OSU Cascades 4-Year Campus survives council vote - next hurdle a state appeal?

The effort to build an OSU-Cascades 4-year campus has passed another milestone with the Bend City Council unanimously upholding an earlier hearing officer’s decision that the project could proceed.

But eyes are now on the potential next step by an opposition group, Truth in Site, who have argued that the university’s selection of the SW Chandler Ave. and Century Drive site inadequately addresses long term traffic and parking impacts, among other issues.

In voting to approve the initial 10-acre phase one campus site plan several council members voiced concerns that land use regulations don’t require a master plan that would include an additional, adjacent 46 acres that the unversity is considering for future development. That is also an issue the Truth in Site group has raised.

The university has also emphasized it has yet to purchase the additional 46 acres, and the current owner was not interested in participation in a master plan at this stage of the project.

Regarding the parking issues, the site opponents have claimed that the university’s forecast of students who will ride share, walk, bike or take public transportation is unrealistic. The 320 parking spaces will not be sufficient to accommodate the initial 10-acre campus, Truth in Site representatives maintain.

The opponents have consistently said the university should consider the 1,500 acre Juniper Ridge development owned by the city, which had initially hoped would attract businesses and a university.

However, OSU-Cascades has said infrastructure development costs at Juniper Ridge would be prohibitive, and that the site on the northern edge of Bend would be too remote from retail and other amenities to attract students.

The council is expected to officially approve the university’s site application at its Oct. 15 meeting, after which time Truth in Site would have 21 days to appeal the decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. 

Previous posts on OSU-Cascades

OSU-Cascades 4-Year campus a step closer

OSC-Cascades pushes back new 4-year campus opening date

Testimonials

Comments as to Lee's expertise and experience

MIKE AND DIANNE:

We were ready to sell our home in Arizona and relocate our primary residence to Bend. We found Lee through his blog, www.bendisbetter.blogspot.com, which is a terrific analysis of the area’s real estate and issues. Our relocation turned out to be a long process with a number of visits to Bend and Lee patiently worked with us through them all. Then we had to move quickly to buy in Bend after an offer with a short closing on our Arizona home. Thanks to Lee’s ability to work in a tight time frame we’re now happy residents of Awbrey Butte. He even let us park in his garage until we could occupy our new home.

--Mike and Dianne, Awbrey Butte and Juneau, Alaska residents.

JOHN R:

Lee affiliated with me on the auction of developer interests in a complex property with very high-end potential north of Bend. From the beginning I recognized that Lee goes beyond the average broker with his impressive knowledge and analytical skills. In the end his onsite presence at the property and participation in key decisions was invaluable. I hope we can work together on another project.

-- President, Realty Markting Northwest, the Northwest’s leading real estate auction group.

ANDY N.

I’ve known Lee for more than 20 years, and was first familiar with his work as a newspaper owner-publisher in the Methow Valley of Washington state where I was manager of a resort development venture. I’m an Oregon native but also divide my time among homes and projects in California, Vail, CO and the Oregon coast. I asked Lee to identify some Central Oregon private land in a spectacular setting where my family might build a home. He found the ideal location, and we’ll continue to work together on other real estate.

Andy N, former bank executive ,15 years as principal in national real estate investment & hospitality management; currently real estate investor and developer

RUSSEL W. -

Lee was recommended to me one day when I was skiing with a friend at Mt. Bachelor and mentioned I planned to sell my 160 acre ranch east of Bend. He identified the key ranch attributes, recommended a pricing strategy and put together an impressive marketing package including a slide presentation, using much of his excellent photography. Lee understands water rights and land use issues unique to ranch properties. He has even joined me in pruning the two dozen trees in my apple orchard. And we’ve traded a number of good books on fly fishing, Western history and other common interests.

Russel W., rancher, chef & restaurateur and pilot.

KATHI  Y. -

Lee represented me when I purchased a home in Bend, and later when I sold my Sisters condo. In both transactions he was thorough in presenting all the details I needed to make decisions on pricing, offers and counter offers. His intelligence and willingness to dig beneath the obvious issues made the buying and selling process go smoothly. Working with Lee was an enjoyable experience and I’ll certainly turn to him for his expertise in any future real estate needs.

Kathi, Bend resident.

CRAIG M. -

I’ve relied on Lee’s insight and appreciation of working ranches and agricultural properties. Our property combines residential land on acreage dedicated for long-term conservation and agricultural activity. Lee has kept me informed of trends and shifts in the market with consistent analysis of sales and economic trends both locally and regionally.

Craig M., managing development partner, 480 acre ranch and residential property.

Bend UGB process takes a big step in a long trek

            It’s a foregone conclusion that Bend is on a growth path with forecasts that the current estimated population of more than 80,000, could expand to 110,000 in the next decade and a half.

            How and where the growth will be channeled and managed is the challenge facing the several city committees now working under a deadline to complete the state-required Urban Growth Boundary proposal.

It’s a complex task, involving analysis of many factors related to growth--economic, environmental, social--then identifying needed land for urban development, all within an umbrella long term “vision” for the community.

            At times it’s been a bumpy process--in part because the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) returned the original 2008 plan to on “remand” for the city to make revisions.

            For some observers outside the government and development sectors the process seems complicated and convoluted, something only a policy and planning wonk would appreciate and endure.

            But it’s a high stakes exercise that in the end could make the difference on retaining that oft-touted quality of life that has drawn new residents or retained natives and old-timers. 

At a Sept. 4 meeting the steering committee for the UGB effort took a major step in accepting recommendations of three “technical advisory committees,” (TACs) essentially moving the process to another phase on the way to a final proposal.

            Some of the steering committee comments reflected the protracted nature of the work.

“I don’t want it to be pushed back to us like the last time and we’ve been working on this for five years,” observed steering committee chairman Victor Chudowsky, also a Bend city council member.

There is also recognition that the state method of growth planning does not rely on a traditional market demand model. This is especially evident in Bend where newer  single family detached housing sales are strong but construction has lagged for typically more affordable housing--such as apartments, townhomes and condominiums--in higher density areas.

In its current form, the UGB project has been organized around the steering committee and three TACs--1) a residential committee charged with identifying needs and housing types to meet that need; 2) an employment committee to identify land needed to support jobs; and a 3) boundary committee focused on identifying land for expansion of the city’s growth boundary or to develop within current lines.

Steering committee members include the full city council,  two planning commissioners, and a county commissioner. The TACs are comprised of ex officio representatives of planning staff, the state Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Oregon Employment Department, along with local business owners, developers and others from the real estate industry, various community organizations and at large citizens.

Housing--what, how much and where?

Thus far the most debated issues have emerged in the residential TAC committee, involving the types of housing and number of units in each that will  pass state muster, and fit into the city’s vision for the future.

In its 2008 UGB proposal that was returned on remand by the state, the city assumed 65% of new housing needed by 2028 would be single-family detached, and 35% would be combination of single-family attached, such as townhomes, and multi-family, which would include duplexes. condominiums and apartment buildings for either homeowners or renters.

The TAC group began its work with a baseline assessment as of January of 2014 that assumed 16,681 total new residential units would be required by 2028 in a mix of 65% single family, 2% single family attached and 33% multi-family.

Then the TAC  considered two options, designated Trend 1 and Trend 2, both of which would reflect the 16,681 units needed by 2028, but with a different mix of housing types. Trend 2 would be favor more single family attached and multifamily housing over single family detached.

The UGB housing mix options

By a 14-2 vote the residential advisory committee recommended Trend 2, which would reduce the number of single family detached units to 55% from the January baseline of 65%, or from 10,843 to 9,175. It would increase the single family attached percentage to 10% from 2%, or by 1,334 units from the baseline 334. The number of multi-family units would increase from 33% to 35% in Trend 2, or from 5,505  to 5,838 by 2028.

Several members of the residential TAC said at the Sept. 4 meeting that they voted for Trend 2 with reservations, but with the intent to move along the process and possibly refine the numbers in later discussion.

The LCDC said the city would need to show better “linkage” between forecast growth, demographic characteristics of current and new residents and their ability to pay for housing, and the availability of housing to address those criteria.

City attorney Mary Winters noted that LCDC has warned the city, “it can’t rely on market alone,” in developing the UGB plan. “The last time around we didn’t listen to the state,” she added.

Decision not "cast in stone"

At the suggestion of city planner Joe Dills the steering committee voted 6-2 to proceed with Trend 2 as a guideline for integrating the residential needs component into development of the overall UGB proposal.

Dills  said the vote should be viewed  “on the premise it is cast in clay...not in stone,” to which planner Brian Rankin added, “It’s not in the kiln.”

The steering committee voted 6-2 to proceed with the Trend 2 scenario.

Turning to the employment TAC recommendations the eight voting steering committee members unanimously adopted “Scenario A,” described in a memo from Dills and Rankin  as resulting from, “a relatively simple formula of dividing employment projections by employment density to arrive at land need.”

Another option, “Scenario B,” would be based on a  “market factor” to include more land for employment than required to meet minimum needs. In part the recommendation of Scenario A tracked with the LCDC “remand order” and considered that it  “will be legally defensible,” according to the memorandum.

Also cited was a state Court of Appeals case related to the Woodburn UGB, which the Dills and Rankin memorandum noted as an example that, “no city has successfully justified a larger employment land need through use of a market factor.”

The technical advisory committee working on the urban boundary recommendations was confronted with the additional complication of a 2011 Court of Appeals decision on the McMinville UGB coming after the 2008 LCDC remand order.

In a memorandum to the boundary TAC, city attorney Winters summarized how the court decision could be applied along with the remand order.

Winters outline concluded the city should start with land needed according to the forecast population and related need for housing, employment, public and semi-public uses. Land under consideration would be categorized as exception lands or resource lands, with sub-categories according to soil classes.

A 2-mile boundary study area

A 2-mile boundary expansion study area

Bend’s first priority should be exception lands, which generally is land available through existing infill or rezoning. The process would exclude unbuildable land; land based “upon specific needs;” land where providing urban services would be unreasonable; land not compatible with agricultural and forest activities; and land based upon analysis of comparative economic, energy and social consequences.

If the amount of land remaining after exclusions is greater than the need, the city would then “pick and choose” land to accommodate identified needs,  in a similar reverse process using the characteristics that were previously used to exclude lands.

Should the land remaining after exclusions be less than needed land, the city could then turn to analysis of resource lands, such as agricultural and forest lands, using the same procedure as with the exclusion process.

The  boundary TAC recommendation is based on extending the current urban growth boundary study area by a uniform 2-miles around the city, an area that would encompass 40,000 acres.

A boundary TAC representative said a 3-mile study boundary was considered but discounted in that the 2-mile  line was “considered more than adequate.” The TAC, it was noted, “has to come up with land (estimates) first without knowing needs.”

According to the city’s published schedule, this Phase 1 of establishing “methods and policy direction” completed by February of 2015.

In subsequent Phase 2 the city will work with consultants using a software modeling program, Envision Tomorrow, to complete a plan that includes actual growth and development scenarios.  The final Phase 3 would conclude with  adoption and implementation of the UGB plan by April of 2016.

Larger lot project proposed for Bend's west side urban-rural interface

ANALYSIS: Legislation creates loopholes in state land use-2011 post

 

OSU-Cascades 4-Year campus a step closer

            Break out the Beaver booster paraphernalia... Bend is looking more orange.     

Backers of the quest to build a 4-year campus for Oregon State University in Bend crossed another milestone at the start of September when a hearing officer upheld the City of Bend’s approval of the project’s first phase.

In his 94-page decision, hearing officer Kenneth Helm found that OSU’s application to begin a campus on a 10.44-acre parcel bordered by Century Drive and Chandler Avenue complied with the existing city development code. Nearly all the site is zoned for limited commercial use.

Although establishing nearly 30 conditions, many of them routine, for the city to address, Helm didn’t agree with opponents arguments that parking issues were inadequately addressed, or that a master plan for future phases should have been part of the initial application for the first phase of development.

Aerial of 10.44 acre first phase

Instead, Helm said the university’s parking plan, which assumes considerable bike, pedestrian and bus transportation, met the code requirements, although he noted the code lacks a clear definition of what constitutes an adequate plan. The application stipulates 300 parking spaces for the site, which the university says could accommodate a maximum of 1,960 students.

The hearing officer also determined city code did not mandate submission of an expanded master plan that would include an adjacent 46-acre site the university is considering but has yet to purchase. Opponents have said the 46-acres should be included in the initial application.

But Helm acknowledged, “the frustration of TSC (Truth in Site Coalition opponents) and other concerned neighbors with the seemingly piecemeal way that OSU is moving forward with the OSU Cascades project.”

OSU’s approach, Helm said, “comes very close to thwarting” intent of city master plan provisions that strive to create integrated mixed use neighborhoods, minimize traffic congestion, reduce urban sprawl and deter environmental damage.

Helm wrote that OSU could have asked 4-R Equipment LLC,  owner of the 46 acre parcel, to participate in a non-binding conceptual plan for that potential part of the campus.

“However, there is no evidence that the applicant made such an effort,” he concluded.

TSC could file an appeal within an approximate two week period, but a spokesman was quoted in local media as saying no decision had been made.

In a statement issued after the decision was released, OSU-Cascades president Becky Johnson said, “We appreciate the city’s and Mr. Helm’s thorough review of our application, as well as the extensive community input regarding the site plan.”

The Truth in Site opponents have maintained that the 1,500 acre Juniper Ridge property on the city’s northern edge, and owned by the city,  would be a more appropriate site for the new campus and would create less impact on existing neighborhoods.

However, those favoring the current site say infrastructure cost for Juniper Ridge would be prohibitive and it would be too removed from retail, entertainment, transportation and other amentites to attract students.

            OSU's statement said the first phase of the new 4-year campus is expected to open for undergraduate students in Fall of 2016. The 4-year program will admit freshmen in Fall of 2015 with some attending classes at Cascades Hall on the current joint Central Oregon Community College-OSU campus off Mt. Washington Drive several miles to the north.

Others would be accommodated at the Graduate and Research Center in existing space the university leases along  SW Columbia Street west of  Riverfront Park on the Deschutes River.

When complete the new 4-year university is expected to have a maximum of 5,000 students, including the nearly 2,000 in the first phase, and other when the expansion site is determined.

Larger lot project proposed for Bend's west side urban-rural interface

            The development team that created Bend’s highly-successful Northwest Crossing is joining another landowner to create a low-density community on more than 500 acres on the city's west-side boundary.

            Known as The Tree Farm on the Deschutes County land use application, the project brings together members of the Miller Lumber Co. family, the owners of the property, and West Bend Property Company LLC, an equal partnership of Tennant Family Limited Partnership and Brooks Resources.

            West Bend Property launched Northwest Crossing in the early 2000s as a master-planned “traditional neighborhood” that now includes single family and town home residences, parks, a retail and office area, schools and pedestrian trails.

Most Northwest Crossing lots are less than 6,000 square feet with a few larger ones of more than 8,000, or about one-quarter acre. The Northwest Crossing master plan allows for up to approximately 1,100 homes on 483 acres, including 200 now proposed for a 93 acre parcel across Mt. Washington Drive from the original development envelope.

            In an application for conditional use permits to Deschutes County, the Tree Farm developers outlined plans for 50 homes, each on about 2 acres, in five clusters of 10 homes each. Each of the five clusters would have a minimum of 81 acres of open space, or more than 400 total in the approximately 533-acre project.

Transect model from Center for Applied Transect Studies

            The concept, developers have said, is to create a community that provides a buffer between more rural land adjacent to an urban neighborhood,

            In comments to local media, the project director Romy Mortensen was quoted that the Tree Farm would be developed along an urban “transect” model to provide a transition between more dense city areas, such as Northwest Crossing, and land where “urbanization onto parks and other public lands seems highly unlikely.”

            A proponent of the rural-to-urban transect is Andres Duany, a principal in the Miami and Washington, DC urban planning firm, Duany Platy-Zyberk. The firm web site www.dpz.com notes that it has been in the forefront of “the New Urbanism movement with innovative techniques to combat urban sprawl.”

Tree Farm tentative master plan

            The Tree Farm property lies mostly in the county’s urban area reserve zone that allows 10 acre lots in areas next to urban boundaries. An example of this is the Highlands at Broken Top community adjacent to the Tetherow golf course and resort community across Skyliners Road from the proposed project.

Homes the Tree Farm would be on the northern edge of the property line, away from Skyliners Road to the south and Shevlin Park to the west according to the development application.     

            The Tree Farm would not be gated and would offer protected open space with public access adjoining Shevlin Park to the east, the developers have said.

            In an  Aug. 20 e-mail on file with the county, a planning official wrote that a hearing date for the project had been tentatively scheduled for Oct. 7, although a final date would be announced after comments from various agencies and the public have been received.