2000-83-Minutes for Meeting January 26,1999 Recorded 2/22/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 83
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*02000-83 * Vol -Page Printed: 03/01/2000 16:28:51
DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE
(This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with
ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect
the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.)
I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received
and duly recorded in Deschutes County records:
DATE AND TIME:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Feb. 22, 2000; 10:59 a.m.
Regular Meeting (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 56
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
KE U .HED
M - 12000
C 314�'D �3
MINUTES
Wednesday, January 26,199*06jj "�
Sisters Fire Station
Chair Linda Swearingen opened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Commissioners present
were Linda Swearingen, Dennis Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also present were Kevin
Harrison and Chris Schmoyer, Community Development; Deputy Legal Counsel
Bruce White; the applicants and their representatives, and numerous citizens.
BEFORE THE BOARD WAS A PUBLIC HEARING ON TWO PLAN
AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE PROPOSALS ADJACENT TOITHE CITY
OF SISTERS (FILES ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - BARCLAY MEADOWS- BUSINESS
PARK; AND FILES ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 -SISTERS SCHOOL DISTRICT#6)
Chair Linda Swearingen opened with a reading of the Introduction. Burden of
Proof and Applicable Criteria, Hearings Procedure, Order of Presentation, Pre -
hearing Contacts, and Challenges for Bias, Prejudgment or Personal Interest
(Exhibit A).
Question 1: Are there any undisclosed, pre -hearing contacts to be disclosed?
SWEARINGEN: No.
DEWOLF: No.
LUKE: No.
Question 2: Do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any
ex parte observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning
these applications?
S WEARINGEN: No.
DEWOLF: No.
LUKE: No.
Question 3: Any there any challenges of qualifications, bias, pre judgement or
personal interest?
NONE PRESENTED.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 1 of 56 Pages
Chair Linda Swearingen then asked for the hearing to begin.
Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner with Deschutes County's Community
Development Department, the explained the issues before the Board.
SCHMOYER:
The matter before you this evening are two individual proposals requesting approval
to change the land designation and zoning of each of the subject parcels from
agricultural to industrial, and from EFU to IL. He then gave an overview of the
proposals and a description of the properties involved in the proposals. He referred
to information contained in two staff reports, dated August 17, 1999 (Exhibit B and
Exhibit C); the Decisions of the Hearing Officer (Exhibit D and Exhibit E); the
.verbatim, transcript of a public hearing before the Hearings Officer; dated August 24,
? ,.1999 (Exhibit F); and a map of the properties and area (smaller version of same,
Exhibit G).
He then explained the reasoning of the Hearings Officer to recommend denial the
applications on November 16, 1999, citing potential traffic problems, including
those at specific intersections in Sisters.
SCHMOYER:
It was noted that the applicant stated much of the traffic generated from a change
of zoning and use would use an arterial identified as McKinney Road, which is not
a road at the present time. It is identified on a draft city plan, but is not an
easement or road now.
The Hearings Officer determined that the applicants in each matter were not able to
demonstrate that the existing Sisters transportation network could accommodate
the types of traffic generated by industrial uses in the subject properties. Another
reason cited was the reduction of privacy, property values, views and basic
incompatibility with adjacent properties. (He referred to oversized maps showing
the roads and streets in the Sisters area as well as the subject properties and
adjoining properties - Exhibit G.)
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 2 of 56 Pages
SCHMOYER:
Both properties were voted on and approved for annexation by the City of Sisters.
Some heavy industrial use would be allowed if the zoning change was allowed by
Deschutes County.
DEWOLF:
A letter had been received from Neil Thompson, Planning Director of the City, in
support of the applications. (Exhibit H)
SCHMOYER:
Mr. Thompson was directed by the City Council to write the letter.
... BRUCE WHITE:
I am Bruce White, Deputy Legal Counsel for Deschutes County. Have we had
received any written comments from citizens tonight?
S WEARINGEN:
Various letters from citizens have been presented and have been entered into the
record. [Exhibit I (1) through I (8), plus the sign-up sheet, Exhibit S].
Tia Lewis and Leslee Banks, representing the applicants Barclay Meadows Industrial
Park and the Sisters School District respectively, then introduced themselves.
BANKS:
I am Leslee Banks, P. O. Box 1689, Sisters, a land use planner representing the
Sisters School District. The two applications are separate applications, but the
criteria for both were found by the Hearings Officer to be nearly identical; thus,
they have been presented jointly. The issues cited by the Hearings Officer have
been readdressed; and substantial changes have been made in how the applications
were put back together. It is not the same application, nor the same traffic study,
nor same projection of square footage that will be developed. We have recognized
what the Hearings Officer found were some of the limitations in the prior
applications, and have made all efforts to address those.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 3 of 56 Pages
TIA LEWIS:
I am Tia Lewis, 1201 NW Wall Street, Suite 300, Bend, representing Barclay
Meadows Business Park. I ask that the previous record submitted into the School
District file become a part of the record of the Barclay Meadows file. Is it was
clear that there are two separate applications but one record?
WHITE:
We realize there are two separate applications but much of this has been
consolidated for ease of administration since the issues of both applications are
very similar. Please make it made clear that when testimony is given whether it is
for one or both. There will be separate decisions but one record.
BANKS:
I want to identify some of the differences in the applications before the Board of
Commissioners. The principal difference is in .our traffic study, to be submitted as
an exhibit. (Exhibit J)
There were two separate traffic studies in the past. There was a reference to the
Kittleson traffic study as not being adequate. Some of the areas where it was
found out to be inadequate were the methodology that it used, the used acreage,
and the use stated was not seen as the worst-case scenario type of use in trying to
project the future possible uses of the property. A decision was made by the
School District to share their traffic study so that they didn't have to duplicate the
efforts that we had established through the David Evans study. The methodology
was combined, creating a different impact of traffic on the intersections.
The second change in the traffic study was to restrict the amount of development
that can be done on the two properties to 68% of the possible development,
because one of the intersections exceeds the volume -to -capacity ratio in a future
year, which is the standard now used on State Highways.
We have to look at a 15 -year planning period, which is also a difference in the
traffic studies. The prior traffic studies looked at a 20 -year period. The State
Transportation Planning Rule was modified in between these time periods, so we
projected out the numbers based on the 15 -year period.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 4 of 56 Pages
BANKS:
So there have been changes in the analysis of the traffic, and responses by both of
the applicants to modify the maximum square footage that they will able to build
on their properties in future development plans.
SWEARINGEN:
Would this be done in the form of restrictions?
BANKS:
It will be done in the form of a restriction, either a deed restriction or whatever is
appropriate from County Counsel and the Board of Commissioners. Both of the
applicants are very open to whatever will create the greatest ease for administering
this.
DEWOLF:
Will you be explaining the difference in the methodology, so I don't feel this is just
a shell game, and that there is a logic behind it.
BANKS:
This will be explained, and David Natowski is attending the meeting in case there are
specific questions. There will be data on all of the intersections as they are projected
out by ODOT. Peter Russell from ODOT is also here to help answer questions.
The other changes are that at the time of the initial hearings neither the Sisters
School District nor Barclay Meadows offered specific mitigation in terms of
improvements to the road system. We have now come back with offers of money
towards this mitigation, and we will specifically identify these. Both applicants are
open to having money dedicated to future improvements to the intersections that
have been identified as failing in this next 15 -year period.
LEWIS:
Again, we are talking about the future; we have no build -out until there is actually
construction going on and there are many years to come until we see intersections
that don't meet State standards. We are looking towards the future, which is also
attached to the maximum square footage that is going to be permitted to be built on
each of these developments.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 5 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
Is your proposal that the mitigation will be done in concert with the development?
BANKS:
Yes.
SWEARINGEN:
How would you explain that you don't have a transportation plan that identifies
those things right now, either approved through ODOT and the County and the
City.
BANKS:
The Transportation Planning Rule is a document that plans be there, but in terms of
the City of Sisters they are required to have a transportation system plan through
periodic review. The City has not received its periodic review notice yet.
The Comprehensive Plan update that they have been going through has been City
initiated, all the way back to 1990; that, too, has nothing to do with periodic
review. We have identified improvements through discussions with ODOT what is
expected to be on the TSP. There is a process that began in December through a
committee, working on the TSP for the City; this work may be done within a
twelve-month cycle, and then the public process will get under way. That is still
some time out.
SWEARINGEN:
That is really backwards from how it's normally done. Usually the transportation
plan is in place first, with problem areas identified, and then a governing body
looks at it and analyzes the impact to those areas. It then would indicate how much
you would need to pay based on your contribution to the problem. What I need to
understand is how can we hold someone accountable to a plan that not adopted.
BANKS:
I think there are ways in which this can be done.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 6 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
Your contention is that you are going to get us around the fact that there is no TSP
and there's no comprehensive plan.
BANKS:
That's right. And this is by no means the first city that has had development that
has needed to make improvements, and has stepped forward with those
contributions that do not have TSPs.
SWEARINGEN:
You'll need to cite those, as from seeing the record I know at least for myself that's
a real impediment to overturning the hearings officer, because it just normally is
not done this way. I don't know how we can legally do that. I expect you to show
us how this is legally defensible. f
BANKS:
The other thing that has been done, and I believe both of the parties have done it
previously, is continuing meetings with the neighbors to try to get specific ideas as
to measures that could mitigate some of their concerns. We will address those
tonight.
(Ms. Banks then went through the main criteria that both applications had to meet,
and they were found to be in conformance of these criteria, state criteria that are
required for an urban growth boundary expansion and exceptions - Exhibit K.)
BANKS:
They evaluated the properties and found they were unsuitable and not productive
for farming due to the poor soil and the size of the parcels. They were also found
to be inadequate for grazing purposes, even if irrigated. These parcels have been
identified in the comprehensive plan through a public process by the City as being
needed for industrial land. There is only 5.94 acres of industrial land in Sisters
now, and most of that consists of smaller parcels. More industrial land is required
in order to meet statewide planning goals for economic development - Goal 9.
(Exhibit L) The plan has gone to the City and back to the County.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 7 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
Would you clarify. Is there an existing comprehensive plan through the year 2000?
BANKS:
That was the original plan, written in 1980.
DEWOLF:
So we don't have one yet for the next twenty years. We are also not in periodic
review now?
BANKS:
I don't know when the DLCD will initiate that. It's coming up.
LUKE:
You mentioned that the plan has gone back to the County. County staff is not
aware of the plan being back there; it is probably back at DLCD.
DEWOLF:
Can anyone from the City answer this? Is there no one here from the City?
KEVIN HARRISON:
I'm Kevin Harrison from County Planning, and I'm not aware of the County
receiving it.
BANKS:
It's my understanding that it had gone back to the DLCD, and has been reviewed
by the local representative there, and I had understood that it had gone to the
County as a copy. I stand corrected.
The initial criteria that needed to be established were the need for the land, which
both applications were found to have met, as somewhere between 68 and 82 acres
has been established as a need. We undertook two different methodologies in
looking at need: historic absorption rate and population projections, and used a
second methodology called employees per acre: how many employees can you
expect in businesses per acre within the community. The hearings officer
established a range that was needed for the economic future of the community.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 8 of 56 Pages
BANKS:
We also had to establish that both properties were suitable for the industrial
designation, and the zoning that is being requested, which is light industrial. The
Sisters School District property had been in an industrial use as a sawmill at one
time.
That criteria was found to have been met as the Hearings Officer looked at the
Barclay Meadows property, as the runway protection zone had to be evaluated.
Barclay had already decided that they were going to restrict development in that
area of approximately seven acres, and were going to offer that land to the
community for park use since structures cannot be established in the runway
protection zone.
DEWOLF:
What was the Barclay property used for in the past?
LEWIS:
It is a portion of what used to be a larger farm property, which was split up; in fact,
the County previously participated in a water rights transfer, moving the water
from that and other properties and vacating all easements connected with that
property.
DEWOLF:
So it was a farm.
LEWIS:
As a part of a much larger parcel, it was. It has never been farmed in its current
configuration.
BANKS:
Both of the properties are also adjacent to the existing industrial park to the south.
This would allow for orderly expansion of facilities and utilities. It allows for the
City's water system to be looped, and it allows for future expansion of the
municipal sewer system eventually.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 9 of 56 Pages
BANKS:
An alternative lands analysis needed to be undertaken, which was a very
significant analysis. This is when both of the parties decided that they had mutual
interests and joined forces. We looked at every parcel that is in within the Sisters
urban growth boundary, and evaluated it in terms of zoning, size, whether it had a
septic system, a drill hole, structures relative to setbacks, and so on.
When we were done, the evaluation said that there are not lands where you can
find enough acreage to establish industrial land anywhere outside of the parcels
that are being opposed. The initial analysis certainly indicated that there were
lands within the existing urban growth boundary sufficient to address the need for
68 to 82 acres.
The second piece of this is that we had to address the lands that are around the
urban growth boundary and identify characteristics within each one of.those,
whether they are or aren't more appropriate than the two parcels in question. We
looked at the parcel that is 36 acres to the east of Camp Polk Road, now zoned RR -
10. It was not found to be more conducive for IL zoning, since it is separated from
existing IL zoned lands, it is on the other side of a collector road, it is currently
used for grazing, and it is not an adequate size to fit the needs of 68 to 82 acres.
We also looked at other areas on the southwest and southeast, and those were not
found to fit the needs better than the two subject properties. We then moved on to
the EESE (Environmental, Economic, Social and Energy Consequences) having to
be evaluated. The issue here is whether including the two subject properties within
the Sisters urban growth boundary would create environmental, economic, social
or energy consequences which are significantly more adverse than those that would
typically result from including other land that is either zoned EFU or Forest.
The Hearings Officer found that converting the properties that were analyzed for
industrial uses would have significantly more adverse EESE consequences. Those
properties included the Patterson llama ranch, some EFU properties to the
southeast that are engaged in livestock raising, and forest zoned properties to the
north and south.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 10 of 56 Pages
BANKS:
The fourth issue with which we had to deal was compatibility. They were found to
be compatible with other light industrial zoned lands because of their location,
their size, the need for the acreage, and because they are adjacent to collectors.
The Hearings Officer found that they are compatible with the US Forest Service
compound, with uses there very typical of uses in light industrial zones such as
shops, offices, parking areas and so on.
The Hearing Officer also raised the issue of whether heavier industrial uses are
inherently incompatible with residential uses. This leads us into the differences
between the zoning ordinances of the County and the City of Sisters. Once these
properties come within the urban growth boundary, they are then subject to the
City's zoning ordinance and some of the heavy industrial uses are root :even listed.
(I. SWEARINGEN:
.There's no doubt that they are compatible with the existing industrial zoned.
properties. How are you going to transition from the north with all .those
residences there? What is the legal mechanism to do that?
WH ITE:
If this is approved, and they are brought into the City, subject to City zoning, how
will the City zoning be applied?
I r� 4
What happens in any other city inside the urban growth boundary when there's an
application is clearly that application goes to the City. They are asking that the
County approving this zoning and bring it into the urban growth boundary at the
same time. The only way it can come under City zoning is if the land is annexed.
WHITE:
My question is how do we get from that annexation vote, with the City bringing
the property into the UGB, how can the City offer better protection?
LEWIS:
We are asking you to bring this property within the UGB because you are the only
people with the power to do so. We're also asking you to zone it light industrial.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99- I /PA -99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 11 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
The only light industrial zone you have the power to apply is the County's zoning,
which is the urban area ordinance. Both properties have received annexation
approval through the City Council; a part of the annexation approval was also a
contemplation that the properties would be rezoned light industrial under the City
ordinance when it is annexed. When it is annexed, they will not apply the urban
area ordinance.
We're asking you to apply the urban area ordinance, but when you are analyzing
this as to what uses are going to be committed on this property, when the first
building goes on the ground it will be under the City zoning ordinance. The reason
we are in such a conundrum of a process is that the legal requirements as
interpreted by LCDC, and set forth in the City's zoning ordinance and the voter
authorization process. These were not coordinated with each other when enacted.
We tried to get annexation and zone change approval prior to coming to you,
because one of the criteria in the urban area zone change ordinance is that
annexation accompany the zone change. We went there first. We got Council to
approve annexation and zone change, we got the electorate to approve annexation,
but the City couldn't do it because LCDC said it couldn't be done until the UGB
land use approval is finalized. Essentially we are waiting for Council to do an
order to complete the annexation, which cannot be entered until this process is
complete.
DEWOLF:
So what you plan to provide us before we're done is a legal way to assure that if
this is approved, that all of this happens in a timely and orderly fashion so that the
result everyone is seeking is actually and legally done.
LEWIS:
And that legal way to do that is for the County to utilize the procedure in your
ordinance called a resolution of intent to rezone. This would become effective
upon annexation approval and rezoning by the City. Your UGB approval would
become effective prior so that we can satisfy LCDC's concern that we don't annex
property outside the UGB.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 12 of 56 Pages
LUKE:
There are several cities in this state where the city limits are bigger than the urban
growth boundary. Why cannot this property be annexed before bringing it into the
UGB?
LEWIS:
The Attorney General's office didn't have an answer for me other than that they
would appeal the annexation order if it were entered before the plan amendment is
complete.
LUKE:
The Legislature does not belong in individual city's land issues. Clearly these
properties were outside the UGB. The community of La Pine is looking at city
limits larger than the urban growth boundary. ;It amazes me that there is nothing
you are able to do in this regard.
LEWIS:
We will abide by your recommendation to the extent that it works for us. If we
can't get there from here, we are going to come back to the LCDC and tell them
they've put us in a "circle jerk", and what are they going to do about it.
The other offer we are willing to make is to restrict, but deed restrictions, the uses
allowed on these properties to eliminate those heavy industrial uses.
DEWOLF:
That is another legal issue that I want to have clearly explained. When we have
outright uses, by state law, I want to understand clearly that it is legal for you to
restrict yourself and any future property owners that those deed restrictions are, in
fact, enforceable in a court of law.
S WEARINGEN:
I am wondering why you didn't come in to try to change the zoning to match the
City's so that this wasn't another hurdle that you had to jump over, as it certainly
creates a real compatibility issue. I understand where you are trying to get, and
you've come up with a creative mechanism. I just don't know if it is legally
defensible.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 13 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
You have the opportunity to enter that resolution of intent to rezone.
SWEARINGEN:
Don't you normally do that before you file land use applications for plan
amendments? Had you done that, and already changed the uses, wouldn't that have
taken care of that issue that the Hearings Officer noted?
LEWIS:
If that application were approved. There are people who would object to
eliminating the opportunity for those uses zone -wide versus properties that are
nearby to residential areas. There's no guarantee that a text amendment of that sort
would necessarily have been approved. Also, hindsight is 20/20.
At this point we were not concerned about these uses in the urban area ordinance
because we always knew that we were going to develop under the City's ordinance,
and we always knew that none of these heavier industrial uses were what we
contemplated. We have absolutely no problem not allowing them on the properties
through an enforceable mechanism. We didn't think about it at that point. If we
had, I'm not sure we would have made the same decisions. We have spent one and
one-half years preparing for this hearing, and we've done a lot of work. We have
many people who want this change. Of course there are some people who want
this property to remain a meadow, and we won't be able to overcome that hurdle.
WHITE:
Are there other industrial -type areas where County zoning is already in place now?
LEWIS:
There is currently no other industrial land available within the Sisters urban area.
WHITE:
If the County ordinance were amended to match Sisters', would this impact other
areas?
LEWIS:
Not any existing land at the present time.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-994 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 14 of 56 Pages
WHITE:
How can we guarantee City zoning would be applied? If there is a decision to
expand the UGB, how do you assure that the consequences of that zoning change
will deal with the compatibility issue?
LEWIS:
You could make it a condition of approval.
LUKE:
Clearly this is a strange situation. Does the City have the authority to pass an
ordinance that this property can be annexed prior to coming into the UGB? What
happens if the City does not annex it?
LEWIS:
City Council has told us that as soon gas this is approved, the order annexing the
property will be effective. We assume- the same order will apply.
WHITE:
How did they hold hearings on property that is not within the City's UGB? Was
this process valid? I am uncertain as to whether than can be applied.
DEWOLF:
Can we hold this open until we obtain some answers from the City?
LUKE:
The citizens of Sisters voted; wasn't there a ballot title?
LEWIS:
It is in the record, with a voter pamphlet included. (Exhibit M)
BANKS:
This has previously been introduced as an exhibit by Bill Reed. It was hoped that
the City and County would meet to work these out, like they previously did with
the property where the high school now stands. The question seems to be what is
the applicable ordinance to be in place at the time of site development; that would
clearly be the Sisters' zoning ordinance.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-994 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 15 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
If there were uses that are allowed within the urban area zoning ordinance that are
objected to, you would voluntarily restrict them?
LEWIS:
Yes, we have voluntarily identified exactly what those uses are, both in meetings
with the neighbors and from the Hearings Officer's decision. (She then presented
literature, Exhibit N.) This is a comparison of the two zones. The Hearings
Officer's objections were not only related to the uses identified but the fact that
they were permitted outright as opposed to conditionally.
The Hearings Officer has stated her belief that the conditional use process provides
an additional opportunity and some authority for mitigation measures designed to s
reduce the impacts associated with what she considered to be these heavier
industrial uses. (Ms. Lewis then explained the various uses show in Exhibit O.)
Deed restrictions can be used to protect the area, particularly the northern part of
the properties, with those restrictions to run with the land.
WHITE:
There is some question as to new recording laws, that deed restrictions may not be
recordable. At this time CCRs are not unless they are attached to each deed.
There is no guarantee that even if the restrictions can be recorded, that this is
perpetual. Will enforcement be done by the neighbors to the north? The City of
Sisters? These would need to be recordable and enforceable by other than private
property owners.
LEWIS:
We feel we can come to a meeting of the minds on this issue. Also an option is a
limited use combining zone overlay, but this requires a lot more process. The
southern half would not be restricted.
LUKE:
Only 68% of the ground is to be developed?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 16 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
This would be the total, based upon square footage and tied to traffic trips going
through the area.
We have the supplemental transportation study (Exhibit J), which deals with Goal
12. For all practical purposes, Sisters has no industrial land supply. There seems
to be any argument that industrial land is needed, not only for their community but
also in order to comply with statewide goals. Requirements under Goal 9 put forth
an obligation to provide a sufficient quantity of industrial land to support their
economic development. The City is not in compliance. It is equally as important
to the City as is Goal 12, transportation.
Traffic facilities don't exist until a developer is there to pay for it. At this point it is
simply paper planning. We are not asking you for approval to put one more car on
the road or to dig one hole in the ground. We are only asking you for changes on
paper.
We have a lot more process to go through before one vehicle ever hits the road.
The Hearings Officer's decision undeniably concludes that the City is not in
compliance with Goal 9, and that the City needs industrial land, and that these two
properties are the only ones available for the City to meet its needs.
What it says is that the law, City of Sisters, won't allow me to let you provide
economic opportunities for your community to allow you to locate industrial use in
the community, because there are traffic problems. Also, that the applicants have
not proposed to fully fund or fix not only the traffic problems from their
development but the ones that exist right now.
Without looking at one law, I can tell you that this was not what was intended.
These laws cannot be interpreted in a vacuum; they have to fit into the world where
we live. Traffic facilities don't get built until the developers come in and pay for
them. Otherwise the residents of the City of Sisters will pay for them, and there is
no money to do that. Development can't go forward until we go into the UGB, at
least from an industrial perspective.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 17 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
There are no cars associated with this plan. This is paper planning. The
Transportation Planning Rule is also paper planning; it does not require for us to
construct traffic facilities as a part of this paper planning. What it requires us to do
is to plan for them, which is what we have done through this study coordinated
with ODOT, a memorandum of understanding and a cooperative improvement
agreement, both of which are sitting before the County, the City Council and
ODOT. We have the plans, the funding and the development restrictions in order
to comply with the TPR.
DEWOLF:
What you need to overcome in my mind is the undeniable fact that the City is not
in compliance with. Goal 12. The Hearings Officer made the correct conclusion,
because the applicant did not submit sufficient information to demonstrate
compliance with the TPR.
LEWIS:
We read Goal 12 differently. The evidence we will submit to you shows our
compliance with Goal 12, in the way that we read Goal 12. This is the Oregon
Administrative Rule, which implements Goal 12, commonly referred to as the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). (Exhibit P.) It is the rule that the Hearings
Officer interpreted and found that we did not meet. This is the rule in which Eric
Jacobson of LCDC lends his expertise in a letter.
There's a two-step process to reading this rule. The whole doesn't even apply
unless it is found that you significantly affect the transportation facility. (Refers to
Goal 12.) We disagree with the Hearings Officer on the interpretation of Item D,
as to what is the applicable TSP in this circumstance.
Eric Jacobson disagreed with her as well. The Hearings Officer lifted the analysis
from a court of appeals case, ODOT vs. Coos County, to determine that the Oregon
Highway Plan was the applicable TSP when dealing with intersections on state
highways. That decision contained absolutely no analysis as to why the OHP was
the TSP.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 18 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
We feel the term TSP is defined in the Administrative Rules and that DLCD, from
the perspective of their transportation planner, used TSP as a much broader term
than one document. This is not the only one applicable in this circumstance, and
certainly not the one that you look to when you try to decide whether you
significantly affect, and secondly if you do, how you amend it. The reason it is not
is the rule contemplates local jurisdictions as a part of this plan amendment process
can amend a document as a mitigation measure. One of the measures is to amend a
TSP. There are several ways to interpret its meaning.
DEWOLF:
Are you going to make a case that there is such a document or such a philosophy
around here that this could be considered to be a TSP?
LEWIS:
Yes. First you have to decide if you significantly affect. I won't argue that we do
or don't, because we're already figuring out what we're going to do fog` our
mitigation efforts.
DEWOLF:
Let's just jump to the chase. If you are proposing mitigation, you are already
admitting that you need it.
LEWIS:
Legally that's not our position. We are only proposing two of the mitigation
measures that are allowed. One is to limit the land uses to be consistent with the
plan function. This doesn't require a TSP. We will restrict the development to
68%. In reality that means we have assigned trips, which is a specific number of
trips that we can develop. Once those trips are gone, we're done until either the
facilities get more capacity by virtue of other traffic improvements, or we come
back with additional dollars to contribute to make sure traffic facilities function
acceptably.
DEWOLF:
Do you mean that a particular business would be expected to create a certain
number of vehicle trips, based upon the type of business?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 19 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
Yes. There is an Institute of Traffic Engineers' study that gives those estimates.
SWEARINGEN:
Have you thought about changing the configuration of the property? For example,
if you are going to limit it, why not put a buffer piece between Trappers' Point and
the lower part of the property?
LEWIS:
We thought about that, and that was one of the suggestions from the Hearings
Officer. However, from the Barclay Meadows perspective, the project would no
longer pencils if we did that.
S WEARINGEN:
You always have the option at a point in time. Perhaps you could do it in phases,
and address the transportation problems as you go. At least it would provide a
buffer and address the compatibility issue and the transportation problem.
LEWIS:
But it provides no protection that we will be given UGB amendment approval or
zone change approval, and ultimately development approval.
DEWOLF:
But as part of the whole process, if that was one of the deed restrictions as part of
annexation and zone change approval, you could restrict it to a specific
geographical area until certain things are met.
LEWIS:
What is it that you feel should be addressed, or what scenario are you seeking?
S WEARINGEN:
I am not convinced yet that you get where you want to be with our current
ordinance. If you change the pattern of development and go with phases.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 20 of 56 Pages
LUKE:
You are suggesting as part of the approval the properties be given a number of trip
credits. And the City will review this number for each phase or building?
LEWIS:
Sort of. It's managed by ODOT, and is not a condition of approval; the condition
of approval would be that we enter into the cooperative improvement with ODOT.
This has a little bit different language, but essentially that is what we are
suggesting.
The market is going to dictate how these properties develop. The services are here.
I know this does not offer anyone any protection, although it makes sense. The
market generally has a good protective mechanism of its own, dollar -wise.
I don't think what you are proposing addresses the issue any better than what we
have proposed. If we restrict the development to the southern half of the property
until sometime in the future, how does it make this project more compatible than it
was to begin with.
SWEARINGEN:
It absolutely does. Think of yourself as a resident up there. You have a buffer
zone for a while until certain things are addressed. It allows the City an
opportunity to clean up their zoning and to address their transportation issues. It's
not as critical where the property adjoins existing industrial. The northern part is
where your compatibility issues are.
LEWIS:
I don't think that the traffic issues are any different however these properties are
restricted.
SWEARINGEN:
I'm not talking about the traffic issue. There are two different issues, with
compatibility being one of them.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 21 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
From the compatibility perspective, the Hearings Officer denied these on the basis
of the heavier industrial uses. She did not find that the light industrial uses were
incompatible. We are willing to not do any of the heavier industrial uses at all, at
any time. I think that offers these residents more protection than the ability for us
to be able to develop them ten years from now.
JACK RIMM:
I'm one of the co -developer of Barclay Meadows. On the narrow issue of the
roads, it is easier to master plan than develop by phases. Sixty -plus acres will take
some time to be developed and absorbed.
As far as compatibility goes, I offer Karen Green's decision in this regard. We
agree with her, and we don't want heavy industrial. She said the neighbors can't be
guaranteed their views.
BRUCE WHITE:
How does 68% ultimately be enforced or restricted once the property is within the
City?
LEWIS:
Through a cooperative development agreement between the City and the
developer. There is a lot of case law out there as to their enforceability.
WHITE:
Can you adopt this? It's my understanding that cooperative agreements are only
viewed as interim TSP, and are not normally subject to the legislative process.
LEWIS:
I'm not prepared to cite you to something that would authorize a development
restriction in someone's comp plan. The enforceability of it is well established
through case law. We'll have to flush out what body it is embodied in. The beauty
of the transportation planning rule is it authorizes this to occur through the quasi-
judicial process.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 22 of 56 Pages
WHITE:
I'm not sure I agree with you in this regard.
LEWIS:
It's important that you know what we think we're obligated to do versus what we're
doing. If you significantly affect the facility, you have four mitigation measures
from which to choose. You can do one or all of them as long as you assure that the
allowed plan uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and
performance.
One of the mitigation measures we have chosen is to limit the allowed land uses.
The TSP does not play into this choice. If we limit the uses, we have met the
intent of the TPR. The other alternative that we are suggesting for a mitigation
measure is to amend the TSP to provide transportation facilities. That's where we
plan, with ODOT, to fund signals at the intersections that we impact; and to
contribute the dollars to those signals.
Our agreement is flexible enough that if those signals are not the transportation
improvements that are ultimately approved as a part of the TSP, then our dollars
will go toward what improvements are approved. Our dollars are based upon our
impact to these intersections, and they are specifically tied to the critical moves as
opposed to the overall traffic moving through these intersections.
DEWOLF:
So you're basing this on a study done by David Evans, estimating the impact on
these intersections. At what point, and who makes the decision about what this
impact really is?
LUKE:
Was David Evans hired by the City?
LEWIS:
That's correct. That's why the transportation planning rule requires only that you
plan. There's case law out there stating that you can't exact from developers at this
stage, because they aren't putting any cars on the road.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 23 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
So what it means is as the first building goes up, we exact an impact fee for that
specific business.
LEWIS:
Then we will know what those trips are, because you will have a specific type of
business. Right now it is anybody's guess what the actual trips will be. We are
only basing this on the estimates from the trip generation manual. That is all that
you can do at the plan amendment and zone change. That's why this stage is the
inappropriate stage in which to require developers to contribute money. We are
willing to do that, and to take that risk, because it will make for a better
development and because we have to work with all of these people again at some
time in the future. It also makes economic sense to agree to this rather than fight it.
The essence of our proposal.is that we have a total maximum between the two
properties of 411 p.m. peak hour trips, tied to a maximum of 500,000 developed
square feet between the two'properties, for all three streets being impacted.
Barclay would be at 202 trips; the school property would be at 209 trips.
DEWOLF:
So when it hits 412, what happens?
LEWIS:
You won't. We won't get a building permit to put one more trip on this road
system until we have either given the City more money or established that the
intersections now have more capacity.
These agreements are not new. They may be new to Deschutes County or to
Sisters, but aren't throughout the State. This methodology works well in a lot of
jurisdictions.
S WEARINGEN:
When these trips are used up, will there be no more development? Kind of first
come, first served?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 24 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
Correct. Anyone purchasing one of these properties will have prior knowledge.
(She refers to Exhibit J.)
WHITE:
What happens to the conclusion reached in the study if McKinney Butte Road is
never realized? The system could be overwhelmed if it is never built. Is the study
valid without this arterial? This could contribute to the failure of the system.
LEWIS:
The road is on an existing easement, but not on an adopted one. The legal aspect is
that we must comply with the TPR. We don't have to plan for every contingency or
lack thereof that could occur during the course of the 20 -year planning period. We
just have to make sure that we comply with function, capacity and performance
standards.
What the amendment to the TSP does is provide plans; what we're going to plan
for and how we're going to deal with our traffic. The TSP is for planning only; it
does not say we have to fund or build it. Our documents comply with this rule.
They do not assure you that these improvements will get built at a certain date in
time. Our agreement is flexible enough that we can take our dollars and contribute
towards those improvements.
Any one of those four as mitigation measures are okay, as long as the problem is
addressed. If one of them does it, fine; you've met the rule. If one doesn't do it,
then you have to do more than one.
What we're asking you to approve doesn't put one car on the road. We can't be
required to install something if we're not impacting the road. What it does it require
you to plan for the facility.
S WEARINGEN:
That's where I have a problem with it. You're planning for it, but you're the wrong
body to plan. The City of Sisters and Deschutes County should have put that road
on the map and should have gone through a public process, acquired right-of-way,
and addressed that.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-l/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 25 of 56 Pages
SWEARINGEN:
What you're doing is as the applicant is coming in and saying "hey, we agree
there's a problem, here's our idea". But you don't have any authority, and we don't
have the authority without going through some public process; and having the City
come in and adopt it.
LEWIS:
This rule gives you the authority. ODOT has the authority to decide what
improvements go in at their intersections. The rule says you can mitigate through a
plan amendment; it does not say it that you have to go legislatively and create
TSPS. This rule speaks to plan amendments, which is where we are.
DEWOLF:
Does someone own the right of way for that supposed McKinney Butte Road; who
owns the land?
LEWIS:
It's the U.S. Forest Service's property. I understand that there are negotiations
going on to acquire it.
DEWOLF:
So no one owns the road right now.
S WEARINGEN:
It puts us in a tough spot. How do we bind an applicant to something that doesn't
exist?
DEWOLF:
We don't have an adopted comp plan. We need to be convinced that the cart isn't
before the horse here.
LEWIS:
That's why I keep referring you to the language of this rule, because everyone
envisions the TSP process as a legislative process. But this rule puts us into that
process at a plan amendment stage. All the case law does is not allow you to exact.
This requires us to plan.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 26 of 56 Pages
SWEARINGEN:
No one is trying to exact or take any money from you. We don't know how to get
there with the existing rule. I'm not sure you can go out and say you're going to
put this road in. I want to see it on the existing plan, one that is adopted.
DEWOLF:
Has it been adopted?
LEWIS:
I have the map, but I cannot testify as to whether it has actually been adopted.
S WEARINGEN:
We have to have that.
LEWIS:
The plan that we have come up with contemplates agreement by all ofithe people
who have the responsibility for planning these traffic improvements. I- believe that
you do have the authority to do it. I recognize your dilemma about the'Toad right-
of-way. We don't have it, but it is part of the plan to acquire it.
DEWOLF:
People like us, and people on the Sisters City Council, come and go. We cannot
obligate future people who sit in these chairs to something that we all decide on
now.
LEWIS:
You can, though, through cooperative improvement agreements. That's what they
do. They are binding on future council members.
DEWOLF:
When it's property that we don't own, that none of the partners owns, that's a tough
issue.
LEWIS:
That's why the plans themselves are flexible. The dollars can be used where they
are needed.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 27 of 56 Pages
It9i114
There is precedent. Eagle Crest is an example. The local jurisdiction and County
and sometimes the State do not always have the funds to get the planning done. It
happens. If you wait until the City can do it, you'll be years into it.
LEWIS:
The City of Sisters will be at an economic disadvantage and will have to go to the
people for road funds. This development will provide the money to fix those
transportation problems.
S WEARINGEN:
We are going to take the time we need to make sure whatever we decide is legally
defensible. It is not over after this process is done. We want to,have something
that will stand up in court, whatever the decision. ?:; :;
LEWIS:
I don't agree with you that it will definitely be appealed. I do agree that we want a
legally defensible opinion.
DEWOLF:
We need to answer the transportation needs before the building begins.
LEWIS:
We are proposing a transportation plan. We have no development going on right
now. We don't have a development application in with anyone. We are planning
the facilities that will be paid for and will be installed before the cars hit the road.
DEWOLF: Can we put in a deed restriction that nothing gets developed until the
comp plan and TSP are adopted and implemented by the City of Sisters.
(Applause from the audience.)
LEWIS:
That is not what this agreement contemplates.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 28 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
So you're unwilling to consider that deed restriction.
LUKE:
This is really not fair.
DEWOLF:
It would hold the fire to the feet of the people who have been working on the comp
plan for eleven years, and who don't have a TSP. We're trying to make a decision
here based on a TSP that doesn't exist.
S WEARINGEN:
Or an updated comp plan.
LEWIS:
You are asking us to restrict our property over something that we have absolutely
no control.
DEWOLF:
What if the option is that you get denied.
LEWIS:
If that's the option, then I guess we'll be at LUBA.
SWEARINGEN:
The transportation plan needs to be in place. This is the cart before the horse. We
need to adopt the comp plan and TSP first. (Applause.) I don't disagree with Tom.
If they are willing to wait for the comp plan and TSP to be adopted, I think it
makes a lot of sense. Then you've addressed your issues. But what you're asking
for is everything in advance, without any real guarantee that the City is going to
follow through.
LEWIS:
It's unfortunate that you see it that way, because the agreements that we have in
place require the funds to be paid before cars hit the road. We don't see it as we're
asking for everything before anything occurs.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 29 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
All we're asking for is paper changes, to bring this property within the UGB and
zone it industrial so that at some point in the future it can be developed. We're not
asking you to approve a subdivision of the property, buildings on the property,
nothing. Eagle Crest was asking for development.
SWEARINGEN:
There was an approved comp plan and transportation plan; you don't have either.
That's the problem.
LEWIS:
The law does not require us to have an approved comp plan and an approved TSP
before applying for this plan amendment.
DEWOLF:
I appreciate that it doesn't require it before you apply. It may require it before we
approve it, though.
(Tia Lewis then submitted David Evans Co. transportation plan into the record,
Exhibit I.)
STEVE SWISHER:
I'm Steve Swisher, Superintendent of the Sisters School District, representing the
School Board tonight. My primary concerns are textbooks and similar matters, but
I'm going to talk briefly how the School District got this property and why we're
looking for the change.
(He then gave an overview of the history of the School District's ownership of the
property.)
The School Board has a fiduciary duty to obtain the highest possible price for the
property, on behalf of the taxpayers. That would entail obtaining the zone change
and annexation. School finance as a public entity is no longer primarily a local
issue, because the financing formula for school funding is through the State as a
whole.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 30 of 56 Pages
SWISHER:
The intent, once the property has sold, is to reinvest the funds into the school's
infrastructure budgets. The school district also wants to retain good relationships
with constituents and community members, and the School Board over time has
talked about the kinds of issues involving neighbor compatibility.
It continues to agree that even more restrictions, through deed restrictions or other
mechanisms, should be put in place over such as fuel distributors, concrete and
asphalt production, utility substations, wrecking yards, and those types of things.
We also invited all three of the neighbors owning property that border our
property, Mr. Gazar, Mr. Sundvall and Ms. Lee, to meet and discuss their
concerns. The Board did meet with Mr. Garzar and Ms. Sundvall.
Beyond the conditional uses, we talked about setbacks and the fact that the School
District would be willing to go to fifty -foot setbacks instead of the twenty -foot
requirement. In the fifty -foot setback, there would be only a one-story building
and would continue to a one hundred -foot setback until a two-story building could
be built.
DEWOLF:
You mean nothing in the first fifty feet, a one story through fifty and one hundred,
and then a two-story after that?
SWISHER:
That's right. Further, we'd build an earthen berm along the northerly border that
would be landscaped with native plants to help mitigate that view. We further
discussed a lighting ordinance to make sure there would be no light pollution to
those residential properties.
LUKE:
There can be a difference in the height of one-story building. Are you looking at
simply a one-story building of any kind or a specific height requirement?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 31 of 56 Pages
Most likely we would be looking at a height restriction. Some of the
Commissioners mentioned that perhaps only a portion of the entire project of both
properties be asked to come into the zone and not the rest. That would not be
suitable for one of our potential buyers, as they are looking at the entire area; but it
is a very low incidence of business in terms of transportation and traffic. I feel the
School Board does need the flexibility to work with kinds of buyers on that type of
development as opposed to particularly restricting geographic portions of the
property.
Our intent is to sell the property for the highest price possible to put money into the
school district budget. We also have publicly discussed retaining a small portion
of the property for school district use, in particular for a vocational education
center, which we feel will help some of :our educational programs. We may not
sell the entire portion, but may retain a small parcel.
DEWOLF:
Would the School District be willing to accept a deed restriction that would not
allow any development until the City has its TSP and comp plan adopted?
SWISHER:
I cannot answer that for the School Board, as one of five members. That was not a
part of our discussions earlier.
JACK RINK:
I'm Jack Rinn, part of the development team. He quoted, "you can sit and say
nothing and appear stupid, or you may say something and remove all doubt." The
joint venture that hopes to do the Barclay Meadows consists of Arnie Swarens,
Mark Hynde and me. I think it's relevant as the conversation goes on, as I believe
Arnie, a long-time resident, has some credibility in terms of his record as to what
kinds of developments he has put together.
This is being done so that Barclay can become light industrial land, and this is
embodied in the voters' pamphlet.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 32 of 56 Pages
1901 ON I
I take no great pleasure in this trip limitation; I have agreed to it kicking and
screaming. It's well into the six figures, cost -wise, and I don't view it with the
technical and legal expertise of those who are more qualified than I, I just look at it
as a modern -time cost of doing business. I just feel that nothing is going to happen
if someone doesn't start putting money into the cookie jar.
(He then read his written statement into the record - Exhibit Q.)
The County didn't accept, and sent back the comprehensive plan; and I suspect this
was because of the pending passage of the sewer bond.
S WEARINGEN:
That's not accurate. It was sent back because it was not going to be approved by t
LCDC. We're not intereste&in telling cities what to do; we just want to make sure
that they comply with state and county law. If it were up to the County, we would
have approved the plan and would have been done with it, because it's your plan.
But it's up to the State to do that.
RINN:
It's no secret in Sisters that Sisters' largest employer has expressed an interest in
this property, wanting to put in a campus -type facility. It's also no secret that he is
probably being wined and dined by others to encourage him to move out of this
area.
PETER RUSSELL:
I'm Peter Russell of ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation), Bend. We
opposed the earlier application due to flaws in the traffic study. Since that time
we've worked very closely with both applicants to review what we thought were
shortcomings in the traffic study, specifically trip generation rates and trip
distribution methodology.
DLCD and ODOT believe the current transportation impact analysis is solid, and
we agree to their conclusions. (Exhibit R(1), a letter dated January 18, 2000; and
Exhibit R(2), a letter dated January 26, 2000.)
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 33 of 56 Pages
RUSSELL:
One of the things it talks about from a planning aspect is using volume capacity
ratios. The applicable ones here are the mobility standards for the Oregon
Highway Plan; we use VC ratios. In their analysis they use a lower VC ratio for
special transportation areas.
Where there is a small community with a highway as its main street, the livability
issues in that community means we are able to go to the lower mobility standards
for our highway and better accessibility for the locals. An STA has to be officially
designated. While currently there is not an STA officially designated, Sisters is
deemed, by ODOT, to be a future STA.
DEWOLF:
What if this falls apart. and doesn't happen? Would you put yourself in our position
and explain to our constituents that you assumed this would happen and expected it
to happen, and now there is approval for something that no longer can be tied to an
approved by ODOT?
RUSSELL:
Then what happens if the STA does not occur, we'll require the applicants to use
the .75 volume capacity instead of the .85 that the STA would have required.
That's the safeguard.
ODOT is behind the STA, and the City of Sisters is behind the STA. To comply
with the TPR, you have to meet the performance standards. One way to do that is
to limit the number of trips generated. From ODOT's perspective, with this trip
cap, the applicants are in compliance with the transportation plan.
DEWOLF:
If an application comes in down the road that may have an impact on the traffic,
will ODOT be one of the agencies to see the application and be able to comment
on it?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 34 of 56 Pages
RUSSELL:
We're signatory along with the other agencies. After they get to the trip cap, they
are not able to develop anything else without further road improvements or other
changes. The safeguards are in place. This is the first time that I'm aware of an
applicant being willing to use that feature of the transportation plan.
There are basically four things you can do to meet the TPR. You can build
infrastructure, you can limit land uses, you can reduce reliance on the automobile,
and your can change applicable performance standards. This is the only time that I
know of that a developer has offered to limit development, and I feel it is a
commendable position. Between a combination of a trip cap, a memorandum of
understanding in the works and the cooperative improvement agreement, ODOT is
satisfied with the applications. Commissioner Swearingen, you asked about the
places where there hadn't been a TSP where we had done improvements. The two
I can recall are the City of Bend doesn't have a TSP but we placed a signal light.at .
Cooley Road and Highway 97; the other is a subdivision on the north end of
Redmond.
103 iflel"
So you feel there is precedence for this?
RUSSELL:
Yes. Between work on the TSP with the City of Sisters and working with the
applicant, ODOT is comfortable that the transportation system can be protected
and still meet Sisters' need for the twenty-year land use for industrial.
The contract runs out June 30, 2001, but we hope to have it done before then.
ODOT is doing that in conjunction with David Evans and Associates. Regarding
McKinney Butte, I'm positive it's on the map.
LUKE:
David Evans and Associates is being paid by whom?
BANKS:
The applicants are paying for that, although the City will probably utilize it.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 35 of 56 Pages
RUSSELL:
The agreement is flexible enough to be able to use the funds where needed.
DEWOLF:
The money is not being put in up front, because you don't have the identified costs
and percentages yet; but what you have is a commitment by the developer for a
percentage of that development to be exacted like an STC.
RUSSELL:
What we have here is, we made a reasonable case of what is likely to come out of
those sites. But in the cooperative improvement agreement if it's over or under of
what we assume the trip generation rate is, we go back and reconfigure all the
dollar amounts. That protects the applicant and ODOT.
DEWOLF:
What we are really trying to protect here is the citizenry of Sisters.
RUSSELL:
Well, yes. We want to have a safe transportation system.
DEWOLF:
So the money for infrastructure improvements comes along with development.
RUSSELL:
That's correct. The TPR is awkward because you have to guess what kind of the
transportation impacts of the plan amendment will be without actually having a
specific development where you could get down to good numbers.
LUKE:
For the record, the STC is mandatory; this is an agreement, not an STC.
WHITE:
The County is signatory on the property memorandum of use, but it does not have
jurisdiction.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99- I /PA -99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 36 of 56 Pages
RUSSELL:
Granted, it is a City intersection, but it also becomes a County arterial fairly
quickly, so it is just to make sure you know what is going on and are part of the
process.
WHITE:
Is the County Road Department also involved?
RUSSELL:
I'm not sure. We sent the information to Planning, but I don't know if they shared
it with the Road Department.
.WILLIAM BOYER:
I'm William Boyer, Chairman of the Alliance for Responsible Land Use. 'I request
that the record be kept open for two weeks in order for people to;look:at the
transportation plan.
S WEARINGEN:
It will be a minimum of two weeks.
Is a twenty-year supply of industrial land really necessary? There is no State
mandate for this; the State merely says that cities can require it in their plan. It is
assumed but is not clear that you have to go along with the twenty-year idea, but it
is quite clear that the twenty-year expansion is in regard to residential
development. Please look into this.
DEWOLF:
Could you please provide evidence in this regard?
S WEARINGEN:
Really, the issue has to do with compatibility and transportation. I do not believe
that there is any disagreement about whether they need industrial.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 37 of 56 Pages
BOYER:
The need versus being mandated should considered. There are ways for Sisters to
prosper without light or heavy industrial land. The larger picture should be looked
at. If economic expansion is the reason for the need, the City should look at
economic expansion and prosperity in other ways.
DEWOLF:
The voters passed this measure, and we are following their wishes. The residents
City of Sisters overwhelmingly voted this land in to annex it as industrial land.
I:•
We need to look at it in a larger context. If the argument is for jobs, other potential
exists. To address the compatibility matter, there is no compatibility with Trapper
Pont Subdivision and other residential low-density zoned properties. City
industrial zoning allow uses that are normally found in a'heavyindustrial zone.
We believe the proposals of the developers in regard to deed restrictions against
the properties are inadequate, and do not fully mitigate the possible adverse effects
of loss of views, odors, noise, reduction of property values and so on. This sets a
bad precedence. I believe you should read page 22 of the Hearings Officer's report
again. Industrial uses are normally separated from low-density residential by
other, higher -density uses, making a meaningful buffer.
The Sisters Urban Area comp plan says that a buffer of open space and
landscaping shall be maintained around industrial areas. This mandatory provision
has never been followed nor implemented by any ordinance, so the open space
buffer requirement has been met by retaining EFU zoning on the subject
properties. This comp plan also says that only non-polluting industries and heavy
commercial uses should be allowed in the industrial park, contrary to the policy of
the IL -zone, which allows polluting industry.
The crucial point is that the City has no traffic plan even though the comp plan was
done twenty years ago, and without a TSP, no system -wide improvements can be
made until the needs are determined. We therefore support the decision of the
Hearings Officer.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-994/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 38 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
What is your capacity with ARLU DeCo?
BOYER:
I'm the Chairman. We are also affiliated with 1,000 Friends.
SWEARINGEN:
Are you representing yourself in this or the group?
BOYER:
I am representing the Board, with seven members in the Bend area.
ROY SCHULKE:
I'm Roy Schulke, a resident of Trapper Point. My land is not adjacent to the subject
properties. I also question the need for industrialland. 'Sisters is different by
character and profile from many towns. There is a considerable amount of industrial
land in town left unbuilt and unsold; it appears the market for it does not exist.
SWEARINGEN:
How do you explain the overwhelming vote of the residents to annex and rezone
this property?
SCHULKE:
We were not able to vote, as we're outside the City limits. We live near it; most
residents don't. [Mr. Schulke then read from his typed comments, attached as
Exhibit I(6).]
DEWOLF:
You obviously feel there is enough industrial land available now. Can you provide
any proof these properties are actually available for development?
DEWOLF:
We have an obligation to uphold State law. The residents of City of Sisters made
their decision, and by your living outside of the City limits, you have accepted
what comes with it.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 39 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
There are some greedy developers out there, it's true, but the developers on this
issue are well-established in the area. I won't accept dispersions against these
particular people without proof.
SCHULKE:
I don't know the people involved. All I know is that these things happen. I wonder
if any of these developers would be willing to buy a residential lot if it was
available adjacent to their industrial project. Do they even live in Sisters? Do they
concern themselves about the quality of life in Sisters?
(He the went back to the reading of his statement.)
DEWOLF:
We have to make sure that proposals are legal:; and enforceable. It is frustrating
that Sisters does not have a comp plan nor a transportation plan in place. But you
need to understand that you have not shown that this, on its face, is an
inappropriate development.
SCHULKE:
I don't know if it is inappropriate or could just be better designed. I am concerned
about it changing the character of Sisters. It is what it is because of how it has
been developed thus far. If we change the character of the City by allowing wide-
open industrial sprawl because we need eight -some more acres, which exceeds the
commercial and residential development of the town already, it just doesn't seem
proper. No one has testified that the existing industrial has been sold. There must
be a reason that groundbreaking hasn't happened in these instances.
LUKE:
Every city and county in the state has a plan. Sisters' plan is in place, and the City
is trying to update it. This is required by LCDC.
JEROME FORSTER:
I'm Jerome Forster, a resident of Trapper Point.
[Mr. Forster then submitted his written statements into the record, Exhibit S(1)
and Exhibit S(2)].
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 40 of 56 Pages
FORSTER:
I have concerns about potential problems with ground water pollution with septic
tanks since there is no sewer system.
S WEARINGEN:
Until there is a sewer system, they can use County -approved septic systems. This
is not the issue before us today.
FORSTER:
Many subdivisions in the area have private wells, and we're concerned about
contamination of those wells. The EPA will jump right on that.
RONA�
How deep are the wells usually?
FORSTER:
Around 240 feet, but the water stands at 40 feet.
DEWOLF:
There has been a very extensive study done in this area. It is known where the
water flows and the impacts. This information is available. If there were a
problem, development would stop. It appears this is not an issue in this area.
FORSTER:
I feel that cities should not have to furnish industrial land through state law.
LUKE:
I refer to page 8 of the Hearings Officer's decision regarding Rule 9.
FORSTER:
Why not have industry suitable for the town?
ERIC DOLSON:
I'm Eric Dolson, and live in Tollgate. I'm not opposed to zoning this light
industrial, and feel we all have a good interest in mitigating problems.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 41 of 56 Pages
DOLSON:
However, I am concerned about the traffic problem. There is no transportation
system plan. The Locust Street intersection is very bad now, and this could
significantly impact it. Where is the plan? Peter Russell of ODOT said that
sometimes you have to plan on the fly. That's not sufficient in this case where we
have an intersection that's already so desperately inadequate.
Without a system plan, I don't think we really know the nature of mitigation. We
need a system plan, and need public hearings in regard to these changes. What
about the backup? ODOT would not do anything about signals in 1997 due to the
backup of traffic flow. This has not changed. If the developer won't be ready for
18 months, maybe the public input can be handled in that time period.
LUKE:
The City can't control this without the property being in the UGB. Then the City
can evaluate the subdivision. The City should beat this meeting. Do you feel the
City will get its plan together before allowing the development?
DOLSON:
I don't have a lot of confidence in the City's planning process. There appears to be
no one representing the City at this meeting. We don't know how adequate it will
be without a TSP. Does the public get any say in the ODOT-City dealings? We
don't know what the eventual mitigation will be, so how do we know that the cost
will be adequately computed? Has ODOT properly dealt with the public input on
this, and does the public get any say? I'm concerned about the process.
DENNY EBNER:
I am Denny Ebner, and I purchased the property immediately on the line of the
Barclay Meadows property thirteen years ago. My family and I felt that EFU
zoning would be stable. Property values are going to go down as a result of this.
There are quality of life issues.
DEWOLF:
Do you have any evidence about a reduction in property values?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 42 of 56 Pages
EBNER:
Yes, from Realtors and prospective buyers. My property is on the market right
now. The reality is that a 30 -foot tall Weitech-type of building could be thirty feet
from my house, and I have to disclose this to potential buyers. The developers say
that won't happen, but you can't take these word to the bank. How can you vote
today on the words they are saying and be able to hold them to those words?
There is also a fundamental traffic problem. The developer says there will be five
employees per acre, but the type of customer they are trying to attract aren't that
type. We are looking at high-tech employers; dense, high-value added
professional, high salary jobs. Also, there is an inherent safety problem with the
airport. Some ODOT people say there is risk and would deny development
because of that.
LUKE: ,
ODOT by law must -protect small airports, which allows them to expand in airport -
type uses. The owner of the airport and the Board of Commissioners fought to
remove this airport from this list, as the airport wants to stay the way it is.
I feel there are better uses for the land. Why not trade this property for the U.S.
Forest Service land? This would keep traffic reasonable. I am on the
transportation planning committee.
LUKE:
How long until the plan is completed?
EBNER:
At least six months. I feel this is putting the cart before the horse. The
fundamental infrastructure needs to be addressed first.
HOWARD GUINN:
(Had signed up to testify, but declined to speak.)
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 43 of 56 Pages
TOM WEEKS:
I am a Trapper Point resident, with property adjacent to the subject property. I
just bought my place in August for $300,000. I am a builder by trade, and I'm
concerned about the lack of a transition zone between the residential and industrial
land.
LUKE:
How built -out is Trapper Point?
WEEKS:
All but one lot. There have been some different barriers proposed. Trapper Point
has CC&Rs, and these are not compatible with big berms and the fencing proposed
by the developers. It turns the area in to a compound. Do you think the voters
knew what they were doing, as how can it profit them?
LUKE:
It was on the ballot title that it would be zoned light industrial.
DEWOLF:
We have to abide by the will of the voters.
HOWARD PAINE:
I have lived at Indian Ford, off Camp Polk Road, since 1979. (Gave a brief history
of Barclay Ranch leading up to the present day.) The City says we are out of
industrial land, but rezoned a large industrial parcel into commercial for a hotel
and also into high-density residential. If industrial land was used, why did they do
this?
Also, why can't the City of Sisters use urban area reserve instead of EFU? Statute
says the City must look to lands outside the UGB, with farmland the lowest
priority to be developed
DEWOLF:
Do you have evidence that the Hearings Officer was in error on this point?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-994 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 44 of 56 Pages
What are reserve lands for? There is always some excuse why they can't use these
urban area reserve lands for over the past twenty years. What is your take on it
when large tracts of undeveloped land are dedicated as reserve but aren't being
developed.
DEWOLF:
It's not my job to know that. Please provide evidence that they have been wrong in
each and every case if you want me to consider this. The record will be open for a
while if you wish to submit further information.
PAINE:
The comprehensive plan is not adopted, but the developer is already relying on it.
Traffic is bad and is getting worse; it is gridlock already. The hotel and additional
high-density housing would make it even worse.
DEWOLF:
Are there plans on the books for these?
PAINE:
Not yet. But there are lots of roads leading to Camp Polk Road. I submitted Steve
Jorgensen's (traffic planner for the County) numbers regarding lots platted and
approved, and that there would be 21,965 ADT's on Camp Polk Road when the
residential development is built out. Camp Polk Road as a designated collector is
maxed out at 12,000 ADTs. What will these industrial users add? David Evans
and Associates needs to consider the impact of the residential housing being built
out.
LUKE:
How much money are those residential build -outs going to add toward
transportation improvements?
PAINE:
None. But what the industrial developers give won't help either.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 45 of 56 Pages
LUKE:
It appears there is a problem there whether the developers get involved or not.
You have developers willing to contribute dollars.
PAINE:
The Commissioners should have approved transportation SDC's long ago so there
would be a big pot of money from every one of the houses being built to take care
of it.
DEWOLF:
Here you have someone who wants to help you solve this transportation problem.
PAINE:.
It's not going to solve the problem.
S WEARINGEN:
What do you suggest? What will work?
PAINE:
A by-pass in Sisters might work, with you, the City and ODOT being a party to it.
LUKE:
A by-pass has been turned down.
PAINE:
I don't think a by-pass has been rejected.
SWEARINGEN:
As a former mayor of Sisters, I can attest that it has.
PAINE:
Well, it's not going to get any better. What I testified to on the comp plan is to lock
up the Brooks -Scanlon corridor as a by-pass. It comes into Highway 20 just west
of Tollgate.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing
January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 46 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
What about a moratorium on any more residential building out there?
PAINE:
I would agree with that regarding the approval of new subdivisions.
DEWOLF:
I thought you said there were like 8,000 lots out there that can be built on. Would
you propose that we just put a moratorium on all those?
PAINE:
Under state land use laws, you can only do that for a very short time. That's
usually only allowed by LCDC if there are water, sewer or transportation
problems.
DEWOLF:
What you are suggesting is that we are about to destroy transportation based on the
residential development that may go in. So in addition to disallowing this, would
you suggest that we put a moratorium on any more building out there so we can
maintain Camp Polk Road in its present condition?
PAINE:
I say do not approve any conditional uses that affect traffic that's going to access
Camp Polk Road. You have the opportunity to do that right here.
DEWOLF:
This consists of two applications. I am asking you about the 8,000 residential lots
that you claim may be built on. Should we stop them from being built on as well
because they are going to impact this road?
PAINE:
No, they are platted. They're a given. You people approved them, or your
predecessors did, Abe Young, and others back in the sixties, going back a long
time. I think it's wrong to approve more development until you solve the
transportation problems. The City has had twenty years to work on a TSP, and it's
still not done.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 47 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
We're told it will be done in 18 months.
T.11 a
Don't count on it. Just like the Sisters comp plan was supposed to be done about
six years ago, and it's still in the works.
KELLY LANDERS :
(Had signed up to testify, but wished to submit her comments only in writing.)
LEONARD SUNDVALL:
I am Leonard Sundvall, and I live in Trapper Point, adjacent to the School
property. I feel Karen Green was right in her decision. We thought she did a
pretty good job. The community as a whole should come up with a comp plan, not
the developers. Developers shouldn't be telling us where our roads are going to be
and such.
I hope the Board of Commissioners won't decide to approve this and will go with
Ms. Green's decision until you have something to look at, until the comp plan is in
place. It will take community involvement and planning to make it work. I don't
understand, and have no confidence in, the trip cap. Who would enforce this? If
businesses start to grow, who will keep track of the traffic? Planners just put it on
paper and hope that it will work.
Light industrial is not compatible. I'm also concerned about the water table and the
flow of the aquifer. That's why some of us fought so hard to get a sewer system.
SWEARINGEN:
When this all started, the intent was to have a buffer between Trapper Point and the
industrial development. There will be no buffer as this is presented right now. I
have a hard time being convinced that it is a compatible use. Normally you don't
go directly from industrial to residential; some sort of an interim buffer is usually
in place for at least part of the property. That was always the intent.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 48 of 56 Pages
SUNDVALL:
(Read through the list of approved light industrial uses, Exhibit O.) There is lots
of industrial land still available. In a previous meeting I gave a report on how
much industrial land is still available for building. There is some available. We've
got time; you don't have to make this decision before this comprehensive plan and
TSP are done and looked at. I would urge you to not change Karen Green's
decision until all of this is taken into consideration.
BANKS:
There has been a lot of discussion regarding compatibility. People understand that
EFU zoning permits a lot of different uses that could be done right next door to
you, such as stables, farm buildings, a hog farm, aggregate crushing and others that
can be done without a land use approval or notice requirement. There could be
increased traffic including big trucks, odors, and other problems associated with
farm use. People need to realize that it may not always, and doesn't have to, be
used just for grazing.
In regard to traffic signals, I believe that two individuals talked about safety at
Locust Street. I live in the Sisters area and am familiar with these intersections. I
asked ODOT what would happen if that intersection is signalized, and was told that
it would improve the safety for the side street traffic and left turns from Cascade for
pedestrians. So the safety issues would be better addressed by signalizing that
particular intersection.
A very thorough inventory of the IL vacant land was done, which has been
submitted in prior testimony, and it is found on page two of my original burden of
proof. There are eight lots, and two lots that are redevelopable, both with
residences on them.
The City did decide in the past couple of years to rezone property that was UAR-
10, a reserve category, and did not rezone it light industrial at that time. Those
findings withstood going through the process, and this removed those from
consideration. We analyzed other adjacent parcels and others around the UGB,
and they were not found to be appropriate for the IL zone.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-994 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 49 of 56 Pages
BANKS:
Concerning the issue regarding sewer and the potential effect on individual wells.
If there are actually 1,000 or so residential uses having their own individual septic
systems, I don't know that they aren't going to have the same, if not greater, impact
on their own wells than the potential industrial uses. The types of uses we're
seeing in Central Oregon is high office/campus industrial uses; we aren't seeing
what are being talked about as the scarier types of uses discussed.
The pattern of development in the 1990's has not been toward that type of light
industrial. It's been much more like the Shevlin Park type of use, much more of a
campus look. The people who have looked at purchasing this property would
involve a campus -type industrial use.
Regarding the issue of Locust Street, throughout all of this process, there is second
and third levels of opportunity to look at this traffic. Traffic Will be analyzed at
subdivision stage; it will be looked. at in the site and the design stage. Every single
building will have to go through site and design review with the City. Traffic
impacts will be evaluated at that time.
DEWOLF:
The critical point to me is that this is the only time I am being asked to have an
impact on this issue. Maybe I am holding you to a higher standard than necessary
down the road. If I make a decision that is not legally defensible, or something
ultimately goes awry because McKinney Butte Road never gets built or other
things change and we end up with extremely serious traffic problems, then I have
to live with that. That's why I am asking a lot of questions about this issue.
Do we know if the sewer will go out to the development, and if so, in what phase?
BANKS:
Yes, it is planned for Phase III.
LUKE:
What I believe I was told is that the economic development grant does not include
industrial property. This should be looked into.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 50 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
I also have a question as to what the current traffic count is at Locust right now.
SWISHER:
I think 1,400 per peak hour, with 60% of this at Locust.
BANKS:
The TSP will have a public process. Part of the memorandum of understanding
defers to a future TSP in that we are saying, take this money to use where it is
determined is best.
DEWOLF:
Why not as a condition of approval that no development goes in until the TSP
takes place? It's only 18 months away.
BANKS:
Plans don't always go through. Sisters plans and plans, but doesn't adopt. There's
a lot of history there. Even Bend doesn't have a TSP. Sisters has adopted a
transportation plan and a plan map. The transportation planning rule, page 24, says
that the TSP was supposed to have been adopted by November 1993, and in form
by April 1995. However, it also says that maybe this won't happen and, if not, the
Cities shall apply the relevant sections of this rule to land use decisions in the
meantime.
DEWOLF:
So you're saying the City of Bend has no transportation plan and is doing what
they're doing by development agreement.
BANKS:
They are doing a lot of their actions through development agreements; a huge, big
picture of what we are proposing here.
Also, there was a reference that Karen Green made a finding that we are not in
compliance with this rule. We have corrected this and are now using what we feel
are reliable figures. We are talking about averages when we discuss trip caps.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 51 of 56 Pages
BANKS:
Also, RH zoning is often found between industrial and low density residential, so a
50 -foot buffer should be acceptable, along with height restrictions. I know of
many RH developments that are on 50 -foot wide lots. This buffer could be densely
landscaped and a beautiful transition between the two types of properties. In
addition, this is an important resource to the School District as well.
LUKE:
What are the projected taxes for the City of Sisters, since this property would go
back on the tax rolls.
SWISHER:
We're looking at a retail value of $1.8 million x the tax rate. This will benefit the
entire state.
LEWIS:
We did calculate the tax base, and this was reflected in the ballot measure.
Arnie Swarens, one of the developers, does live less than a mile from this project,
using Camp Polk Road. Another lives in the general area, also using Camp Polk
Road.
Regarding the character of the development, I want to emphasize that there is no
development. We're not asking for approval of the subdivision and buildings. All
we're asking for is a plan amendment and a zoning change.
DEWOLF:
But this opens a door that never closes again. It is significant. You said repeatedly
that this is just something on paper. The reality is that this will never be EFU zone
again, it will never be that kind of buffer between the folks who live nearby. This
is going down a road that once we turn on the key, you're on your way.
LEWIS:
I recognize that you cannot unring the bell. The point I want to make is that the
trips, and impacts that will be generated from a proposed development, are a matter
of speculation at this point because no development is proposed.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 52 of 56 Pages
LEWIS:
When you state that no TSP is in place, we have to speculate about the facilities
that would ultimately be approved. The same is true about the impacts as well.
I'm not saying that we're just going to guess about everything. We're stuck with
this process, and we must base things on estimates now.
DEWOLF:
Does the City of Sisters have a view protection ordinance of any type?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
No.
LEWIS:
Under the plan, even if development is not restricted, the affected intersections do
not exceed ODOT standards up to 2009 and 2013 under their various standards.
DEWOLF: , , .
Based on this development?
LEWIS:
Yes, plus a 3% growth rate.
DEWOLF:
It seems like you're trying have your cake and eat it, too. You are complaining
about people speculating about what might happen, but you are speculating too,
based on estimates.
LEWIS:
I am not complaining about people estimating. We are using ODOT standards, for
better or worse. We are all stuck with this process in this planning stage.
According to ODOT, these intersections won't fail for nine to eleven years, even
with unrestricted development. At this stage, the law requires us to comply only
with the transportation planning rule. It does not require us to wait for the TSP. If
it did, it would mandate a conclusion that every community that doesn't have a TSP
couldn't amend their comp plan or their land use regulations in a way that
significantly affects the facility.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 53 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
You are using a very specific definition of significant.
LEWIS:
On state highways, ODOT has set the minimum acceptable level. It sets the test.
The data is there.
SWISHER:
It falls back to the state planning rule if there is no local TSP.
SWEARINGEN:
ODOT's level of service is not what most people would find acceptable. If it is
going -to take nine to eleven years for that to fail, that is absolutely ludicrous..
LEWIS:
That's with the traffic improvements, not now. If we develop fully.' Even if Sisters
had a TSP, the minimum acceptable level would be ODOT's, because these
intersections are on the state highway.
DEWOLF:
So is the number 411 at that 68% build -out?
LEWIS:
Yes.
DEWOLF:
So that increases this by approximately 15%, and it is still within the standards?
SWISHER:
It would still fall within the MOT plan.
SWEARINGEN:
If he City of Sisters came up with its own, more stringent standards that are more
restrictive, can they use them instead?
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-994/PA-994 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 54 of 56 Pages
SWISHER:
ODOT has jurisdiction, so I don't think so. This incorporates the side streets where
they come into the highway.
SWEARINGEN:
Why even ask the City for a TSP if ODOT is going to dictate what happens on the
highway?
SWISHER:
Well, they have a whole city, not just the highway. Similar to what Redmond faces.
LEWIS:
The law does not require us to wait for a TSP. The developers feel they have to
drive this for anything to get done.
SWISHER:
I am a Tollgate resident, living outside the City. There are three points I'd like to
leave you with from the School District's perspective. They are:
1) Economically it is very important to have this land zoned and within the
incorporated area in order to sell it, regarding our financial situation.
2) The District remains committed to continue to work with the transportation
plan. The school safety and intersection issues are very important to us. We
do own the property on both sides of one of those intersections, and want to
work with future plans for widening the road or whatever is required.
3) We also want to continue to work with the neighbors regarding compatibility.
RINN:
We don't expect to get away free. We will work with the neighbors. We have
discussed the use of a berm, the footprint of which uses up about $125,000 of
value. I hope the Board will visit the area and drive down Trapper Point Road to
get an idea of the full impact. I think the neighboring houses are approximately
160 feet from the property line.
I put a call into the architect and we talked about lighting. He tells me about new
modern, down -pointing lighting that doesn't allow any light to slip onto the
neighbors' property. The light is shielded so you can't see the bulb.
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 55 of 56 Pages
DEWOLF:
Are you willing to make the same commitment that the School District did
regarding fifty feet before there is any building?
RINN:
No, but we may. We are going to have more meetings. I have my architect,
Robert Hyde, working on building plans, and he does tell me that there are
standards that can be imposed that would permit both a single story, true light
industrial building with a pitched roof, and a two-story office building with a
pitched roof that would be as much as ten feet lower than in Bend's code. He also
tells me that we are also exploring is called storying; that is, if there were a two-
story building, the eaves would come down to one story, with a dormer effect. The
Jameson Building on Hawthorn in Bend is an example. From my perspective we
will be doing this right up to formal site planning.
We want to bridge the gap and ,Will do whatever we can to get there.
r Y
LUKE:
There will be many more public meetings to go through before these issues are
completely decided.
SWEARINGEN:
The record will remain open for further information and input for two more weeks
from tomorrow; that is, two weeks from January 27th. The meeting is adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED at 11:35 p.m., January 26, 2000.
DATED this 26th day of January 2000 by the Deschutes Board of
Commissioners. � /I
illAttest
MINUTES of Board of Commissioners Hearing
Linda Swearingen, Chair
Efenn_is . Luke, i Chair
tom De o f, issioner
January 26, 2000 - Sisters Fire Hall
A Public Hearing on Two Plan Amendment and Zone Change Proposals Adjacent to the City of Sisters
(Files ZC-994/PA-99-4 - Barclay Meadows Business Park; and Files ZC-99-3/PA-99-5 - Sisters School District #6
Page 56 of 56 Pages