Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All the planning Commission workshop session for June the and the border and 6 o'clock. They went to get a little ball.

Thank you very key. I still about a year. Mister how you're going to go there. Mister Miller you're going to know I'm sorry. I have a long, an old one. Commissioner Parra is excused. Commissioner Miller? Here again. Did I call you already? I'm sorry. And Mayor Dumbrow is not here again. He's online. Okay, thank you. Councillor Ugarte? Present. Councillor DeForge? Councillor Hagedorn? Present. Councillor Warrington? Present. Councillor Weber?

I'm here.

That's why. And then our commissioner and yes.

Well that's a role page. Okay, thank you. I remember or is the new business is the UGB concept planning or plan project update a we will be this is a workshop between the planning Commission and the City Council. We will not be taking public comment or this workshop. If you have any public comments, they can be submitted to the city to be considered. So with that, I will turn this over to Steve Faust. Oh, excuse me, I got one other thing I just wanted to bring up too. Because this UGC concept plan update Project update was I think it's some people got confused that it might be involved in the planning Commission and the planning eating and so they were. Comment emails sent out, but they were directed plan permission, but probably should have been for this. Discussion as they were talked about you can be concept and there were some emails of these information being sent out. And unfortunately, there were responses that were replied to all and it included the Planning Commission, which constitutes quorum and we're just making public record that these conversations were made. They are available to get that. So if anybody wants to see that, they are on the public record.

Okay, sorry about that. Go ahead, Mr. Faub. Thank you, Chair King and Planning Commissioners, City Councilors, at Merrick-Dunbro. Thank you for your time tonight to bring you up to speed on where we are at with the North Plains concept plan project. Let's go ahead to the next slide. For some of you, some of these first slides will be familiar, but I know not everyone has taken part in all of these meetings, so we're just going to run quickly through some history. Here's a timeline of how we got to where we are today. starting with the North Plains Comprehensive Plan vision in 2016. That was followed by a housing and economic analyses and a comp plan update that were completed in 2017. The UGB expansion project began in 2020. Subsequent to that being initiated, the EOA and the HNA were updated. And then city council voted to recommend an urban growth boundary expansion in 2023. So legislation about voting on UGB expansions was passed in March of 2024. I think you all know there was a vote on that specific UGB recommendation or proposal in May of 2024. And subsequent to that, city council decided to initiate relook process to primarily a community engagement process to take another look at the urban growth boundary and potentially come forward with new ideas or potentially a recommendation. And then in December of 2024, we kicked off this concept plan project. And it is I'll mention this later, but a project funded by the Oregon Transportation Growth Manager Program. Next slide, please. I know that Bill Reed has gone over this information with you before, but one of the reasons for initiating this work was looking at the tax base of North Plains and specifically the burden, the tax burden that is on The residents of North Plains, you can see on this slide some comparisons to other cities. So options for the city are, you know, some cities, some other cities have used levies to make up funding gaps. North Plains decided to look into the possibility of adding more employment land, which would be tax-paying businesses but don't, consume as much of or don't demand as much of city services. Next slide, please. Through all that work that I mentioned previously, the City of North Plains established a 20-year land need. That includes about 127 acres for housing and associated right-of-way. That comes from the housing needs analysis. 40 acres for parks, which comes from the Parks and Recreation Plan. We were in contact with the school districts who indicated that there was no additional land need for schools. The employment land need from the economic opportunities analysis includes 172 acres for commercial plus right-of-way and 515 acres for industrial land plus right-of-way for a total of 855 acres. Important to note here, that the residential land need, that 127 acres, is really the only, because the city adopted the HNA, is really the only land need that needs to be accommodated. When it comes to parks or employment lands, it is at the city's discretion if they want to look to expand the urban growth boundary to accommodate all or a portion or none of those lands. So I think that's important to know. Next slide, please. JUST A NOTE ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THESE PROJECTS. STARTING IN 2020 WITH THE UTB EXPANSION PROJECT, THERE WERE EIGHT PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS ALL OPEN AND NOTICED IN THE PUBLIC AND THREE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS, WORK SESSIONS AND HEARINGS, I BELIEVE. FOR THE RELOOK PROCESS, THERE WAS A COMMITTEE OF, I BELIEVE, 19 PEOPLE residents and non-residents of North Plains. That group met four times. And there were also three broad community meetings and associated online surveys. And now thus far for this concept plan project, we have a project advisory committee and a technical advisory committee, each which have met twice. Bill and Rowan in the fall, this past fall, went out to the community and hosted four broad neighborhood meetings to try to attract people from different areas of the city. And just last week, we had a big community meeting right here. And associated with that, with those neighborhood meetings, there was an online survey. And then there's a current online survey active right now that presents the same information that was presented at the public meeting last week. Some of the things that we've heard from community members in this most recent round of outreach, a good majority of respondents during those neighborhood meetings said that they would like to see the city plan for some growth to balance the city's tax base. Out of that re-look process, there was no recommendation, but a majority of the re-look advisory committee members recommended that we use what's called the housing focus boundary as a starting point for a new round of discussions about urban growth boundary expansion and growth. And I'll point to that in just a moment. People want to see a natural extension of development to the north and to the east in terms of residential and employment development, that those are the natural places to expand. There was not significant support for expansion to the west. Uh, people are, um, generally in favor of adding a regional park. And a lot of people have talked about the area around Lynn Reservoir for that. Um, we've also looked at the potential for adding park lands along McKay Creek, not only for recreation purposes, but to, um, you know, provide additional, uh, uh, you know, conservation measures there. And another thing we've heard, um, uh, continually from folks is that, uh, if there is employment or industrial development to the south of Sunset Ridge, then it's very important that there be some sort of buffer between the school and Sunset Ridge residents and getting new employment-related development. I mentioned earlier that this project is funded by a grant from Oregon's Transportation Growth Management Program. And at this phase, I think you all know there is no PENDING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THIS CONCEPT PLAN IS REALLY A VISIONING EXERCISE FOR THE CITY TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU MIGHT WANT TO GROW AND DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S NOTHING BINDING HERE. IN FACT, THIS PROCESS IS REALLY RESPONDING WHAT WE HEARD THE LAST ROUND FROM FOLKS DURING THE RELOOK PROCESS IS PEOPLE REALLY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT GROWTH AND EXPANSION MIGHT LOOK LIKE and have this process answer some questions for them, like what benefits would it bring, what would it cost, and who pays for it, how would it be funded? So this process is designed to answer all of those questions. And again, just this concept plan process is not finding it any way. We will present a plan to city planning commission and city council at the end of this process, and it's at the city's discretion to do with that what you will. Next slide, please. Here's our process. We started doing a lot of outreach, as I mentioned, in the fall and winter and heard from documented existing conditions and heard from the community about opportunities, potential for growth. We took that information and developed three land use transportation alternatives that we'll be presenting to you tonight. Again, none of these are binding. but we brought these three alternatives to our advisory committees and to the public and through this ongoing survey, looking to hear, not necessarily do people choose one, two or three, but what do you like about different alternatives? What do you not like about different alternatives? And we will be taking that information, developing a preferred alternative and coming back to you later this year with that preferred alternative. And again, we'll eventually develop a plan. It'll be at the discretion of Planning Commission and City Council what to do with that plan. With that, I believe we have Travis from Resilient Communities Online, and he's going to walk us through these three alternative concepts.

Great. Thank you, Steve. Am I coming through?

You are coming through.

Perfect. All right. Well, perfect. We'll start here. Great to be with everyone today. As Steve introduced, I'm Travis Chappell. I am an urban designer and managing principal with Resilient Communities, and we're really leading the land use concept design portion of this. And yeah, and great to kind of walk through some of these concepts with you all today. So firstly, we are going to run through three land use alternative concepts and some preliminary evaluation. Really, these explore just different configurations of land use and how a framework can kind of come together to create distinct sort of urban futures, right? This sort of fabric of And these concepts will address a wide range. So they include open space, transportation, the various infrastructure kind of approaches and considerations that are really intended to explore all the viable solutions, as Steve mentioned. It's really to inform a larger conversation not to necessarily say like this plan does this sort of successfully, but to kind of push and pull and really explore everything that's possible within the assumptions and kind of guidelines that we've gotten from the community and also you all in the city. So we are going to cover a couple sort of design objectives. And these are really great to understand just like how we're evaluating the concept currently right now and how this aligns to kind of some of the other bits about the plan, such as the urban design objectives. And we'll eventually sort of show this evaluation to you all. And it's a great, really useful tool for just, again, kind of thinking how A relates to 1. Sorry, 1 relates to 2, relates to 3, et cetera. So firstly, we're really looking to preserve and enhance the natural resources. that includes sort of restoration and conservation, but also just sort of expanding the accessibility to those. Provide recreational and civic amenities to enhance livability. There's a lot of talk about sort of this regional destination park, and that can kind of come about in different ways. And there's, of course, like certain things like access to that, proximity, that really relate to that and how it, of course, associates itself to either downtown or the land use of residential or, again, existing other assets. Within that, there's still a maintain, you know, the goal to sort of maintain and expand open space network. It's really important to sort of connect these places together so that there's a really robust understanding of how sort of the front porch goes directly connects to these sort of regional open spaces. Looking to prioritize the financial responsibility by balancing the private and public funding of infrastructure. And it really relates to how other infrastructure relates to those land uses and how it would be kind of included adjacent and related to a project or any kind of development. A goal to balance housing employment parks in public facilities and just making sure that they feel sort of nicely allocated and again how they relate to each other. And then provide really intentional transitions between land use will dive a little bit deeper into that, but one of the most important parts of the conversation has just been about like how do these land uses really. interact with each other and how do we sort of treat them in order to kind of get the best result out of these different uses next slide. We're looking to support a mix of housing types for all income levels, ages, and household sizes. And that really comes about through the placement and proximity of residential related to other key aspects, such as streets, other parts of commercial, and or again, industrial or landscape. We're looking to attract essential commercial services for a vibrant community. So can we introduce types of land uses, services that really inspires and kind of attracts a wide range of community amenities? We can expand employment opportunities for a sustainable economy. As Steve wrote through, it's really about balancing a lot of that tax base and so what kind of attractive allocation of employment means can do so. Looking to improve local walkability and connectivity, you know, obviously, ultimately, this comes to just livability across the future for North Plains. And so how do we both do that for the residential and also the employment lands looking to attract export oriented industries? And then within that very related to the walkability connectivity is just improving the regional connectivity. And then as we introduce this sort of you know, load and circulation of other uses, you know, types, really reducing the freight traffic downtown or any kind of negative impact. You know, we want to sort of embrace the positive impact of people coming and relating to that town, shopping during their lunch break while being employed in the area, while reducing the freight traffic or any kind of negative disruption into the downtown or residential areas, whether they're existing or future. Next slide. I think it's really important to get kind of clear on what we mean by employment lands and sort of what at this scale that we're looking at and how we're conceptualizing. It really is just a catch all for employment or industrial lands can really represent a wide variety of land uses ranging from office parks, business parks to manufacturing. These whatever sort of becomes allowed uses in the employment zones would be determined through a very future process to update the city's comprehensive plan and zoning code prior to annexation. So, prior to that larger expansion and want to really emphasize that sort of how employment lands are situated within a larger within the larger plan, meaning the concept plan. will affect the types of capital investment the city attracts. Really trying to look at the fact that sort of based on allocation of a city serving businesses along a roadway will kind of attract that. Having a sort of large proximate area to a residential might be able to attract a mixed-use district or office campus versus sort of large regional manufacturing. Something closer to the highway going to probably be more attractive to something with a larger freight and logistical issues. So where this land is, how it's treated, and how sort of connected it is will obviously be a very direct result to the character and place ultimately of the lands themselves in North Plains. Next slide. With that they're really, really fine tuned and sensitive and sophisticated attention to these integrations and transitions of not only between the land uses we're looking at, but in particular the employment lands to existing areas and existing uses so. really looking at the intentional integration and thoughtful transition between these residential and employment areas. And that uses both relief and a unifier, right? So there are places where it's more attractive to sort of buffer that from, say, existing residential. And you can do that with a lot of ways for connector street, park spaces, hedging, et cetera. But also make sure that when it makes sense to make sure that these transitions act as a unifier. So when it's up against, say, an open space or something, that there's sort of a Birmingham or nature-based infrastructure that then sort of transitions into that more ecological or nature-based area that then may be perhaps sort of connected to downtown, et cetera. So as we buffer residential, it really is equally imperative that we harmonize land into this sort of cohesive, complementary, very integrated, dynamic cityscape. Next slide. The concept area sort of plans themselves and sort of where we're focused on this. And I think there was a little... You know sort of introduction to this as Steve was sort of reminding our process of sort of how we got to this boundary, but we have first sort of the Northwest. coming around 90 way anchors there's this little South allocation just south of the highway. Northeast which was this sort of missing dental sort of within the larger land and existing street and rail network and then the mass vast majority of the land that we're looking at is within that South East. ranging from that sort of existing residential all the way down to sort of Highway 26 along Jackson School Road. So ultimately, what we're looking from a land, existing sort of land area itself is about 533 acres. Next slide. Nick, at this point, we're going to have a few folks jump in and kind of cover a couple of slides as we kind of go through these concepts. And so I'd like to welcome Nick from Kittleson to take a look at this one.

Thanks, Travis. I think I just have one slide here. So my name is Nick Gross. I am a transportation planner with Kittleson and Associates. We're on the team supporting, of course, that transportation lens as we look at these land use alternatives. The first thing I want to point out is just the relationship. how kind of woven and intertwined land use and transportation are together. So I'd like us all to think about them as kind of one entity rather than two separate frameworks. Another key thing, kind of element to think through as we talk and think of transportation alternatives is that the underlying land use, a lot of what Travis is talking about, whether it's residential or employment, that underlying land use is really gonna be a driver for the types of trips, whether they're walking, biking trips, and even the quantity of trips when we think about vehicular trips. So in this kind of graphic here, you can imagine the, the density and the intensity of development moving from left to right is going to result in a higher level of trips. So your open space and parks will have relatively lower trips compared to that higher density mixed use and higher story sort of development. So when you think about these land use alternatives, to think about them through a transportation lens, I think it's important to think about, yeah, that modal generation and the quantity of trips. The last thing I'll say on this slide is that with all of that said, there is really, the alternatives from a transportation perspective are quite similar. You'll see some alternatives with some more traditional grid street networks and you'll see some alternatives with some sort of windy street networks. But for the most part, they are sort of providing the same services, connections and accessibility and safety. So with that, I'll pass it back to Travis and you'll hear from me a little bit more later on. Perfect. Thank you, Nick.

All right, so we're going to go through the concepts now. I'm going to touch on different aspects along the way. The first one really being Creekside Park. This concept anchors the community around McKay Creek, this ecological corridor. It looks to seamlessly integrate these nature-based amenities to the land uses. right? So you can really think that this sort of open spaces, regional open space that you see sort of attached to McKay Creek, it sort of emerges from that and then integrates itself both into the residential and the employment lands along with the sort of roadway network. We'll talk a little bit more. You really think of it as the sort of open spaces, regional draw, this nature-based thing becomes a sort of identity of these new lands, this new development and puts the sort of open space, this regional thing kind of close and very proximate to downtown and the center of North Plains. We're looking to expand and connect this residential and employment areas through a sort of open network and distributed open of open spaces and multi-use trails. The sort of key components of this. So we've mentioned the McKay Creek Creekfront sort of regional parkway. Thinking that these really have, you know, it's a mix of mostly passive amenities, refuge, trails, etc. And then but we're still sort of providing additional open spaces, right? So there is a variety of small and medium parks kind of throughout the residential. We would expect a little bit of open space kind of coming as part of the employment lands itself and maybe some of that commercial really as seen as sort of amenities for those developments. And we would, of course, sort of welcome those to integrate into the wider network. But it's not necessarily coming from that sort of larger 40 acres and sort of life services of the for the residential. With that, I will want to point out that there is still a small sort of park around Lynn Reservoir that is sort of continual, sort of changes through sizes around the concepts. But no matter what, there is a sort of decent amount of open space. And at this point, the sort of minimal concept of that is that there's still sort of a trail or mixed use shared pathway kind of along that, giving that some edge condition and accessibility for folks to enjoy. Here, we're looking at the Pacific Street extension. It's highlighted in this darker blue, winding Pacific Street label. That really, again, becomes this spine that anchors all the investment along this creekfront park and then connects into downtown all the way to the south to Jackson Street. This it would be having this sort of nature folks goods entity. So you could see, you know, imagine all these parks that you sort of pull off onto the side of the road. And that's sort of how you access a lot of this. In addition to sort of having one side, very development focused. That's how you access a lot of this from the internal network. And then you have this sort of regional destination along the way. We're really looking to maximize this residential use and those land uses in the Northwest. So I'm trying to see how much residential we can sort of maximize and get into that and then sort of connect to that existing open space network and some of the other community assets up there like the school. And then looking to prioritize the rest of the residential sort of proximate to downtown. So what this really does, and this happens in a majority of concepts, it really allows sort of expansion of residential to be walkable and connected to the rest of North Plains. There is a bit of a roadway buffer, and this came up earlier as far as a community asked about how Sunset Ridge relates to a lot of the land use, but there's a roadway buffer between Sunset Ridge and the new employment area. And so that's sort of spurring off of the Pacific Street extension. Again, kind of buffers to the south of the existing elementary school and then connects to Jackson Street Road. Next concept. Then use concept two, we're looking at the neighborhood parks. This is really focused on an equal distribution of open space between both of the residentials to the northwest and also into the southeast, really trying to sort of invest more in an equal and accessible and sort of equitable distribution of this open space. And so you can see that there's a really strategic linear buffer between the Sunset Ridge community and also the employment area to the south of that. That's connecting the elementary school to McKay Creek. And even though we're not sort of investing in sort of a larger open space really around McKay Creek, it is actually quite a large sort of floodplain and a constraint area and existing, again, existing habitat and vegetation, in which case we would still look to encourage the restoration of that as it connects to, or it is a sort of city asset. And so this sort of linear park not only sort of buffers this, but again, connects to that. And then we're really looking to introduce this sort of mixed use along the Union Road. And of course, the access to the connector streets that relate to or that connect that into downtown. So what we want to sort of focus here, I think, is that there is both this reservoir park component and linear park. We would say that the Southeast Linear Park really shares active programming with the employment area. So not only, again, so we mentioned it being a buffer, but also something that is a shared amenity and sort of attracting a high employment area or land use potentially so that there is, in fact, sort of day-to-day amenities for that employment and sort of encouraging the use of that and support of it in particular. And then the Lynn Reservoir is still having sort of a mix of passive programming, multi-use trails. We still have this like small, medium parks kind of throughout, kind of strategically integrated into the rest of the park system. But we've pulled back a little bit In order to kind of maximize the uses in these, like, 2 medium to large scale parkways. You'll notice that there's a mixed use component along West Union, and that's really to attract what we think is sort of city serving retail and amenities while also sort of expanding the residential footprint. So that we're able to achieve a lot of our goals, such as really creating a nice buffer between sunset Ridge and the introduction of employment lands. which you'll see very contrary to sort of the next concept. We also think like, you know, this would be something that is quite complimentary to the sort of downtown. We don't want to introduce anything that's going to struggle or compete with some of the programming down there, but that a light touch of mixed use can attract different types of retailers and amenities while also acting as a sort of buffer between the larger streetway and the residential community itself. I also want to point out something that because of the increased land use and sort of co-location and maximizing this residential, we are able to create a little bit more of a buffer within the south of Sunset Ridge. That's really about completing, if you're sort of familiar with that neighborhood, there's a couple areas where it just doesn't, it looks like it would be sort of continuing on. And so it would be making sure to kind of cap that neighborhood and establish a really good residential or a really good, transition to the land uses into the south. You also see a sort of larger gateway commercial area to the south. And again, this sort of relates to really bringing all the residential land use together and saying sort of everything to the south is going to be primarily driven as gateway commercial. And that, again, adjusts sort of the level of service and requirements of that to the south area. You'll also see the Pacific extension. In this case, our last concept, there is a sort of weaving integration to the open space. This is still part of the open space network, but it's primarily focused on a very efficient connection and almost utility spine between downtown all the way to Jackson Road. And so making that sort of east-west connection very efficient while then also still connecting to the north and becoming kind of the front door or side door to these employment lands to the south. Next slide. Our last land use concept is this regional reservoir park. And really what that did, like looks to really prioritize and establish this multifunctional regional park at the Lynn Reservoir. As you can see, it sort of becomes this very large regional, if not state level destination. And so That would allow for a lot of different types of programming and sort of become this exemplary sort of anchor facility for the city. We're also looking to really focus on the residential as a buffer. And this really relates to more of a land use strategy, saying that we're going to continue the Sunset Ridge neighborhood in a way that's sort of, again, coming equally from the two not roadway constrained areas. edges and sort of grow while still maintaining a desired sort of open space connectivity to the creekway. If you want to go to the next slide, we'll highlight a couple things. So obviously the largest being as we covered this regional park, quite substantial. We were seeing it sort of as a mix of both passive and active programming, multi-use trails. It sort of feels like an extension into the wider landscape. It preserves a lot of the views and maybe even sort of highlights these sort of large horizontal vistas and sunset experiences while also being large enough to kind of high sort of host events and integrate a couple sort of larger land use or open space ambitions. The southeast open space is still sort of this connected network, but still trying to sort of prioritize, as mentioned, the connectivity between the school and the creek, and also something that's a sort of shared resource with the residential expansion. I think what's also important, we've talked a lot about the park network. Here, we've really consolidated into major open space areas. A few neighborhood parks is sort of assumed. But then again, really concentrating them into these two regional destinations, in particular, just one park. regional park over at the Lynn Reservoir. I do want to highlight that that kind of strategy, this sort of concentration of open space in order to unlock sort of a larger one, is indifferent to the individual concepts, right? It sort of really pairs nicely, of course, with the regional park at the Lynn Reservoir, but really it's to talk about and test how much open space people want consolidated, Do they want to hybrid it or sort of like decentralize lots of mini parks, et cetera, in the neighborhood? So that's what to really consider on that talking point. We're looking to, again, expand the residential. We're referring to them as buffers, but it's really about sort of an equal growth strategy from the existing residential at Sunset Ridge. What this does, because we are, in fact, growing to the south and working with a finite amount of residential acreages means that we can't quite expand all the way to the available edge of McKay Creek. And so what happens within that is the introduction of a central employment land between the Sunset Ridge expansion in downtown itself. This is quite interesting because you could imagine having some employment lands that are highly Uh, populated that then have a very walkable connection to downtown itself while the sort of residential gets to kind of focus on its own identity. And so really placing these commercial uses along the West Union close to downtown is a very unique aspect of this plan. With it that you sort of see the roadway network kind of react to that and it sort of acts as a sort of buffer between the two and as these sort of allocation spines. So it becomes the central spine of the employment district as it extends across McKay Creek and then acts as sort of a buffer between the residential and then networks down to become the central spine of the employment areas to the south. And so it has a more sort of connected grid, traditional grid structure that can kind of come through it, but is again, not establishing this direct east and west connectivity. So what you would imagine is there's a little bit of a loop that can form with the downtown area. But most of this is about actually, again, connectivity and acting as sort of the front of house for these individual neighborhoods that are coming off of it. Next slide. Nick, I'm going to welcome you back here to talk a couple things.

Thank you, Travis. Yeah, so just to recognize some of the similarities again across the alternatives from a transportation needs perspective. So you may have picked up all of the alternatives include a Pacific Street extension proposed connection over McKay Creek connecting kind of that Sunset Ridge neighborhood to the downtown core area. So that's something that's carried through throughout the alternatives. The other in that southeast area, sort of south of West Union, west of Jackson School Road, is the establishment of a new street network with sort of strong ties back over to Jackson School Road. You saw a couple different sort of versions of that through more of a traditional grid network and then Some more of some natural features navigating roadways there. In the northwest area, Travis kind of hit on this pretty well in terms of everything from that regional park alternative to a smaller park. With the increase in park, getting back to one of my original points, you can think of that as having sort of less trip generation versus a higher residential intensity is going to generate more vehicular trips. All of those trips would... have to sort of navigate and filter through the city's transportation system and ultimately for regional trips, make their way to some of your interchange areas. And given that that's on kind of the north side of town, those are going to be more trips filtering ultimately to, you know, Glencoe Road or some trips may be up to Dersham Interchange. And then the last thing on the transportation kind of needs, something that we've recognized across the board is that anything shown in that south area, that one sort of large parcel, I'll call it on the south side of US 26, it's going to be very challenging and limited in terms of safe, accessible connectivity for people walking and biking, given that US 26 really serves as a barrier. So if you think about access, I think that that one area there is going to be the most challenging. So with that, I'll pass it back to you, Travis.

Yeah. And this is where I get to entertain you for about four seconds and say, Steve, I think you're behind the presentation wheel the rest of the way.

Thanks, Travis. Thanks, Nick. Just a quick note on other infrastructure, water, sewer, excuse me, and stormwater. Like transportation, the infrastructure needs are very similar across the different alternatives. There's not going to be a significant difference in terms of infrastructure needs. Just a few notes. Nick mentioned earlier the Pacific Street extension. I think there's been a lot of discussion, maybe at Planning Commission and City Council, that that not only serves as a connector between downtown and this area, but also provides an opportunity for water infrastructure and redundancy. We note that there will need to be new regional stormwater management facilities, potentially one IN THE SOUTHEAST AND ONE IN THE NORTHWEST. AND ALSO IN THE NORTHWEST AREA, THERE MAY BE A NEED TO UPGRADE THE SUNSET TERRACE PUMP STATION. AND THEN THE FINAL NOTE, AGAIN, LIKE TRANSPORTATION, ANY DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH WOULD BE LONGER-TERM DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE EXTENDING INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS HIGHWAY 26 IS GOING TO BE AN EXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR. We did do some high-level comparisons of these three alternatives to each other according to those objectives and criteria that Travis touched on earlier. These aren't to say that any of these necessarily don't meet the criterion, any specific one. It's more like which one performs better one to the other. So, for example, that first concept, the Creekside Park with all the park land along McCabe Creek, that does a better job of preserving enhancing natural resources than the others. That doesn't necessarily mean that the others don't do a good job of that. I'm not going to go through this whole chart at this time, but this is all in the report and can comment on it if there's any questions. Next slide. I'm just going to talk a little bit about what we've heard and I just want to remind people that these three alternatives were really created with some intention to give stark differences between them so that it's easier for people to distinguish and say, this we definitely don't like, this we definitely do like. That was the intention there. So some of what we've heard, support for a regional park at Linden Reservoir and also a desire for strong protections for the Cade Creek, and connections from Sunset Ridge to McKay Creek. Environmental protections are in place regardless of any of these alternatives, but that's definitely important to people. There's a concern about the amount and location of industrial lands. And with that, just a desire to make sure that not only are there strong buffers or significant buffers between Sunset Ridge and any employment, but also that there's a strong connection between Sunset Ridge and downtown so that Sunset Ridge doesn't become kind of a residential island. Yeah, I mentioned the substantial road and open space buffers between Sunset Ridge and New Employment Land. We heard that quite a bit. We heard general opposition to any developments off of Highway 26. So that's something we'll be keeping in mind as we move forward. Concern about potential traffic impacts on Glencoe Road. Nick talked a lot, generally speaking, about how land uses impact traffic and the number of trips. Concern about the cost of development and how it will be financed. We really go into greater detail in, will go into greater detail in the next phase, the preferred concept about how development gets paid for. We touched on it a little bit at the public meeting, But in the next memo, we'll have a lot more information about things like system development charges and what the cost might be, and again, how those get funded and financed. And then finally, we did hear some general preference for, I think it was the first alternative that showed Pacific Street extension kind of winding, not necessarily a straight line directly to Jackson School Road, but more of a winding boulevard. people seem to resonate with that more than the other concepts. That's really the end. I mentioned earlier our process. We're really still, this is the last meeting for us to gather input on these alternatives and then we will take all that information and begin working on refining and developing a preferred concept over the summer and then coming back at that time. Thank you and happy to answer questions and hear your comments.

Okay, I'm going to start with Mayor Dunbrow.

Yeah, so thank you. Great presentation. Just to be honest, this kind of looks a lot like the last presentation, which I think is what everyone, at least a majority of council is thinking at this point. And the other challenge is, this doesn't actually solve the problem that council requested to be solved, which was we need the code updated before we start making changes. So I'm not sure how else to make that clear, but this in my perspective, you know, and again, I'm one vote, but from my perspective, until the code has changed, all of this is a non-starter. We have to fix the code before we start. introducing new plans. I think that's been made fairly clear from the community as well as from council. So this doesn't fundamentally differ, in my opinion, from what we saw last time. So I was hoping that we would see something that was scaled back. I understand that the governor wants additional housing. However, that is not Going to, you know, that's not necessarily what the city of North Plains wants. And it's not necessarily, you know, we're creating problems only so that we can go solve them is how I view this. We're saying, oh, well, we're going to need more sewer. We're going to need more of this and that. I also want to point out that the system development charges are driving the cost of housing up in Oregon and everywhere. So that's a real problem. That's something that we're going to really need to think about is if we're adding that many houses, that is not affordable. And we don't have the code to back it. We're getting housing that does not fit our community because we have not updated our code yet. So I guess my response is thank you. But again, I would like to see the code updates before we start introducing new concept planning.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And there's some hot topics in the boundary, right? So the purple commercial industry over in Sunset, I'd like to see an option after the code is done to make that much smaller, maybe 50 acres instead of 300 and something acres. Or we need businesses, everybody knows that, but we need a smaller business footprint and ease it in a little bit slower than 300 acres all at once where people start thinking the worst, right? And then the south part of all the maps, is there an option we just take that out? Is there an option we can reduce the purple? Are there options where we can do different things with the boundaries instead of every option is the same boundary? So that would be my impact.

Thank you. Councillor David Norton.

This microphone is tricky.

Okay. I echo the sentiment from the Mayor and Councillor Warrington. We really need to double down on the codes. I think that's a critical path here and we really need a commitment timeline and an update on that. Second of all, it is a little frightening. I was looking through the community feedback in terms of with all the outreach events and there seemed to be a consistent theme of no industrial, concerns of industrial, but I see the same purple plots here on each of the three choice points. And so I'm wondering if there's any alternatives where we can see alternatives, you know, other options that reduce our reliance on that purple and maybe the location we're just 86 off the map. I do think that we have a lot of irons in the fire currently. And I think that we really, there's been a lot of great work here done so far to give us some visualizations of what's possible. I think it'd be really great if we could double down and focus on our critical path here, because I think that's the key to our success and to actually execute some current initiatives that we have on ClinCo that also need to be developed. So thank you.

Thank you. Yes, whatever. Yes, I would echo the concern on the codes. I know all of you have been concerned about the codes. I mean, I think a good example of where we just got caught by surprise was the 60 units apartments that Brynhill Everybody was told by the planning commission, by everybody, that can't happen. You're going to get a nice little coffee shop downstairs. And people bought those homes thinking they were getting this lovely mixed use. And we got caught by surprise. So I think that some people are wondering to you and to me, are we credible when we say we've got it taken care of? We've got to make sure if we grow, we've got the codes in place. My other big thing, I mean, I talk to a lot of people. The biggest pushback that I encounter over and over is the industrial growth currently is not really sellable to people. They don't buy it. They don't like it. So what I talk to them about is there is a reality that we likely need more money. So I'll give you an example of one of the ways we talk about it. I said, so would you be good with a $25 levy? Most of the people I talk to say, yeah, I've been kept me from getting some things I don't like. It looks to me like a $25 levy would give us about $500,000 a year. Not a huge amount, but something. So then the flip side is how much industrial growth creates 500,000, right? So kind of a discussion. Because if I say to them, you don't want industrial, are you willing to kick in? They say, yes, but how much? Okay. So one of the things that surfaced, I've been on these committees for three or four years, is kind of the show me the money discussion. So How much money do we get from industrial growth? The best example that I think has been a little frustrating to get the clear agreement on is for me, the perfect place to start now is this ASLM building, right? We have a 10 acre new building. You can look it up on the tax rolls. It looks like it's valued at about 18 million. That's a good example of going forward. We would like to build more of those perhaps, right? Now it's been, quoted a couple times. I looked it up. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're wrong. But it looks like it only brings in about a couple thousand bucks per acre to us in terms of the tax revenue, right? So I think the question is, if we're going to sell industrial growth to people, we have to sell the money. Because most people, when they look at that building, they don't like it. It's big. It's not pretty. But if it brings in such a huge amount of money to the city, they go, OK, OK, I get it. I'm OK with it. But I haven't heard those numbers explained. And if the numbers are the ones that have been quoted, and when I look it up, it looks like it only brings in a couple thousand an acre. If that's true, $20,000, it's gonna take a lot of those to get to the $500,000 that the level, right? It takes like 25 of those 10 acre developments. And in that case, the people are gonna say, I'll pay for the levy, skip the industrial. What I'm coming back to again is this show me the money thing. I have not heard the money analysis clearly stated to the people because the people, if we're going to expect them to support industrial growth, they need to hear a cohesive number that kind of tells them that something is good is happening. The other interesting part that kind of threw me on that discussion is Hillsboro has these wonderful, I'm a big Parkinson rec, rec center, swimming pool, be lovely to have something like that. Hillsborough has it. But I realized when I did the research in their tax stuff, they have a $50 levy. So at first glance, it doesn't make sense to me, why should Hillsborough need a levy? They're the ones that are number one in the centers, the data centers, all that. They've had all this industrial growth, they shouldn't need a levy. So those are some complexities. Like I said, if we're going to Currently, the people of North Plains are very, very overwhelmingly not supportive of industrial. If we want to win them over for that, we have to show them the money.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair King. I'll keep this brief as I know we're getting close for time. I just want to say thank you to Steve and Associates for that presentation. You know, I definitely hear the valid concerns about code. I also want to reiterate that, you know, the exercise that we're doing tonight is concept planning. It is nothing set in stone. So really it's, again, what is the vision and how do we need to adapt our code to fit that vision? So I don't want to get too caught up in those fundamentals. And with that, I'll pass it back over to you, Chair King, so we can finish off time.

Thank you. Did Councilor DeForge come online?

I'm online. So, uh, My quick feedback would be, I would be looking for smaller employment land growth. That was kind of what I heard from the community. And I'd be interested if the project could deliver us smaller proposed industrial growth. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Hunt, or excuse me, Commissioner Howe.

I don't like any of them. I don't like on the south side of what it's only the commercial use of the old mill. I don't think the citizens with new houses over there are asking to go in and I don't think they should be brought in if it happened. I do agree with the industrial commercial to the Now up to the highway and then specifically to block the pro. I don't want to overcome another comment that you let them. I don't want any of the real of the 3 have a industrial commercial merge in with residential and I think residential commercial should be separate from housing within the city. I don't like wind reservoir. I don't like housing below an earthen field dam. I think that should all be a park. I think the other thing we all need to listen and think about, we're looking at a 20 year look ahead. It took 22 years for the last urban growth boundary to be filled. 22 years to the last developed. We're not looking at tomorrow. We're looking at 20 years. I probably won't be alive. You probably won't be alive. So we're looking for the future of the citizens of the city. And I think we really need to think about that. And we're not looking at five years. And I think if the citizens of this city start working with both council and planning commission, we can design what we want. We can say what we want. But if we don't get the opinion of the public, it's hard to judge what to do it. But if we get the public, it can be a community building where everybody in this city. As a bot of how we want to proceed.

There are Miller. One question and then one comment. One question maybe for the mayor. Give your comments on the code that that means the planning mission is green light into for the spending of the budget associated with that.

I mean, that's a council decision, but I think we had requested a proposal, and I don't believe we've gotten anything from either staff or planning commission. So until we see something and we know what we're spending on, we can't vote on it. And that's the problem with everything is... we're being asked to pass things that we don't have an actual plan on. This is a great concept plan, except that it's the same as the last concept plan. And we have code that hasn't been updated in many years. So I would say if you put a proposal in front of council, then council can make a decision. But again, I'm one vote.

Okay. Well, that plan is, if the proposal's not in, we'll get that plan. Then my comments, I think just summarizing what people have said is, It sounds like we'd like to see a number four version, which is a Lind Reservoir. It's a creek park. It is the industrial taken out of the residential and kept to the south. And it's probably kept to the south of Sunset. And it's take out the south little notch there. Just get rid of that. And put more residential up to the creek park all the way along. I think on your bullets you had there of things you're trying to do, I think you could merge one and three and make all those happen with a number four. So that, I think it addresses what you're talking about. I think, Mandy, it talks about what you're talking about. Dawn, I think it talks about what Commissioner Halsey is talking about. So think about, I would urge you to think about that as a number four. Thanks.

Commissioner Levante.

Yeah, thank you. I also don't like any of the plans. I would like to see additional, but I have to be honest, it wasn't until talking to Steve at the last workshop that I kept asking, well, why aren't we updating anything with all this public comment? All these maps are the same. They keep showing us the same thing over and over again. And it wasn't until after our discussion that, well, this was to aggregate everything and at the end then show the final So I don't know if there's others out there too that are like, why aren't you providing another map with all this new input? But it sounds like it's going to come to final. That being said, there's a lot of things I don't care about the plans. I guess my biggest thing as well as the industrial butting up to our residential It was really, I mean, I tried to champion for a massive berm when we were doing Sunset Ridge to kind of block it for a little swing in. And that didn't happen, but definitely we need something more than just a road. A road to me is not a division between two different, two very significantly different land uses. And I'm sure every resident in Sunset Ridge will probably tell you, yes, that is true. A road is not enough. Also, when it comes to the regional park, I'd like to see it centralized. And I say that because I still envision our city as a nice walkable city. I like to walk to the park instead of having to drive down here. And I just think if we stick our regional park in the farthest corner of the city, you are going to reduce the amount of people that it is walkable to. You know, and then as well as I'm okay with the amount of residential that we're proposing, but I would definitely like to see the industrial reduced a bit. We have shown, we have a history in North Plains. I mean, look at West Union. It has taken forever to develop out our industrial. And I'd hate to just bring in stuff just to have it sit there. Thank you.

Commissioner Donadel.

Mm-hmm.

I don't like either of the plans either. I kind of like, I think that the industrial actually should be on the west end, but it's always the way I always thought. I don't think trucks and vehicles and kids and all that kind of stuff mingle together very well. So I think that that would be my choice, but apparently none of the other people thought so. And then I think the system development might be cheaper to do that way. Actually, we're trying to do things in four different spots. We were trying to take it from one spot and do an industrial on the other end. A lot of times in the industrial stuff, a lot of the developers pay for a lot of system development stuff with their money. And does it cost the city a lot of money either? But that would be kind of my choice. And I have been asking for two and a half years to change the codes. And have been told that we have to have city council permission to do any of that kind of stuff. And I have almost every meeting I've been at complained about, I volunteer my time to do this. And I come here and do nothing most of the time because there's nothing brought before us. And we do work session stuff and there's not really anything to do. And so, Finally, we are getting to the point where we can do some of the code stuff. And so we would have been further along had we had started two and a half years ago doing some of this code stuff because I too hate the fact that we get snuck in on all the time and things happen that we didn't want to have happen. And the 60 unit thing over here wasn't because of us. It was because of the state and our governor decided to do something behind our backs and do that kind of stuff. But we couldn't do anything about that. But there are things that we can do to stop some of the industrial things. So I don't think that we don't have to have that much industrial land. But I think that doing the code work, that we can stop some of the data center stuff. We can limit the size of the industrial buildings that we have. which would make things smaller for smaller industrial projects so that we don't have these mass buildings that don't have employment and those kinds of things. So I think in doing a bunch of code work that we can take care of some of those things that everybody's worried about, that we're going to have these massive buildings out there that has 12 or 15 people working in them and it doesn't help our employment in this city. But that's kind of my throw on it. Commissioner Nunn and Cannon.

I think that we need to have a good solid code in place. So it's really going to drive what this expansion could look like. Without a good solid code in place, there's nothing to really stand on. We can resize the industrial areas, parks, stuff like that. But we have no control over right now. We don't have a code to support any of it. I thought the last meeting that we had here that we had some support to get started on modifying our code. We haven't seen that officially, I guess. I don't know. Maybe we have. Or who are we working with? I don't know. We haven't heard anything more about it. So a little bit more direction as far as code updates would be great. But as far as the UGB details of it, let's get our code Place first and and I think that the details will wash out in the future, the expansion that.

Thank you, my first question is this he said that the housing was fixed the commercial and industrial or adjustable and the park she said they could be lesser or whatever my question is in the park speed more than 40 acres.

No, you can't increase more than your identified land need and the parks plan identifies the land need of 40 acres for parks.

Is that drawn to the housing needs? It is not tied to the housing needs analysis. The parks board said that, wait a minute, looks like we need more than we could get. Yeah, if you can establish that. Okay. I in agreement with Mayor Dunbrough on fixing the code, except I don't agree that we need to fix the code first before we consider concepts. I think they go hand in hand. You do the concept, you do the code adjustments to fit your concept. So the sooner we get going on that, the better. I've been talking about code changes for probably 20 years. So that... Neighborhood community community zone, which was a whole because don't back in 2007. I've been trying to get that eliminated and replaced. So I know about wanting to get a change. So the other thing is, I think exception to concert Webber's comments about the Planning Commission saying that the site over in Brent Hill was going to be a mixed use where the coffee shop and all that because and that we were caught by surprise because the state of Oregon made that decision, not the Planning Commission. So I would be careful on certain things about accusing people of stuff. I also have problems with all the concepts. There is, as Commissioner Howe said, there is no reason to have housing below an urban dam. In the last urban growth expansion, we tried to fight to get residential removed from the south of the highway 26 and two of the concepts have that. They've been in contact with some of the owners over there that don't want to be part of the urban growth expansion. There's no reason we should consider them. Development costs, of course, are going to be expensive there. But the state says you've got to look at it. It doesn't say you have to take it. Also, I think that the large portion of the purple area, which is employment ground is kind of throws things off because it's made up of commercial and industrial. And so it just looks like a huge industrial area. And I think those maybe should be modified. I do agree with the buffering along Sunset Ridge. And I think we should have park systems in both the Northwest and along the Cade Creek and also include water regional facilities I agree that there should be one in the northwest and also not the road from the Long Creek and the southeast. So I agree also should be a concept four. There it is. Okay. Anything else?

If I may, thank you all. These are really clear guidance, I think, from all of you. I'm not sure. You know, we were given that housing focus boundary for us to start with in this process. That doesn't mean that we have to keep that boundary. That was just what we were told to start with in terms of developing these concepts. Can the south be removed? Yeah, we can look into that. Can the boundary be smaller? Certainly. So we will... Yeah, the... Steve Szigethy, hybrid alternative or the alternative for whatever you want to call it that has been the plan all along, so we look forward to taking the comments we received from you tonight and working to develop a concept that. Steve Szigethy, meets these addresses the comments that you've provided tonight, so thank you.

Steve Szigethy, Steve and any further future presentations with the concepts. What would be possible to throw in an extra image for all three concepts to include the current zoning within the city? That way you could actually see the impact on our current areas and what they look like. Because obviously we have a lot of residential that's, you know, different zones that will be next to these proposed.

Sure. Happy to do that.

Thank you.

All right. I want to thank everyone for attending. And with that,