Loading...
2000-823-Minutes for Meeting July 20,2000 Recorded 8/10/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 823 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *CJ2000-823 * Vol -Page Printed: 08/11/2000 14:43:14 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: Aug. 10, 2000; 1:13 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 21 ,,� 0'.., -,� MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK K� UN HED Al 12000 k-13 2� Board of Commissioners 0 At MHi;'r" :.�l_ t :Iai i ., 1.130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 COUNT Y CLERK (541) 3BB-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.co.deschutes.or.us Linda L. Swearingen Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING Tom DeWoif DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR A LA PINE UUC EXPANSION THURSDAY, JULY 209 2000 NEWBERRY STATION, LA PINE Commissioners present were Linda Swearingen, Tom DeWolf and Dennis Luke. Also present were Geralyn Haas, Kevin Harrison, George Read, Roger Everett, Christy Morgan, and Steve Jorgensen of Community Development; and Rick Isham, Legal Counsel. In addition, approximately a dozen citizens were in attendance. Chair Linda Swearingen called the meeting to order at S: 30 p.m. GERALYN HAAS: (Did a brief overview of the issue.) Handouts are available to those who are interested, and other information is displayed for public review. This project has been in process since 1996, when Deschutes County was selected by LCDC as one of four Oregon counties to participate in a regional planning project. She thanked all of those who have participated and supported the program. All of the people involved have been together for over four years, creating a cohesive and cooperative unit. This demonstrates that people can come together and collaborate and identify community issues, and come up with a creative solution. I am submitting a letter of support from the Oregon Department of Transportation dated July 20, 2000 into the record. Minutes of Public Hearing La Pine UUC Expansion Quality Services Performed with Pride Page 1 of 21 Pages July 20, 2000 DAVE LESLIE: Gave a brief overview of Community Development Department recommendations to the Board and audience. There are two things I want to outline for you. One is parts of the package that Geralyn just described, in order to give you a sense of some of its components. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about the next steps that the Community Development staff intends to take if the Board approves our recommendation to adopt these ordinances, and we continue forward. With respect to the first part of the package, I want to make clear that there are four ordinances that we are asking the Board to consider. The first is in Section 3, and it has three components. The first, Exhibit A, contains existing comp plan language for both the Wickiup Junction and La Pine UUC Chapters of our La Pine comprehensive plan. This consists of about 34 pages. Exhibit B is what we are proposing that the Board adopt. This is the heart of the matter right now. Adoption of this and moving it forward to LCDC in September with the supporting findings from Exhibit C, plus Exhibits A through R in Section 2, are what support the adoption of the comp plan changes. LUKE: Has this been made public except in these books? LESLIE: We've had draft copies out to the public. We have just continued to refine it as we received more detail and more testimony at workshops and hearings. We are not necessarily looking for the Board to adopt tonight. We think you may wish to take testimony now and then provide direction, and we could come back the week of August 7 and look for Board approval and signature at that time. DEWOLF: Why August 7? LESLIE: At the end of that week we want to send the package to the State, and make sure we meet their calendar schedule for getting on the hearing on September 28. If we move that up and complete the work earlier to meet your schedules, we can discuss that. DEWOLF: So later is not an option with LCDC. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 S WEARINGEN: We don't want to do that. LESLIE: It could end up as late as November or December. The next section of the package is the comprehensive plan map, in the back of Section 3, the ordinance and a one- page map, Exhibit A. Section 4 contains both components to the zoning amendments. Ordinance 15 has two exhibits; the first is existing text language in our zoning code for Wickiup Junction. We're suggesting that be repealed because we are going to incorporate it in the next exhibit, #61. The reason for that is we're proposing to expand the La Pine Urban Unincorporated community to not only take in the BLM land and the private Baldwin -Herndon Oregon Trust land, but also include Wickiup Junction. LUKE: What's the emergency? LESLIE: We need to move this on to the state and continue the process. We don't have an emergency in the sense of implementing the zoning ordinance. We could look at a non -emergency clause because frankly we are not going to be looking at developing tracts of land until next year. LUKE: If it's not absolutely needed, I would just as soon it not be in there. LESLIE: Okay, we'll speak with legal counsel and see if we can't take tact. We'll also consult with DLCD to make sure that doesn't concern them. The comprehensive plan section that I mentioned is the heart of this matter. That is Exhibit B in Section 3. This now contains a blending of the proposed language for La Pine, Wickiup, and new text regarding the neighborhood planning area. We're looking at naming these geographic areas of La Pine, the neighborhood and Wickiup Junction as three distinct planning areas. The policies have been revised to reflect that. On Page 31, III, comprehensive plan policies, left column, mid -way through, we start with existing text; only we changed the La Pine UUC to a planning area and the residential designated area to a district. That follows through a series of districts that exist in the La Pine UUC. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 I'll point out that on page 33, in the La Pine planning area, the transportation policy, #10, we've added a sentence there to reflect our commitment to help pay for a light at the intersection of First and Highway 97, based on our proportional share of the traffic from the neighborhood area. That's one of the two transportation improvements that ODOT agrees with the County are necessary. The other is an eventual separated grade interchange or overpass with Burgess Road. There is a policy in here that reflects our involvement with that. On the next page, beginning with K, Wickiup Junction Planning Area, land use and zoning; and L, transportation, those are the existing policies being brought into this new chapter. Finally, one page 35 where it says L, neighborhood Planning Area, that should be N. That begins the new series of plan policies that will guide development in the neighborhood planning area. They are the culmination of the design workshop and all of the planning to date for regional problem solving, involving the community with how this area may look. There are diagrams here (refers to various maps displayed in the room). The southwest quadrant has the senior center and assisted living facilities. The northwest quadrant has housing and a school site. The overall map shows all four phases and parallel road networks. The policies intend to put in language that is difficult do - design concepts and division of this area in the future. It speaks to a whole host of issues with respect to facilities planning that is needed. Prior to developing any of this land, prior to selling any tract, we will prepare a refinement plan; the transferable development credit program will be created and adopted. We will do a capital facilities plan; to look more closely, build on the feasibility analysis that was completed last year at the water and wastewater facility expansion requirements, and funding for those services. DEWOLF: Will each step of the way then go through a public process for adoption? LESLIE: Yes. We expect to be back before the Board in the fall with the details on that program and a public process for adoption. It is not a land use process, however. DEWOLF: I understand that, but I want us to be very careful every step of the way so we all understand how this is working. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 LESLIE: We have spoken about the need to get the package to LCDC for September. The capital facilities plan has been in discussion, and we will work with water district and the sewer district to begin that in August and complete it in a three to four month timeframe. Staff has gotten quite a bit done on the TDC program toward the final portion of it, with a public process to come in late fall. We would like to work with a development group and appraiser to look at the very first development area of about ten acres. This is our current thinking, subject to input and change. We'd take ten acres and look at four 2.5 -acre segments, and really plan those in detail. We would look at marketing those when the time is right so that a developer might come in and purchase one or two of those segments, and then individual builders might come in and start getting building permits for the smaller portions of the other two segments. The idea would be to start in area 2, area 1, western area along Huntington Road; essentially it is analogous to building our model home. We would look at what's going to work, how it plays out, our design guidelines, working out in the field, vis-a-vis are we creating what we wanted and what the community is invested in. So we want to start involving a group in that this year, recognizing that it would be next year before any tracts are sold and development occurs. LUKE: There were a lot of "we"s in your conversation. Is it the planning department's goal or wish that they be the developers and they be the planners on this; or are we turning this over to the private sector to do what all private sector does. A government does not do well in the development business. LESLIE: The "we" I am referring to - CDD, the planning department - are facilitators. We need to ensure that down the road through monitoring that this program is successful. Early on CDD envisions itself as a partner to dot I's and cross T's to make sure that during the tentative plat and first subdivision plat processes and the first phases of development we have very close relationships with the private market developers. We do not intend to be the developer, other than as a government entity the County has the ability to secure funding for the capital facilities plan and for extension and expansion of urban -type services such as water and sewer. We can do that at a lower cost initially than private developers spending their own money, through state and federal funding programs. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 LUKE: You can do that at a prevailing rate where a contractor going in could not do that at a prevailing rate? LESLIE: No, we are not going to be the developer. The private developer can do that at a lower rate. S WEARINGEN: I don't think that we can do that. If we use public money, you will have to pay a prevailing wage. But that is something we can discuss later. RICK ISHAM: I did write a letter to BOLI (Bureau of Labor and Industries) regarding development. They govern the prevailing wage rules of the state. For subdivision type developments undertaken by a private developer, even though will be turned over to a public entity, it's not a prevailing wage job. However, if a private entity for the benefit of the public were to go into a public right of way and improve the public road, then that is. The work that will be occurring on this site will eventually be turned over to the water district and the sewer district, but it will actually be private work without the prevailing rate. We asked that question and did get an answer, and I think we're confident that the developers through their own forces can complete that work. LUKE: On page 35, where it talks about the grade separation at Highway 97, Exhibit A, I think it is important that the railroad tracks not be the dividing line between the east side and west side of the road. I think we need a goal of keeping a frontage road, not only for fire and police protection but to connect those two areas. It doesn't talk about this. LESLIE: In this section it doesn't, but in another we do have some language that speaks to that directly. Later this year we will be working on the refinement plan, to look at more details in the zoning ordinance and at any revisions that are necessary to the master plan. We are referencing these drawings and the prior workshop components and products, but we recognize that we are trying to get this package to LCDC, and we will probably want to come back and revisit some of this and involve the community in trying to further refine the design to make sure it meets everybody's objectives to the maximum extent possible. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 DEWOLF: Is this the sort of thing where we would end up with some kind of CC & R's? LESLIE: I think we actually proposed that with the planning commissioner; but public testimony was universally opposed to a homeowners' association. We need to look at what kind of restrictions and standards can guide development, in addition to comprehensive plan policy and zoning standards. The short answer is that yes; we will develop subdivision CC & R's, that's our expectation. DEWOLF: So there will be a certain standard of construction. LESLIE: Very much so. S WEARINGEN: What good are CC & R's if you don't have a homeowners' association? If you are not going to enforce them, don't put them down. So if we're not going to have a homeowners' association, forget your CC & R's. They'll receive phone call after phone call about what color people are painting their houses, and doing things that are in violation of the CC & R's. LESLIE: Our intent is not to develop CC & R's in that sense and have a homeowners' association monitor it. Based on public input, particularly at the planning commission hearing, the public recommended that we develop a tight set of guidelines and requirements and put those in the County's code. That's what we've started to in the zoning ordinance. DEWOLF: So the developers would be abiding by those; it's not a matter of the people who buy the homes. LESLIE: There could be some use restrictions, for instance on outside storage. It's a combination. The developer going in for building, yes, it is a design element that they have to abide by. That's part of this first ten -acre concept of development, to look at what our standards are and how those play out. We'll work with the developers ahead of time, but then we want to see what the product looks like on the ground. We think it is appropriate to approach it that way before larger tracts of land are considered for sale. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 7 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 198).14.1; You don't want what happened in some on Jan Ward's subdivision where they have four homeowners' groups in one area. If you allow developers to come in on small tracts and they set standards, and the next one comes in and has different standards, you are going to see problems. In the long run you need to get together with the community and figure out what standards you want. LESLIE: We will have one set of standards. What you have today in the next section with the zoning ordinance is not complete, and that's intentional. It's taken from the design work that's been done to date, and there's some more that we can fill in before a package goes to the state. We're thinking now that it makes sense to wait until later this year when the first refinement plan is completed, and we can work with some developers to complete that aspect. At the same time we can look at the zoning ordinance in final detail, and come back for the Board to adopt it. We need to talk with the state about that to make sure that LCDC will be comfortable in September. Under that scenario, we would look for adoption of three of the ordinances before you, but possibly not the four. LUKE: On page 38, why are manufactured home parks excluded? LESLIE: We posed that question to the planning commission, and their unanimous recommendation regarding manufactured home parks and travel trailer parks was to not include them. LUKE: There's a major difference between travel trailer parks and manufactured home parks. LESLIE: They were brought up as two different questions, brought up at the same time. Our feeling is in terms of the design; we want to see mixed housing types spread throughout the entire neighborhood planning area. The way to accomplish that isn't to segregate or separate entire types of housing, and put a lot of manufactured homes in one area in a manufactured home park. Manufactured homes will be allowed in the neighborhood planning area. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 8 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 LUKE: In the interest of affordability, we can't do this. If you are looking for affordable housing for people with very low income, owning a home or even a manufactured home on a single lot, is extremely expensive and prices a lot of people out of the market. So we are not going to allow parks in there; are there other parks in La Pine where you can put a home? LESLIE: Yes, in Wickiup Junction, but I don't know if there are any large tracts that would accommodate that kind of growth. It's certainly an issue that can be revisited. It's the starting point that we're at now; we've got a long way to see this area be developed out. We hope that we can be breaking ground about a year from now if all goes well. It may be that this is a good issue to revisit. It certainly is the Board's decision if it does not like that policy. LUKE: How about the public that has testified about this? LESLIE: The public was also there at the hearing. LUKE: Has there been public opposition to a manufactured home park? LESLIE: I don't know that I can answer that question. That is something the Board can make recommendations on, and we can also look at that in the refinement process. Winding up on this presentation, we are looking at the purchase of the BLM tract by the end of November. This past Tuesday ended the second appeal process for the two elements - the environmental assessment appeal process and the appeal process for the pending change to the resource management plan that would redesignate the tract. That then allows BLM to sell us the patent. Both of those appeals are over, and there were no comments from the public received by the BLM. The draft patent has been prepared; we're looking at it and will revisit it later this year, and hopefully conclude the purchase of the property. I've mentioned some of the additional work that we think may be needed with the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. We know we need to revisit the subdivision ordinance; and also there is a chapter in the comprehensive plan on regional problem solving that we will need to update later this year. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 9 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 Finally, one of the most significant next steps is the ongoing monitoring. We have a commitment with regional problem solving to work collaboratively with a number of state agencies, local districts and community interest groups. That's been a huge part of this program for four years, and we will continue to work on this. DEWOLF: What would incorporation of the city have on this? LESLIE: The County and City would need to sit down and talk about the future development of this area. The City ultimately would be the managing agency for this land. As property owner, the County would continue to have the ability to propose how the land would be developed and would control some of that through the process of certain deed restrictions. This would be looked at, I believe, as part of the core area of the City along with Wickiup Junction and the existing La Pine area. It could still play out and be developed consistent with the package that is before you today. LUKE: There are a lot of "shall"s in this - the County shall is all through this, some of which would require a substantial amount of money off-site. Any idea of what the cost will be? LESLIE: About $6,500,000 is the feasibility amount. $400,000 for the light. We don't know the share for the separated grade overpass. The $6,500,000 includes the extension from offsite to the site for water and sewer, and includes an additional well and additional storage reservoir offsite. LUKE: For instance, it says, "the County shall establish a safe, connected bicycle/pedestrian system throughout La Pine". LESLIE: That is existing plan language intending to reflect the La Pine UUC as it exists today. We are not proposing to change that. It would reflect the La Pine planning area, and so it would only reflect the core area at the south end of the maps. It's not the 30 square miles. The language you are looking at now is current language within the La Pine UUC. We're just giving that geographic area a new name, calling it a planning area. I will provide you with a copy showing the new language underlined and the language to be deleted in the strikeout. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 10 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 SWEARINGEN: Let's open the public hearing. (6.•05 p.m) HOWARD DANIEL, 14770 North Sugarpine Way, in Ponderosa Pines, La Pine: I am actively looking for land to buy in the core area of La Pine for a duplex or fourplex, so I do have an interest in this. A couple of years ago we started out the design of this project, with a lot of pubic input. What has happened in the interim two years is, we kind of went from a NIMBY syndrome to knowledgeable people who know what's going on and have participated in the planning, and think this is a wonderful opportunity to develop an area of which we can be proud. I wouldn't be surprised but what it might be one of the model cases throughout the nation. It's very unique with the BLM land, and Congress helping with that. I am very much in favor of it. We can all see from the volume of paper how much work the planners have done over the past four years. They seem to have researched every area very carefully, and when we suggested changes they made those in most cases after hearings. Addressing your concerns about manufactured home parks, I think there was a questions brought up when this was discussed at the public hearings about how you treat the transfer of development credits in a situation like this. How would you propose to do that? LUKE: If it is done professionally and done with quality, they are very affordable and can be handled very well. DANIEL: I have no objection to that. But I'm just wondering how, because it's a supposedly a trade for a lot in the country for a lot in the subdivision, which to me indicates it's a one residence property. I don't know how you are going to address the problem with the transfer development credits. Anyway, welcome back to your home away from home. You guys spend a lot of time down here, and we appreciate it. BOB E. WEST: They have never mentioned any buildings for assisted living - there are a lot of old people in the La Pine area. They have never mentioned any buildings for nursing homes; and you have a lot of youth in the La Pine area, and they have not mentioned youth buildings. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 11 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 Also, I don't dislike horses or livestock, but they are trying to tell me that on an acre or a half -acre that horses don't pollute like septic systems do. If you have three or four head of horses on a half -acre of land, you can't tell me that it doesn't go into the soil and eventually into the river. They are trying to tell me that my septic tank puts nitrates into the water and could pollute the river. I haven't been to all of the meetings. I've asked for them to drill a hole ten feet from my septic system, go down and get the water and test it; and go a hundred feet and do the same thing. I'd bet ten to one that they won't find a nitrate problem. I've been there 18 years; and all the wells that they have studied in Lazy River South have not had a nitrate problem. S WEARINGEN: You feel that the horses provide more of a problem than the people do? WEST: They haven't denied the right to keep horses in the County for years, so you can have a horse on an acre or half -acre; yet I can't build and put a septic system in. So, to me, the horse must be more important than I am. Also they say a septic system is polluting. If you have a half -acre lot and you're going to sell TDC's and move into the new neighborhood, even if you don't build on the other lot, it doesn't mean that people won't put three or four head of stock on those lots that aren't developed. They can, because they have no regulation against this. Where I live I bought the lot next to me and also the one across the street. I want to keep it, develop it, and let my kids live in a rural area, not in a city. I don't like them telling me that I'm polluting on my acre of property, and a person with two or three horses isn't. And they have never mentioned any youth buildings in this. So what are the youth going to do when once you get that new neighborhood, go around and vandalize the buildings? Where are they going to go? DEWOLF: You've brought up a whole bunch of issues, all of which are the same kinds of issues that we and other people have raised throughout this process. The last time we held one of our morning meetings down here was at La Pine High School, and right after that we met with a bunch of people from various community agencies and groups at the La Pine Library. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 12 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 At this meeting we discussed what kinds of needs there are, so as we are developing this property and other properties we can address the needs of the community: a new senior center, medical services, youth services, transportation, health services and more. All of these things are being addressed as part of this project. Specifics, not yet. But the specifics on a lot of things aren't there yet; that's still being developed. The other piece of this is wanting to maintain the rural character of where you live doesn't change the fact that we have 300 homes on average being built in La Pine every year, right now. So maybe we can use this piece of property to offset what people are wanting to do in other areas of La Pine. Your piece of property may well not have the nitrate problems now, but in fact if all of the thousands of lots that could be developed were developed, we would then have a nitrate problem eventually when those septics begin to fail. So by transferring that over here, we are protecting the rural lifestyle in the balance of La Pine. WEST: You can keep that rule there or develop all the lots. All you have to do is go out there and put in a system just like the La Pine sewer system. And it won't cost $18,000 to $28,000 a lot. We're going to hook 3,200 lots on that new La Pine sewer system. Do you know how that works? They've got a pond out there for gray water. It was built for 200 to 500 homes, and now they are going to hook another 3,200 people on it, How can it support more than that? A treatment plant is needed for this many homes. I don't like people telling me that I'm polluting when I'm not. I've had my well tested and it has zero nitrates. (Elaborated with further comments on what problems nitrates may or may not really cause, etc.) ROGER EVERETT: Nitrates have been proven to cause blue baby syndrome, and this has been studied throughout the world for years. That takes a very high level of nitrates, and that's why we have the 10 parts per million limit for drinking water. Nitrates in water are a key indicator that there could be other kinds of pollutants in the water as well. It's an easy chemical to test for, and frankly we don't have a problem - yet. We have a wonderful aquifer that serves a lot of people, clear to the Columbia River, and we don't want to jeopardize it. Should I elaborate on animal pollution? LUKE: Animals are allowed to pollute. It is in the State constitution. I would like to comment that the plan calls for the development of 75 senior housing units within a senior housing district. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 13 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 WEST: I've been told that the grass grows up and takes care of the nitrates. That's true if you have more than five or ten acres. But if you have a half -acre, there will be no grass growing on that property if you have livestock, just piles of manure. Besides that, it is cruel to the horses; they have to walk through it and are kept penned up in a small space. S WEARINGEN: What are you suggesting? Limiting a certain number of animals per lot? WEST: What I'm suggesting is that if you develop any new lots in the study areas of an acre and a half or less, should not allow livestock; nor in the new neighborhood. It's too small to hold a house, garage, yard and a place for horses. JILL PHILLIPS-MCLANE: I would like to clarify an issue about health care in La Pine. Tom said he has spoken with medical people in Bend and Redmond. If something does happen with health care, I believe it will be the citizens of La Pine that make it happen. DEWOLF: I just mentioned that there are people who are working on this issue. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: Some people think they don't have to work hard on this because the County will take care of it, which is a misunderstanding. I want to make sure that is clear. I believe the expansion area that is being considered for the urban unincorporated community is appropriate. I think it is the only way that development is appropriate in this area, and I also feel it is very appropriate to serve the growth by having adequate infrastructure. I think that the project has been very carefully planned, and there have been many opportunities for public input. We know this project is a model at the state and federal level, and we know that there has been a lot of agencies supporting this project all around. I like the plan even though it is urban density development; it does include areas that maximize open space, with the point being to encourage a walkable neighborhood. I do support the idea of having limited spot commercial development for small neighborhood stores. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 14 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 I want to clarify that I am speaking as a resident and an individual, and not as a representative of the La Pine Community Action team tonight. I think that it certainly is needed to provide land for community services and facilities. I do have a few concerns. First of all, I support the mixed use and the affordable housing mixed with others types of housing, mixed sizes, mixed use, these sorts of things. I am against having a manufactured park in the area, but not manufactured homes. The reason is that typically when you group low income housing in that way, there can be an area that does decline. I think that what we have here is an urban density coming into an unincorporated community, with many lots, with many people living very close together, and I think that we need to do everything that we can to mitigate any potential problem areas. LUKE: Manufactured home parks are not necessarily slums. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: I understand that there are some very nice ones in Bend. But I also understand that there perhaps the ability to control the area a little better than what we will have down here. SWEARINGEN: I don't think that makes any difference, whether you are in a city or in the county; it's how you set the manufactured home park up. We've got manufactured home parks throughout the state where you could spend $300,000. They can be done very well. I am very surprised that they would be outright banned. If they are done right, they are a wonderful alternative. DEWOLF: It might be that just like with everything else, there's run down areas within city limits. There are nice areas and not so nice areas everywhere. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: Since I live here, I know there are many areas that are not managed well. This is a huge area with a lot of people, and some parts of La Pine are not very nice condition. I am really concerned about the future control of this area. I would hate to see us end up with something that is an eyesore in our community. And I also know that the type of people who live in urban densities might have a different lifestyle and expectations for services. There needs to be a lot of ongoing control of the area to make sure that we end up with something that adds to our community. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 15 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 S WEARINGEN: The government can't come in to control the area. That's what homeowners' associations are for. You can't expect it to be that way without a local group controlling it. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: I think we have to work on this. I am concerned about homeowners' associations, too, as they can divide an area. It is important to keep away from a sense of division. LUKE: The County does not have a housing code nor can it enforce CC & R's. You don't want that in government's hands. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: I am comfortable with the work product of the planners, but feel that a homeowners' association could cause a rift in the community. LUKE: You want to get local control with incorporation. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: We've been working very hard to make a cohesive community. We don't want to section it off within the area. We want to integrate the area, not separate it, but want to encourage a long-term way to keep it an asset and not isolate it. DEWOLF: Design standards are in for the original construction and the infrastructure, but future owners can do pretty much what they want. EUNICE MCCLOUD: Did I understand that the County will control the new city? DAVE LESLIE: The County will help design and market it to private parties. LUKE: We want to sell the private developers and owners. MCCLOUD: How much will you pay us for the lot? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 16 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 DEWOLF: The market will determine this. LUKE: You will still own the property, but you will give up the right to build a house on it. You don't have to do this, but you may not be able to build on it in the future. MCCLOUD: But if you don't want to sell it, you can't buy one in the new neighborhood. DEWOLF: That's right. MCCLOUD: I don't want incorporation. These two issues are intertwined. HOWARD DANIEL: I, too, am concerned about CC & Rs and homeowners' associations. You have to be able to afford them. I am in one but it can't enforce anything because of the lack of money. It is hard to bring suit against someone if you don't have funds to do so. We pay an annual fee but after contributing toward roads, etc., there is none left for that. LUKE: The County does not want to dictate whether people can paint their home a certain color or if they can park their RV next to the house. That is a community thing, beyond and outside of health and safety issues. MARGUERITE NABETA: I work for the Department of Land Conservation and Development. I have submitted a letter of support to move ahead through the Central Oregon Regional Communities Solutions Team. The state has invested a lot of funding in this project. S WEARINGEN: Without state involvement, we wouldn't be at the point we're at tonight. NABETA: Over 5,500 hours of state staff time has gone into this. It is an impressive project. In this case, some wisdom came from the legislature. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 17 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 SWEARINGEN: Not all of your regional problem solving projects have been this successful. NABETA: Everyone got the money; but the County also invested funds. LUKE: One of the major differences is the people in the area. NABETA: You have a high quality staff, and a full-time and a part-time coordinator because of George Read. You have a GIS system and your staff provided tools that so many jurisdictions don't have. I was a half-time coordinator and other jurisdictions didn't; this was all legislated. There is political leadership here that is missing in the other jurisdictions. This Board really understands what is going on, and listened to the public. Also, citizen participation is much higher here; and they spent the time and effort to learn about it. You have produced a good body of very focused testimony. LUKE: Where are the others locations? NABETA: Clatsop County (North Albany), Polk County (Spirit Mountain), and Josephine County — there were several Projects with no person on point, no state coordinator, and no one to channel energies and little political cohesiveness. Planning staff is scheduled to meet on September 26 with directors to brief them and will discuss policy issues. Mary Sue and I will be meeting with the solutions team for successful implementation. On September 28 will be meeting with participants in Salem. We would like to see support for this function on that date. MARY SUE CARLSON of the Governor's Office: We will miss Marguerite, but the Regional Community Solution Team will continue to support this project. CHAIR LINDA S WEARINGEN: Being no further input offered, I close this public hearing. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 18 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 LESLIE: (Showed comprehensive plan designations on the map.) I would like to point out that the expansion of the La Pine UUC would address not only the new neighborhood but also the 13.5 acres in the La Pine community planning area. This is part of a 66 acre parcel are that is owned privately by the Baldwin -Herndon Oregon Trust. Community facility designation is included to facilitate the needs pointed out at the conference, along with community facilities within the neighborhood planning area. Another area has been set aside for senior housing — Herndon is committed to this and has provided a signed memorandum of understanding covering this. This will come before the Board in the near future. S WEARINGEN: Will we have any control over what they develop? LESLIE: They will want to work within the community framework. There will be a memorandum of understanding; they want to integrate and make it a community process. This will include a provision to require at least 75 of the 150 senior housing units on their portion. The County may trade a portion for consistency, and to meet community needs for assisted living, a community center, a medical center, a youth facility, and other needs identified by the community. This is closest to the existing core of La Pine. I would like to assure everyone that we are trying to address a multiple of needs. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: Just to clarify, will the land be available if the community is able to develop this? LESLIE: We are looking at a proportionate share of land cost based on appraisals. We're looking at a base per acre of around $1,250 dollars for our cost for raw land, not counting development and infrastructure; and just under $1,500 with those things. We have also included a provision that the community will have fire hydrants and adequate water pressure. I recommend that we address manufactured homes and the livestock issue. These should be discussed in the refinement process. At this time planning recommends not having livestock on this size of parcel. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 19 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 MCCLOUD: Seniors have been told they will get land for a center. We are very interested in this. Will they get land? DEWOLF: This is a key element of this project. LUKE: This would be one of the first things to be done. The property is there, but funding would have to come. MCCLOUD: You don't have the money? LUKE: We are selling property outside of Sisters, with the funds dedicated to this project. S WEARINGEN: We are loaning Sisters $250,000 for their sewer system so they aren't complaining any more about selling land close to Sisters. PHILLIPS-MCLANE: I would like to compliment the planning staff. They have really bent over backward to accommodate local citizens' concerns. LESLIE: Staff recommends that the Board approve the concept tonight, and revisit this on August 9 after the appropriate documents have been refined. DEWOLF: I want some time to review the information we just got today. S WEARINGEN: We will consider this on August 9, at which time we will take a final vote. LUKE: We can also meet before then if we have specific questions. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 20 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000 I Being no further discussion, Chair Linda Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Dated this 201h Day of June 2000 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. r inda L. Sm inpzen, air ATTEST: Tennis R. Luke, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, Commissioner Minutes of Public Hearing Page 21 of 21 Pages La Pine UUC Expansion July 20, 2000