[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6604224,"mediaKeyId","2993255-940bbfc23c2059d64805b4191297d134","parentId",2993255,"title","Neighbors press planning commission on second‑home proposal in Rimrock West; hearing continued for further evidence","audioSeconds",3646,"startMs",4898000,"endMs",8544000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2993255-940bbfc23c2059d64805b4191297d134&start=4898&end=8544","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2993255-940bbfc23c2059d64805b4191297d134/thumbnail_4898000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6604224/Bend/Deschutes-County/Oregon/Neighbors-press-planning-commission-on-secondhome-proposal-in-Rimrock-West-hearing-continued-for-further-evidence","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604224-c5f3519cafacef40b694dc6a4f3f944e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771125401&Signature=NWkOEaORDxfoulv5gEUJmMmutRrZjpTeCNDK9QEBaDon4~eJh8JBmhLMJ~VfvLrNBqMLl2MiQqDa5L2O7xKUSPeJ6ORC1J5dvQ2skTlSu~tiWPZv5UCIzYKBnM7ACaoA36zFGEBZ2z2VbjKoguC~wCumaPw0iTeAWdIAmlAwpq2w5Ho4oODDJXzXhPjzqE9wHnG~EdlNpp68Ny283xz~vklmHDbNCGBJ5BZ0pCjH0xCzTI2kFGqOS-FPUIaavjGZQOhXFj7ih8GNe7xZ1Mn6DLR~raI7iQ8lZN7tlRIKWP3FZgmSEt4eq-ayvSsm7XjivnmZkg4iW112rIumQQBMqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Bend, OR","date","2025-04-15T11:33:51.637Z","article","BEND, Ore. — A public hearing that drew residents, engineers, lawyers and the city fire marshal ended without a final decision April 14 after the Bend Planning Commission continued the quasi‑judicial review for a proposed second detached single‑unit dwelling at 659 Northwest Silverbuckle.

The commission left the written record open under a 7‑7‑7 schedule (seven days for new written evidence, seven days for public rebuttal, followed by seven days for the applicant’s final rebuttal) and set a deliberation date of May 12. The commission also set a subsequent city council date for any final action.

Aaron Henson, planner for the planning division, introduced the project as a request to add a second detached dwelling on a 1.23‑acre site within the waterway overlay zone. Henson said the site extends to the river’s center line, contains wetlands, and touches multiple subzones with different setbacks and design review criteria — including a 50‑foot riparian setback and a 40‑foot design review setback in this stretch of the river.

Staff flagged numerous technical issues that apply at different stages. Henson said the project must comply with waterway overlay criteria about tree removal, riparian vegetation, area of special interest setbacks and floodplain provisions, and that some technical details (stormwater design, building‑code fire access) are typically addressed in the building‑permit review rather than the planning hearing.

“The failure to address an issue with sufficient specificity may preclude an appeal on that issue to the Land Use Board of Appeals,” Henson reminded the commission as part of the quasi‑judicial procedure statement.

Applicant engineer Derek Marie presented a preliminary stormwater approach that sized an infiltration gallery for a 25‑year, 60‑minute storm event, and said the gallery was placed near the proposed building footprint with provisions to move or deepen the system before building permit issuance. “I designed this for a 25 year event,” Marie said in summarizing the preliminary stormwater calculations.

Neighbors and technical consultants urged greater scrutiny. Several residents and the Rimrock West homeowners association argued the property is subject to private covenants (CC&Rs) that prohibit multiple dwellings on a single lot or that require association approval for drive and common‑area work. The applicants’ attorney disputed that legal reading and said the property was consolidated into a single tax lot in 1996; opponents countered that a separate amendment and easement history leave unresolved questions of what land is governed by the CC&Rs.

Legal counsel for some neighbors cited case law that can require review of private restrictions if those restrictions make compliance with applicable public approval criteria impossible. Neighbors also asked the commission to consider public‑safety effects of adding a home to a subdivision with one entrance/egress. Local attorneys and the homeowners association said the Oregon fire code and local minimum development standards together effectively limit fire access in areas with a single access point and that the addition of another dwelling could increase the subdivision’s exposure during a fire.

The city’s fire marshal appeared and summarized the fire code standard: when the local code applies, officials review access and available water supply for firefighting at the building permit stage. The fire marshal told commissioners that the code requires two points of access for some subdivisions with certain numbers of dwellings; the marshal said departments may work with applicants on alternatives, but such decisions are made at building permit review.

Stormwater experts flagged technical constraints. Consultant Dan Capozzola, who described himself as a stormwater specialist, said the site sits over dense basalt and that typical infiltration galleries will not perform as designed without extensive subsurface work; he suggested the applicant may require an underground storage solution or treatment measures to meet Department of Environmental Quality requirements.

Ecological concerns were raised, too. Witnesses noted a slow side channel and wetlands on or adjacent to the property that support riparian vegetation and could provide habitat for amphibians such as spotted frogs; those commenters urged fuller state and federal permitting checks if construction would affect those areas.

The applicant’s team said they revised the project after earlier iterations: the larger house originally proposed was reduced and moved farther from the river; proposed driveway extensions into homeowners association property were removed from the current scope because the applicant did not have HOA authorization. The applicant told the commission the current design meets the waterway overlay setbacks and that remaining technical issues could be resolved at the building permit stage.

Because parties asked for more time to submit written evidence (one letter filed that morning explicitly requested the record remain open), the commission agreed to leave the written record open and to set a detailed schedule. The commission member acting as chair asked planning‑division staff to package incoming materials and to return with the matter for deliberation on May 12. The commission’s continuation passed unanimously.

What the commission did and why it matters: The commission did not decide the application; instead it gave all parties an extended opportunity to submit written evidence and rebuttal before the commission deliberates in public. That schedule preserves parties’ rights to make the record while ensuring the commission will have time to weigh technical materials, legal memoranda about CC&Rs and easement history, and any updated stormwater, arborist or fire‑access engineering analyses.

Next steps: The commission left the written record open (first submission period through April 21), allowed a rebuttal period (through April 28), and gave the applicant final rebuttal time (through May 5). The commission will deliberate on May 12 based on the written record and will not reopen testimony at that meeting. If the commission issues a decision, it could be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals.

Provenance: Staff’s quasi‑judicial hearing statement, the applicant’s engineer presentation, multiple public comments raising CC&R, fire access, stormwater and habitat concerns, and the commission’s continuation motion are recorded in the meeting transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting - 4/14/2025 - 5:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","A contentious hearing on April 14 about a proposed second detached dwelling at 659 Northwest Silverbuckle was continued by the Bend Planning Commission; the record was left open so neighbors, technical specialists and the applicant can add written evidence on CC&Rs, fire access, stormwater and wetlands.","taxTitle","Bend, Deschutes County, Oregon","taxId",2850,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6604228,"Planning commission approves Deschutes River home with conditions after debate over removal of large spruce",3810,242000,4052000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2993255-940bbfc23c2059d64805b4191297d134&start=242&end=4052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2993255-940bbfc23c2059d64805b4191297d134/thumbnail_242000.jpg","/articles/6604228/Bend/Deschutes-County/Oregon/Planning-commission-approves-Deschutes-River-home-with-conditions-after-debate-over-removal-of-large-spruce","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604228-6fa02a2262e73d3353e94351dcb0f1a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771125400&Signature=eLz6xkCZBmi6ZThzdJFJQVb5OvnM6GeQskJmcqMuyOguoxRoqqbdK17KpeqEy76BzwJKAKoLPWXBzAB9FyPC9dfCbj5XjXP7cQWe2nsjlu1jsvzE8ZXmABRB6EcyPa2vrmX4b7-s8x0-MZrrBG-oLtXQuQ-ixevxFqJJt5npZ8rfaXUpH5nrrKU0yiscRQTHiQNzK8ZFPCp9wxgIC3jaSOeGX7KpkorN7CoAP6xd~jvVCf0jbD3pGpxsw1qKqHCUmTBvCGEmPqowQ11llTEuDqy7Eu3PN8Dg5lIZqce~iE7j4-hEghUyiGhoOvCoCKkbpWvleSZzSGiQE9NilZJNoA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","BEND, Ore. — The Bend Planning Commission on April 14 approved a proposal for a new single-unit detached dwelling at 1714 Northwest Bridal Road in the Deschutes River Corridor, finding the project meets waterway overlay standards but adding conditions tied to landscaping and tree removal.

The commission voted to approve the application, with a specific condition allowing removal of a 30-inch Colorado blue spruce (referred to in the staff report as tree number 12) only if the applicant submits a revised landscaping plan showing that area revegetated with native riparian plants. The approval also requires additional screening plantings on the southeast property line.

The project proposes a 5,201-square-foot single-family home and a 994-square-foot attached garage on the west side of the Deschutes River. Staff planner Michelle Patrick described the site and the applicable waterway overlay standards, including requirements for tree removal, riparian setbacks and Deschutes River Corridor design review. Patrick said the proposed building footprint lies outside the 40-foot Deschutes River Corridor boundary and the 30-foot riparian setback, but that portions of the design require tree removals to accommodate the development.

“My name is Michelle Patrick. I’m an associate planner in our planning division,” Patrick said during her presentation and led the commission through tree removal, riparian and design criteria in the Waterway Overlay Zone.

The staff report and the applicant’s submittal included an arborist report. According to the arborist’s findings and the applicant’s presentation, several trees are proposed for removal because they intersect the proposed footprint or were judged hazardous by the consultant. The applicant’s planner, Greg Blackmore, summarized that the arborist cited the large blue spruce as atypical for the corridor and potentially vulnerable in saturated soils and wind events; Blackmore said the arborist provided hazard justification under the code and therefore asked that the tree be allowed to be removed.

“The arborist has provided that adequate justification per the code, and therefore, it’s requested to be removed,” Blackmore said.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant for added specificity and mitigation. Staff recommended several conditions of approval to meet waterway overlay and riparian criteria: substitution of a more appropriate alder species for one shown on the landscape plan, adding two additional trees for screening on the southeast property line, and a requirement that if tree number 12 is removed the exposed area not be replanted with turf but restored with native riparian species.

The applicant team, which included architect Jason Bauer and landscape designer Becky Shaw, told the commission that removing the spruce would allow a planting and screening approach that better fits the overall landscape plan; they also said the owners prefer to retain the tree if it can be shown not to be hazardous. The applicant added that they aim to submit building permit plans in early May.

Divergent views surfaced during the hearing. Several commissioners said the city needs on‑staff arborist expertise to make consistent determinations about tree hazard and removal; the city confirmed it recently budgeted a full‑time arborist in the community development department and expects the new hire to start in May. Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to provide clearer evidence about hazard and to document alternatives prior to permit issuance.

The commission approved the application with the staff‑recommended conditions and the added requirement that the landscaping plan be revised to revegetate the removal area with native plants if tree number 12 is permitted for removal. The vote to approve was unanimous.

What it means: The commission’s approval allows the applicant to proceed toward building permits, subject to the conditions. If the applicant removes the large blue spruce, the area must be restored with native riparian species rather than new turf; in any case the final planting and stormwater measures must be shown and approved at the building permit stage. The decision may be appealed under the Land Use Board of Appeals process if parties contend applicable criteria were not addressed.

Provenance: The staff presentation and the commission motion and vote are recorded in the meeting transcript; staff’s description of applicable standards, the arborist rationale and the commission’s conditions appear in the record.

Next steps: The applicant stated an intent to submit building permit plans in early May; required revisions identified by the commission and staff must be completed before building permit issuance.","The Bend Planning Commission approved a proposal for a new single-family house on the Deschutes River with conditions including native revegetation if a large blue spruce is removed. The decision followed detailed testimony from staff, the applicant and neighbors about tree removal, riparian setbacks and screening.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6604219,"Planning commission backs three tax‑increment finance plans to support workforce housing",3635,10005000,13640000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2993255-940bbfc23c2059d64805b4191297d134&start=10005&end=13640","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2993255-940bbfc23c2059d64805b4191297d134/thumbnail_10005000.jpg","/articles/6604219/Bend/Deschutes-County/Oregon/Planning-commission-backs-three-taxincrement-finance-plans-to-support-workforce-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6604219-b5b7bcba818e6a5cde89b0bc9e96b3bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771125400&Signature=KNHpnwaoPwJVxCnFMS64rZReyVwYt9JRCPid~vGhMmJ5zS35~tCI2~8Osd6XxC7Pp3GjfAdvzrZTrCWaWq5AJEeJ-scoyHxVS6FNnE2Hg28k2lkpQCIgQOjmn~so4w-Reu69Um2LypZligY8piKVvJC3sOqwVHO0sVkIVczBcL7kMnLbQXChXtJ6n-0rzuZasmZqcAY~F3KoS5fFixjjBNLDX~-engOcrXladSSkp8veBgIJ74rEAzzYq1t1j06DJ18-PEYdSvg9tGXxMJGncY9Bsh2K0bGcWu5Y4L5f8QU291Zj-gIYBqzhCTIvJFxUWpEuyuxzDizestWmoBmCqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","BEND, Ore. — The Bend Planning Commission on April 14 recommended that city council adopt three site‑specific tax‑increment finance plans intended to support new housing projects that include affordable units for workforce households.

The commission voted unanimously to forward plans described in staff materials as Bridgeridge (a northwest Bend site), Century (two adjacent projects referred to in staff materials as Century West and Century Bluff) and Viridian (a high‑density site near NorthWest Mount Washington and Shevlin Park Road). Staff said the targeted developments are already in the city’s site‑plan pipeline and that the TIF plans would be used to rebate a portion of the property taxes paid by those projects if they meet the agreed affordability, local sourcing and energy efficiency conditions.

City staff explained that the Bend Urban Renewal Agency adopted a policy enabling property tax rebate assistance for housing developments that provide units affordable to households at roughly 90 percent of area median income (AMI). The proposed TIF plans set maximum rebate terms — in these cases 30 to 32 years — and anticipate that projects complying with the affordability and local‑contractor incentives would receive a portion of the incremental property tax revenues as annual rebates.

Elizabeth Ochsall of the city attorney’s office and John Angeli, urban renewal project manager, briefed commissioners on the plan boundaries, estimated maximum indebtedness (a forecasting figure representing the upper limit of anticipated rebate payments), and the statutory and local plan‑conformance findings required under Oregon law. Staff emphasized that these site‑specific plans differ from broad urban‑renewal districts because each plan is tied to a known project that has already obtained site‑plan approval, allowing a specific nexus between the proposed use of incremental taxes and the comprehensive plan goals supporting infill and housing near transit and services.

The three sites differ in ownership, size and context. Century comprises two parcels near Southwest Reed Market and Mount Washington Drive and was described by staff as mixed‑use employment land appropriate for multiunit housing near transit and employment centers. Bridgeridge (staff also referenced a name used in the draft materials) is a roughly 6‑acre parcel staff identified for housing that meets gap—workforce—affordability objectives. Viridian was presented as a high‑density residential plan on publicly owned land that will transfer to private development under a lease and then be subject to tax increment accounting; that parcel’s frozen base value is zero because it is publicly owned today.

Staff tied each plan to the Bend Comprehensive Plan policies that promote compact development, infill near transit corridors and mixed‑use activity centers, and to the city’s housing goals and the state’s housing‑needs assessment. Commissioners asked questions about how rebate amounts are calculated (they reflect the anticipated incremental portion of the city’s share of property taxes) and how the program is administered each year (projects must both pay property taxes and certify compliance with affordability and other program conditions before any rebate is paid).

After the staff presentation, the commission voted to recommend that city council adopt the three TIF plans. The commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to council for a May 21 public hearing; the Bend Urban Renewal Agency’s previous action recommending the plans was cited in staff materials.

Why it matters: The proposed plans use tax increment financing in a narrow, project‑by‑project way to reduce developers’ operating cost by rebating a portion of property taxes when the projects provide units targeted to households at about 90 percent AMI. Staff presented the approach as a measured way for the city to leverage urban renewal resources to deliver workforce housing without broad new borrowing across a large urban renewal district.

Next steps: The planning commission’s unanimous recommendation will be forwarded for a public hearing before city council on May 21. If council adopts the plans, the developments would still need to meet their site‑plan and building‑permit requirements; rebates would be paid only after each project certifies ongoing compliance with affordability and related conditions each year.","The Bend Planning Commission unanimously recommended city council approve three site‑specific tax‑increment finance (TIF) plans — Bridgeridge, Century (Century West & Century Bluff) and Viridian — intended to fund rebates that promote housing affordable to households at about 90 percent of area median income.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Neighbors press planning commission on second‑home proposal in Rimrock West; hearing continued for further evidence

Planning commission approves Deschutes River home with conditions after debate over removal of large spruce

Planning commission backs three tax‑increment finance plans to support workforce housing