City Council - Regular Meeting

to present the topic. Tom, welcome. Thank you, Council President, and uh good evening, councilors and plan commissioners. Uh we have a a work session for you this evening on the southwest area plan. And uh this evening, we have with us uh Twe Cow with HHPR. And then online, we also have Ken Perry with Walker Macy. Uh so we're going to be tag teaming a little bit here. I'm going to start off with a little bit of an overview. Uh Twee's going to give an update on uh the work that's occurred since your last work session and then Ken's going to share uh the draft preferred alternative before we go into the discussion. So TW

Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay. Is that better? Thanks. Okay. Yes, please. All right. So uh we've kicked the project off. We have uh again our uh uh consultant team. Uh we have HHPR is our our lead uh uh land planning firm and project manager. And then we have uh our team members uh Walker Macy uh for urban design, Leland on economic analysis, DKS for traffic analysis and JLA for public involvement. uh some of the faces uh you see more frequently than others who are doing doing work more behind the scenes here. So we're uh started this work uh got underway uh roughly early 2025 with the contract in place started the project startup. uh we've gone through the the process of developing and evaluating alternatives and are now getting into the phase of developing the preferred alternative uh and then refining that. So uh we're uh in terms of the the phasing we're about halfway through that. Um we'll talk through uh what's been completed, what comes next. Uh but largely we're uh we've worked through conducting sort of the field reconnaissance getting feedback on ideas uh uh from the public uh that lead into the uh development and and selection of preferred alternatives and uh with the work we're doing that we did with our project advisory committee and with you this evening. uh we'll begin uh refining the the the concept and starting to put the u more detail onto the plan uh into the alternative and developing the planning document. So just a reminder uh this work on the

area plan uh this is part of the framework that uh back in 2020 when the city uh expanded its urban growth boundary we adopted the McMminville growth management urbanization plan and part of that uh established a new way for how we deal with planning for those unincorporated lands in the urban growth boundary and how that leads to their eventual uh uh annexation into the city limits. The framework plan itself basically is the document that establishes what the land needs were allocated those needs to the different areas that came into the urban growth boundary and provide a high level concept of of the uh urban design framework for those different areas. Area plan again is a higher level of detail where we do these uh we did the first one for Fox Ridge Road. we get into more of the property level uh uh level of detail and uh uh put those uh policies in place that will guide the future development. When a property owner within the area comes in and requests annexation, they'll need to prepare a master plan that shows how they're consistent with the area plan and negotiate through the annexation agreement process to come into the city. That's the the connection between how we make sure our land needs and policies are accomplished as property owners seek annexation into the city and development. So the framework plan that was adopted uh incorporates it has two major elements to it. It uh has the again the land needs uh that we need to meet throughout the urban growth boundary allocated to the different areas and then has the highle concept plan for each of those different areas. So the southwest area plan includes um roughly one square mile about 640 650 acres of land that included uh uh some of the sub areas including what was originally

called Redmond Hill Road uh the major southwest area and then the section down between Old Sheridan Road and Highway 18. Um, and the framework plan has been amended twice as we've gone through subsequent work since it was originally adopted. Uh, bringing into alignment with the, uh, more recently adopted uh, parks, recreation, open space plan, and then more recently just in February, the uh, updates to our needs documents uh, for the land use efficiency measures that that you adopted. Next, terms of the southwest area plan, the the land use components that need to be uh met within the the project area that we just looked at are essentially neighborhoods serving commercial uses, a mix of residential uh uses and densities to meet sort of the full spectrum of our housing needs across the the board. Um and then those components that are identified in the again the newly adopted uh parks recreation open space plan including a community park neighborhood park uh greenways and trails and other natural areas. And then the framework plan also calls for essentially within the the core areas the central areas that uh are what we call the focus area of the neighborhood activity center. that's where the commercial and service uses are located. Uh there's a component for essentially small gathering spaces such as a a plaza or other type of public space um in those core areas. And then finally uh the need includes a essentially a future school site. as we uh uh start you know the early steps of the plan uh there's sort of the reconnaissance phase I mentioned where we look at the uh conditions both plan and policy review and physical

conditions of the study area and uh uh those things that will frame frame the work on the area plan as well as those things that we may look at for policy uh amendments to accomplish uh what's needed. Um but we don't stop at the boundaries. We look at the surrounding context as well in terms of uh nearby neighborhoods. Uh opportunities and constraints that are presented in terms of uh physical development uh and natural uh features that uh either are opportunities to uh take advantage of resources within the area and surrounding areas or that may pose constraints to land use or transportation connections. And then uh essentially how how uh the area relates again to existing neighborhoods and the surrounding rural lands. And uh just this um particular map that shows the broader context. We have several others that we'll show as we go through the presentation. This one essentially overlays a map from the the parks recreation open space plan to show um some of those broader linkages in terms of greenway connections that are a a key feature um of both the parks plan and that's come up as a common theme of a feature people um uh really stressed as important as we've gone through the public engagement on this work. So this map shows uh both the um identified needs for a community park and neighborhood park in the southwest area. Uh it shows the greenway connections for the Kosang Creek Greenway loop and then the broader uh connection up sort of the ridgeel line greenway uh up to the Fox Ridge Road area. Shows some of the linkages that uh will uh are trying to capitalize on in some cases where there's constraints with existing development. We're looking at opportunities to try to link up to those regional uh greenway networks, including the McMinnville, the West McMinnville linear park, the BPA Westside Path, and

then any other opportunities to link up to uh those greenways to existing parks such as West Hills Park, Discovery Meadows Park, and also as we plan for the parks and green spaces, uh to ensure that we're locating those so that they're equitable and consistent with the um the level of service and parks plan for locating those to provide uh service to homes within a half mile of the the green park facilities. So, um this one focuses on the parks and green space, but uh also represents the fact that there's a lot of other surrounding contexts we look at as we plan within the boundaries. Uh so, uh I hand it over to Twe here to talk about the uh updates that we've had since the last work session. So your last work session was in December as we were uh had completed a a meeting with our project advisory committee. Came to you to talk about the three draft concepts that were developed that we would be presenting uh at the committee openhouse uh in January to get your feedback uh on uh what would be presented that that uh open house. And um uh we did that was typically with our long-range planning projects, we'll do one communitywide outreach. And for this project, this that was the event. We sent out uh postcards citywide and had uh pretty overwhelming attendance uh at the event. And I'll uh stop there to hand it over to Twe to talk through uh essentially the the work uh those updates and uh what's happened to get us to this point.

Thank you so much, Tom. Perfect. So yes, uh since our last work session, we were able to host in January um our community openhouse that was both in person and had a online engagement portion um so that we can collect the most amount of feedback. Uh there we presented three of the draft concepts that we had shown previously and had made some adjustments to based off of our um work session kind of um output from that and then presented that to the public to basically get their feedback on not just you know their favorite but um key elements from each of the three concepts that they preferred. Um we then took that information plus um hosted a Spanish speaking focus group with the help of JLA public involvement and UNIDOS. um that was in March, presented them with the same three draft concepts uh just so that we can get more um feedback from you know this underrepresentative perspective here and taking all of that uh was able to take elements from the three concepts to create a preliminary draft preferred concept. So we just had our uh project advisory committee meeting um that is the third one. this is their first time taking a look at the preliminary draft concept and uh we were able to get their feedback, their thoughts um on any elements that they felt should be refined in this preliminary draft here. So what we'll be looking at today is um a refined version of the preliminary draft and um that also incorporates the project advisory committee feedback as well as ongoing technical analysis from our team. So, I'm just going to quickly recap some of that specific engagement from that

community openhouse event. Uh, again, this was hosted in person in January. Uh, there was an online survey that was open for quite some time and uh we also received written comments and email submissions from this as well. Uh the actual format of this was an openhouse format so that we can create uh so we can provide all the information but also get as much um opportunity to speak individually with folks that came in. So there were interactive display boards that were put out. Um everyone was given dots stickers essentially. Uh they were able to walk around, talk to our staff, ask questions, learn more about the background of this project and um put dots on elements that they liked from um some of and you'll see in a second some of the um elements specific to the maps or just general concepts that they would want to see um you know focused on here. So uh from that again this was the citywide postcard mailing. So this had a really large outreach here with um it being promoted on the website, social media and because of that we had a really great participation uh with nearly 200 attendees in person. We had 31 comment forms submitted. There was 12 online responses and there was um quite a few emails that came in with written responses as well. So we're able to take all of that feedback in. This was one of the boards at the open house meeting. Um I believe we showed this at the last work work session as well and it just shows different elements that we had been consistently hearing um that were to be prioritized when developing the preferred concept plan. Um here we see that there uh was a lot of emphasis on traffic and safety concerns. That was um a large topic that

consistently came up throughout the meeting. Um folks really wanted to see that there was a balance between um the growth of this area and what was existing. Making sure that there uh was preservation of natural features that um the community park and the neighborhood park were well incorporated into the greenways. Uh that there was uh clear walkability and accessibility for the entirety of the project area. And um you know we received a mixed response of uh you know housing densities and what they wanted to see as far as neighborhood character, but for the most part um folks really uh were interested in seeing small scale and neighborhood serving commercial in this area. So I'm just going to quickly walk through this is um I think they're slightly refined from what we showed at our last work session, but this was concept one. Um this was uh focused along Hill Road. We saw that folks did have support for the central community park along Hill Road and its greenway connections that there was a preference for organizing that activity along Hill Road. Uh while there was also um some concerns with traffic concentrating along that corridor as well. Um and then we also again received some mixed feedback on some of the distribution of housing density here and how it relates to the commercial. For concept two, we saw that there was positive feedback with the greenway integration um with a community park located along the greenway that there was uh that internal loop system that helped kind of distribute the traffic and that there was better circulation in that way that um the mixed use is located near the

greenways. And again, there's some mixed um feedback on that if there was there was some concerns about what that meant for traffic impacts and uh if it was feasible to have it uh located along this area. And then for concept three, this was the most distributed of the three concepts where we are seeing the southern um neighborhood activity center located along Old Sheridan Road. So, uh there was some support for the um the distribution of the activity centers, but also again there was a clear desire for them to be well connected and walkable and accessible. Uh and then there were some concerns here for the impacts for traffic near the rural edge along this southern area where the southern knack is being located. So just overall you can kind of see where folks were uh putting their dots and that's where their preferences for these elements were. Uh we did see on all of them across the board there was of course support for where the community and neighborhood parks were located. It was clear that they um that the connections between the parks were to be prioritized, that the placement of activity centers needed to just be thoughtful in their in their location, and that we are to maintain the walkability and access of the amenities between all of these different uses. So again, this is just a um a summary of those key themes that we're seeing across the board for our engagement is the prioritization of the parks and greenways, making sure that the natural features are the organizing framework for this area, that we're improving circulation and access and making sure we're reducing pressure off of those key

corridors, um prioritizing the multimodal connections between them. um that housing growth is compatible and that there's clear transitions between where housing is and where existing residences um are and especially between where there's existing neighborhoods to the north where Redmond Hill is or to the south where the rural edge is and making sure that we are um refining the scale and the placement of the neighborhood serving commercial areas and that they're compatible with its uh neighboring uses so that they're also viable. in the long term and can be supported um through accessibility and visibility from the street. So after this last open house and again with the Spanish speaking focus group feedback um we were able to take all of the elements that were preferred with our technical um analysis and create a preliminary version of the preferred draft concept plan which we presented back to the pack um just this last month. So at that third pack meeting, we reviewed that concept. Uh we were able to facilitate a discussion to talk about refinements. Um and what came out of that was talking specifically about the feasibility of transportation and traffic and the connections in this area. Um where the neighborhood activity centers were located. uh how the land uses transition between each other and if they're compatible um with the existing neighborhoods and how the parks and greenways are integrated with the natural features that are there. Uh we talked specifically about those trade-offs uh making sure that folks were comfortable with the locations of these uses uh if the development was going to be viable with the commercial placement and um it was clear that with the southern area which we'll take a

look at too um that there's some level of flexibility here just because of uh additional traffic considerations that may come in the future that may influence how this area develops. and they were able to provide us with some direction to refine this draft preferred concept which we'll be taking a look at. And again, um the pack does serve as an advisory role to staff. So they give us input um that allows us to see a range of perspectives here. Um but we do also make sure that any um product that comes out of this aligns with the framework plan elements. And so from our last meeting we uh you know really transportation feasibility is a is a large um factor that has come up. So just making sure that the uh functional street network and key connections are accurate and that there is a connection between Hill Road to Old Sheridan Road that the neighborhood activity centers are going to be well connected and visible. um that there are uh sensible relationships between the land uses and their transitions that the greenways uh connect the parks that we are placing. Um and then we'll take a look again at the the southern area and the options that we have there. So this was the preliminary preliminary draft preferred concept that the pack got to take a look at. Um, you can see that it combines elements from all three of the draft concepts that we took a look at before with two options for the southern area. Um, so I'm going to walk through some of the refinements that came out of that meeting. So you'll see first that the southern um neighborhood activity center currently

has um highdensity residential shown in the orange color. uh we in after our discussions uh provided a more thoughtful transition between that high density to low density here adding uh medium density as a transition uh use there that there needed to be a greenway connection uh directly here to connect the uh creek to the community park and also to the future school site. that we moved um or adjusted the medium density residential that's currently shown on Hill Road uh more onto the internal loop system. We made sure that the focus area was accurately represented and placed over where the mixeduse commercial is for the Northern Activity Center. And then we called out specifically the repairarian corridor here um and along in this area and uh refined the placement of this greenway corridor here. And finally, we just made sure that this um there was a clear greenway connection and this L-shaped portion where the creek is being shown. So just a zoomed up look so we can see the before and after. This is the preliminary draft where we're seeing the highdensity residential placed and then in the updated draft that buffer transition um or stepped down to the medium density into the low density residential for the southern um activity center. Here we see the addition or the um adjustment of the uh medium density residential

from Hill Road onto the internal loop system and surrounding the future school site. Oh, I'm sorry. I I missed that. That's that's where we're showing it here. But here we're looking at the greenway connection um from the existing greenway into the community park and the future school site. And then here we're looking at the shift from the um medium density residential from Hill Road to the internal road. This is the adjustment of the focus area, making sure that it is overlaid properly over the mixeduse commercial. And you can see the labeling of the repairing corridor. And um this is showing the protection of uh existing vegetation along the existing ditch here. And then we're also focusing the route more clearly along the established greenway where there's been historic drainage path rather than where we were seeing just a irrigation pond. And finally, this is the more accurately shown greenway connection. So, this is the overall uh revised or refined draft preferred concept that we'll be taking a look at. And um I'm going to be passing this over to Ken who's online uh to review the draft preferred concept in more detail. Oh, Ken, I think you're muted.

Yeah. Let me see.

You might have to hop out and then hop back in. Matthew, uh, can you unmute and just see if we can hear you? No, it looks like the audio is on our end. So, take a second. Ken, do you want to try now?

Oh, okay. I think I'm going to take a recess for five minutes while you figure out the audio so that we can get our guests on. So, council, we have snacks in the back if anybody would like to have a snack. And we'll uh we'll um pick up again at uh at 6:31. Ken, do you want to try now?

Ken, can you try now? It's still not working, Ken. Matthew and Ken, can you hear one another? Okay. Yeah.

Yeah, I saw the medium. You know, Ken, can you try talking again?

Okay. Can you hear me now? Y

uh it now being uh 7:31, I will uh recording in progress. I'll we're back in session. 631. Okay. Okay. Are you able to hear me now? Yes. Thank you, Ken.

Okay. Thanks. I'm glad we could uh have a break. So, thanks Tui for uh describing some of the background work up to date. Um, I'll just try to be pretty brief and talk about the preferred concepts. Uh, but as you look at the preferred concept and listen to the talking points, we want you to consider the following for the subsequent discussion and to help you describe u maybe some further refinements you'd like to see. So, we'd like you to think about how this concept organizes the neighborhood activity centers, the knacks, and how that cohesively coordinates with parks and greenways. Um, we'd also like you to think about just in general, how does this plan support uh some of the overall goals for walkability, multimodal access, meaning potential access to transit and general connectivity within the area and to the surrounding city. Uh there's a lot of really great natural features in the study area, including Kosine Creek, and we think that's an important part of the plan, and we just want to make sure that we've done a good job of incorporating those in a a very um central way that informs the identity of the neighborhoods. uh please look at how we've distributed housing types and how those transitions work with different uh zones or different types of um housing proposed namely high density and medium density. Um how some of the connections for transportation um influence the overall land use pattern. And then we'll talk a little bit we we talked a little bit about the southern sub area off Old Sheridan Road. So, um, as you've seen, we're advancing two different options for that area. So, maybe just think about, um, if there's additional clarity or refinement needed for those areas. So, going to the next slide, Tu's done a great job of describing the key changes

that were made to the plan after the pack input. So, I'll just go through and describe some of the highlights of the plan. So just overall the new neighborhood is connected with a new primary street that that extends west from the intersection of Hill and Southwest Fellows and goes in a loop. That's that purple line. Goes in a loop and extends back to Hill and then extends in another um new road down to Old Sheridan Road. So we think of that as sort of the the the primary framework street uh for the entire uh new community. And that organizing element also connects the two knacks, the two neighborhood activity centers. Those are both also located on Hill Road. And that's intentional because our the economists and real estate strategists on the team um really expressed that those neighborhood commercial areas need to be visible um to key corridors, whether it's the existing hill road or the proposed loop road. And both of those commercial areas um include walkable streets that Loop Street and Hill Street, we think those should be calmed and slow streets to uh make sure that people can cross safely to commercial areas south uh north and south of that uh street. We also think what's really great about this plan as an opportunity is that each knack has an edge or a frontage on greenways and in the north neck for example it also has a potential relationship to the community park on the other side of the greenway. So, we just think that's a really promising opportunity for say some small dining areas to have outdoor seating looking out onto this great natural area and could really interact with people using the park. So, for each knack, we also have the

orange highdensity residential that is wrapping around it. Um and that just provides um sort of transition down from maybe more intensity in the knacks down to the medium and lower uh density areas. But um that's important to help support these uh smaller scale commercial uses inside the knacks because um they'll benefit from having more people within walking distance and it's also a benefit for people living uh say in small apartment buildings to have things that they can walk to. So, um, each knack also includes, you see there's a green asterisk. Um, and that's a small plaza or pocket park, and we envision that, um, there, thanks for pointing that out, a place that could accommodate gatherings or community events. Now, it might be more of a hardscaped area. Um, you could actually think about the plaza that's just out front from where you are right now. um is that's kind of a an interesting plaza that could be seen in one of the necks and it's just more of a urban space than a typical neighborhood park. Uh the other element wanted to point out is the future school site in purple that's shown and that's again intentionally located close to the community park because that's a really nice relationship for kids to go from school and and potentially use the park. Um that's also located off that primary loop street because that's just going to be easier for uh parents picking up and dropping off their kids at the school site. Then um in terms of the other density you see the yellow MDR is mainly distributed along um the primary streets um or facing uh neighborhood parks or greenways and then the remainder um is lower density residential and that's actually uh the majority of the acreage um in the area plan. And then there's

there's trails. There's a lot of trails and multi-use paths that connect all of these uses and all the parks and also back into the greater context and we have a slide that shows that later. So the next slide I talked a little bit about the southern area and it's a complicated area. Um there's a lot of parcels, a lot of different property owners and there is still some additional traffic analysis and coordination with ODOT that's needed. Um, as you can see, we're proposing to extend Peine um east of Old Sheridan to Highway 18. Um, and that's just conceptual because we we do need further study for that. Um, also there's there was not certainty in which one of these arrangements of MDR and LDR was favored. Uh, so we just wanted to bring forward two options for you and the pack to consider. Um, we also just wanted to emphasize this is a small piece of the study area. So, we don't want to get too hung up um and discuss this in too much detail because there's it's a small piece of a much larger important area plan. So then um the next slide is it's sort of isolating just the community connections. So that's the roads and the trails and the parks. So you can more clearly see that as the sort of framework for the future plan. And we've also added these big circles. And we've added those because those represent a half mile or a 10-minute walk. And we just wanted to use that to show that the majority of these this future area is going to be within a reasonable walking distance of some really nice parks. And that's part of your framework plan. It's part of a city goal. Um so that's just reinforcing that as a key part of the plan. It also, just to reiterate, highlights the the road connections that are proposed. So that extension of

fellows that um connects through in a new loop and then across back across Hill Road and then down diagonally the two old shared. We've also there's some really interesting uh natural opportunities um with some of the creek corridors that exist across the study area. So, we've um included greenways that are associated with each of these creeks and those also correspond with flood planes um and other um elements such as habitat corridors. So, we just think that's a really great part or an element that can add this great natural identity to the new uh area plan. Um that those are places for trails and pedestrian connections. and they also include uh some of the um there's these scenic viewpoints that you have uh in your plan that meet state goals. Um and as we've explored the western part of the study area, there's some amazing views of Cascade volcanoes and the Wamtt Valley. So we've also just to note related to the greenways, there's a community park and neighborhood park that are located adjacent to those greenways. So those in effect borrow that open space and they effectively become much bigger parks. They're already pretty nice, generous parks, but they're going to be even bigger and really create this green heart uh to the community. So the next and final slide shows um this sort of relates to what Tom was showing early. You earlier you you saw that map with some of the conceptual greenway and trail connections. So, this just shows how the trails that we're showing on our map locate to the broader city system. Um, for example, uh, we're showing a connection um, from Hill Road through the neighborhood to the BPA

corridor, which is this great north south trail that you've established. And then on the very west edge, um, connections, trail connections up to some of the beautiful oak groves in the west and through the future expansion of the city on the west edge following topography to connect up to the Fox Ridge Road area plan. And there was trails proposed there. So those will connect and then you can even connect back to the BPA trail. So, there's this really nice big loop trail connection throughout the southwest area plan. Um, and it it might just get built incrementally, but at some point in the future, you'll have this great trail network connected out to the west. So, that's the summary of um the preferred plan, and I think we're hoping to reserve a lot of time for discussion. So, I guess I'll pass it over back to you, Tui. Is that

Yes. Perfect. Thank you so much, Ken. Appreciate it. Um so yes just for our next steps uh so today we'll get to open up some discussion on this updated version of the preliminary draft preferred concept uh to get some feedback from uh and then we'll present the any updates that come out of this back to our project advisory committee uh for further input. We do have three more meetings uh with them and then we'll begin to prepare the draft southwest area plan um that includes supporting policies to help see this plan through and implementation strategies and then uh there will be an additional uh as Tom mentioned another joint work session before we enter the uh adoption process to get any final input on this. So for today's discussion, we prepared a couple questions just for your consideration. Um in addition to what Ken had presented earlier. Uh so mostly and in general, does the preferred concept reflect the city's goals for a complete connected and livable neighborhood? Does the overall layout of land use, parks, the greenways, the street locations, do they feel well organized and balanced? And are there any specific elements within this draft plan that could be strengthened or adjusted or studied further that we should look into? Uh with that I think

yes absolutely just briefly just want to note we talked about some of the differences between the concepts and how those were assembled into the the draft concept. uh what might not be evident um is some of the things that are common to all three of the concepts. So um all of them show essentially a a major street connection between Hill Road and Old Sheridan Road. Um what's shown on the map in the the green lines where the streets are um the colors are a little similar but uh for the streets the green lines represent the arterial network. So that's the broader you and essentially if you think about the west side transportation system, Baker Creek Road down Hill Road over to Old Sheridan Road. Um we're we're looking at that those broader connections outside of this area and then uh Hill Road obviously continues down outside the urban growth boundary. Where it leaves the urban growth boundary, that would still be a a county facility. Um so we're especially where there's limited opportunities for connectivity. um sort of between uh second street and old Sheridan Road the that um arterial connection is important and that's reflected in all the alternatives um the sort of the collector loop system. Uh we as we looked at different alternatives, kind of the alignment of that and where where that sat relative to the land uses and the boundaries um uh from a transportation standpoint worked similarly, but that uh alignment uh allows like in the preferred alternative uh located slightly to the north allows for that uh commercial area to be located near that arterial and also have that frontage on the greenway. So those are some of the the pieces that we looked at in terms of the broader perspective. And then on the greenways, we talked a lot about um those

corresponding to some of the existing flood plane features that exist today, the linkages to the proposed locations for the community parks. And again, the the uh greenway system that's shown is pretty common among all of them. Um but uh what you'll see is um where some of those lines are dashed. Um again, a lot of this is farmed today. So some of the historic drainage ways and drainage patterns um don't look like that today. So, some of the concept here is looking at those what's upstream and what's downstream and reestablishing uh greenways along some of what were the original uh the natural drainage ways and um also looking at opportunities to link those up uh where there are opportunities to uh align those with some of those um public viewpoints that are in the uh goal five work that'll be coming to council in the next few weeks. So, Uh Tom, are you ready for us to u either answer your questions or or bring up questions of our own? Do you want to go back to the slide with the uh topics?

Great. Thanks. So, uh, with that, I'll just go ahead and open it up to, um, members of the planning commission and the council, um, if anybody would like to volunteer to ask questions first. I see Carson Benner. Thank you. One of the things that I've always admired about McMinnville is we have really diverse high density and so there's not one central area where there's high density. the the proposed plans have really tight clusters of high density. I don't know that I see anything wrong with it, but it's different than what we've seen throughout Mcmminville. Could you discuss that?

Sure. that uh uh if you look at the map uh the concept those of the three alternatives and the preferred alternative we're looking to that framework plan that identified the uh the land use needs to be allocated out to the different areas with uh again the table we showed at the beginning with the kind of colors of different land uses. So that's coming out of the framework plan. Um, typically when we're looking at the principles for the neighborhood activity centers, uh, there are a couple dynamics going on. One is sort of short-term and long-term and often the commercial components will come later after housing is there and there's a customer base. Second, uh, in an environment like McMinnville, we don't have enough density to support those on their own with walkable uh, density nearby. So again, the the locations are partially dependent on uh, drive by traffic as well as uh, what's in the neighborhood to support those commercial areas. Um, the amount and type of density is something that's been discussed. It's what's in the framework plan today. And uh um I think that's a a great question. We have certain amount of housing and housing types that we need to accommodate. the uh the high density zone is uh corresponds to our R5 zone and that was established um again at the time of the growth management plan because our prior R4 zone which was allowed higher density also allowed the full range of housing individual uh detached housing on individual lots and so um you could potentially end up with all

your R4 zoning that was designated intended to meet your things like apartments or higher density housing developing as detached housing. So the R5 zone was sort of a response to that. Uh we've heard some questions and concerns about uh the amount and potential level of density uh of the R5 zones and have had some discussions about um uh are are there ways that we can achieve the identified housing needs that would meet those needs? um and uh dig into that question a little bit more in terms of it's that all RF density around the commercial but in part it's it's supporting the commercial and it's also providing for uh you know more trips that can be done by foot or without a car trip. Uh so there's a transportation component, there's an affordability component where we know that housing isn't just housing anymore. It's housing plus transportation and all the other costs. So people can make a number of their trips by foot or short trip rather than a long trip. Um there are advantages of having some of that high density close to the neighborhood serving commercial. Um and uh to your question I think we did look at um uh different arrangements as we went through this. uh some of the variations that had some of the density distributed along the kind of the um internal loop streets uh more and then some of it more wrapping around the commercial. Um but I think that's a a fair question of uh um we have average housing needs that we need to meet, but is is that something you'd like to to explore further?

Yeah. And can I just follow? That's a great answer. Thank you,

Counselor. Um, so the R5 zone was developed in 2003 as part of our UGB amendment for the 2003 2023 process. That was before we had our great neighborhood principles of a variety of housing types. It's also before we had the missing middle housing program uh in all of our residential areas. And so the PAC has had some conversation about 15 acres of concentrated only apartments. is are there concerns about that in terms of not having a variety of housing types in that amount of acreage and um and how how would we um how how should we address that? So, currently in the framework plan, we do have a commitment to a certain amount of acreage of R5 zoning to achieve that housing need that Tom was talking about. There might be an opportunity for the city to talk about how to achieve that in different ways so it's not all just concentrated in that 15 acres. Um, but that's something we would need to continue to dialogue based on direction. Both NAC's have about 15 acres of of R5 zoning around them.

Thank you, Director Richards. Uh, Chair Winfield, did you have your hand up? I'm happy to. I've got questions. So, sorry. Yeah, why don't you go ahead and then fill it.

Um, just a couple of things. um with the connectivity. Um there is a portion of the green area that connects to Hill Road um and then just abruptly stops. Is that just because the farms across have then buried the wetland area or I'm I was just curious. I'm just looking at them multiple at all the maps and I don't know if you guys discussed that in our first workshop and I just spaced it. I just don't I'm just curious as to where it just disappears to. Are you uh referring to the uh just north um just north north of the commercial on the southern side?

Yes.

Yeah. Um we yeah we did look at uh on some of the concepts. I think you'll remember the first concept sort of took that community park and almost rotated it 90 degrees and was aligned along Hill Road. uh this puts it more along the green way, but um that same discussion came up at the last pack meeting of um wanting to see that community park be more of that, for lack of a better word, hub that kind of is a linkage between all the greenways. And so um what's shown here but maybe uh we can reflect it differently or get clarification is uh the the thin lines that are shown there that was a refinement that continues west and part of that discussion is that is that intended to be trails or should that be a greenway continuation and uh that is intended to be a greenway continuation. the um part of the what's located that stops at Hill Road, part of that's flood plane and as you get to the west side that could be a um potentially a narrower continuation, but a greenway connection. The intention is for that greenway to link up to the community park and to extend through the neighborhood to the future school site.

Okay. Just maybe not as wide as what was to Yeah, it just it just I know flood planes just don't stop straight. So I was like this is confusing to me. So that's

in the uh Thank you. And then um this map uh it wasn't as apparent on the um the map that we presented to the um pack but there was the similar question about the greenway connectivity not just for um people and and recreational connectivity but also for wildlife habitat. and the L that kind of uh runs through the the back of the neighborhood there inside city limits that runs east of the community park and then down south that was um that flood plane is essentially contained within a common tract that's uh within that the development that is flood plane may not be part of a a publicly usable greenway but is a preserved open space and we wanted to make sure it was more evident here that there is that connection activity that exists today. And then as you go into the where that extends across uh uh Hill Road, I think the there's a a little bit of that that's designated flood plane as it comes to the west side there too. And that's also an area that people had uh indicated to us has experienced flooding over time. So we are the intention is to have essentially a greenway connection both of those. One of them would be more of a a usable greenway. the other would be a a connection but um maybe not accessible to the public.

Okay. I just I just flood planes just don't stop and so I was I was just wondering how all that connected. So that was the question or the concern. Can I explain a little bit? Yeah, chair. Are you talking about the fact that there's a waterway depicted on the east side of Hill Road there and then we're not picking that up? You can see it in the aerial shade underneath it, but we're picking it up as our greenway on the on the west side of the hill. That's your question, right? Yeah. Yeah.

And I think there's always an opportunity. So, what what we wanted to do was um what we talked about at the PAC meeting, the last PAC meeting when they made some further refinements that Twe went through, we talked about this green. it makes sense to connect this greenway to the park in such a way that meanders through the residential neighborhoods and also connects to the school site. There's an opportunity to, you know, make that a wider greenway and and meander it along that waterway a little bit further as we look at the uh flood planes and the soils there. That's what the question was. Yeah, as long as it's not, you know, this is it. I just I just want to make sure that we're flexible once people see that. Yeah. No, this is still a flood plane and this there's still a creek that shows up during our wet months.

We can we can look at that further as he advances forward. Please go ahead.

Okay. Uh then the the other question is u or the other concern is regarding the south um west of the southern portion. I know you didn't want to spend that much time on it. I appreciate that you all recognize that it was dependent on transportation issues. I am again going back to my initial comment. I think that with our first meeting that this is much better suited for commercial. Um I know we need to have residential. Um I just that is such a funky little portion. It's tiny. Um I I think as as McMinnville grows um and our transportation, you know, as you see people working um that really may be better suited for a commercial area. If we have to have it as a residential area, I think the number two is probably best suited because it puts the um higher density um houses or residential use um further north which gives it better access to the commercial area that currently exists in the um the southern of the two portions. Um so that's just my thoughts on that. Again, I think it's really better suited as as a commercial. I mean, if we have to have storage units, they can mirror the storage units on the other side of Highway 18 or warehouses. Um, I know there's a lot of warehouses on the other side, too, and I think it's just better suited for that. Um, and then the last one is I had a member of our community chat with me about the little nature preserve. Are we stuck with is there a certain size? Is there a minimum size on that or is it flexible depending on um if if there's if if if there's opportunities to increase it based on donations or whatever happens is how did that how did the nature preserve park get decided and how is there a specific size limit on that?

Are you talking about the neighborhood park? The neighborhood park. I'm sorry. The neighborhood park looking over pe the reservoir. I'm sorry. I didn't know what that was. Sorry. The ne neighborhood park. You want me, Tom? So, that's that's a neighborhood park right there. Uh the the limitation of it in terms of a public park and the size of it is based on the pros plan that was adopted. Okay. Uh and the size of parks that was um That's right.

that was determined through that process. Now, we are in discussions or we had had been we I have I need to reach out and see where we're at with all of it, but we had been in discussions with Yamh Hill Soil Water Conservation District about trying to establish a uh environmental land trust so that there is an opportunity for uh McMinnville and its residents and surrounding residents to invest in preserving some of these natural lands that we can't pick up from this from the city side to put into sort of a natural resource areas. Okay. Um I don't know where that is, but that that is that opportunity. When we were looking at parks for the southwest area plan, we were looking at from the perspective of what would be the public amenities.

Okay. No, that that if we can get that if if there's an opportunity to put that in a trust, um that would help with our pros plan and then it allows flexibility regarding size and and taking advantage of that whole wetlands area. So, all right. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you, Chair Winfield. Um, director Mlullen. Director. Sorry,

I'm like I hope not. Um, so I have um question that was an answer point that was discussed briefly. Um the the sort of dog leg that Hill does um floods regularly annually if not more than once. Um so that's just something keep on the radar. Um it's also a really funky thing to drive. Um and people drive quite fast and sometimes end up in the ditch. Um so um also I disagree with Mike fellow commissioner um regarding the very lower bottom part. Um and I think option one is a better option. Nobody wants to live next to a substation. And um so and I think having housing along Old Sheridan Road with a land buffer to Highway 18 is a far more pleasant living experience. Um I had another point. Oh, there was a reference to a mound of cultural significance and I'm curious to know I'm I'm not a I've maybe heard something about this in the ether. I'm curious to know um if there's been any archaeological research to support this. Quick Google search didn't pull up anything concrete. Um

yeah the uh twe can you uh navigate to the um just go with your cursor to show the

right right where the cursor is there is a so this is all a a property uh single property ownership around most of that area that's uh again being farmed with the exception of that hill or mound whatever you uh call But um we did hear concerns uh that it was a potentially agricultural significance. Um also looked at soils maps and top topographic maps. And so there is a distinct soil type there that differs from what's around uh that is contribute to that being elevated that way. doesn't appear that it was constructed or uh built up as a number of the um cultural mounds in the region have been. Doesn't mean it doesn't have significance, but um to reach out to the uh uh archaeologists at Lynfield University, the archaeologists for the Grand Ron and the cultural resources specialists for Grand Ron. um there's a state confidential database um they're able to share and I can share that there's nothing in that designating that as a resource it doesn't mean there isn't something there but there is no designated uh resource of record uh associated with um there's a a broader question of how do we deal with uh cultural resource uh requirements of some new new recurrence coming out of state law for for it's part of goal five cultural resources that goes into effect later down the road. But um we would like to explore how we would address some of those issues from a policy perspective in general as well as

is it um is the entire site one landowner? That portion is yes. Okay. Um, chairman,

and just to follow up on that a little bit, we we don't have we don't have the opportunity to protect some property under the premise that it's a cultural resource for the tribes if the tribes aren't asking for the protection. So, um, when there is when when we're doing projects or long range planning like this, we do send it to the tribe to get any feedback from them and they'll let us know um what would be a sensitive area that they want protected, but they but if if we don't hear from them that that's what they want to happen, we don't have the basis to require that at this point in time. Okay. Thank you,

Commissioner Flores. Um just a clarification um in case it impacts um Commissioner Mlen's preference for the option one, excuse me, all of the western most thumb as we've been calling it um is residential. Um it's just a difference between medium and low density residential. And so the substation would be surrounded by homes of some kind. I don't know if uh that impacts your preference for one or two.

Uh Commissioner Modrack.

All right. Um I appreciate the if I'm reading it correctly correctly the minor arterials that are highlighted will include multi- um use paths as well and um I think that does a lot to promote the multimodal transportation in this subject area. One thing that there are a couple things that stick out with respect to that. One is the cut off of our boundary um and the conversion onto county land for Hill Road. And I think it'll be really important. I know something that's frustrating as a cyclist is like you've got great infrastructure and then it just ends. Um so I'm curious if um we'll be able to consider county coordination in in develop and improvements to that stretch as well. Um, and in addition to that, kind of an outlier in terms of connectivity that I see is that southern um, NAC and just the connections from the neighborhood between Fellows and Cypress there um, and getting to that area. I see we have one potential road, but I'm I'm curious about the feasibility of that over that kind of flood plane area. Um, and if we can't prioritize um, vehicular uh, connections there, if we could consider um, a pedestrian and and multi-use path over that area as well as that might be less intensive. Um, I think that's it for my comments. Thanks.

Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Randall has his uh, virtual hand up. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Randall.

Thank you. Um, I'm really pleased with this concept. I think from what we saw last time, um, I fully support it. My only concern is the, uh, commercial mixeduse area. And I don't think we have a mixeduse zone or a mixeduse plan designation. So, when it comes to the planning commission, hopefully there'll be more details about exactly what that entails. I I think it represents too much commercial, but I guess the mixed use portion is residential, which would be a good uh a good way to use those those pieces of property. So, again, details are really important. So, when it comes back to us, hopefully that'll be uh more detailed out. And then I support option two on the southern area.

Thank you, Commissioner. Uh council hearing. Um, yes. Thank you very much. Just kind of wanted to weigh in a little as well. Um, uh, I like the the community park and the neighborhood park. I, uh, I went back and forth. I guess I get that the neighborhood park being over by the reservoir there creates that walkability along the riparian corridor for both those, which I like, but um, I was hoping that there's a way to get that. And originally I'm thinking that neighborhood park could be nestled up south more along the coine and provide an opportunity for more year round yearround water source. I think the the peave is a little more feast or famine or it it offers sort of I think non-acquatic amenities which is nice. So whether it's in lie of or in addition to I think something along that coine would be would be a cool amenity. Um and then uh the not having a hard grasp of how uh walkable the northern commercial for the uh focus area is to the school site. Uh, I'm curious the thought of having the other commercial, I guess, did we want to make sure to balance the commercial on each side of Hill or um was there thought about having it on the school side of Hill in terms of allowing the kids to not have to I mean, I guess Hill's not that big of a a treacherous path, but to not have to frogger across to grab lunch um on their walk. Um, so just just curious. I'm not sure there is an answer or if that'll naturally develop. I'm probably actually more um in line with commissioner who I don't think all that commercial is going to develop out as much as we hope. But um anyway, food for thought. And then as far as the highway 18 thumb um uh I would be in line with

option two and an even even split. Everybody takes their share of uh Old Sheridan and Highway 18 and both of those density developments. So,

and uh councelor Giri um the future school site originally as identified in the school's 5 to 10 year forecast was an early learning center. So, we didn't even have the thought process of school. That's right. Um we've changed it to a future school site because based on when this develops, we don't know what the school needs will be. So, we didn't want to lock it into the early learning center. But th those are great comments about um if it is if it is a older school site the access to commercial amenities. Very good. Okay. Uh I will go to Commissioner Nean.

I specifically wanted to comment on uh the thumb. Um, I've spent a lot of time thinking about which I preferred and I was so evenly split I I just I couldn't possibly. But I think one thing I want to make sure that is prioritized is um like pedestrian connectivity. And in number one, I think is much better because this is it is kind of like a forgotten section of of the of the town and it's almost really kind of an afterthought even within this plan because it doesn't have the same kind of amenities. It's still not going to be within a half mile of the neighborhood park or the commercial, what have you. So having some kind of very protected way to get from the far reaches of the thumb up towards the parks and like really connect that in I think is so crucial to still making it feel a part of the town because um old Jordan is not a safe walkable road and I don't even think that just separated by five or six feet and a walking trail is really going to completely cover that. People are moving in with families. They're not going to want to be walking that. So I I do prefer number one just for the protected nature of the of the connectivity.

Thank you. Uh not seeing anybody jumping on for first round. Uh Commissioner Mudra, um would you be actually able to speak to um what is envisioned in the with the verbiage minor arterial including multi-use path?

Yes. Um the essentially um I wish I had I have an example that I don't have readily available but um essentially um if you would picture something like Hill Road with a a green center median but instead of having on street bike lanes uh having uh wider 10 to 12 foot mult multi-use paths separated from the travel lanes by the planter strip um on both sides. Um there's been a lot of uh in Oregon state laws when you do new construction on arterials and collectors you need to have bike lanes and the historic practice started off with you know curb tight or not curb type but you know budding the travel lanes. Um there's been a lot of research over the years and uh you know we we talk a lot about we have a lot of jargon but you know making places that are safe and comfortable for people from ages 8 to 80. So if you think about a small child or someone with mobility issues using a bike lane where you have cars going by at high volumes or high speeds um where there's differentials. um the practice is to move away from that with things like buffered bike lanes or in this case just separating them entirely and um there's research that shows when people are safe and feel safe your writership mode increases as well. So that's that's what we're looking at is essentially having those separated from the travel lanes.

Thank you. Uh I'm going to go from right to left for anybody who hasn't had a chance to talk yet. So, councelor Cunningham.

Yeah. Um, I was looking at the the thumb and the the options there and and I kind of go back and forth. Uh, and I think I like option one better. um because I assumed that there would be potentially more younger families there and so that having the immediate access uh to Old Sheridan Road would be would be good and and not have them all clustered around kind of the the uh the power station. So, um other than that, I I'm pretty happy with everything else that is there. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. Yeah, I also agree that option one is my preference. Um, one I think it is more incentivizing for middle housing by I think the package said that that swath would be about a city block wide for the higher density. I think that encourages um walk up and and garden style apartment buildings as well as other mining choices that um are needed and what we're trying to get. I also think it would incentivize the additional single family homes on those lower density lots because they'd have that buffer from the street. So I think I would go with option one as well.

Although I do agree that this is probably a better as a commercial if it doesn't have to be residential. Councelor Takulski.

Yeah, thank you. U I actually like option number three which isn't on here. Uh, the reason is because I I don't like the low density residential along the highway there. I'd rather see that in a commercial area. But if I had to choose between the two, I would choose option one and I would change the R1 or the low density to a commercial and keep the uh the higher density residential on the all the northwest side of that proposal. That's all I add. And if I can um for for the thumb which always becomes the conversation we were talking about this as a team um that people focus there um probably because it's the most unknowns and it's still unknown. So we're in we're our next step will be transportation planning. We still need to have conversations with ODOT. Adding access to Highway 18 is sort of the antithesis of what they want to see happen. um what that access is access seeing be it residential or commercial will also be an important discussion with them. So there's still a lot of uh unknowns for this particular stretch of land and we'll be exploring several of them with them and and may have more refined information for you the next time we come come to play. Um, we had some discussions as a team that maybe when we adopt an area plan that and this is why we're showing you more than one option that maybe we adopt an area plan with more than one option as well because it might be market driven too um in terms of what would work there and what would what would what wouldn't work there because it's such a unique piece of property. So,

thank you. Um, I have a few comments before I go um back to folks for a final round. Um, so first I wanted to just acknowledge that I support um, Chair Winfield's comments about um, expanding the Riperian corridor and trail around Hill Road. Um, I just think there's going to be a lot of um, conflicts with animals coming down that that if it's not maintained. Um, I definitely support the robust inclusion of natural resource areas to support the parks plan in this area in particular to facilitate the expansion of of the uh intended park around Pey Reservoir. Uh I agree with uh councelor Tokulski and chair Winfield that we should consider adding some commercial to that thumb area particularly along Highway 18 and possibly around that um substation. Uh I just wanted to make sure that in the plan that the hydraology uh that protects the pond in that reservoir is protected in the plan. Can somebody just give me a thumbs up on that? What was that again?

Just that the hydraology that that that feeds that pond is protected in the plan in this section. So, yes, we're noting that. Thumbs up. Okay. Thank you. Got it. Uh okay. Um then I had a resident tell me in the last week that there are geologic features in the southwest area. One of them being an erratic rock similar to the one south of town. Did that come up in any of the conversations to point to date? It had well it's come up in conversation today with both Tom and I from the same person who talked to you. Okay.

So um it has not come up uh particular to the erratic rock and the significance of that. So, I encourage Tyler to send us those comments, send us some of the research he's done so that we can bring it to the table and have that discussion. Um, it's partic it it uh it comes back to the discussion of sort of what we're calling the hillic. So, that that's a smaller hill that's south of Redmond Hill Road and that's where the erratic rock is. So, we wanted I encouraged them to get us that information so we could look at it further.

Thanks. Um, okay. I the analysis in there it it talked about and we've had some conversation about the changes to the connectors to make it safer for biking and pedestrian. Um, I just wanted to make sure that in particular the infrastructure in Old Sheridan Hill Road heading out out of town is going to be addressed in this plan as well as the intersection at Old Sheridan and Cypress where there where there was a fatality um talked about the hillock. So and councelor if I can just respond to that the area plans looking at sort of the highlevel transportation concepts and then as we go into the tsp planning which this will inform we'll be going into the more detailed concepts of some of the areas like the intersection that you just dialogue. So

okay uh those were my main points. Um, before I go back around for further dialogue, I just wanted to check with staff to see if you've gotten the answers that you need to this point or there more answers that you need uh more questions that you need answered from the body.

I think that was uh very helpful. Um, Tweed and Ken, did you have anything further that you wanted to clarify? And just uh one note uh uh about the comment about the sort of the change in jurisdiction on Hill Road crossing the urban growth boundary. Just to let you know, the county public works has outreached to us. They're working with uh a intern George Fox University looking at um potential shoulder widening or other types of enhancements um for some of their uh their funds that they need to expend on bike and pedestrian improvements and have outreached us to talk about whether there are opportunities in or near this area that might be coordinated. So,

thank you. I don't think I have any more specific questions. I think the responses have been really helpful for us to better understand some of the concerns and we can address those. Um Ken, I don't know if you have anything else as well. No, it's it's been great listening into this discussion. Thank you. And and before we uh before we jump off, I know we have a commissioner online that has not had a chance to speak yet. Did you want to weigh in, Commissioner Johnson?

Yes, thank you. Um I I really like both the the plan and everything that was put together. Um I I have a lot of the same thoughts without the thumb. Um if I had to pick one, it would be option one, but I I I agree with a lot of the comments that were previous that I don't I think there I wouldn't want to live next to the substation either. Um and then I think there's definitely a possibility for commercial. Um but I I think the work that was put on here is is great and I think it's going to be a benefit to the community regardless of the iteration. Uh thank you commissioner. Um I'm going to go back around across the dis to see if anybody has any final comments staff. Okay seeing none uh Twe really appreciate you and your team uh helping us with this and to the folks at Walker Macy uh online. I really all your work has been very helpful. Thank you. Uh Tom and Heather to your team as well. Really great job with the plan. I appreciate all of the outreach that's happened. Um it's I think been one of the best community processes that that um I've seen since I've been on council. So just from the outside looking in. So I just really appreciate all the work. And with that we will adjourn the work session at 7:25.