Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I don't see my mind. Some of you don't know scholarship.

What? Awesome. All right. So, we'll start the uh Ben Planning Commission for Monday, November 10th, 2025. And we'll start with a roll call. So Bob Gresens, Scott Winters, Suzanne Johansson, Nathan Nelson, Aaron Le,

right? And uh starting off with agenda item number one, the visitors section. So if anyone wishes to address the planning commission on anything other than what's on the agenda tonight, um now would be the time to do so. You could either come up or if you're online, you can raise your hand. Not seeing anyone online. Okay. So, we'll move on to agenda. Uh item number two, work session. Uh PL text 202500591 Ben comprehensive plan amendment. And

so this is just a legislative. So I guess that's the work session.

Yeah. Take it away. Okay, thank you very much. Good evening, planning commissioners, everybody online. My name is Damian Cernick. I'm a senior planner with the city's growth management division. We are the uh long-range planning arm of the community development department. Uh joining me this evening is Lori Fya, the water services department, and to her left, Austin Smegi, who is the uh senior project engineer managing the storm water uh master plan update and publicity plan update. So, we're here tonight to conduct a work session on some proposed amendments to the conference plan. Uh, these include adopting a uh a new uh 2025 storm water public facility plan. Uh, and some related changes to the text of the comprehensive plan. Uh these are focused in chapter eight of the comp plan which is the public facilities and services chapter and uh are focused on the storm drainage facilities and systems section which will be updated based on the new uh storm water uh public facility plan. Uh we do have a uh 2014 storm water plan that's already in place. It's been in place now for almost 11 years. And so the 2025 plan would replace it. And the uh other action that we're proposing as part of this is the update to the language in chapter 8. Uh right now we're not proposing any changes to the Ben development code or any further changes to the comp plan. Uh and given that this is a text change text change, there are no uh proposed changes to either the comprehensive plan map or the zoning map. to provide some background. Um, and this might be something I think maybe Scott might be familiar with. He might have seen it before on or Commissioner Johansson on some prior um, uh, public city plans. Um, one of the statewide planning goals, goals 11, requires that cities over a certain size in Oregon

develop publicity plans for their different infrastructure systems like water, wastewater collection and treatment and storm water. There are rules that we have to follow for developing these plans. uh they're in division 11 of uh Oregon administrative rules chapter 660 and uh this division includes uh key definitions for what constitutes a stormwater systems and facilities but also outlines the main components for a u public facility plan and these are universal across um all of our plans. Uh these include an inventory of all of our key infrastructure. Uh as Austin will talk about here in a little bit, this inventory for the stormwater master plan includes uh outfalls, pipes, um underground injection controls, uh an assessment of their condition. Uh this information then kind of feeds into a evaluation of what improvements need to be uh developed over the next uh 20 years or in the near term. uh those inform a capital improvement program which includes a a timeline estimate about when things will be needed and some rough cost estimates and the plan also has some statements of policy regarding who the uh who serves the area under the comprehensive plan. Uh in the case of storm water uh the city of Bend is the storm water utility uh for the urboundary. Uh in terms of whether uh when we're dealing with storm water that's managed on site that's then the responsibility of the property owner or the developer under I think it's title 16 of the uh municipal code. Uh in addition there's also a discussion in the PFP about um funding mechanisms for how we fund the uh the stormwater utility. The public lady plan itself will be adopted as an appendex to the comprehensive plan. Uh what it does, it provides that factual basis to show not only um compliance with goal 11, but how

we're managing uh storm water quality and storm water itself to support the land uses that we've planned for under the comprehensive plan. uh addresses the uh rules with respect to uh the different types of infrastructure that are incorporated in the uh the public study plan. And I think with the stormwater plan um you'll hear some terminology that uh you may not hear on a regular basis, things like outfalls, UIC's, uh MS4 permits, and I'll let uh Lori and Austin um go into more depth about uh what those mean. The completion of the stormwater master plan was one of the priorities that city council identified during the recent uh goal setting and budget adoption. Uh it's part of a larger transportation and infrastructure goal. Uh but it also includes um completion of a um updates to our collection system wastewater collection system master plan and uh that will be coming to the planning commission in a similar process here uh earlier next year. Uh our engineering department is working on kind of two plans concurrently. They're working on a update to our public facility plan for our collection system which was last adopted in 2018. Uh as part of that work, they're also looking at updating our water reclamation facility public facility plan. Uh that plan is much older. It was last updated in 2008. And so we're going to be looking at developing one public facility plan for both uh parts of the sewer uh collection and treatment system. Uh I did want to mention that in addition to sewer, we already have plans in place for um our transportation system, our 2020 uh transportation system plan serves also as our publicity t uh plan for our transportation system. And then our water publicity plan was adopted back in 2021.

And I believe at this point I'm turning the presentation over to Lori. You are. Okay. Thank you, Damian. You guessed right.

Good job. Hello everyone. I'm Lori Fya. I'm the environmental resources manager with the water services department and um Austin and I worked jointly to uh prepare the storm water master plan that Austin's going to give you more details on. Um I thought I would talk a little bit about just there's these different documents and what what they mean and how they work together and whose job is whose to adopt them. So there's an overall stormwater master plan. That's the big technical document. It's they printed it out. It'd be really thick. Has a lot of material because the storm water m the stormwater system is very complex in Bend. Um and then but what we're here tonight, we can talk about any details about stormwater master plan itself and Austin's going to get into some of those details, but what we're here primarily um you folks are the the guardians of the comprehensive plan of the city. And that's why you'll see on the the right hand side there's these two elements. So one is some pretty minor text changes to the chapter 8 of the comprehensive plan as was mentioned and the other is um we also developed a I'll call it a summary document of the stormwater master plan which is the public facilities plan document. So, it's those two latter things, the the changes to some of the comprehensive plan language and the public public facilities plan to adopt within it that are the purview of this group. And um that's me. I'm sorry. It will go away. Um and so we will be asking for you to recommend to city council because city council then needs to adopt the whole array. They need to adopt the whole master plan itself so we can start implementing the projects and policies and have funding for all of that as well

as these elements for the um public facilities plan that uh ensure that we're um in concert with state land use rules and requirements for for growth as well as we're taking care of our existing citizens. Um, so I think with that, maybe I'll just mention one more thing before Austin gets into the details is that it's important to recognize that the storm water system in Bend is really unique. It's not like these other systems like the drinking water system um or the sanitary sewer system for instance where there's a whole series of pipes and facilities underground that are conveying water from one end of the city to the other in one manner or another. And the master plans are a lot about how big do those pipes need to be, how big do those pump stations need to be. Storm water is a very diffuse system. So by and large, most of the storm water is managed either on individual sites or in small areas in the right of way across the city. And most of the storm water discharges into the ground through, if we want to use acronyms, we'll call them UIC's, underground injection um uh facilities, but uh so that's like dry wells, things that will discharge the water into the ground. We actually have 7,000 of those spread across the city that are publicly owned. And then there's a small portion of the city on the west side where the water flows to pipes that discharge through outfalls as Demian mentioned to the river. So we have different means of managing the water for flood control but then also we have to think about those for water quality to protect the river and to protect the groundwater. And that's what the master plan is all about in terms of defining projects, defining programs, um, and defining some proposed policies that can help do all of that. So maybe

that's enough. I'm a stormwater geek. Sorry. Um, and I'll let it go to Austin to get even more in detail.

Thanks, Lori. Um, hi everybody. My name is Austin Smiggy. I'm a senior project engineer in the engineering department here at the city. Um, and real quick, I wanted to give uh an overview of the master plan process. As Lori mentioned, this is what directly fed into the public facility plan, which is really a more upbridge version of the master plan. Um, so the purpose of the 2025 master plan uh was to provide an update to the 2014 storm water master plan. Uh, particularly the goal was to identify projects that address conveyance and drainage issues throughout the city of End. Um the storm water master plan also uh developed white papers. Um these are things to address some of the additional storm water challenges that the city's facing. Um of those we looked at climate change to take a look at what some of the um of the anticipated severity and intensity of storm events uh to come and making sure that we're designing our infrastructure adequately to manage those storm events. uh we took a look at drainage and density uh which helped address increasing densification and resulting storm water management challenges. Uh these discussions on drainage and density will continue through the water services department and consider alternative approaches to storm water management with the changing demographic within Bend. And finally, we took a look at the level of service which developed a framework to support future rate analyses and and things like that. Um, but a more detailed discussion is going to take place about the storm water master plan and some of these policy topics at the 123 the December 3rd council business meeting similar to this session. It's going to be um not technically a work session but an informative session on the storm water master plan. And anyone that's interested in more details on these policy topics or the storm water master plan in general, I really encourage you to join us for that session. Uh but for

tonight we are going to focus on the contents of the public facility plan. So that Damian thank you. Um so as Damian mentioned uh there's specific key elements that are defined with goal 11 and the OARS for what goes into a public facility plan. And one of those is to provide uh inventory and general assessment of our key storm water assets. The definition of a storm sewer per the OAR includes both outfalls in major drainage ways which are further defined as major trunk lines or storm water main lines, streams, ditches, pump stations and retention basins. Uh the city primarily relies on a dispersed drainage system which infiltrates and injects storm water closely to the source of runoff and then that gets out what Lori previously mentioned how we have a pretty unique system within the city of Bend. Uh this approach has a lot of benefits. Um primarily that it more closely mimics the natural hydraology of and infiltration rates that you would more likely expect in a natural condition. And so for this the city's dispersed storm water system is comprised of approximately 7,000 dry wells and 1,000 drill holes. Uh and both of these are considered underground injection controls or UIC's. So, you're going to hear me throw that UIC term out uh pretty frequently in the storm water discussion. Um, also I'll say um I'll kind of synonymously talk about efforts in the storm water master plan and the storm water public facility plan because they were really one big effort. It's just a matter of reporting. So, um yeah, just that side note. Uh, so in Oregon, the DEEQ or Department of Environmental Quality regulates the USC systems through the water pollution control facilities or WPCF permit. And the city completed a systemwide assessment of our USC system in March of 2023 and that can be found in appendix A of this public

facility plan. Next slide. Awesome. Did you have a place to find those terms for me? But under under injection

underground injection control. Yeah. Um so you'll see listed under UIC's underground injection controls. That's what the state considers um you know basically putting the water in into the ground. Um and so two common terminologies or tools are um uh dry wells. And this is a 15 to 20 foot manhole structure that's perforated at the bottom. and it's typically installed in a in a big bed of drain rock. And so that allows the water to be collected, treated, and then dispersed into the ground. Uh, another um approach to this is drill holes. This is kind of more of a legacy uh approach to it, and that's um you know, 6 to 8 in uh drill casing down to a various depth. And it does a similar thing where it just takes that water and puts it into the ground.

So, does that clarify it? Yes. Thank you.

All right. Um, so in the central portion of Ben, uh, the city owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system. Uh, it's a mouthful, uh, industrywide. It's known as the MS4, uh, which is a pipe system that carries storm water to the Dashuites River. The city has approximately 80 miles of storm pipe and approximately 7 miles of the total are within this MS4 area and drain to the 36 outfalls on the Dashuites River. The MS4 area which is shown in the map uh on screen uh includes a portion of the city between Aubry but and Oldben as well as two smaller areas near Far Farewell Bend and Archie Briggs Road. The remainder of the storm pipe serves as connectors uh from catch basins to UIC's or other surface infiltration facilities. The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 or the CWA created the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System or NPDES permit program and this was intended to address sources of pollution in rivers, creeks and streams. Uh this program requires municipalities like the city of Bend of certain sizes to apply and maintain a municipal NPDES permit for storm systems that discharge the river and streams and other surface water bodies in Oregon. Or stay on here one more. So just to kind of summarize, we have two permits from DEEQ. We have a permit that allows us to discharge storm water to the river and we have a permit that allows us to discharge storm water to the groundwater. And those permits have various requirements to help protect water quality, to remove pollutants before they get to either place.

Thank you. Um, and so the city conducted a closed circuit television or CCTV survey of the main pipe systems of the MS4 uh area from 2009 to 2010 and also uh a CCTV survey of the downstream most outfall pipe segments in 2024 in preparation for the storm water master plan. And these findings from the CCTV survey have been used to classify the condition of storm water mainline segments as good, fair, poor or unknown. Um, so Damian, if you could switch to the next slide. So this is what we get. Uh, the storm matter storm water master plan includes 31 tables of inventory. Um, so if you're looking for some exciting content, uh, this is mostly what you get. It's uh it's a inventory and assessment of our assets. Um and it provides attributes such as the ID number, the pipe shape, pipe size, the material, the installation date, uh the condition and length of each of those pipe segments. Uh as mentioned, uh appendix A also provides the systemwide assessment for all the UIC's uh within the city of Vent. All right. Um, so another key element like Damian mentioned of the public facility plan is identification of needed improvements to support growth. Storm water facilities uh in Bend are typically provided by parties undertaking land development, including both private and public agencies. These include private facilities that are designed to retain the 25-year storm on site as well as facilities in the public rideway which are then dedicated to the city for ownership. Uh the primary focus was to identify projects in the storm water master plan that address water quality and drainage issues based on established needs of the existing condition. Uh on the screen you're going

to see a visualization of the general process that we took during the storm water master plan. Uh the first phase visioning is intended to assess docu to assess and document values surrounding storm water goals among various staff and community stakeholders. The values and goals were then used to influence and prioritize uh as we screen the issues. During the issue screening stage, uh we held numerous workshops uh with city staff and stakeholders. We reviewed hours of CCTV uh inventory and assessment uh based on our asset management database uh screening of known issues and work orders. And it also includes unresolved issues from the previous 2014 storm water master plan. Few more notes on this slide. Thank you. Um during the prioritization stage uh this is when we made a determination of values and criteria uh that were priorities to the city. Again the two main criteria that we were focused on was water quality and conveyance and flooding issues. But we also considered things like uh that would have multiple benefits that would support equity, housing, maintenance, safety, uh green infrastructure and and other elements like that. Um and this is what we used. Uh and then some other categories were facility pri city priorities as well as feasibility and cost. And this was our matrix that we developed where we basically ran these issues through and helped um select priorities. Um so this prior prioritization matrix was developed and issues were evaluated using this matrix which selected those priority projects. Uh, appendix B of the public facility plan includes this prioritization document uh that was used to develop and prioritize the infrastructure improvement projects that are

recommended. The storm water master plans projects address drainage issues and water quality issues based on established needs in the existing condition. New and upgraded storm water drainage and water quality facilities will be sized to serve the full buildout of the contributing basins based on the comprehensive plan and the assumptions uh for public facility drainage and bend standards and specifications. The prioritization document in appendix B uh was used to prioritize the projects uh incorporated into the storm water master plan and this public facility plan. As these projects are addressed, they will be brought to current standards. Um, all right. Go to the next slide there. Um, so once the key issues were identified, uh, we group these projects into short and long-term projects. Short-term projects were those that are in the 1 to 5year timeline and long-term projects uh, are those into 6 to 20 years. Um, probably of most note are the capital improvement projects. These are standalone, typically larger projects that address drainage and water quality problems. Um, for each of the capital improvement projects, we developed project fact sheets uh that were developed with high high planning level design for each of the CIPs. Um the fact sheets include problem summaries, descriptions, planning level cost estimates, and um uh and you can get a look at an example of what one of these project fact sheets look like up on the screen. Uh the adopted bianual budget for fiscal years 2025 through 2027 contains the current 5-year CIP program for storm water uh currently planned projects as well as short-term programs like the drill hole retrofit and major maintenance projects. These projects and programs actually preceded the storm water master plan. Um, so everything

you're going to see recommended out of this, um, for new CIPs are are really geared towards years 6 through 20. Uh, as a lot of the years one through five have already been identified and prioritized. Um, all right, next slide, please. Oh, actually, sorry if you don't mind jumping back. Um outside of the larger capital improvement projects, um we have a couple programs that are also recommended and some of those are legacy programs. Uh the first one's a major maintenance program and it's recommended for addressing smaller issues. Uh things through targeted maintenance and and smaller efforts that can either be done internally or through um efforts that are not quite substantial to a capital improvement project. Um the storm water master plan recommends annual budget allocations to help address these. Uh and we have a major maintenance list that cataloges all of these known issues. Uh additionally, a drill hole water quality retrofit program is also recommended and that's intended to protect groundwater quality resources. This program targets drill holes that are within the 2-year time of travel of municipal wells and in close proximity to drinking water wells. Uh the storm water plan also recommends annual budget allocations to help support this ongoing program. And finally, a failing UIC drainage improvement program is recommended which will reduce nuisance flooding on streets and sidewalks by replacing UIC's that are no longer functioning or underperforming. Uh again, the storm water master plan recommends annual budget allocations to address these failing UIC's. So, in total, the storm water master plan recommends uh uh a recommended budget or sorry, let me say that again. In total, the 20-year estimate for recommendation

for these programs is roughly $80 million over the 20-year horizon. All right. So, during the master planning process, we we reached out to numerous groups and stakeholders. Uh the primary uh outreach group that we met with was the water advisory group. Um do you want me to describe that group? That would be great.

So water advisory group is is not a formal committee like appointed by city council but it's it's a bunch of stakeholders who are willing to meet once a month and provide input to water services department staff. It's really great. a bunch of people willing to talk about water issues on a monthly basis. And so we can run ideas past them. They represent We have folks from the development community, engineering, landscape architects, landscape contractors, um school district, parks district, DEEQ. it it's just this really great group of folks who are just providing input to staff um and help us put together a better plan than to put to yourselves and to council.

And Lori, what was the name of the water advisory group before? It was called the storm water advisory group. Okay. In previous years, um folks may have remembered our previous storm water program manager, Wendy Eddie, and she managed that group for a long time um talking specifically about storm water issues. And then we morphed that group to add water conservation as a topic to discuss about as well. So now we call it the water advisory group. And in between there was it branded up utility public. Oh yeah, I did call it utilities public advisory group for a while until our department was renamed the water services department. So is a pretty good acronym. It is right.

I mean you got brand consistency.

Yeah. See if it sticks. Um so during that slide where I showed you kind of the phases of the storm water master plan, we would uh intermittently meet with the water advisory group uh to get their feedback and solicit you know updates and things like that. Um so they were the main sounding board but we also held uh roundt discussions with smaller engineering groups for key topics. Um we provided presentations to central Oregon Builders Association letting them know um what some of our updates and findings were. Um there was a ton of internal coordination through uh private development engineering, water services, the planning department and growth management. We met with the city of Redmond uh just to make sure that what we're you know recommending is in line with what our neighbors to the north are doing. Um, and then finally, we created a project web page where we uh provided a description of what we were doing with the storm water master plan, provided updates along the way, and then even posted our draft master plan um for public consumption. And with that, um, as Lori mentioned, um, we're kind of bringing these the the PFP and the storm water master plan concurrently to council. And this schedule kind of helps visualize that. So, as I mentioned, on the 3rd of December, we're going to go to the council business meeting, provide uh just a a general workshop, and that's similar to this presentation of the storm water master plan. Going to get a little bit more into some of those policy discussions that we talked about. Um and then we will be back here for a formal planning commission hearing which we're going to ask for the recommendation for those uh text changes to chapter 8 of the comprehensive plan as well which includes uh adoption of the public facility plan as an appendix to that. From there, um, we would move to the first reading at city council,

which currently is scheduled for the 17th of December. And then finally, we'd return on the 7th of January uh for that second reading. And at that same meeting, we would uh propose for adoption of that storm water master plan. Um, so with that, I'll open it up to any questions or feedback. Anyone have any questions? ask for the moment. I don't

I I had one I mean this is kind of a big overview of what you guys are doing and and everything but as far as like specific things I mean have like what are some challenging areas that you've encountered and was the latest hail event uh did that point out any maybe areas that need improvement or

Yeah, I think um if if anything it reiterated some of the efforts that we took. So, climate change, for example, you know, we're seeing u we design right now on a 24-hour, 25-year reoccurring type 1 storm event. Well, what happens when you receive 60% of that in 20 minutes, you know, and that's that's one of the main takeaways of that, you know, climate policy topic discussion. Um and so we have recommendations moving forward to update, you know, and make sure that we're anticipating the storm events so that we can influence, you know, the design of the infrastructure that we're building. Um but I think one of the main um as I mentioned there there were two primary things we were looking at, water quality and flooding issues. And we're actually pretty happy to see once we screened everything through this priority matrix, it actually came out pretty balanced. Um there's there's 11 or 12 CIP projects and they're basically 50/50 between drainage improvements and water quality improvements. So um I think maybe

well we might talk about some of the specifics you might recognize. I mean one of the most recognizable set of issues that has been around for a long time is is flooding when you get a big thunderstorm under Franklin or Greenwood, right? And that's that's on the list from the prior master plan and we're finally getting there on that one. So those those projects um we're figuring out the solutions too. So those those are listed in this master plan as well. Those need to be completed. Um let's see other things you might notice when it when it rains a lot on Aubrey but um that does not sink into the ground really well. So that's the um the geological conditions are such that there's um not a lot of uh basaltt with fractures in it under that and instead there's these layers of called welded tough. So it's like um it's like concrete underground and so we have a major project to address but address little things in a lot of places in that area because it's a it's a big area. Um, and then other things tend to be smaller problems that people might notice in their neighborhood over and over again. Uh, or just depending on where the cloud decides to go and rain. Um, and then finally, I'll mention um, something that's been talked about also for a long time, and I think we're finally going to get there with our discussions and our identification of solutions is with the problem we call drainage and density, which is the fact that we're seeing more and more development on smaller and smaller lots with a lot of coverage of imperous area from the buildings and the parking lots and the driveways. And it's it's just less and less likely that you can really expect to handle that runoff on each of those individual sites. And we need to find we need to add tools to the toolkit

for that. So this also recommends um some direction on that so that we can start actually narrowing in on the solution and creating those tools and get them out there.

Yeah. and some of the other key projects. Um downtown was a major one where uh kind of a collection of localized flooding at ADA ramps and things like that. So there's there's a a CIP project that looks to address some of those isolated um uh budding for like a public safety issue. Um a lot of old bend, you know, kind of sitting behind you. um that that infrastructure wasn't really built to our current standards and a lot of that uh is designed to just move water, you know, in and out of catch basins and get it down to the river. Well, if you're at that low point, um you got a lot coming your way. So, um targeting getting that infiltrated, you know, further up that's more in line with our current storm water management approaches. And then also improving the treatment, you know, and and water quality before that water does make it into uh the river, which also is, you know, dictated by those those two storm water permits that we mentioned from the DEQ. And then a few things on the outskirts of town, you know, some of the old county land that's been incorporated into the city that again wasn't built with that infrastructure. Um, you know, just just targeting those. So

what percentage of the storm water actually is discharged into the river? Do we know?

I don't know if I have the percentage. It's a very small part of town that goes directly. So So you can picture like Newport and Galveastston are kind of the center of all that where there's actually pipe infrastructure under those streets that go out. Um but most of the city and particularly almost all of the east side all uses underground injection facilities. Um our issues there tend to be either with facilities that um are old and aren't working very well anymore or the fact Austin mentioned drill holes which was the old method of getting rid of storm water. they'd hire a driller and they'd they'd drill down basically until the water would go away and didn't worry about like pre-treatment of that. So any pollutants that are carried by that storm water go straight down. So um trying to prevent those pollution issues.

Um but I don't have an exact number for you. Yeah. And it's not a percentage but um we do have you know I think it's 80 miles of storm water main pipe and seven miles of that drains to the river. So that gives you a little bit of context of, you know, where that water is being transmitted to. Living by the Third Street underpass, I can remember when cars would be floating in the Third Street underpass in those big summer thunderstorms. So it was a huge multi-million dollar fix, but it seems like uh it was successful.

I wasn't here for the big event this summer, but uh I didn't hear of any stories of any flooding there. So it's a it's an issue for sure. I mean it's a low point as are the Franklin and Greenwood. Uh yes, third was previously addressed. So next is is Franklin and then Greenwood.

And then Deami, if you want to flip to the next slide. This is the the current adopted CIP program. Pretty small. I'm probably not going to be able to read that. Um, but as I mentioned that that 1 to fiveyear recommendation, those were things that were already recognized and budgeted and on there is the Greenwood and uh Franklin underpasses. So that's that's an example of some of these legacy things. Um, a a lot of what's recommended in the stormwater master plan. Again, it's intended for those years 6 to 20. Um, with the note of some of the major maintenance or drill drill hole conditioning decommissioning programs that have been uh carrying on. I do have a question.

What would you like planning commission to really understand about storm water as we're reviewing things?

I think it's important to understand that storm water does not run to like a wastewater treatment plant. It doesn't get cleaned in that manner before it's discharged. So storm so when it rains and it's we have runoff from these paved surfaces, they can pick up that rain picks up a lot of sediment. It also can pick up a lot of pollutants. So, anytime you're driving your car down the street, recognize anytime you put your foot on the brake, there's little tiny bits of copper that are coming off those brakes. Uh there's little tiny bits of material coming off your tires that is toxic to salmon. Um there are all these little drips of oil. So, all of these things are coming across the landscape. It's it's not completely treated. So part of it is understanding that we need to build these projects that will provide some level of pre-treatment. We need to continue doing maintenance practices that remove some of these materials. But there's al it's also important to understand that there's a responsibility by every person and by every property owner to also do some level of storm water management as well.

Yeah. And I I might add to that um kind of what Damian and Lori were mentioning, you know, the difference between storm water and like drinking water and collections. Um they're regulated a little bit differently with with like the Safe Drinking Water Act. It's very explicit and it says here are the levels of contaminants that need to be addressed. Whereas storm water, it's a it's a little bit it's a little less explicit in that way. you know, they want to see that those permits are that we're stewarding all the concerns that Lori mentioned, you know, that we're taking proactive steps to consider and implement these things. Um, but it's not quite as black and white and you you really don't want it to get black and white. That that's usually when you have a very known problem and you're not demonstrating that good stewardship that they will come in and actually give you listings like that. So, a lot of what we've done here is to satisfy and to be good stewards of our our rivers and um the the again going back to the visioning stage, the the values that our city holds important um and and that's what keeps us in compliance with these permits.

Yeah, that's important. I think also I'll just mention one more thing that might be really specific to the planning commission is I mentioned the drainage and density discussion. Um, I would expect that that once we get through discussions and have recommendations about adding tools to the toolkit for denser and denser development for managing storm water, some of those will require development code updates. And so to have that understanding of by adding these tools to the toolkit um there may be some discomfort with um what we may be asking people to do that that maybe some of these tools might be like to have a whole subdivision and maybe the storm water would be best managed in one place for that whole subdivision that potentially might take up space that maybe otherwise potentially could have been developed. I mean still need to handle the storm water

but so there might be discussions like that that could be coming forward after this adoption and we move forward on that. For one other thing, and this is something I would love the planning commission to take away from this, and not storm water specific, but um the requirement under state law that cities do this long-term planning for the infrastructure that your city, wherever it is in Oregon, is going to need for storm water, water, sewer, and transportation. This is something the state law requires. It's something cities do. what we are doing in Bend. I mean, Bend has a unique storm water system just like aspects of our water, sewer and transportation systems are unique, but the effort is um is universal and the requirement and legal obligation is universal across cities in Oregon. So as the planning commission is sort of performing your community involvement function out there in the community, one thing I sometimes hear uh is the city should do some planning and city does a ton of planning to make sure and the change isn't always what people want to see but we are required to plan including things like is there going to be enough water? How are the transportation systems supposed to work? So the this is all publicly available. that's legally mandated. The information that reflects the efforts of people like Damian, Lori, Austin, others is on the website and um it's something that when you're out there in the community, I would personally love it. I'm not asking for a favor, but um I think it I think it's something that can be reflected more in the community. Um that it's it's an important part of what we as a city do and this is this is kind of the culmination of a lot of work. I actually I would be interested in looking at that draft. You said it's on the website where

so with the Well, pardon me. So with the um file number that uh the chair read off of at the beginning of the meeting pl 202501 uh you can use that to access the uh draft PFP and the draft amendments chapter 8 through city view. Great.

Okay. And then the storm water master plan that um I think dives in a lot more to that content and some of those policy issues on the city of Ben engineering web page. Uh we have our projects and then our storm water master plan update and that's where we posted. Um I'm happy to if you want to email me I can send you a link right to it or even just directly give you the updated master plan draft. Um but yeah, it's all available there. sounds like a seems like you guys have done a lot of work and you seem to be very familiar with the topic. So we'll look forward to to perising that.

Yeah. And I'm I'm available if any specific questions come up or just want to dive into detail. Um we can take up as much time as you're willing to give us. Be careful. That's a warning. got the can of ner drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drink drinking water is even worse so I mean unless there's any more questions or yeah yeah I just have I guess one um so I in my free time I like to watch presentations done by the river conservancy as you know I'm sure everyone likes to do um raise the dash so yeah

it's very interesting and it's it makes a lot of sense like given how unique our like our geology is here that we have like all these drill holes and stuff and the way that we generally deal with storm water is just letting it percolate into the ground given that we live on a giant sponge, right? That makes a lot of sense to me. Um the you mentioned earlier that one of the big priorities with our plan here is dealing with you know like the pieces of tire and the copper and how that impacts the environment. Um given how unique our geology is, do you guys have this is just like a curiosity question. Are there other places that you look at as like a reference for how they're dealing with their ecological concerns or is it kind of something that we're just kind of trobblazing on our own in terms of

We are pretty unique. I mean we we try to look to other places for for ideas but the the interconnection between our groundwater and our surface water here um is not typical for a lot of other areas. Um so so we do have to kind of devise our own pathway a bit but there are multiple other communities in Oregon for instance who have um and utilize these underground injection facilities. Um we just happen to have the second most of them in the state. So we have 7,000 of them. The only other jurisdiction that has more is the city of Portland.

Um other communities maybe have a hundred. So, so we have to be a bit more focused on on the groundwater and we do things like we have an we just recently updated our groundwater protectedness demonstration which is an analysis where um we did an updated look at how far might pollutants travel when they go enter from storm water and go into the ground. How far should we be concerned about? So, should we change the way we permit these to be built? So for instance the most recent one we looked at what's called forever chemicals paw and um had a consultant do some modeling effort based on knowledge they have about how far those might travel through fractures in basalt with water over say 100 years of time and all the storm that might occur um both vertically down and horizontally out um and in fact we're going to be making some adjustments to our engineering standards based on that but it actually came out better than I thought it So, um it it's a it was a good exercise for us to go through. So, we do worry about those things.

Yeah, I was excited to talk about what Laura just mentioned there, too. Uh um that's a kind of a legacy, you know, concern the city's been looking at. So, we have kind of a list of emerging containments of concern and then we did an update to that to look at a couple additional ones. But with that we also generated a map of the groundwater table to actually better you know provide a resource to not only you know the city as trying to make sure that our drinking water groundwater is protected but for the development community as well so that we know what is that safe distance between the groundwater and the bottom of a underground injection control and then actually having a resource to evaluate where that is. So, that's uh another I think one of the the big wins or um well good productions out of the storm water master plan. We now have a map of our groundwater table that helps us assure that we're protecting that groundwater.

Oh, that's awesome. I'm afraid I'm going to go off on a tangent here, but I am really curious. It our geology here because we have such rocky and sandy soils. How does our soil filter out pollutants um f fertilizers, chemicals, other things compared to other areas in the state?

So, it depends on the pollutants. So, most pollutants like to attach themselves to sediment and so typically you're looking at having pre-treatment um actually before you inject it into the ground or into a pipe to the river. Um quite often that's just doing things like um having um areas where the like they're they can fill with water and it can still and then the sediments will settle out and that'll take a lot of the pollutants with it. Some of the things like pifas do not like to attach themselves to sediments. Um and so you're looking more for for a distance for it to get captured. Um, I don't think we could say any specific location exactly how far things might travel because it all depends on where the cracks are in the basalt. Um, but we're also fortunate that our groundwater in this area is typically that the the huge dashes aquifer is about 3 to 400 ft below us

here. There are some areas as Austin mentioned of perch groundwater. So, we need to be more careful around those areas. Um, I don't know if that that helps. question a little bit. Yeah. Uh, could you clarify what you said earlier? I thought that was really interesting about sh, if I got you right, shared storm facilities rather than individual lots. Is that right? Where you're trying to get ahead of the game and do it globally rather than in every Yes. front yard that's really tiny or backyard.

That's something we'd like to have offered more frequently in the toolkit and maybe even encourage development to go that direction. So that if you think about a whole subdivision being developed, that storm water was piped to one location in that development and either think of I mean the the two typical types of ways of managing it. One is like a surface pond type facility that will infiltrate um or the other is to build say a gallery of dry wells but again all together rather than expecting each individual lot to handle the storm water on that lot rain garden or something that clogs up and doesn't work over time. Yeah. Or there's no room for

if I got you right. You're talking about planning it ahead so that the developer knows do that in your early master planning. Al what we're trying to do with the trees. Yes. Yes. Tree preservation, the storm water management globally upfront and don't ask to try and squeeze it in later. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good idea.

And in the storm water master plan appendix, there's a very robust discussion on that. And then that's that's where there's no final resolution on that with the master plan because it's it's a topic that really involves so many different departments, so many different developers and planners and and uh community for development. So that's where that conversation is going to continue on. Um, and you may see us back, you know, in the future with different uh updates and things like that to the development. But awesome. All right. Well, thank you very much. And we will see you back here on the 8th of December. If we don't see you on the 3, right? Okay. Good. Welcome back.

Okay. So, now we'll move on to uh agenda item number three. was a judicial public hearing. Uh the PLSPD20250374 Union master plan. Um all right. So I'm going to open the hearing and then we'll I forget. Do you read the thing first? No. You wanted the question first. Okay. Uh now will be the time uh when the planning commissioners uh will state if they have any prehering contacts contacts bias prejudice or personal interests.

Uh I have a relative that lives in the area but I don't think it's going to affect my judgment as neutral and objective. None. I have none. I have none. None to report. I visited the site and I visited the site. All right. Uh and then we'll pause for a second for any challenge of bias of prejudgment or personal interests. And this would be the time for anyone in the audience here or online if you have any reason to question what the commissioners just stated.

Thanks. I'm not seeing anybody online raising your hand if you have any. Yep. So now staff will explain the procedural requirements of state law.

Okay. Thanks. One more logistical step here. Um because this is a quasi judicial item, I'll read uh the requirements of state law related to those types of matters. So the city will rely on the staff report and presentation to list the applicable criteria for this proposal. All testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed to these criteria or other comprehensive plan or Ben development code criteria that you believe are applicable to the master plan. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity for the planning commission to understand and respond to the issue and its recommendation to council or for other parties to respond may preclude an appeal on that issue to the land use board of appeals. The failure of the applicant to raise a constitutional or other issue regarding a proposed condition of approval or recommendation that the commission may make to the council with sufficient specificity for the commission to respond to or for other parties to respond may preclude a future civil action for damages in circuit court related to that condition or recommendation to council. Thank you. That concludes staff's statement. So,

all right. And now we'll move on to the staff report. I'm going to go get my share my screen share here and do my best to give a presentation on about 50 page recommendation in a few slides. It's showing on the online version

might be something about the room computer.

I do see it in the actual Zoom webinar. See your slide. So it might just be a little communication. Go. Okay. Thank you. Um, good evening everyone. Uh, Nicholas Lson, associate planner, city of Ben Plane division and here today to go over the staff recommendation uh that I have in the for this review of this project. Again, PL SPD 20250 374. We're calling the union master plan. It's a type three quasi judicial review for a major community master plan. First, a little bit of context and background. I think most of us are familiar with the site. The property is a little over 45 acres and it's the area just northwest of the roundabout there at Murphy and southeast 15th Street. I think this at one point was called the war property or at least a portion of it was. It's bounded on the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad line which has some tracks and is a pretty wide ride ofway. The Noddingham neighborhood I think it's called plotted in the county in the 70s around some private streets and the canal that goes through it. and then 15th Street on the east and Murphy Road on the south side. Um we're pretty familiar with the streets, but the streets were recently upgraded um through some capital improvement projects. The roundabout as well was completed around 5 years ago and Along Community Park, a pretty new park owned and operated by Ben Farson Wreck is just south on the other side of Murphy. So this is the current zoning and I'm going to show the next slide which shows the proposed zoning. But I just wanted to highlight the the current zoning designations that are in the comprehensive plan and zoning map. Now with a major community master plan, uh you're allowed to essentially re reorient and and replace these zones as long as you keep the total acreage of all the zones within 1% of the total acreage of each. My staff recommendation talks about what those totals are, but long story short, they do keep the same

exact acreage for each and move them around a slight bit. Um, they're all residential zones accepting that area titled mixed employment. Uh, the mixed employment zone is a zone that allows a variety of commercial and quasi industrial uses. everything from retail to um some more like I said kind of towards industrial type uses that area is two acres the remain the remaining 43 acres are all residential residentially zoned of various densities and intensities so what they're proposing is to re orientate the zones to where the higher density zoning is going to be pushed towards the front and John Murphy and kind of buffering the the increasingly less intense zones moving north on the site while keeping the same ball zones. I'll come back to the slide a few because I'm going to be referencing it in my my presentation, but we won't have too many slides. So, process-wise, um we're currently step one, this process includes a recommendation rendered by the planning commission to the city council, who is the final review authority through this type three process. Um after that process uh is complete, the applicant is then required to provide a final version pending any conditions imposed by the review authority. And then after that, assuming this all moves forward and is codified in in bend development code 2.7 under our special plan districts and master plans code, um future review processes including land divisions and site energies will then be subject to this new code. So we're at step one of the process. wanted to explain a little more for those unfamiliar. So, um going over the criteria, my staff recommendation again goes over how this proposal complies with the criteria for

a major community master plan. Um there are multiple kinds of of community master plans uh minor and major. Major community master plans you are permitted to request deviations to the code. So, we have a major master plan as the applicant is requesting deviations to certain aspects of the code. Um, a couple of which I'll go over in more detail, but um that's why it's a major. I wanted to explain a little bit of of the reason as to why it's major and not a minor master plan. So, criteria consistency with state planning goals. I think we're all very familiar with those. Um, they're talked about following a public process which uh this application has been processed in accordance with all local code for public notice. Applicant the public hearing proceeding submission of the application. Uh we notified the state and sent notice of this hearing through multiple channels. Um and by the way, I should clarify these are not the literal code. I wanted to make them more legible. So they're kind of truncated and try to make them a little more fit on slides. So going to number two, um consistency with the Ben comprehensive plan policies of chapter 11 growth management. In particular, there is a policy that requires a certain housing density in the housing mix. The different densities or I should say different the different zones residential standard, medium and high densities require different of increasing amount of units. Of course, the special standards of chapter 11 broke broke management require at least 70% of that density in each zone. And then also further requires of the minimum units that a certain percentage of them an increasing percentage of them be comprised of things other than standalone single family residential detached. And so my staff recommendation goes into far more detail than I can get into right now, but uh the proposal was found compliant with the housing mix and density standards of the of that policy in particular 11-51. Uh criteria number three demonstrated

capacity for water, sewer and transportation. So the master plan criteria asks the question of can this development meet the code through those future land division and site plan reviews that I mentioned in the the multi-step process. So essentially what the requirement is that they show that they can provide the requisite sewer mains, water manes, street improvements that would meet title three um excuse me title three uh for our public improvement standards. And my recommendation goes over how they do that. They submitted a water sewer analysis showing what specific improvements would be required with the full build build out of the master plan and what street improvements anticipated conditions of approval would be necessary to be imposed on various phases because this this development is anticipated to be completed in multiple phases. So as these each these phases come in, they've shown that they can serve each space with enough capacity in all those public services. Number four I talked about zonic designations and how major master plans are allowed to move them around. Five, titles two and three are capable of being met with future land use distributes and that again this these future site plan or land division applications unless approved the deviations. So of the deviations um several were requested most of them in the residential zone. Um reduced lot sizes and dimensions for various housing types, special setbacks, reduced furniture for flag lots and reduce lot coverage in the removal of full area ratio. Um in summary, these changes are are appropriate to help the project meet the minimum densities required and prescribed by the code. um they sort of balance the efficient use of lands while allowing deviations which were found to meet the code which I'll get to in the next slide or in a couple slides but the one uh deviation of concern is the block

perimeter deviation there is a deviation request between the distance and length of the blocks and streets internals to the site in particular one block I think it's about 3100 linear feet code in title 3 requires a maximum of 2,000 linear feet for a block perimeter distance and that's measured through the center line of streets around an entire block. Um again this falls about 3100 ft and I'll get into the deviation criteria and how um that recommendation talks about we believe that didn't quite pass the test for a deviation. So moving on with the remainder criteria before I get back into the deviation language. Uh number six, this one also is probably going to warrant some uh some discussion. The site is required to provide access to commercial goods and services. And the code provides some clarity in what that means. It means that it must be within a quarter mile as measured from the perimeter of the entire master plan has to have land that is planned, zoned or developed with commercial goods and services. The mixed employment zone, like I said, allows a variety of commercial and and quasi industrial type uses and is within a half mile of the entire perimeter. So, there are other areas I think zoned commercial and not far away. Um, I don't believe they've been developed, but they are zoned commercial convenience to the south um of the site 115. Uh, multimotal connections must be provided. The applicant team prepared a open space and trails plan. Comments from Ben Parks and Recck also confirmed uh their recommended conditions or or recommend or suggestions for the master plan to incorporate their plans into the master plan. In particular, there are low stress networks planned on both Murphy and Southeast 15th Street. Low stress networks meaning separated multi paths and the open space open space and

trails plan plans to have an under crossing under Murphy Bridge under the Murphy Bridge there to connect this whole site to Alpine Globe Park. Um this was requested by Ben Parks and Reck and they actually said that um when the trail is constructed they would take ownership of the trail and maintain it on their for their intergovernmental agreement with the city and the applicant has planned to construct that trail with a phase that includes that RH property in the southwest of the site. Talk about housing density and mix and the last one I want to talk about is the open space requirement. So master plans are required to dedicate 10% of the gross gross area of the f public or private open space. There's a couple ways that they can do that. They can do that with a dedication to BPRD as a public park or they can convey that sort of that open space to an entity that's going to maintain that and make sure that it's remaining in good shape, working order, landscaped um and it meets all the requirements of the code. I wanted to put the definition of what open space uh is defined as in BDC 1.2. So open space is a common active or passive area of land or water set aside designed or reserved for the public or private use specifically for the purpose of providing places uh for recreation conservation or other open space uses. Uh this plane in particular in I should go back to show the central Oregon canal there bisects the norththeast portion of the site actually separates a good portion of the residential lands there from the remainder of the site. So the the proposal includes that area as open space. The area of the canal uh is not fenced off as the criteria require it not to be fenced off and it is open to the public.

There's actually an easement that the PRD owns currently that connects this the BNSF railroad property to the canal on either side of the canal. It's not developed yet. They have plans to construct it when they get the funds, but long story short, there's an easement for public access and it remains open to the public and so they're open their 10% required open space standard is met. So I I just had a question about that. So the canal itself is part of the 10% correct of open space right and people are allowed to go into the canal there's a the

that's right yeah well the the open space for the code is allowed to be public or private in this case it's not publicly owned right now um the irrigation district has an easement over the top of it of course we know that the irrigation district is not encouraging to play in the canal Um but open space serves a number of uses. It's not necessarily intended to be usable open space where you go and you know um you know throw a baseball. It's also intended to be passive open space provide a certain aesthetic and neighborhood character. Ensure that it's not a a community is not just buildings and streets. Um, there are a number of access ways proposed interior to the site that will be also part of the open space that are going to be within at least 20 foot wide public access pathways. So,

yeah, long story short, I'm not I Does that answer your question? No. Well, we just we just there was a city council meeting last week that went over this the idea of open space being open to the public where people could actually recreate. And you read that to us just now in the criteria of what is open space. And I would argue that the canal is not open space because you cannot nor should anyone be going into the canal. Yes. Right. So it should not count as public open space because it's not. It's a it's a utility. And I would add to that question then the canal itself physical water and then how much of a setback on either side to get I think you said trails along it.

Yeah. Yeah. There there are plans and action easements in place for trails along either side. Yeah. In place now. Correct. Yeah. Even easements exist now and at least the agreement um for depending on which side becomes more favorable for the easement to be moved to one side of the other for their trail. And you know how much that is? They're 20 ft wide.

20 ft. Okay. And then uh so the developer is not proposing fencing it but then the individual property owners could fence or or is the developer going to fence their yards? There might be fences for fencing you can fence your own private property. Um there are some special standards. Among the deviations that I talked about are the ability to call the lands fronting and open space a front setback. So it may be that certain units are oriented towards a canal. Um and then there might be some fences that are ordering those property lines. Um but yeah, I mean it's it's it's I would call it passive open space. I mean I I I understand the concern. Um there's a little bit of conflict of what I think people might argue the intent of that open space code. But again for the definition in passive open space including water set aside for essent conservation in this case with the canal appears to meet the definition of 1.2. I I question if that is publicly accessible because when I was there this morning, but we crossed the bridge over the canal and it looks like there's a path there

and there's signs that said no public access. Very clear no public access. The the irrigation districts not wanting folks recreating or utilizing these trails where there might be a conflict with their maintenance vehicles is their major concern. Um but uh they do have an ement. BPRD does indeed have an easement. And and so where is the public access to this area? They have an easement over this portion of the canal. Just north of this property is private property. Yes. Public is not supposed to be in that part of the canal. But the south side

southside last time I was there was a private property. No trespassing. And that's where I taught my kids that it's fine and it was going to walk along the who's going to stop us. It was co Well, I would add on to that question. Uh do you know across uh 15th in the bridges area there where the canal hits the northern edge of the bridges? Do you know if that was claimed as open space or is there a path that you mean in Ningham or Well, if you look at the mapidges the bridges the east side there is a shared there's a trail along that's what I thought and then did you if you don't know you don't know is when they came in for their approvals were they claiming that as part of their open space plan on the canal

I don't know I'm sorry and it might be the applicant could answer some of the questions but I will you might remember the wildflower master plan almost all of their open space was designated areas areas of special interest rockout croppings and trees qualified for their 10% open space. A recognition of conservation also counting as open space. As Nicholas said, it can just be that it's it's open air um and space that's not developed with I will look forward to hearing how they are preserving natural

so Suzanne and I were going to bring this up because at the city council meeting where we were uh presenting the code up presenting the code update uh Pauline there was an adjustment and it had to do with the open space because exactly we were changing it to or clarifying it is public space and then she wanted to add the the or she was saying that the intent uh may not be that it's completely open to the public like everybody can go there but it could be a private space for instance if there was something there that code was put there was because there was a drainage canal and it was and okay so water bas Yeah basin

that was considered open space considered open space and that it wasn't really space that could be used. You can look at it. You could enjoy the green, you know, and and and everything. Grass is always greener over this. But and it wasn't and that one that that particular instance it was fenced off, but it wasn't necessarily the fence that was the issue. It was the fact that it was supposed to be an open space and it's not a usable open space. Correct. And I think that this kind of exactly the same. This is a deliberation. So I'm I'm we'll get there prepping Joey to maybe address it and he gives his uh

uh like I said um that's the last of the criteria talk about my staff recommendation talks about how I would argue they do comply and I'll let them argue their point as well. Um but in particular I would like to also circle back to the deviations to block that that I looked to in my my staff recommendation talked about this quite a bit. So to clarify what the criteria are for deviations. So when you has to pass this test and this test is that the deviation will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation proposed. In this case, the purpose of the regulation of block perimeter having a certain distance where streets are allowed are required to be um to increase the number of streets and number of access points or is the deviation necessary due to topography or other unique site constraints. In this case, the site is fairly flat location. There's not not any real topography that would sort of justify. Although it is landlocked for all intents and purposes to the west and the north, it's not necessarily sort of part of the argument as to why this deviation is necessary. So in my opinion, it failed the first sort of test of equally or better and then isn't necessary. And then the last one is any impacts are mitigated to the extent reasonably practical. and their their argument was that the the multimotal pathway that is proposed where a street might go um is going to sort of adequately compensate for the lack of a street there and provide pedestrian multimodal bike access way. Um, you know, weighing both uh the pros and cons, I I see their argument and the justification for it, but I I just didn't feel like it passed the test as to the the deviation criteria. Therefore, I authored that recommendation to amend the figures to add a street there. And and I welcome that discussion and and their presentation as well. So, this is a

figure describing what I just talked about. Street A and D kind of on on parallel sides. It creates a pretty long block as measured through the center line of the streets around 3100 feet and title 3 code says it is a maximum of 2,000. Simple as that. There's the location of the in the red box where the multimodal pathway is proposed in loo and um I'm recommending a street be aligned there. Um I'm I'm sure that would lose at least a couple residential properties as a result of that. Um, but the the deviation criteria as I as I've described were not met in my argument. Question, please.

So, you're saying that because of the big super curve that that's too long, but if you move that trail or multimotal up and connected the streets, you'd break up that 31 or 3100 linear feet. If a street went in, if a street went in that in that location, the blocks would be compliant with that. Yeah. And then forgetting that one for a minute, but then I see the easement that's going over to the canal uh in the upper left or the sorry upper right. Yeah. So that would be going through the houses to the canal to the 20 ft 20 foot easement if if this all came through. If the if the easement uh is decided to be on the south side, I think the current location is not decided either north or south side of the canal,

but if it's on the south side of the canal, there would be a direct connection to that pathway. And the last question is up there down the culde-sac in the northwest corner. I was looking at that. And is that a emergency access to the railroad to the railroad? Yeah. Is that it's going to the corner? Upper left. Upper left. I think that's intended to just connect to the that so upper so upper left. I could go back to the map, but I'll just explain that actually is where the easement that BPRE has hits the property. So the trail would go along the northern boundary kind of along the along the the the jog in the property boundary and then connect to the canal. Oh, so that's a northern connection. Yes. And the southern would just come somewhere through the multif family down to the park

the Murphy bridge crossing. Yes. But not all the way through the site. Uh you use the streets and there there may be some pathways incidental but um but no no no foam path through the site. There there is planned to be a replace portion of the multi-use path on 15th as well and Murphy. So there's going to be a fairly cohesive set of multi-use pathways throughout the site. Uh how wide is that uh little multimodal connection? Uh 20T 20T and standard standard local streets are 60. So it would it would take up quite a bit more room. It would triple the size of that of that access way,

right? But also local streets are required to have certain pavement width um you know meet local street standards, sidewalks, planter strips, everything else. So it's a big change. So are these all green areas or all areas for people to walk? These are all conceptual open space. So there's no So we don't know what these are going to be. We don't know if it's a sidewalk or if it's gravel or land. The applicant might be able to answer that and we'd get more that level of detail at the land division stage. These are conceptual areas for them to account for how they meet the 10% open space.

And last question now that Erin's bringing it up. I'm looking at the the big cross in the huge long block on the west side of the site. Are those alleys or is that trails again or multimotal trails? Uh which one in particular? So, you're talking about the green spaces internal to the block there. Yeah, the long skinny block and then you've got this cross of green.

Uh, the applicant can can confirm, but I believe those are going to be sort of just open spaces that certain houses may even front. Um, the the special deviations requested allow frontage on open space to count as a front setback. Um, they may be able to front these open spaces and create kind of a unique housing type rather than meet the remainder of the code. I'm sure they can answer more questions on Next, a question about um the lot of record. So, there was two places in the packet where you talked about the land a legally created unit of land and whether or not it's actually a legally created unit of land.

Yes. Yeah. So, it's a requirement that basically any devel any development approval uh only be issued to properties that are legal, loss of record. This is a unique one where we're setting the framework for future development. We're not actually approving any physical development. So, it's not critical that any property be a a legal lot of record at this time. As the phases come in, those phases are going to create lots. Each of those lots will be legal lots of record,

but the findings say that it's a legally created must be a legally created unit of land and must receive approval uh uh for the entire tract. And so if it's not a legally created lot of record at this point in time, why is it in the findings as being a legally created? Oh, it does. If any of the language is confusing, I didn't I didn't mean to maybe reference the maybe I'm confused about which unit of land you're speaking to.

25 acre site is is not currently a legal lot of record. That's pretty common for sites this size that are just kind of large tackle bots that might have been sold and passed along over the years before they're really urbanized like we're talking about here. So, um, as the phases come in, uh, they are required to create lots of plat individual phases that will be a number of lots. Each of those individual lots will be lots of record. You actually don't need a lot of record to approve subdivision because the subdivision itself makes a lot of record. So, sorry for any confusion. That's really not a concern for the at least this level of development review. We're just setting a framework for these future land divisions to subsequently create the lots of record that are then going to be developed.

The applicant requests this special provision be added to the master plan. Oh, you're talking about large tracked lot divisions that it's a legally created unit of land. Oh,

yes. Okay, that makes far more sense. Okay. So, I don't know how much uh I want to get into the weeds here, but among the other unique sections of code requested by the applicant through their development code is this this allowance called a large tracked lot division. That might be butchered in me, but uh it allows the creation of large tracks of land to be sold and conveyed without developing specific infrastructure improvements that would be typical of a PL. you're platting. Usually you're required to build the streets, build the water, build the sewer beams, etc. What they're requesting is the ability to pla so they can sell the property as a way to develop the current phase with the necessary infrastructure. So, it's it's kind of a way it's a it's a unique mechanism to allow sale without requiring all the special mitigations and street improvements necessary. I'm sure they could do a much better job of explaining it.

It and it's a timing issue. It just it allows conveyance and then deferral of that investment onto and for the people who are actually going to take it on. But then isn't there a going back? So if if it's not officially a legal lot of record now, but now the southern is cutting 10 lots out or whatever, don't they have to be based on illegal lot of record to cut it in 10? No, it's a it's and I mean super weedy, but um tracked versus legal lot of record. So that that establishing legal lots of record still comes at some point when the subdivision comes in even if it's after a tract has been conveyed. So it all happens. It's really just about sequencing. All right.

Sorry. Question going back to your the slide this mult multimodal connection. Um what is the benefit of breaking up that block versus with an actual street versus having a multi multimodal connection?

Uh an additional street dislocation would reduce out of direction travel for users. I'm sure I'm sure Joe their transportation engineer is going to have a lot more information on what those what those numbers look like. But um in general, the reason and justification for the block perimeters are to provide adequate capacity so people are not driving out of out of the way to get to a certain location. Um without that street, you know, properties that are along that street or a little further west would be required to drive all the way south or all the way north before driving to let's say you're trying to go north on 15th. You want to take a left out of that street that's uh that's going to be the one street location there. Without that street, it would be quite a bit distance, you know, and you multiply that distance by how many trips per day over how many years that house is there, it just is a lot more travel out of the way as opposed to having a street there. Um, it's kind of the short answer of it is is orderly development and increasing the number of public access ways is a benefit to the community.

Any other questions for staff? Not at this time. So um lastly um suggest a motion I have in that you see uh the trans memo and the next steps are again the city council is the review authority on this form date set for December 17th and add on the slide for reference. What's that? Any other questions? Uh no. Okay. All right. Awesome. Thank you. Uh thank you. So now we'll move on to the applicants presentation.

And while they're setting up, in the meantime, if anyone here would like to speak to the planning commission on this item and you haven't already filled out the speaker slip over there, if you could do that and then hand it to either Kayn or Maggie, we'll get you queued up when it's time for public testimony. Okay, chair winners, planning commission, I appreciate the preview on some of the questions that we'll um we'll try to answer proactively and invite you to to answer or ask any any additional that we we aren't able to cover here in our presentation. Um but first of all, my name is Joey Sheer. I'm a planner with AKS Engineering. We're a consultant for the applicant and the developer Polish homes. I have a short formal presentation. It's about 15 slides. Um and then we're really inviting you all to ask us any of the questions. Right. There's a large amount of material that we've um prepared and submitted in the record and and staff has done a a relatively comprehensive job of analyzing all that criteria getting into the nuts and bolts. uh my presentation is going to be higher level but if we want to get into nuts and bolts we can we can certainly do that and so I do want to begin by thanking all of you for your time. I also want to thank city staff. Um, a project like this really doesn't get to this point without a lot of coordination with city staff, planning staff, engineering staff. Um, Nicholas talked a little bit about some of the infrastructure coordination is really the purpose of this high level master plan. It's ensuring it's a 30,000 foot view to make sure that this site can accommodate the the range of housing and uses that's required by the comprehensive plan. and there's adequate infrastructure to serve it.

So, as I alluded, the the application that's before you here this evening is is truly the product of a team effort. And this team represents a collection of uh professionals with with expertise and really decades of experience um in community planning and development. Uh we've coordinated like I mentioned with city planning, city engineering, Ben parks and wreck. There's some questions that we can get into. Uh also the school district and uh COID polish homes is the applicant. They've been building here in central Oregon since the early 2000s. Uh this property is actually right across the street from the bridges which is a a pud that they started in 2007. And I think the last phases were platted in 2017. And then further south down 15th is Eastn, a master plan community that is currently under construction. You go north, uh there's another community there at the intersection of 15th and Reed Market that was also uh completed by by Polish Homes. So we have a lot of experience kind of up and down this 15th Street corridor. Um as I mentioned, I'm a planner with AKS Engineering Forestry here in Bend. We provide um planning, civil engineering, landscape architecture and survey. Uh my colleague Carly Smoke is the the project engineer. She's here this evening. And then Joe Bessman with Transite Consulting is the transportation engineer. So Nicholas touched on this so I'm not going to linger here. Uh I think we're all familiar with the location. Uh and really this slide, the intent of this slide is to show that this site is really connected to a number of quality commercial, recreational, and employment destinations uh by roads, by transit, and by this kind of growing bike and ped network within this part of of town. There is a

lot happening as you can see um in this slide. And then here, um, I won't spend a lot of time here, but I think, uh, an important thing to recognize is that the table for this property was really set back in 2016 when the city went through its most recent kind of comprehensive urban growth boundary expansion process. There were these areas within the existing city that were identified as opportunity areas and those were areas that were typically larger in size that would likely require some sort of master planning. Um and the idea was that these areas would would be required to accommodate some additional density than say a smaller residential property. These were larger areas that um again through the master planning process there's a there's a higher minimum density requirement that that Nicholas also alluded to. Here is a closer look at the 45 acres. U we can come back to this slide if there's questions about the site the the canal. Um I I think the the key thing is that there are two tax slots here. Um, and we do have that CI canal cutting through the northeast corner of the property and the BNSF railroad along the western boundary. So, this this site is like fully encircled really. The the residential Nottingham community to the north is is fully developed. All of those streets are private, so there's no opportunity to take kind of public access or extend streets there. to the north, you've got the railroad to the west, you've got 15th to the east, and then you've got Murphy Road, um, which is, you know, climbing to get up over the railroad there to the south. So, no, the street network that we're talking about here is really just to serve this property. There's no opportunity for the streets to be extended anywhere else. So, here is the preliminary layout

overlaid on the aerial. You can see primary access will be provided from 15th Street at a couple of locations uh and then also Murphy Road. And we have through the preapp process and then follow-up coordination have identified these locations um in coordination with city staff and the fire department to to make sure all kind of fire access uh emergency outfill requirements are met. And then another thing from that I want you to kind of realize as we focus up this scale uh this view is that we intentionally have um located the lower density housing here along the north um abuing the homes in Nottingham Square. And then we kind of take that lower density and we transition to the higher density um and and specifically the the RH zone at the southwest corner of the site. Okay. So to zoom in on the site, we have to rotate the property 90°. So north would be kind of page page left. And this gives us a closer look at the neighborhood. Uh we will be widening the existing multi-use path here along 15th. I think it's currently 8 feet. We will be widening it widening it to 10 and then building sidewalks along the new local streets and providing pathways. So where you can see these open space corridors connecting through the blocks, the plan is that there would be pedestrian bicycle facilities within those corridors. here to the south.

Would those be open to the public? Yeah, here to the south uh is an extension. And there's maybe a better view if I go back. So, here to the south, this is the undercrossing that Nicholas referenced. This is something that we've coordinated with BPRD. It was their big ask for this project. Uh providing a connection here off the multi the existing multi-use path or sidewalk on Murphy Road. taking a a wider path off of um the ride ofway kind of abudding our site and then looping around underneath Murphy Road to Alvin Glow Park and it provides another connection to the park that saves people from having to cross a higher order street.

It's kind of near the parking lot there where it's where everybody comes together and then gets into the park roughly. Um no, it actually will connect into a there's an existing trail that's along the northern boundary. It's a little bit hard to to see, but here there's this existing trail uh that kind of loops around and this part is the northern portion of the park and this would this new trail would connect into the existing. Can you just do it with your cursor again? Just kind of drop down. He won't function that way. I'm sorry. Well, no, no. Just so the cursor is where the where the the No, I'm sorry, y'all. That's the cursor for this. Well, I think it actually is. It's hard to see, but it is. Oh, good. I'm so sorry.

Yeah. Right. All right. So, looping under here. And you can see that there's this there's this trail here along the north side of the park that this would connect into. So, the road comes out by the parking lot. Yeah. The road the local road connection would connect with Murphy and we we've aligned that with that existing access point because it's safer whenever you can have those. Essentially, if you're riding your bike down uh south on 15th Street, you can go around the neighborhood under the crossing into Alpen Glow Park without having to go through the roundabout. Correct. Correct. Okay.

And um currently there's a divider in the road. Would there be a lefthand turn ability out of that road? We have had discussions with city staff around that. I think at this point uh our assumption is that that's probably right in right now. Okay.

And so here is kind of this master plan just by the facts and figures. Um so again about 45 acres broken out in the different the four different zones or or plan designations um that Nicholas showed kind of the existing configuration. What we're electing to do is reconfigure those to be more integrated and kind of work as a comprehensive plan uh but staying within 1% of of those areas uh as the major community master plan allows. And what that that leaves us with is uh 366 future homes. That is kind of what we're planning for for the infrastructure, the sewer, water, the transportation um and making sure that we're mitigating those impacts. And then there those homes are divided kind of in the categories. 164 lots for future detach single family homes, 64 lots for future town homes and around 138 uh units of of multifamily uh there in the RH. And then along with that, the master plan does have a requirement for 10% open space and we can try to answer some of the the questions around that that were raised with staff. Um along with that and but we can we'll toggle back to an image uh a map image uh we'll be again widening the multi-use paths and providing path connectivity through the site itself.

So if you take out the canal itself what percentage open space are you providing? I don't have the calculation for how many acres the canal is. Um, but I mean just looking at it, it is a significant portion of the open space. And and then again, I asked the question about that cross in the middle of that far west block, the green cross. And I see you have double lots there. Yeah. So the internal lots could be like cottages or whatnot. They could concept. So you're you're talking about down here. How do you like do the road and the garages and the garbage and everything?

Yep. So, this this lot configuration and this particular lot configuration, we've spent a lot of time planning this, but it's this is conceptual until we get to the tentative subdivision phase, but this is conceptually kind of um what Polish calls their their village product. They're they're kind of like clusters of four cottages. Um and each four cottages would have basically two access points. So, there'd be shared driveways between them. So they're coming off the main street.

They would be coming off the street. All the green that we're showing here is would be um our plan is open space tracks. So be platted as open space tracks. You can see where we are showing the trail connections, the pedestrian bike connections through. Um the way that this particular housing type is configured, uh we think it'd be very useful to be able to use some of this extra open space to help break grade between um the rows of the lot. So this is not planned to be programmed it, but it's going to be very useful for our engineers trying to figure out how to grid with site.

So So if I got this right, the whatever number of lots that are facing into the cross or into the green trail or the green open space, there's there's the internal lots I'll call them.

Um potentially. So one of the deviations that that Nicholas mentioned was flag lots. uh these these village product if in fact these come to be approved and platted as this village it's actually a flag lot configuration um so they they would have the minimum required frontage on all the local streets now they may be oriented uh they could be oriented towards open space but this narrow strip of open space is you know I think it's it's about 20 ft or it is 20 ft that's probably too narrow to actually orient the homes

well what I'm getting at is again the fencing. So we don't have a corral slot of 20 going down through the whole site and people are you know what's going on back there? Is it being maintained? Who's back there? So it would be owned and maintained by an HOA. No fences. Uh there may be fences. Yeah, there may be fences. Again, this is this is master plan level. Fencing plans are way down the road. But I'm looking big picture because we're looking at a master plan. I'm looking at is that usable and and really efficient and safe open space if it's the back of the house and it's fenced. So let's we'll wait the deliberation to get into that. Okay. Yeah, we can we can talk about that some more.

So I guess and and we did just see the the comment that came in around the the open space. So I don't have anything specifically in the presentation to address it, but I did pull um right before the hearing some of the code sections. I think first of all what I would say is that there is precedent for this. So at the Petrosa master plan the NUID canal that runs through Petrosa was was plat was approved through the master planning process and platted as part of the 10% open space requirement and I think that's clearly allowed based on the definition that Nicholas read the definition chapter 1.2 to I don't have whatever code amendments city council just approved and I would want to be clear that the the code that's in effect today is the code that this application would be subject to

we don't approve it

but the the open space definition is for any property or area of land or water that's set aside designed or reserved for public or private use specifically for the purpose of providing places for recreation conservation or other open space uses. So that is a very open-ended definition of of open space. And we would argue that just because it may not be a space where you could go throw a Frisbee or throw a baseball, it is very valuable to the homes in the area by providing visual relief, a sense of spaciousness and actually as Nicholas said without any sort of coordination I might add, community character. Right? So, this is this is not the the canal is not necessarily a a natural feature. It's been here a long time, but it is effectively man man-made, but we would also argue that it's it's not a protected historical resource, but there's a historical element to it um that does speak to the character of Central Oregon and we're preserving that.

If the canal gets piped, then is it public still open space? Um, so if the canal were piped, it would depend on what the I don't know what the you don't own that space, right? It's owned. It's owned fe simple by the the same property, but there's so has an easement.

There's easements for it. And so the question also was around trail connections, right? And so BPRD in the comments in the letter that they provide as part of this application, it's one of the exhibits in the application, they confirm that they have an easement, right? It's not recorded, so it doesn't show up on title, I don't believe, but they've confirmed that they have an easement and they are in the process also of coordination with COD to try to expand a trail network along all of these canals because it's a huge it's a huge amenity or opportunity in Bent. And can you comment on I've been to Petro so many times, but what's going on with the canal there on the side when we were talking about a 20 foot easement? Is it a 20 foot easement? Is there a path there? Are people there or not? Really?

Yeah. So the the canal that kind of cuts through the the northwest corner of of Petrosa is the NUD canal and it crosses to shoot Dashes Market is kind of the major north south boundary on the west side of Petrosa. Um there is like the dish rider road. there is lots of informal use of of that trail corridor. And again, BPRD um we've built a trail also along that canal. It's it's in an open space that I think is outside of the easement area. Um but it is tracked along the canal and again it's part of BPRD's plan and their coordination with these irrigation districts to try to provide a connected trail network along all these canals. What do you have planned for along the canal there?

Um, how many of the trees are were are staying? There's a lot beautiful standard trees along there.

And you can kind of see it here. So, yeah, you probably can't see from your your angle, but um there are trees here. They're within the easement. So, this all the green areas that you're seeing on this map would be in open space tracks. So they would be preserved as open space and not developed unless there was like for example a trail connection through there. So um you know we don't have detailed grading here but any trees that uh are within the open space tract um I don't know anything at this point that would require them to be removed. I don't know that they could be removed if they're within um within the CO easement area. So,

is that not answering my question? No, it doesn't answer my question. So, you don't know. Um, yeah. So, so, so COD owns those trees. So, the or who do? So, I mean, it's a it's a fair it's a fair question, but again, I guess there is not a requirement for a detailed tree inventory as part of a master plan process. that that's going to typically be required if we get through the master plan and move on to a tenative subdivision. That that's where you have the detailed inventory and and have done all the civil site work to know where the grading is going to occur and which trees can be preserved or or would have to be removed.

Okay. Can I take it up a higher level then? Um, are these areas that are green, are they being preserved as some sort of natural area or they just going to be grass or rock garden or paved sidewalk? Um, I don't think that that's determined yet. Right. So, some of them will be programmed, some of them will be natural. Depends on if some of these smaller areas do need to accommodate some amount of grading to get lots um, and streets aligned. Um, we just don't have that information at this point. So let me another angle. So in that corridor um with the canal

that land would be owned by union the union master plan and HOA. Yeah. So the requirement is in the master planning uh code is that it be owned by BPRD. BPRD has not indicated that they want any sort of ownership of this or it would be owned by an HOA or similar type entity. So that seems to be before the HOA is developed, it would be owned by Polish. Yes. As currently owned by the Ward family and that they have to provide the easement for the canal. There is an existing easement

or they have to honor that. Um, but there's nothing to preclude the owner of that land from clear cutting the trees as long as there's the canal provision. Well, I think the city's code around tree preservation would would influence what could be done with trees, but well, they could be removed and and the stipened paid mitigation the mitigation.

Theoretically, I think the answer is yes. But I don't see anything on this plan. There's no I mean the the open space tract is located where it is to respect the larger COID easement. So if that were not to be impacted, um there would be no reason to remove remove those trees at this point. There's just I think a fair amount of healthy skepticism. It looks like you're I might be wrong, but it looks like you're building up right to the edge of the easement. Um, so the easement is I think generally shown in this

this line and Carly, can you maybe confirm if this this line work? Yeah.

Here is is the easement. So there's it's roughly I think it's a 100 foot wide easement. And then we are and I don't have the exact dimensions, but it looks like these the the buffer between the end of the lots and the easement. It's wider than the 20 foot corridor. So it probably fluctuates from 20 to 30 maybe 40 feet in certain locations here on the west the west side of the easement and then it narrows here as you get closer to 15th Street. I think my biggest comp my the thing that just I'm getting here is it doesn't feel like it doesn't feel like there's open space in this plant,

right? It it only what you can't build on it doesn't feel like you're allowing open space in there. It feels very very tight. Well, I guess open space in what context, right? Because this is also right across the street from like one of the largest parks in in Bend, right? and we're providing an an undercrossing there to make a direct connection with it. Love Alpen Park. It's great. What I guess the question is if we're required to have 10% open space, it doesn't so it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't feel open.

And I I think the value the the value I would argue of the canal because you can't go play a play a baseball game on it is that openness, that feeling of openness. There's a 120 to 140 foot kind of corridor centered on a beautiful water feature that runs for a portion of of the year um right through the middle of this property. Shall we? So yeah, to get to Albanglow, I think it's great doing the underpass and is it going to be a phase project? Is the underpass at phase one or at a later stage?

Um I don't know that that is determined yet. that would be done in coordination with BPRD. There is no BPRD development agreement um in place yet. That's something that is being worked on. We are continuing to coordinate with BPD for convenience and safety. I just think it'd be nice for kids, adults not to have to cross many lane the traffic start out with it. Yeah, I do love the overpath the underpass idea. Yeah. Great. Was there a phasing plan somewhere? Yeah, there should be as part of the plan set. It is sheet P5 the fifth sheet. It was on

it was I saw it online but I don't think I and I I also want to point out right that this phasing is is conceptual um that phases can be developed not specifically in any given order but really as the infrastructure allows. Joey, so what do you what's I mean I made the comment I think it would be great for it to be um there at the outset the underpass. Um what are your thoughts? I I'd have to talk to my client about kind of how that fit into the project.

Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, we all know Southeast and we all know it's lack of amenities.

And one of the things that's really big right now is the decision from Oregon to allow uh or to not re you can't restrict residential development in commercially zoned areas if you meet some criteria with portability. And two developments that have been on a lot of people's mind lately is Eastston and Petrosa, both done by Polish. And the fact that there was and I can't remember Eastston. I know Petrosa. I was here for that and I thought it was great and it was going to be this mixeduse vibrant. We gave a we

airplane views of going over the streets and we gave a building movie theater a movie theater. Mhm.

Um and now it seems like those aren't possibly going to have that complete community. Um I mean essentially those if if that happens it violates our comprehensive goals. And so I guess when I'm seeing this and I see the we haven't really talked about the mixed employment area, but I'm kind of looking at it and I'm wondering what is is there I mean I don't see anything in here that that reassures me that that's not going to end up following that same path. and it references commercial property within that there's commercial property within a half mile which is the criteria by referencing the pieces down in Easton that we know aren't going to be commercial already

that just got cut in half if not more so so we're trying to get our hand on this because when you look at the southeast side corner it's there's expressway a lot of commercial and these are major streets so sometimes commercial nodes get stuck in the corner in these master plans you know they're not viable in the market's not there. They're buried. But these are on major roads and we're shocked about, you know, cutting half of our commercial right there at 15th and not 15th and not. Yeah.

Um so we we we're lry in that. So I don't know how far we can go with that. We'll deliberate on it, but uh you know, it's one thing to say we're going to do it. Now, we also understand the vacant Kmart theory that, you know, vacant Kmart's sitting somewhere for 20 years and you can't sell it. Let's flip it for residential to get some people on a live commercial corridor. But uh we're a little lerary of this. Sure. And so Anna Bozich with with Polish has heard the question I think is maybe here to address that.

Yes. Uh thank you and we appreciate the concerns as well. Uh when Petro and Eastston were approved that was prior to SB 3395. So we had no uh we did not know that affordable housing was going to be an allowable use as an outright use in the CG and other commercial zones in the city. We did know that housing could be built there as long as commercial development was included in the site plan and the F matched. We knew that. Um so of course yes everything we showed during Petro and East was conceptual. We had to sell a story 19 to 22 acres of commercial in Petrosa is a huge amount of commercial. Um so to scale that to get you know not only planning commission, city council but the public kind of on board with what could be there was really important and still is really important. Um, as you can see, we've dialed down the visuals for this presentation, um, because of the backlash that we've received. Um, uh, you know, times changed. We had a global pandemic since Petro and East were approved. Um, we've sold both the commercial pieces at Petetro and East to uh very prominent and skilled commercial developers who have taken their resources and decided to sell it under their own right to someone who's going to develop it under the allowable use of CG zone, which is affordable housing. Um, it's beyond our control. It's something that the state um has allowed and we can kind of control what we can through architectural guidelines, through our community guidelines and we're going to continue to do that. Um here this, you know, we have had conversations with commercial developers, residential, high density, you know, um multif family developers to understand the viability of this property. Um, two acres of me in a uh in a site that's fully surrounded by

residential is very different than even just a mile and a half south where Eastn sits where it sits on the UGB. Um, also very different than 19 acres of commercial at Petrosa. So, we're looking at a very different scenario here. Um, in what in what way? It's a smaller piece of property. Lesser than Eastston's Corner by the by uh It's smaller than East's corner. Yeah. So Caldera Orner 15th and that would be a stronger commercial area than this.

It no we don't feel like it is just Well, we don't know. I mean we are not marketing this site actively right now. Um it took us a long time to find a buyer for the site at Eastn. Um it sits on the GP and the way that commercial development works is you need this full radius of not only homes but income. um that's very common and in order to make something financially viable um they need that they also need pennants and so um as it seems easy like oh why can't a coffee shop go there it it it isn't that easy we're not a commercial developer we don't build commercial developments um but we sold it to you know Petro and East were both sold to you know skilled commercial developers

I'd like to question challenge so Other developers who have also faced um uh unfavorable market conditions rather than selling the commercial have taken the long view held on to that commercial property um for 5 10 years to help realize the original vision. the vision which is sold to the homeowners for a complete community. Um so there is the choice the option for polish to stick with it. You're not a commercial developer. That's understood. But you could lease the land, do whatever to ensure that those that that property uh be mixed mixed use, be you know provide local amenities. That's what I think the community is in in an uproar about.

I definitely want to stay more focused on Union. Petrosa and Eastston are I'm okay. But I do also want to outline that in the case of Petrosa. No, I I'm not not talking specifics. Oh, I'm just use I'm using Petrosa as an example to answer your question. We there's always a choice when it comes to development. Um we could have held on to that. What I in order to finance a deal where it's hundreds of millions of dollars of investment before a single home is built. um is a huge undertaking not only for Polish Homes and the developer, but we have a capital partner that comes in and provides funds to help that

make that happen along with banks that have certain obligations. We don't always have the choice to hold on to land. So, I think it's very important that you understand we don't always have the choice to hold on to 19 acres of land that has debt on it, that has infrastructure that has been built. I mean, in the case of Petrosa, we've built two bridges, three roundabouts, tons of infrastructure, infrastructure that goes all the way down to 18th Street. There is because that because that was required. Now, what now I'm saying is the state of Oregon because there's a housing crisis and I think Bend is somewhat unique

and that we have a lot of undeveloped land and when they passed that law, I wasn't there. I'm not a politician, a lawyer, but I envision what they the intent was to allow unused commercial space like in Portland, etc. that was dormant to be repurposed, not for areas like Southeast Bend to become a commercial uh desert. So, I can speak to that. There's a there's multiple bills that allow certain types of affordable housing and commercial zones. One of them is exactly what you described. It's land that I Rene I don't know if you can correct me. I think it's been has to have been included in a UTB expansion that's 15 or 20 years old.

House Bill 3395 in 2023. Senate Bill 8 is different. It doesn't have that that timing um mechanism to it. So, I wasn't there either. I can't speak to the intent of of the legislators who passed it, but there are two different bills. One that does reflect what you just expressed and one that doesn't have any sort of timeline attached to it. So I I guess again what's allowed versus what is desired and what is right.

And I just want to draw that distinction. We're hoping that developers will step up and go above and beyond the minimal requirements for the benefit of the community and I think would reflect well on the developer because then their proper their product is viewed as more valuable because you've got complete communities etc etc. I think that it would pay off in the long term, but I think we're starting to veer towards deliberation um for a while. Uh so let's questions for uh applicant. Yep. And save some of the following us. And we might need to hear from Joe too.

Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I do have one more on the site plan real quick based on where Erin was going. Okay. Can you just explain that open space system again? Okay. Now, first I see the stud right above Ian's head. That little stub that's going to the track. So, what is that? Yep. So, some of these open space connections here are actually utility corridors. So, there's a need for open space at that location because is here there's I think a pressure in the sorry in the the lower left the northwest corner. Um there's a a gas man that has to go through there as well as a pressure sewer. Okay.

Um so now there's a way to kind of dual purpose that you know you have a a corridor. You can't have structures, but you can turn it into a a top lot or some have some sort of open space that creates some separation um around the homes. So there there is a mix of of those throughout this plan. And we'll deliberate on the that later. Um there was a couple questions about uh in terms of the the block perimeter. Yep. That's the part of the presentation I need to get to. Go ahead.

Okay. So yes, block length. And this is the one part of the application where there's disagreement with city staff and the applicant. And we appreciate we did we did discuss it. You know, I've been in front of uh planning commissions, some of you, many times. This may be the one time where we actually felt strongly enough about this an item that we want to keep in the application that um we didn't kind of make a concession uh and and come to you with with perfect alignment with CAP. I think that's because this is important. So, I'll talk about why that is. So the plan that we're looking at here again you're you're seeing this final product but it is a product of many many iterations um of housing types of of block lengths street and block networks. Um but the intent here is that it it functions holistically and there's not really once you start poking at one pieces the the effect is actually much broader. So in BDC 31200 subd sub 2 there is a maximum block length of 660 ft block perimeter of 2,000 ft. And again speaking to this being kind of a vehicle oriented um standard the the way you the way the city code measures it is from the center line. So that obviously that does pedestrians are not going to use these blocks kind of going to the center line. they're going to go on the the the sidewalk trail. I think that's important. So, what you see here is that the eastern block meets the standard. The middle block um would require a 52% deviation to meet the standard. And then the western block is close, but it's a little bit over. It's a 7.6% deviation.

And again, one of the reasons why we're moving forward with a major community master plan, one of the functions of this type of master plan is to allow deviations to code standards if the purpose of the underlying regulation can be equally or better met with the deviation. And so in pages 25 through 27 of the narrative, we go through this in much greater detail, listing a a long list of arguments for why that's the case. I'll try to summarize that here and I'll hope that you'll ask me any questions if you have them. One thing that I think is important to note is that the the Ben development code does not explicitly state a purpose for the block standards in BDC 3.1.200D. But good planning kind of allows us to intuit it what some of that is. And and there is a section that talks about promoting efficient multimodal circulation. It's not called out as a purpose but I think we can we are intuiting from that um that that is part of the purpose. So what does what does efficient mean? And so that's not defined in the code. So we go to to Miam Webster which defines efficient as capable of producing desired results with little or no waste as of time or materials. So when we kind of put these things together, we're looking at efficient multimodal circulation, you know, viewed through terms of of movement, meaning connectivity, uh time, length of travel, but also cost, which is materials, land, and opportunity costs. So when you look at this street and block plan from a pedestrian or a cyclist perspective um it looks very different and you can see that it is very efficient. As we've talked about we have these midblock bike and ped corridors and they effectively create much smaller blocks

that help people travel through the neighborhood comfortably and efficiently. So we have even the blocks that that meet the the typical block perimeter block length standard, those are even carved up smaller because of this this cohesive network of these pedestrian corridors. And when looked at this through this lens, bike and ped um their blocks are meeting all of these length and maximum parameters. And we're not even getting uh you know the closest we get is you know a little over 1,600 ft relative to the 2,000 foot maximum.

So why aren't they continuous then? If it's for bikes and pedestrians, why isn't it continuous? Um, well, it is because you're all you only have one destination, right? You're getting out to 15th or you're getting out to Murphy. And so that's what this is providing. So, so if you live in the I don't know what that says 316, then you go over to the end of 622, then you go back over to the edge of 388 to try and then you go down to an unknown because there isn't anything there through the RH to get out to the bridge.

Well, you you also have just the sidewalk network, right? So, it's not just the midblock corridors that are getting you to your destination. But, but if if the goal is to improve the connection, why wouldn't it just be straight through? Well, having the offset does because if it's if it's just straight through the middle in a single corridor, that's less beneficial to the people that are on the outside. So by having staggered um corridors, you are giving people more kind of optionality for depending on whether they're heading north on 15th or south on 15th.

So kids going to school because there's Jewel school and there's Caldera. They're they're going to go this way to go that way. Um if they're going to jewel school, so they would be going down. They would eventually connect into Murphy and head west on Murphy. Correct. Correct. That's the Murphy. In that case, like all of these streets are kind of flowing that direction. So the regardless of where you lived, so they're going to go on the street. So it's not about bike and pedestrian then for those other ones because it is that might be the most efficient using the street network may be the the most efficient way to get to jewel school. So why not put the street through?

Well, that doesn't affect how you get to jewel school or not. that that's not going to provide a better connection. Joy, I think I understand that you don't want to put a street there. Um, and you can use all kinds of arguments, but the fact is it's a hell of a lot less convenient if you're trying to drive in that community with without that connector.

And and maybe Joe Bestman can speak to this, but this is a relatively small community. the the amount of outofdirection travel here is is small. Um and so the amount of trips generated by this this community, the capacity of the local streets. So how many houses do you give up if you change that to street two? So because these lots are less than 40 ft wide, you're going to lose upwards of four lots to make a street connection through including 20 foot or a 60 foot a 60 foot ride. Take the 20 foot green strip plus

and all the lots are less than 40 ft. So they're 30 30 the minimum is is 30 and these could be 35 to 38 down. You get an exception for a narrower street than the city. Okay. So I I want to try to answer the questions, but I also want to try to get through the rest of the questions for applicants. Okay, that was a question. Okay, okay. Uh so unless there's a question for for Joe. Okay. Well, just I mean I think I think the if you want to talk about the

block perimeter and then also I had a question about why I mean I'm looking at the map and it looks like that connection to Murphy if it was just moved a little bit looks like you might be able to take a left and I don't know if that's a question for the city or whatnot but it seems like there's two exits out of this uh out of this development and the only way to go along ong 15th. The only way to go east or north is off of street D and that's a left turn.

And I was just wondering if there was Yeah. All right. For the for the record, Joe Bestman, Trans Consulting, I'll start with the easy question, which is why not a left for Murphy. We really wanted a left for Murphy. We we really tried hard, but if you remember, Murphy Road was built when it was still a collector designation, right? Now it's an arterial. So, we built it in a narrower ride of way. We built in concrete and we used lesser standards than even the city's collector at the time. And then because the railroad crossing, you have these really steep banks. We were looking at like how can we get a left turn off Murphy because we can't just have people turn left from the travel lane. So we were trying to figure out how can we widen and we just kept chasing ourselves further and further back. The wider you make that road, the steeper those embankments are. And we just could not get it to work.

So that's that's why it is where it is and that's why it's a ride in right out. Was there Oh, sorry. I was gonna say, was there any because I've parked at that parking lot and I go west and I just do it the sketchy way. You make the future. You go around. I I just kind of go a little bit like that. And that's not that. Yeah. But I mean, I just I kind of wonder. I think there's one of those things where it's like you're trying to regulate, but I'm I'm just wonder if the city Yeah. It just seems like well I add on to that question because is the access point into the parking lot driving the location of that new street

partially but we because we have the median we can actually offset those because we have the roundabouts we can also go around the roundabout make the right turn in so we weren't quite as concerned about it especially with the residential neighborhood where people are going to know the patterns of how to get home and so and I know that we have to be careful in a lot of our denser areas about how far from an intersection we are to to have access streets. So, is there any play forgetting the parking lot for a minute, is there any play to move it up towards the roundabout without getting crazy? We can. No, we tried. We looked. Okay.

I have a question about the access onto 15th Street. There are two streets that are going to access on 15th Street. Um, there's a hill there. So, there's a sight distance issue and there's a speed issue that happens there now. And I didn't go out there and visit recently, but I've ridden my bike out to Alblow many times on that path that in the bridge across the canal there. Uh, and so I'm assuming because there's no left turn on Murphy that there's going to have to be left turns on both of these two streets that are going to come out onto onto 15th Street. And maybe I mean I'm not sure exactly where the hill is uh on that maybe the the property that's to the north of the canal is not a big issue because I it doesn't look like it's a huge number of homes that's there. But the one on the south, especially if there's no left on, uh on on on Murphy, um the studies that you did said it was fine and people would be able to make a left there.

I noticed that the traffic study was done on November 14th in the middle of the afternoon to figure out how many bicycles and pedestrians were going down the road. And I would argue that there probably aren't a lot of people using the bike paths in November. Uh, I guess the weather could be anything, but maybe it should have been done in July. I think we're going to the park.

Doesn't always let us do towns in July, but I live in Southeast Bend. I run these trails. This is my route as well. I'm very familiar with the vertical curve. You really notice when you're riding your bike as well, but where we have the access point sited is is where it works with the with the crest vertical curve. It actually crests right by the little utility ball that's elevated above the PRD pathway. So we we know exactly where that is and we made sure our driveways are in a place where we can actually see up and down that that corridor. All right. Thank you.

I got a question for Joe on phasing. Now I know that phasing is done on finance and infrastructure and who goes when and what what are we selling as a model but one of the concerns we have up here and the city's launching a whole kind of comprehensive approach on fire resiliency. So, how does this phase with two access points, forgetting the little triangle up there that has to have it in there? Will these be built sooner than later? So, we're not building out almost the whole community and then adding a second access point. Correct. So, we have to maintain secondary fire access once once you get to 25 lots, right? That's the trigger for when that answers the question.

When you need it. Um and so we did coming out of the preapp which fire did attend, we did additional coordination with them kind of looking at distances, number of units, location um and they have confirmed that our access points meet all of their their standards or address all of and that's a sooner and a lower threshold than a 25 lot. So that answers my question. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. So let me just kind of quickly try to get through the rest of this. So uh again that equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation if the regulation is to promote efficient multimodal circulation from bike pedestrian standpoint we're and again the important thing to keep in mind is with the street and block network that generally runs north south the opportunities for midblock crossings are all east west. That's why that's they're kind of all in that direction. But we're reducing again holistically opportunities for vehicle and bike ped conflicts by by making those connections by removing a a a street intersection, safer and more comfortable pedestrian bicycle travel, more route options for vehicles. And again, Joe can Joe can speak to this. He also provided a supplemental memo addressing specifically this question. We overall have low volumes and traffic study confirms that all of the local streets in the study intersections function well at full buildout of the project from an infrastructure burden. Again, our narrative goes through this. Fewer street intersections um means reduced impervious surface. We heard some some information about storm water before this meeting. Um it reduces construction costs for for a developer. It also reduces ongoing maintenance costs for the city. And then again if the goal is to be efficient pro promote efficient multimodal circulation um we are prioritizing kind of the performance as we've described it here and and in the narrative um over a specific there's nothing magic about a 2,000 foot block perimeter. Um what we've done is try to create a a plan that allows people to move through the neighborhood safely and efficiently.

And so on balance, when you look at the average block perimeter for vehicles, it's it's just over 2200 square feet, which is 13% larger than the maximum. But for anybody who's not in a vehicle, who's biker ped, the average block perimeter is closer to,200 uh linear feet, which is 37% shorter. And on balance, this combination, a little bit longer for vehicle travel, a lot shorter for bike and ped equally or better meets the purpose of the regulation. And so, um, you know, the other the other piece of this, right, is um we've heard staff say that they disagree, but we have not seen any sort of analysis for why. There there was a reference to out of direction travel for street A and Joe can address um that street A even if we were potentially putting all the trips in this neighborhood along that corridor that we're not even getting close to the capacity of a local street.

Yeah. What what I'll say real quick just to just add on to what Joey said is there's there was really two reasons for the block and perimeter being added to code. One was the main one was pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The thought was if there was a street, there was a way for pedestrians and bicycles. Obviously, our multi-use path does that. The second was for general connectivity, making sure streets go through, they connect. Again, as Joey mentioned, we have a canal. We have a railroad switcher. We have a private development. We have a steep incline where a rail overcrossing is. There's there's no one that's going to live in this neighborhood that says, "My gosh, I wish I could get to the arterial faster." It's just that your your travel through this neighborhood is going to be less distance than than most neighborhoods in Bend to get to an arterial street. I mean, look at the bridges. Look at everything around here. And in terms of livability, that's the other major consideration that you have on these local streets. Are they serving less than 1500 to 2,000 vehicles per day? Way less. Especially with the fact that this can't connect to any other neighborhoods. It's essentially a culde-sac neighborhood in a way that it's that's connected. So in terms of meeting the intent of the block and perimeter, it certainly is. It'll be very functional.

So thank you for letting us get through that. We know there are a lot of questions there. There will probably be more. Um and we have a team of folks here to to try and answer those questions. And I I would invite you if you have questions, please ask them. Give us a chance to answer them before you close the record. Yeah. Does anyone have any further questions? I I don't mind. I think I'd like to hear public comment now. Yeah. Thank you. Could you leave that slide up? I think that's a great overview slide. Okay. So, are we good with Okay. Okay.

Um and staff is later. Okay. All right. So, we're gonna go to public comment now. Uh, and we're just gonna it's it's not going to be those in favor, neutral, opposed. We're just gonna go by whatever uh order I have these. And if you're online, you can raise your hand and we will see you and we will call on you. Uh, well, we have a few online. We'll just go back and forth in person and online. So, we'll start in person. Uh, Patty McCormack. Oh, and we have a timer uh for three minutes. Uh I'll let you in on this little secret. I hate the timer. Um I like the uh um kind of like the soccer rules where once the timer goes out, as long as you're saying things that are relevant.

Yeah. Relevant and good, not just reiterating the same thing. Um it's stoppage time. So, okay. So, is it gonna be on? Is gonna be on? Yeah. State your name in. Oh, okay. Three minutes. Yeah.

Okay. Well, that'll take that long. So, my name's Patty McCormack. I'm actually um the land use chair for the Aubrey But neighborhood district. So, I'm not really directly directly related, you know, affected by this, but I still live in Bend and I still care. And I think all of our neighborhood members also care because we drive out and about and we go to other parts of town, right? Um, and this whole topic, um, when Suzanne mentioned, for example, that we talked about some of these questions at the city council meeting a year a week ago about the public space, that's one of the real reasons I came tonight is because it seems very, very obvious to me that there is a lot of confusion about what the real underlying intent of that open space requirement is. And you know whether there's a precedent with another neighborhood or not with regards to the canal, I still think it's your ability and responsibility to determine on a case-bycase basis whether or not that maybe made sense and whether it would make sense in this case here. um the definition he put up around, you know, where it said that it could be water. I'm like, okay, well, yes, but when you look at the master plan code and the development code, it really seems to make it very clear that they're talking about maybe a swimming pool, you know, not necessarily a canal that has no trespassing signs where there really is no clear uh intent for public use. So, you know, I'm not necessarily saying that I'm for or against. I just think it's really unclear. And I actually asked, is the canal pretty?

Does whether or not the canal is actually attractive have a bearing? Because otherwise, you know, it just looks like it's a big giant concrete subdivision, you know. But I think it is pretty from what some of the neighbors have told me is that it is kind of attractive. So I hope that's the case. I think my question two questions for the planning commission and maybe one for polish really is if you guys decided no we don't want to count the canal itself towards the 10% what would polish do alternatively to meet the 10% requirement would they carve out a few houses would they trim the commercial you know what would be their plan be and then um Oh, shoot. I had another question. Um

you have time. I do have time. No, I don't. Um you know, I I think that really is the key thing. Um and whether or not um you guys can just really make sure that you use your discretion to try to get to the gist of what really is meant by that. so that um we make sure that that area is a good happy place for 366 people to live or whatever the number might be. So thank you. Thank you Patty. My first time always the scariest one.

Okay, we're gonna go another in-house. Uh Janette Humphrey.

Um I think some of the points that I was going to bring up, you all have already done that. Um I live in the bridges and I think the major concern is the density of the unit and I think part of the fact of the density is because of all the other new construction that has happened. They mention a thousand cars, what have you. Well, with the with Eastern um still being built on 27th and Magnolia, all those homes being built um and we have 400 466 units, which is around 900 or,000 people besides everything else being built. I believe that the traffic is going to be far increased than what they were speaking about. Um, additionally, I think the point that you brought up that is very important for all of us homeowners that live in the area is the commercial and the fact that will that commercial happen. So, I think that being so close to the um units and the amount of traffic that's going to be increased is something that definitely should be looked at.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go uh online. We've got someone uh Kristen Ryleberger and you're unmuted so you can go whenever you're ready. Okay. Hello, chair, vice chair, and members of the planning commission. Oh, hold on just a second. Okay, hold on. We just need to turn up the volume, Kristen. Okay, so we can hear you. Testing, testing, testing. Is this working?

You might be at the max volume. Sorry y'all. Um, can you try going again? Can you hear me now? Yes. If you can speak as loud as you possibly can, that would help greatly. Okay. We're having some technical difficulties.

No, that works. Okay. I will try to speak loudly. Um, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed union master plan. My name is Kristen Ridleberger and I'm the associate program manager of the cities and towns program at Central Oregon Landwatch. Landwatch recognizes that a approving ma a master plan is the first step in bringing the full developed vision for an area to reality. Master planning sets the foundation for infrastructure and design for future uses, no matter who develops them or when. The development code language for the master plan is also a critical element that guides the development of an area from start to finish. The union draft development code includes a section for the mi mixeduse employment element of the plan that reads where no special standards are provided the applicable standards of the me zone apply. We essentially have a question about this. Um this is the shortest section of the draft code. Um is there more that could be included here? Could special standards be applied here to help shape the future development in this ME zone such as more specifi more specific permitted uses and development standards etc to support more walkable access to goods and services for residents. Um, I guess I'm just wondering if all of the uses and standards in the ME zone may not actually be ideal for this location and if this is an opportunity to um, adjust that. Um, another thing that we'd like to acknowledge um, which was discussed earlier is that the community has seen commercial and mixeduse lands developed for housing throughout the city um, at Wildflower Eastn and Petrosa and many commercial and mixeduse lands citywide lack a development plan.

As all these developments move forward and more come into the mix, LandWatch intends to work with the city and with the state and the community to find tools to support the development of commercial uses in our communities. Um, these include the use of incentives, potential development code amendments, and targeted state level legislative fixes. We'll be submitting more detailed comments to Burough in December about ways to deliver more complete communities to Bend. Um, but we also just wanted to flag this issue with the planning commission as these conversations continue. So, thank you for your service and consideration. Awesome. Thank you, Kristen.

Got to check all the volume buttons. So many options. Praise closed captioning. Yeah, I know. Awesome. Yes. Okay. Just and just a quick note, the um Central Oregon Land Watch person that spoke did submit a letter into the record today that was saw that. I didn't see it. Did Could you send it to us afterwards? It's right now today. Um, yeah. Try to get Butters in earlier than five o'clock.

All right. Um, Diane Abayetta, she's gone. No, she Wow. Dang it. All right. Is this uh David, Kyle, Dan? That would be my scroll. What's that? That's my scroll. Yeah, there you go. Come on down. Is it It's David. It's It's David. Yeah, I'll answer about anything. Could you bring up the map? Um I'm not sure if we have that. That was on their computer. Oh,

applicants computer. Okay. At least some of us have been outs and direct as best you can. Page seven of the application. Yeah.

My name is David Kyle. I live in Southeast Bend. I I am in Nottingham. I'm making uh these comments for myself. The city has separated two projects or currently has allowed the separation of two project. One is the Union master plan and the other is the roundabout at Ferguson and 15. It's difficult to raise an issue with this master plan when the design for the roundabout has not been released.

This plan is well within 500 ft of the intersection. It's probably more like 150. For example, it appears that the existing master plan, the Union master plan, precludes the consideration of a joint exit from the roundabout into the northeast corner of the project and the Nodingham Square HOA. This could eliminate a second exit onto 15. So, if you're looking at the map, um, you can see where they have there's a wedge portion

and they have an exit there. And that's actually very near the approach that could happen from the roundabout, but I I think it's a little early to go forward on that. And I'm asking that I be given standing. I there's a letter that was sent is and is in the record. Um Janice uh also sign sent the letter. So, we're we're asking for standing so that we can address any issue regarding the union master plan within a reasonable time after the initial design is presented for the roundabout. I have a uh a letter that I sent to the city council that I can give you a copy for the record also that that talks about that issue and how there might be some things that can be done to make a safer roundabout and eliminate the second exit that one of your left turn issues. The second issue that I um but related is the traffic count. I I've seen some traffic count numbers, but I haven't seen anything related to that exit off of that wedge. And so how many people would be trying to turn left? So, I mean, it's really I can't that's one of the things I'd like to know. Um, in the past, uh, in talking

with the the applicant, uh, we were never given any numbers. We were just told that the roundabout would take care of it. zoning your zoning map. Uh you maybe already addressed this and I just didn't quite follow it, but the zoning map does not have a PF on it, but if you have a a public trail, um seems like it would have a PF designation. it it doesn't. So, I'm talking about the trail along in the canal.

Doesn't show up as PF. I I think there are some potential things that can be done as is explained in my letter that address that. The other thing that uh I just want to point out and I have no reason to believe that this wouldn't happen. There's been a long relationship between Nottingham and Ward. Ward built Ningham. And if you when you look into the corner and there are a lot of questions about what was going in the corner towards the railroad track. Well, there there has certainly been some interest in the part of Nottingham. Is that being a potential temporary or um more of a temporary exit or emergency exit for cars if something happens to our bridge? We're like we we only have one way to get over the canal um to part of Ningham and it's always been the understanding from Ward that we would have that as an emergency. We would have some kind of way to get out. And in the past they've worked with us. It's been great. we actually put in the gravel road uh that you know allowed us to get out while there was work that on the bridge. So that's uh you know a possible condition uh that might be considered and we've had Ward and Polish have both been good to work with in the past. So those are the the two main things that I have.

All right, that stoppage time is getting getting close. Okay, if you can wrap it up. So um page 43 shows the exit also in their application. But that's all that I have. Appreciate your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Awesome. Thank you, David. Okay. And I do have that one letter put in the record that I'll I'll provide. You can bring it up here. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And I don't see any hands raised online. So it looks like we have one more person um in house. Devon

Sisler. Sistler. Hello. Hello.

Uh so my name is Devin Sisler. I'm on the board of Noddingham. Um, I'm here to speak on behalf of the trees and the current residents in the area. I am very much personally in support of mixeduse, multi-use development and more complete communities. That would be really lovely to be able to walk from our house to something like that. Um, and I'm imploring you to uphold the quality of life, the abundance of nature, and the city's stated commitment to priority old growth. I don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to save a handful of trees and um, bolster open space. So, I appreciate the questions today. I appreciate this conversation, this time to talk. Um, I've lived in Nottingham Square since 2011 and I watched as the property to the north of us went from a forest to town homes and um the amount of traffic just massively increasing. It is terrible on a Monday morning at 8:45 to try to make a left right now. And um and we get a school bus in there. H, who knows what's going to happen. So um the current proposal will will replace priority old growth with fences and replant baby trees. Um a major reason to keep the current trees is to mitigate some of the heat island effects. So newly planted trees will not um really help with that for at least 20 years. There are a number of priority old growth that could be kept rather than raised during this construction in the setbacks of the proposed development on the northwest quad quadrant just south of the canal. Um that could be a great area for preserved open space. And whereas the plan connects open spaces that already exist, it currently in my

opinion leeches aesthetic appeal from the neighbors of Alpenlow and Nottingham Square. We've established that most of the allotted space is over the canal a waterway that may or may not be piped that may or may not be fenced. So um if we increase that buffer of native landscape of existing trees and the new property lines and uphold the new tree regulation that was passed in 2023 um that will create visual relief and uphold the character of Bend uh for the current and future residents. So, I walk this area every day. I know there are a lot of old growth trees that can't be saved in some parts of it, and I've been saying goodbye to them for years as we knew this was coming. And there are a number of trees that um are really, really special right there. And I think that's why a lot of us live in the Pacific Northwest. Um, so yeah, the current plan estimates uh 3,000 daily trips of traffic in and out of that area, lots of left turns, um, and to decimate some beautiful old growth and really um, I can't see anything but ruining the view from the current walking trails along the canal. So, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you for your work. All right. And if there's nobody else online going to raise their hand, then uh that's it for public comment and we will move on to applicants rebuttal in here. I think Yeah,

um so definitely appreciate these comments. A lot of what we heard we heard at the neighborhood meeting. uh we saw in the written comments that were submitted and believe it or not, you know, this this application did take shape anticipating a lot of a lot of those comments. Um one thing that I heard that is a kind of a difficult circle to square I guess um is around density. So, one of the questions is well that I I heard posed is well what if we remove the um the CI canal from the open space. First of all, I don't think that that is required by the definition and the criterion. I' I'd like an opportunity to talk about that more if there are questions. The reality is uh based on comments that we heard in the neighborhood meeting, this project is basically at the very low end of of density. So the layout that you were looking at, right, has 366 ohms. The minimum density for this zone based on the different uh residential zones is 361. We're we have we're currently planning for five more homes than the minimum density uh allows. So by putting in streets, rearranging open space, um we're creating a a density problem. We're also hearing about traffic. So there's nothing else we can really do around traffic. And again, Joe can speak to the traffic analysis done by a transportation engineer that says all of the streets operate sufficiently. And again, we've coordinated with with fire to make sure that emergency access into and out of the site is good. But doing

anything to increase density is going to increase trips there. So, we're we're really at the low end of the traffic impact. And Joe, I don't know if you have anything else to say say there. Okay. Um, so that that kind of makes the removal of the canal a non-starter for the project as we're as we're currently looking at it here this evening. Um, Janette Humphrey from the bridges right across the street, right, was very concerned about density. There's really no way to reduce density any further in this project and still comply with the minimum density requirements. I mean the commercial piece we hear that question. I mean I think on all the master plans that I have worked on everybody agrees that if you can get the commercial to develop it is a net positive for the community. It helps with the sale of the homes. It helps with the resale of the homes. It's just a great amenity. I think the challenge is everybody says they want a grocery store in the commercial area that's right next to their home. Having done many of these master plans and having done multiple preapps with a bunch of different grocery stores and commercial users, the challenge is much greater than it often is or looks when you're sitting at this table, you know, hoping for for commercial. Um, or you're in a neighborhood and and you know, rightly so, you would benefit by having a grocery store. I think the challenge is trying to find a way to make that actually economically viable. Um, Central Orum Land Watch their comments, you know, we we didn't propose any sort of deviations to the ME zone because we don't feel like we need any deviations. We think the zone works well on its own. Um, and so that's that's the reason for for no specific deviations. you know,

the deviations also come with additional standards that have to be met. Um, so that's just probably not something that that we're interested in. And I think that the list of of uses in the ME zone is is adequate um for the space and that's that's why the city designated this land as Emmy in in the beginning. Um, Mr. Kyle and his comments about the Ferguson roundabout, that's probably better addressed by Joe. Yeah, I think his comments were questioning why it's being decoupled and why there's two separate projects that aren't being combined. And what I would say is because it's two separate projects by two completely separate entities. Now, with that said, we have been coordinating with the city to the extent that they they do have plans. Right now, our our access is 470 ft away from the centroidid of of that intersection. So, we've got a lot of space

to Ferguson to to to Ferguson. Yes. the the plan is to build the roundabout at Ferguson because those are the higher order streets that'll still have a connection to Sherwood Forest Drive, which is the private street that connects into it. There's there's no plan for our streets to connect into the Sherwood Forest Drive alignment because it's a very narrow street built to an older county standard that doesn't comply with anything that we have today. It's up on the screen now.

Oh, perfect. Um, so there's there's no connection plan to to Nottingham there. We we can't it's it's private. We don't want to get into maintenance and and any any of that stuff. So, the Ferguson project, we we have been talking to them. In fact, that's why we have to rip up our 8 foot wide sidewalks and build 10-ft sidewalks on on 15th Street because there's a broader citywide project as part of the Reed Market improvements, the Ferguson improvements to extend those 10-ft pathways all up and down 15th. So, we we do see that as a net positive overall to have those wide sidewalks going through there. even though it pains us a little bit to see those really nice pathways that we all like to walk and brand new

brand new um have to see those get ripped out but but that's that is part of the coordination that we've been doing. We have been talking to city staff and there's no concerns at our with our driveway location.

Uh Mr. Kyle also raised kind of whether PF public facility zoning would be put on this um open spaces that that's not required. the majority of open space and trail corridors in any of these master plans uh is just on the underlying zone and it's it's permitted. So changing the zoning would require again a zone change and comp plan map amendment both beyond this the scope of this application. Um and then Devin Sysler uh from the Noddingham board had concerns about trees which which we hear the intent here again is highlevel master plan looking at infrastructure and uses at the tenative subdivision level. We are going to be required to submit a very detailed tree inventory. Um in order to be approved that application is going to have to meet the tree criteria. we're not we're not asking for any deviations from the tree criteria. So, we would we would answer that concern by saying the we intend to meet the the city's tree standards. Uh and then she also had some comments about uh traffic that I think we've already addressed. So, I don't know if anyone else

I think just prior to you guys going into deliberation, I just want to make sure you understand kind of how we got here and and um you know, we obviously have almost 20 years of experience just in this at this roundabout with the development of the bridges, Lutterman crossing at 15th and Reed and then now um or I mean at 15th and Reed and then Easton um to the south. So when you know when we started working with the wards to purchase this property um it felt like a completion of what we've worked really hard to do. Um with that we have a lot of data about what homes are desired in this location of town. Um obviously with the addition of Caldera High School, a future middle school, proximity to Jewel, Silver Rail, and other schools in the area, we know that this is likely going to be a family prominent area. Um with we, you know, as we looked at minimum densities, we tried our standard product type, rear load product, um narrower front load, wider front load. We're introducing our village product here, which is going to be a mixture of one and twotory homes, um that we think achieves density in a way that lives more like a standard front-loaded home. Um front-loaded meaning garage in the front rather than our rear load. Um, you know, rear loaded homes are narrow in in in nature and they're harder for a family to live in. They don't offer a robust yard for a dog to run in, your kids to throw a ball in. Um, so we find it really difficult to sell those homes to young families, families raising their, you know, children. Um, which we know this area is going to have a lot of. So when we went in to design this, we went with one of our smaller product type, which is a 30-foot frontload home. So pro predominantly what you see here to get to that that minimum density that's going to mostly be two-story homes, twocar garage, backyard. Um but also an emphasis on the streets. We are known

for creating community. We create robust amenities. We create um streets and trails. And I think if anyone's been to Petrosa, walked Fieldstone Park, we know how to develop a park. We know how to develop trails. It's difficult when we have to factor in tree preservation. We have to factor in widening um street requirements per city requirements. Um you know, as we get more and more requirements, it it gets harder to meet those minimum densities and the needs of the people, what people want to buy, where people want to live, um what people want to call home. So, we're doing what we can with what we have um to create those connection points to a 30 acre park just to our south. Um we see that as a huge amenity to this area. I mean, the amenities are not just what sits within our property boundary. It's everything around us. It's Alpenlow Park. It's the park that's going to be built in East End that's going to be owned by PPRD. It's the parks and trails that are going to be in the Southeast area plan. Um it's all the trails and parks that exist and um so we have the staggered street connections and and multimodal connections for bikes and pedestrians to get through our development to Alen Glow Park and to the canal trail that people use through the bridges um and moving east. So I just want to paint that picture because we're trying what we can to do what we can with what we have in a very confined piece of land. This is a very confined piece of land and by inc adding another street connection um adding more open space will be detrimental to this unit mix and we'll have to you know go back to the drawing board figure out what else we can do to in to meet the minimum density. Um we were very methodical on how many units we applied to the RH piece, the high density residential. 138 came from taking the that acreage and laying it

out so that any future developer of that site has to park it at a 2.0 parking ratio, two parking spots per um per unit because we want to make sure that we keep parking contained on the site. We know multif family parking can spill onto residential streets. There's really no outside parking along the RH other than within the neighborhood. And we really want to keep the focus on a really familyfriendly all-inclusive neighborhood that allows for people to move along the streets, live in their front porch. Um, we're going to look at ways to program the open space to be creative to connect them together to connect community because we don't have a community um amenity here. And so that's those are the things that are, you know, very near and dear to Polish and um those are the things we can control. Um those are the things that we can build out and and continue to create to make a thriving neighborhood. So I just want you guys to make sure you take those into consideration as you deliberate. And when it comes to the commercial, I mean, we you know, this again is in very early stages. I mean, we're not going to deliver our first home until 2027 at the earliest, potentially 2028. So, a lot of these concepts are just, you know, in their infancy. We still have to kind of hear what you guys have to say, hear what the neighborhood has to say. There's still so much work that has to be done as we move into tenative subdivision um that will really create this neighborhood and make it come to life. And we don't want to overpromise at the master plan at the master plan level because we know what that can do. So,

question. Mhm. Um, walk us through how I'm going to get to the underpass. So, you're going to have an apartment complex in that corner and then that possibly could be sold off to a multif family developer and then how would somebody in the neighborhood get under the underpass to get over to the park? So there's the opportunity depending on how the multifamily site itself develops that there could be direct connections to this new trail from the multif family site. But otherwise that that the publicly available connection for everybody is where it comes off of Murphy Road here and the path comes goes west

goes goes west separates from Murphy Road and then comes turns south and goes up. So for some reason the the the multif family is by a developer that says we're not bringing the public through here then we go down the sidewalk and come over. The multif family has no ability to restrict this. So we've actually coordinated with the city. So we think I mean the the alignment is going to be confirmed as we get further into this but right now we're showing it actually within that existing ride of way. So, and and that's we've come to terms with the city general terms around that that preserves that access within the public. And you're you're asking if there would be a secondary.

Well, if you if when you were pointing the cursor earlier in the night, you know, you're at that corner and I understand there's a height and visibility and lighting and all that, but I my gut feeling is I don't think you're going to be coming through the multif family unless they push a public street to go through there. You're going to come down the sidewalk at the entrance on Murphy and then walk along the rightway and then come underneath. I just confirming that that's that's what's currently planned. However, as we move through this process, Polish as the master developer and with the master HOA, we can require of the RH developer to provide a separate connection that is public or that's open to the public just as we are through another, you know, through the

as long as it's not on the backside on the railroad. That's I've been involved too many communities where they stick it on the side and the railroads going by and it's shaking and kids can get up there and not good. What is the There's a an odd left out little triangle of property just below your road I don't know what that is. Road Between Road B and the roundabout. What is that? So that's an existing I think it's a storm water facility. It's technically I think within the ride ofway. So, it was it was built I think what a roundabout or with the the improvements here, public improvements.

Then one last one for me is the culde-sac on the northwest corner. Again, going back to that. So, you pointed or staff said that that's a link for the park district to get up and come around Nottingham then over to the canal. No, no. So this is this is the point that I've mentioned earlier where there is a a gas connection and a pressure sewer connection that has to be made. So some kind of a facility above ground might be in there. It could be in ground. Yeah.

The infrastructure I think is below ground. Yeah. So it's all going to be below ground. So we have the opportunity to program it as a top lot or open space above the infrastructure. And the question about access for Nottingham Square through if that bridge collapses then no way to get I mean all their streets are private. um doing the Lutterman project there to the north and I know in our coordination with BPRD um there's been a lot of discussion and outreach with Nottingham for potential access potential access along this nice canal amenity that runs through the middle of the

the facility or through that neighborhood. Um and we have not been able to to get anywhere there. Okay, excuse me. It's a lot of open space appropriate. I have a quick reply. Yeah. No, sorry. Public comments are closed. Um, okay. Unless anyone has anything pressing. Uh, we can go to staff comments if there's anything. I had one question and it has to do about that southern access because I don't do my best

looking at Google maps. There's not a lot of elevation difference between where the uh where that double yellow line starts, right? I mean, it looks like if you went straight, that road went straight, it wouldn't there wouldn't be a a huge elevation gain to that road. You talking about the Murphy access? The Murphy access.

Yeah. This is where as a planner, I have to defer to my traffic engineers and and I think Joe did a good job of explaining the the boundaries they're working with. I can say that they submitted a a transportation impact analysis, a pretty comprehensive transportation impact analysis that the city responds to formally with that transportation analysis memo. And all the comments from the city engineers support their plan and and the restrictions are right in right now. I I'm I'm not an expert on on the specific transportation, you know, what they're looking at side distances, that's all kind of their ballpark, but I stand by what the city engineers have told me that they support the plan. So, okay. And then and then one more. Um, considering I mean even though Nottingham is a private development,

there are a lot of homes there and there's only one access that's over a bridge is does the city ever require some sort of at least emergency in case of something? I mean, I imagine if that bridge collapses, it's not like they can just throw up a new one. It's a valid question, but I think it comes down to sort of land use rights. In this case, those are private streets. And as as much as um you we want to make more access points and emergency points, that is not the responsibility of this development to mitigate sort of the private streets issue, however much that might make sense. It's a property that is is sandwiched between train tracks and a canal

whether or not those are private, public, whatever. People live there and need to be able to get out. And right now there's only one access. And I would imagine if this were built today, that would not be allowed with just the one access. No, and we would not allow private streets of this kind today. Correct. This is how they chose to develop then, but this wouldn't be wouldn't be permissible. Now,

I was just noticing that in that in the northwest corner up there, they have a utility and a, you know, pocket park if you will above that. If there was if if the city would ever say something like, "Well, that has to be built with and I forget what the what do you call it, the little hexagon thing you could put down in order to drive a car over it as or some sort of easement that would allow vehicular access if, for instance, the one in or a whole neighborhood were to collapse. if that's like a stub street or or emergency access question. I mean, considering it's not it wouldn't even be getting rid of any

or just a request of the developer as a good neighbor. Seriously. Well, I mean, I I don't think it should be on the someone's good grace. I think it should be right. Well, I'm saying if there no there's no legal basis for lack of a better term just of appealing to their the answer is no. The city doesn't have it. Right.

If the if that area were redeveloped to today's standards, different codes would apply. Um, if the Noddingham neighborhood wants to pursue a second access point on the 15th or some other street, they could entertain that. Yeah, I would I would say that the uh if those were public streets, this would be a different conversation, but the fact that private private tracks is a completely different conversation that that doesn't really touch on the criteria. Yeah. And and and I was just asking as more of like a of a unique situation or emergency exit because there's really I mean in a lot of places we talked about that one that went

I mean rock push comes to shove they can just go into the through the dirt and you know run over some shrubs right here that's not even possible right I mean unless you're going on the train tracks and yes good luck with that

and city council push it to be permanent I mean discussed at a future process. I mean, and my only point that I wanted to offer aside from all the all the rebellment discussions just just to remind that each of these phases of the subdivision, all these lots, the site plan, the future apartment complex, all this is going to run through another review process. Now, those processes are type two. They're public administrative decisions that don't they're not going to come before a hearing body of any kind. different but um just wanted to reiterate those things are going to look at those reviews each reviews are going to look at connections to all of your biodic streets multimodal pathways it's likely a pathway is going to be required to connect to the pathway uh going to Elenville things like that so there's another bite the apple the city will have administratively to get a lot of the uh at least to address the concerns that have been raised tonight so

uh questions for staff for Ian two questions one when we have a minimum density that's spelled out in the comp plan and if for whatever reason you do in the code, sorry, both, right? Um, if we and the developer and staff, everybody wants to do a better master plan and it goes underneath the minimum, two units, 10 units, whatever, what would the developer and or staff have to do to get that changed? I'm not aware of a scenario where we have approved or have felt like we could approve a development proposal under the minimum applicable density. I'm not sure if you've seen anything, Renee. I mean,

the the minimum is the is is the minimum. So, I'm I'm not sure there's really a vehicle to entertain that. Not gross. Yeah. Is it? That was my next question. Not gross. I think it's one of those things where it's the if you can count it as open space, then it's a part of But if you can't if you're not allowed to count it, then that would be exempt from right the density. So they're figuring it on the gross. If I could we do in my staff recommendation does does touch on the definition of minimum density calculation

which does indeed exempt areas that are not intended for any units like open space. So in the density calculations that I ran that that that the applicant submitted as well. It did exclude that 10% open space from the minimum density. It is averaged across the RH RM and RS zones. But as my staff recommendation, detail each zone. I did the calculation, added them all together, and resulted in the the mean. So gross went down because you took the 10% out as permitted by the definition. Streets are still in or streets are out. Streets are in. Okay. And no housing was assumed in the ME. No, no, those that's not subject to the minimum density. Only the residential.

And my next Ian question is the tree. Now, knowing that we've been a year into the tree code and a lot of great work has been done, we're trying to get developers to understand this is not as crazy as they think it is or expensive or over the top. So, this site has been graded and graded. I've been through the area many times and they're grading it graded. There's not a lot of trees. But over by the canal, if it's an easement with the irrigation district, is there any problem with that? If we say, "Okay, you've got to save so many trees because there are so many trees. Can you use them along the canal? Can we tease out this question a little bit or Well, so on the whole site there's not many trees, right? But it's by the canal and there's some nice trees. So the question is

Yep. Nice trees by the canal. Some of them I'm looking at I'm just looking at Google Maps. It doesn't have property lines, but I'm assuming some are within the irrigation districts east and some are not. So it's really isment any problem if they can come back and say hey we're so saving so many 25 in so many uh specimen trees all that and it's in the canal we're okay it's not going to be preempted by the the easement by No I don't I don't think so it's on it's on the subject property so I mean because this happens at a later phase subdivision um speculating a little bit but I in other words if the question is will the developer be able to count trees that are in the easement for a tree preservation purposes. I think yes they will.

Thank you. All right. Are we done? Yeah. All right. One more staff comment. Sorry. Just before you get into deliberations, um staff has prepared draft findings for you based on our recommendations. So if as you go through your deliberations you find differently it would be uh helpful and um for not only staff the applicant and city council if you would base any difference in the findings on the approval criteria. So focusing your discussion around the master plan approval criteria and if we want Nicholas can put that up again if it's helpful to see the plan. Yeah. Whichever you would prefer to have to speak to

and I'll also um offer that there have been a lot of discussion a lot of good questions I think good answers tonight. um staff can try to help guide deliberations, but in terms of the substantive information and questions being asked and answered that we you should get those out before you move to deliberation. So, this is I think this is sort of me offering kind of a last call if you have questions for um especially for Nick the planner or the applicant because once we move into deliberations, it's not uncommon for a question to come up that the applicant might want to answer or that planning commission might want the applicant to answer. It is really hard to do that once you've closed this and moved into deliberation. So, um it's a little bit of a speak now or forever hold your peace if you go into deliberation. I guess I have a question specific like going back to the canal and whether like by the the city code

like if that counts as open space. Can you speak to that?

I can. I mean, I do think and I'll I'll preface this first by saying there was a bit of confusion last week when um city council held a legislative public hearing to consider some changes to the development code that again don't apply to this application because of the timing. But there was some mis misconception. There were misconceptions in the community that the changes that the council was considering last week had some sub made some substantive change to somehow allowing private open space where it had not been allowed before. That's not the case. The city has always allowed or permitted an applicant to propose open space that were either private could be either private or public um as part of a master plan. The changes the council considered last week created some consistency in the language, but that ability for so-called private open space has always been there. This question is different. Um the question tonight that's come up come up has to do with the definition of open space. And I'll I'll read it. It's already been it's already been discussed, but our development code defines open space, either common, active, or passive, as meaning any property or area of land or water set aside, designed or reserved for public or private use, specifically for the purpose of providing places for recreation, conservation, or other open space uses. It is fairly broad, fairly I would say non-specific, but specific specifically contemplates the possibility that an area of water can be set aside and qualify for open space. So that's in the code that's in the definition that's in um title one of the development code. We're looking at title four for the master plan criteria which talk about public open space, private open space, the 10% requirement. But um that that I think is the most important thing for the planning commission to consider tonight and I'll finish in a second. Bob is the fact that the definition of open space does include an

area of water among other things like an area of land which is what people probably understandably think about first when they think about open space but set aside for public or private use. Yeah. Ian, could you just uh repeat the last phrase of the definition, please? Yep. designed or reserved for the public or private use specifically for the purposes of providing places for recreation, conservation or other open space uses. So other open so this would be private use other open space uses or conservation. I mean

it's something that it's something that isn't going it's something that isn't going to be built on. That's one way to read it. Or other open space uses. So that's what I mean when I say it's a fairly openended definition. In the hold on in the master plan though part and I'm trying to find it because we were looking at last week 45200E4 how about up to it talks a little bit more about what open spaces can yeah so one of the instances says uh it can't be fenced off right that's further down because I mean again

the intent for this was the the area that was the drain swell which according to the definitions being read right now that seems like that would qualify as an open space. It's meant for public or private observing even though that was the whole reason that was put into the master plan was to prevent having an area that is just a a drainage basin

that really couldn't be used. It's like the open space has a definition and then the master plan says you can has to have 10% open space and this stuff and it's point for irrigation systems and I think there's intent versus language and language secret and I would say I think

Colleen tried to clarify that before the city council last week. I think you can you can probably ascribe or read some intent both into the definition of open space which includes water and to the way the term is used in the master plan section of the code. I think there are ways to look at the way that concept is expressed in both of those places as demonstrating maybe some maybe some intent that is not totally easy to square. Uh I mean that that is true. I think the the question tonight that I think most of the focus on was was on was the definition of open space. But yeah, you look at um you look at this uh aspect of of use and it's it's an interesting question

on the followup to this then uh is Petrosa precedent then because the canal was if I listen to the staff their staff was part of that deal. They counted the Petrosa canal or that area. Uh it is it is at least arguably a demonstration of how because the city council approved that master plan too that this one this will go to the city council whatever planning commission's recommendation is uh it is arguably a demonstration of the council's intent. The city council is the ultimate legislative body for the city. So they to the extent anyone does um owns the development code and and the development code is ostensibly an expression of the council's intent. So there is an argument that by approving an analogous situation in the past that is an indication of what the council intends the code to meet.

My recollection though was the open space was much larger than 10% in that particular development in Petrosa. There were swimming pools and parks. There was schools with playyards. there was a lot more open space. Yeah. And I' I've seen river walks, trails pass where you go up to the water body, but you're not including the water body, right? But if I heard correctly, then that water body was part of it. But I think uh Suzanne's clarified in my mind there's a bigger number that was going on there. So yeah. What year was Patricia approved? 2019 or 2020. We we are talking about different council members, different planning commission,

just two of us. This is true. I will say that for the purpose of legislate. Yes. Some some different people, but for the purpose of legislative intent, I sorry to say it, but you're all funible. Um it's it's the body. So are you and just the point of No, no, no. I'm I'm replaceable. I'm not funible. Um but it's the it's the body that does the thing, not the individuals on the body. So the council is the council regardless of of who's on it to a certain extent. Okay. Yeah. Open space must be open to the public and must not be fenced off unless it is related to a park or approved public or private recreational facility but not limited to tennis court, swimming pools, driving ranges and

driving. Yeah. Well, you could drive golf balls off the bridge down. I was I was going to make the comment that you can toss a Frisbee. Um, have a game of catch across a canal. Okay. And then when they shut it off, you can go treasure hunting. Yeah. For all the lost frisbes. All right. I mean, this is we're Yep.

closing the public hearing and starting deliberation. Um, okay. I just wanted to start out real quick. Um, we didn't talk a lot about lot sizes and setbacks and things like that. The other thing I didn't have a problem with them.

Um, the the block perimeter I actually didn't looking at the configuration of the neighborhood. I don't think there was I was trying to find there are a group of houses that would have to take a slightly longer route, but for the most part if you're leaving and you're probably going to be going left when you're not supposed to be, but I didn't I didn't see too much of an issue with the the block perimeter that that I hated. I didn't like the south connection on Murphy and I would push back the city for that because I think that people are just going to be turning coming from Murphy, they're going to be turning left all the time. And if you try and make a rule that nobody's going to follow, then they're just going to do it the wrong way. And it requires you to get in the oncoming traffic for just a little bit too long. Mhm.

And I think something needs to be done there, but that's on the city, not on the or potentially on the city if the applicant says that the city isn't letting them do that. Uh, private open space. Technically, I don't think the canal should count. I kind of like it. I'm I'm kind of on the fence of it, but the biggest thing is the commercial. And I seriously I don't know how I can approve a master plan if master I mean okay I live in southeast spoiler alert I live on the other side of the train track train tracks it you know it's this is my hood there's no commercial around um it's very difficult my kids when they ride their bikes have to go really far away and we don't and it's hard in an area like Ben to put commercial when an area is already developed out. When you develop these areas, they're they're done. There's not a lot of empty lots. Master plans are like the one of the only opportunities.

They were to have commercial development in there. if we approve this master plan and that gets so there's an area that the community through urban growth boundary discussions and everything and they they identify certain areas that are ideal for it and if it gets built with houses then that's it 20 30 50 60 years in the future there's no it's not like they're going to be converted

um So, I mean, it's a conundrum for me because I don't know how I can approve a ma any master plan if I know that that commercial is going to be taken away and it won't come back. And I've heard that there's nobody going back to try and change the law to new master plans versus the old Kmart sites. And

so, that's not necessarily the case. I mean, this, if I can jump in a couple things. I mean, this this tension between the state's policy to enable us to catch up on our need for housing um and the need that everybody recognizes um and aspires to that we have more complete, more walkable communities. There there is potentially a tens tension there and we are seeing some of that in Bend. Um there are some initial discussions about whether there are changes at the state level that might allow I'll say a little more certainty that what is master planned might eventually come to fruition. I mean the economic factors are really complicated. Cities can't force somebody to go build something that is not economically viable. We don't have millions of dollars that we can say here we'll subsidize your your money losing

development. Um you know it has to it has to work for it to happen. Um but there are some discussions at the legislative level very preliminary about whether there are potential changes that could better balance some of these needs the need for housing the desire and need for complete communities. Um but what I would also encourage you to ask in hearing you commissioner winters you don't know how you can approve a master plan that when these things that the state has said can happen might happen. I hear that. But what I need all of you to say and ask yourselves is if you're going to deny an application, what are the criteria you're going to rely on to recommend denial? Because again, that's what planning commission is doing. You're making a recommendation to council. Um you can reach your own conclusions, but I do need to encourage you to um look at the criteria and if you see one that you don't think is met, the planning commission should be able to identify it. the fear, which is a realistic and an understandable one, that property designated for commercial development is not going to develop that way because of what the state has decided to do. I mean, it it's it's a real one, but um the fact that state law is what it is is probably not a good basis to recommend denial of an application. just the state because there have been commercial there have been master plan developments in Bend in this time frame that had commercial that did build commercial so it's not just the state

follow that's that's voluntary exactly

but that's that so let me just I'll be brief that's my earlier comment and what I would implore Polish to do in this case is voluntarily try to make the commercial work because a community. I mean, I was one of the people that was I rate about the clear cutting of trees and the development adjacent to me, which was polish, was clearcut. And later, Corey stated that was a mistake. They would have made more money had they not clearcut because that land would have been more valuable or the homes would have been more valuable. and Corey further did plant trees along Chevlin uh where there were none. That was above and beyond what was required. So just you know as a citizen of Ben not as a planning commissioner like to ask not require polish to make the extra effort. There's a lot of ill will proa eastern some others

here's your line here's your chance to show the community that you're in the same place your heart's in the same place as the rest of the residents. And I have a question for staff because I haven't had a chance to read it. We he ended his thing. We can't have uh there there was I mean especially Renee and I we're trying to answer questions. Yeah.

Well, the state law because I want to I want to clarify this because he's on the right thing. We have a ton of stuff in that code for master plans. So the state practicing a city planner is not a good thing. And so in that code, if if anybody's had a chance to read it, was there any qualifiers like, "Oh, the commercial property sat for 10 years undone?" No, there's no market study. Nothing about a commercial property within a half mile. Nothing. Yeah. Nothing. No market study was done to say it's bad.

As I look at Eastston and I see the high school, it's a huge activity generated. the the expansion area we just the council and you guys did before I got on a commission the whole southeast flank plus all of Eastston plus the bridges plus Ningham there is a ton of potential for retail there and we couldn't even fight or get on the jawbone them from an economic development standpoint to do the right thing right so I think that's what's got us I don't think we're going to be able to do anything because if there's not meat on the bone for that that what the state said and our council I've been at two council meetings where they discussed for an hour getting the commercial into the community to make it walkable, right?

And also a couple uh discussion points in that there was so we can't force it. You can't stick it in the corner and hope the market's going to be there. But when you know the market on these major streets is there, it just drives me crazy. I think for our time tonight, I don't know how much we're going to be able to get into that detail, but it blows the whole master plan thing and the goal of the council. Yep. You know,

I will say um John, to your question, as Ian mentioned earlier, there's two relevant bills. One is Senate Bill A, one is House Bill 3395. And I don't remember which one says which, but one of them does have language that city must approve affordable housing if it meets these certain location requirements except if the land is vacant and was brought within the UGB within the last 15 years. So there are some properties in the city that cannot use that particular part of the state law, but then there is the other bill where it doesn't have that caveat. So it's not

if it was annexed in and the growth boundary was resolved then the commercial that was in that plan has to happen if they can make it work. You know they need to pass one of the legislations that would be true but they did two and the other one Senate Bill 8 has no criteria whatsoever and they have different affordability requirements and again it can sit there forever. Yeah, right. just but yeah they have different affordability requirements and SB8 that was the first one that is the let's say the blunter instrument it does not have that 15-year requirement it does not have the vacancy requirement that's 3395 which came a couple years later

and if I understand we don't have anybody citywide with all the other 10,000 things we have going it's to to try and lobby the state right now no that that's correct we we have a very very active government relations program and we're already working very hard thinking about the short session in February which is compressed. It's 35 days. There may or may not be impetus or a sponsor for this kind of fix which is fairly somewhat nuanced and complicated. But yeah, we we we uh we lobby and engage at the state legislative level pretty intensely

because I I worked on Mclofflin Boulevard through the Clackmus County at one time and they had 51 used car lots on that street. Now there was a ripe area ready for residential mixeduse consolidating the commercial. Totally understand if the state want to do that but then they heard us on the master plan. I think that's really all we need to talk about on that for tonight. Could we make I don't know if we can do this or not but could we put in as condition of approval um that commercial has to be developed they can't

and the thing is is I mean you know I worked with a lot of developers everyone talks about community and this and that there's a reason why we have a development code right it's because capital has a tendency to, you know, the least resistance to make more capital. Yep. Right now, creating livable, diverse communities is not as profitable as just doing housing. It's like Joey said, it's hard. It's hard to find commercial areas. It's easy to just make a sea of residential and then create traffic problems and not have lockable. And it's that's that's so

that's why I got on the whole run to play commission in the first place. I came from one of those communities where it was old houses and you had to just drive forever everywhere to get to anything and I hated it.

Yeah. So I I hope the state does something that would make it so that our comprehensive plan and all of the different committees and commissions and feasibility studies and all the everything that goes to create our areas where we say this is residential mediums. uh this is commercial when you know as long as that can just get destroyed based on really like a handful of people making that decision as opposed to the entire community. Um yeah, I can't I can't vote for this.

I mean my soap box for and I put the last thing you just said because I was going to go off on a previous thing you said. That's fair. Um, my soap box on the the commercial, I think I've already said before, but like if we have a system where we had zoning for places that residential can go and places that commercial can go and then we change the rules so that the residential can go into the commercial, there's no longer a place where commercial can be, right? Like we should change our rules to allow the commercial and the residential areas, right? Like if we're not going to have the like the highlevel master planned ability to granularly say that's where the commercial goes, right? We need to allow it to happen naturally somewhere else, right? There has to be a place for it. We have to have it within like and that's something we can control, right? We don't have to

go and wait for like the state of Oregon to do that. Like we as a city can reduce our self-imposed restrictions on our residential areas to allow more commercial like that's something that we can do and we should be doing and I do believe it's I they are working on it. They did do some of that already. We have done some commercial zoning stuff is part of the quasi judicial decision for this master. Correct. Um and it is 900 p.m. So in terms of the you're talking about in tying it to goals, right? Or or criteria in the code.

Criteria in the code. That means for instance in chapter 11 growth management goals encourage the city's evolution from small town to livable city with urban scale developments, amenities and services in appropriate locations while preserving enhancing natural environment. I mean, is that something we could point to or is

I I want to leave it to you what to point to, but the reason I bring this up is because if you are going to be if you want your recommendation, whatever it is, to be persuasive to counsel, you should give them reasons that they can, I will say, legally rely on in making a decision. And I and I'm not trying to dismiss it, but concern and angst about what might happen based on some things that have been happening is again understandable. I don't think it's something that an ultimate decision maker in a quasi judicial land use application can rely on in a persuasive way. I mean, I don't think it's what might happen. I think when we if we approve this master plan, it will be an ME or yeah,

I mean it might as well just be written in the code that we that it is for uh residential only or it can be residential, which essentially almost just like we have these these zones in place right now certain amount of acreage as soon as it as soon as it gets approved then it technically changes. Mhm. as long as as long as it can be residential only.

Well, I don't think that it h that this property has uh appropriate amenities and services in the appropriate locations to improve this residential community. I got two when you're ready at this end. And I guess the other thing too, if we want to knock off some other things that that part of it, there's also the other parts with, like I said earlier, lot sizes, setbacks, the open space.

Um, and maybe we can address those and knock those off and see if the Well, and then we can get those back on the screen. Um just I was thinking we could the approval criteria the approval criteria maybe we can shift real quick and and go through the approval and go through some of those. So go through one at a time and talk talk about each one. Can I make a

relatively brief comment? So, I think we all share the same concern about um commercial uh being at risk or or being deceased um given what's been handed down from the state of Oregon. Um and we're looking for ways to somehow force the developer to do something that legally probably wouldn't hold water and city council wouldn't go for it. A couple of weeks ago, I was making a similar play for was for not allowing a building that I thought was out of character, but the language didn't support what you know, common sense and gut feel in my opinion. Well, it

well whatever that there we probably even did have sound gra as mentioned the land use chairs a couple of weeks ago asked me to appear to um update them in terms of this uh legislation. And in advance of that, Colin was nice enough to spend an hour and a half with me going through the particulars, what the different avenues were to get things amended, etc. It's not going to happen for February, God knows how long.

So, it is what it is. Um, I don't like it. That's why I'm imploring uh Polish voluntarily to quote do the right thing. Um, I'm gonna vote in support of this. I think Joey, who I haven't necessarily always agreed with, Joe or Joey, we have got two Joe's, I think, made a very compelling case in terms of density. I think also if an extra effort is made to preserve the trees along the canal, that would be great. you know, all development doesn't have to simply at the minimums. They're really um exemplary developments around here. Developers have stepped above and beyond, not bankrupting themselves, you know, doing goldplated, but you know, a little here, a little there. And that's I think we all we can ask for. I don't think we can demand it. My uh couple points is I think the density is what it is. I think it's a balanced program and the layout is right and I like the idea of the excuse me the mixed products because more people can live there not just one income level. Um I like the connection underneath uh because uplow is a great park. Um, but I agree with staff that we as planning people push for connected communities and I don't know how many times I've seen an older community that was done before standards and or even the new ones where you got to pack a lunch to get through it to get out to go to lunch. So, I would be in favor of the connected street rather than that uh uh a little trail 20 foot trail connection. But the biggest thing for me is I look at that and I I'm trying it and I'm a city planner. I'm trying to figure out what that open space is. When I hear programming a 20 foot wide slot that

could be lined up with houses and/or fences, what is really going on there? And there's nice streets with nice streetscape you can walk around to get over somewhere. I think that is the biggest thing for me is that should be some sort of central green space that's either literally in the central or right next to the commercial. So you'd have like a town square situation. You can sit outside with a cup of coffee instead of winding all the way around through these little slats because down the road this is going to go to an HOA. And I've been a president of an HOA. I've been on a lot of boards and they're going to have to maintain that, not the park district. And so I I I can't figure it out. And when I heard uh some of this might be utilities, what's that open space going to be? It's just a grass space and you're going to stick a few little tots. Now, someone could say Alpenlow has all that. Well, Alpenlow's tot and kids stuff is down south. That's a long walk from this neighborhood. And so let's really think about having neighborhood park level things which just opened up in my neighborhood and the kids are flocking and it's a meeting place for the community instead of packing the lunch and walking through all these trails. There's enough of the trails that if you consolidate them somehow in the middle or next to the commercial, I think it'd be a much better community. So I'll be voting no.

I have a number of issues. Um, some of them related to the even just the I think we heard tonight there's no proof of a COID easement or maybe there's no proof that Parks and Wreck has a COID easement and we're relying on trails that we don't know that they actually can't even build them. Seems premature to come to us with something when we don't know the answers to some of these very basic things. One of the most important things is the connectivity. I echo all the concerns about the commercial. I've totally lost faith in the master planning process because of what we've been through with particularly with Petrosa and Eastston. We were sold these really beautiful plans, unbelievable, beautiful communities only to find out that and we were told, "Well, it won't exactly be like this, but it's nothing like that." So, uh, to me, that's just disingenuous at best. And I appreciate that that the commercial and mixed use could exist, but I uh uh I just don't believe it. And then the open space, I just don't see how you can count the canal in this particular piece of property in some little tiny strips of green that might or might not be utilities or they might be programmed or I the houses are going to be backing up on them. They'll be backyards. I don't really uh uh and then the block perimeter thing. I don't I don't understand why the road doesn't go through. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. That I mean I don't especially when you have this issue of no left turn coming out onto Murphy property traffic is going to have to go through this neighborhood. I just that has to be there. So I think the connectivity and the open space are criteria. I don't think that we can say that this canal is set aside for for public or private use, specifically

recreation, conservation, and open space. I just I don't believe it meets the criteria. I'll be voting no.

I actually I agree with Bob on a lot of a lot of what he said earlier. Um I think that there there are a lot of things that I don't like about this master plan. They're not the same things that other people don't like about a master plan, but some of them are. Like, I don't like the way that we define open space. I don't like how it is so permissive that it includes the canal based on the existing definition and our precedent, right? Um, I personally don't like how it is trying like not only is it like trying to minimize the amount of open space that they they can do, they're also minimizing the amount of housing that they're putting into it, right? Like I think that that's not the the edge that I would be aiming for, right? I I don't like how many single family homes there are in this property. Um, I don't like that it's a like basically a giant culde-sac, right? Like I wish there was more connectivity. I can't do anything about the railroad. I can't do anything about any of that, right? Um, for me the two things like but I have to as a planning commissioner I have to and in a quasi judicial hearing I have to point to how it doesn't conform with our comprehensive plan. Right. And there there are two places that are of concern to me. One is where it doesn't conform. One is like the block length.

Um and the other is the whether the canal counts as open space. Um from what I've heard, it sounds like the canal counts as open space according to the city's definition. Um, as far as the whether or not that should be a multi-use path or a road, I think in practical terms, I can see it both ways. Um, I I could I could be convinced either direction. Um but um I would I I I will be voting to recommend the master plan because I do think it conforms not in the ways that I want but

so your your question I'm asking a question. So your question on the open space which is a learn objective very easy thing is that your question the canal not the layout. Yeah, the question is like it has to have 10% open space. The part of the open space in this that is least like most questionable is the canal, right? Um but based on the definition of what open space is like public or private, land or sea like Well, I I I get that. So the question is put the canal aside and then look at that system.

All those little trails running around with no place for a tot lot in the middle where the community come together whether they have a cup of coffee next to it or they're in the center. Um that's the definition of a park. I mean emotionally I agree with you but not based on how the city defines it right which is what we have to consider. And efficient open space that means something to the community and doing the right thing. I mean, it's being used as a canal, right? Like that's the utility of it. The inside skinny little trails, the little trails around what what's the usable open space? The multi-use paths, those are open space as well. Like that's

Yeah. 45 acres without some kind of a little central open space. If we have to give 10% at least some of that should be usable and put a dot lot in that kids. I agree that we should. Yeah. I don't agree that that is what the code says. Mhm. You want to do a good master plan by community, it should be mixed use and usable. Yeah. But I would agree that would be nice. And what about the connection? You don't like the lack of the street connection? You mean the one in the middle or the a trail, a 20ft trail rather than a 60oot rideway for a neighborhood street that would connect the grid?

This is a a relatively small neighborhood that has pretty good connectivity to the major roads. I don't see how the that particular multi-use path meaningfully changes how vehicles are going to get out of the neighborhood. I agree with that and originally I was pretty sure that I agree with the recommendation of um planner. Uh but then as I've heard more and looked at it more I I could go either way and I wouldn't make it a deal breaker. Okay.

I didn't mean to jump ahead of you. No. Um I I think if I read the entire definition of open space, it should be usable for recreation or conservation or some other value

to the community. It it it seems to have the intent of a value to the community and I am not seeing that in this plant. um paths are disjointed and not connected. They're drain. It's utility. It's basically the canal is kind of a utility easement even um there's no the applicant hasn't demonstrated any interest in conservation around the canal with the um little repairarian community or the trees or use for wildlife. Um, I don't think it meets the definition. So, on that I would vote no or I intend to vote no. Um, I also don't think that it meets because we don't have any detail on that commercial. I don't think it meets that half mile criteria. I mean, it there's nothing walkable. There's no restaurant. There's no convenience store. There's no coffee shop. There's no hardware. There's no retail. There's no services other than the park and the school that can be walked to. Um, and so I I think that's a no. I know, right? That was the play.

I'm gonna be devil's advocates for my own thing. Uh, I think it's a half a mile. Okay. Reading the definition. Trying to figure this. Okay. So, read the definition. Community master plan must have access to commercial goods services by walking, biking, or distance a distance not greater than 1/ half mile radius measured from all points along the perimeter of the master plan boundary to any land planned, zoned or developed uh or one or more such services. And there is some areas that are close by. I just don't know if that is technically on East.

On East County. Yeah, there's there's some places uh on Murphy and Roster House that technically there's a little commercial area right there. White industrial. It's It's right there. It's where the the gas station where the gas station was going to go. Um, so it sounds like we do not have the votes to approve a recommendation. Um, for the the people who are voting no, do you have specific approval criteria we can point to to rejecting? Uh, yeah. So, go ahead.

Um, let's see. Just had it Um that's not the density. Um sorry, talk about something else. I you're looking at that in um the half mile. Is that from all points on the perimeter or just one point? Half mile. I boy, if it weren't 919, I would have looked at the code already. It is I think that's what it says.

We also count the ME designated portion of this actual master plan. It's literally where zero because it could be a commercial from land that is zoned for commercial services. It's the existing zoned. It's really it's zoned for also. I think it says zoned zon literally zoned also as affordable housing. Yeah. So that's that's that's my my my thing. And I know it's

it's maybe semantics, but four 4.5200 community master plan D3 little a. The community master plan uh uses and densities must be consistent with the Ben comprehensive comprehensive plan map designations. If rearranging the plan designation locations and or zoning is proposed as part of the master plan application, the master plan must retain the same total area of all plan designations on the subject side within 1% of the same total acreage of the which it is

but it also changes the zone because right now we have an ME zone that was made that that is in our comp plan and then as soon as it gets as soon as it match master plan gets approved, it is an ME zone and it's also essentially another zone because we did update the city code to match the state, but it's equivalently not matching what you want, right? Like it's still a mixed employment zone before and after. So, it's not being turned into residential. It's not being

Well, a mixed employment zone says you're not allowed to have residential on the ground floor. But I think we're getting off track because we're fighting the state law right now. And I think as Ian and Renee said, there's people hopefully from our city fighting down at at the capital to say adjusted for master plantings. I don't think we can hang on that because they put commercial in right

at two acres and said mixed employment. So to me, the criteria that they're not meeting is connectivity based even on our staff making it. We're not just saying the staff has brought this up. And then two, the really poor quality inf uh open space system, forgetting the canal for a minute, but the the open space system is I think even by itself is the big hat to hang on. And I've seen some of their other communities, they were brought up tonight, that they've got the central top lot. They've got the trails or the streets going there. The streets are going to be great. They're going to be streetscape and all that. You can walk down the street like we do in my neighborhood. There's not trails all over the place. And I think I've seen in the past on master plan communities where that little slot behind the houses gets people freaky about what's going on back there and then the HOA is going to get stuck maintaining this.

So you so we want to say that the open space does not conform to the definition of open space in BDC 1.2 and the usability and the efficiency and the optimal plan layout of an open space system for 45 acre neighborhood. 05 natural resources scenic and historic areas and open spaces to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. So it doesn't conform to goal goal five and it doesn't conform to the BDC 1.2 definition of open space that is what we're going with it sounds like. Yes. And the transportation connection

and in my and this is a process question. I I'm not saying throw it out because it's overall got the right mix of stuff and could be more of certain areas. I think Nathan mean we don't get to decide whether we throw it out or not. We get to No, I know. But my point is is in these kind of cases, we're not sending them back to to to the be to the beginning or ground zero. Refine the plan like some of the other polished plants that have open space that's usable, that has connectivity that's usable. It's that simple. I totally agree. I'm not saying that I don't want development there. I do want development there. I think it's a good place to have development there. Not this. Don't think that this plan quite quite quite works. That's the bottom line.

Chair late according to our city attorney. What's that? I said it's getting late. Yeah, I think it's an objective fact. So I mean I guess how does this go? Do we all the question someone has to do a motion emotion? But do we do it on individual things or is it just an overall? It's up to us.

I think I sense that Rene's been taking notes. I mean, you can do it how you want to do it. I mean, there is a recommended motion which is for approval. My spider sense is there may not be a majority of those present who want to approve. If somebody else wants to make a different motion, it's up to you. Somebody can make a motion, it can be seconded, then it can be discussed, and then it can be voted on. My sense is if there is a majority that is not interested in approving this, um, you should make a motion based on what your recommendation to what you think the majority's recommendation to the council should be. You all make it. Go for it.

I uh move to not approve this plan based on the open space system and the lack of connectivity of the street system. I'll second. The numbers included in there. I'll second. All in favor? I I All opposed. I um Did you vote, Susan? Yeah. You voted for Oregon. I voted I the first for the motion. Can you specify name? Because I'm not sure when your hand was raised, John, but that So John's motion is to deny the application to re recommend deny recommend recommendation. Somebody seconded it. I seconded it.

You seconded it. And then there was four of us. vote was in in favor of the recommendation to deny. Yeah. I I I four. So those opposed are Nelson and Gresence. Okay. Yes. And the the basis was due to concerns about the open space and connectivity

streets. And Aaron, did you not want to reject it based on the commercial and I guess that's the one that's hard for me to and and Okay, so first of all, when is this going before the city council? This is information that I didn't find that I hadn't found on my own though.

So Rene could probably answer the question when it's going. I mean, I think the concern that almost every planning commission commissioner has at one level about the conversion um of residentially planned property or sorry, commercially planned property to to residential is I I think that concern is heard. Yeah. And it just wasn't tied to a specific like this verbiage tells you. No. And I think I mean the applicant hears that concern. They have I sense heard plenty of that concern. So that that is something that's out there. We So that's just going to be part of the planning commission deliberation record city attorney

and our city attorney and planning director is hearing it from us and I'm was happy to hear that we have staff going down to the capital and council council's aware of this concern this tension in the law and competing goals. I would Okay. Did we pick somebody? Oh, we haven't yet. No, I was just making sure they were done. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Motion. When is it

discussion? We have it tenatively scheduled for December 17th. Um, we can reconfirm with the applicant if that date still works. But for this purpose, is there a commissioner on the the side who voted of the four votes? So, we to represent planning commission. I'll do it if anybody else wants to. Unless I'd love to do it. You want to go, Scott? Doesn't hurt to have two. You want to go too? So, Scott and John. Mhm.

December 17th. Okay. Uh now we will move on to the approval of minutes for the September 8th, 2025 and September 22nd, 2025 uh planning commission meetings. I move for approval. Uh we don't need to. We just say we just say does anyone have an issue? Oh, no issues. All right. Now we want move on to the communications uh reports from planning commissioners. Suzanne and I are going to talk about open space and commercial.

Yes, commercial.

I think we've talked about it. Well, we were at the city council to present the updates to the code uh and some and Pauline had added something that uh about open space and changing the definition to try and make it more obvious that you could not include a fenced in drainage swale and call it open space. Um but we had a lot of there was a lot of discussion and we had discussion afterwards with a couple of representatives from a couple of neighborhood associations and their land use chairs about open space. Uh so there's a bigger issue out there around open space in our communities and the fact that we are developing more and more dense neighborhoods. The need for that open space is greater than ever. And it doesn't all have to be big open space, but can be small open space, but it needs to be usable open space.

And there was a I didn't realize that that we even had these, but in Southwest Bend, they have a park that's for residents only and it was a private park, right? They brought and that's that public and private kind of because people think a park. Um, but like I said, I went I've walked along that canal, but but um trespassing. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there are also ones that are private, but that have signs on it that say this is a private neighboring for this, but you are welcome to use it, but it's owned by this neighborhood association. So, those signs,

uh, the one I was thinking is Brayburn, I think, is on the way to on Century Drive. Well, there was another thing too which was bof as we were waiting for our agenda to go. Uh, councelor Panzosa brought up the need for neighborhood commercial. That was that they brought up the commercial thing. They also brought up like what you were saying commercial and residential and residential and just and so when we brought up we made a quick plug that the planning commission would love we talk about this all the time and they were like well are you guys thinking about initiating something and I was like

we can't initiate you guys can't we're here right now asking uh And they were going to it blows up the next meeting, you know, and they well they were already thinking about putting that on their work session. Yeah. So hopefully they mentioned the planning commission, I believe. So uh that might be something there. I will say also that I've had two conversations with Senator Broadman and one with Mayor Keebler about this issue and I will say that their opinion changed from the first meeting to the second meeting

uh and that there may be some opportunity for the state to consider making changes for situations such as Bend with these master plans particularly in previously undeveloped areas of the community that are food deserts. Uh and so there is some hope, but I think that um having conversations uh yourselves might be helpful as well. I think they're getting the message. Um there were several people who came during the public comment session in the city council meeting to talk about the commercial that was pulled out from under them. A guy that bought a house

based on the master plan. Yeah. And I'm surprised that hasn't come up in terms of like well in our town we really just to put a bow on it we have the master plan dilemma but we also have 97 which to me could use a little pruning out with the market and some of the commercial uses that aren't great and with the central district plan there's going to be residential there. So the intention of trying to get some of these stagnant blighted areas changed I get it but that would hurt us on the other side. I have nothing. Okay. Oh, I did send everyone uh there's something Thursday night that you might be interested in.

Um, uh, our urban forester is speaking. It has to do with balancing growth housing and well trees or the outdoor amenities particularly landscaping etc. And it's got who the sponsor is organs something open land. Take a look.

I have one other thing. I'm going to pass this out and I want to thank Patty for staying because my request is that the planning commissioners Oh, sorry. Uh uh

that we begin liaisoning with the land use chairs of the neighborhood associations. So, I've printed the map and the list of the land use chairs for all of the neighborhood associations um with the idea that if each of us took two, there's currently 13. There's one inactive, but there's at least one coming on as I understand with some of the development. Maybe that's a ways away. So, um I don't know how we want to divide these up. And I will say that I did also have a meeting with the land use chair from Larks, which is my neighborhood. both my residence and my business are in Larksburg neighborhood. Uh, and it's what really struck me when when uh, Scott and I were at the city council and the land use chairs approached us afterwards to uh, raise their concern um, in a more direct way is that we don't often we live in our part of the community, but we don't necessarily get that bigger picture that we have this opportunity to get from people who are active in their particular area. Um, and so I think it'd be really really helpful for us to reach out to the land use chairs and start a regular dialogue and I will put in a plug again for some meeting where we don't have anything on our agenda and we that we could have a joint meeting with the land use chairs and just have a discussion about what are the issues in these different parts of town that need to be brought up. We are according to the city's rules. We are the citizen involvement committee within the Bend urban growth boundary and our role is to advise the council on citizen involvement as and it can include working with stakeholder groups and citizens advisory committees and I would argue that working with our land use chairs at the at the neighborhood associations would be excellent

and they want it and they they want it and I mean I think it's really really important for us to really understand these issues and give a an opportunity usually Usually when we get testimony, we can't have dialogue. We get testimony, but we don't get to have a dialogue with them. Informal round table. Yes. And Renee, that brings up the question that we've raised. We had a million things at our end of our meeting, but did staff is there a staff person now assigned to the 13 districts after Michaela left? I'm not sure. Uh Rene Rene Mitchell Rene Mitchell who's our communications and engagement director. Yeah, that's what I has kind of taken on that responsibility. The manager's office, right?

Uh, we have a communications and engagement department. Renee reports to the city manager. Okay. So, Renee would be the go-to because I got asked three times last week by board members who's on first now that Michaela's moved over. Yeah, Rene's taking that on. I will say Renee has a very big job that encompasses a lot more than just that. Yeah. So, so coming back to Suzanne's recommendation, uh, which I agree thousand% with everything she said based on similar conversations with the number of the land use chairs. I suggest if I mean it is anyone have an a land use area that they would like to be the liaison? Maybe we can just divide it up here really quick. Start with your home base and then neighborhood.

Is anybody else old farm district? I think me. All right. says it.

No, I can I can do whatever. I don't I I like it or not. I don't care. There there's plenty of other areas. I spent enough time in Southeast. Okay. I could take Summit West and Aubrey But I'll take Gold Farm. Uh thanks, Scott. Yeah. Uh Erin, well lur I'll do lark spur. Okay. Um I'd like to do old bend if nobody else wants it, but I will defer. Go for it. Okay. All right. Uh Nathan, I'll just take the last two. We'll let Margo.

I'll just take two of the last four. So Bob, you had Summit West and Aubrey here. Summit West. I'm going to do Summit West. Aubrey. Oh, Bob's taking Summit West. That's what Bob said. Bob Summit West and Aubrey. But Nick was taking Southwest. Southwest Bend. So Southwest and and Southeast. Yeah. Got a lot of action going. That's Yeah, that's awesome. All right. So then we have a new planning commissioner coming in January, right? Because you're not sticking around schmuck. Uh, so let that be on the record. Hey, that was said with love.

Uh, Nathan, do you have a preference of any um, let's go with River and Century West or Southern Crossing and Mountain View? Suzanne, don't forget our chair. Right. Well, she gets whatever's left. Uh, East News. Nathan Mountain View. Yeah. Okay. Fantastic. And I'll Nathan, which ones did you take? Sorry. Southern Crossing and Mount View. Let's all take Almond Brothers. Somebody's already Bob's already got Arby. You got Century West or Orchard or West is inactive at the moment, but Well, Century West sounds good. Okay, those.

So, I also included the contact information for all the land use there. So um yeah Orchard Orchard Orchard Boyd West so Orchard Boyd Acres and West River are left and one of those Void Acres is one that's inactive. Is that what you said? Void Acres is currently inactive as a neighborhood district. Yes. Okay. So Margot gets West River and Orchard and we're good. Well, my council action and report was I think that we had a pretty good discussion today and I appreciate all of your opinions.

I think we never want to see being made, right? Way better than lost. I feel like with this group, even if I disagree, everybody's shout out and they care. I wish I could. It's getting too late. All right, I move adjournment. Oh, wait, wait. I'll be very brief. Uh, your next meeting will be cancelled since we didn't have an item that needed to be continued or scheduled on that week before Thanksgiving. So, your next meeting will be December 8th. That's when the um storm water public facilities plan will return to you for the hearing that week.

Um, kind of that one. Yeah, that's pretty interesting. And just using my time to see if Bob had a question or if it's a later question. Well, it has to do with I don't know if um what after we adjourn. Can I do a question? Sure. And when we adjourn, does the microphone go off? We can we can make sure that you wait 10 seconds. Secrets are no fun. Yeah. Yep. Gordon to Squade.