Um, so there's a whole bunch of design standards in the commercial districts, um, similar to what we just looked at in the residential districts that they would have to comply with. So there's no reason to have a conditional use permit to regulate design or anything like that. The conditional use permit is really looking at the use

something is that and in that case, just the blanket thing, we we cover driving or drive through, we catch them all the time as conditional use, right? No, most of the time. uh depends on the zone. Um because we have again clear and objective standards for those drive-throughs. So if they are going to build one um we have setback standards um screening standards on where the drive-thru can be located like not on a corner, where the reader boards can be. So you don't need the conditional use for that. You just have specific standards that they can comply with. But there are some zones that do require the conditional.

Yeah. I just don't think all of them do. Okay. Okay. So now this is uh chapter 2.3 our mixeduse zoning districts like mix mixed use neighborhood mixeduse urban. Um many moons ago we got a request for adding a veterary clinic for large animals and it only in the mixed employment district um which is similar to it has a lot of industrial uses and it's appropriate. So we're proposing to add a veterary clinic there for large animals. And then the architectural design standards, um, you know, they're just not a one-sizefits-all. And the way it's worded almost made it sound like if you built a quadlex or a town home project in one of our mixeduse neighborhood districts, they'd have to meet the commercial or mixeduse design standards, whereas they should really be meeting the design standards for the use, which is a quadlex or a town home. So, this just basically cleaning it up and clarifying what design standards those particular uses would have to comply with. And then we are proposing to delete the de that large section 2.3600 devel this has been I think on my list for like 10 years special development standards for the mixed river um zone. Um Colin can probably provide more information on that but um my understanding is that the um the MR zone predates the current master plan standards and they're different than any other standards we have in the zoning for the city. Um they were relevant back in the day when the mill district was first developing and prior to current code requirements for sewer and water analysis and transportation impact analysis and um just doesn't seem to be a reason to keep this in the code anymore somewhat outdated

small range plan. Yeah, we planned it.

Any questions on the MR? Uh, one thing I noticed was the the walkway connections was for the site layout and building orientation uh, was changed and then it reminded and this is something I mean obviously I don't need to do this now but it's it's a it's a code that I've seen in other jurisdictions which is when you have a setback of let's say you have a sidewalk of 8 10 ft or something like that and your building's got to be right on that. Uh oftentimes uh some places let you once you get up above like 14 feet you can have things that encroach into the setback. Generally that's for balconies for mixeduse buildings and things like that. Um and back when 181 Franklin uh many moons ago we had kind of brought that up because we were trying to look at ways to maximize the building footprint of the residential areas. And for instance, Portland has the thing where it's your the curb and your setback, you know, that's not part of the rideway. It's part of this setback area that once you go up 14 ft, there's like a 45 degree angle and things could be built out there for the purposes of um residential balconies and things like that. So,

don't they require a permit for encroachment over the public way? I think no, this would be within a setback. So, it's not over the It's not Yeah, it's not over the rightway, but it's just something that or even uh you know, sometimes or I think one of them here it says um uh some kind of a canopy or something like that weather. So, if you're doing a a post-tension, right,

platform of construction, you can extend that thing out a few feet. Uh and generally they're the bottom of that's 14 to 16 feet up in the air. Uh, and it's just something that I when I was crunching the numbers on that building, it was, you know, out over four stories the length of a building. That's a lot of square footage. So, ME and MR don't have any setback require no minimum setback requirements. I think it was the you had to have a it was the sidewalk requirement or something like that. It wasn't setbacks. It was um

well the sidewalk should definitely be in the right of way if if planned and then the front setbacks are an on-site sidewalk so you can have Yeah, you can have anything extend over an on-site sidewalk. Maybe it was encroaching in the runway a little bit. I can't it's been then that gets a little three years. This the one over on um Franklin. This we brought that up during a preapp. Yeah, I think we were talking about it. I think that was the that was the rightway. Was that the rightway? If I recall correctly, it was right up on the fact we were trying to obtain some right away and then they were right up right away. But if the rightway I mean the rightway wouldn't go right up to the building face, good.

So you would have a you can do that in a zero setback. No. So I mean I guess in the future if the city wanted to get rid of sidewalks and just have roads in the ride ofway, then they could potentially just have a curb right there. Well, I mean, you have to maintain a sidewalk. Yeah. But I think under the building code, you can encroach into the light of way over after a certain height, which we've done in some instances and to try and keep street walls and main street feel and all that stuff if you're getting up close, right? And yeah.

Yeah. Anyway, since we were doing this and we were kind of in that section, I thought I'd bring up like it'd be nice if there was a way that you could have some potential for even if it's just balconies, couple feet, something. Otherwise, if you're going to do a balcony, it either has to be fully recessed because obviously they're going to put the building as far up as they can with maximizing footprint. So, I like the idea. Um, I have to have my packet out by Monday. No, I don't question, but I am gonna I'm a short timer, so I'm just throwing out No, I like I look into that. But for a folder code update, the parking lot,

Nathan, did you have any questions? Uh, none for this one. Thank you.

So, now we're into the industrial zoning districts. So this is our um light and general industrial zones and it really focuses on personal and professional service uses again conditional use permit um and the use is you know appropriate to have in the industrial zone. They're very limited in size um and scale and they serve the workers um that are in the industrial district. So the use is um appropriate, the size limitation is appropriate. um requiring a conditional use. What we proposed is to um clarify the standards versus going through a conditional use permit. And then um the standards are really to clarify that when we say and I think it's either like 2500 square ft or 5,000 square feet that that is the entire use area because we might be seeing some food carts going out there and they are basing it on the building and not the entire area of the establishment. And we do want to preserve these lands for our industrial uses. Um we want the supportive um services out there, but they do need to be limited and we do need to be clear on what that size limitation applies to. So the proposal reduces the conditional use permit requirement clarifies that the size limitation is for the entire area, not just buildings. And then uh there is another amendment um which is for child care facilities falls in the same um same section of 2.3 and or 2.4800 and uh to be consistent with the house bill uh 319. We are deleting the location requirements for childcare centers in the industrial which currently says you have to be on the perimeter and on arterial and collector. and we've had some good applications come in, but they didn't meet these design standards and with the bill, we're not even supposed to have them. So, uh, we are permitting them or there's still conditional use permit out there, um, because of the use being in an industrial zone, but there's

no locationational requirements. So, if the developer owner of child care wanted to come in in a different location to make the case that they're making it safe for the kids and trucks and all that, but they don't have to be at the edge, right? They don't have to be at the edge. They don't have to be an arterial collector. they can pick anywhere in the industrial zones according to this bill. Um, but then you would go to the conditional use permit approval criteria and add on some

and one other one I saw and correct me if I read it wrong was the rear yard setbacks were going to be changed to none in light industrial and general industrial that oh page 26. rear inside unless it abotss a residential and then it's Oh, that's currently in the code. Correct. Yeah. Well, the question there and and I might have been reading it too too much is I mean two buildings back to back. It's always tough to service and fix and clean and whatever. Is that what the intent is that I could pull my industrial building right up to your industrial building and right at the lot?

Yep. similar to how we have buildings downtown and in other areas commercial. Um the only Yeah, that's been in the code code. They have to be able to get preset around it to fight fire and then any openings you wouldn't be able to have, right? All right. So So there wouldn't really be a case of back to back. You'd have to have the fire code. Could you could if you get the three sides if you have I mean if you have a concrete or CMU wall as a two-hour bar or Yeah. Just like downtown buildings touching each other. Okay, that answers that.

It is kind of weird that it says exceptions to rear and side setbacks as opposed to like additional or something. Usually when I read exception, it means like, oh, I don't have to follow something. And then this one exception means no, you have more restriction. Um, I can see what other term to use there. Any other questions on the industrial zones? Okay. So, this is uh 2.7 which has all our master plans in it and um I'm not sure if it's Yes, I believe it's in your packet. So, the first one is the medical overlay zone and um it's been brought to our attention that um all the zones. So, there's a a commercial zone, a highdensity residential zone, a medium density residential zone that are all part of the medical overlay um district. And we all know the medical overlay district is to support the hospital. Uh for some reason the u medium density residential zone um doesn't permit hospitals in the MDOS. So the the proposal is to allow hospitals in the medical overlay zone in the medium density residential. And even weirder is that in the actual residential zones in Bend, you can have a hospital with a conditional use permit. So it just doesn't make any sense. So, so we're going to propose to permit hospitals in the zone if you're zoned medium that way if they need they can. So,

density hospital zone

and then we have a water overlay zone. There's a tree removal process in this particular section and because it's process related all our processes should reside in chapter 4.1. So, we're relocating it to the Dashuites River design review and we're um clarifying what the process is because it's kind of vague right now um which will be a type one. And then the Juniper Ridge employment subdist the PL there's not many lots left for the planners in the employment subdist but there's always this question on what do the setbacks mean? And so because they use a little bit different terminology, so we're just clarifying the setbacks um for the lots that are left in the employment subdist. And then in the Ben Central District, um we've been working on this one for a while. Uh starting in October um of 2024, uh the court area business assistance subcommittee um heard from three businesses in town. They heard from somewhere that's green, the giving plate, and the catalyst, which is now known as the dogwood at the pine shed. the Quanza Hub building um just to get their feedback on permitting processes for land use approval as well as building permit approval. And one thing that came up was just some of the challenges with these older buildings like the Quanza Hut to meet the design review requirements and we want to stimulate redevelopment down there. People want to improve their buildings, but um they're finding that some of the design standards are maybe a barrier to investing in redoing their buildings. So the proposal um the recommendation from the core area business system subcommittee um was to look at different um exemptions for these buildings. And so again on February 20th, 2025, so this year, the subcommittee discussed the concept with uh the development code subcommittee and they were all in support of uh eliminating the design review requirements for existing buildings only. So any new um addition

or any um new building or development will still be subject to the design review standards, but to try and stimulate some more redevelopment um in the central business district is what this amendment's proposing to do. Uh question on that one. So if we take that away and sometimes they are too detailed owners for smaller older buildings, can somebody still come in and board up or brick up a storefront in downtown according to this? Well, I would say that they'd still have to meet building code for ingress and egress. So, windows and doors, they can't board up everything, but they I suppose could, you know, change the elevations. And this is the Ben central district.

Yeah, just not downtown. Well, in downtown I mean just if we're trying to make it a more pedestrianoriented compact district and I've run into this almost in every city where they don't allow someone to brick up or board up a storefront because they want the open you know walking main street field. So uh if we have other tools to get at that said hey you don't have all these restrictions but that's one thing you can't do. That's the question I have. And not to get into square footage or percentage right now, but that's that's,

you know, for everyone that comes in with a good we have my commercial building, make it look cool and make it look more main street. The next guy comes in and so I'm going to put in a nightclub or something and board it all up and just have the doorway and uh I don't know. They're interesting. We're trying it up. Huh? Junk it up. Junk it up. That's the other half. Um, and we're trying to go denser and bigger in that district. So, and walkable. So, and and we shouldn't take time on it now. if we could figure out if we if we're going to have an opening there.

I can look to see if I can add some language, I guess, for um I am meeting with the subcommittee again this week or next week because they're going to write a letter of support is my understanding and see if they have any thoughts on that as well. It won't be in the packet. No, but um down the road by Monday we can catch it down the road. Yeah. Just see if if we can come up with something there because they might need to cover up something if they're putting a kitchen in or something like that or Yeah. you know, but and also the properties are probably pretty expensive compared to

they could do an industrial use somewhere else or whatever. But yeah. Well, nightclub was just a door. Engineering offices, nightclubs, uh coffee shops or they board it all. It's like what are you doing? We want to see your stuff. You know, more divy places. It's kind of divy right now. Although Yeah, I like questions. You like it? I like I like I uh none for me in this one as well. Thank you.

Okay. Um and Amy pointed out in the Ben central or just design review in general, um one of the requirements that they would not have to follow, but I can bring it to the subcommittee too is just saying that you can be exempt as long as there's no net loss of glazing. So that might be or percentage percentage because I was thinking someone puts in a restaurant and they need to have a kitchen or and or something. They need to close up something. Yeah. Kind of a happy meme by Scott's idea. It's a good one. So, no total board up, but there's a percentage you can keep. Okay. Yeah. Some minimum.

We'll definitely um talk to the committee next week on that. Um I think they just been working really hard to try and figure out how to stimulate anything. So, we'll see. You know, it kind of depends on the use though because I don't know, nightclub maybe, but like theaters and things like those would kind of require boarding it too. No, I don't know if I would really want to codify that. Well, the only thing is it's just to make people aware that we're trying to make it more open and ew walls and glass, right? You know, people having cough, whatever they're doing inside make it a walkable pedestrian environment.

So, most cities are going the other way, saying, "Okay, you can't break it up. You can't board it up." But I've seen percentages, too. So, that might be the happy medium. And if you can't get it in now, then whatever you and Colin and Amy think down the road, if it works. Okay. Okay. Um, Discoveries West was just a um a not clear and objective statement. So, we're removing that. There was some other minor fixes that were just uh I think in Petros it was like a typo, so I didn't include that here. So, we're not giving up on the housing types though in Discovering West. Oh, no. Nothing's changing in the use table. It just had this general statement of, oh, it would be great to meet the certain density requirement, but the density is minimum maximum. That's the clear objective standard.

Okay. Because there is a um a master plan 4.5 200 E3B1 uh and it talks about a mix of it has to have 10% I believe. So that would still the zone but yeah there's a there's a baseline minimum density master plan and and I was I was kind of wondering about that because if that so that's a that's another section deals with getting master plan you know for for a master plan it has to have I think it was 10%

of middle housing and so this one had something but it was clear objective it just says it may it says that Um, where was it? The large lot residential district will accommodate approximately 50 single unit detached dwellings and duplex lots. And so that that 10% is baked in when the master plan goes through, right? Because if that if we change that from 10% to 20%. Then master plans that are in the process wouldn't have to have that 20%. I I guess I was just kind of wondering on what they still have to follow the master plan approval. Okay.

Um, these were general statements. I probably should have taken out when we did the House Bill 2001 cleanup. Gotcha.

Okay. So, title three, this is where we look at lot parcel block design, access and circulation. So, the first chapter is uh 3.1. Um, and so for vehicular access management, we're making proposing changes to uh clarify when street access to existing on-site parking for a dwelling can remain if there is alley access. So, um, we have developments come in, they are adding on to their house, maybe they're doing an accessory dwelling unit, they have an alley, they want to put an access off the back, but they already have an existing access off the front that they want to keep. Um, if it's for existing on-site parking for that dwelling, then it can remain. We're just trying to clarify when an access can remain and when it has to be removed. If there's a curb cut and it doesn't even lead to a garage, it's only for parking. We would make them close it and take access off the alley. Um, but this just it's already in the code. Um, we're just tweaking the language, I think, to help clarify um a little bit stronger on when it is allowed and isn't allowed. I I had a question in general which wasn't one you had to clarify but there was so much in there I was trying to see if it's in the code period and that is parking lot to parking lot connection so if one commercial use goes in next to another you don't have to drive out onto big street and come back in can do we require that you have to connect

I don't know that we require it says the city may require internal connections it's in a different section of the code yeah but as long as we got it like we have particularly If the axises are on our trails and collectors, we have a stronger that that would be a shared ax a shared driveway. But we do there's another section of the curve certain number of curve cuts because I worked on a project where we had to stub out the parking lot and it's 4t below the next property. But in the future, yeah, it could. Well, it's usually the director's choice or staff's choice to say, "Hey, you need to connect because this makes sense. We don't want to have 16 shopping trips out onto the road.

You just want to go next door out onto the highway to just go and some may have conditions that you can't do. You can't do the height you can't do because of some other thing. But as long as we got your prerogative to do it, then we're good.

Uh the other change is uh when we have through lots and both frontages are on local streets that they can have an access on both frontages. Um as long as it's local street. That's for residential. And then I'm still working on this section. Uh I don't know that it will change by the time it gets in the packet, but uh it does just acknowledge that um public storm water infrastructure within the right of way may be allowed if it's designed and constructed um in compliance with the Ben Municipal Code. So we have a lot of requirements in the Bend Municipal Code of when this is allowed. Um, so we're just trying to tie the um Bend development code with the Bend municipal code allowance for allowing storm drainage to go um offsite. Uh, one thing about the connectivity

um, and there's a list of on say building entrances, storage, recreation, uh, trash and that's I mean that's it's kind of normally I don't like it when one thing is on two different codes, but that accessibility code you have to have a accessible path from a building entrance to a that's in the building crash enclosure. Correct. Um, but like some of this like common areas like it was already kind of so some of them is from the accessibility like you couldn't you couldn't have an inaccessible route from a building entrance to a common area like a like a that would be building code that would look at the accessibility ADA requirements.

Yeah, but I'm just saying some of them are on here and some of them aren't kind of thing. So I didn't know if it was going to go What do you mean some? So, so like connect all building entrances with other on-site building entrances. That's also accessibility code, storage areas, recreational facilities, common areas. Um, so it it's one of those things where it's in if something's in development code and accessibility code, but they're not exactly lined up. So ours requires the connection but does not necessarily specify it has to be an accessible like ADA accessible.

Yeah. But then accessibility the ANZY would dictate that which ones have to be not all to be but yeah that's all built-in code. Okay. And then B, I mean, these would all be have to even if you didn't have any of these in there in the development code, you'd still have to do them meet accessibility requirements.

And then B, just for the commission uh is from the uh climate friendly and equitable communities bill. So we're just uh basically A and B are already in the code, but they were all um combined together, so we're just breaking it out um so it reads simpler. And then B is definitely from CFAC. So those have to stay in there. Um any questions on this one? Chapter 3. We'll move on to land.

I have one. Well, I just wanted to comment that uh 3.1.3 the on-site pedestrian facilities section. I really like um the rewrite uh for pedest pedestrian facilities. Uh that that one is I really like the clarity and all of that. Um and the other thing it's not directly related to this section. It's not related to this section at all. Um but I didn't want to ask it so I'm just going to ask it now. Um it's uh this quest to remove every shall in the development code. Um can you speak to why? And then is this all of them? Those are my two questions on that topic. You must not pass [Laughter]

is a legal a recommendation we got from former city attorney Barry Winters. Yeah. I mean this is a style thing. Are there differences in a particular context between words like shall, will, or must? Maybe, maybe not. It just depends. My predecessor, I think, was not big on shall. And I think it's in part because it feels a little antiquated. Um must feels pretty directive. So don't change it back. Some people think shall is you are allowed. Yes. And it depends on the context. It depends on the context.

Um so I think it's it's a style thing. I think there are there are cases where there might be some ambiguity based on using one of those words and there are other cases where it's pretty clear and I think it's a style thing. So it's pretty clean. I think I don't have hard and fast recommendations. So I'm not going to they go back to show that way you can look back and see which sections of the code have been updated. So you're like oh maybe we should like carbon dating. I am a fan of consistency though since you started keep going. Well that's the legal question for Ian. Can they just make one statement? We're changing everything in the code to bust or do you have to go word by word in sentence? I feel more comfortable going. Do we have to go Pauline's way

section by section and it doesn't read right. All right. Never know. Okay, good question.

U so chapter 3.2 is landscaping street trees, fences and walls. Uh we get a lot of well I shouldn't say a lot but we do get requests for um deferring landscaping installation or deferring the planting of street trees and planter strip landscaping because of weather. So we just want to clarify the process. And then for fences retaining walls. Uh this came from our code enforcement department because someone put a cute little arbor over their fence and the code doesn't specifically say you can't. So, we are just adding some clarity on being allowed to put um some decorative arbors gates and similar features on your fence that can go above like the six foot height limit. question there and not to go into it long. If down the road we change the code to require metal gates, wood fences to houses from our firewise approach,

is this where this that would happen here or is we would do another firewise kind of thing or because I told you we're getting the questions out by me about developers saying no, we're not going to we're going to do wood all the way the house and buyers are saying we want to put the metal gate in for fireways and they're being told no. Now, that's a whole thing we got to change and all that stuff is a new code. But is that where it would be or we don't have to worry about it now?

Well, I mean, we don't currently regulate materials for fencing. Mostly mostly we just regulate height and and where you can put a fence. You know, mostly in regards to property lines and setbacks. Um, you know, if we get to that point, um, you know, there's some council goals to talk about looking at our our regulations. We'll have to make a determination whether those go in the development code or whether they go in the municipal code. Combination of the two. Not real sure right now. It's a much bigger program um than just trying to determine which code it would go in. We we would have to have some enforcement um ability which we don't we don't have fence permits right now. We probably have to have some kind of a permitting system. So there's a lot to talk about. I don't so I can't answer question. of sever.

We would figure out the most appropriate place to put it. That came up was the buyer saying, "Oh, here's what I want with the final materials and they she said, "I want a metal gate." She saw our fire department's presentation out in our neighborhood district and how nasty it is if it goes burning right to the house. And then she showed one with the metal gate and she said, "No, I like a metal gate." He said, "Too bad. That's what you're going to get until HOA takes it over. This is what you're going to get." And so I'm like, "A four foot or five foot gauge metal is really going to strip this guy money. I don't know what his problem was, but that'll come down the road. But this is a section that might come in or it could be a firewise section. Okay. It probably affect um several sections if we go do amendments for that.

And then I want to clarify in this packet for fencing. Uh there's one section that I don't have on here, but it's fences must not exceed 6 ft height in uh the side and rear setback. So, this is for uh residential uses. And we've had questions come up, well, if we're um outside the setback, can we have a fence that's like 30 feet tall? Because that's how tall the building can be. And so, we are clarifying that um if you're outside of the setback and you're building a fence, it's a maximum height of um 8 feet. The current the draft says 10, but it's actually going to be 8t when you see it next week. So, that means your perimeter is six, but if you're going to do something to screen your porch or whatever,

eight feet inside. Yeah. Okay. as long as you're, you know, outside of sepex. One question on the um here in the last section also it mentioned trash recepticles and I don't know about the definition of trash. Does that include recycling? Yes. So is there a definition somewhere that says trash includes recycling? No. waste waste recycles. I mean, yeah.

Yeah. So, cardboard. There's usually for commercial anyway, there's going to be a cardboard bin, but I assume that that would need to be inside there. It didn't necessarily say it was part of the screening. So, see if um I can find a definition to add for that. And if you're putting a note on definitions, I had one that came up later on page 68. Asphaltic concrete. I don't know. Page 68F. Asphaltic. What? So if we got it described, great. If not, we may need to put a definition in. Never heard that term. Maybe Scott has asphalted concrete.

Oh, for the surface of bicycle parking location. I think should be asphalt or asphalt asphalt. Yeah. Or concrete. Okay. Um just we moved slightly past this but on the vehicular access management there's a fire access and parking area turnaround and half of it that section is struck and or is proposed to be struck and what's left is essentially straight out of the fire code. And I was just thinking we could probably just get rid of that hole. Which section are you in? Uh it's a 3.1400 uh I or 3.1400 page.

Sorry, what was the question about it? It was just so the second half about deliveries and stuff like that was was taken out and then what's left is a fire equipment access drive shall be provided for any portion of an exterior wall the first story of building that is located more than 150 ft from a 16 public speak street or approved fire equipment access drive which is that's one of those things where it's it is in the building code that's in the fire code building code I mean that's just I mean the only reason I could see to put it in the development code is so that we could apply it directly to a site plan review without having to reference another code. It arguably because the fire official is part of the review review. Yeah.

But it wouldn't be in the land use decision if it's not in the So I mean it's just a stronger link if it's in the development code rather than at site plan review. Somebody saying when you know you can't put the fire code, you can't implicate the fire code in site plan review. That's only the building code. And they were like, "Well, you can edit the building code." But

no, I mean, also, I mean, I've had uh fire officials, they can go from very lenient to like, "No, I don't care what it says in the fire code. You're going to do this additional things." So, I mean, I could see a situation where maybe they're like, "Oh, this particular, yeah, we don't don't need to dound we have longer hoses or something like that." Firefield's the one thing that like it's not written stone at all. It's just it's up to fire. And I like it in the code because if a planner is reviewing it and not being familiar with the fire code, it gives them a heads up as well as the applicant. Um I know it might be duplicative to have it in all the codes but I think it is maybe helpful in some sense keeping it here

so that it gets reviewed at an earlier phase of yeah like preapp you know the may or may not not the developer side it's always appreciated there early that's an alternative is flagged by well that's that's discussion or something yeah well they because I mean you have to to approve exceptions. I don't know.

You have to show on plans where a fire truck can park and 150 foot max line and show that it can get all the way around the building. And then there's if it's a taller building, then that fire access road becomes an aerial apparatus road and then that's has to be between 10 to 15 feet of the building and 26 ft wide. It's not a hill I'm gonna die on. I was just whenever I see are kind of crisscrossing in the fire code there and we couldn't approve an exception but we could not welling the fire. Yeah. Sorry.

Fire can approve an exception. Do we put something in the code unless No. No. Is there no way around it? put something in the code that the fire department can approve an exception. Uh, no. Yeah, this would be preventing the fire official from any any flexibility in terms of 150 ft. All right, I'm going to pull up the actual right though. I think the more we learn front then catch it later. It is kind of an odd if it's I understand.

Well, it was like we did one a few years back where it was eaves. It had to do with encroachment of the eaves of a residential to a how close it can be to a no street line um property line and that's because typically building code but there are ways that you can build it a certain way where that would meet the fire code but then it wouldn't meet the So this is I y 400di. Okay.

And Scott's recommending maybe looking at deleting I and just letting the fire code regulate it, which I mean saying that out loud does make sense if that's the only reason that we're requiring it. And if not then don't qu fire would call it something else.

Um I wouldn't want to recommend Okay, I get it now. Thank you for the patience. I wouldn't want to recommend this without talking to fire. Um because you know as we know when they they will provide comments here they will also come in later. Um I think maybe a question is for fire does it what do they think about having this here versus taking it out or I don't think the exception idea is great but um this is something we kind of deal with in various contexts how much detail should be in the development code and where should other requirements live and stay or perhaps be kind of replicated or referenced in the development code. I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to recommend I this is just a work session and planning commission is making recommendations but maybe want to talk to fire about what they think about having this here or or not

and that might be a bigger discussion too because it's be out by next Monday. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean we we have some general language in chapter 1.1300s that says all development and every use application and other procedures under this code must be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the city as implemented by this code all applicable local ordinances and state and federal laws and regulations. So if we So I think there's an argument like can can you can you if somebody's coming in for site plan review is the fire code a criterion in that? Um I think with that in there you don't have to

fire official to but if a developer said no I'm not going to I'm not going to put that that in. If it's in the development code it's pretty clear that we can enforce it. You know it's in the fire code maybe we can. Yeah. and fires I mean I think understandably so their involvement in development code applications is I mean it's there but they're not they're not sitting in the same position as the planners are. So I think my inclination is to leave it in unless

somebody from fire has a good reason upon discussion that they don't think it should be in there. But as Colin said it's we have that sort of general catchall language basically says follow the law. Everything you do must follow the law. Um, there are certain things that we probably want to be more clearly articulated in the development code. Better to tell you up front that you're going to need to do something about.

There's that. There's that, too. I mean, this is a pretty critical piece of putting a project together and coming in a fire official coming in afterwards and saying, "Oh, you got to do this thing. Where's where's your access?" Well, it's not in the development code. Um, this is a better better forewarned, I think, than It's the preemptive early. Well, we also have the it's fire cut 150 foot. Once you get beyond that, then you have to have a hammerhead turnaround or And I don't think that's in our development code, is it? Oh, no. No, we always get that in our fire comments. Yes, I don't get it in any development code. That's really getting fire code.

That's the one that gets you. OFC. Okay. So, I think we'll move on to vehicle parking, loading, and bicycle parking. So, now we're on chapter.

I did have one quick question. I'm sorry. Um, for the deferral of installation of landscape requirements, um, on the previous slide, um, it has a deferral time limit of 6 months. Um, which I'm worried might be too short for establishing landscaping that wouldn't be successful, uh, due to the timing. For example, if you want to landscape in the fall and you are going through this process in December, uh the 6 months might be too short. I I don't think our ground freeze is more than six months typically. Is that the one that we're talking about?

Yeah. Think Nathan's point might be though that you you'd rather plant. You can't if you plant something in October, it might just die over the winter. Well, a lot of a lot of planting wants to be done in October specifically. Uh and so if if we're having this deferral process with the intent of having the landscaping be as successful as possible, 6 months might be too short of a deferral period for like establishing landscaping. Generally people do put landscaping in in March or April. A lot of plants will not survive gardener here. So

So is the suggestion that we let people not for frozen ground, but if there's like a two or three month window where we have landscaping that so the the language in the in the code is that in no case may the deferral be for more than six months then it has like the reasons why you can defer. Um well I'm suggesting that instead of six months we have 10 basically like change it to nine months change it to nine months like eight more was that no or is there another season to season is it the for in the book I don't think it is seasonal timing the plant

like they they they didn't get it going in the spring defer it till the fall but it might be seven months It's all about it really it really depends on the plant. Some things will take well some things need heat in order to take and some things need cold. So it's right I I I do agree 6 months is too short. I feel more comfortable with eight.

Yeah, that was my only feedback. Yeah, I mean we might have a site un landscape for better half of the year. That'd be the only negative part which you know but it's probably landscaping and stuff. Yeah. Everything looks gross in the winter time except for mans and needles. Yeah. I'd rather see I'd rather see things wait an extra month or two and look really great long term. Okay. So, I'm in and the draft that will come next week with the planning commission packet will likely maybe say eight months in there.

Great. Thank you.

Um the next chapter is for parking and bicycle parking. And this has come up. Uh so again, our climate friendly and equitable communities parking lot landscaping requirements. If the site's over a half acre, um you have two options. One is to do a tree canopy of 40% over the parking lot or do solar and uh line the driveway access areas with trees. And um in certain situations, a developer would like to do both. Do some of the canopy at 40% but then also do solar. What we're also finding is that the um um I'm probably not going to say this right, but if they wanted to propose all solar um the solar company is not accepting it. And so they're saying you can't do all solar. It's too much.

Yeah. Roof. Yeah. Too much on the grid. They can't accept all the energy that it's going to generate. So, and the OAR actually allows you to do a combination. So, to be consistent with the statute, we're recommending that you can do a combination. And in the future, I still would like to look at the um there's one other option which we didn't get in the code with uh CFAC because there was not a system setup but that you can pay in into a fund um to just for solar elsewhere. Y um

and right after we got through all the code updates, they created a pathway. Um but the city's not there yet. So that might be a future option that we'll come back with. But this just allows a little bit more flexibility because they may not want to do all so they may not want to do all canopy. um and their sight lens to both. And then the second one is just reducing the driveway landing lengths from 30 feet to 20 feet, which is the length of a a car. Um and this was recommended by a couple different departments like two years ago. Didn't we just put that in a couple years ago? Yeah, we did.

Yep. And then they're like, "Oh, no, it needs to be 20." And now the bicycle um parking standards uh not a lot. So it looks like a lot of changes. Um the amount of required bicycle parking isn't changing. It's just clarifying really short-term and long-term bicycle parking requirements. Um the amount of shelters required really isn't changing. It provides more options for meeting the parking requirements. So, it still only applies to site plan review and um like commercial minimum development standards review. Long-term bicycle parking um is really geared towards accommodating employees, commuters, students, people who are going to be at a site longer than two hours, whereas short-term bicycle parking is um for quicker trips le um 2 hours or less. Um the parking options um now include the U racks which we already had um vertical wall mounted racks which we see a lot of proposals for. So in apartment complexes and hotels um bicycle lockers as well as um some minimal requirements for oversized bicycle parking. Um so adding more options for a um developer to choose from and then the long-term bicycle parking requirements. So, we've had um in the past like a a uh I think it was a hotel and they wanted to put all their bicycle parking inside the parking structure. So, we had no way in the code to say, "Well, some of it should still probably be outside in the front for um visitors coming to the hotel." So, this is really where that short-term and long-term breaks it up. So, allowing some to be inside and requiring some to be outside. Um, and again, I've looked at several cities, um, and, um, tried to mirror similar, they're all very similar to what we're proposing. Um, so for long-term, um, it would be located on site in a building, parking structure, garage, um, within 200 feet of certain

entrances. And, um, this is already in the code. If it happens not to be at the ground level, then there just needs to be, you know, either an elevator that fits the bikes or ramp somehow to get the bikes to the actual um parking. Uh the bicycle parking can be in racks or lockers with a minimum of 25% as URAs. A lot of cities do still have that requirement for U-racks because not everybody's capable of living lifting a heavy bike up to a wall rack. So, you still want to have some ground um parking, especially with all the ebikes.

And then in lockable areas with racks is another option. Um, this gets to, um, if you have 20 long-term spaces required, at least 5% need to be for oversized bicycle parking. And then exterior spaces, if they do propose to put some outside, they they need to be sheltered because they're for long-term parking um, areas. And just clarifying this already in the code, but um, spaces on balconies and porches do not count as meeting your parking requirements. So then shortterm, again, this is for um shorter uh stays, less than two hours, they still need to be located on site and available to the public a little bit closer to the primary entrances, which I believe is already in the code today. Um and but recognizing again the hotel situation, if 75% want to be in a parking structure, they can. Um just need to have very clear signage so the public knows where the bicycle parking is. Um and then again they can be a combination of U racks or vertical wall mounted racks. And the shelter requirements is very similar to what is required today that if you have more intense spaces at least 50% in excess of 10 need to be sheltered. And then down here in the central business district there is no sheltering requirements today. So we're not going to um make it more restrictive.

Thank you for getting rid of the or adding U style or similar. Oh, I did have um Janet Janet Ruby with her transportation department review this and then Ben Bic um Ben Bicycle bikes bikes Ben bikes review it just to get their feedback. I think they um felt it was going in the right direction. They wanted to increase some of the parking requirements

um for schools, parks and OSU. I did reach out to all three of those um to see what their thoughts were on it and it was very interesting. So, schools and parks are um basically said the same thing because they have a some parks that have a high wrership while some parks don't have a um many because it's just maybe a little garden or something. And schools, same thing. They have a lot of schools that have high writership while some don't. And so, they'd rather keep the the code requirements that are in the code today. and their practice is when they see like at the schools um like Pacific or Miller where the bikes bike racks are all full they will just add more bicycle parking but they don't want to have excess bicycle parking at schools that just don't have high ridership same with the parks

but they can adjust as needed not required by

they can always go above minimum and then uh OSU uh Karen Swinson the senior planner in our department she processes all their applications and they are well above exceeding their parking requirements um at like 150 I forget the actual percent but they have provided more bicycle parking on site than the minimums and so they again they're just like can we just keep the minimums we're already providing more than what's needed so um other than that I think they were supportive of um the different amendments and then the figure on the screen just clarifies the spacing requirements. It was kind of confusing in the current code of um spacing and so we just have a new exhibit and some text in the code.

But I I don't know where the critical dimension is on this diagram. So like if you guys are looking at the diagram, it' be a lot funnier. I got it. I see you. This critical dimension. No, this critical dimension. Yeah, it has a little speech bubble that points it out. Yeah. I don't know how many conversations I've had about that five foot dimension that you put in there because on the old one it was wrong. It looked wrong. Oh, that. But yes, they're all critical dimensions. This critical dimension. Yes, that's going away. Um, did you I mean I assume uh uh vertical bike manufacturer, bike rack manufacturers were looked at for the dimensions.

Yep. Okay. Yes. Right. Any other questions on that one? Yeah, I have a few questions on this because I ride my bike a lot and I love finding good bike parking. I I I have a few questions. One is we decide I mean the city's adopted for car parking. We decided to let that be a market. Let the market decide. This seems very very specific for bicycles.

Um well, we actually get adjustment requests to not put in bike parking and um I think if we let the market decide on this, you will see a lot less. Yep. Okay. And that's that's a commission recommendation if you don't want to regulate bike parking. But um I think the council goal to increase ridership for all uses. Um bike parks are a big part of that infrastructure from what I understand.

Definitely. I mean I'm all for bike parking. Some of the some of them I think I kind of get what the community is saying. Some places they're providing it because they know they need it. But not every not every business is not not every hotel is a is a bicycle destination. Um I'm not sure about the uh hotels and motel one one space per 10 rooms like so I think some of that thought not to enter sorry but I think some of that thought is more for the employees that are needed thinking that maybe you have a certain number of housekeepers per certain number of rooms and that

you know a lot of your employees might be wanting to bike to work um which I think is why it's per a number of rooms it's less that the visitors are going to be the ones bringing their bike. Oh, maybe because they're coming here to do mountain bike riding, but maybe sometimes I do look for hotels with bike parking because I do take my bike. Um, you know, 25% short-term. I'm not sure who's using short-term parking at motel. Um, two hours available public. That would be a restaurant, wouldn't it? Restaurant. Well, it would be

I don't know. I I just I I think it's a lot of it is just trying as the development code. It's trying to get people it's trying to encourage getting out of the car and getting onto a bike and uh just because you put bike parking there doesn't mean everyone's going to bike there. But if you don't have bike parking the market will not provide for bike parking. Well, okay. Yeah. I just um retirement home or assisted living complex one. They do apply for adjustments. They are um age restricted multi-unit has applied for adjustment. That's that new adjustments that we just had to put in the code because of the Senate bill 1537. Um, yes. And they are applying for adjustments to take away bike parking requirements and balconies and

yeah, age restricted multi-unit. I mean, not saying the oldest people don't don't go. Just guess I'm not questioning that we wanted to have bike parking. I'm questioning that it's that we're crying a lot and that it's very specific about h business owners having to do a lot, you know, this much longterm and this much shortterm. We're putting a lot of regulations and that's a lot of expense.

So, um again, I did try to keep the exact same amount of bike parking. Um I don't think any of them changed. It was just saying if that some have to be sheltered inside which we required sheltering today places that like like in in the you know multi-unit dwellings. I mean Yes. And like with schools shortterm has to be covered. That was good. Yeah. No, some things I like about it. I just it just it seems like it's very it just seems like it's very highly regulated to me and I'm not sure that it's I'm not really confident that it's a huge that a big return on investment for um so

for for the community. I had a question on when they asked for the exception is is that able to be granted by staff or does it come to us or does it go to the adjustment? Yeah. Um the adjustment for Senate Bill 1537 is just a type one application and it's at staff level administrative. I don't think anybody can appeal it except maybe the applicant. It's very very specific on um but you you you staff can facilitate it. We didn't have to go through a whole bunch of it's a almost I would say it's an overthec counter permit but it's pretty straightforward. Require public notice.

Yeah. It's they can and they can remember ask for up to 10 adjustments. Not to get totally sidetracked, but they can ask for a lot of adjustments under. So, it's sort of like market rate market adjustments, but in reverse. Yeah. Eventually, we'll have too much bike parking, right? Honestly, I don't see them being used a whole lot around town. Sometimes, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Just some places do, some places don't. Um I'm not need to not have Yeah, I would say I I need to not have more often than you have.

It is expensive with the concrete work doing the bike racks and everything and dedicating the space. So Okay, I think we can move on. Nathan, do you have any question? Um I love everything about it. Um I love the U you sorry the URAC requirement. I drove back here from Boise, Iowa today. So, sorry that I'm like kind of all over the place. Um, I really like the the ustyle rack requirements. Um, the vertical ones are definitely challenging for certain types of bikes and things like that. So, generally generally love this section. Did a great job.

Yeah. Yeah. And then allowing for the larger ones. Then you're not going to have someone that has a trailer and everything blocking way out. Yep.

So now we are on a chapter 3.4 for public improvement standards. Uh the first one is just um clarifying public use areas. Basically, when a development happens, has to be 10 acres or larger, and it is in a area um for the Ben Park and Recreation District's uh park search area map and is identified for needing a park. So, if the site's over 10 acres and is identified in a park search area map um for needing a park, uh the code requires a developer to enter into negotiations with the um Ben Park and Recreck District. and then we stop there. So, it's up to the developer and the the park district to talk about um acquisition of land for that park, but it just requires that negoti that that enter into talks. Um and then

I was trying to understand what a park search like oh people come to town and they search for parks and then it has to be public. I was so thank you for that clarification.

Search area map if you go to the Ben Park and wreck district um site. Okay. Um quite a bit of information there on different parks and needs in certain areas. Uh and then for utilities um oh this is for overhead utility connection. So only development subject to minimum development standards review. So single unit dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, quads, town homes. Uh they um and um partitions or middle housing line divisions that create lots for these type of uses uh may utilize overhead connections to existing power lines. But if the development requires an extension of that mainline to provide the service, then the new portion of the mainline and connections needs to be underground unless it's determined not to be feasible. But Amy might have more information on this if you have any questions on this particular section.

Are they less likely to get hit by lightning if they're underground? Yes, probably. I mean, it seems likely, but fire. It's California's big problem, right? The overheads. Yeah. Well, any other questions on this section? Oh yeah, hold on. Sorry, I missed the last Oh, wait. Transportation. No, are we on overhead power lines for middle housing and 3.5600 on page we skipped past the rideway width and I was wondering about 4600 3.4600 is 3 yeah but 3.4200 for 200. We did skip that or something.

Um, and I was just wondering, it wasn't, this isn't changed, but I was looking at 20 foot alley widths. Oh, yep. Not changing that. No, not at the moment. Well, is hard. No, I think it might have even been discussed. Um, but at it is remaining 20 right now. Even if you have the you required the 24 backing out from your driveway, but 20 for an alley. So then you have to accommodate the rest of that onsite for the turning distances.

Typically you're going to have a five foot setback. So 20 plus 5 foot setback gives you more than 24. Yeah. If you have if your garage is if you have like a driveway, we're required by we have this on a project where we have to have um it's a cottage cluster and fire is requiring us. This is in a different city to have the 25 ft cuz we technically could build up to the alley. So it's fire comes in and requires that 25 ft no matter what because it has to be a turnaround at some level. Our fire will not use alley as Yeah. And this is like this is a cottage.

Well, assuming the alley is mostly snow removal part of bend. Yeah. Because that's what I think ours is like 14 or 15 and it seems fine and a snow plow can get through there. And I just think a 20 foot is like especially if now we're refining our alleys. Ours is all it's all ours have been dictated by fire. It's like a hard it has to meet the hammerhead turnaround requirement. If it's a dead end, if it's a dead end alley. Yeah, that's true. That's true. Cuz most residential you'd be able to hit that 150 foot that we talked about earlier on there's two streets and an alley in between. Fire truck would be on that street and go all the way

through. So they would never need to use the alley. And apparently they don't like to use alleys. And the 24 feet is from the driveway or the garage door. You have to have 24 feet. So like if your garage is 10 feet in from where the alley is, you could technically in that part of the code only have a 15 foot wide alley because you just need to have them back up. So like in a parking lot 24T but sounds like 20 foot alleys are somebody in the deep state is like no 20. Yes. Right now it's going to remain 20.

We'll stop. Yeah.

Um other design standards chapter 3.5. So solar lot standards. Uh this is just a fix to be consistent. Um when we reduced the um lot depth down from 80 to 50 ft in the standard density residential medium density residential, we didn't reduce the um lot depth in the solar standard. So we're just reducing it to match and then making it clear cottages are a type of like single dwelling unit. Um so they are um exempt from the solar lot standards and then as we've increased heights over the past couple years we have not updated the tables to have the heights reflected. So the tables have been updated.

Question. This is one of those areas where I mean I know they kind of have examples in the diagrams, but I was kind of racking my brain trying to see like how that would work. I don't know. I look at those diagrams, too. So Amy and um Kathleen, they can help you with any questions you have on those.

So you saying we may need some clarifying graphics or No, you mean there's Yeah, spades on them already. I mean, our planners know exactly how to read those. Okay. So, I'm not The one thing I will say is there has been a lot of discussion about that. We may need to revisit the solar setback standards at some point because there's not a lot. It's more more the older lots that these are applying to. And you know, if you're trying to get more units on a lot, it yeah, you know, if you're going above a single story, you're just not going to be able to do a whole lot and meet the I mean, you can see the

the heights and the, you know, it's a little easier if you have an alley behind you because that makes up for some of the room, but when you're backtoback lots, um it can significantly impact what you can develop in the rear of your site or in the side. Um but that's solar set setback standards which is different than the solar lot standards that this package was just getting too big and that was too something for another time.

So in 3.6 is special standards and regulations for certain uses. Um just clarifies the height and size requirements for detached accessory structures. The way it's written today it kind of blends some of the um requirements. So we're just separating it. What is the requirements for detached accessory structure versus attached? um some consistency for manufactured home parks with OS statutes. And then uh this has come up a lot. So we are putting a clear and objective setback standard for the actual drive-thru lane for drivein and drive-thru facilities because um the setback today I believe says the drive-thru facility has to be a certain setback and it's always been questioned well is the lane part of the facility and so we're just clarifying a setback for the lane. Um,

can you talk about how six feet of uh for the building separation for the detached accessory structure? How come it's six feet? It's mirroring building code separation requirements. But if it's an accessory, it doesn't necessarily have to be

it's a structural setback. So it can either be attached or it can be detached and six feet apart. And that's consistent with our distance requirements even between units on that site too because I think when we've done I think you can have a separate structure that's part of the fire area for the whole thing. So they could be next to each other like a trash enclosure or something like that and not have to have fire separation between the two. I don't know. It's been six feet in the code for and several year it's less than that it has to be fire rated but

that's why even like on our middle housing land divisions we put six feet in between the structures because um if you go any less then you start getting into issues and then there's also maintenance issues too to just be able to have room to get in there to paint or fix sighting or do anything else you're getting pretty tight and which wait what part of the code is this for is this for

uh 3.6 six special standards and regulations. So, it's just for accessory structures. I think another thing too, visually, this is when we really started putting the six feet in because there's an example on a certain street where a house put in a um accessory dwelling unit within like a foot or two. I don't even know how it got built. You can't even see between them, but visually from the front of the street, it just doesn't look right. And so, we are requiring six feet. Like we put a clear objective standard of what the distance is between all these units and their accessory structures cuz like between a fence in a single family home is five feet in most. Yeah. Five

and then you have five on the other side. So you have technically 10 feet between two units. Yeah. And we do allow um small dwelling units to go down to three feet um from the property line, but we've not gone any closer than three feet. Well, three plus three because you have one on each side. We haven't gone any closer than six feet in any sections of the code. That raises the question I think you and I talked about and we've talked about is we just approved the row home and said you can detach them and only have but then the other side has to have three feet. No, can't zero lot line then.

Um so row houses you can have zero on both sides. It changes when you actually have a when you don't have a row house on the lot next door. Then you have to comply with the underlying um setbacks of five of five. Okay. Yeah. Because I just saw the one in Newport that was apartment complex a few years old. It's three feet with an 8 foot brick wall. If you had to get out of there with the fire, a firefighter to get in, there's no way three feet. So you're saying that no one will ever have a house three feet apart. And

the row houses could be three feet apart. They could be one foot apart as long as you're rowhouse to row house, but the end units um that a parcel or lot that is not a rowhouse, then they have to meet the underlying zoning setbacks. And not to talk about it tonight because it's getting late, but I mean that's one that I still confused about. Like you got a row home, three feet, and then another row home. Three feet to paint, clean, get people out of there. And on Newport with that wall, I don't even know how anybody gets out of that building. But anyway, let's revisit that. I think that's something we need to clarify with the new rule we passed. They just have to meet building codes.

Um, more in 3.6 is um Oh, just deletes one section for um outdoor storage and display and public rights way because our municipal code actually covers this. Uh, temporary uses renames it from temporary use permit to temporary use authorization to clarify is not a permit. And then short-term rentals. Um just some minor clean out and clarifies u that a modification of approved short-term rental what the process is which I believe is a type one yes process any questions on those or in 36 Nathan anything none for me thank you

on 36 there was a section about incomequalified housing I just had a question about so earlier the standard was 30% and 50% and 80% % and this one has 30% and 60% and I wondered why the percentages were different. Yeah.

Um you know bring up all the bills. So remember we did all the house bills and senate bills related to um different types of affordable housing. So we created it whole new section and we had to do that because the way the bills were written each one had a different um type of affordable housing metric that they have to meet. So, our current code is still in here. And then we have the affordable housing um there's two others. I'm drawing a blank on their names. Um in that new section 3.6 200 C I believe it is or 250 um for affordable housing and each one has a different threshold that they have to

I just wonder reference to confusing metropolitan planning organization and so I went to the website just to see what they have and they have 30. It could be 50 and 80 and they don't have 60. And so I just wondered Yep. They're all different. Okay.

Okay. So, title four, this does have a majority of the amendments. Um, this is our applications and review procedures. Um, it was a lot of cleanup. Um, a lot of changes to make sure they're consistent with updated statutes, too. So, I'm just going to go through these and ask away. Uh we are deleting a pre-application conference um because we don't hold those. So it's just an outdated code section. I don't think they've held one since I've even worked here for over 10 years. And then the lot of record um we revised the process and criteria for legal lot of record determination. You may have seen a public comment on this today from Chris Mson and Amy and I met with him to go over um his questions and were able to answer and clarify whatever his concerns were. So, he's on board with it. As well as he had a question about the lot lines in that um public comment. He was reviewing an older draft and that has since been updated and he was very comfortable with the proposed pages on that as well. Um the uh 4.1270B approvals for subdivisions, partitions, and construction of needed housing. This is in the statute. Um it requires the local government to approve these under um a different time approval. Let's see. Is that the one? 270. Not sure if this is the one or not. Um, but it is in the statutes and so we want to make sure planners weren't even aware of it. So, we're putting it in the code to make sure that we comply with it. And then, as I mentioned, um, well, that's a type three. So, review authority. This was, um, a pet peeve of a lot of people. It was just scattered everywhere in the code on who is the review authority for all the different applications. So we were just putting it in one location. Um and it clarifies the review authority for every single type of application question.

Yep. Okay. So the I or the 3CC is new, right? Yes. Okay.

It's new. It's not a new process. We've been doing the that process for many many years. Um we're just codifying that quasi judicial legislative application into the code. Well, here's my question is that one, two, three, the levels are explained, but then go to planning commission, then the luba, go planning commission, the council, go to a hearing officer. We may need some sort of diagram in there. I call them shishka diagrams so that people, especially developers and land owners and businesses, understand if they go here and they get stuck, they can go here or they're going to council. It was unclear as to when the council comes into play unless they're always the ultimate body before it goes to Luba. Then it said planning commission luba. Yeah. Yeah.

Which is new. I So I mean you you probably legally with Ian here have to say all those things to say who's in charge, where does it go? But when you're really trying to explain if you get stuck, you don't like the decision, a little chart that would just explain all those things. Yes. Yeah. I think we have some things on our website that kind of

we get through this, we can update those to kind of show that visually. And I think we should well we will because we have four types in there so we'll need to add the fifth. But I think John what what this does is gets at the root of what you're saying. This creates that I think the type three was the most confusing because some type threes are hearings officer. Some type 3 is the planning commission. Some type threes were city council. It it didn't let you know within the process. So this one at least does the type three CC which means city council. So you do know that if you're in a type three CC, the city council has to make the final decision. If you're in a regular type three, then it doesn't say CC. It means that it's the planning commission or the hearings officer, but it's not the the city council.

And I I think the language, but when you read all through that and we're on the planning commission, we're into the details technical. So are you. It's just I think the outside world, even a developer come in with something big would be like, wait, wait a minute. And especially like with us with W, we approve it, it's done. Or the situation where uh it was a 4 to3 vote, they would have to go to Luba. I think people just need to know where they're going if they're going to appeal, right? I mean, the the vote where we approved it 4 to three is done. We were done with W. It doesn't go to city council. No laws would go to city council unless it unless it said CC on it. Um the final decision maker would be the planning commission.

And and all I'm saying is just regardless page and you're on this track, this track, boom, that's all. Yeah, we could definitely update a web page. We call that shish kebab diagram. We can do that.

Okay. This is the one I was thinking of the uh another OS section. Um so typically a application is subject to 120day review period and if it's for um affordable housing is a 100 day review period. So we just added the two different types of um time limitations in the code to review an application. And then we are adding a requirement for the posted notice. Um so type two, type three and type 3 CC applications require you know mailed notice um to uh neighbors within a certain distance and then a a notice or two to be posted on the site letting people know of the application. And sometimes there's been delays on getting those posted notices posted. And so we're just adding a process that um basically if it's not posted by a certain date then it stalls the clock. So that way their clock isn't running out. We're still going to get the posted notice and then the review would start. And then the other change on this page is

Can I ask one question about the posted notice? So we've had this conversation before about the ability to actually read the posted notice when it's on a street when there's not an easy way to stop and get out and go look at it. Um, and we talked about in the past about font, uh, about size. I I just, uh, you have that, you know, it can be not less than 500 feet, but I just, you go past them and you see there's a sign and that's all you really see. And sometimes it's not really a conducive place to go get out and walk back to see. And if I can add related to that, given the size of the development and I think Tall Line is a good example, I think Tall Line uh I'm supportive of I think they're doing a great job, but uh actually living in that neighborhood. Most people were caught by surprise because the posting people were zooming by it and it's hund I forgotten how many I think it's like 500 homes. So it impacts much broader area than those just within 500 ft.

So not for Monday, not for this packet, but for there to be some further thought on the issues that Suzanne and I just raised, which have been raised in the past. Added a few things to help. We've added again, I don't know if they're going to I don't know we're ever going to get to the where you can read it. I mean, it's 10 feet from back of sidewalk, but we do. Yeah, we do a QR code on it. We did add the QR code. So, at least if you're walking by and you don't enter paper, you can capture that QR code. Um, but if you're walking by, you can read it. The number of signs, too. It kind

Okay, so we did add an actual requirement there for a num the number of signs. So if you have more than 500 feet of a frontage, a bigger frontage or multiple frontages, we now have that built in to get you a another sign or another sign. That's great. How about casting a wider net beyond the 500 ft if it's a mega project that go other? Um if it's a master plan, if it's a major master plan, it's going to go before council. So we do publish notice for those too, right? Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if it's that, but the mailings, right? The the neighbors

and we did within 500 ft are mailed. We did increase that a couple years ago. It used to just be 250. Yeah. Two was 250. So we have increased that. And we also require um the neighborhood district land use chairs not only to be mailed but also emailed a notice. So hopefully they are keeping their um districts informed of Yes. Yeah. Again, the reality was they weren't right a couple of years ago.

And the neighborhoods are enormous and the people who are affected aren't necessarily the people who are the chairs of the the people involved on the leadership. that that's a complaint that I've heard from a lot of people and so I think correct me if I'm wrong but I don't even think posting is a requirement in that um I mean we're required to mail notice we're required to do some publishing of notices but I don't even think posting statute yeah it's a local 500t plus the neighborhood district shares and I think the statute's 100 feet or 100t but we do

to 500 depending on height I believe we worked pretty extensively with the um neighborhood association land guys five or six years ago. Yeah. And we re we overhauled this section. Well, again, not to be I don't think we're ever gonna meet everybody's needs, but if you got a weak land use chair or a weak um neighborhood of neighborhood, I mean, we basically in Summit West took over because there was this outrage that no one was aware. Okay. So, all I'm saying is honestly, we Yeah. I mean, it can happen. We we do have so I have

in terms of a specific ask would be if it's a big project that it the mailings go out to a broader group than just the those within 500 ft because it impacts the broader area. What are you thinking of as a bigger is a big project? Hundreds of homes versus two homes or whatever. In other words, there are different size projects and I think the public um outreach should re should scale proportionately. Yeah.

Because it didn't. All I'm saying is it did it hasn't worked and that's going on the the big bigger sign like a big no as opposed to like well I know you said mailings but like you know like the current sign like current proposed development signs but something like that big not like a big like well I'm focused on on the mailings the mailings correct and those go to the owners or go to the property for the or the res. We changed that too. It says to both. Yep. Okay. Yep. Yep. Okay.

Um so still on chapter 4.1, uh the legislative procedures, um in my opinion was not in order. So I just reor revised it and um reorganized it so it flowed better. So it's in order. Um and then we went through a lot of the different application types and made sure that our notice of decision so once the project is done that the notice of decision follows the statute statutes on whether it can be mailed delivered and they all use different language. Uh but we wanted to be consistent with the statutes. Uh the dashes river design review. This is where we moved the um process for tree removal from the special plan district to actual process here. And it includes a type one um process for tree removal for fire brakes which we get requests for to mitigate potential fire hazards and for diseased or hazardous trees. And then we also um shifted over the submittal requirements for these types of applications into this chapter. Any questions on that? uh type three and type three CC quasi judicial hearings. Um some cleanup here again just to be consistent with statutes. We're no longer going to require be required to provide the staff report to the applicant. Everything's on city view. The applicant can find the the um the staff report on city view. Um we are compliant with statute by requiring a copy of staff report to always be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to hearing. So we've added that into the code. We are deleting standing um because there is no local appeal for a type three decision. That was a recent amendment. And then the party definition of party um is repetitive of the remainder of the section. So it's just no longer needed because it's covered in um other areas. And then the order of presentation, I believe Colin asked for this one to

consolidate the categories of public testimony. So it's not in favor, opposed, neutral, it's just provide your public testimony. uh close of record. Um Pauline asked for this many years ago. Clarify that the record remains open between um the hearings body's recommendation until city council. So basically after your public hearing, the record is still open for people to submit comments from the planning commission's recommendation to when the city council actually closes it for the type 3C and the type three. Yeah. Or 3CC because that's the one that goes to council. Yes. I think that's a great change.

Yeah. that just makes it very clear it's still um open. And then the continuence of record extensions um I'm not going to go into detail on that. It's just basically mirrors what's in RS197. Any questions? Um development review and procedures. As I mentioned, we updated the notice of decisions for type 2, three, and 3C to make sure we're consistent with the statutes. And then um reconsideration um make it clear that a reconsideration reconsideration of an application only applies to a type two and type three decision not a type um one or legislative application limitations on approvals. Okay, so this was quite a cleanup too because um again there was um approval durations and expirations kind of scattered throughout different chapters. Um land division had a little bit, site plan review had a little bit where it should all just belong in this chapter. So you'll see amendments to those other chapters just deleting it because we relocated it over. And then recognizing that um uh a lot of these applications didn't have a um extension request. So we've clarified um first the approval durations and then we've added um extensions of approvals for site plan review applications, phase site plan review applications, land divisions, and phase land divisions. um just so if a project is um needing like one more year, they will be able to instead of council continually having to do these um emergency extensions, we'll have some extensions in the code for these bigger projects to get through. Um modification of approval. So this is if someone wants to modify their approval, it just clarifies that the approval or denial is based on the standards and criteria that are

applicable at the time the original application was submitted. So if they come in and the codes change that their modifying um is based their modifications based on the standards of when they originally applied. And then we added kind of rewrote this section um by a second time since I've been here. But a new type one, two, and three process. And then um we we do get questions about modifying a condition of approval. So, back in the day, like when accessory dwelling units required parking and then they didn't require parking, it was a modification of condition of approval cuz they no longer wanted to put in parking. This just outlines the process for modifying that condition of approval. Any questions on that? Um, development review and procedures. Um, declaratory rulings. We've renamed this to interpretations and determinations and that I will go through a little bit more detail. um worked with um legal staff on development agreements which has been renamed to statutory development agreements. This does clarify the process. This is a new our new type 3CC process with city council as a sole review authority of these statutory development agreements. And it adds submitt requirements, approval criteria, recording requirements, effective date, the duration of approval and a process for an amendment or cancellation. And a lot of this I believe is consistent with the statute as well. And then our tables um at the very end of this chapter, if you've ever looked at it, it highlights exactly what processes required for every single type of application in the Bend development code. So it went through and updated that um to include the type 3C process and then some other modifications. There were some applications in there that we no longer do or um we use different language and so just made some minor changes. Any questions on that?

There were only three things left for the planning commission to do in that table. by the WS, the minor master plan if it gets elevated to plan design review, the river and the WS and and my code updates and your code updates. So, thank goodness we still have jobs. Anything that's going to planning commission, I think it's the same stuff. I've never seen it in I guess I've never looked at it before. Yeah, usually the table I haven't had the whole table in one of your code updates. Usually it's just like a line or two and the rest of the table remains unchanged. But then to clarify all plans that are done by planning

in community development have to come through. So if it's a downtown plan, a central court core plan, a cop plan. Yeah. Like a master plan or a special plan district because that would be possibly a type 3 CC or a legislative application. Those would go through the planning commission. Okay.

Um quick update to our site plan review submitt requirements. just looking for a phototric plan to be submitted and requiring a phase site plan to be submitted. So the new thing with um phase site plans is making it clear that if the site plan application includes more than one building then it has to be a phase site plan application versus trying to encourage them to just go forward with that process. And then the minimum development standards review. This is for uses other than middle housing and single family dwelling units. Um, it it exempts a self-contained food truck when located in an existing approved parking lot that doesn't have any other food trucks on site. Um, because they're not really changing anything. They're not providing more outdoor seating, there's putting a food truck there. And then the other one has come up where a existing multi-unit developments just want to add a couple units and instead of having to go through a full-blown site plan review application, these expansions, I think it's up to four units, can be reviewed through minimum development standards review. So, it's already an apartment complex. They want to add a couple more units. It would just go through um minimum development standards review. And then we do have approval criteria for um uh residential uses such as single family and um middle housing that um if you are let's say doing a duplex and your alley has um or and your lot has an alley if one of the approaches isn't approved they're required to upgrade or improve one of the alley approaches. Um we don't have that same approval criteria for all other uses so we're just adding it. So anytime a project goes through minimum development standards review and there's an alley and one of the approaches is not up to um code then they would be required to improve that.

I had I had a question about they're I couldn't find a definition or anything but self-contained food truck. Does that mean they don't have not going to connect to sewer or water? No, they're not no electricity, no water, no I don't know that we've gotten to the electricity part. I mean, I think sometimes they probably run an extension cord or something, but they're supposed to be self-contained. They're not hardwiring in something or putting in a sewer connection or a water connection for it. They're just pulling up and parking. So, it's one that's mobile like completely there's a lot of var you know that they park there and they leave it. It can be left there,

right? But you have to get water in It's like it's like self-contained. Like an RV would be self-contained. You can plug it in, but it can be on its own.

Yeah. So often on the food cart lots, what you're seeing on those pads, they could be self-contained, but those are typically connecting to connection, a water connection, kind of a full like a full hookup versus a food box to compare it to campground. Yeah. Okay. um site plan review. I already mentioned that if there's more than one building, it has to be phased. And then design review, this just goes back to the Ben Central District um exempting um them from this design review process and clarifying that middle housing in um single room occupancies don't have to go through this either. So, land division and property line adjustments. Um okay this is just a moving over the um approval durations to the 4.1 and then major replplats. Uh this is where we are corre um renaming it to minor and major replplats and creating a type one minor replplat process. And then the last one is for property line adjustments. We just want to clarify that a title report is a required submitt um requirement. Any questions on those?

No. Uh this is for chapter 4.4 conditional use permits and chapter 4.6 map and text amendments. The conditional use permit requirement um wasn't clear if a project is getting a conditional use permit but is only subject to minimum development standards review and not site plan review. That they just need to meet the conditional use permit criteria and minimum development standards review, not site plan review. So it's basically just clean up to clarify what criteria they're being reviewed against. And then the chapter 4.6 um this is when for example a major master plan comes in or a reszone application and we're adding criteria for a quasi judicial comprehensive plan and development code text amendment. So if they're changing um we have criteria for reszones comp plans but we don't have the quasi judicial criteria um for like a comprehensive plan or development code text me. So, let's say a master plan was to come in and um uh change some of their text, then this would be the approval criteria that they would have to go through. Any questions? Almost done. 4.9 is our annexation chapter. U the North Triangle expansion area um is in the code now. So, we just wanted to add similar language to what we have for Petroa. Just recognizing properties that are in the North Triangle expansion area, but not part of the Careway Master Plan can still annex. They just need to go through some approval criteria. And then this um also, we're calling on this one, allows sites in an area plan that are one acre or smaller with an existing development to annex without a development proposal at the discretion of the community development director. And then this is our new um interpretations and determinations chapter. Um a lot of this was relocated so nothing's really changed. It's just

um uh created a better process for it. So we allow interpretations of a Ben comprehensive plan or development code provision. We allow a request for interpret interpretation of a development approval. Again, both those were in the code. And this section will also allow determination of a status of a non-conforming use which is uh in the code today. The new one is a determination of similar land use. And what's kind of interesting is above every single um use table in the code. It says for determination of similar land use go to this chapter. But we had no approval criteria anything. So now we're creating it. Um and in this chapter it will include review procedures and they may be a legislative um you know interpretation or determination because it applies to a large area or it might be a quasi judicial so sight specific. So there's different noticing requirements depending on the type of request that it is and that the community development director is the review authority um unless he elevates it to city council for a hearing. And then the initiation procedures, anybody can initiate um a interpretation or determination um or the community development director may. But in the case where the request is to interpret a previously issued development approval, only the holder of that approval can ask for the interpretation. So your neighbor can't request an interpretation of a development approval. Um only the applicant. And then this chapter now includes um submitt and notice requirements. Again, depending if it's quasy, judicial or legislative, includes a specific review criteria depending on the request. And then some other um additions like the notice of decision, when is the um determination effective, how to appeal it, and some other um provisions for clarity in there as well. Any questions on the interpretations and determinations? It's pretty much been in the code. We're just um

clarifying process and um including some additional review criteria

and then title five um just update. So we had a variance to maximum heights already in the code. We're just updating criteria to be a little bit more specific on when you can get a variance. And then the adjustments um these are the 10 adjustments we've already talked about. Uh we just need to be a little bit uh it needs to be in compliance with Senate Bill 1537. And one of the submitt requirements is um that it that the application has to provide a minimum of 10 dwelling units. But this is only for residential designated buildable lands, not commercial lands. And that is consistent with the Senate bill, but our code is not clear on that. So we're just providing that clarity that dwelling units is required um for residential designated buildable lands. Okay, next steps.

Oh, I had a question. Oh, okay. Sorry. Uh about the it was in the class C variance. Okay. Um location size and design characteristics of the additional height of the proposed structure. Uh sorry, will have minimal impact on the development in the surrounding area. Um, is that clear and objective? It doesn't have to be because it's a variance. That's the beauty of it. Cool. I've never met a height exception. I didn't like

Well, the adjustments has a height um allowance, too, Scott. So, if you ever need to go through and get a taller building, make get adjustments as well. Well, yeah, you just have to provide it. I'll see. One thing we did add to the hyphen is that uh under the I guess that's the criteria was the E. So we had some kind of capping of it because it it wasn't really clear. It's like can you request you know 50 foot high on a variance to have 150 foot yeah one story or 20%. You kind of gave it some parameters which is the same parameters in the adjustments. Yeah. But could you do an adjustment and a variance? I don't think so. You still have to fall under

under that those um limitations.

The city may grant varian you can't stack them if that's what your question. The city may grant uh so variance to maximum height. The city may grant a variance of the maximum height limitations in excess of any additional height allowances by this code when the following are met. So that's uh so it seems I mean unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like it's take all whatever additional allowances that are allowed by the code and then the varian but they still each have that same identical um one story or 20 right percent of the maximum height. What part were you just right here? I think I was just reading the

B3 variance to maximum height. So like if you did an affordable housing project and you got um um additional housing allowance and then you wanted to go even taller, but you still have to comply with the E for the maximum. I guess I guess in that in that E it says uh in no case can the requested height exceed both an increase of one story and 20% of the maximum height allowed in the corresponding zoning district. But right

but I I you know I could make an argument that if I can build 75 ft in that zoning district with adjustments in that I can build 75 ft one story or 20% increase of the maximum height allowed in the corresponding zoning district. Zoning districts that goes back to the table for the zoning district. Yeah. I just think that's a little like penthouse because within with vated ceilings. Yeah. Should are you suggesting there'd be like a citation for that table? Wonder if it's if it's a table

like I mean if I was looking at building something here and I wasn't that familiar, I'd say, well, in this zoning district, I could do this. I get these I could use these adjustments. I can build a 75 foot tall building in this zone. with everything and then that could be built and everything would be fine or I can come and get a variance and add one story and 20% on top of that building that I can build in that zoning district. Well, you're implying two tracks of height determination, right? Yeah. It says allowed corresponding zoning district

zone zoning district that's before you get any other adjustment isn't the maximum height of the zone. The adjustment is an adjusted standard. Do do you think where it says in the corresponding zoning district as I don't know as written in table XYZ but there's several tables there's I'm just wonder Yeah. No, I just think that if I'm allowed to build and I'm using the 75T if I can build a 75 foot

building using whatever alterations or housing or anything in there and that could be built and that I'm looking and I'm like that or someone came and built one just finished building one and I got the property next door and I'm like well that building can be built in that zoning district the max. Yeah. for 75 ft. I want to get a variance and add on to that. It's I think it's a semantic argument. I mean, well, I mean, you have to apply for the variance, you have to it base maximum height of that zoning district or something like that. Are you

instead of this the maximum height the maximum base height? We have conversation in the southeast area plan. Oh yeah. Uh the uh variance of maximum height. That's that's right. Cuz like in Okay, that's the one. All right. In the southeast area plan, we allowed a height increase for uh preserving trees, right? plus affordable housing and we talked about stack it. So maybe we do need to clarify because I think we had that discussion. I don't remember if well maybe we just strike out in excess of any additional height allowances in the opening where

in the opening of variance to maximum height. Um oh in excess of any additional height allowances because that makes it sounds like there's two like it's two sets one on top of the other. Yeah, it does. The intent is I can see um one or the other. Yeah, because they're worded identical. So, if you go to the very last page on 195 um it has the same identical maximum height. No greater than one story or 20%. So, you can't do both because you're still at the maximum either or.

So, yes, I think striking the in excess of any additional height allowances. Um, I'll look at that just to make that change affordable housing. How you would interpret 80 because the way I read E was of one story and 20% was it's one story but like a tall one story for a a total of 20% the maximum height. It's the greater of one story or a 20% increase. So if you have if you can already build a building, you know, if you can already build 80 feet, then you can build 96 feet. That's 20%. Well, as Colin said, I mean, the base height, is that what you're saying to the ADC?

Uh, well, it it Yeah, base height was a suggested word change, but right now it's like, but we have maximum height used throughout the code. If I add the word base, planners in like a year, be like, maybe by base. Well, I'm saying the maximum height allowed in a zone. If if you can build if you can build a if if a zone has a height limit but you can build more than that then what is the maximum height limit for that zone?

Well the maximum let's say in the residential RS is 35 ft. That's the maximum. And if you for some reason need a variance you can go one story or 20% increase to that maximum height of that zone. But like if you know uh some places if you if you do certain amount of uh affordable housing you can go up you get one or the maximum height of that zone.

But if I I don't know I mean and and I'm just saying I would look at it as if I can build a building this tall in that zone using all these different cheat codes then that's the maximum height I could build in that zone. But you'd also have to show that the requested height is the minimum deviation necessary to alleviate the identified development constraint. So it's not a give like you just don't get to do this. There has got to be a reason that you're requesting. I think I understand where um Scott's going with this. What is the the commission's desire to to I mean I'm like I would use the term in the in the discussion here base zone is to is to say

we want to have this base zone and if you and that's what you measure this this variance from. It's not it's not it's not this base zone plus you know affordable housing bonus and another bonus for residential on the upper floor. Right. So it's it's the base zone plus plus then you get a variance on top. So so I guess if you just could articulate as a commission which which way you would want it to go. I think Paul said you said there's lots of tables, right? Oh yeah, height based on every zone every special plan district has height require maximum height requirements. I I thought it was starting to hone in where Suzanne was going with some of the clarified buying languages.

Just taking out that those sentence you added in excess of any additional height allowances. I mean, I can even add another sentence that said you cannot I won't use the word stack, but um more that's the implication here. You get one height because I mean if I'm looking at a building that just got built at 75 ft and then you're saying the maximum building height for this zone is 60. I'm like, well, that's 75. Yeah. So, it's not the maximum. No, because it's still in the corresponding zone.

Yeah. And that those bonuses like I'm looking at the I'm looking under 2.2 2 400 V1 right now residential exception. So those aren't the the maximum height allowed in the zone. Those are exceptions that have already been granted. And it says the max the maximum height may be increased by 10 ft above the maximum allowed height when residential uses are provided above the ground floor. So those are those aren't the the maximum heights allowed in the zone. Those are exceptions that have been granted.

We we can figure out the language. I just want to make sure we understand the concept is you get staffing you can get your parents you can't get an exception in American commission they'll just learn it right here

I called my buddy Scott here I got a question on page 36 and it was p and I don't have all my wordings I was tracking pages, but uh I think it's industrial and you can set or you can put 60% of the building within the maximum setback. So there's a setback and that's where you're supposed to put your building, but then it said five to 60% can be within the maximum setback unless I read too fast.

So it's in the Juniper Ridge employment um subdist. So um you have maximum front setback on primary streets which is 30 ft. So that's a setback and then um well the lot width is 50. So then you go down to setbacks under five and the maximum front setback calculation for the primary frontage. So 60% has to be within that 30 ft. All right. So 60% has to be within 10 ft. So if this is 60% of the building, here's the setback. And this much can stick into the setback. It meets the setback. This is a maximum setback. It's not a minimum setback.

Maximum. So what what this is trying to do is pull the buildings to the front of the lot. So you can be closer than the maximum setback. The max Oh, so they don't go further in the air. But the minimum setback in that sentence though, that's okay. So you set the set back to the minimum to the max you can get 60% of the building in that zone or that that area. Yeah. Right. Okay. There the minimum is there 10 ft. Yeah. All right. And then my last question is on page 98 and uh the two diagrams. I didn't understand the staff note what you were saying to us as far as

implies. Oh. Oh. I can't believe this took forever. We were reviewing a um a preapp and they were doing a sharecourt development and it's only only thing that's allowed in a share court development is a town home and the diagram actually includes a single family detachment. So now it's only town homes. I can't believe I did that. So the staff note to us isn't going into any of this for updating. Okay, that's fine. Got it.

Nope. And on you don't have to go there, but on page 121 you said that the applicant must include team contacts. You know, the planners, the engineers, the architects, landscape architects. I think we brought that up at the planning commission. I'm sure others about it. So, thank you for putting that in. It helps to see who's on the on first, but also the neighborhood districts can see it, too. And then we can see if there's any conflicts where that was that was on page 121 at the bottom. You said that part of the submitt you got to put in your team uh of whoever your consultants are. Oh, and this is only for I don't like that. Page 129. Neighborhood meetings are rough sometimes.

I know, brother. You got to go with the And then you're like, it meets code, so you can't do anything about it. That's right. And I believe it was our last time that was relocating. Yeah. Well, it's in my mind it was twofold. One was for us to see who we may or may not have a conflict with, not just the developer or the owner. And two, when we were both Bob and I were both on neighborhood district board, uh we would get a a notice for a meeting, preapp meeting, whatever, informal meeting from Joe Blow. We don't even know who Joe Blow is. Is he the planner, the developer, the the land owner, the consultant, the engineer,

and it be easier for the neighborhood to understand who's on first and oh, this is their planner, and here's how you email it. So, thank you. Nathan, do you have any questions? Uh, no. Anybody else have any?

I have a couple last things. Sorry, this is it. Page 94. I was just there was another area that if you're going to have that fire code discussion, it's for the Tacourts where it says uh must not exceed 150 ft without connecting to a midblock lane. Uh that is one that generally the 150 ft is in the fire code for basically a fire truck can't go down a dead end. It has to be able to turn around at some point. And we've gotten exceptions all over the place because the fire truck doesn't necessarily need to go Yeah.

all the way to the end. And it depends on the fire official. Some jurisdictions, nope. Others are like, "Yeah, no, that's fine. We're not going to drive all the way down there." Or sometimes they'll say, "Oh, we're just going to we would fight it from this other road anyways." Um, so that one might be more restrictive than the fire official would allow. So what would your suggestion be to not have it? Because the old the only reason for that the maximum shared length I'm assuming

is just because I'm seeing the 150 foot is the um the fire the general fire code rule of you can't have more than 15 50 foot long dead end. Well, these are infill developments, so I think the idea is to keep them smaller. Um, so the 150 might play into that, too. I don't know that we want like 500 foot TC court, but I think we we were going to visit with fire at least in that earlier.

Yeah, but not as part of this package because I have to get the findings and everything done by Monday. But I can talk to fire about that. Um, these are unique infill developments that are tend to be on the small scale, right? Yeah. Yep. But I will add a note for that one. And that one I don't think is necessarily meant to be a fire turnaround because the T does provide the turnaround. So I don't think it was necessarily meant well it says without connecting to a midblock lane.

It shouldn't say that because midblock lanes is a completely different section. And then there's a diagram on the next page that has something too blurry. I can't Oh, wait. Oh, it's pedestrian path. You might block or So, Amy, are you are you Oh, yeah. No. On the ne on the next page, it says the maximum length of the teacord is 150 ft from the property line of the track to the end of the TC and it's terminated by a rectangular or hammerhead vehicle turnaround because it's a T, right? See, vehicular is where you were going. No parking signs. Yeah. Nothing about fire on that one. that. Yeah, that's what I thought you were referring to. Yeah. So, if someone drove down and got stuck realizing it's not a through, they can turn around or a garbage truck.

And I mean it is it is a T. It does provide the turnaround, but I mean maybe. Yes. They're I don't know. We don't know. It was when we built this code that was apparently the discussion that came out of it was we wanted to limit how long these could be. Um, well, if they're not referencing the firetruck, then somebody in a car or SUV or little truck can get down there and go, "Oh, now what do I do? I can't back into an apron. I have to back up all the way down." So, the T There are some standards. Well, there are standard that you would have to Yeah. Like a culde-sac or a I mean, it could be a fulac too, not just T. Coldacs are not allowed unless you go through a discretionary process. They're discouraged. But the T makes it work. It's the same dang thing.

They're not. But this is limited to 150 ft. They're development serving like six to eight homes maybe. I think that's kind of the idea. We don't want these big long. Yeah. Dead end street. I mean I'm wondering but that's like more of a block development standard and like and they're they're very narrow to you. They're you know Yeah. I was wondering about how why Tacourts are 24 feet wide and MIG block lanes have to be 28 foot wide. And I did work with firearms asphalt. And it says parking is permitted on one side of a midb block lane,

but couldn't you have it be smaller and not have parking on one side? I don't know. I just share courts have their very specific standards and no one I mean it's in the code. It's been in the code forever, but no one really has uh pursued too many midblock lanes or share courts. I think I know of one or two applications. I've done a midb block lane. I wonder if that was Heidi's. That's the only one I can think. Well, yeah, because they make the roads be 28 ft wide. Nobody's going to be able to.

Any other questions? I just had one comment on page 105 when talking about what is a lot. Uh just reminded me of a discussion that we had earlier this year about a lot that was created at some point in the past. And I appreciate the clarification of that. So wondered about that too. Like it's been affected affected that way. It can't be retroactive, I guess. But it's good to have the description in there nonetheless. Sounds like philosophical challenge. What is a lot?

To be or not to be, that is a question. Thank you for that. Any more questions? Great work. Good work, Paul. Goodness gracious. So, then we have our um public hearing then on September 22nd. Um and oh, I need to update this. The work session has been cancelled with city council. They're just going to go straight to hearing on November 5th. Their agenda um is very full. They're going to take our word for it and one of the commissioners will be joining. Okay. for for our meeting in two weeks. No, during the count city council public hearing. Oh,

okay. We'll send a commit. So, we're having one of us public hearing in two weeks on this. Yes. Yeah. And then that'll be fun. And Scott, did you say you had a conflict that night? I no I I love this stuff because I just look and I imagine okay I want more height. How like what's to me like I can help.

Thank you. Okay. Thanks Pauline and Amy. Okay. Next we'll move on to reports from planning commissioners. None. Anybody? No. Nathan, I just want to say that reading this horizontally on my phone on the way here was wonderful. It was a great experience. And also, uh, Pauline, you're just incredible. Like, I can't imagine a better person to be a steward of our B development code. Just wanted to say that on this one. Yeah. including kudos to the city attorney's office.

What? No, that's going too far. Yeah, watch that. There there are things that we see, but this is really a compilation of things our planners who are really in the trenches have seen for a long time. Yeah, we really appreciate keeping it trying to keep it up to date, you know, because so much has changed just in the last eight, seven years that I've been on the planning commission. So much of our stuff has changed with all of the recent state laws and I watched the webinar on the new ones and um more in the works. Yeah, that's and you you do the tracking right of the state stuff or city

management level really took a different lead on that this year but I did watch the planning um through department of land conservation development take all the bills today. Yeah. And that was um well one goes into effect this month for design. You can um not require design review on um multi-unit structures as defined in a certain OS which is three attached structures not even four or five um or if there is 20 or more units. It's very confusing and so um but that goes into effect September 28th or something.

I just learned it today. I was like, "Oh." So it's not in this package. The do amendment and it does sunset. It's another one that they added a sunset clause to. Uh so it's just for building emergency building of affordable housing. It's not even affordable. Oh, it's not. It's just housing. It's just housing. Needed housing. What they call needed housing. Yeah. Yeah. It's funny when people sunsets when people sometimes when people show up for some of the development code updates and you know you're gonna you know watch you're going to ruin this town and everything and I'm like well we're going to revisit it in like a year.

So I was on the city council in the in the 1990s and we implemented SDC's. There had never been an SDC before. And when we had our hearing in this very room, the back of the room, all of the development and chamber of commerce type people stood there and they had their arms like this when we voted on them. They said to us, "You have heard the last hammer fall in Bend, Oregon." Our population was about 35,000 people at the time. So yeah, you need a you need a group picture of that one. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I have a mental picture of it from this perspective.

Yeah. Colin, anything? Oh, yeah. We'll go to you. Uh, so I'm going to cover for Renee the upcoming meetings. So, we've already covered the next meeting be September the 22nd. That's a legislative hearing for the code amendments 13th of October is a WS we have one walls on for that meeting and then the 27th of October we have one of the master plans that's going to be the union master plan so this will be I don't know if it'll be effective or not but it'll be

it won't be effective but it'll be in the spirit of um a type three CC the type three CC. So that's so it'll be a master plan coming to the planning commission for recommendation to city council. And this is for the union master plan which is a large property. It's already been annexed and it's right where the the eastern projection of Murphy Road goes over the rail and then drops down. step property to the north that's property right by Alen Glo Park North and that's all that's October the 27th

and anything um nothing for me other than I learned today that I'll be assisting planners on the union master plan so good good time um Okay. Leaving adjusted.