Bend council continues Cavi master plan after residents, staff dispute canal-as-open-space

Bend City Council on June 17 continued deliberations on the proposed Cavi major community master plan after a two-hour hearing that highlighted sharp divisions over how the project counts open space.

Nicholas, an associate planner, presented staff's recommendation and identified the primary sticking point: whether the canal easement running through the northeast portion of the site can be counted toward the master plan's required 10% open space. Staff found that, if the canal corridor plus adjacent Park & Recreation easements and interior trails were counted, the minimum open-space threshold was met; however, staff said the plan failed one key test for a requested deviation to the block-perimeter standard and recommended adding an additional local street to reduce a central block perimeter that exceeds the 2,000-foot limit.

Several neighborhood residents told council the canal is not usable open space and therefore should not be counted. Karen Johnson, whose property fronts the canal, said the waterway cannot be used safely and called it inappropriate to count irrigation infrastructure as community open space. Michelle Martin and Patty McCormack echoed planning-commission concerns that the application had insufficient usable open space available to future residents.

The applicant, represented by Joey Sher of AKS and Anna Bozich of Polish Homes, said the plan has been revised since the planning commission hearing to increase on-site open space by roughly an acre and a half and to add improved trail connections and a pedestrian undercrossing to Alpenlow Park. The applicant also argued that the proposed plan improves multimodal circulation and that pedestrian midblock connections would make the neighborhood more walkable, even if one vehicle-orientated block perimeter is longer than the zoning standard.

After extensive questioning of staff and the applicant about open-space definitions, block-perimeter tradeoffs, and the ability to develop the proposed mixed-employment parcel, council members agreed they were divided but that a majority saw a path to approval if staff could prepare revised findings that: (a) reflect council's direction on whether the canal may be counted or, if not, where additional usable open space will be provided; and (b) revise the master-plan figures to show a straighter, continuous multimodal path between the undercrossing and the northeastern trail. Council voted to continue deliberations and asked staff to return with updated written findings and an adjusted figure; the final deliberation was scheduled for the July 15 business meeting.

Council's continuation preserves options: the applicant offered to accept a condition that requires meeting open-space minimums without counting the water channel; staff said they would draft findings and coordinate a final plan figure after council direction. The decision to delay gives staff time to produce posted findings and gives council members an opportunity to review written conclusions in advance of a definitive vote.