Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-25 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department w_ 1 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LA PINE SENIOR CENTER, 16560 VICTORY WAY, LA PINE, OREGON OCTOBER 25, 2012 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Bill Rainey. Members present were Vice Chair Chris Brown, James Powell, Matt Lisignoli, Ed Criss and Hugh Palcic. Absent: Todd Turner. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of August 30, 2012 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 1111. PUBLIC HEARING: Newberry Country — A Plan for South County — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter gave a Power Point presentation, summarizing the project background and purpose. Chair Rainey and Peter clarified that people could testify here and/or at the next meeting in Sunriver, they can submit written testimony until a specified date, and the Board will also be holding a public hearing and accepting oral/written testimony. Mike Hanrahan came from Grants Pass and said he was here with some people who own property along Highway 97 near the transfer station, adjacent to BLM and Forest Service roads. They are not familiar with the zoning overlays such as F2 and would like more information. Because the property is across the highway from the solid waste transfer station, they do not see a lot of discussion about solid waste in the Plan. They would like to know where the additional solid waste will go as development proceeds and whether the transfer station will be expanded, which will affect property values. Also, the property is badly in need of fire treatment. The owners are interested but have gotten very high cost estimates upon investigation, somewhere around $1000 per acre. How do they address fire hazards at this cost? Peter said he could speak to Mike and respond to several of the zoning questions after the meeting. Quality Services Performed with Pride Mike Waggoner testified as a resident of rural South County and was concerned about Policy 1.4.1, page 15 of the Plan, under natural hazards. It relates to evaluation of emergency shelters and alternatives. He doesn't recall this being discussed at any of the meetings and would like to know where it came from. Peter said the Planning Commission suggested in the draft that it would be beneficial to have a broader discussion about emergency shelters, and it was a policy that was worth introducing to see if the community supports it. Chair Rainey said he may have been responsible for the policy addition, since he and his wife have been very involved in preparedness in the Sisters area and work as Red Cross volunteers. Marilyn Waggoner felt the preamble of the Plan is extremely important. She would like to ask for transparency concerning partnerships. What are all of these partnerships doing in the Plan, and what do they mean? There should be caution and openness in the process. She is not in favor of the County arbitrarily listing agencies and implying directly or indirectly that a partnership exists. We need to know more about organizations and what they stand for. In Goal 16, page 16, she requests that the names of organizations be deleted from 16, 16.1 and 16.12. Policy 16.1 alone lists five agencies that South County needs to coordinate with. The names should be left out and the policy written without them. They need to decide whether they want to partner with that organization. Debbie McQuary said she received her property taxes this week and wants to know how much this is going to cost. She cannot afford any more money added to her tax bill. Peter said that this document is not a regulatory document and it does not mandate activity and will not cost anything — we are trying to identify new opportunities. The Board of County Commissioners decided to spend $9000 to send rural residents postcards announcing this public hearing to get the maximum amount of participation, to get feedback on a document that tries to identify opportunities for this area. Will they will get to vote on each item, do they have to attend all of the meetings, or does the County get to make decisions? Peter said the Plan was developed with input from residents and we will have as many hearings as necessary to get feedback on the Plan. The Board will likely hold more than one more public hearing to get even more feedback. A majority of residents could decide they do not like the document, but many who are attending this evening had input and were very involved in the development of the Plan. Nick added that if an item in the Plan is something over which the County has jurisdiction, public input will be sought before any decisions are made. One example would be working with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council on transit opportunities. Some decisions would not be made by the County at all. Anne Gregersen questioned the use of the Plan for guiding decision making and the use of the word "should" versus "will" in some places. Wendell Evers testified that he lives in Newberry Estates. He questions support for COIC and feels it should be omitted from Policy 10.1 and replaced with a collaboration with a 501(c)(3) private entity. He feels a local entity would be more responsible. He knows of a 501(c)(3) that would consider taking on this responsibility. He does not have anything against COIC but they have their fingers in three counties and are very busy. South County is very different, and for 2014 and 2015 they would prefer collaboration with a 501(c)(3). People ask where their tax dollars are going. He provided a handwritten note to Alan Unger, who gave it to Karen Friend. Karen said it would be provided to COIC and they would give Wendell the requested documents. He has asked for copies of budgets and quarterly reports for 2011 and 2012 as well. Mark Pilliod sent a letter saying that for $158 he would provide the documents. The problem is that Wendell has contacted COIC (the CEO) who did not understand what was wanted. There are a multitude of emails with attachments but no grants on instructions on how the grants were to be used. The Transportation Administrator 2 then called asking what documents were requested. He finds it frustrating that he cannot obtain the documents he wants. If you look on page 31 of the South County Plan, it says COIC has six trips going into Bend. They have cut back to three. There are four grants involved here. The COIC is too big to deal with South Deschutes County, so please remove language regarding collaboration with them. Pat Murphy commented that the wording in the proposed document that classifies everything outside of urban growth development as a rural incorporated community is currently titled a rural unincorporated area. He thinks the Planning Commission should change the wording to "rural unincorporated community" to qualify for grants. The bus line here is severely restricted due to lack of funds. He also wanted to know how many of the Planning Commissioners live outside the incorporated urban development areas, or out in the country. Nick said that Planning Commissioners, as volunteers, are not required to divulge where they live. Several Commissioners indicated they do live in rural areas. Pat also asked if the County belongs to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, and if they are forming partnerships with any organizations that do belong to it. Peter and Nick indicated we do not. Pat asked if the County is a member of the National Regional Council and Nick said we are not. Monte Harmon asked who the Commissioners are going to present this document to, to sign into a rule, or whether the people of South County get a chance to vote on it. Peter said it is a planning document, with no regulations, which tries to identify projects. The Planning Commission will take testimony tonight and in Sunriver, then close the hearing and make a recommendation to the Board. The Board will hold a hearing, take testimony and then make a decision. Monte said we have been through this before and had a referendum vote which threw it out. We are right back there now. Peter said there is no reference to the Local Rule in this policy document. We can mail anyone who requests it a copy of the draft Plan to make sure these references are not included. Monte said he does have a copy of the Plan. The referendum vote took a decision on water away from the County. Goal 9 is still in this, so what good is it? He wants to get rid of Goal 9, because the County has been told by the voters to leave it alone. He knows the DEQ does not have a Gestapo that can enforce anything. Pam Cosmo said she is concerned about the Oregon Conservation Strategy mentioned on page 38 of the Plan. She does not remember hearing anything about it at any of the meetings. The map she has been given has a big yellow rectangle from Burgess Road to Klamath County, and her house is in the middle of it. Is the introduction of the OCS an attempt to limit what the area's owners can and cannot do on their land? Is any other part of the County affected by this conservation strategy? Peter said that the OCS was developed by the Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife and identified an area of Whychus Creek outside of Sisters as being environmentally significant. The Comprehensive Plan Update recognizes this, and the ODF&W does not intend to be regulatory. Peter read the language from page 38, and said ODF&W is trying to raise awareness of habitats that provide areas for the spotted frog, bull trout, various birds, etc., so that various communities can look at ways to improve habitat on their own. It is just an attempt to identify conditions, not regulatory. Pam also would like to see language about the sovereignty of the area not being able to be compromised by anyone who is not an elected official. She also likes the idea that no Plan should support any entities by name, as they can be co-opted by special interests. Who knows what will be motivating these groups in the future? Organizations that we think are good now may be very different in ten years. There also should be a mention of more public access to waterways in the County. 3 Liz Harmon said that on Page 1, it says the South County Plan encompasses the rural areas South of Lava Butte, excepting Sunriver and La Pine. The map does not agree with this. Peter said it should be consistent and the map should also delineate Lava Butte. Ron Sharbaugh testified that he feels this process has been extremely positive. On page 28, a very important point is underscored about the 12,000 high groundwater lots platted in the 1970's. Many of these lots should not have been platted. He is pleased with the policies set forth in the Plan and feels they represent an honorable approach. The ultimate wastewater treatment options are owed to the owners. The land swaps, etc., under 5.1(b) are also owed to the landowners. On page 22, he would like to see a line modified and the word "onsite" added and "thereby prohibiting residential development" deleted. He also discussed a USGS report that does not contain enough scientifically justifiable evidence. See written testimony. On page 36 it is unclear as to what the contaminated area would be. "High nitrate levels" are also not defined. Uninformed citizens outside this area may be led to believe that all of the drinking water in this area is bad. Ellen Currie thanked the Commissioners for all of the opportunities for input on the Plan. She appreciates all of the maps, tables and background information and it seems to be a very comprehensive document. She commented on the goals and policies and is concerned about the use of the word "encourage" on page 8, for example. What does this mean? What kind of action will come out of that? On page 9, Policy 2.5 also uses the word "encourage" regarding organizations and web pages, and this is unclear. She is also concerned about 2.6a and feels the example about providing new residents information about unpaved roads is not needed. Something about our rural lifestyles or an example of public transportation being limited would be more appropriate. We do not have any 24-hour health care here, and mentioning this would be more appropriate. Also, the mention later of partnering with the DEQ does not reference an ongoing assessment of alternative treatment systems' efficiencies. Some of her colleagues say they have not been able to find any research as to what an effective ATT system is and how to measure it. On page 16, when potential sources of pollution are mentioned, other things besides roads should be mentioned such as controlled burns and any industrial projects if added to the area. In 16.11, the needs of the residents along the river must be considered. On 10.1(a), rural outlying neighborhoods are mentioned. With what has recently happened with respect to transportation and the money flowing to COIC, and how that was handled, there is potentially a problem if the current situation is duplicated when this is implemented. When the decision was made to cut routes outside the City of La Pine, no residents were included in the discussion. Ellen asked if the Commissioners have a feel for which priorities will be established, since there is not enough money to do all of these things. Nick said we will send a copy of the Plan to all of the partner organizations that might have a role in implementing it, once it is in final form, so they know what the issues are and that the residents want to be involved. Regarding projects that the County would be involved in, we go through a public process with the Board each spring to prioritize projects and add them to the work plan. Chair Rainey mentioned that the South County Plan was moved to the top of the priority list by the Board ahead of other projects. Judy Forsythe said she was very encouraged by the testimony this evening and thanked staff for their work. She agreed with Marilyn Waggoner that the preamble is very important and was glad that Peter clarified this is not a mandatory document. We also need a designation of rural unincorporated community here. We are so heavily platted that we deserve a different designation. She agreed with Ron Sharbaugh that staff's approach to Policy 5.1 is honorable. She would like to see Hayner Park issues in Section 36 taken care of. Once the 4 Plan has been adopted, the County needs to address Goal 5 in Page 11 and designate the area as a rural unincorporated community. In Policy 5.1(b) land swaps need to be seriously considered. She asks that Goal 5 be prioritized following the completion of the South County Plan and that the area be designated a rural unincorporated community. Also, could the land swaps acquisition option potentially facilitate ways to create access to the rivers? Commissioner Criss mentioned the upcoming hearing in Sunriver on November 8. The hearing process is also open for written testimony, so please email us with comments. He lives at the end of Burgess Road and understands the concerns of the area. Several members of the audience and Peter discussed meeting notifications and postcards that were sent. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to continue the hearing to November 8. Seconded by Commissioner Palcic. Motion approved. IV. WORK SESSION: Destination Resort Housekeeping Amendments — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter discussed the amendments and said we want to insert the background text, goals and policies, formatted with no changes, into the new Comprehensive Plan so that we have a clean copy. We need to bring this matter before the Commissioners as a legislative amendment, but it does not need to go before the Board. There is no change in the text whatsoever, just reformatting. V. UPDATE: Executive Order 12-07, A Pilot Program for Regional Farm and Forest Land Conservation — Nick Lelack, Planning Director Nick spoke about this program for three counties to develop definitions. Douglas County would like additional rural residential opportunities in some type of small wood lot designations such as one, two or four -acre lots. Jackson County has other, totally different interests as does Josephine County. This program might do a big fix to correct mapping errors for areas that have changed over time and warrant new designations - for example, to non -resource. There could also be a new definition for agricultural land. One of the things required for this project is to determine new, non -resource land designations — what resources to they allow, property sizes, and potentially affected acres. The counties feel this would take a long time — public processes would be involved, etc. The compromise might be to apply criteria or definitions to some sample areas and then extrapolate to see if that works for the counties. There are three phases to the program — create a petition to the DLCD and DCLC with options to pursue and amounts of land specified. In phase two, special rules would be applied to the counties and put into state law through administrative rules, then added to comprehensive plans and updated development codes. A steering committee of six members, two from each county, oversees this — one Planning Commissioner and one Planning Director. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments will be the depository for the data, so for us the COIC would be the local entity. Nick has submitted the draft work program to the Commissioners this evening. 5 Commissioner Criss asked if some changes could cross county boundaries. Nick said there is one pilot project so there may be forest definitions, for example, that satisfy all three but are only used by Douglas County. Chair Rainey asked how and when this would impact us. Nick said this is step one; Commissioner Lisignoli said that if something is designated high value farmland, but the only high value is how many rocks you have to move, it is unfair to the landowner. Vice Chair Brown felt this process may have a long gestation, and he does not want to wait that long. There was something we were doing "back door" and he had commented that we were doing the process that way rather than asking for the state to give us a program they approve. It seems that the best way to handle this is to cooperate with Jefferson and Crook Counties, and go to the state as a group. Nick said the state has been hesitant in the past to use a regional process. Commissioner Lisignoli said the farmers in the valley do not want to lose land to wetlands, but it is not a problem in this area. It's night and day between here and the valley. Nick said that one of the big disagreements is that there are soil complexes on these properties, and it is not just one type of soil but a complex. Some could be Class 6 (in eastern Oregon, soil classes from 1-6 are agriculture, 7 and 8 are not, unless they are irrigated in which case they are designated a 6). One complex, for example, could have three types of classifications. Our current understanding is you look at, say 200 acres, 50% are Class 6, 35% are Class 7, and 15% are class 8, that's the final 30 acres. An opponent to this says the majority (over 50%) should be Class 6, so the whole 200 acres are Class 6. This testimony was submitted in a rebuttal and we need to re -open the public record and hearing to hash this out. The hearing will probably be at the end of November, before our Board. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Vice Chair Criss asked about Tom's appointment as Interim County Administrator and whether Peter or Nick will be the Planning Commission liaison. Nick said that it will still be his role. Commissioner Powell felt that Peter handled this evening with a great deal of aplomb. Commissioner Criss said he had attended the flood plain meeting last evening. There should be more concern for people living along the river. Commissioner Powell added that the whole river has a flood plain and if it was allowed to be natural, none of the buildings would be there. The expectation that nothing will happen if one develops along a river needs to be addressed during the process — there seems to be very little understanding of how a river meanders. In Japan, it's all concrete troughs in populated areas, and debris is cleaned once or twice a year. That is not what we want. Nick said we will be receiving an application to amend the Code to increase the ratio of residential units to overnight units for destination resorts. It is in Title 19, regarding Tetherow, so it would be 2.5:1 if approved. We also have to coordinate with the City of Bend for anything in Title 19. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Re ectfully submitted, Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary C.1