HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Minutes re Sunriver Center
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NW WALL STREET , BEND , OREGON , 97701
JANUARY 10, 2008– 5:30 P .M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Shirtcliff. Members present were Keith Cyrus,
Brenda Pace, Todd Turner, Kelly Smith, Robert Otteni. Susan Quatre attended via conference
call. Staff present were Catherine Morrow, Planning Director; Terri Payne, Senior Planner;
Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Will Groves,
Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary.
Minutes from the May 24, 2007 meeting were approved (this meeting was determined to be an
informational meeting, so a quorum was not necessary). Minutes from the December 13, 2007
meeting were discussed and approved with changes.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
None.
III. WORK SESSION – File Nos. PA-07-06/TA-07-6, Deliberation Regarding a Proposed Plan
Designation and Zoning Text Amendments to Create a New Sunriver Town Center District
in the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community – Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner.
Terri summarized the public hearings and work sessions held up to this date. There was a work
session on September 13; a public hearing September 27, which was continued until
November 8; and another work session November 29, and the public hearing was again
continued to December 13. The November 8 and December 13 meetings were both held in
Sunriver. The oral record closed after the December meeting, and the written record closed
January 3 at 5:00 p.m. We have received 934 comments on this project so far, including written
and oral opinions. There is no clear-cut consensus in the public comments. Terri noted there
are some limited technical changes likely before this proposal goes to the Board to ensure the
language works for staff and DLCD – they are not anticipated to be substantive (i.e., applying all
definitions to Sunriver versus County wide, or simplifying density language).
Terri also noted that within the scope of State statute, State administrative rules and the County
Comprehensive Plan, this proposal is primarily a policy decision.
2
Commissioner Pace asked for staffs’ opinion of this project. Terri said that staff have no
technical concerns and remain neutral in terms of policy. Commissioner Smith commented that
he found the latest Staff Report very useful for putting all of the testimony into perspective,
especially since this is a policy recommendation to the Board which does not apply to specific
properties.
Commissioner Pace mentioned Bob Lovlien’s recent letter and the concern over whether this
proposal is legislative or quasi-judicial. She wondered if this is was a problem. Terri said that
this proposal does not pertain to a specific property. The first part of this process is to update
the legislative Code; the second part is the rezone; and the third step is the conceptual site plan.
Both the rezone and the conceptual site plan will go to a hearings officer, so there will be public
comments at that time. Commissioner Quatre wanted to clarify that when this goes before a
hearings officer, the Planning Commission will not be involved.
Commissioner Pace commented that we know exactly what piece of property this proposal covers.
Terri said the applicant is considering purchasing other properties such as Abbott house, and we
probably know 90% of the area to be involved. The current proposal simply covers putting Code
together, not actually dealing with the purchase process yet. Commissioner Pace asked about the
possibility of lawsuits, and Terri said there are a lot of people who are opposing this and may look
for reasons to sue, but it also depends on how the vote comes out in February.
Catherine Morrow spoke about Title 22 covering legislative amendments. The definition covers
broad public policy decisions involving non-individual property owners, such as amendments to
the texts of comprehensive plans, zoning changes, etc., which are not directed at a small
number of property owners. Section 22.12 also covers the particulars of legislative changes.
Commissioner Quatre said she thought that this case does involve a single property owner.
Catherine said that according to Section 22.12.030, a legislative change may be initiated by the
application of individuals upon payment of required fees, or by the Board or the Planning
Commission. The current situation is covered by the first (application of individuals upon
payment of required fees).
Commissioner Otteni stated that he is in favor of the proposal and moving it to the Board of
County Commissioners with recommendation for approval. Most of the testimony favors doing
something to the mall, and it needs to be enlarged for anchor tenants who will draw visitors.
When the 2.5 density ratio was approved, the goal was to attract more tourists, which would also
be the result of this proposal.
Chair Shirtcliff asked for further comments. Commissioner Smith stated that he likes the idea of
a new town center. He has some concerns about the residential density, associated parking
and the height of some of the buildings - items which he feels also concern many of the Sunriver
area residents. The building height issue might best be dealt with as a quasi-judicial issue
looking at specific properties. The current proposal sets limits, and while a shorter height would
be desirable, it may not be appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan. There may need to
be modifications to the residential density and parking, however.
Commissioner Quatre asked if there should be a recommendation made regarding the building
height, so that the developer could not potentially build everything to the limit of 75 feet.
Commissioner Pace stated that the hearings officer would be a lawyer and would be looking at
whether the height limits are within the boundaries of current zoning regulation. The hearings
3
officer could approve anything that meets zoning regulation standards. The hearings officer
cannot be counted on to help “mold” the process.
Terri Payne commented that the 75-foot limit only applies to 55,000 square feet in one building,
which the applicant has offered to lower to 40,000 square feet. The mixed-use buildings could
be up to 60 feet, and everything else could be 45 feet.
Commissioner Otteni thought that the SROA had worked through this process and negotiated
the building heights and density.
Commissioner Quatre asked about the negotiations for the 75-foot height and felt that
Commissioner Pace was correct: the Commissioners need to come up with something that
reflects the desires of the residents.
Commissioner Turner responded that he lived in Sunriver for five years in the 1980’s. There
was a lot less critical mass in the number of people, but it was still a vibrant area. He feels that
everyone agrees the mall needs remodeling/replacing, but he is concerned about the open
space requirements, density, parking and building heights. Is it the Planning Commissioners’
role to approve this and also to make changes? The proposal comes from the Applicant to the
Planning Commissioners, and they should not revise it.
Commissioner Otteni said he would like to approve the proposal as is, with a few changes
already agreed to by the applicants, and forward it to the County Commissioners. The SROA
has been the advocate for the community and has already negotiated the height limits and other
criteria.
Chair Shirtcliff asked whether anyone would like to suggest revisions. Commissioner Quatre
thought that it sounded as if the Planning Commissioners do not approve this, then there is no
other alternative out there. She wants to see a revitalized town center but does not like the
proposed density. Maybe we need to look at a different model, or maybe there was a problem
with the current town center management. Are we limited to only this proposal? Are there no
other alternatives out there? She feels others should be coming forward with ideas.
Commissioner Pace stated that she has come up with a “dead heat” counting pros and cons
since the last meeting, not including business owners who are part of the Chamber. She would
like to wait until after the election to make any decision; but if that is not possible, she has a
short list.
Chair Shirtcliff asked for other opinions, and whether the proposal should be sent to the Board
with modifications, or denied. Commissioner Turner said he would like to hear Commissioner
Pace’s proposed changes, but he would likely vote right now for denial. Commissioner Pace
suggested they vote right now as to whether to move the proposal forward with a few changes
or recommend denial.
Commissioners Pace, Turner, Smith, Quatre all would recommend denial right now, without
changes. Chair Shirtcliff said he was in favor of moving forward with some recommended
changes.
Commissioner Pace agreed with Commissioner Otteni about changes the applicant included in
their last letter. She proposed five additional changes. Change 1 addresses the concern that
the project needs to end up with significant commercial space. Change 2 reflects her idea that
4
the project as proposed is too “tight.” Together the changes are intended to allow the applicant
flexibility while taking off a couple of buildings at the edges to increase open space and reduce
the impact on the Sunriver community.
Change 1 Space available for 120,000 square feet of commercial, to be retained during
project phasing, not committed to other uses
Change 2 A maximum of 500 units defined as the proposal describes.
Change 3 Underground parking in the plaza in front of the hotel.
Change 4 Parking areas to be shown conceptually on the conceptual plan.
Change 5: A recessed first floor of the parking garage.
Commissioner Otteni asked about the applicant’s proposed change agreeing to a maximum
hotel suite size of 800 square feet to count as 0.5 units of residential density. Terri explained
that the square footage was suggested in response to one of the Commissioners’ questions,
which asked if the square footage could be reduced to 750 square feet.
Commissioner Pace felt that the project is tight between the first buildings and the street, and
that the pictures do not correlate with the trees and open space. She would like to remove a
couple of buildings from the edge so that there are more trees buffering the project. No change
is proposed to the height because she is concerned that if the heights are lowered there would
be more buildings and fewer trees.
Commissioner Otteni read part of the applicant’s letter with proposed changes, and Chair
Shirtcliff asked for comments.
Commissioner Turner stated that there has been no suggested change to the building height,
just change the density from 22 units per acre to 18, and reduced floor space. He feels the
density is still too high. He also feels the parking space changes would not be appropriate here
and are more of a site plan issue.
Commissioner Smith stated he is still troubled by several things; but on balance he could
recommend the proposal with the changes suggested by Commissioner Pace and the applicant,
and we need to make sure the recommendation to the Board is good public policy for Sunriver.
Commissioner Quatre added that she would like 16-per-acre density to address the open space
issue more fully.
Vice Chair Cyrus felt that the public has agreed for the most part that something does need to
be done, and the question is how to make it a workable project. The area is dependent on
tourists coming for vacation rentals, and it would be a definite advantage if people could get their
staples in Sunriver rather than coming to Bend. He supports the proposal with changes.
Chair Shirtcliff agreed with Commissioner Pace’s compromise. Commissioner Otteni did not feel
that 22 units per acre was excessive. Commissioner Pace felt that if the Commissioners do not
make suggestions now, when this goes to hearings officer the recessed garage will end up on
the surface, etc. She wanted to leave the applicant more flexibility but add more open space.
Terri Payne said that the Commissioners could recommend approval of the project to the Board,
with the changes proposed by the Applicant in the December 28 letter, the technical changes to
be done by staff and the five changes proposed by Commissioner Pace.
5
Commissioner Turner asked if Commissioner Pace’s proposed changes cover the open space
issue and asked about setbacks. Terri mentioned that the setback for the lower buildings is 20
feet (for 30-45 foot buildings), and the setback from the commercial district is five feet.
Commissioner Turner does not feel it is the role of the Planning Commission to make specific
recommendations. The complexity and potential ramifications of making a new zone are difficult
to understand and may have unintended consequences. Commissioner Turner said he is still
stuck on the building height and density issues and not comfortable with making a
recommendation to forward this proposal.
Commissioner Smith said he is also struggling with how to make good policy for Sunriver. He
feels that there should not be any buildings in the new mall taller than 60 feet. He is sensitive to
Commissioner Pace’s argument that if building height is decreased, this may result in an
increase in density, less open space and less shielding of the project from surrounding
residences. He would like to suggest 16 units per acre for density overall, and make “units per
acre” the overall measurement rather than the number of total units.
Commissioner Otteni again stated that the SROA has already come out in favor of this proposal
and it is good public policy to agree with them after a year and half of working on it, since they
“govern” the area, rather than making arbitrary changes. The efforts of the people who have
worked on this should be recognized.
Commissioner Quatre felt that the Commissioners should listen to the feelings of the residents,
as well.
MOTION: Commissioner Otteni motioned to forward the proposal on to the Board with the
proposed changes that SilverStar has already agreed to in the December letter and the five
changes proposed by Commissioner Pace and the technical changes requested by staff.
Seconded by Cyrus.
Commissioner Quatre wanted a density-specific number such as the 16 suggested by
Commissioner Smith. She feels that 22 units per acre would result in a very urban development,
such as all of the new houses in the City of Bend, and it is not so arbitrary to say 16 or 17 units
on average per acre. Commissioner Pace felt that a lower number will cause the developer to
build higher buildings than it would otherwise, and graduated height also makes this type of
development more interesting. Commissioner Quatre asked about adding a specific provision
for open space, or simply reject it.
MOTION PASSED . Commissioner Turner opposed.
IV. UPDATES ON CITY UGB PROCESS FROM LIAISONS AND DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE
OF THE LIAISONS - Commissioners Kelly Smith, Susan Quatre, Brenda Pace and Peter
Gutowsky, Principal Planner.
Commissioner Pace stated that there were discussions on the residential land use need during the
last meeting. The liaisons had been asked to restrict comments to clarifying questions, but she had
questions about data and the use of data, so she could not ask anything. After Mike’s email which
questioned whether they should be part of the City Planning Commission/UGB meetings, Brian
Shetterly indicated concerned about the participation of the liaisons. Chair Cliff Walkey did want the
liaisons to attend but wanted the questions restricted to those requesting some type of clarification.
The conclusion was that most decisions were held over for the conclusion of the land inventory.
6
Commissioner Smith summarized the correspondence with Cliff Walkey. Cliff has decided to revise
his earlier view that the County liaisons should not participate in the UGB discussions. Following the
meeting, Commissioner Smith wrote a letter on December 11 to Cliff Walkey, which he responded to
on December 13. This letter was included in the packet mailed to the Commissioners. The
conclusion was that Cliff Walkey decided to revise his view and have the County liaisons fully
participate in the UGB discussions. He wants to keep the meetings on track, on topic and keep
them moving along, with the cooperation of the liaisons. When the liaison process was set up, it was
not intended for the County liaisons to simply attend, observe the meetings and come back and
report - but to raise some questions, participate in the process and come out with a stronger
proposal. Commissioner Smith feels that Cliff Walkey now agrees with this.
Peter Gutowsky stated that the County and City Planning Commissions will meet again two weeks
from now on January 24. This is as a result of the continuation of the public hearing decision, back
in August. City staff will have a recommendation for both Planning Commissions in terms of how
they see the process moving forward. If this Commission would like to revisit the liaison role, an
open dialogue could take place. County Planning staff will meet with the City on Monday and hear
their opinions about how the public process for the UGB expansion can best move forward.
Commissioner Turner thought that, based on communications from the City, this might be a time to
discuss continuation of the liaison role and what the Planning Commission wants. He feels it is
important that the liaisons continue to attend the meetings. Chair Shirtcliff said he does not
understand how three people from this Commission could go to City meetings and represent the
Planning Commission when they are a minority and cannot say what the opinions of the Planning
Commissioners are, without a vote. Commissioner Otteni asked what Chair Shirtcliff thought the
role of the liaisons should be, and Chair Shirtcliff responded that it is only to listen, not represent
opinions of the entire Planning Commission. He had stated this concern in the initial discussions
about the liaisons’ roles. He does not feel that the City is objective, and someone needs to stand
back and make sure the technical process is correct.
Commissioner Smith felt that the Planning Commissioners have been involved, although the Bend
Planning Commission has taken the lead. He read the stated roles of the liaisons which were voted
on last September. The City Council wrote a draft memo/policy statement to the City Planning
Commission telling them how to proceed with the UGB. Some of the City Planning Commissioners
were not happy with that, and Commissioner Smith raised a concern that it seemed like the City
Council, rather than the Planning Commission and the liaisons, wanted to include Juniper Ridge,
etc., which was not the proper process. Commissioner Smith commented on this in one of the work
sessions, and Chair Walkey asked for a written statement of the County’s concerns, which was
done. Chair Shirtcliff disagreed with this process, since the concerns were only from the liaisons,
and the fact that the liaisons were speaking on behalf of the County Planning Commissioners was
not appropriate. Commissioner Smith said that the liaisons, not the entire Planning Commission,
were asked to express their concerns. The liaisons made an extra effort to make it clear that they
were not representing the entire Planning Commission. Chair Shirtcliff said he would like to re-
valuate and discuss the roles of the liaisons, which he thinks encumbers the process. This is the
City’s deal, and the County needs to make sure it meets its responsibilities.
Commissioner Pace felt that it was agreed that there were conflicts of interest with the City and that
its staff was not prepared. She was concerned about the numbers presented by City staff and is
getting more concerned as things move along. The job of the liaisons is to work with the problems
of conflicts of interest and the ill-prepared City staff. Chair Shirtcliff asked if all seven Planning
Commissioners feel this way, since it was not discussed before Commissioner Smith wrote his letter.
7
Commissioner Smith said that the three liaisons were asked to represent their concerns only, which
they did, and this information had to be to the City the next day, so there was a time restriction.
Chair Shirtcliff felt that the process should be the liaisons going to meetings, coming back and
getting input from the Planning Commission. He was concerned that anything else should be
discussed at the County meetings and a vote taken if necessary.
Catherine Morrow commented that when the liaison role was voted on, there was no understanding
on anyone’s part that the liaisons would represent the Deschutes County Planning Commission.
They were to be individual participants, and the City is in the process of rebuilding its proposal. The
Joint Management Agreement between the City and the County, it could be argued, does not
include the County Planning Commission. It requires the City Planning Commission to develop a
proposal and recommend it to the City Council, which makes a decision and then a recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners. They hold a hearing and make a decision, and if it isn’t the
same, they have to work it out.
At last Monday’s meeting between the City and the County Commissioners, it was decided that any
legislative change does require a recommendation from our Planning Commission. The liaison
position is a hybrid, an invitation from the City to help with developing its proposal, keeping the
liaisons engaged so they can express ideas and ask questions. The liaisons are not voting
members and cannot represent the Planning Commission. Chair Shirtcliff felt that the County
Planning Commission was reprimanded by the City because of Commissioner Smith’s letter.
Catherine Morrow felt that this problem has blown over, and Commissioner Quatre stated that Cliff
Walkey had changed his original position and wanted to continue with the liaisons. She had the
impression that the liaisons are to attend and ask questions to increase efficiency, rather than having
both Planning Commissions meet every time. They have more expertise than the general public
and can report back to the County.
Chair Shirtcliff felt that it does not help the efficiency of the process by having the liaisons attend City
meetings. They can attend, but this body (the Planning Commission) has to decide as a whole if
there is any proposal. Commissioner Quatre felt that she would be better informed if she could ask
questions as a liaison. Catherine Morrow also reminded the Commissioners that there is no
proposal currently on the table.
Commissioner Pace gave an example of the questions raised by the liaisons. One included second
homes and the demand compared to primary housing. The City is working with a jumbled mass of
numbers, and she wrote a memo asking for clarification. Chair Shirtcliff gave the example that if
Commissioner Pace’s question was answered, that did not mean that his questions were answered
as well. Chair Shirtcliff felt that the City has its process, the County has its process and it is
necessary to follow these, not move quickly. It is the City’s process and the County has its own job
to do, independent of the City, and the County should not interject itself into that process.
Commissioner Otteni said that he does not mind the liaisons representing him. Chair Shirtcliff said
he is not against having the liaisons although he originally voted against it, as did Vice Chair Cyrus.
He then agreed to it, as long as there are two processes. Catherine Morrow said that the current
process has been approved by both Commissions, and there could be a vote to change it. Chair
Shirtcliff said he does not want to change the current setup; but he is concerned about the emails
and discussions, which were inappropriate, and what the roles of the liaisons should be. They need
to be careful.
Commissioner Turner asked whether the same information would be available for review,
independent of the liaison process. Catherine Morrow summarized that it would be a City decision.
8
Peter Gutowsky said that the City is reworking a UGB proposal with significant changes, including a
20-year employment projection need which requires State notice. It will be treated as a new
proposal, but this Planning Commission will have full power to evaluate the burden of proof and to
rely on County staff’s assessment of it.
Commissioner Turner asked if a new residential needs analysis would be provided. Peter said the
best thing would be to regard this as a totally new proposal. The City is now interested in having a
viable public process, noticeably differently than last year’s process. He also felt that the liaisons
have been the utmost professionals, very diplomatic and sensitive to the issues. There is so much
pressure being placed on City staff that sometimes the best intentions can be viewed as
counterproductive. This is really a City-led process; and from a County standpoint, we are trying to
honor that and listen, without diminishing our responsibilities.
Commissioner Pace suggested that there should be more formal reports from the liaisons listing the
questions that have been asked. This was agreed. Catherine Morrow also said that the minutes of
City meetings could be included in the Planning Commission packets. Commissioner Smith said
that the liaisons would be very careful not to represent any input at the City meetings as being from
the whole Planning Commission.
Chair Shirtcliff feels that the City has a conflict of interest – they have piece of property under
consideration that involves a great deal of money. He does not want it to appear that the County
has any conflict. Catherine said that the City staff and attorneys have indicated they do not have a
conflict of interest, which Chair Shirtcliff feels they do.
V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN
Terri Payne said that the County Code indicates officers will be elected at the first meeting in
January. Since there has not been time for a review of this, it could be postponed.
MOTION: Commissioner Pace moved to keep the current Chair and Vice Chair. Seconded by
Commissioner Quatre.
MOTION PASSED.
VI. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary
NEXT MEETING – January 24, 2008, 5:30 p.m., at the
Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701